Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

April 2007
City Council Ordinance No. 3070
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Prepared by:
Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Acknowledgements
City Council
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
Steve Castaneda, Councilmember
John McCann, Councilmember Chula Vista
Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember
Jerry R. Rindone, Councilmember
Planning Commission
Bryan Felber, Chair
Pamela Bensoussan
Joanne Clayton
Lisa Moctezuma
Michael Spethman
Bill Tripp
Scott Vinson
Urban Core Specific Plan Advisory Committee

Stephen C. Padilla, Former Mayor, Chair
Dr. Richard Freeman, Vice Chair
Nikki Clay
Diane Carpenter
Brett Davis
Sharon Floyd
Henri Harb
Tom Hom
Peter Mabrey
Greg Mattson
Gary Nordstrom
Manuel Oncina
Bill Ostrem
Debi Owen
Jerry Rindone, City Councilmember
Pedro Romero, Jr.
Dave Rowlands, Former City Manager
Colton Sudberry

City Staff
The following is a list of the core staff team involved in the preparation of the
Specific Plan. It is acknowledged that many other staff members participated
in the planning process.
Ann Hix, Acting Community Development Director

Mary Ladiana, Planning Manager Chula Vista
Brian Sheehan, Senior Community Development Specialist
Ray Pe, Senior Community Development Specialist
Jim Sandoval, Planning Director
Jim Hare, Assistant Planning Director
Luis Hernandez, Deputy Planning Director
Ed Batchelder, Deputy Planning Director
Alex Al-Agha, City Engineer
Frank Rivera, Deputy City Engineer
Samir Nuhaily, Senior Civil Engineer
Jim Newton, Civil Engineer
Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer
Ann Moore, City Attorney
Joe Gamble, Landscape Planner
Ed Hall, Principal Recreation Manager
Prepared by:

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary I-1

II. Introduction and Background II-1
A. What is a Specific Plan? II-1 Chula Vista
B. Consistency with the General Plan II-2
C. Plan Purpose and Intent II-4
D. Boundaries and Setting II-5
E. Relevant City Documents II-9
F. Community Outreach Process II-20
III. Vision III-1

A. Vision for the Urban Core III-1
B. Ten Key Principles III-4
C. Vision Areas III-5
IV. Existing Conditions IV-1

A. Introduction IV-1
B. Historic Resources IV-2
C. Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning IV-12
D. Circulation and Mobility IV-17
E. Economic Conditions IV-19
V. Mobility V-1
A. Introduction V-1
B. Pedestrian Facilities V-2
C. Bicycle Facilities V-5
D. Transit Routes V-9
E. Vehicle Traffic V-14
F. Parking V-46
VI. Land Use and Development Regulations VI-1

A. Administration VI-1
B. Land Use Matrix VI-4
C. Development Standards VI-10
D. Special Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts
and Transit Focus Areas VI-40
E. Special Provisions VI-42

F. Urban Amenity Requirements and Incentives VI-48
G. Signs VI-52
H. Other Regulations VI-53
I. Development Exceptions VI-54
VII. Development Design Guidelines VII-1

Chula Vista
A. Introduction and Background VII-1
B. What is Urban Design? VII-4
C. How to Use the Design Guidelines VII-5
D. Village District VII-33
E. Urban Core District VII-79
F. Corridors District VII-107
G. Special Guidelines VII-139
VIII. Public Realm Design Guidelines VIII-1

A. Introduction VIII-1
B. Purpose VIII-2
C. Urban Design Treatment VIII-3
D. Village Theme VIII-5
E. Urban Core Theme VIII-12
F. Urban Amenities, The Unifying Elements VIII-27
G. Landscape Treatment VIII-30
H. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Improvements VIII-34
I. Lighting Concepts VIII-37
J. Street Furnishings VIII-39
K. Key Intersections VIII-43
L. Gateways and Wayfinding VIII-44
M. Public Art VIII-50
N. Parks, Plazas, Paseos, and Public Spaces VIII-52
IX. Infrastructure and Public Facilities IX-1

A. Introduction IX-1
B. Growth Forecasts IX-2
C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste IX-3
D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services IX-13
E. Schools IX-19
F. Parks and Recreation IX-23
G. Energy and Telecommunications IX-30

X. Plan Implementation and Community Benefits Program X-1
A. Introduction X-1
B. Regulatory Framework X-2
C. Visualization X-4
D. Long Term Implementation Process X-9
E. Description of Improvements X-11 Chula Vista
F. Mobility Improvements X-12
G. Urban Amenity Improvements X-17
H. Additional Community Improvements X-20
I. Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects X-22
J. Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms and Funding Sources X-24
K. Community Benefit Analysis X-28
XI. Plan Administration XI-1

A. Introduction XI-1
B. Specific Plan Adoption XI-2
C. Specific Plan Administration XI-3
D. Specific Plan Amendment XI-9
E. Five Year Review XI-12
Appendices (Bound under separate cover)

Appendix A. Glossary
Appendix B. Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix C. Market Analysis
Appendix D. Public Facilities and Services Program

I. Executive Summary
Chula Vista
Chapter I Executive Summary

I. Executive Summary
The City of Chula Vista has grown substantially over the years through annexations
and development, and is the second largest city in San Diego County. Chula
Vista continues to play a significant role in the region’s growth and is emerging
as the hub of civic and cultural activity in South San Diego County. Chula Vista is
one of the most rapidly growing areas in the region with a projected population Chula Vista
of approximately 300,000 by 2030. While much of the City’s recent growth
has occurred in large master planned communities developing on vacant land
in the eastern portion of the City, demographic changes and other influences
are bringing about population growth and renewed interest and need for
revitalization and redevelopment in the older, developed western portion of the
City.
The recent update to the City of Chula Vista General Plan focused primarily
on revitalization and redevelopment within the older, developed area in the
western portion of the City. The Urban Core Specific Plan follows the direction
and vision provided in the City’s General Plan and establishes a more detailed
vision, guidelines, and regulations for future development and beautification
in the traditional downtown area. The Specific Plan area is generally located
east of I-5, west of Del Mar Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C Street.
While there are approximately 1,700 acres within the Specific Plan boundary,
it was determined that changes should be focused on areas more in need of
redevelopment. Therefore, the Specific Plan focuses on the redevelopment of
approximately 690 gross acres within the larger Specific Plan study area. The
Specific Plan creates a framework to attract investment and be a catalyst for
revitalization. The overall goal is to create pedestrian-friendly environments,
gathering places and public amenities through community development.
The Specific Plan considers marketplace realities to increase the economic viability
of the downtown and surrounding areas to meet City, business, and community
needs. The Specific Plan addresses land use mixes and distributions; zoning;
urban and sustainable design; vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation;
parking; transit services and facilities; public improvements and infrastructure;
gateways and image; street furniture and pedestrian amenities; parks and
public spaces; implementation strategies and possible funding sources. The
Specific Plan is based upon the valuable comments and participation from
residents, business leaders, and other community stakeholders, as well as the
diligent and committed Urban Core Specific Plan Advisory Committee.
The intent of the Specific Plan is to facilitate and encourage development and
improvements that will help realize the community’s vision for the Urban Core
area. The community wants the Urban Core to be a desirable San Diego County
Chapter I Executive Summary I-1

destination for both visitors and residents alike, with an identity of its own. The
community wants a downtown that is vibrant, forward thinking but respectful of its
past, and alive with thriving businesses, attractive housing, and entertainment,
cultural and recreational activities. The plan envisions a broad mixture of uses
and business opportunities, as well as a wide range of residential housing types.
The Urban Core is envisioned to be the “heart” of the community, where people
gather to enjoy special events, farmers markets, street performances, and
outdoor dining. It is a downtown with a synergistic mix of land uses, attractive
streetscapes and sidewalks, full of people, all interconnected with a series of
plazas and pedestrian paseos. To this end, the Specific Plan includes a variety
of recommendations to help obtain this vision including:
• Mobility recommendations
• Land Use Development Standards
• Development Design Guidelines
• Public Realm Design Guidelines
• Plan Implementation Strategies and Community Benefits Program
Mobility
Specific Plan mobility recommendations provide a variety of approaches and
strategies to “get people from here to there.” Improvements for the main
thoroughfares and other streets within the Urban Core are identified in Chapter
V - Mobility and address pedestrian, bicycle, transit, automobile and parking
opportunities.
Traffic calming elements and pedestrian improvements are introduced to slow

traffic and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment, such as along Third
Avenue in the Village District. The suggested improvements include bulbouts
(sidewalk extensions), narrowed travel lanes, reducing the number of travel
widths in some areas, special paving at crosswalks and median refuge islands.
Paseos and pedestrian walkways are emphasized in the Specific Plan as well.
For bicycle transit, the Mobility chapter includes recommendation for new
and upgraded bikeway facilities throughout the area for both recreational and
commuting users.
Three transit focus areas within the Urban Core provide multi-modal opportunities
for both local and regional transit. The stations located at I-5/H Street and I-5/E
Street link to the San Diego Trolley’s Blue Line. As a feature of the Specific Plan,
a new shuttle loop system called the West Side Shuttle is proposed. The shuttle
route will serve both the Urban Core Specific Plan and Bayfront Master Plan
areas in western Chula Vista. This new service would complement existing and
planned future transit improvements.
I-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

A program of improvements to the roadway network is proposed, especially
reintroducing the street grid in areas where it has been interrupted over time.
The Mobility chapter also addresses off-street parking within the Urban Core
Districts and offers public parking strategies, including parking districts for
portions of Third Avenue and strategically located parking structures particularly
for the transit focus areas.
Chula Vista
Land Use Development Standards
Chapter VI – Land Use and Development Standards establishes three different
Specific Plan Districts: Village, Urban Core and Corridors, as well as twenty-six
subdistricts to allow for customized regulations and standards. The subdistrict
regulations shape the building form and intensity, allowable land uses, and
parking requirements. In summary, the land uses are customized to encourage
a mix of pedestrian-oriented uses integrated with higher density residential. The
development and parking standards have been relaxed to encourage investment
in the Urban Core, including locating buildings closer to the street with parking
behind or tucked under the building. The Specific Plan regulations stress
flexibility and provision of urban amenities such as streetscape improvements,
parks, plazas, transit, cultural arts and mixed use.
The tallest buildings are allowed in the transit focus areas located at I-5/H Street
and I-5/E Street where support by alternative modes of transportation is readily
available. Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts have been created for
subdistricts adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zoning areas to protect and buffer existing
residential neighborhoods and ensure compatible, stepped-back building
heights and setbacks. Special provisions address live/work units, mixed-uses
and parking structures. Zoning incentives are provided to entice developers to
provide urban amenities such as parks and plazas beyond required levels.
Development Design Guidelines

In Chapter VII – Development Design Guidelines, comprehensive design
guidelines are provided for development within the three Specific Plan Districts, as
well as special guidelines for hotels, mixed-use projects, multi-family residential
projects, and sustainability principles. The form-based guidelines supplement
Specific Plan development regulations and the City’s Zoning Ordinance to create
a more attractive, well-designed urban environment. The guidelines apply to
construction, conservation, adaptive reuse, and enhancement of buildings
and street scenes. Although no specific architectural style is prescribed, the
quality of design is guided by policies addressing site planning, building height/
form/mass, building materials/colors, storefront design, landscaping, lighting,
parking, circulation, signs and other development considerations. The goal of
the guidelines is to create a positive image for the Urban Core and frame the
streets and sidewalks with inviting buildings, entrances, awnings and outdoor
dining areas.
Chapter I Executive Summary I-3

Public Realm Design Guidelines
Chapter VIII – Public Realm Design Guidelines focuses on ways to create more
attractive and pedestrian-friendly public environments and gathering places.
Street furniture, landscaping, sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, paseos, public
art, parks and plaza concepts are defined. Two main themes emerge within the
Specific Plan: an art-deco inspired design theme is proposed along Third Avenue,
building upon the era when much of the development along the street occurred,
and a more contemporary theme is proposed for the remaining public realm
areas in the Urban Core, indicative of a forward-looking Chula Vista. Gateway
treatments are proposed at six locations to welcome people to the Urban Core
and to reinforce the identity of the Urban Core.
Plan Implementation Strategies and Community Benefits Program

One of the most important elements of the Specific Plan is identifying the
implementation programs that will result in the desired changes emphasized in
the Specific Plan. The sole purpose of the Specific Plan is to improve the quality
of life for Chula Vista in general, with a focus on the west side in particular.
Visual simulations of potential future conditions for four areas of the Specific
Plan are provided to help illustrate the possible positive changes and community
benefits envisioned.
The visions expressed in the Specific Plan include investments in streets, transit,
parks, plazas, cultural facilities, protection of historic resources, schools, and
improvements to City services such as utilities, police, fire, health and human
services. These investments will be supported by a partnership between the
City and the private sector as new development occurs. Chapter X – Plan
Implementation and Community Benefits Program contains realization strategies
and forms a critical link between the improvements the City desires and how
both the City and private investment will contribute to make the improvements
happen. Specific improvements are identified, and financial tools and strategies
are outlined.
I-4 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

II. Introduction and Background
A. What is a Specific Plan? II-1
B. Consistency with the General Plan II-2
C. Plan Purpose and Intent II-4
D. Boundaries and Setting II-5 Chula Vista
E. Relevant City Documents II-9
F. Community Outreach Process II-20
Chapter II Introduction
II. Introduction and Background
A. What is a Specific Plan?
The Urban Core Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) is established pursuant to the
authority granted in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific
Plans, and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article Chula Vista
8, Sections 65450 through 65457 and contains all the mandatory elements
identified in Government Code Section 65451.
Specific Plans must be consistent with the policies contained within the General
Plan and may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance. This differentiation
allows cities to choose whether their specific plans, or portions thereof, will
be policy driven (adopted by resolution), or regulatory (adopted by ordinance).
This Specific Plan is adopted by ordinance. All zoning related portions of
this Specific Plan (i.e. land use matrix, permitted uses and development
regulations) are prepared to serve as regulatory provisions and supersede
other regulations and ordinances of the City for the control of land use and
development within the Specific Plan subdistrict boundaries. Other portions,
such as the development design guidelines and public realm design guidelines
are provided as City policies aimed at providing direction for future planning and
public improvement efforts. Future development projects, subdivisions, public
improvement projects and other implementing programs should be consistent
with the adopted Specific Plan.
Chapter II Introduction II-1

B. Consistency with the General Plan
Over the last several years the City of Chula Vista has been in the process of
updating the City’s General Plan, which was last comprehensively updated in
1989. The main focus during the 1989 update was on the newly annexed and
developing eastern portions of the City. Although comprehensive, the recent
General Plan (2005) has instead been primarily focused on the currently
developed areas of the city, in particular the western portions of the City. As such,
the planning effort was confronted with balancing “how” the City should grow
over the next 25 years given the continued growth projections with “where” the
growth should occur, given the numerous established stable neighborhoods.
This challenge was seen as an opportunity to utilize the key principles found in
smart growth strategies relative to urban revitalization and apply them to areas
that have experienced recent decline or underutilization.
The General Plan is based on many of the common elements and concepts of
smart growth such as:
• Provide a mix of compatible land uses
• Take advantage of compact building design
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
• Create walkable neighborhoods
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
• Provide a variety of transportation choices
In order to realize the vision for the urban core established by the updated
General Plan, it was recognized that existing zoning for the urban core needed
“re-tooling”. The 30+ year-old zoning regulations either precluded or created a
cumbersome entitlement process
Projected Buildout to achieve the variety of living,
Land Use Existing Net Increase Total
employment and service choices
Multi-Family
Residential
envisioned by the General Plan and
(dwelling units) 3,700 7,100 10,800 quite commonplace in the 21st
century. Therefore, the Specific
Commercial Retail Plan was prepared to provide a set
(square feet) 3,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 of contemporary implementing
tools to allow new development
Commercial Office
(square feet) 2,400,000 1,300,000 3,700,000
and redevelopment to occur over
Commercial - the next 20-25 years. To that end,
Visitor Serving the Specific Plan anticipates the
(square feet) 1,300,000 1,300,000 following projected buildout over
Projected buildout of the Specific Plan area
Fg. 2.1 the life of the plan consistent with
the General Plan. (Refer to Figure
2.1)
II-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Due to the length of time that buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to take
(i.e. 20+ years), as well as the nature of urban revitalization, the exact extent,
timing and sequencing of development is difficult to predict. However, the
Specific Plan is not a static document and as such will be revisited on an on-
going basis to evaluate progress towards buildout projections, priority ranking
of important public improvements and other issues that may arise. A series of
checks and balances will be part of that process and may include review under Chula Vista
the City’s Growth Management Ordinance, the biannual budgetary and Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) cycle, and five-year progress check of the Specific
Plan.

C. Plan Purpose and Intent
First and foremost, the purpose of the Specific Plan is to revitalize and enhance
the economic, social, cultural, and recreational fabric of the City’s Urban Core.
An overall goal is to develop the Urban Core with a mix of retail, office, and
residential uses that are supported by a variety of options for moving from
one place to another, often referred to as “mobility”. The Specific Plan is a
tool to facilitate and prioritize community improvement projects, evaluate
development proposals and new land uses, and enhance existing uses. To do
this, the Specific Plan provides a structure to implement the Specific Plan vision
over time. Implementation measures include development standards, design
guidelines, land use regulations, and a series of specific actions that may be
undertaken by both the City and private sector to make progress toward the
Specific Plan goals. Existing City zoning is not adequate to realize the desired
vision for the Specific Plan area and must be updated and retooled. As the
existing zoning dates back to last century, revisions are necessary to modernize
and allow for the living and lifestyle choices appropriate for current needs.
The Specific Plan provides detailed development scenarios and regulations for
the Urban Core. It features focused design guidelines tailored to individual
neighborhoods.
The Specific Plan focuses on increasing the economic viability of the downtown
and surrounding areas in order to meet City, business, and community
needs. Many of the stable residential areas within the Specific Plan area will
be maintained with as few changes as possible, though all neighborhoods,
including those outside the Specific Plan boundaries, benefit from the
improved services and amenities (e.g. bikeways, parks, etc.) resulting from the
revitalization efforts.
The Specific Plan seeks to establish a direct connection between the City of
Chula Vista General Plan and revitalization and enhancement opportunities
within the Urban Core of the City. An overall goal is the orderly development of
Chula Vista’s Urban Core in a method consistent with the City’s General Plan
and, more specifically, with the vision as developed through the Specific Plan
public outreach process.
The intent is to produce a realistic, market-based action plan that will bring
about programs, policies, and partnerships that will facilitate a major increase
in the quality and quantity of retail and other commercial activity and provide
additional housing opportunities in the Urban Core. The future Urban Core
will contain a diversity of public, commercial, civic, financial, cultural, and
residential uses that will emphasize its role as the central focal point of the
City.

D. Boundaries and Setting
1. Background
The Specific Plan area represents the traditional downtown heart of the City. This
northwestern corner of the City was the nucleus of Colonel William Dickinson’s
town plan for Chula Vista from the late nineteenth century (see Figure 4.1 -
Chula Vista Plat Map). Originally a thriving agricultural community known for Chula Vista
lemon orchards, the City’s main economic focus shifted to industrial production
during the time of World War II, due to the opening of Rohr Aircraft Corporation,
a major manufacturing company supplying the US military forces. Due to the
proximity to the San Diego metropolitan area, the City of Chula Vista has since
acted as a commuting suburb of the larger city. Over the last 30 years, large
tracts of land have been annexed in the City’s eastern area and subsequently
developed as master planned communities. One major annexation was that
of the Montgomery community, a 3.5 square mile area considered the largest
annexation of an inhabited area in State history. Over the last century, especially
the latter decades, significant annexation, and subsequent population growth
led to a decentralization of the City center. The Specific Plan will revitalize
the fabric of the City’s Urban Core and reestablish the focus on the traditional
center of the community.
2. Regional Context
The City of Chula Vista
covers approximately 52
square miles of southern
San Diego County and is
the second largest city in
the County. The City is
bounded by the South San
Diego Bay on the west, the
Sweetwater River on the
north, mountains and the
Otay Lakes on the east,
and the Otay River to the
south. Please see Figures
2.2 - Regional Context
Map and 2.3 - City Context
Map.
In 2004, the City had an Regional context map (Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 2.2
estimated population of
approximately 210,000.
Based on the General Plan Update population projections, the population in
Chula Vista will continue to rise, reaching approximately 300,000 by 2030.

II-6
City Context Map (Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 2.3
II-6
Though for many years Chula Vista was largely a residential suburban
community, the City is evolving into a regional economic center. Located just
south of downtown San Diego and a few miles north of the United States-
Mexican border, the City is well-situated to take advantage of two very different
economic markets. Regional transportation routes, such as the I-5, I-805,
and SR-125 corridors as well as links to the San Diego Trolley system, are
contiguous to the Urban Core boundary and provide convenient connections Chula Vista
to the surrounding region. The traditional downtown area along Third Avenue,
as well as the Chula Vista Center and other retail facilities along H Street, have
been regional shopping attractions for decades. However, expansion of the
City to the east, as well as growth in other parts of the County, have led to a
decline in the Urban Core’s market share of consumers.
3. Specific Plan Boundary

The Specific Plan Study Area covers approximately 1,700 acres within the
northwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista. It is generally bordered by the
San Diego Freeway (I-5) to the west, C Street to the north, Del Mar Street to the
east, and L Street to the south. While there are 1,700 acres within the Specific
Plan Study Area, it was determined that changes should be focused on areas
more in need of redevelopment. Therefore, the Specific Plan focuses new
development zoning regulations and design guidelines for approximately 690
gross acres within the larger Specific Plan Study Area, denoted as the Specific
Plan Subdistricts Area. Existing zoning outside of the Specific Plan Subdistricts
Area is not modified by this Specific Plan and future development outside of
the Specific Plan Subdistricts Area will be processed under the existing zoning
ordinance. Its final form takes into consideration areas of unique urban
design challenges, areas of particular economic interest, and areas in need
of character retention or redefinition. (Refer to Figure 2.4 for a map of the
Specific Plan area.)
4. Setting
The Urban Core area is flanked by the proposed Bayfront project to the west and
the almost built-out territory east of the I-805. Residents from the east and west
will primarily access the Urban Core by car; however, alternative transportation
modes are encouraged. In addition, walking and bicycling between the Urban
Core and the proposed Bayfront will be feasible as the distance from 3rd Avenue
to Lagoon Drive is approximately two miles. E Street, F Street and H Street
provide linkages over the I-5 between the Urban Core and Bayfront.
The Specific Plan area is characterized by urbanized development on relatively

flat topography. The built environment largely consists of one- to three-story
buildings with a few exceptions. Streets are generally laid out in a traditional
grid pattern while some portions of the grid system have been substantially
interrupted over time. Freeway access is predominantly provided at E Street, H
Street and J Street.
Urban Core Specific Plan Area
Fg. 2.4
II-8
E. Relevant City Documents
The following documents provided the basis for many of the goals, polices,
standards, guidelines and approaches developed for the Specific Plan. In
some cases the Specific Plan provides the implementing regulations or further
refinements to existing policies contained in these documents, and in other
cases the Specific Plan replaces the relevant documents. Future development
Chula Vista
proposals must be found consistent with the Specific Plan, therefore, where
inconsistencies arise in implementation documents, the provisions of the
Specific Plan will take precedence.
1. City of Chula Vista General Plan

The City’s General Plan is intended to guide the physical development of the
City over a 20-30 year time frame. It establishes a vision for the City’s future.
The plan provides guidelines for making decisions concerning development of
the City. Though largely focused on land use decisions, the plan addresses a
range of elements, such as housing, open space and conservation, and public
facilities and services that contribute to the City’s well-being.
State law requires that the General Plan cover the following areas: Land Use,
Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open-Space, Noise, and Safety. In addition,
cities may choose to address subjects of particular interest to that jurisdiction;
Chula Vista’s plan includes elements on Public Facilities and Services, Growth
Management and Child Care.
The Specific Plan is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the City of
Chula Vista’s General Plan by providing detailed criteria for development of
specific sites and public streetscape improvements.
The update to the General Plan built upon the City’s 1989 General Plan and
provides a vision for the next 25 years of Chula Vista’s future. Goals, objectives,
and policies are presented that will guide the development of Chula Vista
through the year 2030. Reference to the General Plan throughout this Specific
Plan refers to the updated General Plan (2005) unless specifically referenced
to previous versions (e.g. 1989).
The General Plan (2005) includes a new Economic Development Element

and Environmental Element. It also features a combined Land Use and
Transportation element that reinforces the link between land use planning
and circulation throughout the City. An Implementation Chapter facilitates the
ease of using the Specific Plan and makes the Specific Plan more beneficial
for the citizens of Chula Vista. In the northwest area of the City, the General
Plan recommended land use changes to “Focus Areas” primarily consisting of
existing commercial corridors and residential areas close to transit facilities.

The Specific Plan’s vision, goals, and implementation measures are based on
direction given in the City’s General Plan. There are many goals, objectives,
and policies within the General Plan that are relevant to this Specific Plan; the
most representative objectives have been selected and are listed below. These
objectives may apply to the entire City or only to the specific district noted in
the policy.
a. Vision and Themes

Each of the Vision and Themes established in the General Plan will be
implemented in the Urban Core and are reflected in the subsequent pages and
chapters of the UCSP. For example, General Plan Theme 4 - Improved Mobility
is addressed through UCSP Chapter V - Mobility and Chapter VIII - Public Realm
Design Guidelines. The following theme is of particular importance to the Urban
Core:
• Theme 8 - Shaping the Future Through the Present and Past: Chula Vista
values its unique heritage and sense of place and manages change in a
way that complements the important qualities and features that shape
its identity.
To this end, it is important to recognize the specific components of the UCSP
that implement this theme.
1. Regulate new development and other physical alterations to be

completed in a manner that respects the character, scale, and historical
value of the City:
Chapter IV - Existing Conditions
Chapter V - Mobility
Chapter VI - Land Use Development Regulations
Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines
Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines
Chapter IX - Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Chapter X - Plan Implementation and Community Benefits Program
2. Harmonizing changes to blend in with and enhance the positive aspects
of what is already there, see:

3. Shaping established Chula Vista’s future through policies that focus on
preserving and enhancing stable residential neighborhoods, see:
Chula Vista
4. Enhancing community image, see:
5. Protecting cultural and historical resources, see:
Chapter V - Mobility
6. Implementing compatible land uses and edge transition, see:
b. Land Use and Transportation Objectives

• Objective LUT-1: Provide a balance of residential and non-residential
development throughout the City that achieves a vibrant development
pattern, enhances the character of the City, and meets the present and
future needs of all residents and businesses.
• Objective LUT-2: Limit locations for the highest development
intensities and densities, and the tallest building forms, to key urban
activity centers that are well served by transit.

• Objective LUT-3: Direct the urban design and form of new
development and redevelopment in a manner that blends with and
enhances Chula Vista’s character and qualities, both physical and
social.
• Objective LUT-4: Establish policies, standards, and procedures
to minimize blighting influences and maintain the integrity of stable
residential neighborhoods.
• Objective LUT-5: Designate opportunities for mixed use areas
with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs, and transit in
appropriate locations throughout the City.
• Objective LUT-6: Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with
one another.
• Objective LUT-7: Appropriate transitions should be provided
between land uses.
• Objective LUT-8: Strengthen and sustain Chula Vista’s image as a
unique place by maintaining, enhancing and creating physical features
that distinguish Chula Vista’s neighborhoods, communities, and public
spaces, and enhance its image as a pedestrian-oriented and livable
community.
• Objective LUT-9: Create enhanced gateway features for City entry
points and other important areas, such as special districts.
• Objective LUT-10: Create attractive street environments that
complement private and public properties, create attractive public
rights-of-way, and provide visual interest for residents and visitors.
• Objective LUT-11: Ensure that buildings and related site improvements
for public and private development are well designed and compatible
with surrounding properties and districts.
• Objective LUT-12: Protect Chula Vista’s important historic
resources.
• Objective LUT-15: Improve transportation connections within Chula
Vista and between eastern and western Chula Vista, particularly transit
connections between major activity centers.
• Objective LUT-16: Integrate land use and transportation planning
and related facilities.
• Objective LUT-17: Plan and coordinate development to be compatible
and supportive of planned transit.

• Objective LUT-18: Reduce traffic demand through Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) strategies, increased use of transit,
bicycles, walking, and other trip reduction measures.
• Objective LUT-20: Make transit-friendly roads a top consideration in
land use and development design.
• Objective LUT-21: Continue efforts to develop and maintain a safe Chula Vista
and efficient transportation system with adequate roadway capacity
to serve future residents, while preserving the unique character and
integrity of recognized communities within the City.
• Objective LUT-23: Promote the use of non-polluting and renewable
alternatives for mobility through a system of bicycle and pedestrian
paths and trails that are safe, attractive and convenient forms of
transportation.
• Objective LUT-26: Establish an Urban Core Improvements Program
for the Urban Core Subarea.
• Objective LUT-27: Establish a program for development to provide
public amenities and/or community services necessary to support
urban development and implement the following policies. (Refer to
General Plan for list of policies.)
• Objective LUT-28: Consider use of lot consolidation, where
appropriate, so that projects meeting the objectives of this General
Plan can be achieved, and a high level of community amenities can be
provided.
• Objective LUT-29: Allow for the clustering of residential development
to respond to site constraints, and improve amenities for project
residents.
• Objective LUT-30: Use parking management to better utilize parking
facilities and implement policies to reduce parking demand before
considering public expenditures for additional parking facilities.
• Objective LUT-31: Provide parking facilities that are appropriately
integrated with land uses; maximize efficiency; accommodate alternative
vehicles; and reduce parking impacts.
• Objective LUT-32: Evaluate the use and applicability of various
strategies to provide parking.
• Objective LUT-33: Ensure that parking facilities are appropriately
sited and well-designed in order to minimize adverse effects on the
pedestrian-oriented environment, and to enhance aesthetic qualities.

The following objectives are provided in the General Plan for the Northwest
Area Plan, which includes the Specific Plan area and contains “area specific”
policies for the Urban Core.
• Objective LUT-46: Establish linkages between the Urban Core

Subarea and the Bayfront Planning Area for pedestrians, bicycles, and
transit.
• Objective LUT-47: Establish roadway classifications in the Urban
Core Subarea that respond to the special operating characteristics of
roadways within a more urbanized environment, accommodate slower
speeds in pedestrian-oriented areas, and facilitate multi-modal design
elements and amenities.
• Objective LUT-48: Increase mobility for residents and visitors in the
Urban Core Subarea.
• Objective LUT-49: Encourage redevelopment, infill, and new
development activities within the Urban Core Subarea that will provide
a balance of land uses, reinforce its identity as Chula Vista’s central
core, and complement land uses in other planning areas, including the
Bayfront and East Planning Areas.
• Objective LUT-50: Provide for the redevelopment and enhancement
of the Downtown Third Avenue District as a lively, higher density, mixed
use area, while preserving the important elements that contribute to the
charm and character of traditional Third Avenue.
• Objective LUT-51: Maintain Downtown Third Avenue as a focal point
for the City so that it continues to express the City’s history, provides
a venue for cultural vitality, and retains its role as a center for social,
political, and other civic functions.
• Objective LUT-52: Encourage redevelopment of the Chula Vista
Center, as well as properties north of H Street, with a mix of land uses
that will reinforce H Street as a future planned transit boulevard and
gateway corridor, and establish the area as a significant public gathering
space and vibrant mixed use area.
• Objective LUT-53: Encourage redevelopment to be mixed use along
the H Street Corridor, between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue, within
walking distance of a planned future transit station near Third Avenue
and H Street.
• Objective LUT-54: Encourage redevelopment activities within the
North Broadway Focus Area that will result in the establishment of a
pedestrian-oriented commercial corridor providing housing opportunities
and local-serving compatible commercial uses.

• Objective LUT-55: Encourage redevelopment of E Street between
Interstate 5 and Broadway with mixed use, especially near the E Street
Trolley Station, and an emphasis on visitor-serving uses, with some
offices and multi-family residential.
• Objective LUT-6: Encourage redevelopment of the area between
Interstate 5 and Broadway, bounded on the north by F Street and on the
south by G Street, with predominantly high density residential, supported Chula Vista
by mixed use along Broadway.
Interstate 5 and Broadway, between G Street and H Street, emphasizing
transit-oriented mixed use near the H Street Trolley Station and
reinforcing H Street as a major gateway and transit boulevard.
Interstate 5 and Broadway, between H Street and I Street, as a regional
shopping center or transit focus mixed use area that will complement
redevelopment of the existing Chula Vista Center, and reinforce H Street
as a major gateway and transit boulevard.
• Objective LUT-59: Encourage redevelopment activities within the Mid-
Broadway District that will establish a pedestrian oriented commercial
corridor providing housing opportunities and compatible neighborhood-
serving commercial uses.
• Objective LUT-60: Reinforce the existing land use pattern of
predominantly retail uses on the west side of Third Avenue, and office
uses on the east side of Third Avenue between J Street and L Street.
c. Public Facilities and Services Objectives
• Objective PFS-14: Provide parks and recreation facilities and
programs citywide that are well maintained, safe, accessible to all
residents and that offer opportunities for personal development, health
and fitness in addition to recreation.
The Specific Plan provides for more precise implementation of the General
Plan’s goals, objectives, and policies. The Specific Plan has been prepared to
reinforce all elements of the General Plan relative to the Urban Core.
2. Chula Vista General Plan Update Program Environmental

Impact Report (EIR)
The General Plan Update EIR provides an assessment of the existing conditions
within the City and the suitability of those conditions for meeting the goals for
the City’s future. The EIR evaluates potential impacts relating to the General

Plan Update and presents feasible mitigation measures where significant
environmental impacts are identified. Environmental concerns identified
through the General Plan Update EIR were taken into consideration in the
development of the Specific Plan.
3. Chula Vista Municipal Code – Title 19 Zoning

The City of Chula Vista’s Municipal Code, Title 19 Zoning, sets standards and
regulations to protect and promote the public health, safety, welfare, and
quality of life within Chula Vista and to implement the goals set forth in the
General Plan. The Zoning Code provides site specific development and land
use regulations that govern the size, shape, and intensity of development in the
City and uses to which new development may be committed. The Zoning Code
divides the City into districts, each of which establishes a set of regulations
controlling such issues as the uses of land, uses and locations of structures,
height and bulk of and open spaces around structures, signs, and parking.
The traditional Euclidean zoning classifications found within the Specific Plan
districts include: Central Commercial (CC), Administrative and Professional
Office (CO), Commercial Thoroughfare (CT), Visitor Commercial (CV), Limited
Industrial (IL), Mobilehome Park (MHP), Public/Quasi-public (PQ), One- and Two-
Family Residence (R2), and Apartment Residence (R3). These classifications
commonly allow only a single land use type; mixed-use areas are implemented
through rezonings, conditional use permits, and General Plan changes. The
Specific Plan customizes the standards and regulations found in the City
Zoning Code in order to achieve the Urban Core vision. The Specific Plan sets
more detailed zoning standards and regulations for the sub-districts within the
Specific Plan and replaces the zoning regulations provided in 19.24 - 19.40 and
19.44. The provisions of the City Zoning Code apply to the properties within
the Specific Plan area; in such cases where the Specific Plan and Zoning Code
conflict, the Specific Plan regulations and development standards shall apply.
Where the Specific Plan is silent, provisions of the zoning code shall apply..
4. Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan

Adopted in 1976, the goal of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan is to
“revitalize the Town Centre area as the commercial-civic focus of the City. The
Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan is a Specific Plan that provides permitted
uses and controls and design guidelines for the project area. The Plan presents
12 objectives toward achieving this goal, including eliminating blighting
influences and incompatible land uses, restructuring City infrastructure, such
as the irregular block and lot subdivisions and poorly planned streets, attracting
new capital and businesses to the area, establishing design standards
and supporting “comprehensive beautification” of the area, incorporating
increased multi-family housing and transit opportunities in the area. A series
of redevelopment actions are proposed for Agency implementation, permitted

uses and controls are addressed, and methods for financing the project are
proposed. The Plan also gives attention to the potential impact the Plan will
have on existing neighborhoods in the area. The Town Centre I Land Use Policy
acts as a land use guide for establishing the traditional downtown of Chula
Vista into a focal business, commercial, and cultural area. The Town Centre I
Land Use Policy delineates permitted, special, and prohibited land uses for the
downtown district based on the objectives of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Chula Vista
Plan (discussed previously).
The Town Centre Design Manual was prepared nearly 30 years ago and
addresses the physical elements of the Town Centre area. The Design Manual
provides general urban design guidelines, standards, and specifications for
development within the project area. It covers such issues as siting, scale, and
density of buildings, landscaping, streetscape elements, and transportation. A
pedestrian orientation is a highlight of the Manual recommendations, including
pedestrian-oriented mixed-uses and the development of pedestrian linkages
between the various sub-sections of the Urban Core. Significant attention is also
given to the importance of landscaping through the area and the opportunities
for development of plazas and parks.
The Specific Plan more fully develops many of the ideas presented in the Town
Centre I Redevelopment Plan, Land Use Policy and Design Manual, and offers
an updated approach using contemporary regulations and design guidelines
for the successful revitalization of the downtown and surrounding areas.
5. Third Avenue District Market Opportunity Study and Recruitment

Strategy
This study was prepared in 2000 and provides a retail market analysis for
the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. An analysis of the marketing
strengths and challenges of the area allows for development of a recruitment
strategy that assists property owners in improving their sites while attracting new
tenants to vacant commercial spaces. The document addresses the continued
economic decline of Third Avenue, despite dedicated Redevelopment Agency
efforts at revitalization. Identified opportunities include the potential to support
a “fine limited local commercial district,” establishing Third Avenue as a “unique
or niche” destination within the larger economic community, the creation of
a Third Avenue identity that sets it apart from other cities and districts, and
the potential to intensify development near transit nodes, areas of greater
pedestrian frequency, and civic uses. Major strategies include strengthening
existing locations, providing transit linkages, developing an improved sign
program and offering a variety of development incentives. These strategies are
further developed through the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan
document will help Third Avenue overcome the existing economic challenges
and foster a successful revitalization program for the area.

6. Broadway Revitalization Strategy
The focus area of this document is Broadway from H Street to L Street, with
particular attention to the H Street entryway into the City. The plan strives to
reverse deteriorating conditions along the auto-oriented strip and reform the area
into a commercially viable and visually pleasing environment. The document
outlines proposed broad economic, aesthetic, and circulation improvements
along Broadway. The Specific Plan will implement many of the changes and
improvements suggested in the Broadway Revitalization Strategy.
7. Bayfront Master Plan
The purpose of the Bayfront Master Plan is to create a world-class bayfront in

Chula Vista. Goals of the Bayfront Master Plan include creating one unified
Bayfront area from the three existing districts, finding a balance between being
sensitive to both environmental and community recreational needs, creating
an active boating waterfront in the deep water area, developing a sense of
place at the Bayfront, and extending the City to the Bayfront. The Specific Plan
strives especially toward the latter goal of connecting the City’s downtown to the
Bayfront. Design suggestions in the Specific Plan seek to restore and reinforce
connectivity between the Urban Core and the Bayfront.
8. MTBD/South Bay Transit First Study

The Transit First Study evaluates potential future transit options for the City. The
study identifies transit priority treatment options, alternate transit alignments,
and potential transit station locations and types, such as mixed flow transit
lanes, dedicated transit lanes, freeway HOV/transit lanes, guideways, queue
jumpers, and transit priority signals. Based on ridership potential and the
ability to best serve the established travel patterns of the region, alternative
transit routes were divided into Tier One and Tier Two options. The Specific
Plan supports increased public transit usage. Many of the recommendations
made in the Specific Plan will benefit from the implementation of successful
transit projects. Strategies from this report were considered in the Specific
Plan Transportation Impact Analysis and also provide support for the transit
intensive Urban Core.
9. Chula Vista Economic Development Strategy
The Economic Development Strategy was prepared in 2003 and serves as

a blueprint for development of fiscal sustainability for the community. The
Strategy has been updated and incorporated into the General Plan to serve as
a blueprint for development to ensure short and long-term fiscal sustainability.
The Strategy establishes 12 goals, supported by objectives and action items,

which will facilitate Chula Vista’s economic prosperity through the year 2020.
Goals that support increasing investment in western Chula Vista, providing the
necessary physical infrastructure to support economic prosperity, and becoming
the south county hub for leisure, recreational, shopping, and entertainment
activities are directly reflected in the Specific Plan.
10. Historic Preservation Strategic Plan Chula Vista

The Historic Preservation Strategic Plan resulted from an effort by the Ad
Hoc Historic Preservation Committee to evaluate the City’s current historic
preservation program and to make recommendations for the future of the City’s
historic resources. The Committee developed an action plan that could develop
Chula Vista’s Historic Preservation Program as a method for preserving the
important historic resources of the City. Recommendations include becoming
a Certified Local Government, establishing a predictable and consistent historic
review process, establishing an historic preservation review board, and providing
incentives for historic preservation. The Urban Core Strategic Plan encourages
preservation of historic resources within the Urban Core area.

F. Community Outreach Process
An important component of the Specific Plan is the public participation process.
The community outreach effort was designed to involve the various citizens
and interest groups of Chula Vista in the Specific Plan process. Careful initial
steps were taken to involve the citizens of Chula Vista. The following is a brief
summary of the outreach efforts included in the public participation process
that helped to shape the Specific Plan.
1. Key Person Interviews

A series of interviews were conducted in March of 2004 with various individuals,
agencies, and organizations with strong interests in the Urban Core area. The
purpose of these meetings was to listen to the issues and observations from
key persons about the planning area. The interviews were quite informative for
laying a foundation of background information and identifying many issues as
well as visions for the Urban Core area.
Overall, most of the stakeholders voiced consistent feedback. Some of the

most frequent comments included the following:
• Third Avenue currently has the wrong tenant mix.
• Third Avenue should have more pedestrian-oriented uses and mixed-
use projects.
• Broadway is an “eyesore” and is in need of aesthetic improvements.
• H Street is the major thoroughfare in Chula Vista.
• Uses such as liquor stores, pawn shops, dentist labs, adult stores,
social service/employment agencies, and check cashing, etc. should be
prohibited from the Urban Core.
• Single-family neighborhoods should be protected.
• The key project in the City is the Gateway project.
• The predominant architectural style should be Historic Spanish
Mediterranean.
• Chula Vista should be connected to downtown San Diego via the trolley.
• A “small loop” trolley should circulate through Chula Vista and connect
to the San Diego Trolley system.
• Connections to the Bayfront are needed.

Stakeholders also voiced the top things they would change about Chula Vista.
The most prominent ideas were:
• Increase the density and building height of the Urban Core.
• Add open space to the Urban Core.
• Create a different tenant mix on Third Avenue.
Chula Vista
• Make H Street more pedestrian-oriented through a variety of streetscape
improvements.
2. Advisory Committee Meetings

Beginning in August 2004, the Chula Vista Urban Core Advisory Committee
met monthly in sessions open to the public. The Advisory Committee meetings
allowed opportunities for the consultant team to present and refine ideas and
concepts with substantial input from Advisory Committee members as well as
the public at each stage of the planning process. The Advisory Committee
was composed of 18 members that were representative of many community
sectors, offering a broad variety of backgrounds and perspectives. The Advisory
Committee members were essential to keeping the project on track for the
benefit of the citizens of Chula Vista.
Topics discussed in the Advisory Committee meetings included:

• Issue Identification
• Key Person Interviews
• Photo Tour and Visual Preference
Survey
• Goals and Objectives for Vision Plan
Areas
• Draft Vision Plan Review and Exercise
• Presentation of Vision Plans, Vision
Statements, and Ten Key Principles
• Design Guidelines
• “At-A-Glance” Zoning Sheets and Land
Use Matrix
• Gateways and Streetscapes Concepts
• Urban Amenities and Incentives
Frequent updates on the traffic analyses and Advisory Committee meetings helped
Fg. 2.5
market conditions studies were also provided guide the Urban Core Specific Plan
by the consultant team.

The Advisory Committee meetings provided substantial feedback for the
consultant team and were essential to the refining of the draft critical
components of the Specific Plan.
3. Advisory Committee Charrette

In August 2004, the City Council appointed
an 18-member Advisory Committee, chaired
by Mayor Padilla and composed of various
stakeholders, to help guide the Urban Core
planning effort. The first meeting of the
committee was a two-day visioning charrette,
held on August 12-13, 2004. After participating
in a bus tour of the Specific Plan area, an
introduction was provided to the Urban Core
visioning effort and an invitation was extended
to the community to urge citizens to participate
in the development of the Specific Plan.
Advisory Committee members and The workshop meeting continued with a

members of the public develop ideas
Fg. 2.6 presentation on the importance of the work
effort and its relationship to the General Plan
Update and the Bayfront Master Plan project. A description of the Specific Plan
effort and purpose was also provided. Following these presentations, a round-
table exercise solicited preliminary thoughts and issues for the Urban Core.
After a preliminary review of the Land Use Concepts, Urban Core Focus
Districts, Urban Design Themes, and Opportunities and Constraints of the site,
the Advisory Committee members were asked to identify potential “big ideas”
for the Urban Core.
The second day of the charrette kicked off with presentations from
subconsultants regarding marketing and economics research as well as traffic
and transportation research. A summary of the urban core market context
and the regional economy and an overview of
urban mobility concepts and transportation
opportunities, respectively, were provided.
The next portion of the meeting provided a

visual overview of each of the nine original
focus districts with a number of images ranging
in height and massing. The images shown also
An Advisory Committee Charrette was included a variety of streetscape scenarios.
held on August 12-13, 2004
Fg. 2.7

Committee members then participated in a
Visual Preference Survey and were asked to
rank the images as appropriate, neutral, or
inappropriate.
Finally, both Advisory Committee members and

the public were invited to write issues, concerns, Chula Vista
and “big ideas” on six banners provided. Banner
headings included Circulation/Transit, Land
Use, Community Design, Parks & Services,
Implementation, and Other Key Issues.
Issues, concerns, and “big ideas” were
solicited at the Charrette
Fg. 2.8
4. First Community Workshop
The first community workshop was held on September 13, 2004 at the Chula
Vista Public Library (Civic Center Branch). Approximately 85 members of the
public attended. The meeting began with an introduction to the project and
process. A discussion on opportunities for public participation, anticipated
timelines, and related projects followed. The consultant team then presented
the basics of a Specific Plan, the boundaries of the study area, and a description
of the existing conditions for each of the nine Focus Area Districts.
A Visual Preference Survey was then conducted where members of the public
were to vote on various images with regard to building massing and scale.
Participants were able to rate images for each of the nine Focus Area Districts
as being appropriate, neutral, or inappropriate for that particular district.
In summary, participants consistently voted

pedestrian-oriented streetscapes with the
buildings located at the street edge as
their preference. Buildings with interesting
architectural details, such as well articulated
windows, entries, rooflines, and buildings
bases, were clearly preferred over large, box-
like structures. In most districts, a building
height of two to three stories seemed to be most
acceptable, with higher buildings preferred Participants voted on images in terms
Fg. 2.9
of appropriateness of massing and scale
near the freeway interchange districts.

Public comments and questions were solicited. Comments received included:
• A Website is needed as well as access for non-Internet users, such as a

hotline.
• Focus on streetscape – shade trees.
• Consider free shuttle buses to connect to Bay area, 3rd Avenue,
Broadway.
• Encourage public art.
• Create unified features to connect
pedestrian paths.
• Consider allowing 2nd floor residences
over commercial uses.
• Use “walkable communities” principles.
About 85 people attended the First • Encourage adaptive reuse of existing
Community Workshop
Fg. 2.10
historic buildings.
• Decide what is desirable about Chula Vista and reinforce that
character.
The workshop was very informative in setting a clear direction for how the
community visualized the short and long-term future of Chula Vista’s Urban
Core. The feedback obtained helped the consultant team to further develop
vision and design plans and ultimately this Specific Plan.
5. High School Presentations
Visual Preference Surveys were conducted at two local high schools on

September 29, 2004. Sixty-four students at Castle Park high school and
53 students at Hilltop High School rated images for each of the nine Urban
Core Focus Area Districts as being appropriate, neutral, or inappropriate for
that particular district with regard to building
massing and scale.
The students were enthusiastic about being

involved in the planning process and having
a chance to have their opinions heard. Both
groups of students presented similar results.
The students’ preferences were comparable
to those of the community at large; though
Students at Hilltop High School
Fg. 2.11 the students often rated larger developments
participate in a Visual Preference Survey
as more appropriate than did members of the

community participating in other visual preference surveys. In general, the
students’ preferences showed a greater affinity for higher intensity development
and taller buildings as well as more contemporary architectural styles.
6. Planning Commission and City Council Workshop

The information and ideas generated from the initial committee meetings,
community workshops, and high school surveys were used to create a series Chula Vista
of “vision plans” for the Urban Core. The vision plans were intended to evoke
an image of what the Urban Core could look like over the next 20 to 25 years
and to set the frame work for the preparation of the Specific Plan. A workshop
was then held on November 17, 2004 for members of the Chula Vista Planning
Commission and City Council to review the draft Vision Plans and Ten Key
Principles.
After some discussion on the differences between vision plans, which are
representative of broad ideals, versus master plans, which are more literal
representations of changes to an area, the Planning Commission and City
Council were very supportive of the Vision Plans. Only minor revisions were
suggested, such as the relocation of certain parking areas and structures and
the addition of more commercial development along H Street.
7. Second Community Workshop

On December 1, 2004 citizens were invited to participate in a second community
workshop. Results were presented from four visual preference surveys,
conducted at an Advisory Committee meeting, the first community workshop,
and two presentations at local high schools. The draft Vision Plans were also
presented, including the 10 Key Principles for future Urban Core development.
Public comments and questions were solicited using an interactive round-table
discussion focused on the three key visioning areas.
In summary, participants were supportive
and enthusiastic of the concepts and visions
presented. Comments included concern over
visitor parking, affordability of housing, and
the need to develop the Broadway corridor as
a retail, hospitality, and housing district that
would serve the needs of existing Chula Vista
residents. Participants were encouraged by
the opportunity to provide feedback.
The Draft Vision Plans were presented at

the Second Community Workshop
Fg. 2.12

8. Other Outreach Efforts
Frequently updated information was made available to the public on the
City’s website regarding the progress of the Specific Plan effort. The website
explained the Specific Plan project and process and kept citizens up to date
on the latest work projects. Information and exhibits presented at Advisory
Committee meetings were presented on the website and upcoming meeting
dates were posted. The website acted as a convenient source of information
for interested citizens.
9. Urban Core Newsletter
The City published an Urban Core Newsletter that informed residents of the
purpose and progress of the Specific Plan. The Newsletter provided a summary
of the initial planning effort culminating in the Vision Plans, which were
completed in December 2004. The newsletter allowed citizens of Chula Vista
to be more knowledgeable about
the Specific Plan effort and
afforded them an opportunity to
be more involved in the overall
Specific Plan process.
The City provided the Urban Core Specific Plan

Newsletter as an update for residents
Fg. 2.13

III. Vision
A. Vision for the Urban Core III-1
B. Ten Key Principles III-4
C. Vision Areas III-5
Chula Vista
Chapter III Vision

III. Vision
A. Vision for the Urban Core
The Specific Plan provides framework for enhancement to the economic,
social, and community fabric of Chula Vista’s Urban Core. The Specific Plan will
produce an economically enhanced Urban Core that is once again a thriving Chula Vista
downtown and focus of the City. The vision for the Urban Core builds upon the
vision for the City in the General Plan. The area will exhibit revitalized core uses
linked by pedestrian and bicycle connections with easy access to goods and
services and exhibiting quality design. The vision for the Urban Core seeks to
make a great place to live, work, and play even better.
While much of the existing stable residential fabric of the Urban Core will be
preserved, an increase in living and lifestyle choices for existing and future
residents will be afforded. These residents will further add to local business
revenues and create a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly activity center throughout
the day. The Specific Plan provides framework for additional mobility options by
creating linkages between the Urban Core, the Bayfront, and east Chula Vista
and encouraging increased pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity. Improved
services and amenities will make Chula Vista’s Urban Core an attractive and
focal hub of the City, as well as the South County region.
The Urban Core will be a successful environment for a variety of retail,

recreational, and residential opportunities
Fg. 3.1
Chapter III Vision III-1

The Urban Core Vision aims to create a uniquely identifiable Urban Core for
Chula Vista that is an economically vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, and multi-
purpose destination.
As part of the early foundational planning process, a vision for the urban core
was framed using the broad policies and objectives outlined in the General
Plan (2005).
Imagine a future for the Urban Core that is...
• A pedestrian-friendly City Center with an integrated mix of land uses

(retail, office, residential, entertainment and civic/cultural) woven
together by attractive and cohesive street improvements and buildings.
• The entertainment “hub” of the City with movie theaters, a playhouse,
restaurants with outdoor dining, adorned with broad sidewalks, plazas
and green parks that feature music and artistic performances.
• A place where new businesses are eager to locate and are attracted by
the improvements and the encouragement the City gives to investors,
downtown merchants, and property owners.
• A place for living as well as working. New “loft” style apartments that
will allow artisans and small businesses to get a start in the Village, while
new office spaces and residences for a diverse age group will flourish
above and behind ground floor shops.
• Supported by an expanded and improved public transit system, including
a new west side shuttle, with frequent and conveniently located stops
and including connections to the proposed transit centers, the Bayfront,
and the existing regional trolley system.
• Enriched with new cultural, recreational, and civic facilities to support
the mixed-use environment and reinforce the Urban Core as the “heart
of the City.”
• A harmonious blend of old and new, where new development takes its
design cues from the existing culture, character, and history of northwest
Chula Vista.
III-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Imagine a future for the Urban Core that embraces Chula Vista’s unique culture
and celebrates its rich heritage. The Urban Core of the future is the Urban
Core of the past, only better.
Chula Vista
The Urban Core should again be the heart of the City

Fg. 3.2

B. Ten Key Principles
Based on input from the community and Urban Core Specific Plan Advisory
Committee, ten key principles were established. The future development of
Chula Vista’s Urban Core shall be guided by the following overarching ideas and
goals that apply to all of the vision areas.
1. Develop a vibrant, distinct urban atmosphere with a day to evening

environment.
2. Build on and enhance Chula Vista’s cultural and historic traditions and
diversity.
3. Foster visible cultural and civic amenities, such as urban parks, outdoor
dining opportunities and civic promenades.
4. Establish a hierarchy of building forms with greatest densities at key
nodes.
5. Connect and integrate the Bayfront, East Chula Vista and individual
focus areas within the urban core.
6. Create lively and pedestrian-friendly environments through a
concentration of activities in a compact, mixed-use setting.
7. Transition new development to minimize impacts on existing residential
neighborhoods.
8. Provide creative parking strategies, including parking districts, structures
and reductions.
9. Define unique identities for focus areas through individualized
streetscape design and public spaces.
10. Restore the historic street grid in order to maximize transportation choices
and increase mobility and circulation opportunities for pedestrians,
transit and automobiles.

