HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2004/06/16 (2)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: I
Meeting Date: 6/16/2004
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration of the following applications filed by Mr.
Carlos Madrazo.
a. PCZ-04-0I Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Map or
Maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
rezoning 1.2 acres at 1030 and 1034 Broadway from Thoroughfare
Commercial, Precise Plan (CTP) to Central Commercial, Precise Plan (CCP)
b. SUPS-04-07 Consideration of a Special Use Permit to allow the
construction and operation of an office commercial/multi-family residential
mixed-use project at 1030 and1034 Broadway within the Southwest
Redevelopment Area.
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning map, rezoning 1.2 acres on the west side of
Broadway between Moss and Naples Street (see Locator) from Commercial Thoroughfare, Precise
Plan (CTP) to Central Commercial, Precise Plan (CCP). The applicant is also requesting a Special
Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of an office commercial/residential mixed-use
project at the same location.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-03-034 in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in effects on the
environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid
the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur;
therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-
03-034.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission consider the attached Mitigated
Negative Declaration, IS-03-034 and adopt attached Planning Commission Resolution PCS-04-
01 /SUPS-04-07, recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval ofthe
project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions and regulations contained in the
attached draft City Council Ordinance and Redevelopment Agency Resolutions.
BOARDS AND COMMISISONS:
On April 19,2004, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 4-0-0-3 to recommend adoption of
the Mitigated Negative DecJaration, IS-03-034. Public comment was received on April 25, 2003 (See
Attachment 8).
On May 17,2004, the Design Review Committee voted 3-0-1-1 (Ayes: Ariaza, Aguilar, Mestler)
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/16/04
(abstain:Alberdi) (Absent: Drake) to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency conditionally
approve the design of the project (see further discussion under Background below).
DISCUSSION:
I . Background
On May 17, 2004, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project design for the proposed
mixed use project. A letter was received by one of the nearby property owners expressing privacy
concerns with the proposed project in terms of its proximity to adjacent single-family residential
properties to the west. Part of this concern was based on the proposed three story/35 foot building
height for the residential buildings. Based upon section 19.28.060(2) the Design Review Committee,
on May 17,2004, reviewed and is recommending the proposed 35 feet/3 story height limit for the
project. This recommendation was based upon the Committees found that the height, bulk, mass
and proportion of all structures is compatible with the site, as well as in scale with the structures on
adjoining and surrounding properties in the area. Staff had concurred that the residential buildings
have been designed and placed on the site in a way that maximizes the use of open space/landscape
areas and help to break up the vertical appearance of the three story buildings. In this regard, the
project will provide approximately 6,01 7 square feet of usable open space with an additional 13,297
square feet oflandscaping. Usable open space includes: the front and rear open courtyard/grass areas;
the two covered kiosk/lawn areas, the rear grass area and the private patio/balconies.
In addition, given location ofthe existing single family residences to the west in relationship to the
proposed project (at least ISO feet away), a proposed 6 foot high wall around the project and
enhanced landscaping along the west property line, staff has concluded that adequate visual
screening have been provided. Also, given the combination of wall and landscaping, it is anticipated
that only the 2 third story balconies of Buildings 3 and 4. (which is 2 out of the total 30
patio/balconies for the project) will have any views over the westerly adjacent properties. No one
attended the DRC meeting to elaborate on their concerns. The DRC did not recommend any
additional modifications.
2. Existing Site Characteristics
The project is located on the west side of Broadway, between Moss and Naples Street. The site is
located in an urbanized area in the Southwest Redevelopment Area. The project site contains 2
contiguous parcels. The larger of the two (1030 Broadway) is approximately .85 acres) and is
currently vacant but previously developed with a mobile home park. The smaller ofthe two (1034
Broadway) is approximately .36 acres and contains an old one-story triplex building. The overall
project site is generally rectangular in shape with the larger of the two parcels (1030 Broadway)
approximately 36 feet deeper. (see Locator Map) Surrounding land use regulations and actual uses
are as follows:
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/16/04
General Plan
Site: Retail
North: Retail/Res.
South: Retail
East: Retail
West: LM Res.
Montgomerv SP
MCO (Mercantile/Office Comm.)
MCO/HDR (High density res.)
MCO/LDR (Low density res.)
MCO (Mercantile/Office Comm.)
LDR (Low density res.)
Zoning
CTP
CTP /R3
CT/RI
CTP
R-I
Current Land Use
Vacant/triplex-building
Broadway Plazalapts.
Animal Hosp.N ac. Res.
Retail Commercial
Single family residential
3. Project Description
The proposed project involves two entitlements. A rezone to change the existing and underlying zone
from Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan (CTP) to Central Commercial, Precise Plan (CCP) and
incorporation of precise plan standards into the existing precise plan modifYing district; and a Special
Use Permit to construct and operate a residential/office commercial mixed use project. The
application includes a request to consider shared parking. The mixed-use project features: I) 30
residential condominium units; 2) 5,000 square foot office building; 3) 19,314 square feet of open
space 4) 73 on-site parking spaces (4 spaces would be designated shared parking spaces).
Additional on-street parking spaces will be available on Broadway along the project frontage.
Access to the off-street parking for the project will be from Broadway by a driveway located at the
south end of the project site. The applicant will also be submitting an application for a 2-lot tentative
parcel map (TPM) to place the office building on one lot, and the 30 condominium units on a second
lot.
4. Development Standards Table
The mixed-use development project has been evaluated using the CC zone development standards
for the office commercial component and the R-3 standards for the residential component.
CATAGORY REQUIRED PROPOSED
Zoning: CTP- Thoroughfare CCP-Central
Commercial, Precise Plan Commercial, Precise Plan
General Plan CR- Commercial Retail CR-Commercial Retail
Montgomery Specific Plan MCO- Mercantile Office MCO- (Mercantile Office
Designation Commercial: Commercial)
Lot Area: 1.2 acres 1.2 acres
Parking:
Residential (30 units) 60 spaces 56 spaces
Office (1 space/300 sf) lLspaces 11 spaces
Total 77 spaces 73*
Compact Space Allowance 10% (8 spaces) 21 % (16 spaces)
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/16/04
Lot Coverage 50 percent 22.3% percent
Setbacks (CVMC) Setbacks (CVMC):
Office (CC standards)
Office (CC standards)
Front Yard: 25 feet 3 ft. (single-story arcade)
8 ft. ( 2 story bldg.)**
Side yard: none, except when abutting
SF residential o ft. (north) ;4 ft (south
tower element)
Distance between bldgs: 10 feet 15 feet between office
bldg. and res. bldg. #1
Residential (R3 standards)
Side:
Adjacent to commercial 7 feet 5 Yz feet (north side)* *;
74 feet (south side)
Adjacent to R-l 15 feet 10 feet (so./adj. toR-I)**
Rear:
Building 17 feet IS feet*
Balcony 17 feet 13 feet*
Montgomery Specific Plan 15 feet 3 ft( single-story arcade)
Front Yard: 8 ft (2 story bldg.)**
Building Height: Building Height:
Office (CC zone) None, unless adjacent to CO
or residential zone 2 story 30 feet
Residential (R3zone) 2 story/35 feet maximum 3 story 35 feet***
* Applicant requesting approval of shared parking for 4 parking spaces.
**deviation from requirements.
***Increase in height limit allowed per Section 19.28.060(A)(2), as recommended by the Design Review Committee on
May 17, 2004.9
ANALYSIS:
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan area and Chapter 10, Section 5.9, ofthe General Plan (see Attachment 7). The
General Plan states that medium to high density residential development is potentially desirable
along certain sections of Broadway in order to break up the continuous strip ofretail commercial.
Implementation ofthis goal began last year with the approval of mixed use projects at 760 and 825
Broadway. The General Plan states that mixed-use development should consider access, appropriate
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/16/04
setbacks and screening from any adjacent non-compatible uses, and that implementation of this
poJicy should consider a special zone or land use overlay that would estabJish specific development
criteria while visually and economically enhancing the area and promoting a beneficial development
for the general welfare ofthe citizens in the area and the City. The proposed rezone and precise plan
standards are being requested in order to provide this development criteria. The Special Use Permit
will ensure development ofa project whose individual commercial and residential components will
function cohesively with the existing surrounding uses.
Rezone
The proposed rezone from the CTP to CCP zone is requested by the developer because the CCP
zone allows mixed-use development while the CTP zone does not. The General Plan update and the
Urban Core Specific Plan, both currently underway, provide more specific zone district and
development standards for mixed use projects. However, currently the CC zone is the only viable
zone district to develop mixed-use projects. Both zones are consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element, which designates this area Retail Commercial. The proposed CCP zone is also
consistent with the existing MOC (Mercantile Office Commercial) designation ofthe Montgomery
Specific Plan, and will contribute to the public convenience and general welfare by further assisting
the City's efforts to satisfy the goals and objectives of Redevelopment Agency and Chapter 10,
Section 5.9, ofthe General Plan (see Goals & Objectives, attachment 7). Exhibit B of Attachment 3
delineates the proposed zone for the project site in relation to the existing surrounding zoning.
Precise Plan Standards
The precise plan modifying district has already been established under the current CT zoning district.
Therefore, the requested rezone to CC will retain the P modifier previously established. However,
since no actual criteria for implementation of said precise plan was previously developed, such
standards are now being requested in order to implement said precise plan.
The proposed Precise Plan standards deviate from the adopted Zoning Ordinance and Montgomery
Specific Plan, while respecting the surrounding land uses. Proposed zoning ordinance deviations
include both Setback reductions and Parking deviations. These proposed development standards are
shown in the "proposed" column of the Project Data Table shown above and more specifically
outlined in Exhibit C of the Draft City Council Ordinance (see Attachment 3).
Setback Reductions:
In order to meet the goal of a more urban, pedestrian-oriented project, the proposed development
standards allow for certain encroachments into the required setbacks. Setback reductions include:
a)reducing front yard setback from 25 feet to 3 feet (single story arcade) and 8 feet ( two story
building); b) reducing side yard setbacks from 7 feet to 5 1/2 feet on north side and from 15 feet to
10 feet on south side (adjacent to vacant R- I lot) c) reducing rear yard setback from 17 feet to IS
feet (building) and 13 feet (balconies).
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/16/04
Staff is of the opinion that emphasis on a more urban and pedestrian oriented design is in keeping
with the existing development design trends. Both the CC zone and Montgomery Specific Plan
standards were adopted at a time when emphasis was on having buildings set back behind a
landscaped/parking area. Adoption of the proposed precise plan development standards will allow
reduced building setbacks which are conducive with the above stated goals of encouraging a mixed-
use project which is in keeping with the goals of achieving a more urban, pedestrian-oriented
proj ect.
The reduction is building setbacks will allow the above referenced goals to be achieved by I)
allowing the office commercial component of the project to be located close to the sidewalk along
Broadway, thereby achieving the pedestrian oriented nature of the project; 2) allow for a better
balance between open space and buildings on the lot. Larger open space areas as well as pedestrian
corridors can be provided between building structures while, at the same time, maintaining the desire
density of the project. Due to the orientation of existing development on adjacent properties, no
negative impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed setback reductions.
Parking:
Parking deviations include; a) increase allowable compact parking spaces from 10% to 2 I % ; b)
allow four required off-street parking spaces to be shared parking by residential and commercial
tenants. These 4 shared parking spaces should be counted towards meeting the parking requirements
for office use and be considered guest parking for the residential component, thereby reducing the
residential parking requirement by said 4 spaces. Staff further believes these four guest spaces can
be shared with the required office parking spaces since the primary need for guest parking will be
during the hours when offices will be closed (ie. evenings and weekends). These 4 spaces will be
available by guests of the residential units, especially during off-peak hours. The four parking spaces
must be designated as shared parking and a reciprocal parking of other similar type of agreement will
be required to insure said spaces remain always available for shared parking. Due to the hours of
operation of the office building, it is anticipated there will not be a conflict in allowing said parking
spaces to be utilized by guests of the residential units on evenings and weekends.
Staff believes that an increase in allowable compact spaces along with the allowance for shared
parking will allow for a reduction in the size ofthe required parking field. This reduction will allow a
mixed use project to be designed with more areas of open space to visually reduce the bulk of project
while still achieving the goal of being an urban/pedestrian-oriented development.
Special Use Permit
Under the proposed CCP zone designation, section 19.36.030(0) ofthe Zoning Ordinance requires
that a mixed use project only be allowed by an approved conditional use permit. Because the site is
located within the Southwest Redevelopment Area, a special use permit is required which will
require approval by the Redevelopment Agency. In addition to the normal required findings for the
granting of a use permit, outlined in section 19.14.080, the approval of use permit for a mixed-use
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/16/04
project is also subject to compliance to the specific standards and guidelines outlined in section
19.58.205 of CVMC. The following paragraphs discuss. how the proposed project meets these
standards. The proposed site plan and elevations are shown in Attachment 5. Additional site
specific project information is available in the DRC staffreport (see Attachment 9).
The use permit shall be reviewed and approved b.v the City Council or Redevelopment Agency.
Because the project falls within the Southwest Redevelopment Area, the Redevelopment Agency
will review and take action on this request.
The commercial and residential components shall be planned and implemented together.
The office and residential components ofthe project have been designed to complement each other
yet stand alone in terms offunctional usage. The office component contains the required amount of
parking in the vicinity of the southerly property line. Due to the orientation ofthe project close to the
street, pedestrian access to the building is readily available from Broadway as well as the adjacent
parking area. The residential units are located to the rear ofthe site and, other than 4 shared parking
spaces, contain a separate parking field separated from the office use by a gate. Separate pedestrian
access from the parking areas are provided between the office and residential uses.
The maximum allowable residential density will be governed by the provisions of the R-3 zone based
upon the total project area, less any area devoted exclusively to commercial use, including
commercial parking and circulation areas. The approved dens it-v may be significant(v less than the
maximum allowable density depending on site specific factors, including the density and relationship
of surrounding residential areas, if any;
The proposed 30 units comply with the allowable density based upon excluding the land devoted to
office use and exclusive office parking from the calculation. A total of 43,395 square feet of the
project site constitute the residential component of the 1.3 acre site. Based upon section 19.28.070
of the CVMC a total of 43,380 square feet are required for the proposed twenty-four 2 bedroom
and six 3 bedroom units.
Parking, access and circulation shall be large(v independentfor the commercial and residential
components of the project. Each use component shall provide off-street parking in accordance with
city standards.
The office parking will be closest to Broadway and separated from the residential parking area the
rear by a security gate. As allowed under the proposed precise plan standards, concurrently being
considered for approval, four shared parking spaces are proposed which will accommodate both
office parking as well as parking for guest of the residential units, primarily during off-peak hours.
The residential component shall meet the private and common open space requirements of the R-3
zone.
The proposed project exceeds both the private and common open space requirements. A total of
12,480 square feet of open space are required for the 30 unit residential component ofthe project. Of
Page 8, Item:
Meeting Date: 6/16/04
this total amount required, a minimum of2,800 square feet of private open space are required with
the remainder being common open space. The applicant is providing 2,802 square feet of private
open space and 16,512 square feet of common open space for a total of 19,314 square feet of open
space.
The conditional use permit may include a restriction on commercial uses and/or business hours in
order to avoid conflicts with residential units.
The fact that the proposed commercial use is an office building will provide a use which is
compatible with nearby residential development and should not require any restrictions on hours of
operation. In addition, the orientation of the office building towards Broadway will limit any
potential negative impact on residential units located behind the building on the same site.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the requested project entitlements allow for a mixed use project which meet the
goals and objectives of providing a more urban pedestrian oriented project at this location. As
discussed in this report, the project will achieve the goal of Chapter 10, section 5.9 of the General
Plan which encourages development of mixed use projects along Broadway which are integrated into
the surrounding development. It is hopes that such a project will enhance the area and potentially
become a model for architectural design fur future development of this area along Broadway. For
the reasons discussed in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the project by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Locator Map
2. Draft Plauning Commission Resolution for Rezone (with Precise Plan Standards) and Special
Use Permit.
3. Draft City Council Ordinance for Rezone with Precise Plan Standards.
4. Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution for Special Use Permit
5. Figures
6. Mitigated Negative Declaration
7. Chapter 10, Section 5.9 of the General Plan
8. Comment Letter on Negative Declaration
9. DRC staff report
10. Ownership Disclosure Form
J :\PlanningVeff\westemcv
~
,
'. - -----
-'
\~\'.
'.0\--
.. 0....
'.9::-'
\............
-":'
"'-
''1-------
,
\
\
~
\ \
\
/
/
~-- -',
,,\
''1'-.;\
\\ --.\
\~\
/
~- -
//0"" .
""i1.0~/'\
-,- \
_\ /--\ \-~-\
\
\
\ -""'-
--r
,
,
\
\ ---
..
..
,
,
,
----
u!>ed
co'
~oW~
\- ~e"".
- - rig'
\\.o\J,(\~ _ '
\
. . ""
. ""OSS" .
" 'SF' SF
SF SF\ '-
, .....
Retail \
Center
~
o
'0
\~
~
---',
MF
,
\
\
SF
SF SF
. SF 'SF\
SF SF
SF ~. SF
SF " SF
SF .o' SF
S~_ __ - ~~ __ _\ \_- Vac. Retail
SF . SF.. . Vac. .... /
-'SF _ --. - - S~~ _ -\ SF SF _\..- -- Retail
,. SF ...-- - SF _ _ \ \ SF _ -i '\ _ ';
SF ',.SF _ I "" ....... \ SF \ SF' 'e
.SF /'--d y,u"~ . SF/'/ SF ~\ s~J, Loung.
. CteS,e 'SF /" .:F/'c .. SF. \ 0 '.. SF. \ 'I- -- \
, \. . SF/I '5': ..' \ ~ \S~\}F\\\SF~\ \ ..tOil\
\ , SF ~ SF ,--' ~ '\ .- \ SF. \ ,.JF \ \ ....tOIl\
,-SF \, SF \~y SF..--;"--- SF_____ ~ _~f---\ -__~<\
0,' '\~ \-- ---- \..--- "" r-- SF __\ \ Retal_l~
' . -' SF .. ~ SF 0 SF '.. SF _ '/, \ ./
, ",,~, ~sF l---"~' ~, 'SF, ,"SF.' \- SF' \.~t"lI
\ /'\'0 / \ y/ ~y SF".>';'\ \"SF..'I,:..--j
" ~ ~ ..sF,--\, SF. \ "/SF'......- / \ \' ..tall \
// ~..... SF~",' SFj\ \/\. SF.\. ' SF \' .
'.~\/SF ,.\-SF :: SF/I/SF \SF. \~
\ 's~~ SF ~\ '\ ::"SF/'SF . '.'
/\'/---"c/SF \ ./ \ SF,...
, /V , SF \ .
,......-SF 'SF' .
\~I-),/
\_--------
SF
SF
Neh
Plaza
---'(-
SF
SF
SF
SF
/',
/~
.-'\
--\
Costco
Wal-Mart
---<-- -
,
-'
/
//
,
\
--y"---
~..........
-------
/
LOCATOR
A TT ACHMENT 1
,
,
~--
/
.\
,
\ \.
\
I'
,
\;." PROJECT \
\ Ent.rpn,.' LOCATION)
\Rent A Car -
Pear Tree
Apartments
\
,
Retail
Retail ,\
---- -\
\-_-_-_Retcil- \
'\' \
\ Mot.1 \
\ - ---'\
\' 7.11 ~;v/
, ,
',./
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
\
\/
\
..
~.
. ,
\---
,
, ,
, .. ""
c~,/~e~
/~
.___--'C\
~'
'1
!
,
,
../'r/~ \
/5'
,
,
,"
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-04-0l and SUPS 04-07
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMEDING THAT CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A REZONE (PCZ-04-01) FOR A CHANGE
FROM THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL/PRECISE PLAN
(CTP) ZONE TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL/PRECISE PLAN
(CCP) ZONE ALONG WITH PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS AND
THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (lS-03-034) AND
APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUPS 04-07) ALLOWING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE
COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1030/1034
BROADWAY.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Rezone was filed on July 25, 2003, and a
duly verified appJication for a Special Use Permit was filed on April 23, 2004, with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department by Carlos Madrazo "Developer"; and
WHEREAS, said Developer requests approval of the Rezone and a Special Use Permit to
aUow for a mixed-use project that includes 30 condominium units, 5,000 square feet of office
pace, open space and off-street parking. The project site is located in a Thoroughfare
Commercial (C - T) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator, has reviewed the proposed project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial
Study, IS-03-034 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the
results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project
made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-03-034; and.
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Rezone
(with precise plan standards) and Special Use Permit and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its pubJication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its
mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 16,
2004. at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, after considering aU reports, evidence, and testimony presented at said
public hearing with respect to the conditional use permit application, the Planning Commission
voted _ to recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS-03-034) and
approval of the Rezone (PCZ-04-01) and Special Use Permit (SUPS 04-07); and
Resolution No. PCZ-04-0I and SUPS-04-07
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the draft Ordinance for Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS 03-034) and Rezone (PCZ 04-01) and recommends that the Redevelopment
Agency adopt the draft Resolution for Special Use Permit (SUPS 04-07) in accordance with the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the
Redevelopment Agency and the Developer.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 16th day of June, 2004, by the foJlowing vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Steve Castaneda, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J\Planning\Michael\PCC Reports\J>CM-03-15
A TT ACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE, REZONING A 1.2 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT
1030/1 034 BROADWAY FROM THE CTP (THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN) ZONE TO THE CCP
(CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, PRECISE PLAN) ZONE AND
ADOPTING PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS.
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consist of one acre located at 1030/1 034 Broadway ("Project Site or
Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2003, a Rezone application was filed by Carlos Madrazo
("Developer") with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting
an amendment to the adopted Zoning map or maps established by Section 19.1 8.010 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code in order to rezone a J.2-acre parcel located at 1030/1034 Broadway from
CTP, Thoroughfare Commercial/Precise Plan to CCP, Central CommerciallPrecise Plan with
precise plan standards that would allow a mixed-use project that includes 30 condominium units
and 5,000 office building reductions in setbacks and allowance for 4 shared parking spaces
("Project"); and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the
project on May 17, 2004, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after
hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted _ to recommend that the City Council
approve the project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May
17, 2004, and after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted, _ to recommend
that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said
Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of
the exterior boundary of the Project, at least ten (J 0) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on June 16,2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing
Ordinance No.
Page 2
staff presentation and public testimony, voted _ to recommend that the City Council approve
the Project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on June 16, 2004, and the minutes and
resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of these proceedings; and
E. City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, the City Council held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff
presentation and public testimony, the Council voted ~ to table the item to a date uncertain
to address several concerns that were raised at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project
applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of
the exterior boundaries ofthe Project site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
F. Discretionary Approval of Ordinance
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the
Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
G. Precise Plan Findings
1. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed precise plan standards will not have a negative impact on
the surrounding neighborhood. While such standards allow the necessary
flexibility to create a project which is more urban and pedestrian oriented, they
also insure that a mixed use project will maintain the continuity of the
surrounding existing commercial and residential development. Such standards
will also allow the necessary flexibility in development standards necessary to
minimize the mass or structures, as visible from surrounding areas, by providing
room for adequate open space/courtyard areas between buildings on-site.
2. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the "P" modifying
district as set forth in CVMC 19.56.041.
The precise plan modifying district allowed under Section
19.56.04l(C) of the CVMC has already been established under the current CT
zoning district. Therefore, the requested rezone to CC will retain the P modifier
previously established. However, since no actual criteria for implementation of
said precise plan was previously developed, such standards are now being
requested in order to implement said precise plan.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying
zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose
and application of the Precise Plan.
Development of the lot using the development standards of the CC and R3
zone would limit the abiJity of the applicant to propose a design which a) meets
the goal of providing an urban, pedestrian oriented design and b) configure the
placement of the office and residential uses on the site in a way that provides a
natural extension of the established separation on adjacent parcels between
commercial and residential land uses and also provides for additional open space
and pedestrian walkways between buildings in order to reduce the bulky
appearance of the mixed use project. The requested deviations under the precise
plan are warranted in order to achieve these goals.
4. The approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the
adopted policies of the City Of Chula Vista.
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of Chapter
10, Section 5.9 of the General Plan relative to mixed-use development along Broadway. The
Precise Plan, as described, will allow the project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of
the General Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Area Plan and the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
IT. The City Council of the City Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
Section I. The rezoning provided for herein is consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, public necessity, convenience and the general welfare and good zoning
practice support the amendment to the Municipal Code.
Section 2. The City Of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to rezone the site as depicted in
Exhibit "B" from CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial, Precise Plan) to CCP (Central
Commercial, Precise Plan).
Section 3. The Precise Plan modifier is already in existence for the rezoned parcel
and will be carried over to the newly proposed zoning designation.
Section 4. The Precise Plan Standards as depicted in Exhibit "C" are hereby adopted
per the required findings established per section 19.56.041 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, and as outlined in section I(G) above.
Section 5. Certification of Compliance with CEQA. The City Council does hereby
find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (1S-03-034) has been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and
hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-03-034).
Section 6. Independent Judgment of City Council. The City Council does hereby
find that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment, the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS-03-034) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State
Ordinance No.
Page 4
CEQA Guidelines and Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and
hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
(IS 03-034).
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in fuJl force on the
thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
James D. Sandoval
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
SF
SF
SF _\
SF
'SF
SF
SF
. SF. .. 'lac.'
_ SF \- 'ac-,
I SF
SF SF ,-
SF SF .,\ Retail
SF 'SF. .'\ SF SF.."
,.'S.F. :,... .,:.,..e S' .- .. "., ' '
_ ..' e..,e6""" I._SFSF/\ SF. \~' SF/" \,ounge
CI ../ SF" .. "SF.-. 0, ~ SF . \.
..~SF SF-\ ....\/ SF.. SF. '.~': SF .. " Retail ,
" "SF f"Sf ~~\:' SF. I"SF 10\ 'S.f-''' I -' /'.
__\'.-SF \.,,/ I~ \"SF \/..-\? ',/ SF/\l<etoJ\
"0\"\ SF/. \ ':1. , /-- 'I SF'-\~'/ Iv' ..
.'.. ,.'Sf I" \0\ Sf/.......Sf.~ C Sf.-\'.Re,all)
..0,' .~\ Sf ,~'?' ~ ,---' ,.., ,,/.."
_____-- ,1.>-- ,._- ___ SF " _./ ~S'f' I " Sf." SF' . SF. " \, Re'all'
_~,Q ..__---"' _--\~\ -,- f \, ---..-" \ \--~- \, ---.----\
.... ,2.',/Sf\.......Sf )_ \ S..>, Sf.' \ Sf..\\'/ '
.-' ~ __ \ _/' '\~ Sf " __ ' ' ./ ..' Retail '
_ .. ,I Sf ..,"SF .1 '. _'\ Sf;' \ Sf." I '
_--\~'\--sF /\-_/S'~'-" 'I" S~..Y'-SF -" I'Sf \, 'v'
.A /' '.-/' ,/ ,./:.., v'
. _./S~ \"'-./5F \ ".... SFf\~ Sf ':
.' .- ~ ~.,../....-
./__ ,,//'S':.\/~Sf\ \. Sf/;.........