C. Vision Areas
As part of the visioning process, three distinct “vision areas” were identified.
The Vision areas were not intended to cover the entire Specific Plan Subdistricts
Area but rather capture the most significant areas that required further
planning guidance beyond that provided in the General Plan Update. The three
areas selected included the “Village”, consisting of downtown Third Avenue and
Chula Vista
the surrounding area, the “Grand Boulevard”, concentrating on the H Street
Corridor, and the “Promenade”, focusing on the rectangle between E Street
and H Street and I-5 and Broadway. Though the Urban Core area needs to be
unified and identifiable as the Urban Core of Chula Vista, the individual vision
areas each have distinguishing characteristics. Each vision area is described
below and a vision statement for that area is delineated.

1. The Village Vision Area
a. Description
The Village Vision Area is the heart of Chula Vista’s traditional downtown. This
area is generally bounded by Church Avenue and Fourth Avenue on the east
and west and by E Street and G Street on the north and south. Third Avenue
is the primary retail and office district and is anchored by transitional office
and residential uses. The Civic Center, including City Hall and associated
facilities, is located at Fourth Avenue and F Street and is in the process of being
upgraded pursuant to the Civic Center Master Plan. Friendship Park, Memorial
Park, and other potential park opportunities link the Village and provide quality
urban amenities to nearby residents. This area exhibits much of the traditional
community character and is home to many community facilities, such as the
Civic Center, the Central Library, Police Station, and Friendship Park.
b. Vision Statement
The Village will be a lively destination with a small town feel. Restaurants,
outdoor cafes, bookstores, art houses, theaters, and shops will flank the
expanded sidewalks and tree-lined streetscape. This entertainment and retail
destination serves all of Chula Vista by energizing the 3rd Avenue corridor and
vicinity. The district also celebrates cultural arts and civic functions linked by an
enhanced park system. In addition, the new residential housing opportunities
will allow the area to resurge and thrive.

Chula Vista
Third Avenue
Gateway Monument
Typical Paseo
The Village Visionary Sketches
Fg. 3.3

2. The Grand Boulevard Vision Area
a. Description
The Grand Boulevard Vision Area is the central axis of the Urban Core area.
This vision area consists of H Street and the adjacent area from Third Avenue
to Broadway. This area includes the Gateway office development, the South
County Regional Courthouse Complex, Scripps Hospital and associated medical
facilities, and the Chula Vista Center regional shopping mall, as well as a variety
of other office and commercial activities.
b. Vision Statement
The H Street corridor is the primary business, commercial and transit backbone
of the Urban Core. Buildings, plazas and parkways activate the street edge and
deliver a bustling pedestrian environment. The Grand Boulevard is the most
urban of the vision areas with medium rise buildings forming the backdrop to
the double rows of trees, extended sidewalks, frequent transit stops, newspaper
stands and kiosks. A unique streetscape character provides continuity among
diverse elements such as the regional mall, hospital, and office developments.

Chula Vista
III-9
Plaza along H Street
Third Avenue and H Street
Row Housing adjacent to Retail Center

The Grand Boulevard Visionary Sketches
Fg. 3.4

3. The Promenade Vision Area
a. Description
The Promenade Vision Area acts as an attractive entryway to the City of Chula
Vista. Stretching parallel to the I-5 corridor and generally west of Broadway,
from E Street to H Street, the area is currently a mix of auto-oriented retail
commercial uses and low-rise multi-family housing and mobile home parks.
Redevelopment of the area will provide a mix of aesthetically pleasing visitor
serving and resident serving uses and create a desirable neighborhood
atmosphere.
b. Vision Statement
A dynamic mix of regional transit centers, visitor serving uses and a retail
complex surrounds an enhanced, medium-rise residential quarter. Circulation
is improved by re-establishing the traditional street grid. A tree-lined, extended
linear park offers both neighborhood and community serving amenities
supported by mid-block paseos. The park transitions from an active community
venue with a more formal landscape to recreational features such as tennis
and basketball courts to passive greens. Anchoring the park, the retail plaza
links the Bayfront to the regional mall. Ample public spaces provide for open
air markets, mercados, cultural festivals, art exhibits and other community
events.

Chula Vista
Plaza at
Promenade
Terminus
Park Atmosphere
Typical
Paseo
The Promenade Visionary Sketches
Fg. 3.5

IV. Existing Conditions
A. Introduction IV-1
B. Historic Resources IV-2
C. Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning IV-12
D. Circulation and Mobility IV-17 Chula Vista
E. Economic Conditions IV-19
Chapter IV Existing Conditions

IV. Existing Conditions
A. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the built environment within the
Specific Plan area. A brief historical overview of the Urban Core is provided as
well as significant historical structures and features in the area. The chapter Chula Vista
also details the existing conditions within the plan area in terms of land use
and zoning, circulation and mobility, and economic conditions.
Chapter IV Existing Conditions IV-1

B. Historic Resources
1. The Early Years Before Incorporation
The Otay Valley has been occupied by Native American cultures for more than
9,000 years. The early Native American inhabitants established settlements,
hunted game, and utilized the abundant resources along the river valley. The
first western settlers were Spanish missionaries sent by the King of Spain to
establish missions along the coast of California. In 1795, the area known today
as Chula Vista became part of a land grant from the King of Spain; the area was
known as Rancho del Rey or the King’s Ranch.
With Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, Rancho del Rey became part
of the new Mexican nation and was renamed Rancho de la Nacion, National
Ranch. In 1845, National Ranch was granted to John Forster, son-in-law of
the Mexican governor Pico. After
the Mexican-American War and
the subsequent admission of
California to the United States,
the US confirmed ownership and
operation of the ranch by John
Forster.
A change of ownership and

several significant transportation
improvements, such as the
addition of several major rail lines,
occurred throughout the mid and
late 1800’s. By 1890 a railroad
had been built from San Diego,
through Chula Vista, and ending in
San Ysidro. In the late 1800’s, San
Diego Land and Town Company
developed the 5,000-acre Chula
Vista tract, as a product of the
professional town planner, C.W.
Dickinson. Lots were originally
laid out in 5-acre parcels with 80-
foot wide streets. Many of the new
owners began citrus orchards on
their acreage, particularly lemon
orchards, leading to early Chula
Vista claims of the “Lemon Capital
1894 Plat Map of the Chula Vista area
Fg. 4.1 of the World.”
IV-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Lot purchasers were expected to build a modern house within six months; the
house was subject to architectural approval and had a required setback of 125
feet. Land sales in Chula Vista began in 1887 and proved to be very popular. Most
early houses were of a traditional Victorian style. Architecturally, Craftsman folk
cottages and bungalows followed the Victorian style and an eventual transition
was made to a more Mission Revival and Spanish Mediterranean architecture.
Lot sizes also decreased over the years, to an average one-acre and half-acre Chula Vista
lots, with continued generous setbacks.
Around this time, the intersection of Third Avenue and F Street was considered
to be the center of town. In 1907, the National City and Otay Railroad line
was converted to an electric streetcar line. The streetcar line ran north to
south along Third Avenue for several years and was eventually replaced by a
landscaped median.
2. The City of Chula Vista is Formed

In 1911, the City of
Chula Vista was officially
incorporated with a
population of 550. As
a top priority, in 1913
the City installed 26
streetlights and paved
several streets. Looking south on F Street east of Third Avenue in 1911.
The first church and school are to the right.
Fg. 4.2
Over the next quarter
century, the World Wars proved to have a significant impact on Chula Vista’s future.
The City’s economic system began to shift from agriculture to manufacturing
and Chula Vista
expanded significantly
during World War II due
to booming wartime
production in local
industries. The largest
of these companies
was the Rohr Aircraft
Corporation, a major
military supplier during
WWII that employed
9,000 at the height of
production. In addition,
the high concentration
Looking south at intersection of Third Avenue and F
of military bases in the Street in 1936
Fg. 4.3

area led to an increase in population as many
veterans decided to remain in the area after
the end of the war. These major changes
caused the population of Chula Vista to triple
in the time period from 1940 to 1950.
Major projects from the later twentieth century

included the 1962 development of the Chula
Vista Shopping Center on Broadway between H
Street and I Street and the 1972 construction
of the first high-rise building, the 16-story
Chula Vista Community Congregation Tower on
F Street. Throughout the century, the City of
Chula Vista experienced continued annexation
and expansion to the east, north, and south and
developed into one of the largest communities
in the San Diego region. However, in the midst
of the expanding community, the central core
experienced problems with the changing
economic situation and began to develop a
blighted atmosphere. In the 1970’s, several
The 16-story Chula Vista Community
Tower was the City’s first high-rise
Fg. 4.4 City redevelopment projects, made the first
steps toward revitalization of the declining
Urban Core.
All great cities evolve over time but only the best cities recognize, build on and
enhance their most valued traditions and resources. Beginning with the early
1900’s and the City’s incorporation, the City of Chula Vista progressed through
a series of “lifecycles”, each with it’s own unique contribution to the City’s
history. The community’s lifecycle during the early 1900’s revolved around its
agricultural heyday, the mid 1900’s are remembered as the “Rohr” ing 50’s and
the changes of the latter 1900’s focused on an expanding the City with annexing
new lands and rapidly developing to the east. The City is now approaching its
100th anniversary and, with the new visions established for the urban core, is
poised to write the next chapter in its history.
At the start of the current century, citizens of Chula Vista have high hopes for
the future of their City. With over 200,000 residents and over 50 square miles
of land, Chula Vista is now the second largest city in San Diego County. Citizens
are eager for the City to reflect and reestablish its prominence and aesthetic
quality, especially in the traditional Urban Core.

3. Historic Sites in the Study Area
In 1985, the City of Chula Vista sponsored a local historic resources inventory.
The inventory was limited to the area bounded by Trousdale Drive to the north,
L Street to the south, Interstate 5 to the west, and Hilltop Drive on the east. As
a result, approximately 258 homes were included on the survey list with 42 of
the homes being included on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites. There are
68 sites currently designated as historic by the City of Chula Vista. These 68 Chula Vista
structures have been determined by the City Council to meet the City’s historic
criteria.
Several City designated historic sites and structures are located within the
Specific Plan area and provide context and historical reference for the Specific
Plan’s architectural and cultural character. (See Figure 4.5 Historic Resources
Map.)
The Chula Vista Heritage Museum maintains information on the historical areas
and structures in Chula Vista and is an excellent source for further information
on historic properties. The Heritage Museum’s “Take a Walk of History, Tour
Historic Sites in Chula Vista” brochure provides detailed information on many
of these non-designated sites. The following describes the designated historic
sites and their features:

Historic Resources Map
Fg. 4.5
IV-6
a. 699 E Street – Former Site of Greg Rogers House
The Greg Rogers House, also known as
“Bay Breeze” was built in 1910 at 699
E Street. The home was constructed by
Greg Rogers, one of the founders of the
City of Chula Vista and also founded the
City’s first bank. The 5,700 square foot Chula Vista
Craftsman style house had multiple
bathrooms and several fireplaces. In
1985, the home was threatened with
demolition in its original location and
was moved from 699 E Street. The
home was eventually relocated to 616
Second Avenue. At this time, the site Sketch of Bay Breeze, the Greg
where the home once stood remains a Rogers House
Fg. 4.6
City designated historical site.
b. 666 Third Avenue – Our House/Orchard
House
“Our House”, a large home in the Queen
Anne style, once stood at 666 Third
Avenue; however, the structure was
destroyed by fire. At this time, the site
where the home once stood remains a
Photo of “Our House” before it was

destroyed by fire
Fg. 4.7

c. 276 F Street – First Congregational
Church
The First Congregational Church was the
first church opened in Chula Vista. The
original sanctuary for the church was
constructed in 1894 at 276 F Street.
Community members raised money to fund
the sanctuary construction and the Land
and Town Company donated the land. The
original structure was torn down in 1951
and a new sanctuary was constructed in its
place; the site of the former sanctuary is a
d. 301-305 Third Avenue – Melville Block
The Melville Block was constructed by
Original First Congregational Church Edward Melville, one of Chula Vista’s first
building constructed in 1911
Fg. 4.8
businessmen. The Melville Block consists
of a 1911 two-story building in the Eclectic
Commercial style architecture. The Chula
Vista State Bank originally occupied the
corner spaces, followed by the Chula Vista
Dry Goods Company. The first story of the
building has been significantly altered from
its original state and many of the original
ornamental features have been removed,
but overall the building retains its historical
value. The structure was recently noted in a
guide to San Diego Architecture published
New First Congregational Church by the American Institute of Architects.
building constructed in 1956
Fg. 4.9
301-305 Third Avenue is known as

the Melville Block
Fg. 4.10

e. 374 Roosevelt Street – Mark Skinner
House
Constructed in 1924 by Mark Skinner,
a well-known local businessman, this
house is a unique variation on the
Bungalow style popular in the early part
of the twentieth century. The original Chula Vista
siding on the house has been replaced
but the original design theme remains. The Mark Skinner house at 374
Roosevelt Street
Fg. 4.11
f. 382/384 Del Mar Avenue – The First
Women’s Clubhouse
The Women’s Club was the first place in
the City of Chula Vista for women active
in civic affairs to meet and gather. The
Club was involved in many community
activities, including fund-raising for
various events. The Club first convened
at 382/384 Del Mar Avenue in the
early 1900’s and met at this site on Del
Mar Avenue for many years until the
Club eventually outgrew the site and
relocated to a larger space at 357 G The First Women’s Club in Chula
Fg. 4.12
Street. The building on Del Mar Avenue Vista met here on Del Mar Avenue
retains its historical significance as the

Women’s Club’s first meeting site.

4. Other Sites of Historic Interest
The following sections document or describe sites that fall within the Specific
Plan Subdistrict Area that are other sites of historical interest and sites that
were identified as part of the Cultural Resources Report for the Evaluation of
the Historical and Architectural Significance of 50 Properties within the Chula
Vista Urban Core.
In addition to the six designated historic sites, the Urban Core Specific Plan
Area includes other sites of historical interest. These sites include: The El
Primero Hotel, The Memorial Bowl (A Works Projects Administration project),
The Charles Smith Building, The People’s State Bank, Leader Department
Store, and Security Pacific Bank. These sites/structures, in addition to others,
all contribute to the historic fabric of the Specific Plan area. Important historical
sites such as these provide the context of the image, character, and history of
Chula Vista’s urban core that is to inspire and shape future development within
the Specific Plan area.
A photographic essay has been included in Chapter VII - Development Design

Guidelines to provide architects and designers with important visual cues
that can be drawn from existing development and incorporated into new
development. Used appropriately, new development can respond to Chula
Vista’s unique architectural heritage and promote the most positive aspects of
existing development.
5. Sites Evaluated for Potential Eligibility as Historic Architectural

Sites
In 2005, the City evaluated 50 properties within the Specific Plan Subdistrict
Area for historic evaluation and determination of eligibility for listing. This
evaluation is titled Cultural Resources Report for the Evaluation of the Historical
and Architectural Significance of 50 Properties within the Chula Vista Urban
Core.
This focused survey augments the 1985 inventory and is not intended to be
representative of a comprehensive survey of the Specific Plan Subdistrict Area.
The area around Third Avenue and F Street is considered to be the historic
core of the City and includes important elements of the early residential and
business activities of the City. Therefore this area within the Specific Plan Village
District was the focus area for historic evaluation.
The structures were selected based on the periods of significance and include
mostly structures within the Village District along Third Avenue, the City’s
traditional downtown, and adjacent side streets. The sites are also all located
within adopted redevelopment areas and thus have an increased potential to
redevelop over the short to mid term. Five sites were identified as potentially

eligible. For a complete listing of properties inventoried, please see the Specific
Plan Program EIR NO. 06-01, Appendix B.
The potential for the existence of other significant historic properties within the
Specific Plan Subdistrict Area is possible given the number of older commercial
structures and homes throughout the Specific Plan Subdistrict Area. These
could be identified as part of a more comprehensive survey conducted in the Chula Vista
future.
In addition, the City is considering developing a Historic Preservation Ordinance

and establishing design standards and other relevant requirements for historic
properties. Currently, the City of Chula Vista historic preservation program is
limited to voluntary historic designation and voluntary participation in the Mills
Act. Under the Mills Act, a property owner enters into a contract that gives City
oversight on matters of rehabilitation and renovation of the site in exchange for
a reduction in property taxes. Conducting a current inventory and establishing
an historic designation process, and seeking Certified Local Government
designation are top historic preservation priorities for the City.
6. How Historic Information Will Be Used

The inventory of existing historical resources lends important reference for
new development in the Specific Plan area. While the plan does not require
strict application of traditional historic architectural styles, the historic
influences, nonetheless, should be honored and retained where possible.
Land use and development recommendations within the plan area will use and
refer to the 1985 Historic Resources inventory. In addition, the Urban Core
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides an assessment of
limited additional properties within the Specific Plan area that may qualify as
historic and establishes mitigation measures to be considered in the event of
redevelopment. See EIR NO. 06-01 for specific sites. Other sites that may be
identified as part of other historic surveys should also be considered.
Consideration of important historical features is built into the planning process

and is an important facet of land use planning and urban design throughout
the plan area. The design guidelines encourage the use of building elements
and/or features typically found on historical structures. The development
standards emulate the form, massing, and relationship of building to sidewalk
of these historical structures.
The plan is subdivided into various planning districts, each with a special set of
planning and design directions. The degree to which historic structures influence
the design direction within these districts may vary; however, protection of
existing noteworthy structures and respect for the City’s heritage is a theme
that will guide new development.

C. Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning
1. General Plan
The General Plan (2005) divides land uses into six broad categories: Residential;
Commercial; Mixed Use; Industrial; Open Space, Parks, and Public/Quasi-
Public; and Special Plan Areas. Of these categories, the Specific Plan area
encompasses residential, commercial, mixed use, and open space, parks, and
public/quasi-public uses (see Figure 4.13). These designations are further
broken down into subcategories, based on density and intensity of the use. For
General Plan purposes, densities apply to residential uses and are measured in
terms of dwelling units per gross acre (du/ac). Intensity applies to commercial,
mixed use, and industrial uses and is measured by Floor Area Ratio (FAR). On
the whole, the General Plan provides for an increase in density and intensity
for most areas of the Specific Plan. As the population of the City continues
to expand, increasing the intensity of uses provides an opportunity for more
efficient use of land in the Urban Core and will create a more urban, rather than
suburban, context.
One of the most significant changes related to land use designations for the
General Plan is the addition of the new Mixed Use category. The combination
of commercial and residential activities is expected to provide many benefits,
including better utilization of scarce land resources and improved accessibility
to public amenities.
Each General Plan land use designation is related to specific zoning districts,
which are defined by the zoning ordinance. As an implementing action of
the General Plan (2005), several new zoning categories will be created to be
consistent with new General Plan standards. The Specific Plan will provide new
zoning regulations for sub-district areas within the Specific Plan area. (See
Chapter VI - Land Use and Development Standards and Figure 5.1 Specific Plan
Key Map.)
2. Zoning
The majority of the Specific Plan Subdistrict Area is currently designated for some
form of commercial uses, though the outer edges of the area permit broader
uses. Zoning districts within the Urban Core include: Central Business, Central
Commercial, Commercial Thoroughfare, Visitor Commercial, Administrative
and Professional Office, Limited Industrial, Public/Quasi-Public, One- and Two-
Family Residence, Apartment Residential, and Exclusive Mobilehome Park.
(See Figure 4.13 and 4.14.)

The existing zoning ordinance includes modifying districts have been attached
to several of the zones within the Specific Plan area. These existing modifying
districts impose special regulations in addition to those otherwise applicable to
the zone. The modifying districts appearing within the Specific Plan area are:
Design Control and Precise Plan. Property within the Design Control modifying
district requires site plan and architectural approval of the City. The Precise
Plan modifying district allows for diversification in structures, land uses, density, Chula Vista
and landscaping. A precise plan for the area must gain City approval.
The traditional downtown along Third Avenue and the area of the H Street corridor
consist mainly of Central Business, Central Commercial, and Administrative
and Professional Office uses. These districts are primarily composed of
general retail sales and restaurant uses that serve the city as a whole and/
or the surrounding community, as well as medical, dental, executive, financial
and other offices. Residential mixed-use development may be permitted with
a conditional use permit. The center of the H Street corridor is marked by the
retail uses of the Chula Vista Mall as a regional shopping destination.
The Broadway corridor is almost exclusively a Commercial Thoroughfare zone.

The Commercial Thoroughfare zone allows the same types of retail sales as
the other districts but also permits car dealerships, hotel uses, and other
commercial recreational facilities. Less intensive multi-family residential, and
occasionally industrial, uses extend out from these three core areas to the
edges of the Specific Plan boundaries.
The Specific Plan subdistricts border established residential neighborhoods

where measures are warranted to minimize impacts from more intensive
commercial activities and development.
The majority of Public/Quasi-Public uses are concentrated in the traditional

downtown area of Chula Vista, between Third and Fourth Avenues and E and G
Streets. The Chula Vista Civic Center is comprised of a number of civic facilities,
including the police headquarters, the library’s main branch, administration
offices, City Council chambers, a public services building, and Fire Station
No. 1. The Civic Center is currently undergoing an extensive expansion to
accommodate the long term needs and growth of the City. In addition to civic
facilities, the Civic Center and downtown are surrounded by a series of parks and
community centers. These public spaces include Will T. Hyde/Friendship Park,
Memorial Park, Parkway Gymnasium and Pool, Norman Park and Community
Senior Center, and Eucalyptus Park.

Existing City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Map (Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 4.13
IV-14
Existing City of Chula Vista Zoning Map (Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 4.14
IV-15
Chapter IV Existing Conditions
3. Land Use Opportunities and Constraints
A primary objective of the Specific Plan is to focus pedestrian-oriented retail
and entertainment uses in the downtown core and minimize the amount of
auto-oriented uses. The Specific Plan will also allow residential and office uses
to mix above retail shops, forming a traditional downtown environment where
living, working, shopping, and entertainment all coexist together.
The H Street corridor will have a continued focus on commercial uses,

though revitalization of the regional mall area into a more pedestrian-friendly
environment is a major goal.
The Broadway corridor will be reinforced as the main visitor-serving area of

Chula Vista and new development will support this focus. The corridor includes a
substantial number of culturally diverse restaurants, and with proper marketing,
this cluster could lend itself to the formation of a successful restaurant row.
Major transit centers are located in this area and will facilitate transportation
throughout the Urban Core. A redeveloped residential neighborhood, which
will provide expanded housing opportunities as well as a variety of recreational
opportunities, will augment the aesthetic quality of the Broadway district.
When working toward achieving the Specific Plan vision, several issues have the
potential to create challenges for the process. The Specific Plan subdistricts
area contain multiple parcels under many different ownerships. Residential
development within the Urban Core has occurred over an extended period
of time and there are varying ages of the existing housing stock. In terms
of commercial activity, there is a current lack of cohesiveness among the
commercial corridors within the area. The Urban Core would also benefit from
the addition of supporting neighborhood-serving commercial businesses.
The traditional street grid pattern offers a variety of connectivity and accessibility
opportunities; however, the traditional grid is interrupted in several places within
the Urban Core, limiting current connectivity options. In addition, the Urban
Core is currently very automobile-oriented and a lack of pedestrian, bicycle and
transit corridors exists. Implementing improvements to these areas will be a
focus of the Specific Plan.

D. Circulation and Mobility
Circulation in the Urban Core is primarily provided through the traditional street
grid pattern. H Street, an east-west urban arterial, is the central connector for
the Urban Core, supporting important retail commercial activities for the region.
Broadway runs north-south and provides a more auto-oriented environment,
with a focus on visitor-serving commercial. In contrast, Third Avenue is the
Chula Vista
heart of the traditional downtown core of Chula Vista and offers a pedestrian-
friendly, intimate retail/office environment. Other significant roadways include
E Street and F Street. Appendix B provides a complete Traffic Impact Analysis
for the Specific Plan.
Though not within the Specific Plan area, Interstate 5 and the San Ysidro Blue
Line of the San Diego Trolley System form the western border of the Specific
Plan area, thus developing a major connection between the Urban Core and
the surrounding region and providing extended transportation opportunities.
The City is currently served by a variety of mass transit options, including rail,
trolley, and bus services.
In general, the street network within the Urban Core of Chula Vista is laid out in
a grid system. Roadways running east-west are usually “Streets” and roadways
flowing north-south are usually “Avenues”. However, over time, the traditional
street grid has been broken. Many roads have been interrupted, especially
in the extreme northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area, between the
I-5 Freeway and Broadway. The truncated streets create a connectivity
problem within neighborhoods. The Specific Plan endeavors to reintroduce
the traditional grid, thus diffusing traffic along multiple routes and providing a
variety of opportunities for reaching one’s destination.
Another challenge is to improve mobility by clarifying the system of street

hierarchy. Though some streets are more significant than others in terms of
community services provided, these streets are not differentiated from other
roadways in terms of width, number of lanes, or other recognizable features.
For example, as the address of a major regional retail center, H Street should
be more dominant than some of the surrounding streets that provide access to
other neighborhood servicing commercial uses and residences.
The General Plan and Specific Plan both focus on increasing the opportunities
for multiple travel modes in this area. The synchronicity of the transit systems
is also an important topic. Transit stops for different modes of transit should
be located close to one another to provide easy access to changes in mode of
travel. The scheduling of transit vehicles, both within a service and amongst
services, should be coordinated to allow easy transfers between transit routes
and different types of transit services. The Specific Plan addresses these issues
and suggests ways to calm the behavior of traffic within the Urban Core.

Other key constraints to mobility within the Urban Core include an environment
that is generally unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as the lack of
links from the Urban Core to other portions of the City, such as the Bayfront
area or east Chula Vista.

E. Economic Conditions
The following is a summary of economic conditions that will influence the
type and quantity of new and redevelopment activity in the Specific Plan area.
Appendix C provides a complete Market Analysis for the Specific Plan.
1. Existing Conditions and Projected Trends Chula Vista

a. Regional
The City of Chula Vista is located in a strong and relatively stable regional
economic environment. The City’s location within South San Diego County,
between the two growing economic hubs of San Diego and Tijuana, is a prime
location for capitalizing on regional growth. Regional competition continues to
thrive in this market. The diverse regional economy is powered by manufacturing,
the military, tourism, business and technology services, and trade.
The defense portion of the City’s trade has declined in recent decades due
to successful efforts in international relations as well as national economic
trends. However, recent international events have led to somewhat of a
resurgence in this particular industry. Currently, in spite of its location, Chula
Vista is not very competitive in the regional tourism market and tourism is only
a minor player in the local economy. Bayfront development may provide a key
for regional attraction to Chula Vista. Despite the recent challenges to these
sectors, defense, tourism, and the City’s proximity to Mexico will continue to be
significant factors in the region’s economy.
Currently, there is a regional shortage of affordable market rate housing; as long

as San Diego County continues to rank as one of the highest priced housing
markets in the country, affordable housing will continue to be an issue for the
area.
b. Urban Core
Though the Urban Core exists in a relatively stable economic environment,
revitalization is essential to the long-term future of the area. Western Chula
Vista, which includes the Urban Core, is relatively built out compared to eastern
Chula Vista, presenting both opportunities and challenges for development.
Existing SANDAG forecasts predict that the Urban Core may see a declining
portion of sub-regional growth over the next 25 years. However, western Chula
Vista’s share of jobs will continue to remain strong relative to other portions
of the City. New competition may elicit a decline in the Urban Core’s market
share of regional sales, but as the market population grows, local sales are also
expected to expand.

In comparison to eastern Chula Vista, the Urban Core overall receives lower
rents but has higher land prices, which makes it difficult for new projects to
achieve financial feasibility. Rents in the Urban Core, for retail, residential, and
office uses, are lower than average, due mainly to the older building stock.
Of these, the retail and residential sectors appear to be faring best overall.
Rising prices and low vacancy rates are positive indicators for these sectors,
despite the low rental rates. Trends show that the Urban Core could absorb at
least 3,600 new housing units over the next 25 years while many opportunities
exist for the retail sector. The office sector is slightly worse off, with both low
occupancy rates and low rental rates. However, recent success in new office
development indicates that there is a potential latent demand for higher quality
office space in the Urban Core.
2. Economic Strategies
Opportunities for residential development appear to be a major basis for future
development in the Urban Core. The shortage of affordable housing stock
presents an immediate need and opportunity both within the Urban Core and
the region as a whole.
Retail development is also key to the revitalization of the Urban Core. The
traditional role of the Urban Core must adjust to growing competition from
surrounding areas, including eastern Chula Vista, downtown San Diego, and
border communities. The Urban Core should develop a strategy to recapture
sales lost to these surrounding locations.
A strategy with high potential for success is that of focusing on a niche market.
The Urban Core could greatly increase its retail trade by developing a unique
niche environment, focused on culture, music, and food, that would attract
its own visitors to the region. Tourism opportunities could increase from this
development and the City may expand its regional entertainment value from its
current state.
Another viable opportunity is that of leveraging the Mexican market. The Urban
Core has potential to increase the quantity of cross-border shoppers for a variety
of retail products, services, and entertainment needs.

3. SWOT Analysis
Development prospects within the Urban Core have many competitive strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) to capitalize upon or avoid
and prepare against. SWOT analysis is a tool used to identify each of these
potential market and economic issues early in the planning and development
process to help concentrate efforts and avoid diluted or scattered development.
Ultimately, the goal of any SWOT analysis is to focus efforts towards achieving Chula Vista
early success and generate the momentum necessary to achieve the long-
term vision. The following is an examination of the Urban Core’s market and
economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
a. Strengths
• Location between San Diego and Tijuana
• Strong and established retail market
• Proximity to the Bay
• Established employment, retail, and residential center with high
occupancy
• Public investment in infrastructure
• Quality entry-level and mid-market rate ownership housing
• Transit linkages
• Traditional downtown district
• Good regional access
b. Weaknesses
• Relatively lower incomes
• Practically nonexistent tourism industry
• Low hotel room costs and hotel occupancy rates
• Aging building stock
• Relatively lower rents
• Public facility deficiencies
• Relatively neutral regional market image
• Weak linkage with the Bayfront

c. Opportunities
• Affordable development relative to downtown San Diego
• Ability to capture a larger share of housing demand than SANDAG
forecasts
• An alternative urban lifestyle from downtown San Diego
• Coastal view development and links to the Bayfront
• Pedestrian and transit-oriented development
• Intercept Mexican market consumers
• Become South County’s office employment, retail, and entertainment
center
• Housing for many incomes, preferences, and cultures
d. Threats
• Competition from other mixed-use urban nodes in the region
• Competition from Bayfront development if not linked with core
• Competition from the Eastern Urban Center if not adequately
distinguished
• Cost and complexity of land assembly and infill development
• Infrastructure and public facility constraints
• Not overcoming “second tier” reputation in regional market
• Exposure to Mexican currency fluctuations

V. Mobility
A. Introduction V-1
B. Pedestrian Facilities V-2
C. Bicycle Facilities V-5
D. Transit Routes V-9 Chula Vista
E. Vehicle Traffic V-14
F. Parking V-46
Chapter V Mobility 1
V. Mobility
A. Introduction
This chapter of the Specific Plan discusses the roles of mobility to support the
vision and goals for the planning area. This chapter presents improvements for
the main thoroughfares of the Urban Core and other streets within the Specific Chula Vista
Plan area, including pedestrian, bicycle facilities, transit, vehicular and parking
opportunities.
The Specific Plan strives to create pedestrian-friendly destinations in the Urban

Core. The Mobility chapter is intended to foster a downtown environment that
is the heart of the City with active, engaged, human-oriented streetscapes and
where the car is not viewed as the only mode of travel for the people who live,
work, or shop here.
Although mobility in many forms is encouraged and needed throughout the

Urban Core, the hierarchy of emphasis is: pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and
finally, the automobile. However, the mode emphasis will vary from street to
street and neighborhood to neighborhood. For instance, H Street is the transit
and vehicle backbone for the Urban Core, yet still provides enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle amenities. For Third Avenue, the pedestrian takes precedence and
vehicle speeds are reduced. While different streets will have varying emphasis
on the type of travel modes utilized, it is a goal of the Specific Plan that non-
motorized trip making will be the fastest growing component of all types of trips
made, rather than trips by private vehicle.
Information contained in this chapter relies in large part on the traffic engineering
analyses conducted for the Urban Core by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.,
and is also complemented by the policies contained in Chapter VIII - Public
Realm Design Guidelines. For the complete traffic analyses, see Appendix B
- Traffic Impact Analysis.
Chapter V Mobility V-1

B. Pedestrian Facilities
1. Introduction
Creating better pedestrian facilities and providing an expanded and enhanced
pedestrian environment is a primary objective of the Urban Core. In fact, almost
all of Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines is devoted to improving
the pedestrian environment. With the increased density, mix of uses, and
pedestrian improvements, walking will become a preferred way to move about
the Urban Core.
Widened sidewalks are proposed for all key streets including Third Avenue, E
Street, F Street, H Street and Broadway. In Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design
Guidelines, direction is provided for sidewalks, crosswalks, furnishings,
intersections, trees and other landscaping, lighting, plazas and paseos -- all in
support of improving the pedestrian experience and encouraging “feet on the
street.” In this chapter, focus is provided on traffic calming elements in support
of pedestrian circulation.
2. Traffic Calming Design Elements

The potential design elements described below aim to balance the needs to
effectively moderate vehicle speeds and improve the pedestrian environment
while conforming to acceptable engineering standards. These traffic calming
tools include adding median refuge islands, corner curb extensions or
“bulbouts,” accent paving at crosswalks, and speed tables, as well as narrowing
traffic lanes. Design elements should be considered at key intersections, such
as those described in Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines, Section
H. Sidewalk and Pedestrian Improvements. Specific locations for these
elements will be identified through a Streetscape Master Plan or other similar
improvement plans.
a. Refuge Islands
Medians can be used to create pedestrian “refuge islands” that reduce the
number of lanes a pedestrian must cross at one time. Refuge islands are
extensions of the median that create a protected
crosswalk in the middle of the street. Refuge
islands should be considered on streets where
medians are provided: Third Avenue, H Street,
F Street and Broadway.
Example of a refuge island

Fg. 5.1
V-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

b. Bulbouts
The use of curb extensions or “bulbouts’ is
also suggested at selected intersections in the
Urban Core including Third Avenue, F Street,
Broadway and Woodlawn. Bulbouts extend the
curbs to widen the sidewalk area at crosswalk
locations. This reduces the distance that Chula Vista
pedestrians must cross. Intersections that
include bulbouts shall be designed so that the
outer travel lanes have adequate clearance
for turning of larger vehicles such as trucks. Example of a bulbout Fg. 5.2
Drainage issues with bulbouts are also an
important consideration, particularly in Chula
Vista where much of the drainage is surface. So where gutter flow cannot be
accommodated around the perimeter of a bulbout, it may be necessary to
incorporate features such as removable grates to facilitate water flow. Fire lane
access also can be accommodated successfully with thoughtful design.
c. Street Trees
Street trees offer an aesthetic alternative to the wide-open speedway feeling
of a treeless arterial. Street trees planted at the sidewalk edge and in medians
have a traffic calming effect as they create a visually enclosed and perceptually
narrower street scene. Street trees are encouraged throughout the Specific
Plan area. Within Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines, conceptual
streetscape plans incorporating street trees are provided for Third Avenue, E
Street, F Street, H Street, and Broadway as well as other primary streets and
neighborhoods streets. Street tree species recommendations are provided as
well as complementary landscape palettes.
d. Accent Paving
Accent paving such as unit pavers or colored concrete can be used on crosswalks
to accentuate pedestrian crossings. The change in texture gives motorists a
visual and audible heightened awareness which in turn can slow traffic. Please
refer to Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines for additional information
on accent paving and pedestrian crossings.
e. Narrowed Travel Lanes

Narrowing travel lanes, such as those proposed for H Street and Broadway,
encourage slower vehicle speeds and reduce the pedestrian crossing distances.
Drivers have been found to travel more slowly on streets with narrower lane
widths. The effect is largely psychological. Narrower travel lanes and street
widths require more attention from drivers and are often used in downtown

environments that experience a higher degree of potential conflicts, such as
pedestrians, frequent movements to and from side streets, and vehicles making
parking maneuvers.
Narrower lanes also have the benefit of reducing pedestrian crossing distances
(which is also a safety benefit) and freeing up space for other uses such as
parking, bike lanes, medians, and widened sidewalks. The street cross sections
provided in the following section of this chapter provide for the least wide travel
lanes while still meeting traffic engineering needs.

C. Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle is an important component to any mobility plan in Chula Vista,
and especially for the Urban Core. Bicycling offers enjoyment and quality of
life for residents of Chula Vista, and it also offers a valuable, cost-effective,
and environmentally sensitive form of transportation. The Circulation Element
of the General Plan and the Bikeway Master Plan have targeted corridors in
Chula Vista
areas of the City for improvement with regard to bicycle facilities. Presently
the General Plan does not contain plans to add bikeways routes or upgrade
classifications of existing bikeways in the Urban
Core. Despite higher volumes of traffic on many
of the Urban Core roadways, bicyclists will still
access downtown businesses and attractions
and, therefore, will need to be considered
in any planning efforts encompassing this
area. Therefore the Specific Plan provides
an opportunity to address deficiencies in
the bikeway network. Figure 5.4 presents a
graphic depiction of the Existing and Proposed Bikeway classifications Fg. 5.3
Bikeways.
Class III bikeways (signs, no paint in right-of-way) are presently provided on the
following roadways within the Urban Core:
• Fourth Avenue
• Fifth Avenue (except between H and I Streets)
• F Street
• J Street
As a project feature of the Specific Plan, Class I bike paths are proposed to be
added to F Street and H Street. Both F and H Streets are excellent candidates
for enhanced bicycle transit due to the available right-of-way and connectivity
with the Bayfront. Bike path and lanes (Class I or Class II facilities respectively)
are typically more attractive to families and casual cyclists. The proposed
improvements parallel E Street and G Street, and provide an improved
opportunity for east-west bicycle travel. F Street and H Street cross sections
and proposed improvements are described under the Future Conditions and
Street Improvement Opportunities section found in Section E. Vehicle Traffic.
Bicycle paths should also be evaluated for Davidson Street and G Street.

Existing and Proposed Bikeways
Fg. 5.2
V-6
Bicycle facilities improvements are proposed for the following roadway
segments:
• Third Avenue - Class III
• Fifth Avenue (between H Street and I Street) – Class I (Future
redevelopment of Chula Vista Center may allow the opportunity to
complete this link.)
Chula Vista
• Broadway (between C Street and L Street) – Class II
• E Street – Class III
• F Street (between 3rd Avenue and I-5) - Class I
• G Street – Class III
• H Street (between Third Avenue and I-5) – Class I
• I Street – Class III
• J Street – Class III
Bike lanes on arterials with raised medians and bikeways in low traffic volume
neighborhoods should also be pursued. Higher traffic volumes on most streets
dictate Class II facilities, although bike lanes are generally not compatible
with diagonal parking. Further, the street network within transit focus areas
should accommodate at least Class I bicycle facilities to accommodate bicycle
commuters accessing public transit at the stations located at H Street/I-5 and
E Street/I-5, as well as the potential Bus Rapid Transit station at Third Avenue/
H Street. Opportunities may also exist for the addition of Class III bike lanes on
other streets within the Urban Core, such as Woodlawn Avenue.
Off-street facilities for bicycles (bicycle parking) are also integral to cyclists
for accessibility. Convenient bicycle parking should be provided along Third
Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Broadway, F Street, H Street, and J Street, as well as at
transit focus areas such as Third Avenue/H Street, H Street/I-5 and E Street/I-
5. Convenient bicycle parking should also be provided in commercial parking
lots, including destinations such as malls, and in commercial areas, event
locations, transit stops, and parks. Bicycle racks should be placed along the
street where appropriate and provided in parking lots at 5% of the number
of vehicle stalls. Racks in off-street locations should be visible and well lit to
discourage theft or vandalism and be placed to be convenient to the cyclist.
Refer to Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines for guidance on bicycle
rack design.

In addition, bike stations should be considered at the H Street trolley and E
Street trolley centers. Bike stations should be located close to connections to
different modes of transit, to allow bicycle riders to make a convenient switch
in transportation choices without limiting mobility. Bike stations offer a secure
parking area, changing rooms, restrooms and showering facilities for bicycle
riders. There may also be shops for bicycle rentals, repairs and accessories.

D. Transit Routes
Chula Vista is presently served by a variety of local and regional transit systems.
These networks are planned to grow over the next thirty years. Provision of
adequate transit service is a key component for creating the desirable pedestrian
and urban environment envisioned for the Specific Plan.
Chula Vista
1. Existing Conditions
The Urban Core is currently served by 11 Chula Vista (CVT) routes (Routes 701,
702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 711 and 712), two Metropolitan
Transit System (MTS) routes (Routes 929 and 932), and the San Diego Trolley’s
Blue Line. Several CVT transit routes circulate within the Urban Core and Bayfront
area; others serve the greater Chula Vista area and provide connections to
National City Transit and other transit providers. MTS route 929 runs along
Third and Fourth Avenues through the Urban Core; MTS transit route 932 runs
along Broadway.
The San Diego Trolley’s Blue Line provides service between Qualcomm Stadium
and San Ysidro/Tijuana and extends through the Urban Core parallel to and
on the east side of I-5, with stations at Bayfront/E Street and H Street. Service
is provided seven days a week with service starting at around 5:00 a.m. and
ending around 12:00 a.m. During the peak periods, service is provided with 7.5-
minute headways and additional service to America Plaza/Old Town is available.
Headways of 15 minutes are provided during off-peak periods. Existing transit
routes are illustrated in Figure 5.5.
2. Future Conditions
Building upon the existing transit network, a number of regional transit
improvements are envisioned that will serve the Urban Core area. Many of these
lines provide transit stations within the Specific Plan and are integrated with the
land use concepts and planning. Other routes are located with transit stations
nearby; these routes could serve the Urban Core area. Figure 5.6 depicts the
planned routes in the South Bay.
a. Route 510 (Existing Blue Line Trolley)

This route would have increased frequency of service. Light Rail Transit (LRT)
headways would be reduced from ten minutes to five minutes. In order to
achieve this level of transit service, it would be necessary to grade separate the
LRT tracks from key surface streets, such as E Street and H Street within the
project area.

Chula Vista Urban Core
Existing Transit Routes (Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates)
Fg. 5.5
3-27 Figure 3-5
Existing Transit Routes
V-10
Future Regional Transit Routes (Source: SANDAG)
Fg. 5.6
V-11
Chapter V Mobility
b. South Bay Transit First Project
This project would provide regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service between
Otay Ranch in eastern Chula Vista and downtown San Diego. As described in
the transit first report, the first phase of the project would follow I-805 and SR-
94, along with East Palomar Street. Phase 1 of the project could be completed
by Year 2010. The second phase of the project would extend the line to the Otay
Border crossing and serve businesses in Otay Mesa.
c. Route 540 (I-5 Express Service)

This route would provide regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service from San
Ysidro to downtown San Diego and Old Town. This route would use median
lanes in the I-5 Freeway and would have a transit stop at H Street (with elevators
to the H Street overcrossing at I-5). This route would have infrequent stations,
which would allow for shorter travel times, as compared to Route 510.
d. Route 627 (H Street BRT)

This route would provide a transit connection between the Specific Plan area
and Southwestern College and the Eastern Urban Center. This route will connect
the major activity centers in the redeveloping areas of western Chula Vista to
the rapidly growing areas of eastern Chula Vista.
e. Route 628 (Sorrento Valley to San Ysidro International Border)

This route would provide regional BRT service between the San Ysidro and
Sorrento Mesa along the I-805 corridor. This service would connect Chula
Vista to major employment centers in Kearny Mesa and Sorrento Mesa. Transit
stations for this route would be located on I-805 at H Street.
f. West Side Shuttle

This project is a concept proposed to serve both the Specific Plan and Bayfront
Master Plan areas in western Chula Vista. This service would complement existing
and planned future transit improvements. The shuttle would provide localized
service between various uses in western Chula Vista and provide connections
to the regional transit system. (See Figure 5.7 for proposed West Side Shuttle
Route.) The shuttle would provide regional connectivity with the existing E Street
and H Street trolley stations (Routes 510, 540, and 627) and with the future
station at Third Avenue. In addition, five other stations are planned to serve
destinations within the Specific Plan, along with three additional stations within
the Bayfront Master Plan. Formation of the West Side Shuttle is included as
an implementation action in Chapter X - Plan Implementation and Community
Benefits Program.

Chula Vista
6-25
Note: Route may use E Street or F Street

West Side Shuttle Proposed Route (Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates)
Fg. 5.7

E. Vehicle Traffic
The existing roadway network is based upon a traditional grid system. “Streets”
typically running east-west and “Avenues” typically running north-south.
Some areas of the grid system have been interrupted over time. Following
are descriptions of the main roadways within the Urban Core; City roadway
classifications are illustrated in Figure 5.8. Existing daily traffic volumes are
shown in Figure 5.9. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes. As a rule of thumb,
typical existing dimensions for four lane east-west streets in the Urban Core is
64 feet of curb-to-curb roadway width on 80 feet of right-of-way. Typical existing
dimensions for north-south avenues in the Urban Core is 80 feet of curb-to-curb
roadway width on 100 feet of right-of-way. The descriptions of the following
roadways are based on the new classifications as provided for in the General
Plan Update (2005).
a. Third Avenue
Third Avenue is a north-south roadway. Third Avenue is classified as a four-lane
commercial boulevard between C Street and E Street and between H Street and
L Street and a two or four-lane downtown promenade between E Street and H
Street. Third Avenue is two lanes between E Street and F Street, approximately
72 feet in width. Between F Street and Madrona Street, Third Avenue is a four-
lane roadway with a raised median, approximately 101 feet in width. Between
Madrona Street and G Street, Third Avenue is four lanes and approximately
72’ feet in width. Angled parking is provided in these first three sections. Third
Avenue is a four-lane roadway with a center two-way left-turn lane between G
Street and H Street; it is approximately 66 feet in width and parallel parking is
provided. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street in all four sections.
The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
b. E Street
E Street is an east-west roadway. E Street is classified as a four-lane gateway
between I-5 and I-805, with the exception of the segment between Broadway
and First Avenue, which is classified as a four-lane arterial. E Street is four
lanes between Third Avenue and Broadway, approximately 62 feet in width.
Parallel parking is provided on both sides of the street in this section. E Street
to the west of Broadway has four lanes plus a two-way left turn lane and no on-
street parking; it is approximately 70 feet in width. Sidewalks are provided on
both sides of the roadway in both sections. The posted speed is 30 mph.
c. F Street
F Street is an east-west roadway. F Street is classified as a four-lane downtown
promenade between I-5 and Broadway and as a two-lane downtown promenade

Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista Roadway Classifications (Source: City of Chula Vista)

Fg. 5.8

Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates)
Fg. 5.9

between Broadway and Third Avenue. F Street is four lanes between Third Avenue
and Fourth Avenue with a raised median in the center and is approximately 65
feet in width. The only on-street parking provided in this segment is limited
parallel parking on the north side of F Street between Third Avenue and Garret
Avenue. Between Fourth Avenue and Broadway, F Street is a two-lane roadway,
approximately 40 feet in width with parallel parking on both sides. F Street has
four lanes between Broadway and I-5 with parallel parking on both sides and Chula Vista
is approximately 66 feet in width. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the
roadway in all three sections. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
d. H Street
H Street is an east-west roadway with a center two-way left turn lane. H Street is
classified as a six-lane gateway street between I-5 and Broadway and between
Hilltop Drive and I-805 and as a four-lane urban arterial between Broadway and
Hilltop Drive; however, it should be noted that H Street is not built to its ultimate
classification and functions as a four-lane roadway between I-5 and Broadway.
Parking is provided on-street east of Third Avenue. H Street is approximately 70
feet in curb-to-curb width between Third Avenue and Broadway and 64 feet in
curb-to-curb width between Broadway and I-5. Sidewalks are provided on both
sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
e. Broadway
Broadway is a north-south roadway. Broadway is classified as a four-lane gateway
street between SR-54 and C Street and as a four-lane commercial boulevard
between C Street and L Street; parallel parking is provided on both sides of the
roadway in these sections. Broadway is approximately 68 feet in width between
E Street and F Street. Between F Street and H Street, there is a two-way left turn
lane and the roadway is approximately 82 feet in width. Sidewalks are provided
on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
f. Neighborhood Streets
Neighborhood streets are located throughout the Specific Plan study area,
mostly outside the focus areas and sub-districts. These streets predominantly
serve established single-family and some multi-family neighborhoods.
Neighborhood streets generally are two lanes in width with on-street parking
on both sides. Figure 5.35 shows Woodlawn Avenue at 36’ in width. Sidewalks
and curb improvements are typically provided. Street surface and landscaping
conditions vary from street to street.
g. Alleys
The alley system within the urban core allow for increased access for delivery
services, as well as for residential and commercial parking areas. In addition
to providing alternate access routes, the alleys also somewhat relieve traffic
volume along the major corridors.
h. Roadway Segments
Currently all roadway segments within the Urban Core are performing at a Level
of Service (LOS) C or better, based on volume to capacity ratio.
i. Intersections
Intersections within the Specific Plan area presently operate at Level of Service
(LOS) D or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods, except for the following
intersections:
• I-5 Northbound Ramp at E Street (LOS F - PM Peak)
• Woodlawn Avenue at H Street (LOS F – PM Peak)
• Broadway at SR-54 Westbound Ramp (LOS F – AM Peak)*
• L Street at Bay Boulevard (LOS F – PM Peak)*
• Bay Boulevard at I-5 Southbound Ramp (LOS E – PM Peak)*
The above intersections marked with an asterisk (*) are outside of the Specific
Plan Study Area boundary but are presented as the functioning of these
intersections affects traffic movement within the urban core.
3. Future Conditions and Street Improvement Opportunities

Following General Plan guidance, the Urban Core will provide a mix of housing,
offices, retail, civic and hospitality uses to support a vibrant urban environment.
Growth factors determined through computer modeling were applied to existing
traffic volumes at intersections to determine projected conditions in twenty five
years (Year 2030). The average growth in the Urban Core area was estimated to
be 10 percent. (See Figure 5.10 Year 2030 Projected Roadway Volumes.)
In developing the street improvement opportunities, focus was given to providing

a street environment that not only moves vehicle traffic and transit but creates
a safer and more enjoyable environment for pedestrians and bicycles in the
Specific Plan area. As noted previously, each street is intended to serve a multi-
modal function, with different modes of travel emphasized to a greater or lesser
extent on each street. The following section describes the improvements along
the roadway segments in the Urban Core area, specifically focusing on roadway
operational characteristics. The Mobility chapter concentrates only on curb-to-
curb street improvements that facilitate traffic flow. Although some information
is provided regarding parkway treatment and size, this element is a focus of
Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines. The following recommendations
are to be used in conjunction with the recommendations contained in Chapter
VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines. The improvements will be implemented
over the term of the Specific Plan and may occur as comprehensive street
improvements or may be improved in phases as part of the redevelopment
process.
Chula Vista
Year 2030 Projected Roadway Volumes (Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates)

Fg. 5.10



     
    
      
            
Third Avenue between E
Street and F Street 2 2 No Median No Median 100' 100' 72' 24'/72' * Y Y/N * N N
Third Avenue between F
Street and Madrona Street 4 4 Raised Median Raised Median 100' 100' 101' 101' Y Y/N * N N
Third Avenue between
Madrona Street and G
Street 4 4 No Median No Median 100' 100' 72' 72' Y Y/N * N N
F Street between Third Raised Median, Two-Way Left Turn
Avenue and Fourth Avenue Bike Routes (Class Lane/Raised Median,
4 2 III) Bike Paths (Class I) 80' 80' 65' 48' Y Y Y Y
F Street between Fourth Two-Way Left Turn
Avenue and I-5 No Median, Bike Lane, No Median,
2 2 Routes (Class III) Bike Paths (Class I) 80' 80' 40' 48' Y Y Y Y
H Street between Third Two-Way Left Turn Raised Median, Bike
Avenue and Broadway 4 4 Lane Paths (Class I) 80'-106' 102' 70' 70' N Y N Y
Broadway between C Street Raised Median, Bike
and F Street 4 4 No Raised Median Lanes (Class II) 100' 100' 68'/82' 82' Y Y N Y
Broadway between F Street Two-Way Left Turn Raised Median, Bike
and H Street 4 4 Lane Lanes (Class II) 100' 100' 82' 82' Y Y N Y
Woodlawn Avenue between
E Street and H Street 2 2 No Median Park Area 60' Varies 36' Varies Y Y N N

E Street between Woodlawn Two-Way Left Turn Two-Way Left Turn
Avenue and 300' east of I-5 Lane, Westbound Lane, Westbound
4 4 Right Turn Lane Right Turn Lane @ I-5 80' 76' 70' 76' N N N N
H Street between Broadway Two-Way Left Turn
and I-5 Two-Way Left Turn Lane/Raised Median,
4 6 Lane Bike Paths (Class I) 80' 118' 64' 86' N N N N
* The 24' cross section assumes no parking along Third Avenue and the 72' cross section assumes diagonal parking on both sides of Third Avenue.
Proposed Roadway Segment Changes
Fg. 5.11
V-20
Figure 5.11 summarizes the proposed changes to the existing roadway network.
The table shows existing versus proposed conditions for the number of total
travel lanes, turn lanes or raised medians, curb-to-curb width, parking and bike
lanes. It should be noted that roadway segments that do not have any changes
compared to existing conditions are omitted from the table.
In addition to improvements to existing street segments, reintroduction of the Chula Vista

traditional street grid is proposed. By adding street segments, additional routes
choices are provided to all modes of travel (pedestrian, bicycle, transit and
vehicles). These reintroduced connections are especially important within an
approximately one-mile radius of the transit focus areas (E Street/I-5, H Street/
I-5 and Third Avenue/H Street). New connections could include:
a. Davidson Street between Woodlawn Avenue and Broadway – This
roadway segment could also be considered for future bikeway
improvements and providing bikeway priority at intersections due to the
lower vehicle volumes and direct connection to the future transit focus
area at E Street/I-5.
b. Woodlawn Avenue between F Street and G Street
c. Jefferson Avenue between E Street and H Street – This segment
potentially could also be extended to F Street or H Street
d. Parkway between Broadway and Woodlawn Avenue extension
e. Oaklawn Avenue between Flower Street and G Street
The reintroduction of roadway segments is a long range vision that can only
be accomplished if and when development occurs. The above segments are
provided only as examples of where the street segments could be reintroduced.
The City would evaluate the merits of such connections and retain its full
discretion as to whether such actions are in the City’s best interest.

a. Third Avenue
The cross section of Third Avenue varies greatly between E Street and G Street.
The roadway varies between 72 feet and 101 feet.
The roadway will be maintained in its current two and four lane configuration
between E Street and G Street. The remainder of Third Avenue to L Street will
stay in the current four-lane configuration. It is proposed to retain the existing
median.
Diagonal parking will be provided for most parts of Third Avenue. Figure 5.16
shows the cross section where angled parking is permitted. Due to relatively
high through traffic volumes, it is recommended that the roadway be of sufficient
width to allow vehicles to back out without blocking the through traffic lane. It
should be noted that the curb-to-curb dimension is not reduced where diagonal
parking is provided on the segment of Third Avenue between E Street and F
Street.

Chula Vista
*Dimension varies
Existing Third Avenue between E Street and F Street (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.12
*Dimension varies
Existing Third Avenue between F Street and Madrona Street (Source: Kimley-
Horn and Associates)
Fg. 5.13

*Dimension varies
Existing Third Avenue between Madrona Street and G Street
Fg. 5.14
*Dimension varies
Existing Third Avenue between G Street and H Street
Fg. 5.15

Not Approved
72’
Chula Vista
Proposed Third Avenue between E Street and G Street with diagonal parking
Fg. 5.16
Not Approved
24’
Proposed Third Avenue between E Street and G Street without diagonal parking
Fg. 5.17

Not Approved
52’
Proposed Third Avenue at signalized intersections (Source: Kimley-Horn and

Associates)
Fg. 5.18

b. E Street
The existing roadway cross section on E Street is adequate to serve future
traffic needs except for the segment between I-5 and 300’ east I-5. To mitigate
the intersection impact at the I-5 northbound ramp with E Street, a westbound
right-turn lane is required. It is recommended that E Street be widened between
Woodlawn Avenue and I-5, which will add an additional six feet in the curb-to-
curb width. This segment will need an additional 22 feet of right-of-way. This Chula Vista
added width will allow for an extended right-turn lane on westbound E Street
onto the I-5 northbound on-ramp. This improvement will help to reduce the
queues in the westbound direction and will improve the operations at the I-5
northbound ramp at the Woodlawn Avenue intersection.

*Dimension varies
Existing E Street between Third Avenue and Broadway (Source: Kimley-Horn
and Associates)
Fg. 5.19
*Dimension varies
Existing E Street between Broadway and Woodlawn Avenue (Source: Kimley-
Fg. 5.20

Chula Vista
*Dimension varies
Existing E Street between Woodlawn Avenue and I-5 (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.21
62’
Proposed E Street between Third Avenue and Broadway (Source: Kimley-Horn

and Associates)
Fg. 5.22

76’
Proposed E Street between I-5 and 300’ east of I-5 (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.23

c. F Street
As a project feature of the Specific Plan, Class I bike lanes will be added to
F Street between Third Avenue and I-5, as illustrated in Figure 5.27. The new
Class I bike paths will improve the connectivity of the Urban Core to the Bayfront.
Greater synergy between the two areas will be fostered through pedestrian and
bicyclist opportunities. Wide parkways, off-street bike lanes, and wide sidewalks
will provide an opportunity to stroll or bicycle through the Urban Core. A Class II Chula Vista
facility will exist on F Street where a Class I bike path cannot be accommodated
due to mature trees or new/existing medians.
For F Street, a 16-foot parkway is provided between Fourth Avenue and

Broadway and a 12-foot parkway is provided between Third Avenue and
Fourth Avenue. The exact location and configuration of bike path and parkway
amenities will be decided through a future Streetscape Master Plan or other
similar improvement plan. Existing trees from Third Avenue to Broadway are
proposed to be preserved and incorporated into the streetscape theme. It is
also recommended that the overhead utility line be placed underground as part
of this improvement project.

* Parallel parking exists on north side of F Street between Garret Avenue and Third Avenue; Dimension varies
Existing F Street between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue (Source: Kimley-
Fg. 5.24
*Dimension varies
Existing F Street between Fourth Avenue and Broadway (Source: Kimley-Horn
and Associates)
Fg. 5.25

Chula Vista
*Dimension varies
Existing F Street between Broadway and I-5 (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.26
48’
Class I Class I
Bike Bike
Path Path
* Raised median east of Broadway in some segments **Dimension varies

Proposed F Street between Fourth Avenue and I-5 (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.27

d. H Street
The segment of H Street from Third Avenue to Broadway will be widened by
eight feet. The new segment configuration will feature two travel lanes, a raised
center median, and a Class I bike path on both sides of the street. One side of
the street will also have parallel parking.
An additional 22 feet in the curb-to-curb width will be added to H Street between

Broadway and I-5 to include an additional travel lane in both directions.
This improvement is consistent with the ultimate classification of H Street
as defined in the General Plan (2005). The additional travel lane is needed
to accommodate buildout daily and peak-hour traffic on H Street and would
improve the operations along this segment.
Further, a Class I bike path is proposed to be added to H Street between Third

Avenue and I-5. H Street is intended as the “backbone” of the Urban Core, as
it connects the transit focus areas at H Street/Third Avenue and H Street/I-5
and facilitates local and regional transit routes (and Bus Rapid Transit in the
future). A sixteen-foot wide parkway is proposed in order to create a grand
boulevard feeling and promote pedestrian use. The exact location of bike path
and other amenities will be decided through a future Streetscape Master Plan
or other similar improvement plans.

Chula Vista
Existing H Street between Third Avenue and Broadway (Source: Kimley-Horn

and Associates)
Fg. 5.28
* *
*Dimension varies
Existing H Street between Broadway and I-5 (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.29

70’
PARKWAY PARKWAY
* Raised median varies in width (from 4’-14’) and is not provided in all locations.
Proposed H Street between Third Avenue and Broadway (Source: Kimley-Horn
and Associates)
Fg. 5.30
86’
PARKWAY PARKWAY
Proposed H Street between Broadway and I-5 (Source: Kimley-Horn and

Associates)
Fg. 5.31

e. Broadway
Broadway will be improved by adding a 12-foot raised median as a project
feature. In addition, a Class II bikeway is proposed to be added along Broadway
between C Street and L Street. Broadway will be widened by 14 feet between E
Street and F Street to accommodate a final consistent configuration consisting
of the raised median, bike lanes in both directions, and narrower traffic lanes.
Between F Street and H Street, the roadway will not need to be widened and the Chula Vista
existing median will be converted to a raised median. Nine-foot wide sidewalks
will support pedestrian circulation. It is proposed to retain the existing palm
trees within parkway areas.

*Dimension varies
Existing Broadway between E Street and F Street (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.32
*Dimension varies
Existing Broadway between F Street and H Street (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.33

82’
Chula Vista
*
*At intersections, parking is removed to allow for 14’ median
Proposed Broadway from C Street to L Street (Source: Kimley-Horn and
Associates)
Fg. 5.34

f. Woodlawn Avenue Couplet
Woodlawn Avenue is not currently built as a continuous roadway between E
Street and H Street, but it is recommended that the street grid be recreated by
adding the currently missing segments. As redevelopment occurs, Woodlawn
Avenue will be extended and converted to a one-way couplet between south
of E Street and north of H Street. The creation of the one-way couplet could
include the addition of a neighborhood public park between two one-way streets.
The neighborhood park may include a variety of uses, such as playgrounds,
walkways and basketball courts. The couplet would likely be implemented over
time as property redevelops.

Chula Vista
*Dimension varies
Existing segments of Woodlawn Avenue between E Street and H Street (Source:
Kimley-Horn and Associates)
Fg. 5.35

XX’
** Park area dimension to be determined.
Proposed Woodlawn Avenue entire length (Source: Kimley-Horn and

Associates)
Fg. 5.36

g. Neighborhood Streets
Enhancement strategies for neighborhood streets focus on the public realm
rather than roadway width and lane configuration; therefore, these strategies are
described in Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines. Such improvements
will focus on beautification, landscaping, improving sidewalk and street
conditions, and pedestrian system improvements such as crosswalks where
warranted. New connections reintroducing the grid system are also possible Chula Vista
and should be encouraged as development occurs or planned as capital
improvements projects in the long-term.
h. Alleys
Alleys, to the extent feasible, will allow for short-term loading and unloading
and other delivery services. Alleys will also function as alternative access to
uses and parking areas.
i. Roadway Segment Levels of Service and Intersection Improvements

With the implementation of recommended improvements and reclassifications,
Urban Core roadways will perform at an acceptable level of service. Intersection
improvements have been identified at 20 intersections related to implementation
of the Specific Plan. (See Figures 5.37 and 5.38 Proposed Intersection
Improvements.) After implementation of recommended improvements, 17
of the intersections would be improved to acceptable levels of service. Three
intersections would be improved to operation at LOS E: H Street/Broadway,
Third Avenue/J Street, and Hilltop/H Street. Although mitigation options have
been explored, improvement to an acceptable LOS of D is not feasible due
to right-of-way and existing building constraints or impediments to pedestrian
circulation.



 
Bay Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramp/E Street Add EBT, EBR, SBL, SBR, and NBR lanes*
I-5 NB Ramp/E Street Add WBR lane and Light Rail Transit grade separation*
Broadway/F Street Add EBR lane
I-5 SB Ramp/H Street Add SBL, EBT, and EBR lanes*
I-5 NB Ramp/H Street Add WBR, WBT, restripe south approach to accommodate
dual left turns and Light Rail Transit grade separation*
Woodlawn Avenue/H Street Change Woodlawn Avenue to a one-way couplet
Broadway/H Street Add EBT Queue Jumper Lane, WBT and WBR lanes
Fifth Avenue/H Street Change NB and SB approaches to protective plus permissive
phasing in traffic signal and add WBR lane
Fourth Avenue/H Street Add EBR and WBR lanes
Hilltop Drive/H Street No improvements recommended due to ROW constraints
Broadway/SR-54 WB Ramp Add WBR lane*
Fourth Avenue/SR-54 EB Ramp Add EBR lane*
Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street Add SBR overlap phase
Third Avenue/J Street No improvements recommended due to ROW constraints
Second Avenue/D Street Convert to an all-way stop controlled intersection
J Street/I-5 NB Ramp Add EBL and WBR lanes*
L Street/Bay Boulevard Add SBL lane, signalize intersection, and add NBR overlap
phasing to traffic signal
Bay Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramp Signalize intersection*
Industrial Boulevard/I-5 NB Ramp Signalize intersection*
RT = Right turn lane NBT = Northbound through lane
EBL = Eastbound left turn lane NBR = Northbound right turn lane
EBT = Eastbound through lane SBL = Southbound left turn lane
EBR = Eastbound right turn lane SBT = Southbound through lane
WBT = Westbound through lane SBR = Southbound right turn lane
WBR = Westbound right turn lane *Coordination with Caltrans is required
Proposed Intersection Improvements (Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates)
Fg. 5.37

4. Conclusions
The Specific Plan emphasizes a multi-modal strategy and provides project
benefit features in addition to required mitigation measures. This approach
accommodates additional development intensity while providing sufficient
levels of service.
The comprehensive traffic impact analysis for the Specific Plan evaluated Chula Vista
a total of 64 intersections and 32 roadways. Under existing conditions, five
intersections operate at LOS E or worse during peak periods and all roadway
segments function at an acceptable LOS. With implementation of the Specific
Plan, proposed improvements and multi-modal strategies, future conditions
show three intersections operating at LOS E or worse.

F. Parking
Parking within the Specific Plan area is primarily provided for individual land
uses on-site. For example, commercial and office uses along H Street and
Broadway meet their parking demand on-site, and existing residential uses
are required to provide on-site parking. In addition, many of the major and
neighborhood streets with the Urban Core have on street parking available to
the general public.
In addition to on-site parking, a parking district has been established along

Third Avenue and abutting streets within the Village District. The parking district
through a metered system includes public parking both on Third Avenue, and
a series of small to large public parking lots. Within the Village parking district
approximately 509 metered spaces are on street and 1,205 spaces are provided
in 11 different public parking lot locations. The parking district establishes
parking supply for existing and new (permitted) commercial uses in the Village
commercial corridor and provides a mechanism for new conditionally permitted
commercial uses to pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing new on-site parking
spaces, which is often infeasible given the
developed condition of the commercial corridor.
The district also provides a comprehensive
maintenance program of existing parking lots.
2. Parking New Uses
Successful implementation of the Specific

Plan, which promotes pedestrian-friendly and
transit-friendly streetscapes and development,
will cause a gradual transition to a “park-once/
Fg. 5.38 walk-many” environment. This would be in stark
On-street parking is provided in some
areas
contrast to the current pattern, where many
customers park at one business then take a
short car trip to the next business. Proper design and promotion of local transit
and the proposed West Side Shuttle could promote the arrival of customers
by bus and bicycle/pedestrian travel to each business. Although alternative
modes of transportation (walking, bicycling and transit) are foundational to the
Specific Plan, vehicle use may remain one of the primary means of access
throughout the Urban Core. Therefore, in concert with the pedestrian, bicycle
and transit centered improvements recommended in the Specific Plan, the
provision of an adequate parking supply is necessary in order to provide for all
modal types of trips.

Parking supply will need to be balanced and
should not overshadow the primary goal
of creating a vibrant pedestrian friendly
urban core. It is also recognized that one of
the greatest challenges to revitalization of
properties within the Specific Plan area may be
the ability to provide adequate on-site parking Chula Vista
for new commercial uses. With limited land
resources and the additional costs typically
associated with infill development, provision of Diagonal parking such as that above
on-site parking is often financially challenging, is provided on portions of Third Avenue
Fg. 5.39
and can make or break the success of a
commercial project.
The Specific Plan allows an intensification of development in the Urban Core

which will create an increased demand for off-street parking. Chapter VI - Land
Use and Development Regulations identify parking requirements such as the
minimum number of parking spaces required per use and parking locations.
Parking standards are identified for residential, guest, and non-residential
uses; parking locations are for the most required on-site parking. In addition,
Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines provides guidance on the design
of parking lots and facilities, with an emphasis on accessibility and safety. As
new development occurs compliance with the development regulations and
design guidelines will be required.
While the majority of new uses will provide parking on-site, there are specific
locations such as within the Village district and transit focus areas that allow
some of the parking needs to be met off-site and/or through alternative
means such as in lieu fees and shared parking arrangements. This approach
is appropriate given the planned land uses for these subdistricts which are
primarily mixed use and typically have opposing peak parking demands. As
part of the approval process, projects will need to demonstrate that sufficient
parking will be made available with their development. The following section
further describes potential parking improvement strategies within the Urban
Core.
3. Parking Improvement Strategies
a. Parking Circulation
Parking should always be designed with accessibility and safety in mind. In
areas where pedestrian streetscapes and site design will be promoted, it is
desirable to provide buffers between pedestrians and traffic as much as
possible. Buffers can include low-profile elements such as bollards near the

curb or additional parkway/tree well landscaping. A consistent layout of on-
street parking also helps to create visual separation between roadway traffic
and sidewalk areas. Properly designed buffers induce a feeling of safety by
pedestrians and help define crosswalk and outside seating areas. These design
principles are described in further detail in Chapter VII - Development Design
Guidelines and Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines.
Access to new parking areas should be designed carefully so that incoming traffic
to centralized parking lots does not conflict with pedestrian circulation either
on major streets such as Third Avenue, H Street and Broadway, or internally
through parking lots and garages. Traffic should be routed onto major streets
by a directional sign program, so that undue incursions into nearby residential
neighborhoods do not occur. Alleys, although not currently a predominant
feature within the Urban Core, should be dedicated and extended with proper
site planning for new development. Alleys can provide additional access routes
to both on-site and centralized parking lots.
b. Parking Reductions
One method to create incentives for
redevelopment and restructuring of the urban
form is to minimize the number of required
parking spaces at identified transit nodes
and mixed-use areas. As set forth in Chapter
VI - Land Use and Development Regulations,
parking requirements have been reduced to
Example of parking structure be more consistent with urban standards and
wrapped with retail uses
Fg. 5.40
reflective of the multi-modal design principles
embraced by the Specific Plan.
c. Parking Districts
Parking Districts can be very effective tools to help create more parking, to
promote efficient use of existing parking spaces, and to provide a means for
allowing shared parking and off-site, remote parking for a development site. A
parking district was established several years ago in the Village District. Figure
5.42. Parking Strategy Map indicates areas within the Urban Core where
additional parking districts and transit focus area parking may be studied and
located. Future parking districts should be developed in cooperation with area
property owners and business owners.
Consideration should be given to expanding the Village parking district to

better align the boundaries with the Village subdistricts. On-site parking for
new commercial uses should not impede the intended pedestrian character
of the area, and may be better suited in centralized easy to reach locations. In

Parking Strategy Map
Fg. 5.41
V-49
Chapter V Mobility
addition, some diagonal parking may be phased
out along Third Avenue as pedestrian and
landscaping improvements are implemented.
Replacement parking should be provided if
determined to be necessary in the short term.
An expanded in-lieu parking fee program

may be another means to providing efficient
parking supply within the parking districts.
The in-lieu fee program could assist some new
The pedestrian area is separated businesses in locating within the Urban Core,
from parking areas
Fg. 5.42 as the expense of providing on-site parking
would be offset. The assessment could also
assist the City by providing reimbursement for property acquisition, capital
funding, and operating funds for new parking lots or structures. The existing
in lieu fee program within the Village District should be reevaluated to ensure
adequate funding or reimbursement for new publicly owned parking lots is
being assessed. Parking developed under an in- lieu program would need to
be strategically timed in order to ensure a proper balance between parking
demand and supply.
Unlike a parking assessment district, the in-lieu fee program would not be a local
tax that would be levied upon all business owners in a designated area. The in-
lieu fee would be optional and only assessed on new commercial developments
within a specified area if on-site parking is not provided. The in-lieu fee would
be based on the number of required parking spaces that could not be provided
on-site by the development. A radius from a particular development could be
utilized, between one-quarter mile and one-
eighth mile walking distance, to determine
the location of the nearest off-street parking
lots that could feasibly serve that particular
business. This assessment would need to
evaluate the availability of parking in the
identified lots, including both the existing
demand and parking supply commitments
made to other nearby developments.
d. Parking Structures
The use of structured parking can be particularly
effective in allowing increased densities. The
Specific Plan recommends parking structures
where feasible, and in particular within the
Multi-level parking facility with retail
Fg. 5.43 transit focus areas (such as UC-2, UC-12 and
on ground floor

UC-15), to encourage the intensification of mixed-use, commercial, office and
residential projects where parking can be provided on-site in a structured
format. Land values and the proximity to transit in these areas tend to support
the higher economic investment necessary to construct parking structures.
These parking structures could serve individual development sites, provide
shared facilities and/or serve as additional public parking facilities.
Chula Vista
Over the mid to long-term, parking structures
may also be warranted in the area around
Third Avenue, since existing surface parking
lots may only be sustainable in the near term.
As existing public surface lots redevelop, new
development should be required to replace
public parking either on or off site. In addition,
where appropriate and feasible, the use of
the incentives program should be encouraged
to enhance public parking opportunities
(See Chapter VI - Land Use and Development
New surface parking lots should be
Regulations.) well landscaped
Fg. 5.44

VI. Land Use and Development Regulations
A. Administration VI-1
B. Land Use Matrix VI-4
C. Development Standards VI-10
D. Special Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts Chula Vista
and Transit Focus Areas VI-40
E. Special Provisions VI-42
F. Urban Amenity Requirements and Incentives VI-48
G. Signs VI-52
H. Other Regulations VI-53
I. Development Exceptions VI-54
Chapter VI Land Use & Development Regulations 1

VI. Land Use and Development Regulations
A. Administration
1. Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the appropriate distribution, mix,
Chula Vista
intensity, physical form, and functional relationships of land uses within the
Urban Core. These regulations are intended to encourage and facilitate infill
development, mixed uses, pedestrian scale, urban amenities, transit use,
creative design, and the general revitalization of the Urban Core.
In contrast to the City’s existing Zoning Code, the Specific Plan’s Land Use and
Development Regulations and associated design guidelines utilize a “form-
based” approach. This approach places primary emphasis on the physical
form of the built environment and focuses on where and how the buildings are
placed rather than the use occupying the building. This is especially important
given the extent of mixed use development envisioned in Specific Plan which
requires flexibility in uses in order to be responsive to market demands while
still ensuring a clear vision of what the built environment should look like.
To that end the Specific Plan proposes a multi-dimensional approach to

creating the building form through the use of floor area ratio, lot coverage and/
or street wall frontage, and height regulations. In addition, the Specific Plan
provides graphic depictions of building placement relative to the street and
public spaces, and extensive design guidance for building and site planning is
contained in Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines.
2. Applicability
Proposed land uses and development regulations within the Urban Core shall
comply with the applicable provisions of this chapter. This chapter replaces
provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 19.24 through 19.40
and 19.44. Where in conflict with other sections of the Municipal Code, this
chapter shall apply, and where this chapter is silent, the Municipal Code shall
apply. The definitions found in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, section 19.04
apply to the Specific Plan, except where specific definitions are provided within
the Specific Plan (Section C of this chapter and Appendix A - Glossary).
3. Administration
The administration of this chapter shall be in accordance with Chapter XI - Plan
Administration.
Chapter VI Land Use & Development Regulations VI-1

4. Subdistricts
The Specific Plan area has been grouped into the following three districts based
on similar building and use types: the Village, the Urban Core, and the Corridors.
These three districts have been further subdivided into 25 subdistricts, each
with its own character for buildings and public spaces and specified uses.
Zoning regulations for each subdistrict are presented on individual zoning
sheets specific to that subdistrict. The Urban Core Specific Plan Subdistricts
Key Map, shown in Figure 6.1, identifies the subdistrict boundaries. Please
note that in the event that a project encompasses more than one subdistrict,
a determination of the primary subdistrict may be necessary at the time of
individual project submittal.
VI-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Specific Plan Subdistricts Key Map
Fg. 6.1
VI-3
Chapter VI Land Use & Development Regulations
B. Land Use Matrix
The following Land Use Matrix specifies permitted uses, conditionally permitted
uses, and prohibited uses for each of the Specific Plan subdistricts. Permitted
land uses of the existing underlying zone shall continue to apply to areas outside
of the Specific Plan subdistricts.
Permitted uses indicate that the use is allowed in the specified zone. Conditionally
permitted uses require the granting of a Conditional Use Permit as provided in
Municipal Code Section 2.55, 19.14, and/or 19.58. Uses marked as prohibited
uses are not permitted in the specified subdistrict. Accessory uses means a
use or structure subordinate to the principal use of a building on the same
lot, and serving a purpose customarily incidental to the use of the principal
building. Uses not specifically listed in the Land Use Matrix may be considered
by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) or Planning Commission
if determined to be of the same general character of those uses listed in the
matrix for the Specific Subdistrict to those uses listed in the matrix.




 


 
  
  
  
  
 

Chula Vista
(a)
Apartments, efficiency P P(a) P P -- P(a)
Boardinghouses or lodginghouses P P(a) P P -- P(a)
Dwellings, single-family -- -- -- -- -- --
Dwelling groups (2 or more homes on same lot) -- -- P P -- --
Dwellings, two-family or duplex -- -- -- -- -- --
Dwellings, townhouse P P(a) P P -- P(a)
Dwellings, multiple P P(a) P P -- P(a)
Dwellings, temporary -- -- -- -- -- --
Family day care homes, large (9 to 14 children) CUP CUP(b) -- -- -- CUP(b)
Family day care homes, small (8 or fewer CUP CUP(b) -- -- -- CUP(b)
children)
Full-time foster homes P P(a) -- -- -- P(a)
Live/Work P(c) P(c) P(c) CUP -- P(c)
Mixed commercial/residential projects -- P(a) P -- -- P(a)
Mobilehomes -- -- -- -- -- --
Mobilehome parks -- -- -- -- -- --
Nursing homes CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Residential care facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Senior housing developments CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Shopkeeper unit P(c) P(c) P(c) CUP -- P(c)
Tract offices, temporary -- -- -- -- -- --


Ambulance services CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Animal shelters -- -- -- -- -- --
Cemeteries CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Civic facilities P P P P P P
Community service facilities -- P(d) P -- P P
Court facilities -- -- P -- -- --
Court-supported facilities -- P(a) -- -- P P
Fire stations -- P P -- P P
Health care facility (including 24 hour facilities) CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Libraries -- P P -- P P
Museums CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Non-commercial recreation centers (indoor) -- P P -- P P
Non-commercial recreation centers (outdoor) CUP CUP P CUP P P
Parks (public and private) P P P P P P
Police stations -- P P -- P P
Post office -- P P -- P P
Public utility uses and structures CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Religious facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Schools, professional, business and technical -- P(b) P -- P P
(not requiring outdoor facilities)
Schools, public CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Social and fraternal organization facilities CUP CUP(d) P CUP P P
Telecommunications facilities CUP CUP(d) CUP CUP CUP CUP
Radio and television broadcasting CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Youth center CUP CUP(d) P -- P P
Land Use Matrix (Page 1 of 5)
Fg. 6.2




 


 
  
  
  
  
 


Administrative and executive offices -- P P -- P P
Financial offices -- P P -- P P
Medical and dental offices/clinic -- P P -- P P
Medical, optical, and dental laboratory -- CUP(b) CUP -- CUP P
Professional offices (architectural, engineering, -- P P -- P P
law)
Real estate offices -- P P -- P P
Research and development -- P P -- P P
Veterinary clinics/animal hospitals -- CUP(b) P -- P P

Automatic teller machines -- P P -- P P
Bail bond facilities -- -- -- -- -- P
Barbershop and beauty shop -- P(e) P -- P P
Bicycle repair -- P P -- P P
Body art/tattoo/piercing salon -- -- CUP(f) -- CUP(f) P(f)
Carpentry shops -- -- -- -- -- P
Catering halls (with full-time, full-service -- CUP(b) -- -- -- P
restaurants, operating after hours)
Check cashing establishments -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Cobbler -- P(e) P -- P P
Coin-operated laundry -- P(d) P -- P P
Day nursery -- CUP(b) P -- P P
Day spa -- P P -- P P
Drycleaners -- CUP(b) P -- P P
Electrician services -- CUP(b) -- -- -- P
Electronics repair -- CUP(b) -- -- -- P
Exterminating services -- -- -- -- -- P
Financial services (without drive-through access -- P(e) P -- P P
onto Third Avenue)
Fortune-telling -- P P -- P P
Funeral parlors and mortuaries -- -- P -- P P
General contracting services -- P(b) CUP -- CUP P
Heating and cooling services -- CUP(b) -- -- -- P
Home appliance repair -- CUP(b) -- -- -- P
Home furnishing repair (up to 5,000 sq. ft.) -- P(e) -- -- -- P
Jewelry and watch repair -- P P -- P P
Locksmiths -- P(d) P -- P P
Manicure and pedicure shops -- P(e) P -- P P
Massage parlor -- -- -- -- -- P(h)
Pedi-cabs -- P P -- P P
Pet grooming -- P(e) P -- P P
Photocopying and blueprinting services (over -- CUP P -- P P
2500 sq. ft.)
Photocopying and blueprinting services (up to -- P(e) P -- P P
2500 sq. ft.)
Photography studios -- P P -- P P
Plumbing services -- CUP(b) P -- P P
Postal stores (over 2500 sq. ft.) -- CUP P -- P P
Postal stores (up to 2500 sq. ft.) -- P(e) P -- P P
Printing and publishing services -- P(b) P -- P P
Tailor shops -- P(e) P -- P P
Ticket agencies -- P P -- P P
Travel agencies -- P(e) P -- P P
Video/DVD rentals/sales (no adult rentals/sales) -- P(b) P -- P P

Fg. 6.3




 


 
  
  
  
  
 

Chula Vista

Adult book/video sales -- -- -- -- -- CUP(h)
Antique shops (not including secondhand stores) -- P P -- P P
Bait and tackle shops -- P P -- P P
Bookstore -- P P -- P P
Building material sales (indoor; up to 5,000 sqft) -- P P -- P P
Building material sales (indoor; over 5,000 sqft) -- -- -- -- -- P
Convenience stores -- -- P -- P P
Department stores -- CUP P -- P P
Drive-through retail sales -- -- -- -- -- P
Florist -- P P -- P P
Galleries (photography, art) -- P P -- P P
Hardware stores (up to 5,000 sq. ft.) -- P P -- P P
Hardware stores (over 5,000 sq. ft.) -- -- P -- P P
Home furnishing stores (up to 5,000 sq. ft.) -- P(e) P -- P P
Handicraft shops (up to 5,000 sq. ft) -- P P -- P P
Lumberyards -- -- CUP -- CUP CUP
Marine sales, supplies, and rentals -- -- CUP -- CUP P
Newstands -- P P -- P P
Pawn shops -- -- -- -- -- P
Pet shops -- CUP P -- P P
Pool and spa supplies -- CUP(b) -- -- -- P
Prescription pharmacy -- P P -- P P
Product wholesaling (50% of area must be -- CUP P -- P P
devoted to retail)
Retail sales (over 5,000 sq. ft.) -- CUP P -- P P
Retail sales (up to 5,000 sq. ft.) -- P P -- P P
Secondhand stores -- P(g) -- -- -- P

Automobile and recreational vehicle storage -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Automobile sales/leasing, new -- -- P -- P CUP
Automobile sales/leasing, new (indoor; under -- CUP P -- P P
5,000 sqft)
Automobile sales/leasing, used -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Automobile dismantling -- -- -- -- -- --
Automobile maintenance and repair, minor -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Automobile parts and accessories sales -- -- P -- P P
Automobile rental agencies -- -- P -- P CUP
Automobile salvage -- -- -- -- -- --
Automobile service stations (with or without -- -- -- -- -- CUP
convenience store)
Automobile towing services -- -- -- -- -- --
Automobile paint and body shops -- -- -- -- -- --
Boat and equipment sales and rentals -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Car washes, automated, drive-through -- -- CUP -- CUP CUP
Car washes, hand -- -- CUP -- CUP P
Parking structures and lots, commercial -- P(b) P -- P CUP
Parking structures and lots, public -- P(b) P -- P CUP
Motorcycle sales/leasing -- -- P -- P CUP
Specialty repair shops -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Taxi-cab services -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Truck and trailer sales and rentals -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Trucking yards, teminals, and distribution -- -- -- -- -- --
operations

Fg. 6.4




 


 
  
  
  
  
 


Adult-oriented entertainment -- -- -- -- -- --
Amusement facilities -- CUP CUP -- CUP CUP
Athletic/health clubs -- P P -- P P
Bakery (less than 5,000 sq. ft.) -- P P -- P P
Bed and breakfast -- P P -- P P
Billiard and pool parlors -- CUP(b) CUP -- CUP P
Bowling alleys -- CUP P -- P P
Cardroom -- -- -- -- -- --
Carnivals (temporary) -- CUP CUP -- CUP CUP
Catering services -- CUP CUP -- CUP P
Cocktail lounge -- CUP P -- P P
Coffeehouse/café -- P P -- P P
Commercial recreation facilities (indoor) -- CUP CUP -- CUP CUP
Commercial recreation facilities (outdoor) -- CUP CUP -- CUP CUP
Dairy sales -- P P -- P P
Dancehall -- P(h) P(h) -- P(h) P(h)
Delicatessen/sandwich shop -- P P -- P P
Drive-in theaters -- -- -- -- -- --
Farmer's market CUP CUP CUP -- CUP CUP
Golf driving ranges (with or without lighting) -- -- -- -- -- --
Grocery, fruit, or vegetable sales -- P P -- P P
Hotels/timeshares -- CUP P -- P P
Ice cream/yogurt shop -- P P -- P P
Ice skating rinks (indoor) -- -- CUP -- CUP P
Liquor stores (excluding specialty wine retail) -- -- CUP -- CUP CUP
Live entertainment (excluding adult-oriented -- P P -- P P
entertainment)
Meat sales -- P P -- P P
Miniature golf course -- -- P -- P P
Motel -- -- -- -- -- --
Produce stands (temporary) -- CUP P -- P P
Restaurants (with sale of alcoholic beverages) -- P P -- P P
Restaurants, drive-through -- -- P -- P P
Restaurants, fast food (non-formula franchise -- P P -- P P
without drive-through)
Restaurants, full-service (outdoor dining on public -- P P -- P P
or private property)
Roller and ice skating rinks (indoor) -- -- CUP -- CUP P
Shooting clubs (indoor) -- CUP CUP -- CUP CUP
Smokeshop -- P P -- P P
Snack bar -- P P -- P P
Specialty wine retail -- P P -- P P
Swimming pools -- CUP(d) P -- P P
Taverns -- CUP P -- P P
Tennis courts P P(d) P P P P
Theaters, live or movie (no adult theaters) -- P P -- P P

Fg. 6.5




 


 
  
  
  
  
 

Chula Vista

Animal grazing, breeding, boarding, and training -- -- -- -- -- --
(including cattle, sheep, goats)
Apiaries -- -- -- -- -- --
Crop and tree farming -- -- -- -- -- --
Equestrian facilities -- -- -- -- -- --
Horse stables (commercial) -- -- -- -- -- --
Horse stables (non-commercial) -- -- -- -- -- --
Kennels (commercial) -- -- -- -- -- P
Kennels (non-commercial) -- -- -- -- -- P
Plant nurseries (up to 5,000 sq. ft.) -- -- -- -- -- P
Poultry farms -- -- -- -- -- --

Caretaker units -- -- -- -- -- P
Employee units (detached) -- -- -- -- -- CUP
Home occupations P P P -- P P
Roof-mounted satellite dishes -- CUP CUP -- CUP P
Water reservoir -- -- -- -- -- --
*The Urban Core is a combination of the Boulevard and Promenade Visioning Areas.
(a) Prohibited on groundfloor fronting Third Avenue
(b) Prohibited on groundfloor V-2 District
(c) Work-related component may include uses allowed in professional office, commercial-service, or commercial-retail and may require CUP
(d) Prohibited in V-2 district
(e) Limited to 15% of business mix of groundfloor shopfronts in V-2 District
(f) Prohibited on groundfloor
(g) Maximum of 5,000 sq.ft.
(h) Use subject to CVMC 19.58.024 provisions

Fg. 6.6

C. Development Standards
1. Sub-district Zoning Sheets
The purpose of the subdistrict zoning sheets is to provide quick reference land
use and development requirements for each subdistrict. Proposed development
in the Specific Plan area shall comply with the development standards of the
applicable zoning sheets. Subdistricts labeled as “Neighborhood Transition
Combining Districts” or “Transit Focus Areas” should refer to Section D. Special
Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts and Transit Focus
Areas for further requirements.
2. Floor Area Ratio

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measure of the bulk of buildings on a lot or site.
FAR is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot or site
by the lot or site area. Gross floor area includes the total enclosed area of all
floors of a building measured from the exterior walls including halls, stairways,
elevator shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment rooms,
balconies, recreation rooms, and attics having a height of more than seven feet
but excluding area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading. For example,
a two-story building occupying one-half of a site has an FAR of 1.0. Any floor
area below finish grade does not count towards FAR. If floors are partially
above and partially below grade, then only the proportion of the floor above
grade is counted towards FAR. For example, if 5 feet of a 10-foot high floor
is below grade, then only 50% of the floor area will count towards FAR. (See
Figure 6.7 for example FAR diagrams.)
3. Lot Coverage
Lot coverage is the percentage of a lot or site covered by buildings. (See Figure
6.7 for example lot coverage diagrams.)
4. Building Height
Building heights are measured from finish grade to top of roof, not including
parapets or other architectural features. Minimum building heights in some
subdistricts ensure that the desired building heights are achieved.

2.0 FAR
1.0 FAR 2.0 FAR
70% Lot Coverage
Chula Vista
70% Lot Coverage 90% Lot Coverage
3.0 FAR 3.0 FAR

3.0 FAR 3.5 FAR
5.0 FAR
4.0 FAR 5.0 FAR
50% Lot Coverage
6.0 FAR 6.0 FAR 6.0 FAR

50% Lot Coverage 70% Lot Coverage 90% Lot Coverage
Example FAR and lot coverage diagrams (These diagrams are provided for
illustrative purposes only and are not the only options for building form.)
Fg. 6.7

5. Building Stepback
In some districts, the upper portion of a building must step back from the
lower portion of the building when located adjacent to major streets. The
stepback is a minimum horizontal distance, as measured from the street
property line, and must occur at or below the noted building height. At primary
gateways, as identified in this Specific Plan, stepback requirements may be
modified to allow significant architecture or design statements at these corner
locations. Subdistricts labeled as Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts
have additional stepbacks addressed in Section D. Neighborhood Transition
Combining Districts.
6. Street Wall Frontage

Street wall frontage is the percentage of street front that must be built to, with
the ground floor building façade at the minimum setback.
7. Setback
Setback is the distance between the property line and the building. Setback
is measured horizontally and perpendicular to the property line. Minimum
setbacks in some subdistricts ensure appropriate distances between land uses.
Maximum setbacks in some subdistricts ensure that the desired building line
is maintained, e.g. along certain streets. Subdistricts labeled as Neighborhood
Transition Combining Districts have additional rear and side yard setbacks which
are addressed in Section D. Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts.
8. Open Space Requirement
For the purposes of the open space requirement, the term “open space” refers
to any areas with minimum dimensions of 60 square feet (6’x10’) and devoted
to the following common, private, or public uses: patio, porch, balcony, deck,
garden, playground, plaza, swimming pool, sports court/field, recreation room,
gym, spa, community room, cultural arts, lawn/turf, pond, fountain, atrium,
sunroom, theater, amphitheater, band shell, gazebo, picnic area, shelter, roof,
or similar passive or active recreational/leisure use or facility that is not used
for enclosed dwelling unit floor area or commercial use space.
9. Primary Land Uses
Primary land uses define the character and function of each subdistrict but are
not intended to be the only uses that may be permitted. The primary land uses
designate the maximum percentages of floor area devoted to each use; there
are limited instances where a minimum percentage requirement applies. There

are use requirements in certain districts at ground floor locations, such as for
ground floor retail uses in the V-2 subdistrict. General categories are noted
on each zoning sheet while specific uses, including permitted and conditional
uses, are listed in the Land Use Matrix.
Maximum percentage of land uses are intended to generally achieve on a

parcel basis the overall intent of land use mix that was envisioned on a district- Chula Vista
wide basis by the General Plan. For subdistricts with more than one primary
land use, the maximum FAR for each land use is calculated by multiplying the
primary land use percentage by the maximum FAR. For example:
V-2 Subdistrict
Example Lot Size: 10,000 sq.ft.
Max. FAR: 2.0 = 20,000 sq.ft. buildable area
Primary Land Use: Residential 40% Max. or 8,000 sq.ft. residential

Retail 40% Max or 8,000 sq.ft. retail
Office 20% Max or 4,000 sq.ft office
Total 20,000 sq.ft.
10. Parking Regulations

Development proposals within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the
type, location, and number of parking spaces established for residential and
non-residential land uses as specified herein. For residential uses, a minimum
amount of parking has been designated for use by the residents of the project.
In addition, an amount of guest parking has been planned. Guest parking is
arrived at by multiplying the cumulative total number of project dwelling units
by the guest parking ratio. A percentage of the required parking must be
provided onsite as indicated on the zoning sheets for each subdistrict. Parking
is onsite if it is within the project, provided on an adjacent site, and/or within
a comprehensive development/center. Parking is allowed offsite if it is within
500-feet of the project and/or provided as an alternative in lieu (e.g. transit,
ride-share, flex, etc.). Offsite parking must be accessible from publicly available
pedestrian access and assured in terms of reservation in perpetuity, for the use
it serves or an alternative replacement plan will be required.
11. Pedestrian Connections and Walkways

Additional side setbacks may be required for pedestrian connections such as
mid-block paseos.

V-1 East Village
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: 1.0 Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 90%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 45’
4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
5. Street Wall Frontage: 50% Min
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 0’ Street Max: N/A
7. Open Space Requirement: 200 sf/du
45’ Max Height
9. Primary Land Uses:

Residential: 100% Max
18’ Min Height
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations:
Behind /Subterranean/Tuck Under
2. Residential Parking:
Section View Fg. 6.8
Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/10 du
Onsite Min: 50%
Mid Block
Street Paseo
Sidewalk
Plaza
0’ Min Setback
Summary sheet does not reflect all regulations

that may apply to each property. Please consult
Plan View Fg. 6.9 the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.