/ SF............-\ Sf '\ ) --
---SF \--/--
,
,.--
--" . ~\
'i>i'1-0r:~ ./'
.-
Sf
Sf
Sf
. Sf
Sf
Sf
'SF.
SF .'
Sf .
\ ----'"SF
\
\---
.
-
-,--
--'.~,-- --/--
, 0'
~ 0, -----. --\
,-' Ck
o
,~ .
-),?\ /
~ ..'
,.'
,
\-~ -"
.'
/
-- --
\,
'.
,
,
\
_J.
\
I
-~-
.
,
/--
~.....- ...
-\
.-
"
----<
--\\-
\--,---
..
./----\...
,
"
/..
..
--\
,
~~\i-e;~\
- . \
---"/-
<\j<:.00
Co'
so.\e"
9-6""....,
',.F
.\:--
,
~
o
~
\, ~
9:.
- ~o~(I.~e _,
\, ......-
. ;;'o...._~\
,.-- -\\
. '.
Re\ai\
CemeT
-- "
PeClr1tee
APartments
- <-
, \ Sf
Sf \ Sf\Sf
-\ \
Sf,
MF
Arch
Plaz.O
SF
;~PBOI(ct ..
\ Eote",",e' lOCA110N
,~ef\tAca( ,--
"
Sf
SF
. Sf
Sf
",rt
~ ~o\ f
~C!!'~/-;'" Retail
Retail .'
\--/
\ Retail
Retoll
\ .---
\~~_RetO\t
\ ~--
"
..
" Motel \
\ \,
.----"
~I.....\
--
1-1\
\_--
~
.-
'\,
/./--
..
\
..
\ /-'1
\~/-_.-- \
\ --'
. ,
.-
./'
/~
-'"~ -
----\
."
Cos\Co
'Hal-Mart
5'
~---
/
.-
/
-.-/---./'--
;;..-/--
/
lOCAtOR
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS
PARKING:
Shared Parking allowance:
The on-site parking requirement is reduced by 4 parking spaces. Said 4 spaces will be
considered '"shared parking" with 4 of the required office/commercial parking spaces.
Said 4 spaces must be in a location available for guests of the residential units during off-
peak hours for accompanying businesses.
Compact Parking Spaces:
The maximum amount of compact parking spaces is 2 I % of total required parking
spaces.
SETBACKS:
Office/Commercial:
Front Yard:
3 feet (single story arcade)
8 feet (two story building)
Side Yard:
none, except when abutting single family residential
Residential:
Side Yard
Adjacent to
Commercial
5 Y, feet
Adjacent to
R-l
10 feet
Rear Yard:
Building
Balcony
IS feet
13 feet
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS 03-034 AND APPROVING
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPS 04-07 FOR A MIXED-USE
RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1030/1034 BROADWAY
WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consists of 1.2 acres located at 1030/1 034 Broadway ("Project Site");
and
B. Project; Applications for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2004, a special use permit appJication was filed by Carlos
Madrazo ("Developer") with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista,
requesting approval of a special use permit to construct and operate a mixed-use project that
includes 30 condominium units, 5,000 square feet of office, and reductions in setbacks and
parking requirements ("Project"); and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the
project on May 17,2004, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after
hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 3-0-1-1 to recommend that the
Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed project, subject to the conditions contained herein;
and
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said project,
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the
exterior boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the PJanning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the project
on June 16,2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing
staff presentation and public testimony, voted to recommend that the Redevelopment
Agency approve the project, in accordance with the findings listed below; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the pubJic hearing on this project held on June 16, 2004, and the minutes and
resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and
Resolution No.
Page 2
E. Redevelopment Agency Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency held an advertised public hearing
on the project on , at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and,
after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, the Agency voted xxx to ..... and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the project
applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet
of the exterior boundaries of the project site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
F. Discretionary Approval and Ordinance
II. The Redevelopment Agency of the City Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
A. Certification of Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed
project was adequately covered in previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-034.
Thurs, no further environmental review or documentation is necessary.
B. Independent Judgment of Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent
review and judgment that the project is adequately covered by Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS-03-034 and has considered said document prior to making a decision on this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, finds, determines as follows:
C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
I. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the
neighborhood or community.
The mixed-use project is desirable at this location and will introduce new office
and residential uses to an area surrounded by existing commercial and residential
uses in a way that provides a harmonious integration of both land uses. The urban
and pedestrian oriented nature of the project helps foster the current development
goals of increasing the livability and viability of the area.
2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity;
The project will not be detrimental to health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity. The project complies with the adopted
precise plan development standards for the site, which were approved based upon
the findings outlined in section 19.14.576 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. In
addition, the applicant has taken measures to minimize any negative visual
Resolution No.
Page 3
impacts to surrounding land uses through the use of increased landscaping and
waU height along the western property line, and by providing architectural
features to aU buildings that make them aestheticaUy pleasing and minimize the
mass of the structures.
3. That the proposed use wiU comply with regulations in this title for such
use.
The project complies with aU regulations of the CC zone as modified by
precise plan standards adopted for the subject parcel based upon section
19.14.576 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency;
The proposed project complies with the General Plan of the City which
acknowledges the potential value of mixed use projects along portions of
Broadway. The adopted precise plan standards for the project site aUow for the
modification of front yard setback otherwise required by both the Montgomery
Specific Plan.
E.)
F.) Approval of this DRC project is contingent upon approval of the related
rezone (PCZ 04-01) and special use permit (SUPS 04-07) for this project. The
rezone includes the proposed precise plan guidelines for the project. The
special use permit will include allowance for 4 shared parking spaces.
A.) This Special Use shaU be subject to any and aU new, modified, or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest
related to health, safety, or welfare which the City shaU impose after advance written
notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard
with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may
not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source
which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economicaUy recover.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Laurie A. Madigan
Community Development Director
Ann Moore
Agency Attorney
,"
"
\
/~
~'
-'
, /-
",
,>
,
/
,
>
-1.0(\0. s\
\" \)$\ ,,'
\ ,--
.-
/-
~-~,-
\--,.-
-.
Reloil
cef\\ST
,/6
\\to.1
~~\~'" -
\, '9.0':>\' -~--
"~ r _""e',
", 0 '.\.Ou.'= ,-'
. Q' "
0: "
~,
~'(
'., 'S\
~'I~e~
.-
,
-_1---
" S\
~O,,'i>
peaT Tree
Apartments
,i' '
00
'.0..:
.(),
. -~
\? ,-
,>~~",
.SF,
, Sf 'Sf
Sf Sf
SF 'SF
, Sf 'Sf,
Sf. Sf
S '\ .-
Sf 'f ' \
Sf, Sf"
Sf, ' Sf,/
'SF 'Sf "
Sf ...
'. . . .'
If. "Sf S\ Sf Sf, \
. ' Sf, .>' v.>:>~e I. Sf , ,Sf, Sf. \,loUnge
'/be'i>\eO/'-- \ Sf, 'Sf, _%\ Sf ",\
,/ Sf /,,' ,0: -
SF/Sf'."'\' ~f,~/\Sf \~ }fs' <'\,ROIO" .
-'Sf / ,$ \ s</\' Sf\~\' .
/' / Sf/\~ v'Sf y,,' \ ,/ Sf \ \ ),e'o" \
, ''(' SF ~Sf ,\ %' ., Sf, ,o"p,: , ~ -
~O' \ - ' \~\ Sf ~,' ~\o.\\-,
.' ...,.,'Sf .Sf \, , 'SF'-\'. Sf. '/' \ - "
/,0..,', ,,/\'" 'SF,,\'/Sf\ \' Sf' ,Reta""
.'e' Sf / Sf /\"p,:', /', /', \' Sf, \:::>-\
// .\~_ v"'Sf \...-s~ ,\ \!. \ S,f ,"': Ss.-\ -' "0'0"
\ ... _' <.' ,/ Sf ," \ \, S<, \ .
.,,~ Sf>"'Sf ,) \ /'S Sf' <
/"'\~ Sf \ 'Sf, "" Sf.J./,Sf, \ SI'
Sf X' Sf' ': S~/\ Sf
'. /Sf ..," 'e' Sf C>-/
'>-"F ...../_ _\;/ \. ~f \~..../
,/" Sf \Sf\
",,\ \/-5f \/'v
Sf
Sf
Sf,Sf\Sf
\
NlF
ArCh
p\o:z.a
~ ,,'I\Oltt1
~:etprt'e' lOCI\1\O",
\ ~en~ A Car
Sf
SF
SF
.'
, SF,
Sf
'lac,.
-"ce.,--
SF
Retail "
RetaIl
\
\
RetaIl
\\
\
J
\--
Re1oi\
,
ltAo\e\
\
---~~\
..-
.'E-
7-11
./
/.
-.....'\
,.
,
.'
\
\
\
\
/',
/,..'"
\,
\
..""\\
./--
//
_//-
cos'CO
VJoHAOrl
\ --
\//
,s.
\~- - .'
/
/~- -
//--
/
.....--/-
.-
/
----/-
v
.
/
/-
lOC~10R
---/-
E}{RIBl1' A
IOJ
0:'
W,
5)
'"
;:\I~l' ",1"
~a ' iE~ :;
~:l ~ . <1 J~
" ~ ~ Ii! ~.
,,,' I,..,,;
"r'
I'~~'
f I
'. ~
r-
.~
i"
,
,I
,I
.,
I~
f:
,II I.
n\ n
ATTACHMENT 5
- ~--
jJ\1
i I
'O^l8 AV'MOV'OI:!8 ;fffiTh~ 1:1,1111
V'ZV'ld Snl:!V'Hd IU
rr;l
'! II'
ii'l
r.
!0~ ,
,I
,I
"
"
11
i
"
,I
ii
III ,I
,.
, ;'':''
-, i Z
:'i
..
a:
o
, Oil
~ia!
yt
IT:
~
, "'
I~
~
[ . '" ~ ~
I I. ,r, ,\ '
I lit '
qll!' '
\. 1 '\!
.11 !il ill
-..
,
"
y
y .
---=--
d
~
01' "8 "iMU'i')tJ8
\'\
u.
II!!
I
I
I
~!I~ on
~i i~
:1 . <t~
,; ~ ~ I~
i." ." ~
",w. . ....."
'OAl8 AVMOV088 ;1f~m 1z,\,.i!J
VZVld SnHv'Hd i ! ,Ii
I) ~ I
"
{
.
o .
--=~-=====---=----"'H ::
., . ~
~, ,o,j,~.!
~ ~ .,.o~
~
J!1: .
I
o~.
9
~:
"II
~
D:i
..,
CJ
z
a
-'
5
(!l
'"
CJ
z
a
-'
5
(!l
z
<i
-'
"-
a:
o
o
Ii
o
11;'8' I
I':" "Ii:
.t.~ f 2
o
z
o
o
lIJ
UJ
~
a:
i[
CJ
z
1)
-'
5
(!l
I~
., Wi!~
Zl,X ~\0t7-l()F(6I.9) 11,1
'OAl8 ^V'MOV'Ot:J8;~rtbi& :;l.!]!!!
V'ZV'ld snt:JV'Hd J h' II
~ ,.." ,,10;
r-
. I ." r
rrrl.1 0' - II
, .1" ,
" I
I
~
.
,
;, r-- I
"
i'lcY
~I
,
"
.~-,9"
_.~-
..6-."'
Ii
)
. a
, u::
, CJ)
~
o
I{)
$2
~.
.. ~i ~ ~
. 0;..
0-
c:
Q
w
[]J
C\I
I
Q
.
"
~.
~,
~
.;'j ~ ;', U
II I '
_,,,~1~
,9-..~<:
,
r ~
"':-,9 ,,,~,, ...-,';j I
l- I
Ii 0
~ ~
i lL
CJ)
- 0
OJ I{)
C\I
~
0 ~
. I-
-
-,,, I i Z?
.;, J , . ::>~
., ::2~
,
. 0
0
II:
0
"> W
,I ! h !D
, ~
::;j
- Q
.)
...~,'
Ij ~ I
I~
~
1- -
10\
a:'
W~
me
I ~!
~I'
Illl en:
::>,
II:'
.<(1
1 ~ Ig
: ~ ~ I< . - ~ a..~
1~1;I!i
JI!IJJ
~ ~ ~.J,
U)( IrLQV-LOV(6I.9)
o.eI8'\1~'V.1SIA't"""\"IH:)
"Ct\18A'<IMm'OI:I:IVCOIIocct
.OAl8 AVMOVOl:l8 v8OL/08OL
VZVld Sm:lVHd
i~
2.
I r ~
(
~
i
Z
j 2
<(
iU. ~"
..J, ~
w> 2~
I \
I- '
::J
o
en
I
'I'
>~~-
~~k
il
I
I
i-
J
i.
\
c
0
:;::
!j as
>
~ Q)
II Q)
"Z "-
Ii 0 as
L I- Q)
\ "-~
, . <( 1J~
2;! I ~, "-
I as
, if >.
II \ I ~i -
"-
~ :J
i! Ii 0
~ 0
j 0
Z
:
I
,
Ii if
I! d
lIi!lcn i'~P 11.~1 !g; ~i
a:~ :~Ht II::;, i~
w_ 'J..\ <!:' 0'
'CD~ :~.. ~ i I'3 i;
\...J~ ., ,i t ;; n.' ..
<{~ :~n:. . iS~!
,
~)(~!OI'ltUlJ
WUI"".........Y'Y'K>
0'I-'!"'MUf'~~10C0I
'OAl8 )"\>'MO\>'O!:!817Cm/oCOL
\>'Z\>'ld Snl:l\>'Hd
I' "I
hi!
i111"j
~
~ j ~ ,. ~
~: , !!!
. ! \ j
!j ~ . z
~ , 0
~i
liU,j
11m,
.~
0
(fJ
~
0
z
h
~
,
I
,
1"
!. !!
. .1
"
. ..
\\
--.-..----
\. "\ III
r~ I
I
--~----
10:
a:'
W~
ID'
...J~
."
""I' IUI ID'
p:: I :)g
;; :! ' a:~
"i.1 ~ . ~ <{Ie
ii'." ,ll i "-~
. ... . t. . D
~ -~,~, I' 1'1
'OAl8 AV'MOVOtl8 ;form'8& :\'!l!'j
VZVld SntlVHd i : ,Ii
~
t
~
~
o
~
.
8
~
II ! jl,II\! Iw1I~I!_i
I' ' II"
II I !'ih i
I', . 'L!I'
. i 'It.
':\ ; "'1"
I' . .111, I
j!!.d ~ ~~~'.!1 'I
~I'illi I!!!!! !
~ r.' u:!" i
f,t! ~I "I III
"
\1
!Ii
i'
i~,.- ,
!:, II-_......r'
+ :4
,
Iii '.
,~\
~
, .
r-~ '-r::=;-
\'
"
"
1,1
II! w'
IIIi
,
!,
L .
Iii
! I"~
~ '
" ,
I"
I'
t 'r. "
II ,Ii.. 'I.' i'
~,I !i, '
'! I,
I,' I!I i"
)', ill
.
+
,I
iI
i '
,II "
ih !!
II
Ii
J,'18 "7.'II\u'7r)d8
1'-
.I!
I J I
!!i
t
~
't
'!
\
Ii
"
<
.:-),
~\
~
"
.
.J
~
111
~
\lJ
~
Z
o
~
\.1.1
"-
\J.-
'.u
-,
\ \
I
-\-
\
'81
.....,
,;. "
\t
,~
, ,
ATTACHMENT 6
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Pharus Plaza
PROJECT LOCATION:
1030-1034 Broadway
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
618-110-11 and 618-110-12
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Pharus Development Group, LLC
CASE NO.:
IS-03-034
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUtv!ENT:
March 29.2004
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSER V A TION COMMISSION MEETING:
April 19.2004
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
Mav 3. 2004
Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration are deuoted by underline.
A. Proi ect Setting
The project site is a partially vacant 1.23-acre site consisting of two parcels, located at ] 030-1 034
Broadway. The site is located in an urbanized area in the central western portion of the city of Chula
Vista within the Southwest Redevelopment Area (see Exhibit A Location Map). The project site
was previously developed with a mobile home park including a one-story residential triplex building
containing three rental units and accessory structure. Currently, the project site contains the one-story
triplex building, broken asphalt foundatIons, disrepaired paving and fencing.
Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following:
North: Commercial Shopping Center, Self-Storage and Apartments
South: ProfessIOnal Office and vacant lot
East: Broadway/Commercial retail uses
West: Single-Family Residences
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of t he demolition of the existing one-story triplex building and the
construction of 30 residential condominium units within three separate three-story buildings and a
detached two-story 5,000 square-foot professional office building fronting Broadway (see Exhibit B-
Site Plan). The total proposed parking is 77 spaces (74 spaces on-site and 3 spaces on-street): 60
residential spaces and 17 office spaces. The redevelopment of the project site would include
landscape treatments, lighting, drainage facilities, paved parking lot, fight of way improvements,
retaining walls and fencing along the perimeter of the p'roperty. The proposed grading quantities are
estimated at 1,020 cubic yards cut and 1,520 cubic yards fill. The project includes retaining walls
with decorative five-foot high-capped wooden fencing on top in accordance with the City's Design
Manual guidelines, along the western and northern perimeters, and separates fencing continuing
around the southern and northem perimeters. The proposal requires approval of Design Review,
Precise Plan, Conditional Use Penmt. Tentative Map and Rezone from CTP to CCP (Central
Commercial/Precise Plan) and all necessary redevelopment actions by the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The project site is within the CTP (Thoroughfare Commercial/Precise Plan) Zone and is designated
MCO (Mercantile and Office Commercial) under the Montgomery Specific Plan and CR (Retail
Commercial) under the Chula Vista General Plan. The proposal includes the rezoning of the site from
CTP to CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan), allowing for the proposed mixed-use development
subject to the provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.36 with the approval of a
Conditional Use Pennit. The project would be consistent with the proposed zoning and existing
General Plan designation of the property.
D. Public Comments
On March 9, 2004, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the project site. The public comment period ended on March 18, 2004. No written
comments were received; however, oral comments were received from two persons regarding
aesthetics/privacy to adjacent single-family residential properties, building bulk, and parking on side
streets, traffic and density issues.
On March 30. 2004. the Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to propertY owners within a 500-foot
radius of the proiect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on April 29. 2004: two written
comment letters were received. The Chula Vista Elementary School District identified the statutory
developer fee requirements and recommended annexation to Community Facilities District (CFD) 10
as an alternative to the fee: no comments regarding the adequacv of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration were included. In a comment letter from a member of the public. concerns were
expressed regarding proiect density. building heights. building setbacks from the residential
properties to the west. congestion. school impacts. noise. uar1cing overflow from VToiect residents
onto Broadwav and adiacent side streets: however. the adequacv of the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration was not addressed. The issues identified in this comment letter were adequatelv
addressed in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) detennined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental
effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report win not be required. This Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
Aesthetics
There are four parcels which abut the project site to the west; two are vacant and two contain single-
family resid~nces. The closest single-family residence to the project site is situated approximately 54
feet from the northwest comer of the project site.
Within the CC (Central Commercial) Zone, no building shan exceed three and one-half stories or 45
feet in height when located adjacent to any C-O or residential zone. The western favade of the
proposed three-story 35-foot high residential building nearest to the western property line would be
set back 15 feet from the property line. The project site is separated from the single-family residential
properties to the west by an existmg five-foot high chain link fence and portions of disrepaired
wooden fence. A five-foot high decorative capped wooden fence (above retaining wans in certam
..,
locations) is proposed along the project's perimeter. Therefore, a portion of the proposed residential
building would be visible from the rear portion of single-family residential properties to the west. To
achieve a greater degree of vegetative screening of the proposed residential bui1dings from the west,
new 24-ga11on Carrotwood, 36-inch box Southern Magnolia, 24-inch box Evergreen Pear, and 24-
inch box Chinese Flame trees would be planted in between intermittent moderate sized shrubs along
the western property line.
The proposed mixed-use professional officelresidential project as proposed would be an a110wable
land use within the proposed CCP (Central CommerciallPrecise Plan) zone. The proposed five-foot
high decorative wooden fence, retaining wans, new trees along the western property line, and 15-foot
rear yard setback would screen anq minimize the intrusiveness of the proposed three-story residential
buildings relative to the single-family residences to the west. Given the location of the site on an
established, intensively developed commercial corridor, and the relatively moderate height and bulk
of the proposed structures, the impact of this change would not rise to a level of significance under
the California Environmental Quality Act as implemented by the City of Chula Vista.
The proposal includes downward-facing, non-spi11 exterior lighting within parking areas, and along
portions of the site perimeter. The proposed lighting would comply with the lighting regulations of
the ChuJa Vista Municipal Code and, therefore, would not result in a significant lighting impact.
Air Ouality
Based upon the relatively minor amount of site grading that would be necessary to accommodate the
proposed development, the amount of project-generated traffic that is anticipated and the consistency
of the project with the City's General Plan, the proposal would not result in the violation of any air
quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project
would potentially generate sufficient construction vehicle emissions and dust during construction-
related operations to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality. Fugitive
dust would be created during construction operations as a result of clearing, earth movement, and
travel on unpaved surfaces. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance
with the rules and regulations of the County of San Diego Air Po]]ution Control District and the
California Air Resources Board. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section
F would reduce this potentia]]y significant impact to below a level of significance.
Geology and Soils
The project site has been previously graded and developed with a mobile home park and multifamily
residential units. The preliminary grading plans specify 1,020 cubic yards of cut and 1,520 cubic
yards of fi]], which would require a grading pennit.
The preparation and submittal of a final soils report wi]] be required prior to the issuance of a grading
pennit as a standard engineering requirement. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards
associated with the project site. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore,
project compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any
building safety/seismic concerns.
The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could result in siltation impacts
downstream. Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with the
preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The
implementation of water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be
required in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01. An portions of the development area
disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in
compliance with the Chula Vista t-,runicipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance
3
with BMPs and NPDES Order No. 2001-01 would be required and would be monitored by the City.
Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into the drainage system would be less than
significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Lead and Asbestos Removal
The existing triplex building, accessory structures and broken foundations on-site (1030 Broadway)
that are proposed to be demolished potentia11y contain asbestos and lead-based paint, which could be
released if not properly abated. To..mitigate this potentia11y significant impact, prior to any demolition
activities the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint wi11 be determined and if present, abatement
sha11 be performed by a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance
to al1 applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air
Pol1ution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation. The mitigation
measure contained in Section F below would mitigate potentia] impacts associated with the release of
asbestos and lead to below a level of significance.
Hydrology and Water Ouality
The proposed project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. Public drainage system
facilities consist of a 60-inch cOITegated metal pipe (CMP) and a 66-inch reinforced cOITegated pipe
(RCP) along Broadway. The conceptual grading plan indicates the instal1ation of stonn drain
facilities necessary to col1ect and carry site drainage to the existing stonn drain along Broadway. No
sheet flow is proposed to Broadway or adjacent properties. A final drainage study, that includes
existing plus developed drainage conditions, wil1 be required in conjunction with the preparation of
final grading and improvement plans. Properly designed drainage facilities wi]] be insta]]ed at the
time of site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No significant impacts to the City's
. storm drainage system are anticipated to result rrom the proposed development.
Due to the size and existing condition of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a
"Construction Storm Water Management Plan" (CSWMP) prior to the issuance of any permit such as
a Construction/Irnprovement Pennit is required. Compliance with provisions of the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to
construction-related water quality BMPs would be required.
Water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) shal1 be incorporated into the design of the project.
Such measures shan be designed to minimize discharge of po11utants into the storm drainage system.
Preliminary proposed BMPs include storm drain inlet protection system, source control, protection of
stockpiles, protection of slopes, protection of al1 disturbed areas, protection of access, and perimeter
containment measures including landscaped treatments throughout the project site. Construction and
post-construction water quality best management practices (BMPs) wi]] be required to be
incorporated into the final grading plans.
Based upon the project design with proposed conceptual BMPs, conditions of the Precise Plan that
include compliance with the NPDES Permit requirements, and standard engineering requirements,
storm drainage and water quality impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.
4
Noise
Eilar Associates prepared the "Pharus Plaza Acoustical Analysis Report" for the proposed project,
dated March 19,2004. This report is available for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department counter and is summarized below:
Existing Conditions
The partially vacant project site fronts Broadway with parking allowed along both sides of the street.
According to the City of Chula Vista Engineering Division/Transportation Section, this section of
Broadway carries a traffic volume Df approximately 20,450 average daily trips (ADT). The primary
noise source affecting the proposed development consists of vehicle traffic traveling along Broadway.
The existing noise level at the eastern property line adjacent to Broadway is 69.2 decibels Community
Noise Equivalent Level ((dB CNEL), which is attributable primarily to traffic noise.
The City of Chula Vista has not adopted any specific numerical noise/land use compatibility levels to
establish significance criteria. However, as a matter of policy, the City employs the noise standards
set forth in the Noise Element of the City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan as
guidelines for the purpose or CEQA analysis. The City's exterior noise level standard for noise-
sensitive areas, which include residences and outdoor recreational areas, is 65 dB CN'EL. The City's
exterior noise standard for office development is 70 dB CNEL.
Exterior Conditions Plus Proposed Project
Future traffic volumes were based upon a buildout traffic model run in March 2002. The future
projected buildout traffic volume along Broadway, south of "L" Street, is 25,300 ADT. The project
site wi11 be subjected to future traffic noise generated from automobile and truck traffic along
Broadway. Based upon this projected traffic volume, the overa]] future traffic noise level at the
eastern property line, adjacent to Broadway, is estimated at 70.2 dB CNEL.
According to the City's CEQA thresholds, residential outdoor use areas shall not exceed 65 dB
CNEL. The future traffic noise calculations show that with the development of the proposed office
and residential structures, a]] of the proposed outdoor use areas (courtyards, barbeque areas, patios.
and balconies) wi]] be exposed to noise levels ranging from 39.8 to 60.7 dB CNEL. Therefore, based
upon the results of the acoustical analysis, no significant exterior noise impacts are identified.
Future Interior Conditions With Proposed Project
State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24) requires that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dB CNEL or
less for multi-family units. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the residential structures,
building construction plans wil1 be required to reflect any special design consideration (i.e.,
mechanical ventilation, enhanced glazing with the wa]] and window assemblies) as deemed necessary
to attenuate interior noise levels to 45 dB CNEL.
Transportati on/T raffi c
The proposal is projected to generate 340 average daily vehicle trips (ADTs). Based upon the
projected level of project traffic generation and the level of seryice of the surrounding street network,
the Engineering DIvision has determined that the proposal does not have the potential to result in any
significant traffic impacts; therefore, the preparation of a traffic study was not required. The primary
access street in the vicinity of the project site, Broadway, currently operates at acceptable level of
seryice (LOS) A and is projected to continue to operate at LOS A after project development. Access
to the project site is proposed from the existing driveway on the northern parce1.