V-2 Village
Urban Regulations
Min: 0.75 Max: 2.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 75% Max: 90%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 45’

6. Setbacks:
45’ Max Height
Residential: 40% Max (Not allowed on
18’ Min Height
Third Avenue on ground floor, except for

access)
Retail: 40% Max
Office: 20% Max
Parking Regulations
Behind/Subterranean/Tuck Under
Mid Block
Min: 1.5 space/du Street Paseo
Guest: 1 space/10 du Sidewalk
Onsite Min: None Plaza

0’ Min Setback
3. Non-Residential Parking:
Min: 2 spaces/1,000 sf
Onsite Min: None

the remainder of the chapter for all criteria. Plan View Fg. 6.11

V-3 West Village
(Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
Urban Regulations
Min: 2.0 Max: 4.5
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 70% Max: 90%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 84’*
*Buidlings fronting Third Avenue between F
Street and Park Way are limited to 45’
4. Building Stepback:
Min: 15’ At Building Height: 35’
15’ Min Stepback
6. Setbacks:
84’ Max Height
Neighborhood Transition: See Section D. for

additional setbacks for parcels adjacent
to R-1 and R-2 districts
18’ Min Height

35’

ground floor of Third Avenue or E Street,
except for access)
Section View Fg.
Fg.6.12
1.2
Retail: 10% Max (North of E Street and west
of Landis Avenue - retail only)
Office: 10% Max
Mid Block
Street Paseo Parking Regulations
Sidewalk
Plaza
Behind/Subterranean/Tuck Under
0’ Min Setback
Min: 1.5 space/du
Onsite Min: 50%
Plan View Fg. 6.13 Onsite Min: None
the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.
V-4 Civic Center
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 45% Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 60’
5. Street Wall Frontage: N/A
6. Setbacks:
60’ Max Height

18’ Min Height

Office: 100% Max
Public/Quasi-Public: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations: 15’ Min Setback
Behind/Subterranean/Tuck Under Section View Fg. 6.14

Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/10 du Street
Onsite Min: 50% Sidewalk
Plaza
15’ Min Setback
Onsite Min: None

the remainder of the chapter for all criteria. Plan View Fg.
Fg.1.3
6.15

UC-1 St. Rose
(Transit Focus Area)
Urban Regulations
Min: 2.0 Max: 4.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 45% Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 30’ Max: 84’
6. Setbacks:
15’ Min Stepback Street Min: 0’ Street Max: N/A
84’ Max Height

Residential: 70% Max (Not allowed on Third
30’ Min Height
Avenue or H Street frontage on ground

floor, except for access)
35’
Retail: 10% Max

Office: 20% Max
Parking Regulations
Structure/Subterranean/Behind/Tuck
Under
Mid Block
Street Paseo 2. Residential Parking:
Sidewalk Min: 1 space/du
Plaza
0’ Min Setback
Onsite Min: 50%

Onsite Min: None


UC-2 Gateway
Urban Regulations
Min: 2.5 Max: 5.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 45% Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 45’ Max: 84’
15’ Min Stepback
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 8’* Street Max: N/A
(*Along H Street only to provide total of 16’
sidewalk) 15’ Min Stepback

84’ Max Height
45’ Min Height

Third Avenue or H Street frontage on 35’
35’
ground floor, except for access)

Retail: 10% Max
8’ Min Setback
Office: 20% Max
Parking Regulations
8’ Min ROW
Any location except in front of building

2. Residential Parking: Street
Min: 1 space/du
Guest: 1 space/10 du Sidewalk
Onsite Min: 50%

Plaza
8’ Min Setback
16’ Total Sidewalk
Onsite Min: None

UC-3 Roosevelt
Urban Regulations
Rezone of this subdistrict 1. Floor Area Ratio:

Min: 1.0 Max: 3.0
not adopted.
2. Lot Coverage:
See CVMC 19.28 (R-3 zone) Min: N/A Max: 70%
and City Design Manual for 3. Building Height:
development regulations and Min: 18’ Max: 60’
design guidelines. 4. Building Stepback: Not mandatory
6. Setbacks:
60’ Max Height

30’ Min Height
Parking Regulations
Anywhere on-site, except in front of building
15’ Min Setback
Section View Fg. 6.20 Min: 1.5 space/du
Onsite Min: 100%
Street
Sidewalk
Plaza
15’ Min Setback


UC-4 Hospital
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 2.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 30’ Max: 84’
6. Setbacks:
sidewalk)
84’ Max Height
7. Open Space Requirement: N/A
30’ Min Height
Office: 100% Max

Retail: 20% Max
Parking Regulations
8’ Min Setback
Any Section View Fg. 6.22
8’ Min ROW
Onsite Min: 100%

Street
Sidewalk
Plaza
8’ Min Setback


UC-5 Soho
Urban Regulations
Min: 1.0 Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: N/A
3. Building Height:
Min: 30’ Max: 60’
6. Setbacks:
60’ Max Height
sidewalk)
30’ Min Height

Retail: 50% Max
Office: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
8’ Min Setback
Section View Fg. 6.24 1. Parking Locations:

Any location except in front of building
8’ Min ROW
Onsite Min: 50%

Street
Sidewalk
8’ Min Setback
Plaza


UC-6 Chula Vista Center Residential
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 2.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 60’
6. Setbacks: 15’ Min Stepback
60’ Max Height

Neighborhood Transition: See Section
D. for additional setbacks for parcels
adjacent to R-1 and R-2 districts
18’ Min Height
30’

15’ Min Setback

Parking Regulations
Structured
Min: 1.5 space/du Sidewalk
Onsite Min: 100%
15’ Min Setback
Plaza


UC-7 Chula Vista Center
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 60’
6. Setbacks:
sidewalk)
60’ Max Height

18’ Min Height
Retail: 100% Max

Office: 25% Max (Not allowed on ground
floor facade, except for access)
8’ Min Setback Parking Regulations

Section View Fg. 6.28 1. Parking Locations:
Anywhere on-site
8’ Min ROW
Street Onsite Min: 100%
Sidewalk
8’ Min Setback
Plaza


UC-8 Otis
Urban Regulations
1. Floor Area Ratio: Rezone of this subdistrict
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
not adopted. Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70% See CVMC 19.26 (R-2 zone)
3. Building Height: and City Design Manual for
Min: 18’ Max: 45’ development regulations and
design guidelines.
6. Setbacks:
8. Primary Land Uses: 45’ Max Height
Residential: 100% Max 18’ Min Height
Parking Regulations
Anywhere on-site except in front of building
15’ Min Setback
Min: 1.5 space/du Section View Fg. 6.30
Onsite Min: 100%
Street
Sidewalk
15’ Min Setback


UC-9 Mid H Street
Urban Regulations
Min: 1.0 Max: 2.0
72’ Max Height
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: N/A
18’ Min Height
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 72’
8’-16’ Min Setback
6. Setbacks:
H Street East of Broadway
H Street West of Broadway
3’ Min

ROW
Street Broadway
Sidewalk
Plaza
16’ Min Setback
and Total Sidewalk

Retail: 100% Max
Office: 25% Max
Parking Regulations
West of Broadway
8’ Min ROW
Any, except in front of building

Street
Sidewalk
Onsite Min: 50%
Plaza
8’ Min Setback
East of Broadway
Plan View Fg. 6.33

UC-10 Chula Vista Center West
(Transit Focus Area and
Neighborhood Transition Combining District)
Urban Regulations
Rezone of portions of this
Min: N/A Max: 2.0
subdistrict not adopted. Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 80% See CVMC 19.24 (R-1 zone);
3. Building Height: 19.26 (R-2 zone); and 19.28
Min: 18’ Max: 72’ (R-3 zone) and City Design Manual
for development regulations and
design guidelines.
6. Setbacks:
H Street
Broadway 72’ Max Height

18’ Min Height

Residential: 40% Max (Not allowed
within 500’ of the southwest corner of
Broadway and H Street intersection,
on any floor; Not allowed on Broadway
or H Street frontage on ground floor, 16’ Min Setback
except for access)
Retail: 50% Max
3’ Min
ROW
Parking Regulations
Street
Sidewalk
Plaza
16’ Min Setback
and Total Sidewalk
Min: 1.5 space/du

Guest: 0 spaces
Onsite Min: 100%
Onsite Min: 100% Plan View Fg. 6.35
UC-11 Chula Vista Center West Residential
Urban Regulations
Rezone of this subdistrict 1. Floor Area Ratio:
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
not adopted.
2. Lot Coverage:
See CVMC 19.24 (R-1 zone); Min: N/A Max: 70%
19.26 (R-2 zone); and 19.28
3. Building Height:
(R-3 zone) and City Design Manual Min: 18’ Max: 45’
for development regulations and
design guidelines.
6. Setbacks:
45’ Max Height

18’ Min Height

Parking Regulations
15’ Min Setback 1. Parking Locations:
Section View Fg. 6.36 Any, except in front of building
Min: 1.5 space/du
Street Guest: 1 space/10 du
Sidewalk Onsite Min: 100%
15’ Min Setback


UC-12 H Street Trolley
Urban Regulations
Min: 4.0 Max: 6.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 45% Max: 60%
3. Building Height:
Min: 45’ Max: 210’
6. Setbacks:
H Street
210’ Max Height

Residential: 90% Max 45’ Min Height
Retail: 1% Min 10% Max
Office: 10% Max
Hospitality: 1% Min 10% Max
16’ Min Setback
Parking Regulations Section View Fg. 6.38
Any
3’ Min
ROW
Min: 1 space/du Street

Guest: 0 spaces
Plaza
16’ Min Setback
and Total Sidewalk
Min: 1 space/1,000 sf
Onsite Min: None

that may apply to each property. Please consult Plan View Fg. 6.39

UC-13 Mid Broadway
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 60’
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 0’ Street Max: 20’
60’ Max Height

18’ Min Height

Broadway or H Street frontage on
ground floor, except for access)
Office: 50% Max
0’ - 20’ Setback Retail/Hospitality: 50% Max
Parking Regulations
Anywhere except in front of building
Street
Sidewalk 2. Residential Parking:
Min: 1.5 space/du
Onsite Min: 50%
0’ Min Setback
20’ Max Setback
Onsite Min: 50%


UC-14 Harborview
Urban Regulations
Min: 1.5 Max: 3.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 30’ Max: 84’
6. Setbacks: 15’ Min Stepback
84’ Max Height

8. Primary Land Uses: 30’ Min Height
Residential 100% Max
35’
Parking Regulations
Any, except in front of building 15’ Min Setback
2. Residential Parking: Section View Fg. 6.42

Min: 1.5 space/du
Onsite Min: 100% Street
Sidewalk
Plaza
15’ Min Setback


UC-15 E Street Trolley
Urban Regulations
Rezone of portions of this 1. Floor Area Ratio:

subdistrict not adopted. Min: 4.0 Max: 6.0
2. Lot Coverage:
See CVMC 19.28 (R-3 zone)
Min: 45% Max: 60%
and City Design Manual for
3. Building Height:
development regulations and
Min: 45’ Max: 210’
design guidelines.
6. Setbacks:
(*Applies only along E Street between I-5
and 300’ east of I-5)
210’ Max Height

45’ Min Height

Retail: 1% Min 10% Max
11’ Min Setback Hospitality: 1% Min 10% Max
Parking Regulations
2’ Min ROW
Street
Min: 1 space/du
Sidewalk/ Guest: 0 spaces
Parkway
Onsite Min: 100%
Plaza
11’ Min Setback
13 ’ Total
Sidewalk/ Parkway
Plaza Min: 1 space/1,000 sf
Onsite Min: None


UC-16 Broadway Hospitality
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 60’
6. Setbacks:
Street Min: 11’* Street Max: 20’
(*Along E Street between I-5 and 300’ east
of I-5)
60’ Max Height

Retail: 50% Max 18’ Min Height
Hospitality: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
11’ - 20’ Setback
Street
Onsite Min: 50%
Sidewalk
11’ Min Setback
20’ Max Setback


UC-17 Harborview North
Urban Regulations
Min: 1.0 Max: 2.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 80%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 45’
6. Setbacks:
45’ Max Height

18’ Min Height
Parking Regulations
Any
Section View Fg.
Fg.6.48
6.2 Min: 1.5 space/du
Onsite Min: 100%
Street
Sidewalk
20’ Max Setback
10’ Min Setback

Plan View Fg.
Fg.6.49
6.3 the remainder of the chapter for all criteria.

UC-18 E Street Gateway
Urban Regulations
Min: 1.5 Max: 3.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 50% Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 45’ Max: 120’
6. Setbacks:
(*Applies only along E Street between I-5
and 300’ east of I-5)
7. Open Space Requirement: N/A 120’ Max Height

45’ Min Height
Retail: 20% Max

Hospitality: 100% Max
Parking Regulations
11’ Min Setback
Any
2’ Min ROW
Onsite Min: 100%

Street
Sidewalk/
Parkway
13 ’ Total
Sidewalk/ Parkway
11’ Min Setback
Plaza


UC-19 Feaster School
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 45’
6. Setbacks:
45’ Max Height

Public/Quasi-Public: 100% Max
18’ Min Height
Parking Regulations
Anywhere on-site
15’ Min Setback
Section View Fg. 6.52 Min: 2 spaces/1,000 sf
Onsite Min: 100%
Street
Sidewalk
15’ Min Setback


C-1 Third Avenue South
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: N/A Max: 70%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 60’
6. Setbacks:
Neighborhood Transition: See Section
D. for additional setbacks for parcels
adjacent to R-1 and R-2 districts
60’ Max Height

8. Primary Land Uses: 18’ Min Height
Retail: 100% Max (West of Third Avenue)
Office: 100% Max (East of Third Avenue)
Parking Regulations
Anywhere on-site
Min: 1.5 space/du Sidewalk
Onsite Min: 100%
10’ Min Setback
20’ Max Setback
Onsite Min: 50%


C-2 Broadway South
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 35% Max: 75%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 45’
6. Setbacks:
45’ Max Height

Retail: 50% Max
18’ Min Height
Office: 50% Max

Parking Regulations
10’ - 20’ Setback 1. Parking Locations:
Section View Fg. 6.56 Anywhere on-site
Min: 1.5 space/du
Street
Onsite Min: 100%
Sidewalk
10’ Min Setback
20’ Max Setback
Onsite Min: 50%


C-3 Broadway North
Urban Regulations
Min: N/A Max: 1.0
Chula Vista
2. Lot Coverage:
Min: 35% Max: 75%
3. Building Height:
Min: 18’ Max: 45’
6. Setbacks:
8. Primary Land Uses: 45’ Max Height
Retail: 50% Max 18’ Min Height
Office: 50% Max

Parking Regulations
1. Parking Locations: 10’ - 20’ Setback
Anywhere on-site Section View Fg. 6.58

Min: 1.5 space/du
Guest: 1 space/10 du Street
10’ Min Setback
20’ Max Setback
Onsite Min: 50%


D. Special Provisions for Neighborhood Transition Combining
Districts and Transit Focus Areas
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Neighborhood Transition Combining District (NTCD) is to
permit special regulation to insure that the character of zones within the Specific
Plan area will be compatible with and will complement surrounding residential
areas. Neighborhood Transition Combining Districts apply to the subdistricts
adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones: V-3, V-4, UC-5, UC-6, UC-8, UC-11, UC-13, C-
1, and C-2. Transit Focus Areas provide special regulations to encourage the
development and use of public transportation: UC-1, UC-2, UC-10, UC-12, and
UC-15.
2. Requirements
a. Figure 6.60 details required side and rear setbacks from the property
line that abuts an R-1 or R-2 zone. Where such yard is contiguous and
parallel with an alley, one-half the width of such alley shall be assumed
to be a portion of such yard. Within transit focus areas, provide a
minimum 15 feet of rear yard setback for structures up to and over 84
feet in height.
 b. For every 35 feet in height, the
  structure shall step back at least
0<45 10 15 feet on the side(s) of the
46<55 15
56<65 20
structure that abut an R-1 or R-2
66<75 25 district. Within Transit Focus Areas,
76<85 30 provide a building stepback of at
86<95 35
least 15 feet for every 35 feet in
96<105 40
Rear/side yard setback requirements for
height abutting residential uses. In
Neighborhood Transition Combining District
Fg. 6.60 addition to meeting the stepback
requirements, no part of the building
shall be closer to the property line
than a 60-degree plane extending
from each stepback line.
Property Line
15’
60
Stepback c. A landscaping plan should include one
to three small shade tree(s) for every
3,000 square feet within the rear/side
60 60 yard and should be located on the site
to provide shade/heat gain reduction
35’
effect (i.e. trees not to be planted on the

R-1 or R-2
north facing facade of the building).
15’ Min Setback
Additional building stepbacks may be
required in NTCDs
Fg. 6.61

d. All exterior lighting shall focus internally within the property to decrease
the light pollution onto the neighboring properties.
e. Screening and/or buffers shall be required to obscure features such
as dumpsters, rear entrances, utility and maintenance structures and
loading facilities.
f. A six-foot solid or decorative metal fence shall be placed on the property Chula Vista
line. If the fence is solid, it shall have
North
design treatment and be articulated
every six to eight feet to avoid
presenting a blank wall to the street
or adjacent property.
g. Building design shall be cognizant of
adjacent low density uses (i.e. avoid
balconies overlooking rear yards).
h. As part of the project design and
submittal, developments within Transit
Focus Areas shall conduct studies to
assess the effects of light and solar Trees should not be planted on the
Fg. 6.62
north facing building facade
access, shadowing, and wind patterns
on adjacent buildings and areas.

E. Special Provisions
1. Applicability
There are certain uses that, due to the nature of the use, deserve special
consideration and the application of limitations, design standards, and
operating requirements.
2. Live/Work Units
a. Purpose
Live/work units are occupied by business operators who live in the same
structure that contains the commercial activity. A live/work unit functions
primarily as a workspace with incidental residential accommodations that meet
basic habitability requirements.
b. Limitations on Use
The non-residential component of the live/work unit shall be a use allowed in
the applicable subdistrict. A live/work unit shall not be established or used in
conjunction with any of the following activities.
• Adult businesses
• Vehicle maintenance or repair
• Any H occupancy as classified by the California Building Standards
Code.
• Welding, machinery, or any open flame work; and
• Any other activity determined by the Community Development Director
to not be compatible with the residential activities and/or to have the
possibility of affecting the health or safety of residents, because of the
potential for the use to create dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses,
odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, or would be hazardous
because of materials, processes, products, or wastes.
c. Density
One live/work unit shall be allowed for each 1,000 square feet of lot area.
d. Design Standards
1) Floor area requirements. The net total floor area of a live/work unit shall
be 1,000 square feet minimum and 3,000 square feet maximum. No
more than 60% shall be reserved for living space.

2) Separation and access. Each live/work unit shall be separated from
other live/work units or other uses in the structure. Access to each live/
work unit shall be provided from shop fronts, directly from the street,
common access areas, corridors, or halls; and the access to each unit
shall be clearly separate from other live/work units or other uses within
the structure.
3) Facilities to accommodate “work” activities. A live/work unit shall Chula Vista
be designed to accommodate commercial uses as evidenced by the
provision of ventilation, interior storage, flooring, and other physical
improvements necessary for the commercial component of the live/
work units.
4) Building and fire code compliance. Any building, which contains a live/
work unit, shall comply with the latest edition of the California Building
Code (CBC) as adopted by the City of Chula Vista, and applicable building
and life safety policies for such units.
e. Operating Requirements
1) Notice to occupants. The owner or developer of any building containing
live/work units shall provide written notice to all live/work residents and
users that the surrounding area may be subject to levels of noise, dust,
fumes and other effects associated with commercial uses at higher
than would be expected in residential areas. State and Federal health
regulations notwithstanding, uses shall be subject to the performance
standards as provided in CVMC Section 19.66.
2) Non-resident employees. Up to two persons who do not reside in the
live/work unit may work in the unit unless this employment is prohibited
or limited by the subdistrict. The employment of three or more persons
who do not reside in the live/work unit may be permitted subject to
Conditional Use Permit approval based on the additional findings that
the employment would not adversely affect traffic and parking conditions
in the vicinity.
3) Client and customer visits. Client and customer visits to live/work units
are permitted subject to any applicable conditions placed upon them by
the City.
f. Required Findings
See CVMC Section 19.14.080.

3. Mixed-Use Projects
A mixed-use project shall comply with the following design objectives:
a. Storefronts along street frontages must maintain a pedestrian orientation

at the street level.
b. Provide for internal compatibility between the different uses within the
project.
c. Minimize the effects of any exterior noise, odors, glare, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts.
4. Parking Structures
a. Parking Structure Design
The following parking structure design standards shall apply to all parking
structures located in the Specific Plan area.
1) Parking decks should be flat where feasible. At a minimum, a majority
of both the ground floor and top parking decks should be required to be
flat, as opposed to continuously ramping.
2) External elevator towers and stair wells shall be open to public view, or
enclosed with transparent glazing.
3) Lighting shall meet the requirements of The Chula Vista Municipal
Code.
4) Parking structure top floor wall designs must conform to one or more of
the following options:
a) Top Floor Wall with Architectural Focal Point. A top floor wall focal point
refers to a prominent wall edge feature such as a glazed elevator
and/or stair tower, or top floor line trellis structure.
b) Top Floor Wall Line Variation.
i. Projecting Cornice. Top floor wall line
articulated through a variation or step
in cornice height or detail. Cornices
must be located at or near the top of
the wall or parapet.
ii. Articulated Parapet. Top floor wall line
parapets shall incorporate angled,
curved or stepped detail elements.
Parking decks should be flat where

feasible
Fg. 6.63

5) Parking structures with building facades facing or visible from the public
right-of-way (ROW) shall use one or a combination of the following design
features:
a) The facade shall have the appearance of an office building or hotel
use.
b) Design features that would mask the building as a parking Chula Vista
structure.
Proposed design features shall be approved by the designated design review
authority.
b. Parking Structure Character and Massing

Parking structure facades over 150 feet in length shall incorporate vertical
and/or horizontal variations in setback, material or fenestration design along
the length of the applicable facade, in at least one or more of the following
ways:
1) Vertical Facade Changes. Incorporation of intervals of architectural
variation at least every 80 feet over the length of the applicable facade,
such as:
a) Varying the arrangement, proportioning and/or design of garage
floor openings,
b) Incorporating changes in architectural materials, and/or
c) Projecting forward or recessing back portions or elements of the
parking structure facade.
2) Horizontal Facade Changes. Designed differentiation of the ground floor
from upper floors, such as:
a) Stepping back the upper floors from
the ground floor parking structure
façade,
b) Changing materials between the
parking structure base and upper
floors, and/or
c) Including a continuous cornice line
or pedestrian weather protection
element between the ground floor
and upper floors.
Incorporate intervals of architectural
variation in parking structures
Fg. 6.64

c. Minimizing Views Into the Parking Structure Interior
Façades of parking structures shall be designed without continuous horizontal
parking floor openings.
1) For portions of parking structures without a pedestrian level retail/
commercial use, the following building facade landscaping is required:
a) Five-foot wide façade landscape strip consisting of:
i. a mix of evergreen shrub groupings spaced no more than four
feet apart that do not exceed a height of six feet at maturity,
ii. groundcover, and
iii. seasonal displays of flowering annual bedding plants.
2) Any portion of a parking structure ground floor with exposed parking
areas adjacent to a public street shall minimize views into the parking
structure interior through one or more of the following methods which
are in addition to the above facade landscaping strip:
a) Decorative trellis work and/or screening as architectural elements
on the parking structure facade, without compromising the open
parking structure requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
b) Glass window display cases incorporated into pedestrian walls built
between two structural pillars. Glass window display cases shall be
at least 2 feet deep, begin 12 to 30 inches above the finished grade
of the sidewalk, and cover at least 60% of the area between two
pillars. The trellis work or window display cases may be waived if the
proponent can actually provide first floor retail or commercial uses
on the bottom floor adjacent to the sidewalk.
3) Upon conversion of portions of a
parking structure to a pedestrian retail/
commercial use, the Director of Planning
and Building or Community Development
may approve the removal of initially
installed pedestrian screening material
in order to allow maximum visibility and
access to the converted portions of the
parking structure.
Views into the upper floors of parking

structures should be screened
Fg. 6.65

4) In addition to the above, views into the upper floors of parking structures
shall be minimized through one or more of the following methods:
a) the use of planters integrated into the upper floors of parking
structure facade design,
b) decorative trellis work and/or screening as architectural elements
on the parking structure upper floor facades, and/or Chula Vista
c) upper parking floors designed as a pattern of window-like openings
on the parking structure facade.
d. Parking Floors Located Under or Within Buildings

1) Parking located under or within buildings shall subordinate the garage
entrance to the pedestrian entrance in terms of prominence on the
street, location and design emphasis. No Parking Structure entry shall
be allowed on Third Avenue.
2) Parking at grade under a building shall be completely or wholly screened
through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with
landscaping.

F. Urban Amenity Requirements and Incentives
1. Introduction
This section outlines requirements and incentives for urban amenities that will
enhance the quality of life within the Urban Core by encouraging pedestrian-
friendly design, amenities, beautification, sufficient parking, mixed-use districts,
preferred site location, affordable housing, and access to public transit, parks,
community facilities, and social services.
2. Incentive Zoning
The Urban Core Specific Plan regulates the development of property through
use and bulk restrictions. The tool selected for regulating density and intensity
in the Urban Core is a limitation on the allowable Floor Area Ratio. FAR is the
ratio between the size of the lot and the maximum amount of floor space that
a building constructed on that lot may contain.
Through incentive zoning, Chula Vista seeks to realize certain amenities or

design provisions related to a particular development project in exchange for
granting an increase in the FAR or FAR waiver for the property being developed.
Locations where the City may grant such incentives are clearly identified in this
chapter.
Bonus awards may be as “of right” or discretionary. Discretionary authority

to grant all FAR bonuses or fee waivers is delegated to the CVRC or Planning
Commission or City Council as necessary.
The amount of bonus awards Chula Vista will make available should take into
account the projected build-out that would occur if all of the bonus provisions
allowable under the program were actually awarded. This total should not exceed
the capacity of the land or the capacity of the City to provide infrastructure and
services to support the build-out.
To determine just how much additional FAR or FAR waiver should be granted,
the CVRC or Planning Commission should take into account the value added
to the property by the amenity or design, and a reasonable share of additional
FAR or FAR waiver that will proportionally compensate the developer for the
additional amenities or design provisions.

3. Urban Amenities Table
The Urban Amenities Table presents a wide variety of urban amenities either
required or desired in the Urban Core. The table describes whether these
amenities are required through the Specific Plan (or other regulations) or
whether provision of these elements will be encouraged through incentives.
When an urban amenity is required, the specific responsibilities of the property
owner are identified in the Requirements column. In some cases, the applicant Chula Vista
should refer to other sections contained within the Specific Plan for particular
guidelines or regulations. When provision of an urban amenity results in
additional benefits to the property owner, the incentive for providing the amenity
is listed in the Incentives column. Incentives requests will be evaluated case-by-
case based on the degree of public benefit provided by the proposed project.
Several of the urban amenities may be both a requirement and an incentive;

in these cases, a certain portion of the amenity is required to be provided
and the property owner may also recognize additional benefits by providing
an additional portion of the amenity. The Urban Amenities Table also details
the subdistricts within the Specific Plan area in which provision of a particular
element is required or eligible for incentives. If no subdistricts are specified,
the amenity is applicable to all subdistricts.



  
Streetscape Improvements Development impact fee and/or
development requirements (Contained None
in Chapter VI)
Paseos Public right of way, development
requirements (Contained in Chapter None
VI), and/or development impact fee
Pedestrian Circulation (Onsite Design guidelines (Contained in
and Offsite) Chapter VII) and development
None
requirements (Contained in Chapter VI)
Streetfront Facades/Street Design guidelines (Contained in

Wall Chapters VI & VII) and development
None
regulations (Contained in Chapters VI &
VII)
Upper Level Setbacks Design guidelines (Contained in
None
Chapters VI & VII)
Landscaping Design guidelines (Contained in
None
Chapter VII)
Transit Station Improvements Design guidelines (Contained in
Chapter VII) and/or development
impact fee
Applicability: V-1, V-2, V-4, V-5, UC-1,
None
UC-2, UC-4, UC-5, UC-7, UC-9, UC-10,
UC-12, UC-13, UC-14, UC-15, UC-16,
UC-18, UC-19, C-1, C-2, and C-3
Cultural Arts (Public) Development impact fee Applicability:

V-1, V-2, V-3, V-4, UC-1, UC-2, UC-4,
UC-5, UC-7, UC-9, UC-10, UC-12, UC- None
13, UC-15, UC-16, UC-18, UC-19, C-1,
C-2, and C-3
Site Access Design guidelines (Contained in
Chapter VII) and development
None
requirements (Contained in Chapter VI)
Vertical Mixed-Use Design guidelines (Contained in

(Residential over Commercial Chapter VII) and development
Projects) requirements (Contained in Chapter VI)
Applicability: V-1, V-2, V-3, V-4, U-C1, None
U-C2, UC-5, UC-10, UC-12, UC-13, UC-
14, UC-15, C-1, C-2, and C-3
Vertical Mixed-Use Design guidelines (Contained in

(Residential over Commercial Chapter VII) and development
None
Projects) within 500 feet of a requirements (Contained in Chapter VI)
Transit Station
Urban Amenities Table (Page 1 of 2)
Fg. 6.66



  
Parking Design guidelines (Contained in 10% increase in the allowable
Chapter VII) and development FAR and the allowable number of
requirements (Contained in Chapter VI) residential units when all parking
and/or development impact fee for is provided within the building, Chula Vista
parking district, including structured and entirely below grade, or in a
underground facilities Applicability: V-1, parking garage of at least two
V-2, V-3, V-4, UC-1, U-C2, UC-4, UC-5, levels and wrapped with uses or
UC-7, UC-9, UC-10, UC-12, UC-13, UC- architecturally concealed
15, UC-16, UC-18, C-1, C-2, and C-3 Applicability: All subdistricts
Public Parks and Plazas, Development impact fee and parkland 10% increase in the allowable
including Sports/Recreation dedication FAR when additional public
Facilities, Play Lots, Water outdoor space is provided above
Features, Trails, Par Courses, and beyond PAD requirements
Equipment, Gardens, Art and other than those identified in
Works Figure 8.64 is provided. The
public outdoor open space shall
have the following
characteristics: has an area
greater than 500 square feet with
a minimum depth of 30 feet;
provides tables and chairs;
provides pedestrian-scaled
lighting of at least 2 footcandles;
and has outdoor public art and
other desired amenities, such as
fountains.
Applicability: All subdistricts
Affordable Housing City inclusionary housing requirement
As allowed by State Density
when applicable Bonus Law (Government Code
Section 65915)
Applicability: All subdistricts that
allow residential
Green Building LEED Scorecard submitted with Urban FAR increase (20% for LEED
Core Development Permit application Certification, 25% for LEED
Silver up to 35% for LEED
Platinum), also priority permit
review with LEED certification.
Historic or Architectural FAR waiver: FAR for elements
Acquistion and Maintenance not included in overall project
None
FAR
Community Services/Human FAR waiver: FAR for elements
Services not included in overall project
None
FAR
Urban Amenities Table (Page 2 of 2)
Fg. 6.67

G. Signs
1. Applicability
For all signs within the Specific Plan Area, the Zoning Code shall apply with
respect to the size, type, location and illumination in the following manner.
Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines provides additional design
requirements for signs within the Village, Urban Core, and Corridors Districts.
2. Village District
The provisions of Chapter 19.60 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall apply
to all signs in the Village Area of the Specific Plan. In particular, the provisions
of Section 19.60.520 (C-B zone provisions) shall apply to all commercial signs
in the area, subject to the following exceptions:
a. Illumination: No internally illuminated “can” signs or individually cut,
internally illuminated plastic letters shall be permitted in the Village
District.
b. No pole or ground signs shall be allowed in the Village District.
c. Awning signs shall be restricted to the awning valence (flap) only.
d. All window signs above the ground floor shall be prohibited.
e. No wall sign shall exceed one square foot per linear foot of building
frontage.
3. Urban Core District and Corridors District

The provisions of Chapter 19.60 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code shall apply
to all signs in the Urban Core and Corridors districts of the Specific Plan. In
particular, the provisions of Section 19.60.540 (C-C zone provisions) shall apply
to all commercial signs in the area, subject to the following exceptions:
a. Illumination: No internally illuminated “can” signs shall be permitted in
the Urban Core or Corridor Districts.
b. No pole signs shall be permitted shall be allowed in the Urban Core or
Corridor Districts.
c. All window signs above the ground floor shall be prohibited.

H. Other Regulations
1. Outdoor Storage
All uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, except
for outdoor restaurants, off-street parking and loading facilities, and other
open uses specified under conditional use permits as determined by the CVRC
or Planning Commission. Permanent and temporary outside sales and display Chula Vista
shall be subject to the provisions of Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.58.370.
2. Trash
Trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal
Code 19.58.340.
3. Performance Standards
All uses developed pursuant to the Specific Plan shall be subject to initial and
continued compliance with the performance standards in the Chula Vista
Municipal Code 19.66.
4. Design Control
The exterior design and arrangement of all residential, commercial, and office
uses and mixed-uses and structures proposed for establishment, location,
expansion or alteration in the Specific Plan subdistricts shall be governed by the
goals, general objectives, statements of policy and principles, and standards of
Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines.

I. Development Exceptions
The land use and development regulations encourage the siting of a variety of
land uses in an urban environment that is both pedestrian and environmentally
sensitive. Where used in combination with the Urban Amenities Incentives, as
provided for in this chapter, the development regulations and urban amenities
incentives will encourage innovative design. To further achieve this goal, it may
be necessary to be flexible in the application of certain development standards.
As such, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation or Planning Commission
may authorize exceptions to the land use and development regulations included
within this chapter through the issuance of an Urban Core Development Permit,
if all of the following findings are made:
1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the goals and
objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan.
2. The proposed development will comply with all other regulations of the
Specific Plan.
3. The proposed development will incorporate one or more of the Urban
Amenities Incentives in section F - Urban Amenities Requirements and
Incentives, of this chapter.
4. The exception or exceptions are appropriate for this location and will
result in a better design or greater public benefit than could be achieved
through strict conformance with the Specific Plan development
regulations.
Consideration of a development standard exception shall be concurrent with
the review of the Urban Core Development Permit, as outlined in Chapter XI
- Plan Administration, Section C.1. Urban Core Development Permit and Design
Review Requirements, of this Specific Plan.

VII. Development Design Guidelines
A. Introduction and Background VII-1
B. What is Urban Design? VII-4
C. How to Use the Design Guidelines VII-5
D. Village District VII-33 Chula Vista
E. Urban Core District VII-79
F. Corridors District VII-107
G. Special Guidelines VII-139
Chapter VII Design Guidelines 1

VII. Development Design Guidelines
A. Introduction and Background
Over the last few decades, Chula Vista has dramatically emerged as an
economic and population center for the San Diego region. Increasingly, the
City and the public have recognized the importance of fostering a strong Urban Chula Vista
Core that can accommodate further commercial and residential growth and
serve as the retail, office, and entertainment center of the community. The City
has established these design guidelines, which supplement the Specific Plan
and Zoning Ordinance, to provide Chula Vista with recommendations for the
preservation and aesthetic improvement of the Urban Core, which will, in turn,
enhance the overall vitality and economic stability of the broader community.
1. Purpose
The purpose of the design manual is to provide guidance for the construction,
conservation, adaptive use, and enhancement of buildings and street scenes
contained within Chula Vista’s Urban Core. The manual is intended to assist
many users (property owners, merchants, real estate interests, architects,
designers and building contractors, vendors and craftsmen, the City of Chula
Vista, and other interested persons and organizations) in being responsive to
City objectives. Each of these interests has
a vital and often related role to play in the
continued revitalization of the Urban Core.
The design standards in this manual are, by

specific intent, prescriptive. They describe
appropriate kinds of changes and improvements
that can be made to existing structures, as well
as recommend the incorporation of particular
design elements in new construction.
These guidelines, while attempting to be
comprehensive in scope, certainly are not
exhaustive in detail. The overall aim is to This photo received favorable ratings Fg. 7.1
in the Visual Preference Survey
encourage creative approaches and solutions
within a workable framework. The focus of the “form-based” design guidelines
is the relationship of development to the street, not a mandatory preference of
one architectural style over another architectural style.
Chapter VII Design Guidelines VII-1

2. Applicability
This manual is to be used as a guide for new construction and for the renovation
of existing structures within the Urban Core and does not apply to existing
structures not undergoing any anticipated improvements. Any new residences,
buildings, additions, exterior alterations, or landscaping, and any modification
to an approved landscaping plan or parking lot design will adhere to these
Design Guidelines as applicable. The design guidelines are to be applied within
the confines of private property, with the exception of public parks, plazas, etc.,
that may be developed as part of individual projects. Refer to Chapter VIII -
Public Realm Design Guidelines for more information on the design of public
parks, plazas, etc. The guidelines are form based and should be applied to
projects regardless of the type of land use.
3. Goals
The following goals provide explanation of the design philosophy expressed
throughout subsequent sections of the Design Guidelines. This manual intends
to promote a desired level of future development quality in the Urban Core that
will:
• contribute to implementing the goals, objectives, and policies provided in
the General Plan and Urban Core Specific Plan;
• stimulate investment in and strengthen the economic vitality of the Urban
Core;
• contribute to a positive physical image and identity of the City;
• promote a visually attractive, safe and well-planned community through the
incorporation of sound design principles;
• create unique identities for each district;
• protect Urban Core residents from unsafe or unsightly conditions;
• minimize negative impacts of new development and redevelopment; and
• preserve and maximize the image, character, and history of Chula Vista’s
Urban Core.
4. Organization
The first three of the following four sections focus on three distinct districts or
development types within the urban core: the Village District, the Urban Core
District, and the Corridors District. All sections include guidelines with regard
to architecture, site planning, storefront design, landscape design, lighting,
parking and circulation, and signs. The fourth section focuses on guidelines for
special types of projects and special project features, including guidelines for
hotels and motels, mixed-use projects, and stand alone multi-familly residential
projects.
VII-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

a. Village District
The guidelines contained in this section aim to retain and enhance the small-
town, mixed-use ambience of the traditional Village through rehabilitation of
older structures and well-designed new development. Like those for the Urban
Core, the guidelines for the Village stress pedestrian-oriented site planning and
building design, including requiring upper floors to step back to allow sunlight
to reach the streets below. The section also concentrates on preserving the Chula Vista
historic fabric of the area, including providing guidance for those who wish to
renovate or add on to existing buildings and promoting design compatibility
between infill structures and surrounding buildings.
b. Urban Core District

The Urban Core District will serve as the primary business, commercial, and
regional center of Chula Vista. This section focuses on accommodating mid- to
high-rise development while encouraging an active street life. Specifically, the
design guidelines support the development of primarily ground floor retail uses
along Broadway and H Street. Such guidelines help ensure that the Urban Core
contains a comfortable environment for pedestrians to shop, dine, and recreate.
In light of the intensity of land uses and need for parking in the area, this section
contains a special section devoted to the design of parking structures.
c. Corridors District
In contrast with the Urban Core and the Village Districts, the Corridors District
is oriented towards the automobile rather than pedestrian traffic. Sections of
Broadway and Third Avenue are characterized by minimum ten-foot setbacks,
one or two-story structures, and a high percentage of retail, service, and office
development. The guidelines in this section focus on promoting quality and
diversity in new commercial and residential development and safe and efficient
parking and circulation.
d. Special Guidelines
This section provides supplemental guidelines for hotels and motels, mixed-
use projects, and multi-family residential projects to provide further site
design considerations based on their individual uses. Sustainable design
recommendations for all project types are also discussed.

B. What is Urban Design?
In part, urban design is the “art” of enhancing the vitality, meaning, and form
of communities by ensuring quality, sensible design and development. Urban
design is but one of several factors that must
be considered in community design and
development. The others include economic
conditions, promotion, and marketing of
businesses, management, and maintenance.
For purposes of this manual, design guidelines
are presented that aim to foster an image
and character desired by the community and
Good urban design enhances the supportive of the other factors pertaining to
Fg. 7.2
vitality and character of a community different types of development.

C. How to Use the Design Guidelines
People judge a place by the quality of the physical spaces they see around them
– in terms of function and attractiveness. The areas within the Urban Core are
not only places for residential, commercial, governmental, and employment
activities but also statements about the community. Many areas within the
Urban Core have either been neglected, poorly designed, or are outdated. The
Chula Vista
role of the design guidelines is to help new and old development become points
of pride for Chula Vista residents.
These guidelines should be used to influence the design of development/

redevelopment of residential and non-residential land uses in the Specific Plan
area and apply primarily to on-site private development areas. The guidelines
are organized and written to help achieve an envisioned design quality through
Chula Vista’s Urban Core.
These guidelines should be used as a starting point for the creative design
process and should not be looked upon as the only solution for design. Owners
of properties should strive to be creative and innovative, and should be
encouraged to look beyond franchise or boilerplate architectural and landscape
architectural design treatments. It is encouraged that property owners involve
City staff, community groups, and affected merchants and business owners in
the design process prior to making a significant investment in design.
a. Harmonizing Change
Architects and designers should consider the importance of General Plan
Theme 8 - “Shaping the Future Through the Present and Past” when developing
any new or redevelopment project in the Urban Core. The following photo essay
provides a brief summary of the important design themes that have helped
shape the unique architectural character of the City. Important design cues
can be found in these examples and should be referenced in new development
in a way that reflects Chula Vista’s heritage and sense of place. The following
photo essay was compiled by Pamela Bensoussan, ASA.

El Primero Hotel, 1930,
Designed by H.W. Whitsitt
416 Third Ave
Congregational Church, 1951

Historical Site #5 at 276 “F” Street
Community Character Photo Essay

Fg. 7.3
Submitted by Pamela Bensoussan, ASA July 24, 2006 page 2 of 27

Chula Vista
Charles Smith Building, 1930

Zig Zag Moderne style
289 Third Avenue

Fg. 7.4

Relating architectural elements from El Primero Hotel,
Charles Smith Building and Congregational Church

Fg. 7.5

Chula Vista
Vogue Theater (views circa 1945 and 2005)

Art Deco Moderne
226 Third Ave

Fg. 7.6

Bank of America Building, 1949
Mid-Century Moderne
253-257Third Ave

Fg. 7.7

Chula Vista
Dyson Court Apartments

Streamline Moderne, circa 1928
516-518 Flower

Fg. 7.8

Burnett’s Furniture Store
Mid-Century Moderne 1952
345 “E” Street
Garden Farms Market

“E” Street Circa 1940s
Art Deco Commercial
Streamline Moderne Commercial Building

Circa 1930
45 Broadway

Fg. 7.9

Chula Vista
“Highway 101” Vintage Neon

Broadway
Third Ave

Fg. 7.10

Logan’s Paint & Linoleum
Commercial Brick Building, 1926
277-279 Third Ave

Fg. 7.11

Chula Vista
Flower Street Apartments, circa 1928

Tudor inspired with clinker bricks
500 Flower St

Fg. 7.12

Horace Nelson House, Historic Site #
Tudor Revival brick house, 1933
470 “E” St
Hadley Johnson House, circa 1950

Historic Site #58
7 Cresta Way
Fg. 7.13

Chula Vista
Bay View Hospital

Tudor Revival, Third Ave at “L”
(half-timbers were stuccoed over)
“Zontek’s Café” 1953

Tudor Revival
230 Third Ave
Mae Edgecomb House

Tudor Revival, ca 1924
834 First Ave

Fg. 7.14

George Sample House, Historic Site #
French Normandy Style, circa 1929
466 “E” Street
French Colonial Atherton House

Historic Site #59, 1950
415 Hilltop Dr.

Fg. 7.15

Chula Vista
First Baptist Church of Chula Vista, 1929

Spanish Colonial Style
“E” St & Fifth Ave
Woman’s Club Historic Site #12

Designed by Edgar Ullrich
357 “G” Street

Fg. 7.16

Sallmon House, 1916, Pueblo Revival Style
Designed by William Templeton Johnson in 1916
Historic Site #28
435 First Avenue
San Diego Country Club, 1984

Pueblo Revival Style
“L” Street Chula Vista

Fg. 7.17

Spanish Eclectic
Hacienda style Homes
Chula Vista
447 “I” Street, ca 1930
Palomar Dr West, ca 1929
629 Del Mar Ave, ca 1932

Fg. 7.18

Spanish Eclectic Hacienda style, circa 1928
Hilltop and “F” Street

Fg. 7.19

Chula Vista
Harry McCrea House

Spanish Eclectic, circa 1924
225 Garrett Ave
Spanish Eclectic, circa 1920s

Flower St at Fifth Ave

Fg. 7.20

Mission Revival Style
Circa 1920s
244 Elder St.
Edmond Russ House, 1929

Mission Revival, Historic Site #47
200 “K” St.
Elmer Kinmore House, 1926, Spanish Eclectic

230 Fifth Ave
Fg. 7.21

Chula Vista
Chula Vista Library Civic Center

Designed by Tom Williamson
of Richard George Wheeler & Associates, 1976
365 “F” Street

Fg. 7.22

Garrettson-Frank House
Victorian ca 1889
Historic Site #43
642 Second Ave
James Johnson House

Victorian, ca 1891
Historic Site #6
525 “F” St
Jennie MacDonald House

Victorian, ca 1888
Historic Site #44
644 Second Ave

Fg. 7.23

Edward Gillette House
Victorian, ca 1894
Historic Site #30
44 North Second Ave Chula Vista
Cordrey House
Victorian, ca 1889
Historic Site #3
210 Davidson St
Mary Francisco House

Victorian, ca 1888
681 Del Mar Ave

Fg. 7.24

William Drew House
Craftsman, ca 1913
Historic Site #54
475 “E” Street
Dupree-Gould House
Craftsman, ca 1921
Historic Site #22
344 Hilltop Drive
Greg Rogers House

Craftsman, ca 1910
Historic Site #1 and 42
616 Second Ave

Fg. 7.25

Chula Vista
Reginald Walters House, 1908

Folk Pyramidal
219 “F” Street
Nadine Davies House, 1911

Craftsman Bungalow
Historic Site #41
614 Second Ave
Edwin Smith Sr House, 1912

Craftsman (modified)
Historic Site #
616 Del Mar

Fg. 7.26

Memorial Bowl
Amphitheatre & Park
1939 W.P.A.
Parkway between Third & Fourth

Fg. 7.27

Chula Vista
Norman Park Center

Designed by Visions Studio 1992
270 “F” St

Fg. 7.28

South Chula Vista Library
Designed by Ricardo Legorreta 1992
389 Orange Ave
MAAC Community Charter School

Contemporary
Third Ave & Palomar

Fg. 7.29

D. Village District
1. Introduction
The purpose of this section is to present design guidelines for new private
development and rehabilitation of older commercial structures in the Village
district. The guidelines seek to promote a blend
of high quality residential and commercial uses Chula Vista
within a small-town atmosphere. Guidelines
include groundfloor commercial with office and
residential above or single use structures where
the design focus is on entryways, access, and
pedestrian orientation. General architectural
guidelines should be followed regardless of the
internal use.
Third Avenue is the heart of Chula

Vista
Fg. 7.30

2. Design Principles
a. Promote Sound Architectural Practices

New infill development and renovation to existing
structures must respect sound architectural
design practices in order to create a positive
ambiance within the Village. The standards
contained in this section do not dictate the use
of any specific architectural style. Architectural
standards should guide the designer in massing,
proportion, scale, texture, pattern and line. New
creative interpretations of traditional design
variables are particularly encouraged.
b. Retain or Repeat Traditional Facade

Components
Changes to structures will, and need to,
occur over time. The concern is that these
changes do not damage the existing traditional
building fabric and that the results of building
renovation enhance the overall design integrity
of the building. New infill structures should
use traditional facade components, such as
bulkheads, arches, plazas, and balconies, to
create patterns and alignments that visually
link buildings within a block, while allowing
individual identity of each building. These
Infill should reflect the established
rhythm and scale of adjacent buildings
Fg. 7.31 elements are familiar to the pedestrian and
help establish a sense of scale.
c. Develop a Steady Rhythm of Facade

Widths
The traditional commercial/mercantile lot
width in the Village area has given rise to
buildings of relatively uniform width that create
a familiar rhythm. This is particularly visible
on Third Avenue. This pattern helps to tie
the street together visually and provides the
pedestrian with a standard measurement of his
progress. Reinforcement of this facade rhythm
is encouraged, in all new buildings, even if a
singular structure.

d. Create a Comfortable Scale of Structures
All buildings must convey a scale appropriate for
pedestrian activity. Human-scaled buildings are
comfortable and create a friendly atmosphere
that respects the traditional scale of the Village
while also enhancing its marketability as a retail
and office area. For the most part, this means Chula Vista
two- to three-story development at the back of
the sidewalk, particularly along Third Avenue.
e. Support Pedestrian-Oriented Activity at

the Sidewalk and Amenity Areas
The activities that occur immediately inside
the storefront and along the building frontage,
particularly along Third Avenue, are an
important design consideration. Structures
can provide visual interest to pedestrians
Ground floor sidewalk activity adds
through goods and outdoor activities. Therefore, human scale to the two-story building
Fg. 7.32
building design elements should be located
in a way that enhances pedestrian visibility of
goods and activities, and they should be kept
free of advertising and non-product related
clutter (e.g. backs of display cases, etc.), to
the greatest extent possible. Storefronts with
clear, transparent glass also instill a sense of
safety for pedestrians since they sense that
employees and patrons are monitoring the
sidewalk. In contrast, storefronts with blank or
solid opaque walls degrade the quality of the
pedestrian experience and are not permitted.
Storefronts with abundant glass

encourage pedestrian activity
Fg. 7.33

3. Site Planning
Al
le
y a. Introduction
New infill buildings should reinforce the
pedestrian-orientation of the Village by providing
Access storefronts next to the sidewalk and locating
parking areas away from the street.
b. Building Siting
en rian
try
st
de
Pe
1) The first floor of any new building should be

Buildings should be sited next to the
street
Fg. 7.34 built at (or very close to) the front property
line, particularly on Third Avenue. The front
building facade should be oriented parallel
to the street. Buildings should also be
placed on the setback line along alleys.
2) Building indentations that create small

pedestrian plazas along the streetwall,
particularly along Third Avenue, are
encouraged.
3) Front setbacks should accommodate active

public uses such as outdoor dining and
therefore should use hardscape and limited
Corner buildings should continue
storefronts on side streets
Fg. 7.35 landscaping, such as potted plants and
flower beds. Provide additional setbacks at
public plaza areas.
4) Buildings on corners should include

storefront design features on at least 50%
of the side street elevation wall.
5) Entries that face onto an outdoor dining

opportunity are encouraged.
6) Retain existing paseos when possible. Create

additional pedestrian paseos and linkages
to parking lots, activity areas, or alleys
within the middle one-third of a block. In no
case should historic structures be modified
to achieve this particular guideline.
Paseos should be placed in the

Fg. 7.36 7) Buildings situated facing a plaza, paseo, or
middle one-third of a block other public space are encouraged.

8) Loading and storage facilities should be
located at the rear or side of buildings and
screened from public view.
c. Street Orientation
1) Storefronts and major building entries
should orient to Third Avenue, F Street, Chula Vista
courtyards, or plazas, although minor side
or rear entries may be desirable.
2) Provide corner “cut-offs” for buildings on

prominent intersections. Storefronts and building entries
should face the street
Fg. 7.37
3) Create continuous pedestrian activity

along public sidewalks in an uninterrupted
sequence by minimizing gaps between
buildings.
4) Any building with more than 75 feet of street

frontage should have at least one primary
building entry.
d. Parking Orientation
1) Locating parking lots between the front
property line and the building storefront is
prohibited. Instead, parking lots should be
located to the rear of buildings, subterranean,
or in parking structures.
Rear parking lots should be
contiguous
Fg. 7.38
2) Rear parking lots should be designed and
located contiguously so vehicles can travel
from one private parking lot to the other
without having to enter the street. This
may be achieved with reciprocal access
agreements.
Building
entrance
3) Locate rear parking lot and structure entries
on side streets or alleys in order to minimize
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along Third
Avenue and F Street.
4) Create wide, well-lit pedestrian walkways

Link parking areas to major building
from parking lots to building entries that rear entrances using textured paving
Fg. 7.39
utilize directional signs.

e. Refuse, Storage, and Equipment Areas
1) Trash storage must be fully enclosed and
incorporated within the main structures or
separate freestanding enclosures (CVMC
19.58.340). Where practical, storage
at each unit is preferred over common
enclosures. Trash storage cannot be placed
under stairways.
2) All trash and garbage bins should be stored

in an approved enclosure.
3) Trash enclosures should allow convenient

access for commercial tenants. Siting
service areas in a consolidated and
controlled environment is encouraged.
4) Trash enclosures should be located away

from residential uses to minimize nuisance
for the adjacent property owners. The
enclosure doors should not interfere with
landscaping, pedestrian, or vehicle path of
travel.
5) Trash enclosures should be architecturally

compatible with the project. Landscaping
should be incorporated into the design to
screen the enclosure from public view and
deter graffiti.
6) Refuse storage areas that are visible from

an upper story of adjacent structures
should provide an opaque or semi-opaque
horizontal cover/screen to reduce unsightly
views. The screening should be compatible
with the design of adjacent development.
7) Refuse containers and service facilities

should be screened from view by solid
masonry walls with wood or metal doors.
Use landscaping (shrubs and vines) to
screen walls and help deter graffiti.