5
Parhng
Based upon the Chu!a Vista Municipal Code parking ratio requirement for professional office of 1
parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, and the parking ratio requirement for multi-
f"mily dweHing units of 2 parking spaces per each residential unit, the required parking for the
proposal is 77 spaces. Proposed on-site parking is 74 parking spaces; the applicant requests that the
addItional 3 required parking spaces be aHowed to be provided on-street (Broadway), which requires
approval of a Precise Plan. Staff concurs that the required findings can be made to support the
proposed minor parking deviation, establishing that no significant impacts would result. Therefore,
no significant parking impacts are anticipated to result from the proposal.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Ouality
The foHowing air quality mitigation requirements shaH be shown on aH applicable demolition,
grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shaH not be deviated
from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
1. During construction, dirt and debris shaH be washed down or swept up as soon as practicable to
reduce the resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement over such material.
Approach routes to the construction area shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt and
debris.
2. In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114, vehicles transporting loads of
aggregate materials must cover/tarp the material, or if not covered, the material must be no nearer
than six inches from the upper edge of the container area where the material contacts the sides,
front, and back of the cargo container area, and the load shaH not extend, at its peak, above any
part of the upper edge of the cargo container area. This measure shan also apply to the transport
of any materials associated with demolition, grading, or building activities that can potentiaHy
become airborne.
3. Construction equipment shaH be maintained in proper working order and shal1 be periodical1y
tuned in order to minimize air poHutant emissions; use of low poHutant-emitting construction
equipment, including electrical-powered equipment, sha1l be used as practical.
4. Soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shaH be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25
mi1es per hour.
5. A1l unpaved construction areas shaH be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control
agents during dust-generating activities as necessary to minimize dust emissions to the maximum
extent practicable. Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather
or on windy days until dust emissions are not visible.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The foHowing hazards mitigation requirement shaH be shown on all demolition plans as a note.
6. Asbestos and lead-based paint abatement sha1l be perfonned by a licensed and registered asbestos
and lead abatement contractor in accordance to al1 applicable local, state and federal laws and
6
regulations, including San Diego County Air Po11ution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standards
for Demolition and Renovation.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Planning and Building
Paul Hellman, Planning and Building
Maria C. Muett, Planning and Building
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building
Jeff Steichen, Planning and Building
Brad Remp, Planning and Building
Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building
Frank Herrera-A. Planning and Building
Garry Wi11iams, Planning and Building
Miguel Tapia, Communi!)! Development
Frank Rivera, Engineering
Beth Chopp, Engineering
Sandra Hernandez, Engineering
Anthony Chukwudolue, Engineering
Muna Cuthbert, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Ben Herrera, Engineering
Dave Kaplan, Engineering
Joe Gamble, Building & Park Construction
G. Edmonds, Fire Department
Richard Preuss, Police Department - Crime Prevention
Applicant:
Pharus Development Group/Carlos Madrazo
Others:
Sweetwater Authority
ChuJa Vista Elementary School District
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Acoustical Analysis Report/1030-1034 Broadway-ChuJa Vista, Eilar Associates, March 19,2004.
7
3. Initial Studv
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
0~/t?~~.
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
J :\Planning\MARIA \Initial Study\IS-03-034Fina1MND.doc
Date: 5) ~JO,/
8
\(\ ~ '/~\~~~ ~\ 1',
~\ \\ ~~- ~._/ J~\ I \ '_Y-'\ \J..-.
.::=------\ --/". -, /"-', \ \ '\ '
_'> ,'.... ,', \, ______./ 'I'" , , .
___ '________~" ..---' \, ~____ "./ ',I SOUTH8A'( \. \._____
..-/", ~ ,~\ ~ \ \_____~~, BAPTiST CHURC~ ____I
~'/---------.;-~ ~ \~\ \, \~ ~\ ~----- \
/~~~ \, I \ \, ... ':?-\., CAMELOT
\ _ \ ~ ~..... \ \ ,~~ ' \ APARTMENTS,
'\~'\~""'.'\"~ '.. \,
~\~S, ~\ \ 'J.- \' ,,-. \ , ,'\ \. '
\\,' , ~\'.,7-0' \1 '~\. I' ' \' ~
\ \ \ ~~;p~~~7:~J~; ~\\\ I. '. '. \ \. \ '~\
\ \ ' , , \ I ____ '
, " \ ., \ ' \
\ \ '.. \\~
\ ~ \ ~ \~~" \ \ ~
, ~ '1.--------- I~, \, " \ ,/'\ ~ ~<;::;'.A--\
'''------ VILLA MARINA ~ ~ '/------ \ 'J.--.--- ' ~ :::ft\~\ \ ,
APAPTMEiHS .__--- c..S '3\ _________ \ ------- -- ~ -~ /- \ \ --
____:. \JI~\ '.-------\ --- \ . \ \
~ ~ \ \ ' _____ PEAR \ " "\'
, ~ ~' ,\, \ \, _____, TREE ~... \ \ \ \ ..-'
\ .._--.-------- ,------ i------\ ~\ \ \ \ APARTMENTS \ \ \ ~\
~ ~ ~,:- ~\ /' /~ \ \, \ \ \. ~ \ \
~80'~\\~~~/, ~\ ______~-y\))YV-
, \~PROJECT..., ~,c; -~j \~ /~~ ---------
\:::=lOCATlON) \~ ~ r/~~\'~ I \'~/<,
\ ~ ~ /: C-/t::.:J. \ ~ ~ /"" ::>\ ~ '" .--...------ VIVA 'i\ \
\ ,.------:/~'/ \ ~, \, '____ s~ (_____~\ ~\ ,"'., j NAPOLI \~ \
\ ;-::::=-\~, ';-/\ J.;(sO (J~\//^ \~~{y \-...<~\ .~ ~ APARTMENTS if' \ \...---"
\ "''--(\--::J\ \.--/ -~~,,-, ~~Y---/~%'0 ~ '" \~\ ?o\~
......--' \~ ~-----\-----, ~~'i~~ "'-\ ~'
I ~~'~O\---~;''j,I'-----::~7~'~' ~, \
'~""'-----\4~""'-----';{o~'b~~:'~,X:"'-::: I
\-/\~~~'~~~~~;s:::=6' \0'tJ 'S~;,t~E
, \\9-y...-r::-----'9-' .....--;::::::---V;\' ,_____~) ____- \ WESTERN \, APARTMENT~
\ O:::.-----t:: ---''';, ~L"""""-' \ ~~S S'~----- 'DENTAL \ \
\ ~\1J'e:::=t=:~;; V..---\ 'c::::..-\ ' ",~?'-:.----- I OFFICE ' \
\ ~ \ OS/X~./'L ...............G---\ ~ \ \ ~\ ,
\\ '\~ \~\-...----\ J. \C~ ~ \ '\----- / r--
\ ,\\. \"\\~.--J ~/ \ '/ \ I
\ \ ,\ \~ I PRICE BAZAARJ '\ I \
, ~ \ HOME \
~,' I \'\ C~~~~R \ ~
;;;3:\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \
~------c
----- "
/
-----/
/-
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPliCANT FHARUS PLAZA INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT
,\OORESS. 1030/1034 6ROAD\\/AY Request: Precise Plan for 30 condominiums. of retail.
SCAl!:'.: I FilE NL'MBER: and 5,500sq ft of professional offices.
NORTH No Scale IS-03-034 Related Case(s): PCM-04-01, PCZ-04-01
r\cherllc\locators\locators0.4\is0334 ccir 02_0904
Exhibit A
-
-
;':::
==
~
""
I/' .
,l~ ~H
I r\ I
IH ~
! ------
11
;'!
Ii! III
,
I _n_
[___"_n_
.[ - !!!
-,1
jj
on
:-c~~ _:t~~'. :~
! ~~J'
_ -.::~: la:k'"".
"1 ! '/[' I
IIi I"~, / It
II! 1;1;( Ii
---
~,L-
r
j:'
i(~
O^i8
^vMOvO~8
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORlNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Pharus Plaza - IS-03-034
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Pparus Plaza project. The proposed project has been evaluated
in an 1,itial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-03-034). The
legis]ation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented
and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring .-and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
I. Air Quality
2. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator, and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. Evidence in written form confinning compliance with the mitigation measures
specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-03-034 shall be provided by the applicant to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to A void Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-03-034, which wi1! be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
J :\P1anning\MARlA \lnitia1 Study\IS-03-D34MMRPtext.doc
E
'"
o
c:.
'"
~
o
"
c::
'D
C
CO
.s
S
.",
o
="
c
g
CO
~
~
"iO
'"
E
E
o
'-'
'"
-g ro
;; 0
Q. ~
~ ]
o .~
....
'"
:0
II>
I-
:;E
<:t
0:
c:>
o
a::
a.
c:>
z
~
o
a.
l1J
a::
o
~
c:>
z
~
o
\::
z
o
::
z
o
~
c:>
i=
~
<<
'"
o
n
o
ch
ro
N
ro
1L
g
ro
6.'.\
'"
:a
"in::--
,,"
o ~
:;;0..
'"
'"
-"
00
O)~
""
E'"
.~ t
:>
-"
00
-0';:0
0\3
"' .-
~:c
::;'"
:>
~"'
. .
o 0
a.<.>
"'"'
" .
.,,"
00
0"
"'
. .
~ "
a. 0
<.)
'"
S
~
"
'"
::;
"
.'1.
-;;;
g
~
'"
.s
a;
'"
-:::> .S
~.~ c
~W.~
0. :>-.-
o.~ .:::
<(00
.
'"
.s
a;
'"
""C
c:'a. c
~~g
= \11
8:~'.~
<(00
'"
.s
a;
'"
.,,"
C'~C
i3~g
"6. >>.~
0.'-:::: .~
<(00
"
o
.'"
.5
::>--i5
5~
"" .-
~1i3
,,'"
._ c
c.'a
D."
<(ll!
:5
.'"
.5
:;..0
5g
"" .-
c ~
~~
.- "
o..'(:j}
.:t&
'" '" '" '" '"
'" '" '" '"
'"
'"
"
Co
::J
.-r:
Il) C\-o'~ .
::~~8g
(U"3~~~
~.Q.CG>i5
If) -0'- -0 '-
.... c. 0. fQ 0
~ cO. e.~8
E g 8:~ ~
~._ <<>:> (1)
'S~ (1) e'~
g ~.~ %.a:
'- c ~ \'tI-
5.9~~%
-;;;.::='0 Q:J Q)
~o c;t
:e~~~g
E. -0 '0 E.::=
Z'III . e. ~
~D~:;uJ
~ 5 0 Q,) I/')
0":'::: c:: r6 ~::>--
:~ 8: ~.s: .0'"
>- 0;':1 ro:::: CD
I- E:=:~'t'I 2-
~"3 ~~~;,
:J go <J'Io.D.
o Q C ro c C'I
~3~==.s
a:: ,e::g.!2 ~"'2
;;{ I- If) 0.. tI'J 3
",0
0'"
zrJ:I
" ~
",0
'.~ ~
::;'"
::;
g
iJ>
32
" "
",0
.c::;:::;
0"
c'"
,,~
c;:c
c
"0 '
'" c
-c 2.f;g
-g .~ 9 ~
.J:;. \1)~ \I);
~'s~2Z~
Q)8.&-5S
~-6-g~o
~~3~~
~.95e.g
.'!J (1) ...%"'0
.D~~4: ~
(!) u ro . (tI
"t).z: E ~ Q)
E:~Q).;::;I)
r;O>--,SQ,)
.... c.i!! ro.D
'is 'tl a E % th
_ c:t~~'C:;
5oro~lfj{5
13g;:~~'O
.s~~~~-g
20...9':: g~
s;.~g''t,g
c:ng-~E2--P
.~3~~U;$
'5 (/) If) 0 c: J2
oo~E3~
~
;g
iJ>
32
" c
'" 0
.s::;:;::;
0"
c'"
,,~
- c
[l.-
-
If) 'cJ ~ (/j
~ %mro- ~'S
2 ~t)roo 2~
c ~ 11) It! ~~ (';1';;
gEID-SCItIQ.IT>Eg
1:5 rtJ.s E 8>- ;0-,'-
ID..... 11) c E. ~ 'Q)
U)ctl-oe.ro.~~' ro.S
ID g~-';:: ro ID ._"'0
"O>-Q)<ff{\)c:;:.ltIo::::
8g8-5~8g~5~
C o~>-o.o
~o15';~ 2:i~ 'g .~
z~~';;'~ ~ m'I2~.~E
tI:IC'J>-c....(l)O"c -o..Q
>.Qo~~~~o~e.~
~ ~-E~......_I)-Q)ro
'2 cn~ ..... =-- <5 - 0 0 - Q)
>-E.:::wltl ~"Q)-cE
g-:::S'ro~t5.oro~gO
~ 8. ('Ii Q) ~ ro c u CJ..:=: <.)
o~EC~.Q*~~O.8
.cltll1'gE~ID-O~:;>'
:-::::=EI1)~~OO~"O'%
3: <J1 0..0 c ~ c Q) to .r:;.;;::;
ID ~ ~ __ S c _ 0== ~ c:
ww-I!) Oro"'I::Jt'031J)
~'Z~E?Q)=.cQ)~-OO
-0 '1J:> .s th"1.tI '- ID 0..
.... >.o-ro- (!)"'I::J g.~ro c
8-<:1' 1.)<;:: 0-0 ro c.? () ~
u...... iii ~ (1)';;,.9:::l ~ 0'::
ro......~ItIO)l1)aJQ)aJtJ)ro
s~EE-g.s,E,EE~,E
N
;g
iJ>
32
u"
. 0
s:::.:;:;
<.)0
'"
C 0-
g::s
;g
in
32
" c
ro 0
J:;.'~
0"
'"
C 0-
"'~
-"
[l._
-~~
,;;'C ~=:~
-d:; 01~~~
.~~~-~I~(/j~
~.20-g(/j~(/j
.S :::>-~13 ro oE:
E~~.~~~-E
Q)'S ._..; I!) ~I!)
.0 -g g ~::l ("'oJ
__o:;:o~rtJ-g-o
ro oj) ,- t:..D :;> Q)
s:::.o.~.9-==ItIO>
1!)/D'E6-2g-~
Q).P \D Q) r./)::l1D
D'=' c: - '"
==ro~o~C'O
ro~ {'1i'- Q) 0 {\)
s:::.U1-ts~lUQ)
1J')"Q2::JS>o.
c.co~:-=:;rolJ)
(l)roa.\I)~;:-O
E ~'.== 5 'ii) -o.s
o.-o{'1iO-oc>
's is 0> CD-t.'> ro c
g OJ'~ ~ ~ 8 ~
c'~'SE~~3
.2-t<~ q) ~s:J-o
t)gE~~5(1)
:J=--oc~_-o
~~"":~'.s:6~
cCLQ)~U-o..
oe~%~-c3
oo.oo.<1j(/)1!)
ci
\
.
in
3<
"c
.2g
0<0\
co-
'" ~
O:E:
\1) ro~
" c"
-E-o gg>o
._ OJ .- - c
~.S t;j:g :s Q)
~.g-6.:(~'iij
~!l~4i$~
'E:.~'E:g ~~
~ ~;r~ .g :'~
.ooE-~.o'ffi
~~.9 'a.~ii)
~8~~~~
1/).....1/)-'(1)-
(11 U) U1 )(~';:;'
(\) ::1 (D (!) (\) c
~~uEC:>>~
c:~ ~ =' ~ ~
g.g ~_ge~
u..... ,..:.....
2~~(I)~~
_ f,J.- E () c:
IJ1 (.):-=: Q) .-
5 ro>~;:: iJ):;
-6~~E~5
~og<l)OO
ro >-'.;0 g 0'....
g.~ ~'iii'~~ j.
::;2~.~2~P-
~3~~~~'5
-i
'"
.S
S
"<:
~
"
o
'~
~
~
co
"
.~
"3
'"
~~c
Oro",
~ ~E
(1:1._ ':;:
~~~
O-ro",
3{o..O
~-'
. .
00
00.:,0'
tJI......
.s'~ "-
'>0
0"
~
<1>
-
D
~
\-
..".
<0
o
ci>
o
0-
ro
N
ro
K.
~
~
~~)(
0;;-0
<(J
":;;
"'"
.,-
$
'if>
'3"
,"0
.c'-E
0"
,,0-
row
- "
0--
"
;c'''' p
':~~' ,
ii-
'5
<!
Ii
uJ
'4.
~
<fJ
::>
o
~
<<
J:
o
~
if)
~
':!.
J:
~
~
., .....-
""
"
E
'" '"
'sg
'"
'" ro
~'"
0\\\
-;;:;rI'I
ro"
a>ro
.~ 0.
E"
",g
~%
NE
ro '"
<'-0
o>~
" ro
j <=
o 0
~"
S"
'" 0
-;:~
'"
:g 01 .
"g.2~ 0) g
0)(00..:::1:;-"
,D ~ O-"Dt!. (U
-o~c::""'6
roin:=:"-'~ c:
.c i:11 (G rJi:::; (\)
~.D.9 3"0"'"
C:~d)- -c
0,)_ w~"'O S.
E "" ~- '- '"
Q) ~ ~ ~c g
~~ '5 ~8';:o
~.- l) -0 :.=:
OlUcc.O
c.~~co.~E
.~-c.~ ",:5 (I)
o..~....3-=aO
-g:%~Cl.$.
~~~~:1.~
.1?~a~>-'(;
"Ouo$.'C"O
(Go,:::..... :::I c:
.$!tnC:~o~
-o>-~~0rfJ
~~ <u.s~\
dI<I.'Ira!:!.Q.)\f'l
BS.gIll-o~
'&,o-o-ic:~
.Q't: co \.,) o;Q <..0
~g,~or.n~
ill
N
~
cO
"
D-
u
o
-0
.-
.s
'2
;i.
~
~
0>
'"
0>
J,
:c;.
-0
o
ih
]
"$
'"
"-
'"
;i.
"'"
"
""
"
o
~
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
~!f?
~
01Y Of
CHUlA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent:
Carlos A. Madraza
Pharos Development Group, LLC
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
629 Third Avenue, Suite F
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 407-4014, ext. 12
4. Name of Proposal:
Pharos Plaza
5. Date of Checklist:
March 29, 2004
6. Case No. :
IS-03-034
El'<'VIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D D .
b) Substantia11y damage scenic resources, including, D D D .
but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or D D . 0
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
D
D
.
D
1
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
in the area?
Comments:
a-b) Landscape treatments along,Broadway are proposed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista
Municipal Code and Montgomery Specific Plan landscape and site architectural requirements and
design review guidelines. These landscape improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to
Broadway create a positive image. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the
public, and is not in proximity to a state scenic highway.
c-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
D
D
D
.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Wi11iamson Act contract?
D
D
D
.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
D
D
D
.
Comments:
a-c) The project site is neither in current agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural
production and contains no agricultural resources or designated fannland.
l\Iiti!!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
m. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
:2
Issues:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result m a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria po11utant for which the
project reglOn IS non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial po11utant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantia]
number of people?
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
project
Would the
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department ofFish
3
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
.
D
.
o
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
D
o
o
D
D
No Impact
.
D
.
D
.
.
Issues:
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or region~1 plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federa1ly
protected wetlands as defin~_d by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, fi1ling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantia1ly with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wiJdlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conseryation Plan, Natural Community
Conseryation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conseryation plan?
.(
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
No Impact
.
::iI
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Signific:mt
Impact
Less Than
Signific:mt
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Signific.:mt
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project site was previously deve10ped 'With a mobile home park and currently one sman buiJding occupies
the south comer of the property. Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea ?Ian, the project site is designated
as a development area; based upon a field inspection by City staff, no candidate, sensitive, or specia1 status
species are present within or iI11IT!ediately adjacent to the proposed development area. Non-native weeds exist
on the unpaved portions of the project site.
b) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field insp~ction by City stc.]', no sensiTIve natural
communITIeS are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed dt';elopment area.
c) Based upon the ChuJa Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no wetlands are present
within or immediate1y adjacent to the proposed development area.
d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by City staff, no native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors or native wi1dlife nursery sites exist wIthin or immediately adjacent to the proposed
development area.
e) No biological resources would be affected by the proposal and no conflicts with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources would result.
f) The proposal is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan since the project site is within the
designated development area pursuant to the Plan.
lVIitigatiou: No mitigation measures are required.
V. CVLTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project
a) Cause a substantia1 adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines 9 15064.5?
o
o
o
.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines 9 15064.5?
o
o
o
.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
o
o
o
.
5
Issues:
Potential1y
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside offormal cemeteries?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a) No historic resources are known or are expected to be present within the project impact area. Therefore, no
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defmed in Section 15064.5 is
anticipated.
b) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site associated with the development of a mobile home park
and residences, and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that would be necessary to construct the
proposed project, the potential for impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant.
c) The project site is identified as an area oflow potential for paleontological resources in the City's General Plan
EIR. Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional
grading for the proposed project, the potential for impacts to paleontological resource or is considered to be less
than significant. No unique geologic features are present on the site.
d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
1.
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?
o
o
o
.
11.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
o
o
.
o
111.
Seismic-related
liquefaction?
ground
failure,
including
o
o
o
.
6
Issues:
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditiqns involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard -
for people residing or working in the project area?
1)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physical1y interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intennixed with wildlands?
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No Impact
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Dec1aration, Section F.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pol1utant discharges to
receiving waters (inc1uding impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water-Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or fol1owing construction, or violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
o
o
.
o
b) Substantial1y deplete groundwater supplies or 0 0 . 0
interfere substantial1y with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wel1s would drop to a level which would not support
existing Jand uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? Result m a potential1y
significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
c) Substantial1y alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 . 0
site or area, inc1uding through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantial1y alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, inc1uding through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantial1y increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a lOO-year flood hazard area which
o
o
.
o
9
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 .
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure <!f a levee or darn?
1) Create or contribute runoff water, which would 0 0 0 .
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proj ect:
a) Physically divide an established community?
o
o
o
.
b) Con:flict with any applicable land use plan, 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?
o
o
.
o
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conseryation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
o
o
o
.
10
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The proposed commercial project would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area and, therefore,
would not disrupt or divide an established community.
b) The project site is within the CT. (Thoroughfare Commercial/Precise Plan) Zone and MCO (Mercantile and
Office Commercial) area within the Montgomery Specific Plan and designated CR (Retail Commercial) under
the General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable zoning regulations under the
proposed CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) zone.
c) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthermore, the
project would not encroach into or indirectly affect the Habitat Preserve area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
x. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
o
o
o
.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the
region or the residents of the State of California.
b) Pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California
Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
11
Issues:
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) ExposUl" of persons to or generation of noise levels
m excess of standards established m the local
general plan or nOIse ordinaI1ce, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundboffie vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic mcrease m
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located \vitlln an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working.
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
12
PotentiaHy
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
o
.
.
o
o
No Impact
o
.
o
o
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
\Vitb
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a, c and d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
b) It is not anticipated that persons wi]] be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels, as there wi]]
not be any heavy industrial equipment or machinery operated on-site beyond short-term construction activities.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport; therefore, the project would not expose people working on-site to excessive noise levels.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the proposed development would not
expose people working on-site to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
XII. POPULATION Ai'ID HOUSING. Would the
project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other inITastructure)?
D
D
..
D
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
D
D
D
..
c) Displace substantial numbers
necessitating the construction of
housing elsewhere?
of people,
replacement
D
D
D
.
Comments:
a-c) Based upon the size and nature of the proposal, no significant population displacement or population grov.....th
inducement IS anticipated. Although existing housing would be displaced, the proposal would result in a net mcre:J.Se
in housing.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
13
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Tha n
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental faciJities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios; response times or
other performance objectives for any public services:
a. Fire protection? 0 0 0 III
b. Police protection? 0 0 0 .
c. Schools? 0 0 0 .
d. Parks? 0 0 0 III
e. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 .
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the site
without an increase of personnel; however, the insta11ation of a fire hydrant on-site is required. The Fire
Department's estimated time of arrival is within 5 minutes. The applicant is required to submit plans for a fire
sprinkler system prior to building construction, to comply with the Fire Department policies for new building
construction. The proposed project would not have a- significant effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered fire protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a
need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds
win continue to be met.
c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to public
schools would result. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building pennit school
fees for the proposed commercial office space and residential development.
d) The proposal would not induce population growth and thus would not create a significant demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental senices and would continue to be served by existing pubhc infrastructure.
14
Issues:
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Comments:
PotentialJy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
o
a) Because the proposal is sma]], it would not induce significant population growth and thus not create a
significant demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities, or aJter or deteriorate existing
recreational facilities in the area.
b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. According to the Parks and
Recreation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not planned for any future parks and recreation
facilities or programs.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
)\:V. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., resuJt in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at ..
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of semce standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
15
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
Issues:
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial-.safety risks?
d) Substantially mcrease hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curyes or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
Less Than
Significan-t
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
II
D
o
D
No Impact
.
II
II
D
II
II
II
Issues:
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfil] with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
17
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
.
No Impact
.
.
.
o
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Signific3nt
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is seryed by al1 necessary utilities and service
systems. No exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would
result from the proposed proj ect.
b) See XVI.a. No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing
facilities would be necessary.
c) No construction of new stonn drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be necessaf'j.
d) The project site is within the potable water seryice area of the Sweetwater Authority. Pursuant to
correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be seryiced from existing potable water
mains. No new or expanded entitlements would be necessary to serye the proposed project
e) See XVI.a. and b.
f) The City of Chula Vista is seryed by regional landfil1s with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste
needs of the region in accordance with State law.
g) The proposal would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A) Library
D
D
D
.
The City shal1 construct 60,000 gross square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30,
2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shal1 be
phased such that the City win not fal1 below the city- -
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
18
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
B) Police
o
o
.
o
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shan respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency cans within seven (7) minutes and maintain
an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergency cans of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to an "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
or less.
C) Fire and EmerQencv Medical --
o
o
.
o
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fIre
and medical units shan respond to cans throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annuany).
D) Traffic
o
o
.
o
The Threshold Standards require that an intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized
intersections. Signalized intersections west ofI-805 are not
to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday -
peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps
are exempted from this Standard.
E) Parks and Recreation Areas 0 0 0 .
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities/1,OOO population east ofI-805.
F) Drainage 0 0 . 0
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows
and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects win provide necessary improvements
consistent v'/ith the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards.
19
Issues:
G) Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engmeering Standards.
Individual projects wi]] provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards.
H) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
20
Less Th3 n
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
II
.