8) All mechanical equipment, whether mounted
on the roof, side of a structure, or on the
ground shall be screened from view (CVMC
15.16.030). Utility meters and equipment
should be placed in locations which are not
exposed to view from the street or should
be suitably screened. All screening devices Chula Vista
are to be compatible with the architecture,
material and color of adjacent structures.
f. Site Amenities
Site amenities help establish the identity of
a commercial area and provide comfort and
interest to its users. Individual site amenities
within a commercial setting should have
common features, such as color, material, and
design to provide a cohesive environment and a
more identifiable character.
1) Plazas and Courtyards

a) Plazas and courtyards are strongly
encouraged within commercial
developments over one acre .
b) Physical access should be provided from

shops, restaurants, offices and other
pedestrian uses to plazas.
c) A majority of the gross area of the plaza

should have access to sunlight for the
duration of daylight hours.
d) Shade trees or other elements providing

relief from the sun should be incorporated
within plazas.
e) Entries to the plaza and storefront entries

within the plaza should be well lighted.
f) Architecture, landscaping elements, and

public art should be incorporated into the
plaza design.

g) Plazas and courtyards should include a focal
element of sculpture and/or water feature,
simple plants and simple sitting niches.
h) Seating should be provided in plazas. Where

applicable, plaza users should be provided
with a choice between active and passive
seating.
i) Courtyards should be designed to provide

both visibility and separation from the street,
parking areas, or drive aisles.
2) Site Furniture
a) Paving and furniture should complement
public streetscape elements when
appropriate.
b) Site furnishings should not create

pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.
c) Bicycle racks should be selected that

are durable and consistent with other
streetscape furnishings.
d) Based on their performance, “loop

rack” and “ribbon bar” bicycle racks are
recommended.
e) The design of newspaper boxes should be

consolidated into one rack. Racks should be
attractive on all sides.

4. Architectural Guidelines
a. Introduction
The design of an infill building in the Village,
particularly its front facade, should be
influenced by historically significant facades on
the street but should not attempt to copy them. Chula Vista
The contemporary infill structure should be
compatible with specific plan zoning regulations
in terms of height, facade rhythm, placement of
doors and windows, color and use of materials Structures that integrate a mix of
Fg. 7.40
uses and vary heights are encouraged
without necessarily duplicating a “dated”
architectural style from the past.
b. Building Height, Form, and Mass

1) Multiple-use structures, with retail on
lower floors and residential or non-retail
commercial on upper floors, are required
along Third Avenue and encouraged
elsewhere within the Village District.
2) Horizontal building stepbacks are

encouraged to provide building articulation
, terrace space and other elements to soften
building facades. If a mid-rise building is
located on a corner site, increased stepbacks
from the street wall are encouraged along
both streets. Please also refer to Chapter VI
– Land Use and Development Regulations
for regulations regarding required minimum
building stepbacks for specific subdistricts
within the Specific Plan.
Stepback
3) Building heights should vary and enhance

public views, and provide adjacent sites Balconies
with maximum sun and ventilation and
protection from prevailing winds.
4) Exceptions to building height may be

provided pursuant to 19.16.040.
5) Whenever a proposed infill building is

adjacent to a designated historic structure, Building stepbacks are encouraged
Fg. 7.41

consideration should be given to proposed
building height, mass and form to minimize
effects on the historic structure.
c. Facades and Rhythm

Proportion of opening sizes New structures should reflect the established
to building mass is too small
scale and rhythm suggested by the regulations
contained herein and the traditional lot
pattern.
1) The characteristic proportion (relationship

of height to width) of existing facades should
Increase opening sizes be reflected in new infill development.
2) Building facades should be detailed in such

a way as to make them appear smaller in
scale. The smaller scale can be achieved
through vertical and horizontal articulation
such as:
Articulate openings • breaks (reveals, recesses) in the surface
of the wall itself;
• placement of window and door openings;
or
• the placement of bay windows, balconies,
awnings, and canopies.
3) Bay windows and balconies that provide

Break up building mass
usable and accessible outdoor space for
Vertical and horizontal articulation
Fg. 7.42 residential uses are strongly encouraged
make buildings appear smaller in scale
and may encroach on the public right-of-
way, consistent with City policy.
4) Whenever a proposed infill building is wider

than the existing facades on the street,
the infill facade should be broken down
into a series of appropriately proportioned
“structural bays” or components such as a
series of columns or masonry piers to frame
window, door and bulkhead components.
5) The predominant difference between upper

story openings and street level storefront
Upper stories should have smaller
Fg. 7.43 openings (windows and doors) should
window openings than the street level

be maintained. Typically, there is a much
greater window area (70%) at the storefront
level for pedestrians to have a better view
of the merchandise displayed. In contrast,
upper stories have smaller window openings
(approximately 40%).
Chula Vista
6) Whenever an infill building is proposed that
has two adjacent commercial structures,
Architectural details help maintain
every attempt should be made to maintain horizontal rhythm along the street
Fg. 7.44
the characteristic rhythm, proportion,
and spacing of existing door and window
openings.
7) Whenever an infill building is proposed,

identify the common horizontal elements
(e.g. cornice line, window height/width
and spacing) found among neighboring
structures and develop the infill design
utilizing a similar rhythm or alignment.
8) Cornice lines of new buildings (a horizontal

rhythm element) should transition with
buildings on adjacent properties to avoid
clashes in building height.
9) If maintaining a horizontal rhythm or

alignment as a result of infill construction is
not feasible, the use of canopies, awnings, or
other horizontal devices should be included
to maintain a (shared) horizontal storefront
rhythm.

d. Architectural Photographic Essay
The following pages provide photos illustrating
appropriate architectural bulk and massing
within the Village. These photos show buildings
with lower floors that are located at the front
setback line and upper floors that step back
from the street.
Upper floors step back from the street

Fg. 7.45

Chula Vista
Buildings have lower floors that are located at the front setback line
Fg. 7.46

e. Building Materials and Colors
Building Materials
The complexity of building materials should be
based on the complexity of the building design.
More complex materials should be used on
simpler building designs and vice versa. In all
cases, storefront materials should be consistent
with the materials used on the applicable
building and adjacent buildings. The number of
different wall materials used on any one building
Materials such as wood provide should be kept to a minimum, ideally two. The
visual appeal
Fg. 7.47 following materials, including but not limited to,
are considered appropriate for buildings within
the Village:
1) Approved Exterior Materials
Walls
• Stucco (smooth or textured)
• Smooth block
• Granite
• Marble
• New or used face-brick
• Terra Cotta
Accent Materials
Accent materials should be used to highlight
building features and provide visual interest.
Accent materials may include one of the
following:
• Wood
• Glass
• Glass block (storefront only)
• Tile (bulkhead)
• Concrete
• Stone
• Copper
• Cloth Awnings
• Plaster (smooth or textured)
• Metal
• Wrought Iron
• Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone)
• Terra cotta

Rooftops
• Standing seam metal roofs
• Class “A” composition roof shingles
(residential application only)
• Crushed stone
• Built up roof system
• Tile Chula Vista
• Green roofs
2) Prohibited Exterior Materials
Walls and Accent Materials

• Reflective or opaque glass at ground floor
• Imitation stone (fiberglass or plastic)
• “Lumpy” stucco
• Pecky cedar
• Used brick with no fired face (salvaged from
interior walls)
• Imitation wood siding
• Plastic panels
• Heavily tinted glass
• Vinyl siding
3) Exterior Color
a) It is not the intent of these guidelines to

control color, however several general
guidelines should be applied:
• use subtle/muted colors on larger and
plainer buildings;
• use added colors and more intense
colors on small buildings or those with
elaborate detailing;
• encourage contrasting colors that accent
architectural details;
• encourage colors that accent
entrances;
• in general, no more than three colors
should be used on any given facade,
including “natural” colors such as
unpainted brick or stone, except for
Victorian and Craftsman era buildings. Contrasting colors should accent
entrances and architectural details
Fg. 7.48

• caution should be exercised when using
more than one vivid color per building;
and
• avoid using colors that are not harmonious
with colors found on adjacent buildings.
b) Light colored base walls of buildings and

other large expanses are encouraged. Soft
tones ranging from white to very light pastels
are encouraged. Neutrals such as off-white,
beige and sand are also acceptable colors.
However, dark colors can be appropriate for
“Natural” materials such as brick are
encouraged
Fg. 7.49 storefronts.
c) Finish material with “natural” colors such

as brick, stone, copper, etc., should be used
where practicable.
d) Exposure to the amount of sunlight can

change the appearance of a paint color;
therefore, paint chips should be checked on
both sunny and cloudy or foggy days.
e) The orientation of a building (north, east,

south, west) affects the appearance of
colors. Colors on south and west facades
appear warmer than if placed on north or
east sides.
f. Arcades and Columns

1) Arcades provide a dramatic architectural
element on many buildings in the Village,
particularly in the Civic Center area. Arches
should be semi-circular or slightly flat.
Parabolic arches are discouraged.
2) Care must be taken that arcades appear

authentic. The integrity of an arch is lost
when its mass is not proportional to its size.
Columns must relate in scale to that portion
of the building that they visually support.
Arches should be semi-circular and

Fg. 7.50 3) Columns should be square, rectangular or
relate to the scale of the building
round, and appear massive in thickness.
The use of capitals and column bands are

strongly encouraged. Faux columns should
be avoided.
4) A base should be incorporated at the bottom

of the column. The column height should be
four to five times the width of the column.
Chula Vista
5) To enhance the pedestrian realm, arcades,
arches, and canopies are encouraged along
west and south facing facades.
g. Roofs and Upper-Story Details

1) No roofline ridge or parapet should run
unbroken for more than 75 feet. Vertical or
horizontal articulation is required.
2) The visible portion of sloped roofs should

be sheathed with a roofing material
complementary to the architectural style Not acceptable
of the building and other surrounding
buildings.
3) Radical roof pitches that create overly

prominent or out-of-character buildings
such as A-frames, geodesic domes, or
chalet-style buildings are discouraged. Acceptable
Roofs on infill buildings should

4) Access to roofs should be restricted to complement existing structures
Fg. 7.51
interior access only.
5) Rooftops can provide usable outdoor Parapet wall

space in both residential and commercial
developments.
Cornice
Flat roof
6) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment
should be screened by a parapet wall or Equipment
similar structural feature that is an integral

part of the building’s architectural design.
7) Building vertical focal elements are

encouraged, especially at key intersections
such as Third Avenue and E Street, which
Rooftop screening
are primary entrances to the Village District. Fg. 7.52
Towers, spires, or domes become landmarks

and serve as focal/orientation points for the
community.
h. Plazas and Paseos

Plazas and paseos are a vital component of the
Village district and pedestrian activity is critical to
the success of both areas. The broad sidewalks
along Third Avenue provide the primary plaza
and pedestrian zone within infill development
off of Third Avenue.
Features such as fountains attract

Fg. 7.53 1) Plazas and paseos should contain a visual
pedestrians
and somewhat audible feature such as
a sculpture, fountain, or a display pond
that attracts pedestrians and serves as a
landmark.
2) Any decorative paving used in plaza and

paseo areas should complement the paving
pattern and color of the pavers used in the
public right-of-way.
3) Furniture and fixtures used in the plaza and

paseo areas should complement those in
the public right-of-way. Furniture and fixtures
should be selected with maintenance
consideration in mind.
Paseos encourage pedestrian activity
throughout the Village
Fg. 7.54
4) Ample seating in both shaded and sunny
locations should be provided in plaza and
paseo areas.
5) Link plazas and paseos to green spaces

such as Memorial Park where feasible
i. Franchise/Corporate Business
1) Architecture
a) The scale, design character, and materials of
franchise/corporate architecture should be
consistent with adjacent buildings. Natural
materials, such as brick, stone, or copper,
Franchise/corporate buildings should
Fg. 7.55 should be used where applicable.
complement surrounding buildings

2) Color and Lighting
The color(s) used by franchise/corporate
buildings should be considered carefully since
they may be inappropriate within the Village.
Below are standards that should be considered
when addressing appropriate color(s) and
lighting: Chula Vista
a) Use colors that complement colors found

on adjacent buildings or in the Village area.
b) Franchise/corporate colors should be

consistent with the architectural style or
period of the building.
c) Bright or intense colors are strongly

discouraged, unless used on appropriate
architectural styles and reserved for more
refined detailing and transient features.
d) The use of symbols and logos can be utilized

in place of bright or intense corporate
colors.
e) Lighting of logos should be compatible with

the primary building and respect adjacent
buildings. Bright and intense lighting is
strongly discouraged.
f) Neon outlining should be consistent with the

architectural style or period of the building Neon should be used sparingly and be
and should be reserved for detailing and reserved for detailing
Fg. 7.56
transient features. The use of bright and
intense neon outlining of windows is strongly
discouraged.
g) Vintage neon incorporated in signage on

both Third Avenue and Broadway should be
preserved.

5. Storefront Design Guidelines
a. Introduction
The storefront is only one of the architectural
components of the commercial facade, but it is
the most important visual element for a building
in the Village. It traditionally experiences the
greatest degree of change during a building’s
lifetime and further holds the greatest potential
for creative or poor alterations affecting both the
character of the building and the streetscape.
Traditional storefronts are comprised of a few
decorative elements other than simple details
that repeat across the face of the building (e.g.,
structural bays containing window and door
openings, continuous cornice line, transoms,
bulkheads) and integrate the storefront into
the entire building facade. Windows and
Cornice facades that are open to the public realm are
also encouraged to take advantage of the nice
climate.
Transom window
Display window
b. Storefront Composition
Bulkhead
1) Entries and Doorways
Pier a) The main entry to buildings in the Village
Recessed entry door
should be emphasized by utilizing one or
Storefront components more of the following design elements or
Fg. 7.57
concepts:
• Flanked columns, decorative fixtures
or other details, including a recessed
entryway within a larger arched or cased
decorative opening. The recessed
entryway should be continuously and
thoroughly illuminated.
• Entryways should be covered by a portico
(formal porch) projecting from or set into
the building face, and distinguished by a
change in roofline, a tower, or a break in
the surface of the subject wall.
b) Height exceptions may be allowed consistent

with CVMC 19.16.040.
c) All entryways should be equipped with

a lighting device providing a minimum
maintained one foot-candle of light at
ground level during hours of darkness.
Vandal resistant covers should protect
lighting devices.
2) Awnings and Canopies

Awnings, canopies, and other accessory shade Chula Vista
structures that are relatively open and do not
restrict pedestrian or vehicular movement
may encroach over the right-of-way. Awnings
provide excellent opportunities for color and
visual relief as well as protection for buildings
and pedestrians from the sun and rain. They
add pedestrian scale and visual interest to the
storefront design. The following criteria should
be considered when using awnings:
a) The most purposeful awnings are

retractable.
b) Awning shape should relate to the window

or door opening. Barrel-shaped awnings
are only to be used to complement arched Awnings add pedestrian scale and
windows, while square awnings should be comfort
Fg. 7.58
used on rectangular windows.
c) Awnings should consist of a durable,

commercial grade fabric, canvas or similar
material.
d) Frames and supports should be painted or

coated to prevent corroding.
e) Awnings should have a single color or two-

color stripes. Lettering and trim utilizing
more colors is permitted, but will be
considered as a sign area.
f) Where the facade is divided into distinct

structural bays, awnings should be placed
between the vertical elements rather than
overlapping them. The awning design should
respond to the scale, proportion and rhythm Shed awnings are consistent with
Fg. 7.59
created by these structural bay elements rectilinear building forms
and “nestle” into the space created by the
structural bay.
g) Glossy, shiny plastic, or similar awning
materials are not permitted.
h) Aluminum awnings or canopies do not fit

the atmosphere of the Village and are not
permitted.
3) Storefront Accessories and Other Details

There are a number of design elements that
may be incorporated into the building design,
especially at street level, in order to add to the
experience of the pedestrian while meeting
important functional needs as well. The
following storefront accessories and details are
recommended:
a) Grillework/Metalwork and Other Details
There are a number of details, often

considered mundane, that may be
incorporated into the design to add
visual richness and interest while serving
functional needs. Such details include the
following items:
• light fixtures, wall mounted or hung with
decorative metal brackets;
• metal grille work, at vent openings or
as decorative features at windows,
doorways, or gates;
• decorative scuppers, catches, and down-
spouts;
• balconies, rails, finials, corbels, and
plaques;
• flag or banner pole brackets;
• fire sprinkler stand pipe enclosures and
hose bib covers, preferably of brass;
and
• permanent, fixed security grates or
grilles in front of windows are strongly
discouraged. If security grilles are
necessary, they should be placed inside
the building, behind the window display
Light fixtures can enhance a area.
storefront
Fg. 7.60

b) Door and Window Design
• Doors can be accentuated with simple

details such as a handsome brass door
pull, brass kickplate, or an attractive
painted sign on glass (limited to 15% of
door glass area). Chula Vista
• Doors to retail shops should contain a
high percentage of glass in order to view
Roll-up
the retail contents. A minimum of a 50% security Storefront
glass area is required. screen window
display area
• Use of clear glass (at least 88% light
transmission) on the first floor is
required.
• Traditional storefront windows should
be no closer than 18 inches from the
ground (bulkhead height). By limiting
the bulkhead height, the visibility to the
storefront displays and retail interior is Security features should be placed
Fg. 7.61
maximized. Maximum bulkhead heights behind the window display area
for new construction should be 36
inches.
c) Side and Rear Entrances
• Signs should be modestly scaled to fit

the casual visual character of the plaza,
paseo, alley, or rear parking area.
• An awning can soften rear and side
facades and provide a pleasant protected
space.
• The rear and side entry door design
should be compatible with the front
door. Special security glass (i.e. wire
imbedded) is allowed.
• Security lighting should be modest and
should focus on the side or rear entry
door.
• Selective use of tree planting, potted
plants, and other landscaping
complementary to the overall design
theme should be used to improve a side
and rear facade.
Side and rear entry treatments should
reflect the front facade treatment
Fg. 7.62

c. Storefront Photographic Essay
The following photographic essay includes
photos of storefronts that would be appropriate
for the Village. While these photos provide a
variety of storefront styles, this essay is not
intended to be exhaustive. Creative use of
storefront components is encouraged.
Appropriate storefront examples

Fg. 7.63

Chula Vista
Appropriate storefront examples

Fg. 7.64

6. Building Additions and Renovation
Guidelines
a. Introduction
The renovation/restoration of older commercial
structures provides an excellent means of
maintaining and reinforcing the traditional
character of the Village. Renovation and
expansion not only increases property values
in the area but also serves as an inspiration to
other property owners and designers to make
similar efforts.
When an applicant proposes a renovation of

or addition to an existing structure, the work
should respect the original design character of
the structure. The appropriate design guidelines
in this section are to be implemented whenever
a structure is to be renovated or expanded. In
addition, renovation of all structures of historic
significance should follow The Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,
published by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service (available on the
web at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/
rhb). When the City becomes a Certified Local
Building renovation and restoration
Fg. 7.65 Government, the implementation procedures
can enhance the Village’s character
should be applied as appropriate to new infill
development in the Village.
b. Preserve Traditional Features and

Decoration
Original materials, details, proportions, as well
as patterns of materials and openings should
be considered when any additions or building
renovations would affect the appearance of an
existing building’s exterior.
Many times during the remodeling of storefronts,

original decorative details are intact as visual
“leftovers” or simply covered up with previous
Every effort should be made to
preserve traditional storefront details
Fg. 7.66 construction. If the building is to be refurbished,
these forgotten details should not be wasted. If
enough of them remain, they can be restored as
part of the original design. If only a few remain,
they can be incorporated as design features
in a new storefront. In either case, the design
of any improvements should evolve through
the remaining traditional details and create a
harmonious background that emphasizes the
improvements. Chula Vista
All existing historic decorations should be

preserved since they reinforce the Village’s Existing original facade
traditional character and adds a richness of
detail that is often irreplaceable at today’s
costs.
c. Removal of Elements Inconsistent with

Original Facade
Owners or shopkeepers alter buildings over time
in an effort to “keep up with changing times”
or to “update a tired image.” Unfortunately,
such changes often result in gradual but severe
erosion of the original character and cohesion
of the core area. Restoration of buildings that
have been substantially or carelessly altered is
strongly encouraged.
Existing “modernized” facade
Existing building elements that are incompatible

with the original facade design of the building
Key Plan
should be removed. These include excessive use Fg. 1.1
of exterior embellishments and “modernized”
elements such as metal grilles or rusticated
materials.
d. Storefront Renovation
1) An original storefront with little or no
remodeling should be preserved and
repaired with as little alteration as possible.
2) Where only part of the original storefront

remains (limited remodeling has occurred), Restoration of original storefronts is
strongly encouraged
Fg. 7.67
the storefront should be repaired, maintaining
historic materials where possible, including
the replacement of extensively deteriorated
or missing parts with new parts based upon

surviving examples of transoms, bulkheads,
pilasters, signs, etc.
3) Where the original storefront is completely

missing (extensive remodeling has
occurred), the first priority is to reconstruct
the storefront based upon historical, pictorial
and physical documentation. If that is not
practical, the design of the new storefront
should be compatible with the size, scale,
proportion, material and color of the existing
structure.
e. Window Replacement
The impact of windows on the facade is
determined by the size, shape, pattern of
openings, spacing, and placement within
the facade. To retain the structure’s original
architectural balance and integrity, it is crucial
to consider these elements when altering or
reconstructing windows.
1) Wherever possible, the original window

openings should be retained. If the existing
ceiling has been lowered, the dropped
ceiling should be pulled back from the
original window.
Windows are critical to establishing
the pattern of a traditional storefront
Fg. 7.68
2) If possible, the original windows and frames
should be saved and restored. Missing,
rotting or broken sash, frames, mullions
and muntins with similar material should be
replaced.
3) Where transom windows exist, every effort

should be made to retain this traditional
storefront feature. If the ceiling inside the
structure has been lowered, the ceiling
should be sloped up to meet the transom
so that light will penetrate the interior of the
building.
Transom windows increase the

amount of natural light inside
Fg. 7.69

4) If the original window openings have been
altered, the openings to their original
configuration and detail should be restored.
Blocking or filling window openings that
contribute to the overall facade design
should be avoided. Original Not acceptable - Not acceptable -
aluminum casement blocked-up
Chula Vista
5) When replacing windows, consideration
should be given to the original size and
shape detailing and framing materials.
Replacement windows should be the same
operating type and materials as the original
window.
Original Not acceptable - Not acceptable -
f. Door Replacement aluminum frame blocked-up with
with framed bulkhead stone veneer
1) Original doors and door hardware should be Window openings should be restored
Fg. 7.70
retained, repaired and refinished provided to the original configuration and detail
they can comply with ADA requirements or

conform to the Historical Building Code.
2) If new replacement doors are necessary, they

should be compatible with the traditional
character and design of the structure.
g. Awnings
1) Original awning hardware should be used if
it is in working order or is repairable. Key Plan
Fg. 1.1
2) The traditional canvas, slanted awning is
most appropriate for older storefronts and
is encouraged over contemporary hooped
or box styles.
h. Painting
Painting can be one of the simplest and most
dramatic improvements that can be made to a
facade. It gives the facade a well-maintained
appearance and is essential to the long life of
many traditional materials.
1) All the facade materials to be painted

should be catalogued. Materials of different Traditional storefronts typically
Fg. 7.71
properties may require different paints employ slanted awnings
or procedures. Consult a local expert for

advice.
2) Any necessary repairs should be made
to surfaces before painting (e.g., replace
rotten wood, repoint masonry mortar joints,
remove rust from metal).
3) Each surface should be carefully prepared

according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
This will include scraping, sanding, and
thorough cleaning. This surface preparation
is an extremely important step toward a
good finish job.
4) Paint should be applied per the

manufacturer’s instructions. Paint only in
satisfactory weather and use a primer as a
first coat for better surface adhesion. Follow
with two coats of the final color.
i. Repair and Cleaning

1) Surface cleaning should be undertaken with
the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting
and other harsh cleaning methods that may
damage historic building materials is not
permitted.
2) Waterproofing and graffiti proofing sealers

should be used after cleaning and repair.

j. Seismic Retrofitting
Where structural improvements for seismic
retrofitting affect the building exterior, such
improvements should be done with care and
consideration for the impact on appearance of
the building. Where possible, such work should
be concealed. Where this is not possible, the Chula Vista
improvements should be planned to carefully
integrate into the existing building design.
Seismic improvements should receive the same

care and forethought as any other building
modification. An exterior building elevation may
be required with seismic retrofit submittals,
showing the location and appearance of all
such improvements. When retrofitting historic
buildings, refer to the Secretary of Interior
Standards.

7. Landscape Guidelines
a. Landscape plans should consider the scale
and mass of a building and its relationship
to the scale of the street and neighboring
properties.
b. Emphasis should be placed on California and

Mediterranean landscaping. Indigenous,
ornamental planting, vines, flowering plants,
arbors, trellises and container planting are
encouraged.
c. Expansive horizontal or vertical surfaces

comprised of a single material can be
segmented or interrupted with vines or
foliage. Vines can be used to dramatize
a building’s architecture or soften hard
materials. Vines can also be used to enhance
or screen fences and trash enclosures.
d. Courtyards, gardens, and fountains are

very desirable in the Village. Landscaping
within courtyards should include a balance
of hardscape and softscape materials and
provide shaded seating areas.
e. Boxed and container plants in decorative

Courtyards should include both
hardscape and softscape materials
Fg. 7.72 planters of ceramic, terra cotta, wood, or
stucco should be used to enhance public
areas in the Village.
f. Large planters may also be incorporated

into seating areas. Such planters should be
open to the earth below and be provided
with a permanent irrigation system.
g. All trees in paved areas should be provided

with “Deep Root” barriers automatic
irrigation and metal grates.
h. Freestanding planters may also be

incorporated into public spaces. Size, shape,
Landscaping is critical to creating a
Fg. 7.73 color, and texture should complement the
pedestrian-friendly atmosphere
overall design theme. Such planters should
be provided with a permanent irrigation
system.
8. Lighting
a. Specialty lighting in trees near or within
outdoor patios and restaurants helps create
a festive atmosphere and encourages
nighttime use by pedestrians.
b. All exterior doors, aisles, passageways and Chula Vista

recesses should be equipped with a lighting
device providing a minimum maintained one
foot-candle of light at ground level during
hours of darkness. Vandal resistant covers
should protect lighting devices. Outdoor lighting can highlight
significant features
Fg. 7.74
c. Decorative accent lighting and fixtures above

the minimum one foot-candle illumination
levels of surrounding parking lots should be
provided at vehicle driveways, entry throats,
pedestrian paths, plaza areas, and other
activity areas.
d. Lighting fixtures should be attractively

designed to complement the architecture of
the project.
e. Lighting should improve visual identification

of residences and businesses and create an
inviting atmosphere for passersby.
Light fixtures should be located in
plazas and other activity areas
Fg. 7.75
f. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused
or indirect to avoid glare for pedestrians and
motorists.
g. Wall mounted lights should be used to the

greatest extent possible to minimize the total
number of freestanding light standards.
h. Lighting should encourage the use of open

spaces and plazas.

9. Parking and Circulation
a. Introduction
The following factors should be considered
in the design and development of off-street
parking in pedestrian-oriented areas:
• ingress and egress with consideration
to possible conflicts with vehicular and
pedestrian traffic;
• pedestrian and vehicular conflicts within
parking lots and structures;
• reinforcing the street edge and a pedestrian
environment;
• on-site circulation and service vehicle
zones;
• overall configuration and appearance of the
parking area;
• minimizing opportunities for crime and
undesirable activities through natural
surveillance, access control and activity
support;
• shading parking lots by means of canopy
trees and other landscaping; and
• creating a sense of spatial organization and
experiential meaning through the layout of
the design of parking lots and structures.
Parking lot design should address
possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
Fg. 7.76
b. General Considerations
1) Shared parking is strongly encouraged
whenever practical.
2) Parking areas should be separated from

buildings by a landscaped strip. Conditions
where parking stalls directly abut buildings
should be avoided.
3) Lighting, landscaping, hardscape, fencing,

parking layout and pedestrian paths
should all assist drivers and pedestrians
in navigating through parking lots and
structures.
Shade is an important feature of

Fg. 7.77 4) Bicycle parking should be provided at each
parking areas
development and should be easily accessible
and integrated into the overall site design.

5) Parking structures below or above ground
level retail or commercial uses are
encouraged since they allow for pedestrian
activity along the street while providing
parking convenient to destinations within
the Village.
Chula Vista
c. Access and Entries
1) Locate parking area entries on side streets
or alleys to minimize pedestrian/vehicular
conflicts along Third Avenue and F Street.
Parking structures should be
integrated with commercial uses
Fg. 7.78
2) Parking lots and structures adjacent to a
public street should provide pedestrians
with a point of entry and clear and safe
access from the sidewalk to the entrance of
the building(s).
3) Pedestrian and vehicular entrances must

be clearly identified and easily accessible
to create a sense of arrival. The use
of enhanced paving, landscaping, and
special architectural features and details is
required.
4) Where possible, use alleys or side streets

for access to parking areas. The use of
alleys for parking access must be balanced Features such as a trellis can accent
a pedestrian entrance
Fg. 7.79
with other common uses of alleys, including
service, utilities, and loading and unloading
areas.
d. Parking Lot Lighting

Lighting for a parking lot or structures should
be evenly distributed and provide pedestrians
and drivers with adequate visibility at night.
e. Circulation
1) The layout of parking areas should be
designed so that pedestrians walk parallel
to moving cars.
2) Access by disabled persons should be

incorporated into the overall pedestrian
circulation system.
f. Landscaping
Landscape planter is bounded on three
sides by parking space or parking aisle 1) Surface parking facilities should be
landscaped with the following objectives:
• maximize distribution of landscaping;
• promote compatibility and function as a
“good neighbor;” and,
• strive to achieve shade over 50 percent
Preferred parking area landscaping of the asphalt area within five years from
Fg. 7.80 time of installation.
2) Parking lots adjacent to a public side street

should be landscaped to soften the visual
impact of parked vehicles from the public
right-of-way. Screening should consist of
a combination of low walls (a maximum of
three feet high) and landscape materials at
the setback line.
Elevation of staggered wall
3) A well thought-out selection and composition
of hardscape materials can help order space
and reinforce the relationship of the parking
Elevation of planters/wall
lot to its surroundings and to the buildings
it serves. Entrance and exit areas, areas
that are the central focus of the parking lot
design, major axis and areas that act as
Elevation of wall with breaks forecourts for entrances may be suitable
locations for special paving materials such
Types of screening for parking areas
Fg. 7.81 as brick or stamped concrete.
g. Structured Parking
1) Due to the more intense nature of
development in the Village, structured
parking which promotes compatibility, safety
and pedestrian activity is anticipated and
encouraged.
2) Where structured parking is provided, the

following design and operational features
should be considered to optimize public
safety:
• the design of parking structures should
permit maximum opportunities for
Parking structures should
complement surrounding structures
Fg. 7.82 natural surveillance into the structure;
• the public realm begins where the stairs
end in a structural parking and should
VII-68 be treated accordingly;
• where possible, elevators and stairs
should be located on the perimeter
Property line
of parking structures with natural
surveillance from exterior public areas
via glass-back elevators and glass at
stairs and elevator lobbies;
• elevator lobbies and stairs in open Chula Vista
parking garages should be open to the
parking areas, except at roof levels
Retail
where glass or other visually penetrable
enclosures may be provided.
• elevator cabs should be provided with
glass-back cabs where those elements
are above grade;
• all parking structures should have lighting
Incorporate retail uses on the ground
in conformance with IESNA (Illuminating floor of parking structures
Fg. 7.83
Engineering Society of North America)
standards;
• interior walls of parking structures should
be painted a light color (e.g., white or
light blue) to improve illumination;
• if applicable, the parking structure should
be designed to integrate into existing or
proposed developments to allow direct
access from different levels;
• coordinated signs, color, or features
between developments should be used
for wayfinding purposes;
• signs should be posted to inform users
whether security escort service is
available;
• emergency buzzers and telephones
should be installed in easily accessible
places on each level, in elevators and in
stairwells; and
• directional arrows and signs indicating
exits, elevators, and emergency buzzers/
telephones should be visibly displayed
on walls.
3) Activities such as shops, offices or other

commercial space should be incorporated
along the ground level of structured parking
street frontage. In addition, parking
structures should provide landscaping
along blank walls on side streets and upper
levels. VII-69
Chapter VII Design Guidelines
10. Signs
a. Introduction
In contrast to highway commercial areas,
pedestrian oriented commercial areas such
as the Village were designed to accommodate
shoppers and residents strolling along
sidewalks, and motorists driving at slower
speeds. Considerations such as size, utility,
location, lettering style, color and illumination
are very important in designing an attractive,
functional sign.
The guidelines that follow address these issues

and others, and are intended to help business
owners provide quality signs that add to and
support the character of the Village District.
They are not intended to supersede any existing
City sign ordinances. All signs must comply with
the regulations contained in the Chula Vista
Municipal Code unless as indicated within the
specific plan, in which case the specific plan will
take precedence.
Signs should accommodate
pedestrians
Fg. 7.84
b. General Guidelines
1) Color and Contrast
Color and contrast are the most important
aspects of visual communication and can be
used to catch the eye or to communicate ideas
or feelings. The following general guidelines
should be considered prior to developing signs
for any project.
a) Contrast is an important influence on

the legibility of signs. Light letters on a
dark background or dark letters on a light
background are most legible.
b) Limit the total number of colors used in any

one sign. Small accents of several colors may
make a sign unique and attractive, but the
competition between large areas of many
Simple color schemes enhance a
sign’s readability
Fg. 7.85 different colors decreases readability.

c) Bright day-glo (fluorescent) colors are
strongly discouraged. They are distracting
and do not blend well with other background
colors.
d) Sign colors should complement the colors

used on the structures and the project as a Chula Vista
whole.
2) Materials
a) The following materials are suitable for signs
in the Village:
• wood (carved, sandblasted, etched, and
properly sealed, primed and painted, or
stained);
• metal (formed, etched, cast, engraved,
and properly primed and painted
or factory coated to protect against
corrosion);
• high-density pre-formed foam or similar Colors on buildings and signs should
Fg. 7.86
material (New materials may be very be complementary
appropriate if properly designed in a

manner consistent with these standards
and painted or otherwise finished to
complement the architecture.); and
• custom neon tubing in the form of
graphics or lettering (may be incorporated
into several of the above permitted sign
types).
b) Sign materials should be compatible with

the design of the facade.
c) The selected materials need to contribute to

the legibility of the sign. For example, glossy
finishes are often difficult to read because
of glare and reflections.
d) Paper and cloth signs are appropriate for

interior temporary use only.
High-density pre-formed foam material

can complement surrounding buildings
Fg. 7.87

3) Sign Illumination
Illumination of a sign should be considered
carefully. Like color, illumination has
considerable value for visual communication.
a) First, consider if the sign needs to be

lighted at all. Lights in the window display
may be sufficient to identify the business.
Often, nearby streetlights provide ample
illumination of a sign after dark.
b) If the sign can be illuminated by an indirect

source of light, this is usually the best
arrangement because the sign will appear
to be better integrated with the building’s
architecture. Light fixtures attached to the
front of the structure cast light on the sign
and the face of the structure as well.
c) Individually illuminated letters should be

backlit. Signs comprised of individual letters
mounted directly on a structure can often
use a distinctive element of the structure’s
facade as a backdrop, thereby providing
a better integration of the sign with the
structure.
Backlit letter signs are encouraged

Fg. 7.88 d) Whenever indirect lighting fixtures are used
(fluorescent or incandescent), care should
be taken to properly shield the light source
to prevent glare from spilling over into
residential areas and any public right-of-
way.
e) Backlit plastic box signs are prohibited.
c. Private Wayfinding
Good sign design can be critical to helping people
move easily through an unfamiliar environment.
Private signs throughout the Village should be
conspicuous, easy to read, and convey clear
messages. As a result, visitors will enjoy their
time in the Village and want to return.

1) Sign Visibility
Signs should be free of any obstruction, such
as landscaping, when viewed from different
angles.
2) Sign Legibility
Chula Vista
An effective sign should do more than attract
attention; it should communicate its message.
Usually, this is a question of the readability
of words and phrases. The most significant
influence on legibility is lettering. Make certain that signs are visible
from different angles
Fg. 7.89
a) Use a brief message whenever possible.
Fewer words help produce a more effective
sign. A sign with a brief, succinct message
is easier to read and looks more attractive.
Evaluate each word.
b) Avoid spacing letters and words too close

together. Crowding of letters, words or lines
will make any sign more difficult to read.
Conversely, over-spacing these elements
causes the viewer to read each item
individually, again obscuring the message.
As a general rule, letters should not occupy
more than 75% of the sign panel area.
c) Limit the number of lettering styles in order

to increase legibility. A general rule to follow
is to limit the number of different letter
types to no more than two for small signs
and three for large signs.
d) Use symbols and logos in the place of words

whenever appropriate. Pictographic images
will usually register more quickly in the
viewer’s mind than a written message.
e) Avoid hard-to-read, overly intricate typefaces

and symbols. Typefaces and symbols that
are hard to read reduce the sign’s ability to
communicate.
A sign’s message should be brief
Fg. 7.90

f) Avoid faddish or bizarre typefaces if they
are difficult to read. These typefaces may
be in vogue and look good today, but soon
may go out of style. The image conveyed by
the sign may quickly become that of a dated
and unfashionable business.
3) Business Directional Signs

a) Business directional signs should be provided
near vehicle and pedestrian entrances.
They should not obstruct pedestrian flow or
negatively impact sight lines at entrances.
b) Use consistent names for all buildings,

Intricate typefaces can cause services and destinations.
confusion and misunderstanding
Fg. 7.91
c) Maps should correspond to the building
layout so, for example, up on the map is
straight ahead for the viewer. Provide
markers to indicate where the person is
currently located and identify areas by using
color and memorable graphics.
d) Number floors in relation to the building’s

main entry so that directories will clearly
designate which floors are above or below
grade.
e) Location of directional signs should not

encroach on the public right-of-way.
f) Business directional signs should be easily

read during the day and evening. Illumination
of some type may be necessary at night.
g) Contrast is important for effectiveness of

directional signs. A substantial contrast
should be provided between the color and
material of the background and the letters
or symbols to make it easier to read.
d. Wall Signs
Directional signs should contrast
background and foreground colors
Fg. 7.92 1) Definition: A wall sign is any sign that is
attached or erected on the exterior wall of

a building including the parapet, with the
Permitted wall sign location
display surface of the sign parallel to the
building wall, and which does not project
more than 12 inches from the building
or project above the height of the wall or
parapet.
Chula Vista
2) Signs should be placed consistent with the
proportion and scale of the elements within
the structure’s facade. A particular sign
may fit well on a plain wall area, but might
overpower the finer scale and proportion of
Wall sign location
a lower storefront. A sign that is appropriate Fg. 7.93
near an entry may look tiny and out of place
above the ground level.
3) Look at the facade of the structure. Are

there any architectural features or details
that suggest a location, size, or shape for
the sign? These elements could be bands or
frames of brickwork or stone, indentations
in the face material, gaps between columns,
or other permanent features. If these details
exist, use them to locate the sign.
4) Look at the facade of the structure in

relation to where adjacent businesses have
placed their signs. There may already be an
established pattern of sign locations. This
can establish visual continuity among the
storefronts, and at the same time provide
uniform sight lines for viewers. Alignment
makes all signs more readable at a glance
and is encouraged.
5) If aligning signs is not possible, look for

other features to determine placement of
the sign. Each sign may relate directly to
the store entrance in a similar fashion, or all
signs may be displayed within the windows.
Since the Village is a pedestrian-oriented
area, signs should relate to the sidewalk
instead of motorists. In this case, small Wall signs of consistent size and
projecting signs or signs under awnings are placement establish facade rhythm
Fg. 7.94
most appropriate.

e. Awning Signs
1) Definition: An awning sign is a sign on or
attached to a temporary retractable shelter
that is supported from the exterior wall of a
building.
2) Sign copy should be centered on the awning

to achieve symmetry.
3) Message should be limited to the business

name and logo, sized to be proportional with
the awning, and located only on the fabric
valance flap of the awning.
4) When initially installed, awnings should be

provided with removable valances and end
panels to accommodate future changes in
sign copy. Painting cloth awnings in order to
change sign copy is prohibited.
5) Back-lit internally illuminated awnings are

6) The shape, design, and color of fabric

Messages should be proportional and
located only on the valence flap
Fg. 7.95 awnings should be carefully designed to
coordinate with, and not dominate, the
architectural style of the building.
7) Where other fabric awnings are used on the

building, the design and color of the sign
awnings and all other awnings should be
coordinated.
f. Canopy Signs
1) Definition: A canopy sign is any sign attached
to the underside of a projecting canopy or
protruding over a sidewalk or right-of-way
2) Canopy signs provide pedestrian scale and

can enhance building fronts.
3) The bottom of the sign should maintain at

least eight feet pedestrian clearance from
the sidewalk level.

g. Projecting Signs
1) The distance between projecting signs
should be at least 25 feet for maximum
visibility.
2) On a multi-storied building, the sign should

be suspended between the bottom of the Chula Vista
second story windowsills and the top of the
doors or windows of the first story. On a one-
story building, the top of the sign should be
in line with the lowest point of the roof. Canopy signs are often used for
pedestrian-oriented uses
Fg. 7.96

least eight feet pedestrian clearance from
the sidewalk level.
4) The sign should be hung at a 90-degree

angle from the face of the building. It should
be pinned at least 6 inches away from the
wall for best visibility but should not project
beyond a vertical plane set 3 feet from the
facade.
Small projecting signs reinforce a
5) Decorative iron and wood brackets that pedestrian-scale
Fg. 7.97
support projecting signs are strongly
3’ Max.
encouraged. The lines of the brackets should
harmonize with the shape of the sign. 6” Min.
6) To avoid damaging brick and stucco work,

brackets should be designed so that they
can be bolted into masonry joints whenever
possible.
h. Window Signs
1) Definition: A window sign is any sign in which
8’ Min.
the name, logo, address, phone number, or

hours of operation are applied directly to
the window of a business or placed on a
sign hung inside the window.
2) Interior signs should be within 36 inches of

the window so as to be readable from the
Guidelines for projecting signs
exterior. Fg. 7.98

3) Sign area should be less than 15% of the
total window area.
4) Window signs should be geared to the

pedestrian and be at eye level.
5) Window signs should be designed to be

pleasing and to aesthetically enhance
storefronts.
6) Letters applied to the glass may be vinyl or

painted. Glass-mounted graphic logos may
Gold leaf paint is recommended for
window signs
Fg. 7.99 also be applied as long as they comply with
the 15% area limitation. White and gold leaf
paint is recommended.
i. Figurative Signs
Signs that advertise the occupant business
through the use of graphic or crafted symbols,
such as shoes, keys, glasses, books, etc.
are encouraged. Figurative signs may be
incorporated into any of the allowable sign types
identified previously.
j. Temporary Signs
Posting of handmade window signs is not
Example of a figurative sign permitted. Refer to Chula Vista Municipal Code
Fg. 7.100
19.60 for further regulations on temporary
signs.

E. Urban Core District
1. Introduction
This section presents design guidelines for private sector projects in the Urban
Core district, which will serve as the primary business, commercial, and regional
center of Chula Vista. These guidelines focus specifically on accommodating mid-
and high-rise commercial and residential development while also developing Chula Vista
an active street life. Design guidelines for public areas will be considered in
Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines.

2. Design Objectives
a. Create a Comfortable Scale of Structures
A critical step in ensuring pedestrian scale in the
Urban Core district is by encouraging uniform
front façade heights that form a continuous
streetwall. Upper floors should step back from
the streetwall so that pedestrians feel enclosed
by the surrounding buildings but not confined.
b. Maintain Sunlight Exposure and Minimize

Wind on the Street Level
Buildings should form a continuous
Fg. 7.101
streetwall while upper floors step back Building stepbacks allow sunlight to reach the
ground and prevent the building from deflecting
wind towards the street as well as helping
to create a pedestrian-scaled environment.
Such measures will allow pedestrians to feel
comfortable and therefore permit them to
spend more time on the street.
c. Distinguish Between Upper and Lower

Floors
Through use and design, the ground floor should
welcome the public. Retail, dining, or active
residential uses can help create a vibrant street
life while greater use of transparent materials
Key Plan (windows) rather than solid materials (wall)
Fg. 1.1
encourage pedestrians to glance at storefronts
and linger on the street. Upper floors are
more likely to contain residential or non-retail
commercial uses and contain less window
space.
Retail uses can promote a vibrant

street life
Fg. 7.102

3. Site Planning
a. Introduction
Siting involves a project’s relationship to the
property, the street, and adjacent buildings. In
the Urban Core, buildings should be sited in ways
that provide a comfortable and safe environment Chula Vista
for pedestrians while accommodating vehicles.
b. Building Siting
1) Most of the building “streetwall” should meet
the front setback lines, except for special
entry features, architectural articulation,
and plaza areas or other public spaces.
2) Setbacks should be dedicated to plazas that Plaza area created in

the building’s setback
focus on hardscape rather than landscaping area
and should be of sufficient size to increase
function and accessibility.
3) Locate loading and storage facilities away

from the street and screen from public
view.
Majority of building wall
4) Walls and fences should be integrated with located on front property line
the overall building design.
Preferred building siting in the Urban
c. Street Orientation Core
Fg. 7.103
1) Storefronts and major building entries should

orient to Broadway, H Street, courtyards, or
plazas, although minor side or rear entries
may be desirable.
2) Any building with more than 125 feet of

street frontage should have at least one
primary building entry.
3) All uses with street level, exterior exposure

should provide at least one direct pedestrian
entry from the street.
4) Any drop-off areas along Broadway, E Street

and H Street should be limited.

d. Parking Orientation
1) Parking lots should not be located along
the frontage of primary streets such as
Broadway and H Street.
2) When off-street parking in the rear is not

possible, parking should be screened from
view by landscaped berms and/or low
walls.
3) Locate rear parking lot and structure entries

on side streets or alleys in order to minimize
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along
Broadway or H Street. Driveways should
be kept to the minimum number and width
required for the project.
4) Create wide, well-lit pedestrian walkways

from parking lots and structures to building
entries that utilize directional signs.
Plaza
5) Access from side streets and alleys should
Street
minimize impacts on surrounding residential

Street
neighborhoods.

Street
Parking lot entries should be located 1) Trash storage must be fully enclosed and
Fg. 7.104
along side streets or alleys incorporated within the main structures or
under stairways.
2) All trash and garbage bins should be

stored in an approved enclosure. Refuse
containers and service facilities should be
screened from view by solid masonry walls
with wood or metal doors. Use landscaping
(shrubs and vines) to screen walls and help
deter graffiti.


from residential uses to minimize nuisance Chula Vista
travel.

deter graffiti.


ground, shall be screened from view (CVMC
should be placed in locations that are not
exposed to view from the street or be suitably
screened. All screening devices are to be
compatible with the architecture, material,
and color of adjacent structures.
f. Site Amenities

a) Plazas and courtyards within commercial
developments over one acre are strongly
encouraged.

retail shops, restaurants, offices and other
pedestrian activity generating uses to
plazas.


within plazas.


plaza design.


seating.

j) Common open space should be provided

in large, meaningful areas and should not
be fragmented or consist of “left over” land.
Large areas can be imaginatively developed
and economically maintained.

2) Site Furniture

appropriate.

pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. Chula Vista


recommended.


a. Introduction
New development in the Urban Core district should
carefully blend two different yet compatible
qualities: high allowable building heights and a
bustling pedestrian street life. These elements
can be combined by encouraging a continuous
street wall with ground floor retail and other
active uses while upper floors of mid- and high-
rise buildings step back to allow sunlight to
reach the street below.
b. Building Height, Form, and Mass

1) Multiple-use structures, with retail on
lower floors and residential or non-retail
commercial on upper floors, are encouraged,
particularly along Broadway and H Street.
2) Where buildings with towers have frontages

on multiple streets, the towers are
encouraged to orient towards the primary
Retail on lower floors and residences/ street such as Broadway and H Street.
offices above is encouraged
Fg. 7.105
3) Horizontal building stepbacks are

encouraged to provide building articulation,
terrace space and other elements to soften
building facades. If a mid-rise or high-
Stepback rise building is located on a corner site,
increased stepbacks from the street wall
are encouraged along both streets. Please
Balconies also refer to Chapter VI – Land Use and
Development Regulations for regulations
regarding required minimum building
stepbacks for specific subdistricts within the
Specific Plan.
4) Building heights should enhance public

views, and provide adjacent sites with
maximum sun and ventilation and protection
from prevailing winds.
Required stepbacks in the Urban

Core
Fg. 7.106

c. Facades
1) The physical design of buildings facades
should vary at least every 200 linear feet
(half block). This can be achieved through
such techniques as:
• division into multiple buildings,
• break or articulation of the façade, Chula Vista
• significant change in facade design,
• placement of window and door openings,
or Desirable building massing has both
horizontal and vertical articulation
Fg. 7.107
• position of awnings and canopies.
2) Bay windows and balconies that provide

usable and accessible outdoor space for
residential uses are strongly encouraged
and may project beyond building setback
lines.
3) Awnings and overhangs should be used

in conjunction with street trees to provide
shade for pedestrians.
4) The predominant difference between upper

story openings and street level storefront
openings (windows and doors) should
be maintained. Typically, there is a much
greater window area at the storefront level
while upper stories have smaller window
openings.
Smaller architectural elements on
Fg. 7.108
5) Residential buildings should have entrances large buildings add pedestrian scale
from the street to facilitate pedestrian
activity and increase security through more
“eyes on the street.”
d. Building Materials and Colors

1) Building Materials
Building materials will incorporate two aspects:
color and texture. If the building’s exterior
design is complicated with many “ins and outs”
(extensions of wall façade, etc.), columns, and
design features, the wall texture should be Design projects to facilitate social
support and effective surveillance
Fg. 7.109

simple and subdued. However, if the building
design is simple, a finely textured material, such
as patterned masonry, should be used to enrich
the building’s overall character.
The following lists suggest those materials that

are “encouraged” and “discouraged” for use in
the Urban Core:
a) Approved Exterior Materials

• Masonry, including granite, marble,
brick, terra cotta, and cast stone
• Glass, which must be transparent on
ground floors
• Architectural metals, including metal
panel systems, metal sheets with
expressed seams, and cut, stamped or
cast, ornamental metal panels.
• Copper
• Painted Metal
• Wrought Iron
b) Discouraged Exterior Materials

• Imitation stone (fiberglass or plastic)
• Textured, treated, decorative concrete
• “Lumpy” stucco
Masonry is appropriate for buildings
in the Urban Core
Fg. 7.110 • Rough sawn or "natural" (unfinished)
wood
• Used brick with no fired face (salvaged
from interior walls)
• Imitation wood siding
• Plastic panels
2) Exterior Color
a) The type of color depends on the size of
the building and level of detail. Larger and
plainer buildings should have subtle/muted
colors while smaller buildings or those
with elaborate detailing should have more
intense colors.
Subtle/muted colors complement
larger and plainer buildings
Fg. 7.111 b) Stronger colors should emphasize
architectural details and entrances.

e. Roofs and Upper-Story Details
1) Additional sunlight should be brought into
large developments through the use of
atriums and skylights.
2) Any office and residential tower over

seven stories should have articulated and Chula Vista
varied roof shapes to add interest to the
architecture of the Urban Core and serve as
a landmark.
3) Slope roof shapes on one-story commercial Visible utility and communication

Fg. 7.112
buildings, gable-end roofs, single pitch (shed) devices are discouraged
roofs, false mansard roofs and curving roofs
are inconsistent with the character of the
Urban Core.
4) Access to roofs should be restricted to

5) Roof-mounted utility and communication

devices equipment should be screened by
structural features that are an integral part
of the building’s architectural design.
f. Plazas
Plazas allow additional sunlight to be brought
into large developments. Plazas should be
located at transit focus areas and other
areas where large assemblages of people are
expected, such as the Chula Vista Center.
1) Plazas should contain a visual and audible

feature such as a sculpture, fountain, or a
display pond that attracts pedestrians and
serves as a landmark.
2) Furniture and fixtures should be selected

with maintenance consideration in mind.
Ample seating in both shaded and sunny
locations should be provided in the plaza
areas.
Plazas should provide ample seating in
shade and sun and landmark features
Fg. 7.113

g. Site Furniture
1) Site furniture, including benches, bollards,
trash receptacles, bicycle racks, newspaper
racks, and kiosks should complement
existing development.
2) Site furniture should maintain a clear

passage for pedestrians and avoid
obstructing walkways and sidewalks.
3) Furnishings should be placed to eliminate

clutter and any potential pedestrian/
vehicular conflict.
4) Kiosks/directories should be provided

adjacent to vehicular and pedestrian
entrances and pedestrian nodes. Kiosk
siting should maximize visibility and minimize
traffic hazards or obstructing views.
5) Tree grates should be utilized at passages

to provide a continuous walking surface.
Tree grates should be a minimum of 4 feet
Tree grates are important in high- in width and a minimum of 36 square feet
Fg. 7.114
traffic areas for private areas and a minimum of 6 feet in
width for public areas.
6) Tree guards should be provided to protect

trees in high activity areas. Tree guard design
should be consistent with the adjacent
development and should coordinate with
street furnishings located either onsite or
within the public right-of-way.