No Impact
D
D
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed project. The proposed mixed use project would not have a significant effect upon
or result in a need for substantial 'new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's
Police Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can be provided to
the site. The Fire Stations that wi]] provide services to the proposed project are Stations I and 5 with estimated
time of arrivals rrom 3-5 minutes. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a
need for new or altered fire protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Fire and Emergency Medical
Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
d) According to the Traffic Engineering Section, with the addition of projected generated traffic, a]]
roadway segments and intersections within the study area are estimated to continue to operate at level of
seryice "c" or better in compliance with the City's Traffic Threshold Standards.
e) Because the project site is located west of Interstate 805, this Threshold Standard is not applicable.
f) A drainage study win be prepared in conjunction with the fmal grading and improvement plans and drainage
facilities designed in accordance with the Drainage Master Plants) and City Engineering standards wi]] be
insta]]ed at the time of site development. The applicant proposes new and improved drainage facilities
incorporated within the project site. No adverse impacts to the City's storm drainage system or City's Drainage
Threshold standards wi]] occur as result of the proposed project.
g) The sewer facilities serving the project site consist "Of two 8-inch sewer mains running southerly along
Broadway. The Engineering Division has determined that these facilities are adequate to serve the proposed
project. No new sewer facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse impacts to the City's Sewer
Threshold standards wi]] occur as a result of the proposed project.
h) Pursuant to correspondence received rrom the Sweetwater Authority, dated August 6, 2003 and March 19,
2004, there is an 8-inch water main located on east side of Broadway and there are currently two domestic
water services currently serving the project site. As noted in the March 19, 2004 letter project impacts to the
Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than significant.
21
Issues:
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop beiow self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentiany
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
D
a) The project site is located within an established urbanized area, and is within the designated development
area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species
or cultural resources on the site.
b) As described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct project impacts would be mitigated to
below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. No cumulatively considerable
impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current
projects and probable future projects have been identified and none are contemplated.
c) See the "Hazards and Hazardous Materials" and "Air Quality" discussions in Section E of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; all identified potential impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance.
22
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration 15-03-034.
X.X. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the liners) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and wi1l implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration wjth the County Clerk sha11
indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval
and that the Applicant and/or Operator shan apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
-:j)tlM<.J::> '})..Ufl.Or~NT bltwP 1.-lC_
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
{A1liD'.> MA\:flItZO
3/;<'1/01
bate
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
~'
d
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"
as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
0 Land Use and Planning DT ransportation/T raffic 0 Public Seryices
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Seryice Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral 0 Aesthetics
Resources
0 Agricultural Resources
0 Hydrology/Water .. Hazards and Hazardous o Cultural Resources
Materials
.. Air Quality 0 Noise o Recreation
0 Paleontological 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resources
24
XXII. DETER.c\1INATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the D
environment, and a Negative Declaration wi1l be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the .
environment, there wi1l not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, D
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but D
at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potential1y
significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental
Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
D
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because al1 potential1y
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination.
/;;~/a~~.
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City ofChula Vista
5/3/01
Date/
J :\Planning\MARlA. \Initia] Study\JS-OJ-034Checklisr.doc
25
:.:..", "',
I
j
". ^ ;~'r. ':L., '~'~1:~.' ~~ \--.f.'i..\..Il' ,~.: , . ''''~';: ' ~', .'. ._ < ~...r.-:r.::..';.;;' ;.;' I'~"';"'I;. 'i,]'~ .~ ~., .o,;.,>\-, ",,";;'~ .:.i.:.>":,A~<.a&.;~:' ."r -~.,;h;:., ;,;..\;....i~_ ~;t' ,:'ij~f~jJ1.~,,,. ,'i;';, '~,,,' ..j,;A"::':;~i:;7;.;~; ~
A TT ACHMENT 7
Central Chula Vista
not been planned to include this connection and therefore may have created obstacles to its
implementation. In addition, individual proposed developments may propose an alignment but
it may not be one that results in the most clear and continuous overall system.
In addition. a portion of this segment of the Greenbelt falls within the boundaries of National
City. Close cooperation and coordination wi11 be necessary if the plans of both cities are to
include the Greenbelt and provide the necessary ongoing support to assure its implementation.
It is recommended that a detlil alignment and design study be undertal<en to establish this route
in cetJ.il. This could be part of the Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan or as an immeciate
separate study item. Its focus should be to assure that -decisions are not made that would
preclude the completion of this connection or necessitate a difficult and expensive solution. It
should also serve to infonn affected property owners of the importance of this ope:J space
connection and how it should be accomplished.
5.9 BROAD'rVAY RESIDE~TL-\.L DKVELOPl'YIE~l
The introduction of medium and high density residential is seen as potentia!!:; desirable in ceruin
sections of Broadway to break the continuous strip of retail commercial. The area most suitable
for the introduction of re~'dential land uses is between Flower Street on the north and I Street
on the south.
The development of residential land uses in this area can be mixed use commercial/residential
typically with the commercial as the first level and residential units above. It can also be only
residential uses. In either case, the introduction of residential uses on Broadwav should carefully
consider access, the appropriate setbacks from the roadway and screening from any adjacent
non-compatible land uses.
The future implementation of this policy should include consideration of a special zone or land
use overlay which would establish more specific criteria for project design.
10-19
ATTACHMENT 8
DAVE FIELD JR
1036 Jefferson Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca 91911
(619)691-5911
sdmobius@juno.com
April 26. 2004
City ofChula Vista
Planning and Building Dept.
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Attn: Jeff Steichen
Case Number: ORC 04-40
Mr. Steichen.
This letter is in response to the proposed Pharus Plaza project to be located at 1030-1034 Broadway.
Here are several concerns regarding the proposed project:
1. Height of buildings from current residential properties to the Westside of proposed project.
2. Building setback from residential properties to the West.
3. High density of proposed project for already congested urban area.
4. School impact for Harborside Elementary
4. Parking overflow from residents onto Broadway and adjacent side streets.
Property owners quality of life to the Westside of the project will be adversely affected.
Some type of design change is needed for the noise, congestion and visual intrusion this will be to residents
who live next to and around this proposed project.
Please feel free to contact if you have any additional questions or comments.
Sincerely.
Dave Field Jr.
(619)691-5911 / /
~? /-
ATTACHMENT 9
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE.
Summary Staff Report
CASE NO. DRC-04-40
MEETING DATE: Mav 17. 2004
AGENDA NO. 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Construction of a mixed-use project consisting of a
5,000 square foot two-story professional office
building along Broadway, and 30 condominium units
to the rear on a 1.3 acre site located at 1030/1034
Broadway.
PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION:
Pharos Plaza
1030/1034 Broadway
APPLICANT:
Carlos Madrazo
101 Plaza Escalante
Chula Vista, CA 91910
ARCHITECTS:
Jose Alberdi
1133 Quinto Creek Place
Chula Vista, CA 91913
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
618-110-11,12
GENERL PLAN DESIGNATION:
CR (Commercial Retail)
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN:
MCO (Mercantile & Office Commercial)
ZONE:
CT (Thoroughfare Commercial)
STAFF CONTACT:
Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-03-034 in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. Bas~d upon the results of the Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in significant effects
on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur;
therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, 15-
03-034.
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
-2-
May 17, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the project subject to the conditions noted in draft Notice of Decision attached to this
report.
1. Proiect Settin!!
The project is located on the east side of Broadway, south of Moss Street. Surrounding land
uses include: single-family residential to the west, multi-family and commercial to the north,
commercial to the south and east. (see Locator Map).
2. Proiect Description'
The applicant requests a mix-use project consisting a 5,000 square feet two-story office
building along Broadway and, 30 condominium units to the rear. Each condominium unit
contains a private patio or balcony. Common usable open space includes landscaping, open
lawn and courtyard areas, covered kiosk and BBQ. The two 12-plex residential buildings are
oriented towards the common open space areas. A pedestrian corridor runs between the two
rear 3 unit buildings to open up into open space/landscaped area at the rear of the property.
3. Proiect Evaluation Criteria
The project is subject to the requirements of the Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
(Zoning Ordinance). Staff utilized the Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM),City OfChula
Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), Montgomery Specific Plan (MSP) and the City Of Chula
Vista Landscape Manual (CVLM) for reference.
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
-3-
May 17, 2004
4. Proiect Data
Assessor's Parcel Number: 618-110-11,12
Current Zoning: CTP, Thoroughfare Commercial
Proposed Zoning: CCP, Central CommerciallPrecise Plan
General Plan Designation: CR-Commercial Retail
Lot Area: 1. 3 acres
REQUIRED/ALLOWED: PROPOSED:
Parking: Standard Spaces: 57
Residential, (2 spaces/unit): 60 Compact Spaces: 15
Office (1 space/300 s.f.): 11 Disabled: 1
Total required: 77 Shared: 4
Total: 77
10% of the total is allowed for compact spaces. 21%
Lot Coverage: 50 percent 22.3% Dercent
Setbacks:
Office (CC standards)
Front Yard: 25 feet 3 feet (arcade) 8 feet (bldg.)*
Side Yard: 0 o feet
Distance between bldgs: 10 feet 15 feet between office bldg. and
residential bldg. #1
Residential (R3 standards)
Side Yard: 7 feet (north side) 5 Yz feet (north side)*
7 feet (south/adj to commercial) 74 ft (south/adj. to commercial)
15 feet (south adj. to R-I) 10 feet (adjacent to R-I)*
Rear Yard: 17 feet 15 feet (bldg.) 13 feet (ba1cony)*
Building Height:
Office (CC zone) unlimited 2 story 30 feet
Residential (R3):2 story/35 feet maximum* 3 story 35 feet**
*Requires flexibility from CC, R3 zone and Montgomery Specific Plan per section 19.56.040 and
19.56.041 of the CYMC.
**Section 19.28.060(A)(2) states that principal buildings up to three and one-half stories or 45 feet in
height may be approved by the design review committee based upon criteria discussed in this report.
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
-4-
May 17, 2004
5. Staff Analysis
Project Review
Staff has met with the applicant on a weekly basis for the past few months in order to make
sure all pertinent issues were addressed in a timely manner. These issues included: site
design and layout; architectural building enhancements; adequacy of parking; landscaping
and screening. On January 12, 2004, the proj ect went before the DRC for preliminary review.
Comments ITom the committee have been addressed and incorporated into the latest plan
submittal. Comments ITom the Committee included: interspercing canopy trees with palms
in tree wells along Broadway; adding additional architectural treatments on both sides of
driveway entrance; and providing the rear elevations of the office building at the next
meeting..
Subsequently to the Preliminary DRC, staff continued to work with the applicant to address
these concerns, as further discussed in this report.
Site Plan
Building Placement
Page ]11-2 ofCVDM states that "structures should be sited in a manner thatwil/ complement
adjacent structures. Sites should be developed in a coordinated manner to provide ordered
diversity and to avoid jumbled conjilsion.
The project consists of a two-story professional office building along Broadway and, 30
condominium units to the rear. Each condominium unit contains a private patio or balcony.
Common usable open space includes landscaping, open lawn and courtyard areas, covered
kiosk and BBQ. The two 12-lex residential buildings are oriented towards the common open
space areas. A pedestrian conidor runs between the two rear 3 unit buildings to open up into
open space/landscaped area at the rear of the property.
The placement of both the cornmercial office building as well as the residential
(condominium) component have been strategically placed on the site in order to maximize
the compatibility ofland use with the surroUIldifig area. The propose office building will be
located on the ITont of the site, closest to Broadway and will be adjacent to existing
commercial development to the north, south, and east (across Broadway). The proposed
residential buildings to the rear portion of the site will be surroUIlded by existing single-
family residential to the west, multi- family to the north and vacant portion of commercial lot!
portion ofR-llot to the south.
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
- 5-
May 17, 2004
An important design aspect of the project has to do with the interface of the rear ofthe office
building with the residential units behind. Staff has worked with the applicant to create an
open courtyard area between the rear of the office building and the fTont of the residential
building. The applicant has added a rear fa<;ade to the office building which complements
the architectural design of the fTont ofthe residential buildings. This has resulted in shifting
a portion of the parking area to its present location, thereby providing a separation between
the two 12-plex buildings. Another design feature has been the use of "mirror" images. This
can be seen in the duplication of building layout both in tenns of building footprint but
location on the site. This also accounts for the similarity in the overall north and south
elevation of the project.
Page 111-2 of CVDM states that "whenever possible, new structures should be clustered
This creates plazas and pedestrian malls and prevents long "barracks-like" rows of
structures.
Staffhas worked with the applicant to change the building orientation of the residential units
to the rear to provide for a large open space/courtyard area. The rear fa<;ade of the office
building will also be designed to be architecturally compatible with the residential building.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access/Circulation
Page 111-3 ofCVDM states the desire to "locate structures and on-site circulation systems to
minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Link stl'1lctures to the public sidewalk where possible
with walkways. textured paving. landscaping and trellises.
The project has been designed with a pedestrian orientation towards Broadway. As such,
placement ofthe one story arcade feature attached to the fTont of the office building will be
located only 3 feet fTom the fTont property line with the office building itself located 8 feet
fTom the fTont property line. This is less than the required 25 feet required by the CC zone
(rezone pending). It is also less than the 15 foot fTont yard setback required by the
Montgomery Specific Plan. Staff believes the projects emphasis on a more urban and
pedestrian oriented design is in keeping with the current development design trends. Both
the CC zone and Montgomery Specific Plan standards were adopted at a time when the
emphasis was on having buildings set back behind a landscaped/parking area. In addition to
the closer proximity of the building towards Broadway, a covered pedestrian walkway
highlighted by textured paving will be provided near the southern edge ofthe office building
(north ofthe driveway/parking area). Decorative paving will outline the walkway corridor.
The walkway will provide dual purpose of pedestrian access fTom Broadway to the
residential units as well as on site pedestrian access fTom the office parking area to the office
building. In addition, walkway corridors will be provided between the second ahd third floor
of Building 2 with the second and third floor of Buildings 3 and 410cated towards the rear of
the site.
DRC-04-40, Pharos Plaza
- 6-
May 17, 2004
Parking
CVMC section 19.58.205(D) states that parking access and circulation shall be largely
independentfor the commercial and residential component of the project.
The project requires a total of 77 parking spaces. The thirty condominium units require a
total of 60 parking spaces. The 5,000 square foot office building requires a total of 17
parking spaces. A total of 56 parking spaces wi]] be provided exclusively for the residential
units and a total of 13 parking spaces wi]] be provided exclusively for office use. The
remaining 4 spaces will be shared spaces by use for both the office and for guest parking for
the residential units. In order to maintain separation between the parking for the office and
residential uses, a security gate wi]] separate the 56 exclusively residential parking spaces
trom the 17 office/shared parking spaces located towards the fi:ont of the site. The four
shared parking spaces will be located directly in tront of the security gate. The Special Use
Permit required for the project will contain a condition requiring a reciprocal parking
agreement in order to insure that said 4 parking spaces will be available for both the office
and guest parking use. Due to the design and site constraints, it was not possible to achieve
any clearer separation of access and circulation between office and residential units on the
site. Access to the parking in the rear will be exclusively for owners ofthe residential units.
Both the request to allow an increase in compact parking spaces fi:om 10% to 21 % as well as
the a]]owance for four shared parking spaces will be addressed as part of the precise plan
that will be required for approval of this project.
Building Height
Although the normal building height restriction is two and one-half stories or 28 feet, section
19.28.060(2) contains a provision a]]owing principal buildings up to three and one-half
stories or 45 feet in height if approved by the design review committee. Said approval is
contingent upon the finding that the height, bulk, mass and proportion of a]] structures is
compatible with the site, as well as in scale with structures on adjoining and surrounding
structures. While the height of the proposed residential buildings is greater than the
surrounding residential development, staff believes said height will be compatible with
surrounding development due to: I) the large linear distance ftom existing single family
residences and 2) the use of large open space areas between the two proposed 12-plex
buildings which further reduce the bulk and mass that could otherwise be created by a single
large three story residential complex. In addition, the two residential triplex buildings to the
rear (Buildings 3 and 4) provide a pedestrian corridor between them which opens up into an
open space/landscaped area at the rear of the property line, also reducing the mass and bulk
of the project.
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
- 7-
May 17, 2004
Landscaping
The project is subject to code regulations and design precepts outlined within the City
Landscape Manual (CLM) and the Chula Vista Design Manual (CVDM). Within the
common open space areas a mixture and variety of planting types and planting arrangements
have been provided to enhance the project through the landscape design. Plantings have
been selected to complement the architectural elements and provide function to the activity
bar-b-q area. A total of 4 outdoor bar-b-que areas have been conveniently located for the
multi-family residents along the northern edge ofthe project. Two open courtyard areas are
provided as outdoor "gathering" areas. It appears that enhanced paving will be used in both
of these areas. If the intention of these outdoor courtyard areas is for "people gathering"
areas then seating amenities should be provided. A condition has been added that requires
the applicants designers to provide this infonnation for staff approval at the building pennit
stage of development. Most ofthe open space areas are planted with a drought-tollerant turf
species for the function offoot traffic and use in these areas. A mixture offoundation shrub
plantings and shade trees have been provided elsewhere throughout the open space area. A
condition has been provided that requires a standard concrete mow edge to separate lawn
areas fiom shrub areas. In addition, approved tree root barriers will be required for tree
plantings located within 5 feet of hard surface as a condition. The trees located at the
western edge of the site are required to be placed at least 5 feet away fiom the project
property line. A condition has been added to the notice of decision for this.
A clarification needs to be made in regards to comment ofDRC at the preliminary meeting to
discuss this project on January 12, 2004. There was a suggestion to intersperce canopy trees
with palm trees along Broadway. The street tree design along Broadway has already been
pre-detennined and is not within the boundaries of the project for which the DRC is
reviewing. The Director of Public Works Operations has noted the Committee's concern but
has advised that the Palms on Broadway were selected specifically to address a variety of
constraints along the entire length of the street. Any deviations would only be approved as
part of a comprehensive streetscape re-design such as the Urban Corp Specific Plan may
propose.
Parking lot landscaping-
The project satisfies code requirements for parking lot landscaping. A combination of shrub
and canopy tree plantings with parking lot enhanced paving within the driving aisles have
been provided. The parking lot landscape design provides semi-evergreen shade trees placed
every 4th parking stall in diamond planters. Standard parking spaces are proposed throughout
the parking area. Semi-evergreen shade trees have been selected to provide shade within the
parking areas. Additionally woody decorative shrubs and groundcover are proposed to finish
the plantings within the parking lot area to supplement the shade trees.
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
- 8-
May 17, 2004
Trash Enclosures & Recvcling
PAGE 11-9 OF CVDM states that (trash) enclosures shall be located in convenient but
unobtrusive areas, well screened with landscaping and positioned so as to protect adjacent
uses from noise and odors.
The project features three separate trash enclosures on the site. It was determined this
number of enclosures was needed, based upon meetings held with the Conservation and
Environmental Services Department, who also approved the proposed location of said
enclosures on the site. The enclosure to service the office building will be integrated into the
building fayade on the southernmost end of the building. The first will be integrated into the
southernmost portion of the proposed office building, adjacent to the office parking area.
The second enclosure will be located just southwest of the southernmost 12-plex building
(Building 2). The applicant has recently agreed to add a third enclosure just south ofthe rear
triplex units, at the southernmost area of the parking lot. These three locations have been
strategically chosen to provide the greatest amount of flexibility to both residents and office
tenants. Be being integrated into the building, the northernmost trash enclosure will not be
visible when viewed from Broadway. The second enclosure, for use of the northernmost
residential building, is located southwest ofthe residential buildings. Because this enclosure
is located on the corner ofthe where the parking area turns in a northward direction, staffhas
conditioned the project to ensure there is some architectural treatment added to the metal
doors which will be visible as vehicles maneuver around this corner. The third enclosure, to
seryice the remaining residential units, is located just south of Building 3 is adequately
screened fonn adj acent residential uses.
The details of the trash enclosures may need be revised in conjunction with the requirements
ofthe City's Solid Waste Management Plan. The applicant will be required to prepare and
receive approval of a solid waste and recycling plan prior to issuance of building pennits.
Architecture
The proposed office building will have a front fayade on Broadway, while the rear of the
building will offer a residential fayade. There will be 24 two bedroom units housed in two
identical looking 3 story 12-plex residential buildings. The remaining 6 units will be house
in two identical looking triplex units to the rear.
Page IV-9 of the CVDM states that" heights and setbacks within the same building should be
varied, and wall planes staggered both horizontally and vertically in order to create pockets
of light and shadow and to provide visual reliefJi'om monotonous. uninterrupted expanses of
wall. "
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
- 9-
May 17, 2004
The office building has been designed to prcvide a variety of articulations which soften toe
rectangular linear massing of the building as seen ITom Broadway. The first story wi11
contain an arcade feature with walkway below. The top of this arcade feature wi]] provide
for a second story walkway along the entire northern elevation of the onice building. In
addition, twin vertical tower elements wi]] flank the onice building at the north and south
side of the ITOnt elevation. This, along with a mansard roof feature in the center of the
building, wi]] provide vertical relief to the onice building.
Page 11-9 of EBCSDG states that structures should be designed to create transitions in fonn
and scale between large building and adjacent smaller buildings.
In order to carry the architectural theme along the entire proj ect ITOntage, and based upon the
DRC comments ITom the preliminary meeting of January 12, 2004, the applicant has now
provided for a tower elementlkiosk building along the southernmost end of the ofthe site,
along the same plane as the proposed office building. This wi]] provide continuity in
architectural theme, across the driveway areas by containing some of the design features of
Building A" wi1l not contain the same level of detail.
Page 111-2 ofCVDM states that "structures should be sited in a manner thatwil/ complement
adjacent structures. Sites should be developed in a coordinated manor to provide ordered
diversity and to avoidjumbled confilsion.
Based upon DRC comments ITom the preliminary meeting of January 12, 2004, additional
architectural treatments have been added to the rear elevation of the office building in an
effort to replicate the design theme of the residential units. The use of window grids helps
mimic the fenestration ofthe residential units. The rear elevation ofthe office building along
with the ITOnt elevation of the northernmost l2-plex building provide for an open courtyard
appearance between the office and residential buildings.
Page 11-1 of CVDM states that a goal of multi-family developments is to "promote an
attractive and functional arrangement of buildings and ample open spaces which are
sensitive to the physical characteristics of the site, and which provide a high standard of
visual quality and liveability for the residents.
Page 11-1 ofCVCM states that a goal of multi -family developments is to "incorporate within
the project architecture a sense of harmony and human scale, while providing for visual
interest and individual unit identity, as well as privacy and security for each resident and the
project as a whole.
One of the major goals of this project is to emphasize the pedestrian orientation of the
project. As such, the office building in ITont will actua]]y encroach into the ITont yard
setback, in order to be placed closer to the street. An enhanced covered wal1"vay ITom
DRC-04-40, Pharos Plaza
- 10-
Mav 17, 2004
.
Broadway through the office building wi]] provide for pedestrian passageway to both the
office building/parking and the residential units to the rear.
Materials/Colors
The materials for the both' the office building as we]] as residential buildings wi]] consist
primarily of colored stucco. A flat concrete roof tile wi]] be used for the two towers of the
office building. A light weight flat concrete roof will be used at the middle of the office
building. The rooftreatment of the residential buildings will utilize an asphalt type roofing
material.
Visual/Screening
An initial concern of staff involved the interface of the southernmost portion of the project
with existing single- family residences just south ofthe project site. At the present time, only
four balconies will face the rear of the project. Visibility ITom the second story balconies
wi]] be mostly shielded by the proposed row of trees along the rear property line. Only the
two remaining (third story) balconies wi]] provide for views beyond the rear of the site, with
the applicants goal of providing for ocean views to the west. The applicant has now provided
a minimum 15 foot setback in the rear, and the rernoval of balconies on the second story
which origina]]y projected into this setback with the potential of residents to see into the
yards of the surrounding single family lots.
Based upon additional concern expressed by a nearby resident of the project site regarding
retention of privacy for the R-I lots to the west, the applicant has agreed provide an
additional 4 trees along the rear property line as we]] as to increase the height of the proposed
perimeter wa]] along the west elevation ITom 5 feet to 6 feet. In addition, the applicant has
agreed to modify the origina]]y proposed solid wood fence along the rear property line to a
combination of masonry and wood between masonry pilasters. Because the project site
contains a mixture of commercial and residential uses and is also adjacent to both types of
land uses. Although section 19.58.360 requires a solid masonry wa]] along a property line
separating any commercial zone/uses ITom adjacent residential zone, staff concurs with the
applicant that, for unifonnity sake, a combination of wood and masonry wa]] will be best
around the entire site. It should be noted that a typical R-I lot contains a depth of between
100120 feet. However, the R-I lots located just west of the project site contains depths of
approximately 265 feet with existing homes which ITont along Jefferson Street. Because the
existing homes are located at least 150 feet from the subject site property line, staff does not
believe privacy to be an issue, given the concessions made by the applicant to increase the
screening of the site by use of additional landscaping and increased height of perimeter wall.
The applicant has also relocated the BBQ' s. originally proposed near the rear property line, to
the south side of the project in order to provide additional screening of the project ITom
adjacent single family lots to the west.
DRC-04-40, Pharus Plaza
-11 -
May 17, 2004
Signage
The only signage proposed would be tenant signage along the horizontal bands at the top of
the individual office suites and also the possibility of signage incorporated into the
southernmost tower element. No rreestanding signs are proposed for this project.
6. Conclusion
The proposed proj ect is in substantial confonnance with the Chula Vista Design Manual and
the Landscape Manual therefore; staffrecommends approval of the project subject to the
conditions noted in the attached Notice of Decision (Attachment 5).
Attachments:
1. Locator Map
2. January 12, 2004 DRC minutes
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Exhibit (Project Plans)
5. Draft Notice of Decision
6. Letter !Tom nearby resident
7. Disclosure Statement
J :\PlanningVeff\westemCV\l 030Broadway\reports
~\f~
-~-
~ .:
.......- -
, ATTACHMENT 10
p I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CIlY 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 property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
PtlAf2U ~ ))e-u~e'f\!T fdiaJp
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.
C,<>,r<.UDS, J\U.\)~Pt"Z.D MGT PAQ.,tJt?I2S
.}.;/W .. . MA-"Da.,cf-u:J
CljIU:>T( 4rirJ.:f I\J.A-DI1470
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. -
Jo'SE.. A\..~wi <ill..
t.A{l.(.O"> M ADiU!7--D
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 V No_
J6~ At..-eea-Dr deL.
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official" may have in this contract.
OES,/GN CON S(JL. 'rr'tNI
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 V Yes _ If yes, which Council member? .
276 Fourth Avenue
(hula Vista
California
91910
16191691-5101
~\f~
-11-
~ -
- =
p I ann
n g
&
Building"
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CnY OF
CHUlA 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 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?
Signature of Co
Icant
Date: "I / I / 0 'I
'R b"U.>l'. -^;- CIKxJp
type name of Contractor/Applicant
Print or
.
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, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
16191691-5101