5. Storefront Design
a. Introduction
Ground floors have typically been designed to
be what is now referred to as a “traditional”
storefront and sales floor. Upper floors commonly
were used for office space, residential units, Chula Vista
or storage. If retail uses are not appropriate
for a particular building, ground floors should
contain other active uses such as a health club,
community center, or residential common areas.
The ground floor should have transparent and
open facades and avoid blank walls wherever
possible.
b. Storefront Composition
1) Entries and Doorways
a) The main entry to buildings should be
emphasized through flanked columns,
decorative fixtures, a recessed entryway
within a larger arched or cased decorative
opening, or a portico (formal porch).
b) Buildings situated at a corner along

Broadway and H Street should provide a
prominent corner entrance to street level
Buildings at prominent corners
shops or lobby space. Fg. 7.115
should have prominent entrances
2) Awnings and Canopies

a) Awnings or arcades should be provided
along south and west facing buildings to
enhance the pedestrian experience.
b) Where the facade is divided into distinct

structural bays, awnings should be placed
between the vertical elements rather than
overlapping them. The awning design
should respond to the scale, proportion,
and rhythm created by the structural bay
elements and should “nestle” into the space
created by the structural bay.
Awnings should nestle into the space
created by a structural bay
Fg. 7.116

c) Awnings should have a single color or two-
color stripes. Lettering and trim utilizing
other colors is permitted, but will be
considered as a sign area.
d) Frames and supports should be painted or

coated to prevent corroding.
3) Storefront Accessories and Other Details

a) Recommended storefront details include
the following items:
• light fixtures, wall mounted or hung with
decorative metal brackets;
• decorative scuppers, catches and
downspouts;
• balconies, bay windows, rails, finials,
corbels, plaques, etc.;
• flag or banner pole brackets;
• fire sprinkler standpipe enclosures and
hose bib covers, preferably of brass;
and
• permanent, fixed security grates or
grilles in front of windows are strongly
discouraged. If security grilles are
necessary, they should be placed inside
the building, behind the window display
Balconies and planters embellish a
area.
storefront
Fg. 7.117
b) Door and Window Design
• Doors to retail shops should contain a

high percentage of glass in order to view
the retail contents. A minimum of a 50%
glass area is required.
• Use of clear glass (at least 88% light

transmission) on the first floor is
required.
A storefront should contain a high

percentage of clear glass
Fg. 7.118

Landscaping within the Urban Core should be
different than typical suburban commercial
and residential settings. These guidelines
emphasize the use of potted plants, trees, and
landscaping within the structure.
Chula Vista
a. Landscape plans should consider the scale
and mass of a building and its relationship
to the scale of the street and neighboring Potted plants can enhance a
Fg. 7.119
properties. streetscape
b. Emphasis should be placed on California and

Mediterranean landscaping. Indigenous,
ornamental planting, vines, flowering plants,
arbors, trellises, and container planting is
encouraged.
c. Large planters may also be incorporated

d. All trees in paved areas should be provided

with “Deep Root” barriers, automatic
irrigation, and metal grates and have
adequate size, soil mix, and soil ventilation.
Trees can provide needed shade for
outdoor seating areas
Fg. 7.120
e. Freestanding planters may also be
incorporated into public spaces. Size, shape,
color, and texture should complement the
overall design theme. Such planters should
be provided with a permanent irrigation
system.

7. Onsite Lighting
a. Lighting fixtures within developments
should be attractively designed to
complement the architecture of the project
and surrounding development and improve
visual identification of residences and
businesses.
b. All exterior doors, aisles, passageways and

recesses should be equipped with a lighting
device providing a minimum maintained one
foot-candle of light at ground level during
hours of darkness. Vandal resistant covers
should protect lighting devices.
c. Decorative accent lighting and fixtures above

the minimum one foot-candle illumination
levels of surrounding parking lots should be
provided at vehicle driveways, entry throats,
pedestrian paths, plaza areas, and other
activity areas.
d. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused

or indirect to avoid glare for pedestrians and
motorists.
e. On each project site, all lighting fixtures

should be from the same family of fixtures
with respect to design, materials, color,
fixture, and color of light.
f. When placing lighting fixtures and luminaries,

consideration should be given to the extent
of landscape growth affects the function of
lighting. Landscaping such as trees and
shrubs should be placed and maintained so
that it does not obscure or deteriorate on-
site illumination.
g. Neon and other specialized lighting

effects that enhance the attractiveness
of commercial streets, restaurants, and
entertainment venues for pedestrian traffic
is encouraged within the Urban Core.

h. Decorative up lighting that enhances
landscape features and building architecture
is encouraged as long as it does not compete
with street lighting and signs.
Chula Vista
Lighting effects can make a

commercial area pedestrian-friendly
Fg. 7.121

8. Parking and Circulation
a. Introduction
The following factors should be considered
in the design and development of off-street
parking in pedestrian-oriented areas:
• ingress and egress with consideration
to possible conflicts with vehicular and
pedestrian traffic;
• pedestrian and vehicular conflicts within a
parking lot or structure;
• reinforcing the street edge and a pedestrian
environment;
• on-site circulation and service vehicle
zones;
Parking facility design should • overall configuration and appearance of the
Fg. 7.122
strengthen the street edge parking area
• minimizing opportunities for crime and
undesirable activities through natural
surveillance, access control, and activities;
• shading parking lots by means of canopy
trees and other landscaping; and
• creating a sense of spatial organization and
experiential meaning through the layout of
the parking facility.
1) Shared parking between adjacent
businesses and/or developments is strongly
encouraged whenever practical.

should be avoided.

parking layout and pedestrian paths
should all assist drivers and pedestrians in
navigating through parking areas.
4) Bicycle parking should be provided at each


5) Parking structures below or above ground
level retail or commercial uses are
encouraged since they allow for pedestrian
activity along the street while providing
parking convenient to destinations within
the Urban Core.
Chula Vista
1) Locate parking lot and structure entries on
side streets or alleys to minimize pedestrian/
vehicular conflicts along Broadway and H
Street. If this is not possible, use patterned
concrete or pavers to differentiate the
primary site entry from the sidewalk. Effects
on adjacent residential neighborhoods also
need to be considered in site access and
entries.
2) Parking lots and structures adjacent to a

public street should provide pedestrians
with a point of entry and clear and safe
access from the sidewalk to the entrance of
the building(s).

of enhanced paving, landscaping, and
special architectural features and details is Special architectural features should
required. help identify vehicular entrances
Fg. 7.123
4) Where possible, use alleys or side streets for

access to parking areas. However, effects
on adjacent residential neighborhoods
must be considered. The use of alleys for
parking access must be balanced with other
common uses of alleys, including service,
utilities, and loading and unloading areas.
d. Lighting
Lighting for parking lots and structures should
be evenly distributed and should provide
pedestrians and drivers with adequate visibility
at night.

e. Circulation
1) Separate vehicular and pedestrian
circulation systems should be provided
whenever feasible. The layout of parking
areas should be designed so that pedestrians
walk parallel to moving cars.
2) Pedestrian linkages between adjoining

compatible uses should be emphasized.
Parking lot and structure designs should
include walkways and planting that help
direct pedestrians comfortably and safely to
their destinations.

circulation system.
f. Landscaping
1) Parking facilities should be landscaped with
the following objectives in mind:
• visually break up large paved areas with
landscaping;
• maximize distribution of landscaping;
• promote compatibility and function as a
“good neighbor;”
Landscaping provides visual relief • consider the use of trees planted at
Fg. 7.124
within parking facilities regular distances as a grove; and,
• strive to achieve 50% shade of the
asphalt area within five years from time
Accent trees Canopy shade trees of installation.
delineate aisles located throughout
Low hedge or parking lot
screen wall
2) Parking lots adjacent to a public street
Landscape
should be landscaped to soften the visual
buffer impact of parked vehicles from the public
right-of-way. Screening should consist of
a combination of low walls (a maximum of
Accent
trees and three feet high) and landscape materials at
enhanced the setback line.
paving
define
entry 3) Use of a trellis situated above a wall or fence
Property line/
wall with vines
can visually maintain the street wall and
Preferred landscaping within a
parking lot
Fg. 7.125 improve the pedestrian environment along
the street.

4) A well thought-out selection and composition
of hardscape materials can help order space
and reinforce the relationship of the parking
lot to its surroundings and to the buildings it
serves. Entrances, exits, and areas that act
as forecourts for entrances may be suitable
locations for special paving materials such Chula Vista
as brick or stamped concrete.
g. Structured Parking
1) Due to the more intense nature of
development in the Urban Core, structured
parking which promotes compatibility, safety
and pedestrian activity is encouraged.
2) Where structured parking is provided, the

following design and operational features
should be considered to optimize public
safety:
• The design of parking structures should
permit maximum opportunities for
natural surveillance into the structure;
• Where possible, elevators and stairs
should be located on the perimeter
of parking structures with natural
surveillance from exterior public areas
Open lobbies and stairs promote
via glass-back elevators and glass at safety in parking structures
Fg. 7.126
stairs and elevator lobbies;
• Elevator lobbies and stairs in open
parking garages should be open to the
parking areas, except at roof levels
where glass or other visually penetrable
enclosures may be provided.
• Elevator cabs should be provided with
glass-back cabs where those elements
are above grade;
• All parking structures should have lighting
in conformance with IESNA (Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America)
standards;
• Interior walls of parking structures should
be painted a light color (e.g., white or
light blue) to improve illumination;

• The parking structure should be
designed to integrate into existing or
proposed developments to allow direct
access from different levels;
• Coordinated signs, color, or features
between developments should be used
for wayfinding purposes.
Parking Structure • Signs should be posted to inform users
whether security escort service is
available;
• Emergency buzzers and telephones
should be installed in easily accessible
places on each level, in elevators and in
stairwells; and
• Directional arrows and signs indicating
Development should wrap the garage
to maintain positive street frontage
Fg. 7.127 exits, elevators, and emergency buzzers/
telephones should be visibly displayed
(painted) on walls.
3) Activities such as shops, offices or other

commercial space should be incorporated
along the ground level of structured parking
street frontage. In addition, parking
structures should provide landscaping
along blank walls on side streets and upper
levels.

9. Signs
a. Introduction
Design, color, materials, and placement
are all important in creating signs that are
architecturally attractive and integrated into the
overall site design. Signs that are compatible Chula Vista
with the surroundings and which effectively
communicate a message promote a quality
visual environment.

support the character of the Urban Core District.
take precedence.
b. General Design Guidelines

Good signs communicate their message well, are
easily seen by people, and relate harmoniously
to the building they are placed on or near. The
following guidelines give criteria for creating This highly effective sign uses a light
Fg. 7.128
well-designed signs. background with dark lettering
1) Sign color should be compatible with building

colors. A light background matching the
building with dark lettering is best visually.
While no more than two primary colors
should be used on a sign, a third color can
be used for accent or shadow detail.
2) Signs should be consistent with the

proportion and scale of building elements
within the façade. The placement of signs
provides visual clues to business location
and affects the design integrity of the entire
building.
External fixtures are an effective
method for illuminating signs
Fg. 7.129

3) Ground level signs should be smaller than
those on higher levels. Pedestrian-oriented
signs should be smaller than automobile
oriented signs.
4) There are two methods of illuminating signs:

internal with the light source inside the sign
and external with an outside light directed at
the sign. Internal illumination is permitted
on channel letters only.
5) Signs must be lighted with continuous light

sources.
6) Whenever indirect lighting fixtures are used

(fluorescent or incandescent), care should
be taken to properly shield the light source
to prevent glare from spilling over into
residential areas and any public right-of-
way.
7) Paper and cloth signs are appropriate for

interior temporary use only.
8) Backlit plastic box signs are prohibited.
c. Onsite Wayfinding
Good sign design can be critical to helping people
Private signs should guide people
through an unfamiliar environment
Fg. 7.130 move easily through an unfamiliar environment.
Private signs throughout the Urban Core should
be conspicuous, easy to read, and convey clear
messages. Signs should be located so as not to
block the pedestrian realm.
1) Sign Visibility
Signs should be free of any obstruction, such
as landscaping, when viewed from different
angles.
2) Sign Legibility
An effective sign should do more than attract
attention; it should communicate its message.
Usually, this is a question of the readability
of words and phrases. The most significant
influence on legibility is lettering.
a) Use a brief message whenever possible.
Fewer words help produce a more effective
sign. A sign with a brief, succinct message
is easier to read and looks more attractive.
Evaluate each word.
b) Avoid spacing letters and words too close Chula Vista

Conversely, over-spacing these elements
causes the viewer to read each item
As a general rule, letters should not occupy
more than 75% of the sign panel area. Limiting the number of lettering
styles increases legibility
Fg. 7.131
types to no more than two for small signs
and three for large signs.
d) Use symbols and logos in the place of words

whenever appropriate. Pictographic images
will usually register more quickly in the
viewer’s mind than a written message.
e) Avoid hard-to-read, overly intricate typefaces

and symbols. Typefaces and symbols that
are hard to read reduce the sign’s ability to
communicate.
f) Avoid faddish or bizarre typefaces if they

are difficult to read. These typefaces may
be in vogue and look good today, but soon
may go out of style. The image conveyed by
the sign may quickly become that of a dated
and unfashionable business.
3) Business Directional Signs

a) Business directional signs should be provided
near vehicle and pedestrian entrances.
They should not obstruct pedestrian flow or
negatively impact sight lines at entrances.

b) Use consistent names for all buildings,
services and destinations.
c) Maps should correspond to the building

layout so, for example, up on the map is
straight ahead for the viewer. Provide
markers to indicate where the person is
currently located and identify areas by using
color and memorable graphics.
d) Number floors in relation to the building’s

main entry so that directories clearly
designate which floors are above or below
grade.
e) Location of directional signs should not

encroach on the public right-of-way.
f) Business directional signs should be easily

read during the day and evening. Illumination
of some type may be necessary at night.
g) Contrast is important for effectiveness of

directional signs. A substantial contrast
should be provided between the color and
material of the background and the letters
or symbols to make it easier to read.
Directional signs should be easy to
locate
Fg. 7.132 d. Wall Signs
1) Definition: A wall sign is any sign that is

attached or erected on the exterior wall of
a building including the parapet, with the
display surface of the sign parallel to the
building wall, and which does not project
more than 12 inches from the building
or project above the height of the wall or
parapet.
2) Signs should be placed consistent with the

proportion and scale of the elements within
the structure’s facade.
Wall signs should be located on

prominent architectural features
Fg. 7.133

3) Bands or frames of brickwork or stone,
indentations in the face material, gaps
between columns, or other permanent
features should be used to locate the sign.
4) If applicable, follow an already established

pattern of sign locations. Chula Vista
5) If aligning signs is not possible, look for

other features to determine placement of
the sign. Each sign may relate directly to Attached light fixtures are preferred
the store entrance in a similar fashion, or all for illuminating awnings
Fg. 7.134
signs may be displayed within the windows.
e. Awning Signs
1) Definition: An awning sign is a sign on or
attached to a temporary retractable shelter
that is supported from the exterior wall of
a building. Marquee signs are affixed to a
permanent projection extending from the
building or beyond the wall of a building. Example of a marquee sign
Fg. 7.135
2) Sign copy should be centered on the awning
to achieve symmetry.
3) Painting cloth awnings in order to change

sign copy is strongly discouraged.
4) Back-lit internally illuminated awnings are

5) The shape, design, and color of fabric

awnings should be carefully designed to
coordinate with, and not dominate, the
architectural style of the building.
6) Where other fabric awnings are used on the

building, the design and color of the sign
awnings and all other awnings should be
coordinated.
An example of a projecting sign

Fg. 7.136

f. Projecting Signs
1) The distance between projecting signs
should be at least 25 feet for maximum
visibility.

least 15 feet pedestrian clearance from the
sidewalk level.
3) The sign should be hung at a 90 degree

angle from the face of the building. It should
Figurative signs promote a festive
atmosphere
Fg. 7.137 be pinned at least 1 foot away from the wall
for best visibility but should not project
beyond a vertical plane set 6 feet from the
facade.
4) To avoid damaging masonry, brackets should

be designed so that they can be bolted into
joints whenever possible.
g. Figurative Signs
incorporated into any of the allowable sign types
identified previously.
h. Temporary Signs
permitted. Refer to Chula Vista Municipal Code
signs.

F. Corridors District
1. Introduction
In contrast with the Urban Core District and the Village District, the Corridors
District contains four separate and distinct areas along Broadway and Third
Avenue that are more oriented towards automobile than pedestrian traffic. The
district is characterized by low-rise structures with retail, service, office, and Chula Vista
residential uses lining the peripheral ends of Broadway and Third Avenue. The
guidelines in this chapter focus on developing a cohesive blend of high quality
new commercial and residential development. Design guidelines for the public
realm are contained in Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines.

2. Design Principles
a. Promote Sound Architectural Practices
Commercial and residential development
along major streets often includes repetitive
architecture and favors automobiles over
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. These standards
encourage architectural quality, variety in
building form, facades, and features, and
development that accommodates different
forms of transportation.
Development in the Corridors District
should provide variety in architecture
Fg. 7.138 b. Ensure Compatibility Between Different
Uses
New development in the Corridors District
should consider the area’s scale and character
and demonstrate sensitivity to surrounding
uses. Such efforts should include limiting
building massing, providing project amenities
such as landscaping, seating, and plazas, and
screening parking and equipment areas.
c. Encourage Safe and Logical Parking and

Circulation
The north and south segments of Broadway
and southern end of Third Avenue serve as
critical transportation corridors for automobiles,
public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Site
access, parking, and circulation within private
developments should be logically organized
Different forms of transportation and ensure that all forms of transportation are
should be able to function together
Fg. 7.139
able to coexist safely.

3. Site Planning
a. Introduction
Site planning is an important facet of the
look and feel of the Corridors District. The
guidelines encourage new development that
maintains a healthy interaction with the major Chula Vista
street, whether Broadway or Third Avenue,
and surrounding uses by minimizing harmful
external effects and providing strong transit,
automobile, and pedestrian connections.
b. Site Character
1) Natural amenities unique to the site such
as mature trees should be preserved and
incorporated into development proposals.
2) Structures that are distinctive because of

their age, cultural significance, or unique
architectural style should be preserved and
incorporated into development proposals.
3) Design public and private outdoor spaces to

provide sunny and shaded areas.
c. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses

1) Link compatible residential and non- Discouraged layout- development
lacks connections to adjacent areas
Fg. 7.140
residential uses by utilizing access roads,
walkways, common landscape areas,
building orientation, and unfenced property
lines.
2) Additional setback areas and upper floor

setbacks are encouraged when commercial
and residential areas are adjacent to each
other.
3) When commercial buildings back up to

common open spaces or residential projects,
the rear setback area should be landscaped
and should appear to be functionally and/or
visually shared open space. Encouraged layout - development
connects to adjacent uses
Fg. 7.141

4) Avoid public access to the rear of commercial
structures when adjacent to potentially
incompatible uses.
5) Building orientation and landscaping

commercial buildings should minimize a
direct line of sight into adjacent residential
private open space.
6) Loading areas, access and circulation

driveways, trash and storage areas, and
rooftop equipment should be located at the
Key Plan rear or side of buildings and screened from
Fg. 1.1
public view.
7) Employ landscaping to screen parking lots

from adjacent residential uses and streets.
d. Building Siting
1) Any building with more than 125 feet of
street frontage should have at least one
primary building entry.
2) Use paving materials that differentiate the

setback area from the sidewalk.
3) Corner buildings should have a strong tie

Loading, trash, and storage areas
Fg. 7.142 to the front setback lines of each street.
should be located at the rear or side
Angled building corners or open plazas are
encouraged at corner locations.
4) When designing large commercial centers,

create inward-focused arrangement of
buildings to create a “village” feeling and
encourage multiple shopping stops. Plazas
and pedestrian areas are encouraged within
shopping centers.
5) Provide a “Main Street” for larger centers

with pedestrian connections to the major
street and parallel parking that promotes
pedestrian activity.
Corner buildings should feature
angled entrances and plazas
Fg. 7.143

6) Anchor stores should be sited in the middle
Residential Residential
of the shopping center to increase visibility
for other stores.
7) When possible, freestanding buildings

should be sited along street frontages to
help screen parking areas. Chula Vista
8) Recognize the importance of spaces

between buildings as “outdoor rooms” on
the site. These spaces should be utilized as
open space.
9) Small open space areas should be grouped Cluster buildings to develop a

“village” atmosphere
Fg. 7.144
into larger, prominent public spaces.
Hardscape and vegetation should be
combined to create plazas that people can
use for rest, congregating, recreation, and
dining.
11) On sites with multiple structures, buildings

should be linked visually and physically.
These links can be accomplished through
architecture and site planning, such
as trellises, colonnades or other open
structures combined with landscape and
walkway systems).
Plazas can be used for casual seating
Fg. 7.145
12) Decorative walls and/or enhanced and outdoor dining
landscaping should be used at main
entrances. Special paving, raised medians
and gateway structures should also be
considered.
13) Developments should provide safe

pedestrian passage between building
entrances and bus stops.
14) Siting service areas in a consolidated and

Avoid service areas that are too expansive,
underutilized, and require heavy landscape
screening.

1) All trash and garbage bins should be stored
in an approved enclosure.
2) Trash storage must be fully enclosed and

incorporated within the main structures or
under stairways.
Service areas should be compact and
organized
Fg. 7.146

from residential uses to minimize nuisance
travel.

deter graffiti.

7) Refuse containers and service facilities

should be screened from view by solid
masonry walls with wood or metal doors.
Use landscaping (shrubs and vines) to
screen walls and help deter graffiti.
Landscaping and a trellis feature can
create an attractive trash enclosure
Fg. 7.147

ground, shall be screened from view (CVMC
should be placed in locations that are not
exposed to view from the street or be suitably
screened. All screening devices are to be Chula Vista
compatible with the architecture, material,
and color of adjacent structures.
f. Site Amenities Plazas should include a focal element

such as a fountain or sculpture
Fg. 7.148

a) Plazas and courtyards within commercial
developments over two acres are strongly
encouraged.

retail shops, restaurants, offices and other
pedestrian activity generating uses to
plazas.


within plazas.


plaza design.


seating.

“Ribbon bar” is one of the
recommended types of bicycle racks
Fg. 7.149
2) Site Furniture
appropriate.

pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.


recommended.


a. Introduction
There are no specific architectural styles
required for commercial buildings. However,
innovative and imaginative architecture is
encouraged. The guidelines seek quality and Chula Vista
complete design that will contribute to the
overall quality of built environment.
b. Building Height, Form and Mass

1) Building heights and setbacks should vary Varying building heights and
setbacks create visual interest
Fg. 7.150
from adjacent or adjoining buildings to
ensure diversity in building type.
2) One-story buildings along Broadway and

Third Avenue should be placed close to the
sidewalk to reinforce a pedestrian scale.
Two-story buildings should be located
farther away from the sidewalk and use a
plaza as a transition from the right of way to
the building.
3) Building heights should enhance public

views and provide adjacent sites with
maximum sun and ventilation and protection
from prevailing winds.
Plazas serve as an effective
transition from the public right-of-way
Fg. 7.151
c. Facades
1) The physical design of facades should utilize

such techniques as:
• Break or articulation of the façade;
• Vertical and horizontal offsets to
minimize large blank walls and reduce
building bulk;
• Significant change in facade design;
• Placement of window and door openings;
and
• Position of awnings and canopies.

2) Design features must be consistent on all
elevations of a structure. Side and rear
elevations should not be minimized because
they are oriented away from public view.
3) Primary building entries should be easily

identified and provide a prominent sense
of entry. The use of projections, columns,
towers, change in roofline, entry lobbies,
or other design elements are strongly
encouraged.
Building entries should be easily
identified
Fg. 7.152 4) The size and location of doors and windows
should relate to the scale and proportions of
the overall structure.
5) Clear windows should be provided at

storefront locations.
d. Roofs and Upper Story Details

1) Roofs should be given design considerations
and treatment equal to that of the rest of
the building exteriors.
2) Roofs and rooflines should be continuous

in design throughout a commercial
development. Full roofs are strongly
encouraged due to proximity to residential
areas.
3) Roofline elements should be developed

along all elevations.
4) No roofline ridge should run unbroken for

more than 75 feet. Vertical or horizontal
articulation is required.
5) Slopes of roofs should range between 4:12

and 6:12. Slopes greater than 6:12 are
discouraged, except on certain architectural
elements and towers.
6) Radical roof pitches that create overly

prominent or out-of-character buildings

such as A-frames, geodesic domes, or
chalet-style buildings are not permitted.
Sloping wood trellis
7) Roofs with large overhangs featuring open

Vented
rafters/tails are encouraged. screen wall
Tile roof
Equip.
8) The visible portion of sloped roofs should Chula Vista
be sheathed with a roofing material
complementary to the architectural style
of the building and other surrounding
buildings.
An appealing roof design should be
9) Access to roofs should be restricted to used to screen mechanical equipment
Fg. 7.153
10) Screening for roof-mounted mechanical

equipment should be an integral part of the
building’s architectural design.
11) Building vertical focal elements are

encouraged. Towers, spires, or domes
become landmarks and serve as focal/
orientation points for the community.
e. Walls and Fences

1) Walls and fences should be kept as low as
possible while performing their functional
Vertical elements such as a tower are
purpose to avoid the appearance of being a encouraged
Fg. 7.154
“fortress”.
2) Colors, materials and appearance of

walls and fences should be compatible
with surrounding development. Opaque
materials, such as plywood boards, and
sheet metal, are not permitted. Also, chain
link fences are not permitted.
3) Perimeter walls should be constructed

of decorative masonry block or similar
material. The use of chain link fencing is not
permitted.
4) Landscaping, particularly vines, should be

used to soften otherwise blank wall surfaces
and to help reduce graffiti.

5) Walls should be offset every 50 feet and
architecturally designed to reduce monotony.
Landscape pockets along the wall should be
provided at regular intervals.
f. Building Materials and Colors

1) Exterior materials, textures and colors
should compliment the architectural style
or theme of a building.
2) Colors and materials should be durable and

Key Plan weather resistant.
Fg. 1.1
3) The use of natural stone is encouraged.
High quality man-made material may be
permitted.
4) Buildings with strong facade articulation

should contain wall texture that is simple
and subdued. If the building design is
Vines enhance otherwise blank walls simple, a finely textured material, such as
Fg. 7.155
patterned masonry, should be used to enrich
the building’s overall character.
5) Building colors should be predominately

neutral colors, off-white, cream, or light
pastels.
6) Accent colors may be used to impart a

festive quality to the buildings, especially in
commercial areas.
g. Franchise/Corporate
The scale, design character, and materials of
franchise/corporate architecture should be
consistent with adjacent buildings. Natural
materials, such as brick, stone, and copper,
should be used where applicable
1) Color and Lighting

Choice of color(s) for a franchise/corporate
Fg. 7.156 building is critical since they may be
Natural materials such as brick add to
the quality of franchise buildings inappropriate in certain environments. The

standards below should be considered when
addressing appropriate color(s) and lighting:
a) Use colors that complement colors found

on adjacent buildings.
b) Franchise/corporate colors should be Chula Vista

consistent with the architectural style or
period of the building.
c) Bright or intense colors are prohibited, unless

used on appropriate architectural styles
and reserved for more refined detailing and
transient features.
d) The use of symbols and logos can be utilized

in place of bright or intense corporate
colors.
e) Finish materials with natural colors, such

as brick, stone, and copper, should be used
where applicable.
f) Lighting of logos should be compatible with

the primary building and respect adjacent
buildings. Bright and intense lighting is
prohibited.
Use of corporate logos, instead of
Fg. 7.157
g) Neon outlining should be consistent with the bright or intense colors, is encouraged
architectural style or period of the building
and should be reserved for detailing and
transient features. The use of bright and
intense neon outlining of windows is strongly
discouraged.
h. Security
1) If security grilles are necessary, they should
be placed inside the building behind the
window display area.
2) Electronic surveillance equipment or

alarm hardware should be as invisible and
unobtrusive as possible.

3) The use of scissor grilles is strongly
discouraged since they communicate a
message of high crime and cannot be
integrated visually into the overall design of
a building or storefront.
4) Lighting should be designed to satisfy both

functional and decorative needs. All security
lighting should be designed as part of an
overall lighting plan rather than as single
stand-alone elements.
5) Safety behind buildings should be ensured

through use of:
• Adequate security lighting for parking
areas and pedestrian ways;
• Limited access (walls, fences, gates,
shrubs);
• Signs;
• Introduction of activities (e.g., rear
entrances for commercial activities) that
increase surveillance;
• Surveillance through windows or with
cameras;
• Ongoing maintenance of storage areas
and alleys.
Key Plan 6) Lighting, particularly at all building

Fg. 1.1
entrances, should be adequate but not
exceedingly bright. Light fixtures should
serve as an attractive element in isolation.
7) Storefront lighting should complement the

architectural style of the building while
providing illumination of building facades
Lighting should satisfy functional and
and entrances.
decorative needs
Fg. 7.158
8) Any window signs should be so placed as
to provide a clear and unobstructed view of
the store interior from the sidewalk.

a. Standard Design Concepts
Landscape areas are used to frame and
soften structures, to define site functions, to
enhance the quality of the environment, and to
screen undesirable views. Landscaping should Chula Vista
express the three dimensions of the project and
should continue patterns of landscaping in the
surrounding area.
Landscaping can soften and frame
1) Emphasis should be placed on California structures
Fg. 7.159
and Mediterranean landscapes and
gardens. Indigenous, ornamental planting,
vines, flowering plants, arbors, trellises and
container planting is encouraged.
2) Existing mature trees should be preserved

and incorporated into landscape plans.
3) Landscaped areas should generally

incorporate planting utilizing a three tiered
system: (1) grasses and ground covers, (2)
shrubs and vines, and (3) trees. All areas
not covered by structures, service yards,
walkways, driveways, and parking spaces
should be landscaped, consistent with the
following guidelines: Existing mature trees should be
integrated into new development
Fg. 7.160
Trees
• 20% 36-inch box
• 30% 24-inch box
• 50% 15-gallon
Groundcover
• 100% coverage within 1 year
Shrubs and Vines

• 100% 5 & 15 gallon

4) The following design concepts should be
utilized in all project design:
• Specimen trees (36-inch box or larger)
used in groupings and rows at major
focal points, such as project entries and
pedestrian gathering areas;
• Use of flowering vines on walls and
arbors where appropriate;
• Use of planting to create shadow and
patterns against walls.
Specimen trees should be used at

5) New development should look established
major focal points
Fg. 7.161 as quickly as possible. Planting new trees
that are older, better developed, and
properly grown is preferred to planting small,
underdeveloped, and juvenile planting
stock.
6) Trees should be placed as follows:

• A minimum of 8 feet between the center
of trees and the edge of the driveway,
6 feet from water meter, gas meter, and
sewer laterals.
of trees and the point of intersection of
driveways and streets or walkways.
• A minimum of 15 feet between the
center of the trees or large shrubs to
utility poles/street lights.
of trees or large shrubs and fire hydrants,
fire department sprinkler, and standpipe
connections.
• No species of tree or large shrub should
be planted under overhead lines or over
underground utilities if plant growth
will interfere with the installation or
maintenance of these utilities.
• In addition to trees, other plant
materials should be spaced so that they
do not interfere with the lighting of the
premises or restrict access to emergency
apparatus such as fire hydrants or fire
alarms boxes.

• Plant spacing should also ensure
unobstructed access for vehicular and
pedestrians in addition to providing
appropriate lines of site at any
intersection.
7) All new trees should be double staked and Chula Vista

secured with a rubber or plastic strip, or
other approved commercial tie material.
Wire ties should not be used.
8) Use of vines and climbing plants on buildings,

trellises, and privately owned perimeter
walls is encouraged.
9) Landscaping should be in scale with

adjacent buildings and be of appropriate Climbing vines on structures are
size at maturity to accomplish its intended encouraged
Fg.7.162
goals.
10) Landscaping should work with the buildings

and surroundings to make a positive
contribution to the aesthetics and function
of both the specific site and the area.
11) Landscaping should be protected from

vehicular and pedestrian encroachment by
raised planting surfaces. Concrete mow
strips separating turf and shrub areas
should be provided.
12) Landscaping around the entire base of

buildings is encouraged to soften the edge Landscaping can contribute to the
Fg. 7.163
between parking lot and the structure. This overall appearance of a building
should be accented at entrances to provide
focus.
13) One tree should be planted for every six

parking spaces.
b. Irrigation
1) Permanent and automatic landscape
irrigation systems should be provided for all
landscape material.

2) The landscape irrigation system should be
designed to prevent run-off and overspray.
3) All irrigation systems should be designed to

minimize vandalism.
4) Deep root irrigation is required for all trees

whose top of root crown is higher than any
adjacent paved areas. A separate bubbler
head to each tree is recommended.
5) Reclaimed water irrigation systems should

be clearly identified and separated from
potable water irrigation systems.
c. Tree Grates/Guards
1) Tree grates should occur along the edges
of internal streets and in plazas where a
continuous walking surface is needed.
2) Narrow openings should radiate from the

Groundcover and trees prevent
Fg. 7.164
center. Grates sizes should be a minimum
extensive erosion on steep slopes of 4 feet in width and a minimum of 36 feet
for private areas and a minimum of 6 feet
in width for public areas. Knockouts must
be provided to enlarge inside diameter for
supporting a larger tree trunk as the tree
grows.
3) Tree guards should extend vertically from

tree grates, and serve to protect trees in
highly active areas. Tree guards should be
narrow, painted in a similar color, and relate
to other site furnishings. Tree guards should
be attached to the tree grate and welds
should not be visible.
d. Pots and Planters

1) Planters and pots should be located where
pedestrian flow will not be obstructed.
Consider placing pots in locations where
deep building recesses exist, where access
Trees protect pedestrian and
landscaping
Fg. 7.165 is discouraged, to provide definition to
spaces, and adjacent to blank walls.

2) Group similar sized planters in clusters to
enrich streetscapes and plazas.
3) Planter materials should be durable and

have natural earth tones that compliment
site architecture. Materials should consist
of cast stone, masonry, or stucco materials. Chula Vista
4) Planters should be at least three feet in

diameter.
5) Planters should be simple in form; round

and square types are recommended.
6) Large planters may also be incorporated

Planters should complement the

overall site architecture
Fg. 7.166

6. Lighting
a. The type and location of lighting should
minimize direct glare onto adjoining
properties. Lighting should be shielded to
confine all direct rays within the property.
b. Site lighting should not exceed more than 5

foot-candles of illumination with 50 feet of a
property used as or zoned residential.
c. Lighting should be designed to satisfy

Minimize light glare onto an adjoining function as well as contribute to overall
property with fixture type and location
Fg. 7.167 design quality.
d. Light fixtures and structural supports should

be architecturally compatible with the theme
of the development.
e. Wall mounted lights should be utilized to the

greatest extent possible to minimize the total
number of freestanding light standards.
f. Wall mounted lighting should not extend

above the height of the wall or parapet to
which they are mounted.
g. Lighting should be used to accent on-site

public art, specimen trees, and architectural
features.
h. Accent lighting, when provided, should

compliment exterior color and materials.
i. Lighting should be provided in a relatively

even pattern with ground level foot-candle
illumination levels not varying by more than
four to eight footcandles.
j. Security lighting should be designed as part

of a comprehensive lighting plan.
k. Vehicle entrances, driveways, parking

Lighting can highlight amenities such
Fg. 7.168 and service areas, pedestrian entrances,
as large trees

walkways, and activity areas should have a
sufficient level of lighting to provide security
and safety. A minimum of 1 foot-candle
should be provided.
l. Lighting should improve visual identification

of residences and businesses. Chula Vista
m. Parking lot lighting fixtures should not

exceed 35 feet in height. When within
50 feet of residentially zoned properties,
fixtures should not exceed 20 feet.
n. Light standards within parking lots should

be designed with raised bases to protect
them from damage by vehicles.
o. Pedestrian-scaled lighting for sidewalk and

street illumination is encouraged.
p. Lighting should not be animated. Light fixtures should have pedestrian

scale
Fg. 7.169
q. Overhead service wires or exposed conduit
should be avoided.
r. Lighting fixtures with exposed bulbs are

prohibited.

7. Parking and Circulation Guidelines
a. Introduction
Properly functioning parking areas are beneficial
to property owners, tenants, and customers
and they contribute to the design success of
a facility. Parking lots need to allow customers
and deliveries to reach the site, circulate
through the parking lot, and exit the site easily.
The following guidelines should be incorporated
into the design of commercial projects in the
Corridors District.
1) Commercial development should incorporate
internal parking to minimize the negative
impact on the street.
2) Avoid placing parking lots along Broadway

and Third Avenue so that the development
maintains a defined street edge.
3) Parking areas that accommodate a

significant number of vehicles should be
divided into a series of connected smaller
lots. Landscaping and offsetting portions of
the lot are effective in reducing the visual
impact of larger parking areas.
4) Shared parking between adjacent

businesses and/or developments is strongly
encouraged.
5) When possible, non-residential parking lots

should be designed and located contiguous
to each other so that vehicles can travel
from one private parking lot to the other
(reciprocal access) without having to enter
major streets.
6) Parking lots should be designed with a clear

hierarchy of circulation: major access drives
Shared parking and access with no parking; major circulation drives
agreements are encouraged
Fg. 7.170

with little or no parking; and then parking
aisles for direct access to parking spaces.

should never be permitted. Chula Vista

parking layout and pedestrian paths should
all contribute to the strength and clarity of
the parking lot.
9) Bicycle parking should be provided at each


1) Locate parking lot entries on side streets
to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts
along Broadway and Third Avenue.
However, effects on adjacent residential
neighborhoods must be considered.
2) Parking lots adjacent to a public street

should provide pedestrians with a point of
entry and clear and safe access from the
sidewalk on Broadway, Third Avenue, or side
street to the entrance of the building(s).

Enhanced paving provides a sense of
of enhanced paving, landscaping, and arrival into a parking area
Fg. 7.171
special architectural features and details is
encouraged.
4) Developments should have shared entries

when the lot is less than 75 feet wide.
5) Where possible, use alleys or side streets

for access to parking areas. The use of
alleys for parking access must be balanced
with other common uses of alleys, including
service, utilities, and loading and unloading
areas.
d. Lighting
1) Parking lots should utilize pedestrian-scaled
rather than high mast light fixtures.
2) Lighting systems should be designed for two

levels, one during normal operations hours
and another reduced intensity level during
late non-operational hours (for security
purposes).
3) Lighting for a parking lot should be evenly

distributed and provide pedestrians and
drivers with adequate visibility.
e. Circulation
1) Separate vehicular and pedestrian
circulation systems should be provided
whenever feasible. Design parking areas
so that pedestrians walk parallel to moving
cars in parking aisles to minimize the need
for the pedestrian to cross parking aisles
Pedestrian access to building
Fg. 7.172 and landscape islands to reach building
entrances should be clearly defined entries.
2) Clearly defined pedestrian access should

be provided from parking areas to primary
building entrances.
3) All commercial projects should connect

onsite pedestrian circulation system to
offsite public sidewalks.

circulation system.
5) Decorative paving treatments should be

incorporated into parking lot design, driveway
entries, and pedestrian crosswalks.
6) Screen walls or landscaping should not

be located where they block the sight
lines of drivers entering, leaving or driving
throughout the site.

f. Landscaping
1) Parking lots adjacent to Broadway, Third
Avenue, or a major side street should be
landscaped to soften the visual impact of
parked vehicles from the public right-of-way.
Screening could consist of a combination of
low walls (a maximum of three feet high) and Chula Vista
landscape materials at the setback line.
2) Parking lots should include landscaping

that accents the importance of driveways
from the street, frames the major circulation Landscaping provides needed shade
Fg. 7.173
in parking areas
aisles, and highlights pedestrian pathways.
3) Provide one regularly spaced tree for every

six parking spaces to provide shade and
avoid long rows of parked cars.
4) Provide continuous landscape planting

strips or triangles between every row of
parking and large planting islands at the
ends of a row.
5) The use of stamped concrete, stone, brick

or granite pavers, exposed aggregate,
or colored concrete should also be used
to minimize the negative impact of large Decorative pavers improve the
Fg. 7.174
expanses of black asphalt pavement. appearance of parking areas
g. Loading and Delivery

1) Loading and unloading zones should be
located to minimize interference with traffic
flow.
2) Loading and unloading zones should

provide adequate space for maneuvering
into and out of a loading position. These
areas should be designed to integrate with
the entire development.
Loading zones should integrate into

surrounding development
Fg. 7.175

8. Signs
a. Introduction
These design guidelines are intended to ensure
that the Corridors District contains quality signs
that communicate their message in a clear
fashion and integrate into the surrounding area.
Unlike the Village District, signs along Broadway
should be directed towards vehicles rather than
pedestrians.

support the character of the Corridors District.
take precedence.
Oversized signs that project over the

roof area are not allowed
Fg. 7.176 b. General Design Guidelines
1) Consider the need for signs and their
appropriate locations early in the design
process; and
2) The location and size of signs on any building

should be proportioned to the scale and
relate to the architecture of that particular
structure.
3) Oversized and out-of-scale signs are not

permitted.
4) Sign colors and materials should be selected

to contribute to the sign’s legibility.
5) Excessive use of colors is discouraged.
6) Placement
a) Signs should not project above the edge of
the rooflines.

b) Signs used for business identification on
the primary business frontage should be
placed near the main business entrance
in a location that does not cover doors,
windows, or architectural details.
7) Materials Chula Vista

a) Routing, carving or sandblasting the surface
of wooden signs can obtain the effect of
raised letters.
b) Different applications of metal on signs

include: applying raised letters, on a metal
band, or applying paint and lettering.
Galvanized or baked enamel finish should
be used to avoid rusting.
c) Sign materials should be compatible with

the building facade upon which they are
placed.
d) Painted signs are encouraged, but should

not be painted over existing architectural Painted signs should not cover
Fg. 7.177
elements existing architectural elements
e) The selected materials should contribute to

the legibility of the sign. For example, glossy
finishes are often difficult to read because
of glare and reflections.
f) Precast letters (e.g. molded plastic or brass)

applied to a building surface can be an
effective signing alternative.
8) Color
a) Colors should relate to and complement the
materials or paint scheme of the buildings,
including accenting highlights and trim
colors. The number of colors on any sign
should be limited to three. This heightens
readability (visibility), especially when one
color is a dark hue, the second a medium
hue, and the third a light accent color.

b) Contrast is an important influence on
the legibility of signs. Light letters on a
dark background or dark letters on a light
background are most legible.
c) Fluorescent colors should not be used.
9) Sign Legibility
a) An effective sign should be legible. The most
significant influence on legibility is lettering
Easy to read, simple typefaces and
symbols are encouraged
Fg. 7.178 style.
b) Lettering styles used on signs should be

highly legible. It is in the best interest of the
business establishment to have signs read
clearly and attractively to the passer-by.

styles to no more than two for small signs
and three for larger signs.
d) Avoid spacing letters and words too close

Conversely, overspacing these elements
Lettering on signs should be kept
simple to increase legibility
Fg. 7.179 causes the viewer to read each item
e) Use symbols and logos in the place of words

whenever appropriate. These images will
usually register more quickly in the viewer’s
mind than a written message.
10) Sign Illumination

a) Signs should have the capacity of being lit
externally for evening visibility.
b) Individually illuminated letters, either

internally illuminated or back lighted solid
Backlighting of signs is preferred
letters (reverse channel), are a preferred
Fg. 7.180

alternative to internally illuminated signs.
Avoid illuminating an entire sign.
c) Indirect external illumination fixtures should

complement the surface of the sign.
d) Whenever external lighting fixtures are used, Chula Vista

care should be taken to properly shield the
light source to prevent glare from spilling
over into residential areas and any public
right-of-way.
Choose light fixtures that are
compatible with the building facade
Fg. 7.181
e) Backlit plastic box signs are prohibited.
c. Wayfinding
1) Placement of on-site kiosks and electronic
bulletin boards should be obvious. Directories
should be provided near the vehicular and
pedestrian entrances of commercial centers
to assist visitors in orienting themselves.
2) Information contained on the signs should

be legible. Directories should be easily
readable during day and night.
3) Contrast is important for the effectiveness of

on-site directional and informational signs.
Light letters on a dark background are most
legible.
4) Electronic bulletin boards are not

permitted.
5) Kiosks may serve as information booths and/

or shelter for small vendors. Kiosks should
be consistent with surrounding buildings
and other streetscape furnishings.
d. Wall Signs
Wall signs are attached parallel to or painted on
a wall surface. The following guidelines apply to
wall signs: Wall signs in a shopping center should
be located in a consistent place
Fg. 7.182

1) Wall signs should not project from the
attached surface more than required for
construction purposes and, in no case, more
than 6 inches.
2) Wall signs should be applied horizontally

directly above the storefront.
3) When a building contains two or more

businesses, wall signs should complement
Freestanding/monument signs
Fg. 7.183 one another in color and shape and be
should be surrounded by landscaping
located in the same position over the
storefronts.
4) Wall signs should be centered above

the store or building entrance within an
architecturally established area or unbroken
area of the building facade.
5) A wall sign should be located where

architectural features or details suggest
a location, size or shape for the sign. The
best location for a wall sign is generally a
band or blank area above the first floor of a
building.
e. Freestanding and Monument Signs

A freestanding sign is any sign permanently
attached to the ground and which does not have
a building as the primary structural support.
Monument signs are freestanding low-profile
signs where the sign width is greater than the
sign height..
1) Freestanding and monument signs should

be located away from the public right-
of-way where they are not obstructed by
landscaping and can be easily viewed by
pedestrians and motorists.
2) Freestanding and monument signs are

required to be located in a landscaped
Pole or pylon signs, such as the one
Fg. 7.184 planter away from a driveway or other vehicle
above, are not permitted access point.

be placed perpendicular to the street.

be on ground. Pole or pylon signs are not
permitted.
Chula Vista
5) Signs should provide solid architectural
bases and should complement the
architectural elements of the development
it serves.
6) Avoid placing more than 8 items of text or

graphics on a single sign.
f. Window Signs
Window signs are located within a window area
of a business. Window signs may be consist
of permanent materials affixed to a window,
or text and graphics painted directly onto the
window surface. The following guidelines apply
to window signs:
Window signs should be limited to the
1) Window signs should not exceed 20 percent business name and brief messages
Fg. 7.185
of the window area, and only one window
sign per frontage is allowed.
2) Lighted signs, flashing signs or any other

sign not applied directly to a windowpane
are not permitted.
3) The text or sign copy of a window sign should

be limited to the business name and brief
messages.
g. Temporary Signs
permitted. Refer to Chula Vista Municipal Code
signs.

h. Figurative Signs
incorporated into any of the previously identified
allowable sign types.

G. Special Guidelines
1. Introduction
From a design perspective, hotels and motels and mixed-use projects are two of
the more challenging commercial development types in the Chula Vista Urban
Core. Sections on these two specialized project types focus on site organization
and building design. In addition, multi-family residential design guidelines for Chula Vista
stand alone residential projects are provided to supplement the Village District
and Urban Core District design guidelines.
Basic design principles and tools for designing and building sustainably in a
mixed-use development market are also presented and are strongly encouraged
for all project types. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Rating System is the “green” standard for buildings in the United States.
Consult a LEED Accredited Professional for design assistance.

2. Hotels and Motels
a. Description
Due to their location near Interstate 5, hotels
and motels provide visitors with a strong first
impression of Chula Vista and therefore deserve
special attention. They are also quasi-residential
uses and should be designed and sited to
minimize the effect of noise from Interstate 5
and major roads. The scale of and activities
associated with hotels and motels often make
them problematic neighbors for adjacent
residential properties. In addition, hotel and
motel architecture is often thematic, which
presents a strong temptation to exaggerate
the design of the building front and to neglect
side and rear facades. However, all sides of a
building should be stylistically consistent.
b. Site Organization
1) The primary presence along the major
street frontage should be the building and
driveway approach, not the parking lot.
2) Some short-term parking spaces should be

provided near the office for check-ins.
Hotel and motel facades should be
located along the primary street
Fg. 7.186 3) Delivery and loading areas should be
screened to minimize impact on sensitive
uses. Loading and unloading areas should
be located in the rear.
4) Recreational facilities such as swimming

pools should be designed to offer privacy to
facility users. They should not be exposed
to public streets to function as advertising.
5) Avoid locating driveway, garage ramps,

or loading and service areas where they
interfere with the flow of pedestrian
movement or impact the privacy of guest
rooms.
6) Utilize parking lots and open spaces on the

site to help buffer the hotel or motel from
any adjacent incompatible/sensitive uses.
c. Building Design
1) All sides of a building should be architecturally
consistent.
2) At least 25% of the total exterior surface

area of the hotel or motel building should
be surfaced in masonry or natural stone. Chula Vista
3) Masonry or stone should be applied to

logical places on each of the building’s
facades, and should begin and end at
logical breaks related to the structure of the
building. A single, one-story high, horizontal
“banding” of masonry or stone is strongly
discouraged.
4) The remainder of the exterior may be

surfaced in stucco, water-managed Exterior
Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS), or
integrally-dyed decorative concrete or
ceramic masonry units. Metal or vinyl siding
is prohibited.
5) Significant departures from standardized

architectural “themes” intended to market
or brand a hotel or motel building, such as
Swiss chalets or castles, is prohibited.
Masonry or natural stone are the
preferred building materials
Fg. 7.187
6) Public or semi-public spaces (lobbies,
restaurants, meeting rooms, and banquet-
facilities) sited at ground level adjacent
to a pedestrian walkway or a major street
should use glass and transparent materials
between the height of three feet (3’) and
eight feet (8’) above the walkway or street
grade.
7) Noise attenuation techniques should be

included in the design of buildings near
major noise generators (e.g., major streets
and I-5 freeway). Techniques may include:
double pane glass, berms or lowering the
grade of the subject building below the
roadway elevation.

8) The scale of buildings should transition
to adjacent existing developments not
anticipated to redevelop pursuant to the
Specific Plan.
9) Walkway, stairway and balcony railings

and other similar details should be visually
substantial and stylistically consistent with
the basic building design.
10) Mechanical equipment of all types, including

swimming pool equipment, should be
located to minimize impacts on adjacent
uses. Air conditioning units should not be
visible from public streets.
11) Exterior corridors and stairwells on multi-

level buildings are strongly discouraged and
should not be located adjacent to residential
uses.
12) Guest rooms should be accessible from

hallways within hotels over two stories.
Avoid room entrances directly adjacent to
parking lots or exterior walkways.
13) Roof terraces and gardens augment open

space. Their design and location should
encourage human occupation and use.
Designs for open space should
encourage activity
Fg. 7.188

3. Mixed Use Projects
a. Description
For the purpose of these guidelines, mixed-
use projects are defined as developments
that combine both commercial/office and
residential uses or structures on a single lot or Chula Vista
as components of a single development. The
uses may be combined either vertically within
the same structure or spread horizontally on
the site in different areas and structures.
The primary design issue related to mixed use

projects is the need to successfully balance
the requirements of residential uses, such
as the need for privacy and security, with the
needs of commercial uses for access, visibility,
parking, loading, and possibly extended hours
of operation. There are two basic types of
mixed-use projects. The first type is vertical
mixed use, which is typified by residential use
over commercial uses in the same building. The
second, called horizontal mixed use, combines
residential and commercial uses on the same
site but in separate buildings.
b. Site Organization
Example of a vertical mixed-use
1) Primary business and residential entrances project
Fg. 7.189
should be oriented to the commercial street,
though each use should have a separate
entrance. Residential Common Residential
structure open space structure
2) Separate site access drive and parking Residential

parking and
facilities should be provided for residential circulation
uses and commercial uses.
Gate
Commercial
3) Projects should provide for connections with structure
existing and future streets. Commercial
parking
4) Principal access roads into new mixed-use

development areas should be of similar Residential Parking Parking and
access access service access
scale as streets in adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Conceptual layout for a small
horizontal mixed-use project
Fg. 7.190

5) Site access drives should incorporate
distinctive architectural elements and
landscape features that help to differentiate
access to commercial parking areas from
residential areas. Security gates should
be considered for access to residential
uses and residential parking areas, as well
as to securing commercial parking areas
when businesses are closed, except when a
shared parking arrangement is in effect.
6) Private drives should be designed as

pedestrian-friendly streets that are a
natural extension of the surrounding
neighborhood.
7) Minimize driveway width and pedestrian

crossing distance at sidewalks.
8) If enclosed parking is provided for the entire

complex, separate levels should be provided
for residential and commercial uses with
separate building entrances.
9) Outdoor dining, kiosks, benches, and other

street furniture are encouraged to enhance
street activity and interest.
10) Bike facilities should be designed into the

development.
c. Building Design
1) The architectural style and use of materials
should be consistent throughout the entire
project. Differences in materials and/or
architectural details should only occur
where the intent is to differentiate between
scale and character of commercial and
residential areas.
2) Residential units should also be shielded

from illuminated commercial signs.
A variety of architectural details
provide interest on the second level
Fg. 7.191

3) Pedestrian connections between commercial
and residential developments should be
active and friendly.
4) Large blank walls should not be allowed.
d. Special Requirements Chula Vista

1) Neighborhood-serving uses (such as
full-service grocery, drug, and hardware
stores) are encouraged in mixed-use
Outdoor dining provides activity for
developments. pedestrian connections
Fg. 7.192
2) Loading areas and refuse storage facilities

should be located as far as possible from
residential units and should be completely
screened from view from adjacent residential
portions of the project. The location and
design of trash enclosures should account
for potential nuisances from odors.
3) All roof-mounted equipment should be

screened. Special consideration should be
given to the location and screening of noise
generating equipment such as refrigeration
units, air conditioning, and exhaust fans.
Noise reducing screens and insulation may
be required where such equipment has the
potential to impact residential uses.
4) Open space intended for use by “residents

only” may not be accessible from commercial
areas. Open space and courtyards in
commercial areas may be accessible to
residential occupants and visitors.
5) Parking lot lighting and security lighting for

the commercial uses should be appropriately
shielded so as not to spill over into the
residential area.

4. Multi-Family Residential Projects
a. Description
Multi-family developments are higher density
residential buildings, such as apartments,
condominiums or townhomes. These types
of developments are typically comprised of
attached units with common facilities such as
Residential buildings should create a
parking, open space, and recreation areas.
consistent urban street wall
Fg. 7.193 This section provides general guidelines for
the design of multi-family developments. The
following guidelines supplement the design
guidelines for the Village District and Urban
Core District for instances where stand alone
residential projects, as opposed to mixed-use
projects, are allowed.
b. Site Planning and Design

1) Internally focused residential developments
are discouraged. Residential buildings
should create a consistent urban street wall
that defines the street edge, including street
elevations that are especially visible and
attractive.
2) Upper floor balconies, bays, and windows

should be provided that overlook the
Upper floor balconies and windows
overlooking the street are provided
Fg. 7.194 street, enliven the street elevation, and
communicate the residential function of the
building.
3) Three dimensional design features, such as

balconies and bays should be incorporated
into the building design. Windows other
than bays should be recessed behind the
plane of the building to create shadow lines.
Balconies should also be recessed and
should have a minimum depth of six feet.
4) Roof form and height should complement

a residential building’s mass and
articulation.
Roof form should complement building
mass and articulation
Fg. 7.195

5) Where residential uses occupy the first
floor, a shallow setback and minor grade
separation between the first floor and
sidewalk should be provided to promote
privacy and to accommodate entry porches
and stoops.
Chula Vista
6) Consideration should be given for privacy
relative to adjoining properties. Orient
A shallow setback and minor grade
buildings and decks to maximize views while separation may be appropriate
Fg. 7.196
preserving the privacy of the surrounding
neighbors.
7) Intensified landscaping, increased setbacks

adjacent to other uses, and appropriate
building orientation should be used to
buffer or transition residential uses from
incompatible adjacent uses.
8) Unless impractical due to physical

constraints, alleys should be used for access
to garages, parking spaces, and for other
functions such as garbage pick-up.
9) The preferred location of parking is at the

rear of lots, accessible from alleys or single- The preferred location for parking is
Fg. 7.197
width driveways extending along the side of at the rear of lots
the lots.
10) Parking areas should be screened from

public street views and surrounding
residential areas.
11) Alternatives to solid paved driveways, such

as brick, cobblestone, or interlocking pavers,
should be encouraged.
12) Easily identifiable pedestrian connections

should be provided from the street/sidewalk
to key areas within or adjacent to the site. Pedestrian connections should be
Fg. 7.198
easily identifiable from the street

c. Entries and Facades
1) Multiple residential building entrances
oriented toward the street should be provided
in order to activate the streetscape. Main
building entrances should be bold and easy
to see and should provide transition from
the public to private realm.
Entry porches and stoops should be 2) Entry porches and stoops should be
provided
Fg. 7.199 provided as transitional spaces between the
public sidewalk and the residential building
and/or dwelling entrances; porches or
stoops should not encroach upon a public
sidewalk.
3) A combination of ornamental landscaping,

water features, architectural elements,
decorative walls, signs and/or enhanced
paving should be incorporated into the
project entry as accent features.
4) Exterior stairways should be architecturally

integrated into the design of the building.
Exterior stairways should be Prefabricated stairs or railings are
integrated into the building design
Fg. 7.200
discouraged.
5) Contrasting colors may be used to accentuate

building entry features and architectural
details.
d. Landscaping
1) Landscaping should be used to:
• Define areas such as building entrances,
key activity hubs, focal points, and the
street edge;
• Provide screening for unattractive/
unsightly service areas; and
• Serve as buffers between neighboring
uses.
2) Front and side yard landscaping is highly

desirable; additional paving in the front and
Front and side yard landscaping is
highly desirable
Fg. 7.201 side yard areas should be avoided whenever
possible.

3) Specimen (36-inch box or larger) trees
should be planted to assist new development
in looking “established” as quickly as
possible.
4) Flowering trees should be used to provide

color and accentuate entryways. Chula Vista
e. Utilitarian Areas
1) Transformers should be placed underground
to maximize safety and minimize visual
impacts. When this location cannot be
achieved, the transformers should be well
screened and placed in the rear or side yard Flowering trees can provide color and
Fg. 7.202
area, minimizing visibility from the public accentuate entrances
right-of-way.
2) Mechanical equipment, including gas and

electrical meters, cable boxes, junction
boxes and irrigation controllers, should be
located within a utility room, along with the
fire riser and roof access ladder. When this
location cannot be achieved, these features
should be designed as an integral part of
the building on a rear or side elevation and
screened from public view.
3) Common mailbox enclosures should be

designed to be similar or complementary in
form, material, and color to the surrounding
residential buildings.
Common mailboxes should
Fg. 7.203
4) Enclosures should be unobtrusive and complement the residential buildings
conveniently located for trash disposal
by tenants and for collection by service
vehicles. Enclosures should not be visible
from primary entry drives.
5) Where feasible, a pedestrian entrance to

the trash enclosure should be provided so
that large access doors do not have to be
opened.
Trash enclosures should be
decoratively screened from view
Fg. 7.204

f. Walls and Fences
1) A combination of elements, including
decorative masonry walls, berms, and
landscaping, should be used to screen
objects at the ground plane.
2) Walls and fences should be designed with

materials and finishes that complement
project architecture, should be architecturally
treated on both sides, and should be planted
Wall with columns and cap detailing
is encouraged
Fg. 7.205 with vines, shrubs and trees.
3) Fences and walls should be constructed

as low as possible while still performing
screening, noise attenuation, and security
functions.
4) Similar elements, such as columns, materials,

and cap details, should be incorporated on
perimeter walls that transition from one
development to another.
5) All fences and walls required for screening

purposes should be of solid material.
Chain link fencing with inserts is strongly
discouraged and should not be used.

5. Environmental Sustainability Goals
a. Purpose
The City of Chula Vista prides itself on taking
steps toward environmental stewardship. The
Specific Plan sets forth goals for preserving and
improving the natural and built environment, Chula Vista
protecting the health of residents and visitors,
and simultaneously fostering vibrant economic
centers in the City. The purpose of this section
is to enhance the public welfare and assure
that further commercial and civic development
meets the city’s sustainability goals by
incorporating green building measures into
the design, construction, and maintenance
of buildings. These green building practices
should be used to help guide the transformation
of aging and blighted areas and infrastructure
into sustainable neighborhoods and villages.
These transformed sustainable neighborhoods
and villages should build on and compliment
the positive components of each area’s existing
character and integrate these features into an
environmentally and economically sustainable
Chula Vista community.
b. What is Green Building?

“Green Building” means a whole systems
approach to the design, construction, and
operation of buildings that encompasses
the environmental, economic, and social
impacts of buildings. Green building practices Image provided by KEMA
recognize the relationship between natural and Green building - many windows
Fg. 7.206
provide daylight and recycled linoleum
built environments; seek to minimize the use
of energy, water, and other natural resources;
and provide a healthy, productive, indoor
environment.
Green building design, construction, and

operation can have a significant positive effect
on energy and resource efficiency, waste and
pollution generation, and the health and
productivity of a building’s occupants over the

life of the building. Green building benefits are
spread throughout the systems and features of
the building. Strategies may include the use
of recycled-content building materials, designs
that consume less energy and water, designs
that have better indoor air quality, and the use
of less wood fiber than conventional buildings.
Construction waste is often recycled and
remanufactured into other building products.
In recent years, green building design,

construction, and operational techniques
have become increasingly widespread. Many
homeowners, businesses, and building
professionals have voluntarily sought to
incorporate green building techniques into their
projects. A number of local and national systems
have been developed to serve as guides to green
building practices. At the national level, the US
Green Building Council (USGBC), developer of
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED™) Green Building Rating System,
has become a leader in promoting and guiding
green building.
c. The LEED™ Rating System

The LEED Green Building Rating System
is a voluntary, consensus-based, market-
driven building rating system that is based
on commonly held environmental principles.
The USGBC evaluates building environmental
performance through the LEED rating system
from a whole-building perspective, providing
a standard for what constitutes a “green
building”. Established and implemented by the
USGBC, LEED provides a series of best practice
strategies that are undertaken by project teams
in an effort to achieve formal certification.
LEED attempts to strike a balance between
established practices and emerging concepts
and is thus a continuously evolving rating system.
The system focuses on five main categories
within which projects can earn credits toward

becoming certified: Sustainable Sites, Water
Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials
and Resources, and Indoor Environmental
Quality.
1) Sustainable Sites
Chula Vista
The intent of the Sustainable Sites section
of LEED has two parts. First, the issue of
where a building is located is considered.
Sites that are preferred include urban infill
sites; sites not located near threatened
areas, greenfields or wetlands; habitats for
endangered species; or sites that remediate
brownfield sites. The second focus deals
with ways to protect the site from future
development, erosion, invasive species, and
stormwater pollution. Other objectives of
this section include strategies to minimize
disruption of construction practices, reduce
light pollution, provide alternatives to
automobile use for commuters, and protect
and/or restore sites.
2) Water Efficiency
Water quality and conservation are regulated

by federal, state and local regulations, such
as monitoring lead levels in drinking water
and setting standards for low-flow water
fixtures in buildings. The objectives of the
Water Efficiency section of LEED are to push
conservation to the next level by rewarding
further reductions in municipally supplied
potable water and minimizing landscaping
irrigation.
3) Energy and Atmosphere Image provided by KEMA
Low flow water fixtures can be

Commercial buildings consume 60% of the sustainable elements of buildings
Fg. 7.207
electricity generated in the US and account
for approximately 40% of our total energy
load and the associated green house gas
emissions. The Energy and Atmosphere

recommendations in LEED include
establishing energy efficiency and system
performance goals, optimizing energy
efficiency, supporting ozone protection
protocols, and encouraging renewable
and alternative energy sources. Projects
that have incorporated these methods are
proving that buildings can operate more
efficiently (saving energy) and pollute less
(emissions reductions), while at the same
time providing pleasant, cost effective, and
healthy spaces.
4) Materials and Resources
Building materials affect the environment

throughout the material’s life cycle, from
extraction to installation and disposal. LEED
sets recommendations in the Materials and
Resources section to reduce the amount of
wasted materials in buildings, use materials
with less environmental impacts, and
recycle or reuse construction and demolition
Image provided by KEMA
waste.
Cellulose is a green building material
used in wall construction
Fg. 7.208
5) Indoor Environmental Quality
According to the US EPA, Americans

spend an average of 90% of their time
indoors; therefore, the quality of the
indoor environment is crucial. Strategies
recommended by LEED to improve the
indoor environment include: establishing
good ventilation; eliminating, reducing, and
managing the sources of indoor pollutants;
ensuring thermal comfort and system
controllability; and providing for occupant
connection to the outdoor environment
through daylighting and individual controls.
d. Economics of Green Building

Green buildings are designed and operated
to create healthier and more productive work,

learning, and living environments through
the use of natural light and improved indoor
environmental quality. From a fiscal perspective,
sustainable buildings are cost-effective, saving
taxpayers money by reducing operations and
maintenance costs.
Chula Vista
The cost to “green” a building can depend upon a
variety of factors and assumptions, including:
• type and size of project,
• timing of introduction of green
methods/techniques as a design goal or
requirement,
• composition and structure of the design
and construction teams,
• experience and knowledge of designers
and contractors or willingness to learn,
• clarity of the project implementation
documents, and
• base case budgeting assumptions.
In addition, the costs will vary, depending upon

whether only capital costs are considered
or if costs are calculated over the life of the
building. Many building industry professionals
maintain that if the stakeholder is committed
at the project conception and the design and
construction team has moderate sustainable
design and construction experience, greening
a building can be achieved on a conventional
building budget. Projects throughout North
America have already proven that taking an
integrated approach to design can actually
reduce construction and operating costs.
e. Integrated Design Integrate extra windows to provide
daylight into the building design
Fg. 7.209
Green building is a whole-systems approach
to the design, construction and operation of
buildings. This approach benefits building
industry professionals, residents, and
communities by improving construction
quality, increasing building longevity, reducing
utility and maintenance costs, and enhancing

comfort and livability. Too often, design and
building disciplines remain highly fragmented:
developers and financers select (or are given) a
site, architects design the building, mechanical
and electrical engineers design HVAC and
lighting, etc.
Integrated design aims to connect as many

members of a project team as possible. At a
certain critical point, it is possible to achieve
significant cost savings compared to standard
practice if integrated design is used. The
options available during schematic design can
easily include strategies such as simplifying
a building’s wall structure by changing the
wall articulation to a flat wall with bolted-on
overhangs and thick trim. Such a change can
often save money and a lot of wood but would
be costly to accomplish once construction
documents were underway.
Integrating the design process on green

buildings allows for creative solutions to
complex problems. Questions can be raised
and answered openly through a team meeting.
New technologies or practices can be explored
as a group, allowing enthusiasm, skepticism,
and solutions to surface at the same time.
Misconceptions can be cleared up, and changes
to standard practice can be highlighted as a
learning experience.
Some green building measures do cost more

initially, but this additional cost needs to be
evaluated in the context of the longer-term
benefits provided, such as utility cost savings,
better indoor air quality for residents, healthier
job sites for workers, and longer building life.
When considering green building measures,
it is very important to balance upfront design,
product and construction costs with these other
significant benefits; this process of evaluating
the long-term costs of design decisions is often
Solar panels are encouraged
Fg. 7.210 referred to as “lifecycle cost analysis”.

f. Green Building Goals for Chula Vista
All newly constructed City-sponsored building
in the Urban Core should incorporate sufficient
green building methods and techniques to
qualify for the equivalent of LEED Silver. City
staff should work with residents, businesses,
and other members of the community, including Chula Vista
architects, builders, and contractors, to
encourage private development within the City
that uses green building methods and practices.
Private developments are strongly encouraged
to utilize green building practices through the Image provided by KEMA
use of established rating systems or guidelines. Avoiding continuous paving is a
Recommended guidelines are: sustainable landscaping design
Fg. 7.211
• Commercial offices (LEED-NC)

• Existing building renovations and
ongoing maintenance (LEED-EB)
• Multifamily and mixed-use developments
(StopWaste.org Multifamily Green
Building Guidelines)
• Residential single-family developments
(GreenPoints or NAHB)
g. Design Principles
The Design Principles below will assist builders
and developers to achieve the Specific Plan’s
sustainability goals. Appropriate application of
these Principles will help builders or developers
to distinguish their projects in the marketplace,
save money, reduce plan processing and review
time, and waste fewer resources, all while
helping to preserve the environment.
1) Make Appropriate Use of Land

a) Prioritize site selection, orientation
and development, with consideration
for alternative transportation access,
open space, landscaping, workplaces,
schools, libraries, shopping centers and
other community service infrastructure.
b) Locate and orient buildings to maximize
solar gain and control of heating,

cooling and lighting. Each façade should
respond to its respective solar and wind
orientation. The north, east, south and
west facades should not be identical in
design.
c) Make sustainable building
recommendations part of the schematic
design process and initial project cost
model. Use a cost estimator or contractor
knowledgeable about sustainable design
elements.
d) Use Whole Building Design and
factor the synergistic relationships
between building systems and building
envelopes.
e) Use the greater of LEED or City facility
policies as a guide, considering the
future market value of the LEED label.
f) Make LEED Accredited Professionals,
US Green Building Council membership/
participation/experience, Savings
By Design and other environmental
certifications, successful projects,
experience or past proposals a part of
the design staff and/or subcontractor
evaluation process.
Image provided by KEMA g) Establish cost of meeting LEED Certified
A vegetated swale is a stormwater and LEED Silver certifications along with
Fg. 7.212
best management practice associated payback periods. The rate of
return on LEED or sustainable costs and
outcomes should be compared to other
cost centers and value engineering
decisions.
h) Locate buildings and mix uses in a
pattern that will enhance the symbiotic
sharing of water, energy, flexible space,
and transportation modes.
i) Utilize the building site as a functional
and visible portion of sustainable
design. Consider features such as rain
water collection to be used for irrigation,
stormwater detention and treatment,
aesthetic trellises, etc.

j) Maximize passive heating and cooling
through solar orientation, optimum
building sizes, and room layouts.
k) Locate buildings to mitigate noise
pollution and/or adjacent air pollution.
2) Use Water, Energy, Lumber, Concrete/ Chula Vista

Asphalt, and Other Resources Efficiently
a) Incorporate water, energy, and material
conservation strategies.
b) Give preference to reusable, recycled
and rapidly renewable material choices
in the pre-construction, construction,
and occupancy phase of the building.
c) Strive for a self-sustaining property that
is a net positive or zero consumer of
natural resources over its lifetime.
d) Use water conserving plumbing fixtures
that exceed current code standards by
20%.
3) Enhance Human Health and Productivity
• Design for the health and productivity
of occupants with consideration for
maximizing natural light acoustics and
indoor air quality, electromagnetic fields,
access to alternative transportation,
exercise, natural habitats, and
other complimentary land uses and
infrastructure.
Providing daylight in a company
workspace can enhance productivity
Fg. 7.213
4) Strengthen Local Economies and
Communities
• Promote mixed-use, clustering,
symbiotic commercial land uses;
distributed generation and district utility
services; and technology infrastructure
improvements.

5) Restore and Protect Plants, Animals,
Endangered Species and Natural Habitats
a) Consider landscaped roofs, terraces,
courtyards and street parking strips.
b) Consider vegetated swales and other
stormwater best management practices
that go beyond local code and seek to
detain and treat stormwater prior to
entering storm drains and/or water
bodies.
6) Protect Agricultural, Cultural, and

Archaeological Resources
7) Enhance Quality of Life

a) Make sustainable methods visible as an
Image provided by KEMA educational tool and brand opportunity.
b) Develop a maintenance strategy to
keep all building mechanical, lighting
and monitoring systems at optimal
performance.
c) Promote healthy, productive and nurturing
workplace and living spaces through the
introduction of quality daylighting and by
using low-toxic materials.
d) Provide access to the best available
Landscaped roofs, terraces, and
courtyards help manage stormwater
Fg. 7.214 communications and transportation
technology options.
8) Be Economical to Build, Operate and Occupy

- Consumer Choice-Consumer Protection
a) Take a holistic approach to design so
that buildings spaces are multi-purposed
and serve many functions.
b) Limit risk through Future Proofing.
Create buildings that will respond to
rapid change in our society, including
volatile energy and water costs.
c) Use attractive and durable natural
surfaces that demonstrate life cycle cost
effectiveness.

d) Whenever possible, establish a design
that provides each tenant or occupant
with control over their energy, water and
trash costs.
e) Whenever possible, provide “smart,”
individual meters or sub-meters and fee
policies that reward water conservation, Chula Vista
source reduction, reuse and recycling.
f) Use metered water, electricity and gas
for all tenancies. Create awareness of
energy use through a graphic display
system providing real-time readouts
in homes or in multi-family building
lobbies.
g) Reduce demand first. Prioritize
expenditures to reduce demand for
energy, water and materials.
h) Brand and market the project’s
sustainable environmental benefits to
occupants: operational savings, lifecycle
affordability, health and productivity
benefits.
i) Provide “Welcome Package and
Sustainable Operator’s Manual” to
explain green systems, material care,
cleaning products, etc. to all tenants
and building operators
j) Develop a “Green Housekeeping”
Janitorial Program for all tenant spaces
and buildings, utilizing environmentally
sensitive materials and methods (City
has a toxic free policy that could be used
as a model).
k) Design real estate marketing materials to
highlight sustainable features and their
contribution to livability and operational
efficiencies.

In short, all projects should strive for Future
Proof Buildings that have the capacity to
respond to rapid changes in our society such
as volatile energy and water costs, changing
transportation demands, and emerging
mixed residential and commercial land uses.
Create a green building brand that markets
sustainability as a quality of life component,
and where operational cost effectiveness
benefits can build on the existing neighborhood
character and integrate these buildings into one
environmentally and economically sustainable
Chula Vista community.

6. Site Design Considerations Adjacent to
Interstate 5
The smart growth principles of the Specific
Plan have focused a majority of potential new
housing and mixed-use areas in close proximity
to the two trolley stations within the Urban Core
District. While this location provides significant Chula Vista
benefits by reducing long commute trips to
other residential areas of the City, it also results
in housing adjacent to Interstate 5, a heavily
traveled freeway.
Significant mobile source emission reductions

mandated by the federal and state government
are expected to occur over the next 5 to 15
years. However, due to the concern over health
impacts to residents from highly traveled roads,
the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
issued the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
(2005) which provides guidance to land use
decision-making bodies relative to siting new
uses near various air pollution sources, such as
freeways. The Handbook recommends a 500-
foot separation between freeways and “sensitive
receptors” such as homes and schools. This
recommendation is based on scientific studies,
which found that the highest emissions were
in the area within approximately 350 feet of a
freeway and that the emissions had dispersed
to background level by about 1000 feet.
However, the Handbook also acknowledges
that land use authorities need to balance this
recommendation with a myriad of other issues
such as provision of housing, transportation
needs, economic development priorities, and
other quality of life issues.
The following site design measures must be

considered in conjunction with the advisory
recommendations in the Handbook and
implemented where possible.

• Siting of new or expansion of existing
schools or day care centers within 500
feet is not allowed in accordance with
existing State law.
• Siting of new residential uses within

350 feet of the centerline of the
freeway should be avoided to the extent
possible.
• In mixed-use areas, where possible

“non-sensitive uses” (e.g., commercial,
retail, and office) should be sited closest
to Interstate 5. Residential uses should
be located on the upper stories and
tiered back from Interstate 5 and should
preferably be outside the area within 350
feet of the centerline of the freeway.
• For proposed residential uses in the area

between 350 feet and 500 feet from the
centerline of the freeway, every effort
should be made to consolidate parcels
to create more flexibility in site design
with a goal of minimizing residential
uses within this area.
• In the event that such design cannot be

achieved or parcel size does not allow
flexibility in site design (e.g. biophilic
design), mechanical and structural
measures, such as air conditioning
with special filters, etc., should be
incorporated into building design and
construction techniques.

VIII. Public Realm Design Guidelines
A. Introduction VIII-1
B. Purpose VIII-2
C. Urban Design Treatment VIII-3
D. Village Theme VIII-5 Chula Vista
E. Urban Core Theme VIII-12
F. Urban Amenities, The Unifying Elements VIII-27
G. Landscape Treatment VIII-30
H. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Improvements VIII-34
I. Lighting Concepts VIII-37
J. Street Furnishings VIII-39
K. Key Intersections VIII-43
L. Gateways and Wayfinding VIII-44
M. Public Art VIII-50
N. Parks, Plazas, Paseos, and Public Spaces VIII-52
Chapter VIII Public Realm Guidelines

VIII. Public Realm Design Guidelines
A. Introduction
The Public Realm Design Guidelines for the Urban Core focus on improvements
to public rights-of-way, sidewalks, public open space, and key intersections. The
intent of this chapter is to provide guidance in creating a unified and visually Chula Vista
attractive environment that supports the specific plan goals for beautification
of the Urban Core. As the Urban Core adds new residents and businesses, the
provision of amenities is needed to achieve the vision for a well-balanced urban
environment. Improving the public realm with “urban amenities” is designed
to create a sense of place, encouraging people to gather and stay awhile. The
condition of the public realm is important for creating the desired image and
identity of the Urban Core and to provide a unified backdrop for the design of
various building styles and types. Public realm improvements serve to improve
an area’s visual quality and act as an investment catalyst, encouraging private
property upgrades and new development. The improvements will be implemented
over the term of the Specific Plan and may occur as comprehensive street
improvements or may be improved in phases as part of private redevelopment.
Where no immediate private development is likely to occur, the city may
undertake improvements and seek reimbursement from future development.
Simulation of H Street public realm at near build-out conditions

Fg. 8.1
Chapter VIII Public Realm Guidelines VIII-1

B. Purpose
The Public Realm Design Guidelines for the Urban Core focus on urban amenities
and improvements to public rights-of-way, including key intersections, streets,
alleys and drives, parks, plazas, and gateways. It identifies public street design
elements, landscaping, intersection enhancements, entry treatments, public
open space, right-of-way detail, and other unique public realm features within
the Urban Core in various districts. Focusing on the public right-of-way, these
guidelines attempt to balance pedestrian needs with vehicular and bicycle
needs. It is not the intent of this chapter to provide specific street geometric
design standards but rather to suggest design oriented treatments of the street
environment. Street and intersection geometric design is provided in Chapter
V - Mobility.
The guidelines in this chapter are intended to be used as a planning tool for public
projects and to guide development conditions of approval for private projects.
These guidelines contain concepts, graphic material, recommendations and
design guidance that will aid in near-term implementation of public area
improvements.
VIII-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

C. Urban Design Treatment
The urban design treatment applied within the Specific Plan area is an important
factor in reinforcing the desired future urban environment as expressed in the
plans vision. There are two primary urban design themes, see Figure 8.2.
Streetscape Themes Map, established for the specific plan area:
• The Third Avenue “Village” area which consists of an Art Deco/Art Chula Vista
Moderne theme intended to support the special pedestrian oriented
“café” environment of the traditional Downtown area. It applies only to
Third Avenue.
• The Urban Core area which consists of a contemporary design theme
intended to support a more urban and marine oriented character. It
applies to all streets, intersections and features within the Urban Core,
except Third Avenue.
In addition to design treatment as described above, a series of gateways have

been identified to further reinforce the urban core of the City and provide a
sense of arrival and identity. There are both major and minor gateways each
with a different purpose and scale.

Streetscape Themes Map
Fg. 8.2
VIII-4
D. Village Theme
1. Description
Within the Third Avenue area, including portions
in the Village, Urban Core and Corridors Districts,
an artistic “café” image is desired. (See Figure
8.2 Streetscape Themes Map). The Downtown Chula Vista
Association recently completed a branding
campaign to create a unified design theme
which emphasizes a village character where
residents and visitors will have access to an
array of fine dining, retail shops, outdoor cafes,
coffee houses, specialty stores, boutiques
and entertainment venues. Within the Third
Avenue area, a predominate architectural style
resembles that of the periods from Art Deco to
Art Modern, thus the expressive, artistic, and
café related theme has a distinctive Parisian
influence supportive of the lively day and night
time dining and retail environment. All street
furnishings and design amenities have been
recommended for their support of this theme
such as Art Deco patterns in special paving,
benches, planters, street lights and banners.
(See Figure 8.4 Village Streetscapes Theme.)
Example of a Third Avenue Village
branding image that will unify the area
Fg. 8.3

Trash
Receptacle
Concrete Paving with
Roman Brick Banding
Tree Grate
Bench
Tiles
Bike Rack Street Light
Village Streetscape Theme
Fg. 8.4
VIII-6
2. Landscape Palette
The Landscape Palette has been assembled
to support the Art Deco/Art Moderne design
character of the 3rd Avenue Village. In general,
species have been chosen for their cleanliness,
ability to survive in an urban environment, and
appropriate scale in juxtaposition with adjacent Chula Vista
structures. As buildings within the Village are
intended to be relatively low in comparison
to the balance of the Urban Core area, trees
can accordingly be smaller in scale allowing
them to relate more readily to the pedestrian
dynamic occurring here. Street Edge trees
have been selected for their ability to provide Quercus ilex, or Holly Oak, could be
used along the street edge
Fg. 8.5
dense canopies—cooling the Village area and
reducing perceived street widths. Accent trees
are to be used to call attention to important
intersections, district or city entries, and other
key locations.
The following street tree recommendations are

applicable to Third Avenue.
a. Street Edge
Quercus ilex Holly Oak

Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia
Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree Bauhinia variegata, or Purple Orchid
Tree, could be used as an accent tree
Fg. 8.6
Geijera parviflora Australian Willow
b. Accent
Jacaranda mimosifolia ncn
Arecastrum romanzoffianum Queen Palm
Bauhinia variegata Purple Orchid Tree
Olea eurpopaea ‘Fruitless’ Olive
Jacaranda mimosifolia could also be

used as an accent tree on Third Avenue
Fg. 8.7

3. Streetscape Treatments for Third Avenue
Third Avenue is intended to function as a destination shopping and Village
oriented venue where a number of activities can take place. The street has the
following segments:
a. E Street to G Street
This portion is the heart of the traditional Village area. Within this segment the
street will be designed to have one or two travel lanes in each direction with
diagonal parking. The design of this section will provide mid-block pedestrian
cross walks, curb extensions at mid-block and intersections and wide sidewalks
throughout.
b. G Street to K Street
This portion of Third Avenue provides an opportunity to expand the traditional
village and improve the village pedestrian environment. This segment will
have parallel parking on both sides, two travel lanes in each direction, and a
center left turn lane. The design of this segment will provide occasional mid-
block crossings, curb extensions at mid-block
crossings and intersections, and wide sidewalks
throughout the length of the section.
Example of Third Avenue Village

branding image
Fg. 8.8

Chula Vista
Note: Existing median south of F Street will remain

Third Avenue Section from E Street to F Street (with diagonal parking)
Fg. 8.9
Note:
Lane configurations
are conceptual and are
shown for illustrative
purposes only. For
lane configuration
recommendations
please refer to Chapter
V - Mobility.
Third Avenue Plan from E Street to F Street (with diagonal parking) Fg. 8.10

Not Approved
Note: Depicts mid-block crossing and speed table

Third Avenue Section from E Street to G Street (without diagonal parking)
Fg. 8.11
Note:
Lane configurations
are conceptual and are
shown for illustrative
purposes only. For
lane configuration
recommendations
please refer to Chapter
V - Mobility.
Third Avenue Plan from E Street to F Street (without diagonal parking) Fg. 8.12

Chula Vista
Note:
Exact dimensions of specific design elements will be determined
through future design development.
Third Avenue intersection typical streetscape treatment

Fg. 8.13

E. Urban Core Theme
1. Description
Within the Urban Core, excluding Third Avenue, a Contemporary Streetscape
Amenities Palette will celebrate the two defining forces behind the development
of Chula Vista’s Urban Core: the urban character of a maturing metropolitan
center and the proximity to the marine environment of Chula Vista’s Bayfront.
(See Figure 8.2. Streetscape Themes Map.)
All street furnishing elements and amenities have been selected for their
use of urban materials such as stainless steel, glass and concrete in various
forms and styles. Selected street furnishings have been designed to match the
gateway features at H Street, E Street, and F Street; staying true to an urban
contemporary theme, the street amenities for the Urban Core theme should be
simple in form with clean lines and a reputation for durability. (See Figure 8.15
Urban Core Streetscape Theme.)

2. Landscape Palette
The landscape palette was assembled to
compliment the contemporary design character
of the Urban Core. In general, these species
were chosen for cleanliness, ability to survive
in an urban environment, and appropriate
scale in juxtaposition with adjacent structures. Chula Vista
Given the relatively tall buildings envisioned
within the Urban Core area, these species can
be larger in scale and can be used to ground
the buildings to the street surface. Street edge
trees were selected for the ability to provide
dense canopies to cool the core and to reduce
Magnolia grandiflora, or Southern
perceived street widths. Trees placed within Magnolia, can be used in medians
Fg. 8.14
medians should be slightly more showy than the
trees placed along the street edge, providing
visual relief from the paved street. Plant species
provide “showy” qualities through variations in
leaf texture, seasonal color changes, and/or
colorful flower blooms. Accent trees should
call attention to important intersections,
district or city entries, and other key locations.
The following street tree recommendations
are applicable to E Street, F Street, H Street,
Broadway and Woodlawn Avenue.
a. Median
Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Platanus acerifolia, or London Plane
Jacaranda mimosifolia* ncn Tree, can be used on the street edge
Fg. 8.15
Bauhinia variegata Purple Orchid Tree

b. Street Edge
Tabebuia chrysotricha Golden Trumpet Tree
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Ficus rubiginosa Rustyleaf Fig
c. Accent
Jacaranda mimosifolia* ncn
Albizia julibrissen Silk Tree
Goldenrain Tree can be used as an
Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain Tree accent tree
Fg. 8.16
Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Myrtle
* Requires minimum planter width of 8’-10’.
Trash
Receptacle
Pedestrian/Sidewalk Lighting Bike Rack
Bench
Paving
Combination
Tree Grate
Bench
Urban Core Streetscape Theme
VIII-14
Fg. 8.17
3. Streetscape Treatments
a. E Street (Third Avenue to Broadway)
The section of E Street from Third Avenue to Broadway is designed to function
as a primary arterial the Urban Core and serves both as a thoroughfare and
street with access to a range of land uses. It is important to maintain wide
sidewalks space for transit facilities and ample street landscaping in the form Chula Vista
of street trees and decorative urban furnishings. The primary goal is to beautify
this street through the installation of street trees and furnishings. The figure
below provides guidance for the development of street improvements for E
Street.
E Street from Third Avenue to Broadway

Fg. 8.18

b. E Street (Broadway to I-5)
The section of E Street from 300 feet east of I-5 to I-5 is designed to serve as
a connection to the Chula Vista Bayfront area and a gateway into the Urban
Core. This section will accommodate higher traffic volumes and function as
a primary arterial for the Urban Core. Therefore it is important to maintain
wider sidewalks, space for transit facilities and ample street landscaping in the
form of street trees and decorative urban furnishings. The primary goal is to
beautify this street through the installation of street trees and furnishings. The
figure below provides guidance for the development of street improvements for
E Street.
E Street from 300’ east of I-5 to I-5

Fg. 8.19

c. F Street (Third Avenue to Fourth Avenue)
The section of F Street from Third Avenue to Fourth Avenue traverses the Civic
Center area and is designed to represent the Civic image of the Urban Core.
Wider sidewalks, special paving, maintaining the existing raised planted median
with palm trees and Civic Center monuments at the intersection of Fourth
Avenue and F Street are all designed to call attention to this special area. The
primary goal is to beautify this street and enhance the pedestrian experience Chula Vista
through the installation of a planted median and installation of street trees and
furnishings. The newly reconfigured and landscaped improvements between
Fourth and Garrett Avenues are not expected to be modified. The figure below
provides guidance for the development of street improvements along this
segment of F Street.
F Street from Third Avenue to Garrett Avenue

Fg. 8.20

d. F Street (Fourth Avenue to I-5)
This section of F Street traverses both predominately residential neighborhoods
and commercial areas and is designated as the primary pedestrian promenade
and bike corridor linking the urban core from Third Avenue to the Bayfront.
The character of F Street will support the residential scale and feel of the area
and provide well lit wide sidewalks and a Class I bike path for pedestrian and
bicycle convenience. The sidewalks in this section will be separated from the
parallel parking lane with a landscaped parkway. Existing trees between Fourth
Avenue and Broadway will be preserved and integrated into the streetscape
theme where possible. A primary goal is to create a pedestrian promenade
and bicycle facility along this street. The figure below provides guidance for the
development of street improvements for F Street.
F Street from Fourth Avenue to I-5

Fg. 8.21

e. H Street (Third Avenue to Broadway)
The section of H Street from Third Avenue to Broadway is designed to function
as the main boulevard for the Urban Core. Therefore it is important to maintain
wider sidewalks, space for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit facilities and ample
street landscaping in the form of street trees and decorative urban furnishings.
The primary goal is to beautify this street through the installation of a planted
median and installation of street trees and furnishings. The figure below Chula Vista
provides guidance for the development of street improvements for H Street.
An alternative design treatment to aggregate the pedestrian zones and minimize

bicycle/pedestrian interactions would be to locate the bike lane adjacent to
the curb and combine sidewalk areas to create a 10-foot wide consolidated
furnishings/sidewalk/browsing zone for pedestrians. Such a design could be
pursued during development of precise streetscape plans.
5’-0” 6’-0” 5’-0” 12’-0” 12’-0” 14’-0” 12’-0” 12’-0” 8’-0” 5’-0” 6’-0” 5’-0”
Side- Bike Side- Travel Way Travel Way Planted Median Travel Way Travel Way Parking Side- Bike Side-
walk Path walk walk Path walk
16’-0” 70’-0” 16’-0”
Street Width
102’-0”
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
MEDIAN WIDTH VARIES FROM 4’ TO 14’ AND IS NOT
PROVIDED IN ALL LOCATIONS
H Street from Third Avenue to Broadway

Fg. 8.22

f. H Street (Broadway to I-5)
H Street is envisioned as the key transit boulevard in the Urban Core. It serves
to connect the City east of the I-805 to the Bayfront across the I-5. The section
of H Street from Broadway to I-5 is designed to serve as a six-lane gateway to the
Urban Core and will be wider to accommodate heavy pedestrian, bicycle, transit,
and traffic operations. The primary goal is to beautify this street through the
installation of a planted median and installation of street trees and furnishings.
Recognizing the recent streetscape improvements made along this segment
of H Street, the figures below provide guidance for the development of street
improvements for H Street in the mid to long-term.
Scoring and coloring of concrete is used to

delineate the Pedestrian, Browsing, Bicycle,
and Furnishings zones while staying consistent
with the contemporary character.
H Street
Circular tree grates with simplistic

ornamentation provide a contemporary
character. Trees are spaced 40’ on center.
Placing stainless steel site furnishings, such as

trash receptacles, benches, and light fixtures,
in the Furnishings zone creates outdoor
gathering spaces.
Note:
Exact dimensions of specific design elements
will be determined through future design
development.
H Street typical streetscape treatment Fg. 8.23

Chula Vista
5’-0” 6’-0” 5’-0” 36’-0” 14’-0” 36’-0” 5’-0” 6’-0” 5’-0”

Sidewalk Bike Sidewalk Travel Way Planted Travel Way Sidewalk Bike Sidewalk
Path Median Path
16’-0” 86’-0” 16’-0”

Street Width
118’-0”
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
H Street Section from Broadway to I-5

Fg. 8.24
H Street Section from Broadway to I-5

Fg. 8.25

g. Broadway
Broadway is intended to function as a heavily used Urban Core arterial street.
The primary goal is to beautify this street through the installation of a planted
median and installation of street trees and furnishings. The figures below
provide guidance for the development of street improvements for Broadway.
Existing mature trees along Broadway will be retained and will be augmented
with street trees such as the trees identified in the landscape palette.
Note:
Exact dimensions of specific design elements will
be determined through future design development.
Broadway typical streetscape treatment

Fg. 8.26

Chula Vista
Broadway Section from C Street to L Street

Fg. 8.27
Broadway Plan from C Street to L Street

Fg. 8.28

h. Other Primary Streets
The remaining streets in the Urban Core area (Woodlawn Avenue, G Street, I
Street, J Street, K Street, L Street, Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, etc.) should be
designed to support the desired pedestrian environment through beautification
and installation of street trees, landscaping, special paving and furnishings.
Figure 8.29 illustrates a typical view of Woodlawn Avenue. Refer to the design
treatment and elements for the Urban Core area shown above.
Woodlawn Avenue
Fg. 8.29

i. Neighborhood Streets
Typical neighborhood streets in the Urban Core are intended to reinforce the
quality neighborhoods that exist, calm traffic, beautify and provide shade from
new street trees and landscaping. The primary goal is to improve the condition
of sidewalks, plant new street trees and make improvements to the pedestrian
system such as cross walks and pedestrian lighting. The figure below provides
guidance for the development of street improvements for Neighborhood Streets Chula Vista
such as Del Mar Avenue, Church Street, Landis Avenue, and Garrett Avenue.
Neighborhood Streets
Fg. 8.30

j. Alleys
The purpose of the alley system is to increase access within the urban core.
The urban core benefits from increased access for delivery services, as well
as for residential and commercial parking areas, through alleys. While alleys
should contain trees, the trees should not interfere with delivery and other
service functions. Adequate lighting of alleyways is also important. Alleys will
be connected to streets with paseos or other pedestrian walkways.

F. Urban Amenities, The Unifying Elements
This section describes the improvements that help in creating a special identity
for a particular area. Elements are selected for their ability to create visual
appeal, upgrade the function and attractiveness of the urban environment
and to assist in environmental enhancement. Street trees, landscaping, and
other design treatments are intended to reduce solar heat gain, calm traffic,
Chula Vista
and improve the quality of pedestrian space. These are principal goals of the
specific plan and key ingredients, along with land use patterns, in changing
the predominant character of the area from an auto-oriented environment to a
pedestrian-oriented urban village.
1. Landscaping
Landscaping includes street trees, parkways,
sidewalk landscaping, and other accent
plants. Urban “greening” is a key feature in
redevelopment activities, and while it is not
always “green” in the traditional sense, the
focus is to create comfortable and attractive
pedestrian spaces, i.e. plazas, courtyards,
paseos, pocket parks, wide sidewalks, etc. The
addition of street trees alone in many cases Urban greening is the number one
improvement priority for the Urban Core
Fg. 8.31
can be the single biggest improvement to a
revitalizing community.
2. Sidewalk Treatment
Providing a smooth and attractive sidewalk is
critical in attracting pedestrian use. Sidewalks
need to be designed with enough width to be
comfortable to stroll down, smooth paving
and special accent paving in select locations
and buffered from fast and noisy vehicular
traffic. Special attention also needs to be paid
to cross walks. Proper location, traffic control
devices, and visual markers all are important in
encouraging use by pedestrians and increasing
safety.
Special accent paving can be used on
sidewalks
Fg. 8.32

3. Furnishings
Furnishings consist of amenities such as
decorative street lights with banners, benches,
trash and recycling containers, bollards to
define special edge conditions, newspaper
racks, bicycle racks and parking meters, transit
shelters, special attractions at select locations
such as public art, fountains, and other focal
elements. It is the collection of these urban
amenities that help to define the character of
an area and serve to attract pedestrians there
by supporting the adjacent retail shops and
offices.
4. Signs
Furnishings attract pedestrians and Signs are an effective method to reinforce
Fg. 8.33
help to define an area’s character the identity of an area through graphic arts.
Distinctive logos, catch words, colors, and
images can be displayed in an effective manner
to advertise the desired image. Signs also are
critical in providing consistency in message
and directions to destinations with in an area
such as public parking, public facilities, key
retail centers, parks, and plazas.
5. Public Art
Public art is one of the most desirable elements
to personalize an urban environment and
Signs reinforce the identity of an
Fg. 8.34 connect it to a communities own unique and
area
special character. Art can be integral to other
public improvements such as unique benches
and trash containers, decorative street lights,
signs and paving patterns or it can be used as
a special placemaking feature and integrated
into gateways and other elements.
Public art is a desirable element that

personalizes the urban environment
Fg. 8.35

6. Intersections
Special paving, sidewalk extensions, gateway
elements, public art, mini-plazas, information
kiosks, enhanced crosswalks, and other
features are elements that can be used to
emphasize selected intersections.
Chula Vista
Special paving and a mini-plaza

enhance this intersection
Fg. 8.36
Intersections can be emphasized in a variety of ways

Fg. 8.37

G. Landscape Treatment
1. Street Trees
Street trees are a key element to create unified street scenes and soften
otherwise discordant arterials. Adding scale, comfort, foliage colors, and
textures contribute to the Urban Core’s unique identity and help improve air
quality. Following are general guidelines for street tree planting and placement.
(For a list of recommended street trees for Third Avenue and the Urban Core
area, see Section D. Village Theme and Section E. Urban Core Theme.)
a. For each block on a street, no more than three species are recommended.
Mixed species result in better long-term management because they are
less prone to diseases and insects than use of a single species; not
all the trees will be lost if a catastrophic disease or infestation should
occur. Contrarily, too many species create a lack of visual unity along the
street.
b. Install structural soil systems to direct new root growth downward below
hardscape areas. This helps to postpone root damage caused to the
surrounding hardscape and structures. By providing deep watering and
air to root systems as appropriate when trees are planted within five feet
of any permanent structure/paving/curb service life may be achieved.
Structural soil systems are preferred over root barriers as they are often
more effective.
c. A minimum of six feet of structural soil depth should be provided for trees.
The structural soil can be provided under tree grates and pavement.
d. Trees that provide attractive fall colors, seasonal flowers, or large
amounts of shade are preferred for the Urban Core. In addition, species
native or naturalized to the region are also encouraged. They tend to
be easier to maintain as their needs match those of trees occurring
naturally in the region, and their appearance
blends better with that of the surrounding
regional vegetation.
e. Tree grates with a minimum width of six feet
are required within sidewalks and plaza
spaces as the grates allow for improved
accessibility, increased sidewalk usability
area, and are consistent with the desired
urban character. The ultimate size of the
tree trunk should be considered when
Trees can be placed in landscaped choosing grates; the grate opening should
parkways
Fg. 8.38
be appropriately sized to accommodate a
mature tree.

f. Within landscape parkways and on neighborhood streets (such as F
Street between Fourth Avenue and Broadway) use at-grade planters and
decomposed granite tree wells instead of tree grates. This treatment
supports a less formal design and is more residential in nature. Generally
these streets have wider pedestrian zones and are likely to have room to
incorporate trees into the parkway planting area or in at-grade planters
or tree wells. Chula Vista
g. Street tree placement should be carefully considered to avoid conflicts
with functions of adjacent businesses. Based on mature growth of each
species, avoid conflicting with overhead power lines, utility lines, and
structures. The trees should align with property lines and not block
views of storefronts business or signs to the greatest extent possible.
h. Street trees should be spaced approximately 30 feet to 50 feet on center
depending on the specific requirements of each individual species.
2. Medians
Medians and pedestrian refuge islands function as safety features and traffic
calming measures while also providing opportunities to aesthetically enhance
the streets in the Urban Core. Landscaped medians provide a visual separation
between oncoming traffic and create a narrowed lane perception that slows
traffic and channels cross traffic turn movements. The medians also create
opportunities to provide pedestrian refuges across wide traffic rights-of-way.
Located within the driver’s primary line of sight, medians can greatly influence
how passing motorists perceive the community.
Following are guidelines that give general
direction for medians.
a. Select median trees that have high,
upright branching structure to avoid
interference with truck and vehicle
traffic, provide safe sight lines, and
minimize conflicts in maintaining median
trees. Keep plant materials under three
feet tall to maintain sight distance lines
for passing vehicles. At crosswalks and
pedestrian refuge islands, keep plant
material below 18 inches for pedestrian
visibility.
b. Choose species that need minimal
maintenance to ensure a clean and
healthy appearance.
Medians should provide a
maintenance strip as a buffer
Fg. 8.39

c. Provide a minimum 18-inch paving strip at the perimeter of the median
area for maintenance workers to walk on and to provide a buffer between
plant materials and traffic lanes.
d. Avoid plants that are easily hedged. Avoid trimming plants into box
hedges or geometric shapes. This maintains the original intent of the
planting design and avoids a homogenous character.
e. Select materials that have a strong color contrast with the driving
lanes. Integral color in the medians can help minimize the maintenance
associated with stains, fading, and dirt. Warm earth tones in the brick
red to terra cotta range provide an excellent contrast to black asphalt.
These colors are common in clay and concrete paving units. Avoid pavers
in the gray range with blue or violet tones.
f. Intersection design should incorporate a
median width no less than four feet when
combined with a left-turn lane. Minimally,
this leaves sufficient room for pedestrian
refuge island and directional signs.
g. Consistent median treatments help create
an identity that unites the Urban Core
through the use of paving, directional
signs, architectural features, and plant
materials.
Medians with tapered ends should be
enhanced with special paving
Fg. 8.40 h. Medians with turning lanes or tapered ends
should be enhanced with special paving.
3. Sidewalk Landscaping
Sidewalk area planting in the Specific Plan area should include planter pots,
landscaped planters/parkways, raised planters on selected streets, plaza
landscaping, and parking lot screening and shading. In an effort to construct
public right-of-way improvements that achieve a cohesive appearance and
maintain an urban atmosphere, joint participation between private property
owners and the City will be required. Some of the beautification efforts can be
implemented by the City as funding is secured. Cooperation and participation by
individual property owners, merchants, special interest groups, and others will
be required with future property development. This may be an opportunity for
entities such as a Business Improvement District or a Main Street Organization
to facilitate public/private cooperation. Following are general guidelines for
sidewalk landscape treatment.
a. The use of accent plants with special qualities (e.g. spring flowers and/or
good fall color) should be used to accent entry drives and intersections
to unify the Urban Core and identify it as a place of special destination.

b. Selected streets in the Specific Plan area should include landscaped
planters/parkways between the sidewalk and street. Streets such as
Broadway, H Street, and E Street should have raised planters in the
furnishing zone with seating incorporated. This will help buffer the
pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic.
c. Choose species that are hardy and not easily affected by varying
temperatures, wind, water supply, or handling. Near pedestrian traffic, Chula Vista
it is important to anticipate some amount of damage to plants and
irrigation, and tougher plant materials will help to maintain an attractive
streetscape appearance.
d. Choose ornamental and interesting
species for highly visible areas such
as near seating areas, gateways and
intersections (refer to Key Intersections
section of this chapter). Use plants with
contrasting foliage, color, and texture,
scented varieties, or those that have an
especially interesting bloom.
e. Be aware of necessary sight distance
lines for passing traffic and safety
issues. At crosswalks and driveways,
keep plant material below 18 inches for
pedestrian visibility.
f. Choose species that need minimal Raised planters with seating help
Fg. 8.41
maintenance and tend to look good buffer pedestrians from vehicles
all year to ensure a clean and healthy
appearance.

H. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Improvements
1. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are the key component of the Urban Core pedestrian circulation
network. Sidewalks provide pedestrian access to virtually every activity, and
provide critical connections between other modes of travel, including the
automobile, public transit, and bicycles. The pedestrian experience plays a
very important part in the functionality and the economic health of an urban
environment. Wide sidewalks, street trees and landscaping, and consistent
street furnishings all contribute to a desirable pedestrian street scene. Following
are general guidelines for sidewalk and pedestrian treatments.
a. Design features such as enhanced paving on walkways, trellises or other
decorative structures, landscaping, and low level decorative lighting
should be used to distinguish the pedestrian route from the vehicular
route.
b. On-street parallel or diagonal parking, raised planters, and landscaped
sidewalk planting strips should be used to define the sidewalk edge and
provide a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles.
c. Newspaper racks should be clustered in groups of dispensers to minimize
a cluttered sidewalk appearance. Permanent decorative newspaper
enclosures to house these racks will also help minimize a cluttered
appearance.
d. Sidewalks should have a “through pedestrian zone” that is kept clear
of any fixtures and/or obstructions. A minimum of four feet, although
preferably eight feet, should be reserved to
allow for two people to walk comfortably side
by side in accordance with the American
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
e. Sidewalk surface should be stable, firm,
smooth, and slip-resistant.
f. Planting areas, bike racks, street lighting,
transit furnishings, newspaper racks, and
other street furniture should be contained
in the furnishings zone located between the
sidewalks and street to keep the “through
pedestrian zone” free for walking.
g. Where appropriate, seating and outdoor
dining opportunities can be accommodated
in street setback areas in the area between
Sidewalks should have unobstructed the through pedestrian zone and the face
“through pedestrian zones”
Fg. 8.42
of adjacent retail buildings, i.e. browsing
zone.
2. Crosswalks
Pedestrian crossings are critical components
of the pedestrian mobility in the Urban Core.
On high volume streets such as Broadway, H
Street and portions of E Street and F Street,
pedestrian crossings should be located at
signalized intersections. Mid-block crossings Chula Vista
with speed tables are proposed along lower
volume and slower speed streets such as Third
Avenue to further enhance the pedestrian
Incorporate accent paving in
experience. crosswalks at key intersections
Fg. 8.43
Incorporate accent paving and/or “tabletop”

crossings at key intersections. Key intersections
include:
• Broadway at G Street, H Street, E Street,
and F Street
• H Street at I-5, Woodlawn Avenue,
Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue and Third
Avenue
• Third at E Street, F Street, G Street, H
Street and I Street
Speed tables slow traffic and
• Other crossings that may need enhance the pedestrian experience
Fg. 8.44
to facilitate and announce heavy
pedestrian traffic.
Following are general guidelines for crosswalk treatment.
a. Crosswalks should be a minimum of six feet in width. Wider crosswalks
should be considered in areas of high pedestrian volumes.
b. Crossing distances should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Uninterrupted pedestrian crossings without a central refuge island
should be limited to maximum 50 feet.
c. Extensions of the sidewalk into the
roadway at crosswalks are called
“bulb-outs” or “curb extensions” and
are designed to give pedestrians
greater visibility as they approach
the crossing. Bulb-outs decrease the
distance users must cross as well as
slow traffic. Sidewalk bulb-outs should “Bulb-outs” or “curb extensions”
Fg. 8.45
be used where feasible considering the increase visibility of crosswalks
requirements of traffic volumes and
specific storm drainage conditions.
d. Turning radius of corners at intersections should be reduced in order to
minimize the crossing distance of pedestrians and help slow traffic. The
presence of buses, trucks, and other large vehicles must be considered
in designing turning radii.
e. Pedestrian crosswalks should be adequately
lit, have clear sight distances, and be free
from view-hindering obstructions such as
foliage and poles at crosswalk entries and
median refuge islands.
f. In-pavement flashers in conjunction with
sign mounted flashers should be considered
Refuge islands create a protected
Fg. 8.46 at mid-block crossing areas such as the
area in the middle of the street Third Avenue mid-block crossing.
g. Countdown pedestrian walk-signals should be employed where high
pedestrian and traffic volumes occurs at pedestrian crossings.
3. Refuge Islands
Refuge islands are extensions of the median that create a protected area in
the middle of the street. Following are general design guidelines for refuge
islands.
a. Minimally, pedestrian refuge areas should be four feet in width to reduce

the possibility of island users, particularly those in wheelchairs propelled
by attendants, from projecting into the traffic lanes. The width of a refuge
island walkway should not be less than width of the crosswalk.
b. The median be extended a short distance beyond the edge of the
crosswalk in order to ensure that turning vehicles do not encroach on
the median pedestrian refuge area.
c. Refuge areas should be level with the crosswalk and have an accented
paving surface different in color and texture to surrounding surfaces.

I. Lighting Concepts
1. Lighting Style
Two lighting styles have been selected for the Specific Plan area. One is a more
traditional style while the other is more contemporary. To reinforce the urban
core and marine environment image, the more contemporary lighting style is
to be used in all districts except the Third Avenue Village area. The Village area Chula Vista
lends itself to a style of lighting that will complement older structures as well as
new architecture with an Art Deco/Art Moderne style.
2. Lighting Guidelines
Street lighting plays both an aesthetic and
safety role in urban areas. The guidelines
encourage lighting that:
• contributes to the safe and efficient use
of Urban Core streets,
• enhances security,
• helps unify the Specific Plan area,
• avoids casting glare onto adjacent Typical Urban Core pedestrian light
Fg. 8.47
streets in such a manner as to decrease
the safety of vehicular movement,
• enhances and encourage evening
activities, and
• uses full or partial cut-off lighting
fixtures to minimize light pollution and
addresses “dark skies” goals.
Following are general guidelines for street
lighting in the Specific Plan area.
a. Pedestrian street lighting should be
provided along sidewalks and pedestrian
pathways in addition to the existing
taller street lights, particularly in areas
where street beautification and higher
pedestrian use is desired, such as Third
Avenue, H Street, Broadway, E Street
and F Street. (Third Avenue currently
has decorative street lights.)
Typical Third Avenue Village
pedestrian light
Fg. 8.48

b. Additional pedestrian-scaled street lights should be provided at bus
stops, in addition to the existing taller street lights, to provide additional
security for transit users.
c. A dual-level lighting system should be provided. One level will function
during normal operating hours and another one will project reduced
intensity light levels throughout late (1:00 PM – daylight) non-operational
hours, for security purposes.
d. The style of lighting in a public parking lot should relate to the overall
architectural design of the surrounding commercial uses, should not
exceed 25 feet in height, and should minimize glare into the night sky
and adjacent areas.
e. Accent lighting and up-lighting on architectural and landscape features
should be included to add interest and focal points.
f. Electrical service for seasonal/event lighting in all street lights should
be provided.

J. Street Furnishings
Street furnishings serve an aesthetic as well as utilitarian function and can
enliven and provide variety to outdoor spaces used for public interaction.
Street furniture includes all items placed within the public right-of-way, such
as benches, bus shelters, trash receptacles, plant containers, tree grates and
guards, bicycle racks, bollards, kiosks, newspaper racks, and fountains. Proper
Chula Vista
design and placement of such amenities will reinforce a unified Urban Core
design theme and create a lively and festive atmosphere. Where a bench and/
or other street furnishing is sponsored by a group or donated by an individual,
a small plaque may be attached to the seating to memorialize that donation
or sponsorship. Following are guidelines that should be considered when
selecting and locating these amenities.
1. General Guidelines
a. The design and selection of street
furniture should include considerations
for the security, safety, comfort, and
convenience of the user. Prior to final
selection of street furniture, the Public
Works Department should review
choices for durability of materials and
ease of maintenance after installation.
b. Street furniture should be located
along street edge of sidewalk in the
furnishings zone and maintain a clear
width sufficient to accommodate
pedestrian flows.
c. To create a more organized and efficient
use of sidewalk space, furnishings
should be grouped together rather than
scattered. Trash and recycling cans
should be located near benches. A
greater number and type of furnishings
should be located in higher-use
pedestrian traffic areas.
d. Items should be securely anchored to This Art Deco theme kiosk provides Fg. 8.49
the sidewalk, and a graffiti-resistant City information
coating should be applied to street
furniture elements to ensure a good longer-term appearance.
e. Provisions to accommodate persons with disabilities should be
incorporated into the design and location of furnishings. This includes a
provision for space adjacent to walkways for wheelchair and/or stroller
parking.
2. Benches and Trash Receptacles
Two different styles have been selected for the
benches to be consistent with the lighting styles
selected. As with the lighting, one is a traditional
style and one is more contemporary.
A six-foot bench, as well as trash and

recycling receptacles, should be placed
approximately every 100 feet on Third Avenue
and approximately every 200 feet on H Street,
Broadway, E Street, F Street, and other Urban
Core streets and should be clustered at
transit stops. Where public trash receptacles
Example Third Avenue Village area need replacing, they should be replaced with
Fg. 8.50
bench furnishings identified in this plan.
3. Tree Grates
The use of tree grates is required where street
trees are proposed to be located in the sidewalk
area. Tree grates should have a minimum width
of six feet. Tree grates provide more area for
pedestrians on the sidewalk while reinforcing
the desired urban character. Tree grates for
the Urban Core must comply with American
Disability Act (ADA) regulations.
Example Urban Core bench

Fg. 8.51
Example Urban Core tree grate

Fg. 8.52

4. Bike Racks
Bike racks should be located near transit stops,
throughout commercial areas, event areas,
parking lots, and employment centers as well
as incorporated in the site design of private
projects. Well placed and secure bike racks
will encourage bicycle rider ship and provide Chula Vista
an attractive alternative to locking bicycles to
trees and light poles. Along Urban Core streets
bike racks are required at key locations on
every block. The “U” shape style rack works
well in an urban setting because it allows bikes
to be parked parallel to the sidewalk, which
keeps them out of the pedestrian zone of the Example Urban Core bike rack
sidewalk. It also is a preferred design by cyclists Fg. 8.53
due to its functionality and ease of use.
5. Bus Shelters
Bus shelters and transit stops are a critical
element for Chula Vista’s Urban Core circulation
needs and are key facilities to transporting
people to and around the downtown area
and the Bayfront. Bus shelters should be
conveniently located near parking areas, transit
focus areas, shopping areas, event areas, and
public facilities through coordination with the
City Transit Manager. Because bus shelters
and stops are located throughout the Urban Example Urban Core bus shelter
Fg. 8.54
Core, they need to have a unifying, clean and
uncluttered appearance. Transit stops should
provide benches and lighting for the comfort
of passengers waiting for their transit vehicle
and should take the needs of disabled users
into consideration. Bus shelters should be
designed to be consistent with the design
theme of the area in which the shelters are
placed, i.e. Village area vs. Urban Core area.
6. Newspaper Racks
Newspaper racks should be designed to
house multiple publications in one screened
Newspaper racks should be carefully
enclosure. Enclosures should be screened located throughout the Urban Core Fg. 8.55
from view on vehicle sides and should open to
the sidewalk. Enclosures should be carefully
located in the “furnishings” zone. VIII-41
7. Additional Street Furnishings
Drinking fountains, bollards, kiosks, and other
street furnishings should also be carefully
located throughout the Urban Core. Waist-
high safety bollards should be used to define
selected sidewalk extensions, public plazas
and paseos. Properly placed, bollards help
to delineate between vehicle and pedestrian
zones creating a safe walking environment.
Kiosks should be located at key locations
between parking and shopping areas, at
selected plazas, and paseo entries. Kiosks can
effectively display information and directions to
visitors for restrooms, plazas, shopping areas,
parking, and other public facilities and can
facilitate in moving people through the Urban
Core from one district to another. Other street
furniture (banners, telephone boxes, and
informational displays) should be incorporated
A typical contemporary theme kiosk
appropriate for key plaza location
Fg. 8.56 into streetscape improvements at appropriate
locations. Precise locations should be
determined through the implementation of this
Specific Plan and review of public improvement
design plans. Some of the envisioned public
improvements will require private property
owner participation and/or cooperation at the
time of project development. Others may be
implemented by the City as funding is secured
and programmed as a part of the community
Bollards help to delineate the benefits program.
vehicular and pedestrian zones
Fg. 8.57
Banners help to unify an area

Fg. 8.58

K. Key Intersections
Due to their high visibility and substantial vehicular and pedestrian interaction,
key intersections play a vital role in beautification of the Urban Core. Intersections
have the highest potential for impacting visitors due to their frequent use and
role of stopping both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, these key
intersections provide an opportunity for visually enhancing the street with accent
Chula Vista
paving and creating pedestrian-friendly crossings. In addition, improvements
to intersections intended to enhance traffic flow are described in Chapter V -
Mobility.
Improvements should consist of accent paving, additional landscaping, at

corners, directional signs where appropriate, sidewalk extensions, and selected
urban street furnishings consistent with district guidelines.
The following key intersections within the Specific Plan area warrant
improvements:
• Third Avenue and: D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L Streets
• H Street and: I-5, Woodlawn Avenue, Broadway, Fifth Avenue, Fourth
Avenue, and Third Avenue
• Broadway and: D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L Streets
Highly visible,
decorative
Crosswalks
Rounded curb
Return
Access ramps
Sidewalk with
accent paving
Street trees
Example intersection
Fg. 8.59

L. Gateways and Wayfinding
A strong gateway and wayfinding program is one of the fastest ways to make
an immediate impact and “brand” an urban area. A logo and signs program
should be established to help distinguish the Urban Core from other areas of
town. The logo should be placed on gateways, signs, and banners to develop
both a sense of place and an identity for the Urban Core.
1. Gateways
Gateways will be instrumental in providing a sense of arrival and transition into
Chula Vista’s Urban Core. These visual gateway features are civic in emphasis
and serve to identify and promote the distinct identity of the Urban Core.
In addition to serving as entryways, gateways are important places for

directional and informational signs to guide motorists to their destinations. The
visual design of gateways should be attractive as well as functional, conveying a
ceremonial sense of entry that reflects the traditional importance of a downtown
and conveys the unique identity of the Urban Core Specific Plan area.
Physical elements of the entry, including medians, signs, archways, paving

materials, and landscape planting materials, should function together to
physically define the entry and establish a positive first impression of the Village
and Urban Core. Increased landscaping at gateways will help emphasize that
one is entering a special place. Both primary and secondary gateway elements
are envisioned for the Specific Plan area.
A series of primary entrance features/gateways should be located at:
• I-5/H Street
• I-5/E Street
• Fourth Avenue/C Street
• Third Avenue/E Street
The primary entries are located at significant entrance points along the I-5
corridor and at the entrance into the Village. The design of these gateways
calls for a grand scale, more design imagery, bold display of the City logo, and
text describing directions to key locations within the Specific Plan area.

Primary and Secondary Gateways Map
Fg. 8.60
VIII-45
A series of secondary entrance features/gateways should be located at:
• H Street/Third Avenue
• I-5/F Street
These secondary entrances are to be smaller in scale, more simple in design,

and incur less of a visual impact, as these areas are located adjacent to
residential neighborhoods. Care should be taken during the design process to
ensure that the H Street and Third Avenue entrance feature does not interfere
with the existing Third Avenue village archway.
2. Gateway Design Guidelines

The following guidelines are to be used in developing the exact designs for both
the primary and secondary entrance features. Design elements and materials
should be consistent although not necessarily exact in design and treatment.
These guidelines were developed in conjunction with the Urban Core Advisory
Committee and community representatives during the Specific Plan preparation
process:
a. Urban Core Gateways
1) Gateways and entryway areas should assist and enhance the visitors’
experience when entering into the Urban Core area. These features
serve as landmarks and should be of quality design and materials.
2) Use similar treatment along I-5 gateways and provide a unique tie in and
transition to the Bayfront area.
3) Incorporate the pacific flyway theme
representing birds, flight, wings, kites,
aviation.
4) Explore Chula Vista’s early California ranch
and lemon groves/citrus history in the
design theme.
5) Incorporate the City logo.
6) Design for extended durability, low
maintenance, and resistance to
vandalism.
7) Gateways can provide an opportunity for
architectural features, monuments, public
art, banners, signs, and lighting features.
Kites represent the pacific flyway

theme
Fg. 8.61

8) The design should incorporate appropriate streetscape design
elements, such as special paving, decorative lighting, and landscaping,
as recommended for the District in which each gateway is located.
9) Incorporate public art and local artistic expression.
10) The design of entry and way-finding features should be unique to the
Urban Core area. Chula Vista
11) Color and design should tie into future marketing materials,
banners, etc.
12) The words “Chula Vista” should be the largest font and
dominant word on the gateway monument.
b. Third Avenue and E Street Gateway

Historic citrus
1) Establish an individual/different theme for Third Avenue. crate logo
Fg. 8.62
2) Incorporate some Art Deco/Art Moderne

influences.
3) Tie in with existing Village branding
efforts.
4) The gateway monument design should
exemplify a traditional downtown
archway to complement the existing
archway located at G Street and Third
Avenue.
Existing Third Avenue archway

Fg. 8.63
City of Chula Vista logo

Fg. 8.64

3. Wayfinding Signs
Of key importance in the Urban Core is a clear and attractive wayfinding system
to provide direction to important services and destinations such as public
parking, the civic center, library, performance venues, parks, and transportation
facilities. Following are guidelines for the development of a wayfinding program
for both the Third Avenue Village area and the
Urban Core area.
a. The sign program should include a common
directional sign with arrows and labeling to
denote the locations of key shopping areas,
public parking, civic buildings, and tourist
attractions.
b. Wayfinding signs should be oriented to
vehicular traffic. Selected signs should
be lighted, landscaped, and placed
permanently at roadsides or within
medians at key locations around the Urban
Core. These signs should be smaller than
the City gateways but similar in style.
c. The wayfinding signs should reflect design
materials and components of the gateways
Example of a wayfinding sign
Fg. 8.65 and street signs to provide consistency and
unity.
4. Street Signs
Street signs are one of the best opportunities to provide a unifying element
in the urban environment. In the long-term, consideration should be given to
developing a unique street sign program for the urban core consistent with City
street sign policy. Street signs should exhibit the following:
• a color unique to the particular district,
• a font selection consistent with desired character of each area,
• a logo; this may simply be the a word such as “Downtown Chula Vista” or
“The Village” in the same font as the gateway signs, and
• design components that are reflective of the gateway and directional
signs.

5. Street Banners
Banners or flags for use on area light standards
should be included in the wayfinding program.
Cross street banners may be appropriate in
the Village area. Banners with appropriate logo
and graphic representing a community-wide
special event or festival should be developed. Chula Vista
Banners may be changed periodically to
provide advertisement for special events and
promotions, consistent with CVMC 19.60.050.
Example of Third Avenue Village

street banner
Fg. 8.66
Example of a street banner

Fg. 8.67

M. Public Art
Display of public art is an important way of expressing the personality and
character of a community. An arts program to engage local artists in representing
various aspects of the City greatly personalizes community. The City has initiated
an Arts Master Plan which will establish guidelines for design and placement of
art in Chula Vista. The public arts program should provide various methods to
incorporate art either as stand alone individual pieces or incorporated into the
design of other urban improvements such as gateways and entry monuments,
paving, benches, and street lights. Incorporation of public art is an intriguing
way to enhance the pedestrian environment of sidewalks, plazas, paseos, or
other pedestrian spaces. Locations for public art pieces are suggested at most
public spaces such as streets, plazas or along pedestrian passageways.
1. Public art can be used in a variety of locations. It can be created in small
elements such as tile banding on a stair riser, or larger pieces such as
interpretive sculptures and functional art.
2. It can be an interactive media, such as video projections or a climbing
structure, or can include randomly timed water features.
3. Public art can be used as a way-finding feature to attract pedestrians to
key locations like a plaza or paseo or developed as murals representing
the areas unique history and culture.
4. Art can be in the form of decorative tiles integrated into paving on
benches, walls, stairs, and entries.
5. Seating areas and signs are also opportunities for public art.
6. Public art can be integrated into other features like fountains or water
elements.

Chula Vista
Examples of public art

Fg. 8.68

N. Parks, Plazas, Paseos, and Public Spaces
Perhaps one of the most important improvements that can be made to the Urban
Core is the addition of urban “green” spaces in the form of parks, plazas, paseos
and informal pedestrian spaces. These improvements include improving and
expanding existing park space to make the spaces more usable. As the Urban
Core adds new residents and businesses, opportunity for convenient urban
recreation in various forms must be provided. The following section describes
the urban gathering space network that is proposed by the specific plan. It
includes a system of parks and other gathering spaces that are located in
proximity to existing and new residential areas and are inter connected through
both a pedestrian and bicycle system. (See Figure 8.64. Parks, Plazas, Paseos,
and Public Spaces.)
The City of Chula Vista is currently preparing an update to the Parks and
Recreation Needs Assessment (PRNA). The information gathered from the
updated PRNA will be used in the upcoming “Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Update and the Western Chula Vista Parks Implementation Plan, and will
include:
• inventory existing park space,
• assess the needs for upgrading existing and adding new facilities
• determine the need for additional space
• evaluate the optional locations for new facilities,
• prepare conceptual designs for all facilities, and
• research the opportunities for joint use of existing school sites as
neighborhood parks.
This park planning study and analysis will use the Western Chula Vista Public
Facilities Assessment prepared in January of 2005 by Economic Research
Associates as a baseline study.
Throughout the Specific Plan area, plazas of a variety of sizes should be

incorporated to accommodate different types of activities. These public
gathering spaces should serve to establish a sense of place and identity and
provide space for private outdoor dining, events, and street side entertainment.
Well-designed public space in the form of both parks and plazas should
provide ongoing opportunities for human activities that create an interactive
environment, build a sense of community, and create opportunities for events,
entertainment, and gatherings. Public parks and plazas in the Urban Core
should adhere to the following guidelines.

Parks, Plazas, Paseos, and Public Spaces Map
Fg. 8.69
VIII-53
1. Parks
a. Guidelines
1) All park space shall contain elements that provide green areas for
relaxation, picnics, informal field space, and areas for family gatherings
with ample shade trees and landscaping. Where space permits more
formal play structures, fountains, covered seating, and other active
facilities may be designed. Parks should also include formal and
informal hardscape areas for gathering and court spaces.
2) All parks shall be designed to support Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
3) All parks shall be designed to minimize water use and support City
sustainability goals.
4) New parks should be located within close proximity to all existing and
new residential neighborhoods.
5) Existing parks
shall be evaluated
and upgraded as
appropriate to
enhance usability
and provide safe
play equipment
for children of all
ages.
6) The Urban
Core park system
should include
pocket parks and
neighborhood
park space
distributed evenly
Park promenade through all
Fg. 8.70
districts.
b. Recommended Park Facilities
The following are specific park facilities that should be developed in the Specific
Plan area.
1) One park of approximately 12-15 acres, or several parks with an

aggregated total of approximately 12-15 acres, should be provided
west of Broadway between H Street and E Street. This facility should

include formal areas for sports, informal multi-use field space, picnic
areas, children’s play equipment, walking trails and paths, a fountain,
plazas, benches, shade trees, ornamental landscaped areas, i.e. a rose
garden, community garden, restroom facility, park office and storage,
and urban features such as a pond or
other water feature. Program elements
are to be determined by the proposed Chula Vista
Park Master Plan update process.
2) A community park between 15-20 acres
should be provided in the Northwest
Planning Area in the area of “Lower
Sweetwater”. This community park is
intended to serve the residents of the
urban core. This facility should include
all elements identified in the proposed
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Community Park
update. Fg. 8.71
3) Existing City parks should be evaluated

to assess optimum use of the facilities. Potential future park components
will be identified in the proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan
update.
4) Memorial Park should be expanded by between 3-5 acres and upgraded
such that the park is made more usable and attractive to area residents.
A small plaza along the Third Avenue frontage should be considered in
the redesign. Connections and relationship to the expanded civic center
should also be considered. Potential future park components would be
identified in the proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan update.
2. Plazas
a. Guidelines
1) Plaza spaces should be designed
with flexibility for physical use and be
designed to accommodate a range
of desired activities such as outdoor
seating, entertainment (bandstands),
and festivals. These spaces should
contribute to real and perceived public
safety. The plaza spaces should be a
minimum of 5,000 square feet in size Plaza
Fg. 8.72
and may be as large as one acre in
size.

2) Public space lighting should
be low in height with a
maximum height of 16 feet.
Lighting in plazas should
average two foot candles
and incorporate pedestrian
oriented lights, such as
light bollards, pole lights,
and wall-mounted lights.
Uplighting of trees and other
site features or elements is
also encouraged.
3) Plazas should have an
articulated edge (buildings,
benches, and landscaping)
where feasible to define the
Retail plaza plaza and create comfortable
Fg. 8.73
space.
4) Plaza edges which open to pedestrian through-traffic should be defined,
without impeding traffic flow, with a planter or low seating wall, a pergola
with vines, a water feature, or a sculpture.
5) Provide pedestrian amenities like seating, decorative lighting, planters,
fountains, drinking fountains, distinctive paving, decorative tiles, public
art, landscaping, and bicycle racks. They should also incorporate focal
points such as architectural structures, sculptures and interactive water
features, and community fountains.
6) Covered areas along the perimeter of plazas, such as a vine-covered
pergola, are strongly encouraged to provide protection from the
elements.
7) S o f t
landscaping
and shade
trees as well as
hard surfaced
areas should be
incorporated into
the overall plaza
design. Color,
form, and texture
are an integral
H Street Plaza
Fg. 8.74 part of the design
of these public
spaces.

b. Recommended Plaza Locations
The following are generalized vicinities of plaza locations that should be
developed in the Specific Plan area.
1) The southwest corner of Third Avenue and F Street.

2) Adjacent to the Third Avenue street frontage at existing Memorial Park. Chula Vista
3) The southwest corner of Third Avenue and H Street adjacent to the
County Courthouse (enhance use of existing urban plaza).
4) The south side of H Street across from Scripps Hospital.
5) The intersection of H Street and Fifth Avenue.
6) The southeast corner of H Street and Broadway.
7) The south side of H Street at the intersection of Woodlawn Avenue.
8) The west side of Broadway between E Street and H Street.
9) The overcrossings of I-5 at E Street, F Street, and H Street. The plaza at
the F Street overcrossing should be more extensive than plazas at the
E Street and H Street overcrossings, as F Street provides a significant
connection to the Bayfront for pedestrians and bicyclists.
10) The three transit focus areas: on H Street between Third Avenue and
Fourth Avenue; H Street Trolley: E Street Trolley.
It should be noted that two additional urban plazas are currently located within
the Civic Center complex, at City Hall and the Police Headquarters.
c. Plaza Corridor
A special “Plaza Corridor” is designated along Third Avenue and is unique to
the Urban Core. A continuously wide sidewalk characterizes the Plaza Corridor
with enhanced amenities to landscaping, lighting, signage, and art. Details of
improvements to the Plaza Corridor will be further refined through the Third
Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and is a priority implementation project
following adoption of the Specific Plan.
3. Paseos
a. Guidelines
1) Paseos should provide linkages between public parking and the street
environment, linkages between residential projects and adjacent streets
and plazas/parks and should be designed with consideration for “safe
routes to school” for area residents.
2) Provide pedestrian amenities like seating, decorative lighting, planters,
fountains, drinking fountains, distinctive paving, decorative tiles, public

art, landscaping, and bicycle racks. They
should also incorporate focal points such
as architectural structures, sculptures and
interactive water features.
3) Paseos should be well lit and include
directional signs.
4) Paseos should be a minimum of eight feet
wide, with a variety of widths to provide
spaces for landscaping, benches, outdoor
Paseo dining, focal points, and water features, as
Fg. 8.75
described above.
5) Paseos should be incorporated into private projects in order to provide
pedestrian connections and space between:
• residential projects and adjoining retail streets, i.e. Third Avenue and
H Street, Broadway and H Street;
• public parking facilities and adjoining residential projects, retail
streets, and public buildings; and
• parks and adjoining residential neighborhoods.
6) The design of a building should not present a blank face to the paseo
but should be as architecturally detailed as the front of the building.
b. Recommended Paseo Locations
The following are general locations where public paseos should be considered
as redevelopment occurs in the Specific Plan area.
1) Along Third Avenue between E Street and H

Street, connecting the streetscape of Third
Avenue with public parking, residential,
and office projects to the east and west.
2) Along Woodlawn Avenue between E Street
and H Street, connecting residential
neighborhoods to the east and west to
Woodlawn Avenue.
3) Along Broadway, connecting residential
neighborhoods to the east and west to the
Paseo
Fg. 8.76 transit focus areas and to the commercial
service corridor.
4) Along H Street, connecting the streetscape of H Street to adjoining
office, retail, and residential areas to the north and south.

IX. Infrastructure and Public Facilities
A. Introduction IX-1
B. Growth Forecasts IX-2
C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste IX-3
D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services IX-13 Chula Vista
E. Schools IX-19
F. Parks and Recreation IX-23
G. Energy and Telecommunications IX-30
Chapter IX Infrastructure
A. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the infrastructure and public facilities
applicable to the Specific Plan, including water supply, sewer, drainage, solid
waste disposal, law enforcement and emergency services, schools, parks and Chula Vista
recreation facilities, and energy and telecommunications. As part of its overall
facilities planning and maintenance activities, the infrastructure related to the
Specific Plan area has been studied during the City’s General Plan effort. Since
the Specific Plan implements the General Plan, these studies provide the basis
of utilities and services needed for the Urban Core. Information from these
studies and the corresponding city-wide implementation strategies are relied
upon in large part for this chapter and have been brought forward into the
Specific Plan for reference.
The Public Facilities and Services Element of the City’s General Plan establishes
a comprehensive strategy to provide and maintain infrastructure and public
services for future growth without diminishing services to existing development.
Public facilities collectively refer to utilities such as water, sewer, drainage, power
and telecommunications services. Public services collectively refer to schools,
library, law enforcement and fire protection. The City of Chula Vista includes
public facilities and services in the General Plan that support and enrich the
community including parks and recreation centers, art and cultural facilities
and programs, childcare opportunities and health and human services. This
chapter of the Specific Plan focuses on the General Plan proposals and criteria
that have particular relevance to the Urban Core area.
Chapter IX Infrastructure IX-1

B. Growth Forecasts
Based on the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, the City’s population is projected
to reach approximately 300,000 by the year 2030. The General Plan (2005)
includes intensification of retail, office and residential uses with relatively lower
emphasis on industrial uses in western Chula Vista, as compared to the previous
version. The General Plan also proposes the replacement of a significant
amount of existing lower density commercial and residential development in
western Chula Vista with mixed use and higher density residential types.
Within the Specific Plan area, the implementation of the General Plan will
result in a net increase of 7,100 dwelling units, an increase of commercial
retail development by 1,000,000 square feet, increase of commercial office
development by 1,300,000 square feet and the introduction of 1,300,000
square feet of visitor serving commercial use. The net increase in dwelling
units would result in a population increase for the plan area of 18,318 persons
(using a factor of 2.58 persons per household).
The foregoing calculation of population relies largely on historic family size

information. The changing form of western Chula Vista may alter these
forecasts significantly. The population projection will be affected by any change
in national and regional demographics brought about by rates of immigration,
aging in the population and alterations in birth rates. Moreover, the kind and
intensity of development proposed for the focus areas of the Specific Plan and
the pace of development within the Specific Plan area may result in changes to
the historically observed family size and makeup.
Historically, smaller attached dwellings in multi-family developments have

historically had lower family sizes than single family housing. Recent infill
and urban core neighborhood developments in the San Diego region reflect
even lower household populations and fewer minors per dwelling, with many
developments predominantly occupied by childless couples of all ages.
Calculating and tracking trends in the occupancy of the planned multi-family
dwellings of the Urban Core will be critically important to correctly plan and
program for facilities such as parks and schools.
IX-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste
1. Water Supply
Chula Vista has historically received the majority of its water supply from the
San Diego County Water Authority (CWA). The CWA generally imports from
75 to 95 percent of this water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
of Southern California. The Sweetwater Authority provides water service to Chula Vista
western Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan area. The Sweetwater Authority
assures conformance to the same quality and service standards established
by the State Department of Health Services (DHS) and the federal Clean Water
Act. In addition to providing water supplies, the Sweetwater Authority provides
emergency storage systems and implements conservation efforts.
Sweetwater Authority indicates approximately $5 million in incremental capital

costs for system improvements to serve western Chula Vista per General Plan
projections. Approximately $3 million of this amount will be for pipeline needs
and the remaining $2 million will go toward increasing treatment capacity at
the Perdue Treatment Plant. These amounts reflects capital costs in excess of
what is currently planned to accommodate growth under the 1989 General
Plan. These capital improvements are addressed by the Sweetwater Authority
through its development impact fee structure, which is subject to ongoing
review during the 30-year plan development period.
2. Sewer
Sewer services are essential for public health, safety and welfare. The City
maintains and operates sewer facilities in the form of wastewater/sewer
pipelines. These facilities feed into the larger regional system for treatment
and disposal.
The City is already engaged in planning and upgrading improvement projects

and will continue to do so in a phased manner under an adopted wastewater
master plan. Connection fees are the primary funding source for capital
improvement costs.
The City of Chula Vista purchases wastewater treatment capacity from the City
of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater System (METRO). This allows the City
to treat and dispose of wastewater flows at METRO facilities. The City’s future
wastewater flows will exceed the current treatment capacity necessitating the
need to purchase additional capacity (in a phased manner). The City of Chula
Vista has purchased 19.8 million gallons per day (MGD) of capacity rights in
the METRO Sewage System. Based on existing conditions in 2004, the City
discharges approximately 16.6 MGD into the METRO Interceptor. Based on
flow analyses, it is estimated that by the year 2030, the City will generate

approximately 6.4 MGD of additional sewage. The General Plan (2005) projects
an additional treatment capacity need of 1.57 MGD at buildout in western
Chula Vista, which includes the projected demand of approximately 0.88 MGD
for the Specific Plan area. These needed improvements equate to a cost of
approximately $20.4 million.
It is important to note that these are broad and preliminary estimates and are
based largely on the wastewater generation rates stated in the Wastewater
Master Plan, which will be subject to periodic update and review throughout the
life of the Specific Plan. The City currently operates and maintains approximately
400 miles of sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 6 inches to 48 inches in
diameter, as well as an extensive network of manholes, metering stations, pump
lifts and lift stations (See Figure 9.1 Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater
Collection.)
The system is the subject of ongoing review and wastewater master plans. An
update of the plan has been prepared in support of the General Plan Update
(2005). In addition to maintaining the existing systems and replacing outdated
components, the City must also address system upgrades and expansions to
accommodate new sewer connections, especially in the eastern portion of the
City. The costs of system upgrades, capacity and infrastructure management
and planning is reflected in connection fees and sewer rates.
3. Drainage Infrastructure
Drainage facilities are public improvements to control storm water runoff so that
peak runoff does not threaten public health or safety in the form of flooding and
erosion. The City maintains strict requirements for sediment control from water
runoff, which are reviewed and applied to new development on a project-by-
project basis. These requirements are found in various programs and policies,
including the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Manual,
Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual, development and
redevelopment projects and “best management practices” (BMP) requirements
for construction sites.
The condition of the overall drainage system is the subject of a Drainage Master
Plan, which is undertaken and continually monitored for any major deficiencies
or problems. (See Figure 9.2 Drainage Channels.) Within already urbanized
areas such as the Urban Core, most needed drainage facilities are already in
place, and since runoff is largely not changed by the redevelopment of one
land use into another, the system of facilities for storm water runoff are equally
largely in place. With the monitoring and review of construction and water
quality practices conducted for each development project, the City, working
through its Drainage Master Plan has a program in place to control runoff and
meet applicable water quality standards.

Chula Vista
Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater Collection (Source:

City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.1

Drainage Channels (Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.2

Chula Vista is part of the San Diego watershed area. The San Diego watershed
area’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires
that all runoff be treated so that pollutant levels at the storm water outfalls
are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Subsequently, drainage
infrastructure may need to be constructed or modified to insure that “first flush”
pollutants are captured through the Chula Vista Storm Water Management
Unit. Typically, NPDES on-site detention/desiltation facilities will be required Chula Vista
on development projects. The City will maintain its ability to enforce adequate
maintenance of these facilities. The Environmental Element of the General
Plan (2005) also addresses drainage issues throughout the City as they relate
to water quality.
4. Solid Waste Infrastructure and Operations

The City of Chula Vista has established an exclusive franchise collection
agreement with Pacific Waste Services for the removal, conveyance, and
disposal of any non-recyclable waste. The agreement is in effect through June
2028 with extension clauses for both City and Pacific Waste Services. The
agreement includes a number of programs and incentives for the franchise and
the public to maximize recycling and other forms of landfill diversion. Pacific
Waste’s parent company, Allied, owns and operates both the Otay Landfill and
the Sycamore Canyon Landfill located further north in San Diego County. Most
of the solid waste generated in the City is disposed at the Otay Landfill.
The Otay Landfill is estimated to reach capacity in the year 2028. In south San
Diego County, an area in East Otay Mesa was previously identified by the County
as a tentative site. However, the County is no longer pursuing landfill siting at
this location and there are no private siting efforts currently proposed. Once the
Otay Landfill is closed, it is anticipated that a portion of the site could be used
for a trash transfer facility and/or a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) where
recyclables are prepared for secondary markets. The City has also acquired
rights to approximately 30 acres of space at the Otay Landfill for a composting
facility when the landfill closes. Therefore, continued efforts to expand recycling
and to accommodate compostable materials will reduce future waste transfer
costs.
The City has the ability to control waste production within its general plan area,
including the Urban Core. Current solid waste management strategies include
source reduction, recycling and composting to decrease the waste stream
impacting landfills.

5. Objectives and Policies
Objectives and policies directing water, sewer and drainage facilities are
arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe an issue
or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan
through the General Plan policies. Supporting objectives and policies follow the
discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth and Maintenance

Needs (Water, Sewer, Drainage) (PFS 1)
The City and its servicing districts strive to maintain existing water, sewer and
drainage facilities to meet current and future demand and to comply with federal,
state, and local requirements. The challenge posed by density increases in
older parts of the City system is to repair existing deficiencies and maintain and
possibly upsize older infrastructure. Over time, as the City continues to expand
and additional water, sewer and drainage facilities are added, the demand for
maintenance, along with associated fiscal impacts, will also grow.
Recent assessments have been completed to address water supply, wastewater

and drainage facilities. The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the
Sweetwater Authority dated June 8, 2005 evaluates existing conditions and
future water needs for the Specific Plan. Existing average water demand for
the Specific Plan area is cited as 1.96 MGD with a projected average water
demand of 3.54 MGD at 2030 buildout. The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California and San Diego County Water Authority are
implementing plans that include projects and programs to help ensure that the
existing and planned water users within Sweetwater Authority’s service area
have an adequate supply. By using a variety of water supply sources, including
importation, the Sweetwater Reservoir, National City Wells, and Reynolds
Desalination, and by implementing conservation programs, sufficient water
supply will be available for anticipated development under the Specific Plan.
The Wastewater Master Plan, prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula Vista
and dated May 2005, provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the
City’s wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment capacity requirements
under existing and ultimate buildout conditions. Specific recommendations
are made for the repair, upgrading, and buildout of wastewater collection and
pumping facilities. The City currently has capacity rights in the METRO system
(comprised of conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities) equal to 19.8
MGD and will soon be allocated additional capacity through a re-rating process
currently underway.

Wastewater facility improvements recommended for the Specific Plan area
include:
• Colorado Street Sewer Main (replace 1,314 feet of pipe between K Street
and J Street)
• Center Street Main (replace 630 feet of pipe between Fourth Avenue
and Garrett Avenue) Chula Vista
• Police Station Department (SPS-01) New Pump Station
• G Street (SPS-02) New Pump Station
The Wastewater Master Plan also provides sewer system design standards and
capital improvements program recommendation,s as well as a capacity fee
update and facilities financing plan for both METRO facilities and Chula Vista
pipelines, to ensure adequate wastewater facilities are provided for the Specific
Plan area.
The 2004 Drainage Master Plan prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula
Vista consists of a city-wide hydrologic analysis and an updated version of the
City’s storm water conveyance system GIS database. The Drainage Master
Plan includes 21 stand-alone technical appendices, each one with hydraulic
calculations and accompanying 200-scale work maps. The hydraulic analyses
were prepared for the 50-year and, where required, 100-year storm events
for existing and projected conditions. Recommendations are provided for
replacement of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm drain facilities as well as
other capital improvement strategies. Additional updates and recommendations
will be available upon the County of San Diego’s completion of a calibration
study to supplement the existing Hydrology Manual.
General Plan Policies Related to the Urban Core

1) “For new development, require on-site detention of storm water flows
such that, where practical, existing downstream structures will not be
overloaded. Slow runoff and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.”
(PFS 1.4)
Development within the Urban Core will be reviewed within the context
of the drainage master plan and water quality rules applicable to the
development, on a project-by-project basis.
2) “To avoid recently improved streets from being torn up repeatedly,
maintain a comprehensive facility phasing and capital improvement
program. The program should be based on anticipated land development
and be conducted in coordination with all utilities.” (PFS 1.6)
The Urban Core facilities program, summarized in the following
chapter, sets out timeframes for the improvement of streets, sidewalks

and other improvements. These timeframes will be coordinated with
the master plans for sewer and drainage to minimize disruption of
public streets.
3) “Identify ways to obtain timely funding for public facility and service needs.
Upon request by community representatives, facilitate the possible
formation of assessment districts to finance public infrastructure,
upgrades and maintenance.” (PFS 1.7)
The criteria are largely applicable to eastern territories, where

master planned communities can facilitate the implementation of
such districts. The implementation program for the Urban Core will
act in a similar fashion to program and time facilities with need.
The above-described Water Supply Assessment, Wastewater Master
Plan and Drainage Master Plan analyze the existing and future
facilities needs for Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan area. With
implementation of recommended improvements and programs,
adequate facilities will be provided to serve the Urban Core as relates
to water, wastewater and storm water drainage.
b. General Plan Discussion: Meeting Demand Through Alternative
Technologies (PFS 2)
Growth will generate increased demand for water delivery and for sewer and
drainage systems throughout the City. Water will continue to be a limited
resource in semi-arid southern California. The ability to treat wastewater will be
affected by the limitations of the San Diego Metro system. Drainage facilities
will need to handle increased storm water runoff and potential pollutants in
the face of increased growth and diminishing supplies of land. Building more
infrastructure and acquiring more capacity can and should be offset by using
alternative technologies to handle demand both in the older established parts of
the City and in the newly developing areas. The following objective and policies
address meeting resource and service demands through use of alternative
technologies.

1) “As part of project construction and design, assure that drainage facilities
in new development incorporate storm water runoff and sediment
control, including state-of-the-art technologies where appropriate.” (PFS
2.2)
The City conducts and maintains a Storm Water Master Plan. It also
reviews new development in a manner consistent with the applicable
water quality standards.

c. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Water Supplies (PFS 3)
The California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within the state to
prepare urban water management plan(s) and update them every five years,
in years ending in five or zero. The plans are to identify supply and demand,
infrastructure and funding. In accordance with the Act, the County Water
Authority (CWA) adopted an Urban Water Management Plan in 2000 and will
be updating it in 2005. The 2000 Plan forecasts total projected water demand Chula Vista
for the entire area served by the CWA as 813,000 acre-feel of water in the year
2020. This figure includes municipal, industrial and agricultural demand and
is adjusted for conservation savings. The report estimates total projected local
water supplies in the year 2020 as 223,500 acre-feet. Local water supplies
include surface water, water recycling, groundwater and seawater desalination.
Through a shortage contingency analysis, the report also concludes that the
CWA and its member agencies, through Emergency Response Plans (ERP)
and Emergency Storage Projects (ESP), are taking actions to prepare for and
appropriately handle a catastrophic interruption of water supplies.
While the CWA relies almost entirely on water imported from outside the region,
the Sweetwater Authority has historically imported less than half of its water
to meet demand. The Authority’s remaining supply has been from two large
local surface water reservoirs, Sweetwater and Loveland, which store surface
runoff from the Sweetwater River. The Authority also adheres to development
of additional local resources such as groundwater pumping and groundwater
desalination. As the City grows, the need to identify the long-term supply of
water continues.
The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the Sweetwater Authority dated

June 8, 2005 evaluates existing conditions and future water needs for the
Specific Plan. Existing average water demand for the Specific Plan area is cited
as 1.96 million gallons per day (MGD) with a projected average water demand
of 3.54 MGD at 2030 buildout. The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and San Diego County Water Authority are

1) Assist the water agencies (Sweetwater Authority) in preparing and
maintaining Urban Water Management Plans that identify water demand
anticipated by existing and new development. (PFS 3.1)
This activity will largely occur through city-wide development
monitoring and reporting.
d. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Sewer Capacities (PFS 4)
The City maintains and regularly updates a Wastewater Management Plan to
evaluate the adequacy of the existing wastewater collection system to sustain
the long-term growth of the City. The Wastewater Management Plan helps the
City budget for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), allocate resources for the
acquisition of additional sewage capacity, and determine the short and long-
term sewer capacity needs of the City.

1) “Continually monitor wastewater flows and anticipate future wastewater
increases that may result from changes in adopted land use patterns.”
(PFS 4.1)
As cited above, the City’s Wastewater Master Plan is undertaken to
identify needed expansions, which are paid for by connection and
service fees.
e. General Plan Discussion: Providing for Solid Waste Disposal (PFS 24)
The following objective and policies address the efficient handling of solid waste
throughout the City. The important and related topics of reducing overall solid
waste and of handling hazardous wastes are addressed in the Environment
Element, Chapter 9 of the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan. The Otay Landfill
is estimated to reach capacity within the next 23 years, requiring closure of the
facility. Meeting future needs of the planning area may require the creation of a
regional transfer station, where solid waste collected from individual collection
routes is transferred into large trucks for disposal. The transportation of solid
waste to an alternate site must occur in an efficient manner that restricts
adverse circulation, visual, and noise impacts.

1) “Plan for adequate systems and facilities to manage the City’s solid
waste generation, treatment and disposal.” (PFS 24.1)
Solid waste programs and recycling are addressed through city-wide
programs. Design Guidelines are provided in the Specific Plan for
future development which reflect the ability to service for trash and
recycling collection.

D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency
Services
1. Facilities and Services
In the City of Chula Vista, fire protection and emergency medical services are
provided by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Law enforcement services are
Chula Vista
provided by the Chula Vista Police Department. Fire stations are dispersed
throughout the City, while police facilities are centered in headquarters located
in downtown Chula Vista (See Figure 9.4 Police and Fire Station Locations.)
The current Fire Station Master Plan calls for nine fire stations, eight of which
have been constructed. The Master Plan is being updated to reflect changes
to General Plan and to respond to a revised set of performance criteria as
proposed in the Fire Department Strategic Plan. Therefore, the number and
location of future fire stations, along with how the stations are equipped, is
subject to change.
To maintain the high level of dependable, competent fire protection and

emergency medical services the City enjoys, several strategies will continue to
be employed. The City will continue to use a growth-related service standard,
through its Growth Management Ordinance and program, to help determine if
public safety is adequately protected. Fire Department staffing and equipment
will continue to be expanded as needed to meet the service standard and to
minimize hazards to the firefighters and public, in conformance with changes
to the updated Fire Department Master Plan. The Fire Department will continue
to enhance its capabilities and staffing through mutual aid agreements with
fire departments in the surrounding communities.
Similar strategies also facilitate the provision of law enforcement services

that meet the City’s needs. The Department will continue to monitor calls for
service, analyze crime statistics and resident survey data, and make changes
in staffing and patrols to reflect the growing community’s needs.
Effective fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services

require two-way relationships with the community. The unique needs and
conditions in the community must be understood and the community must
lend support to the various programs and efforts of the Police Department
and Fire Department. The City encourages active participation by the Fire and
Police Departments in all facets of community life, including involvement in
area business, senior, and youth activities.

2. Disaster and Emergency Response Program
State regulations establish the Standardized Emergency Management System,
or SEMS. The system includes requirements for incident command systems,
multi-agency coordination systems, mutual aid agreements and the “operational
area” concept. As an agency (municipality) with emergency response capability
within the state, Chula Vista is required to use the SEMS system.
Chula Vista provides for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the
protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency
(Municipal Code, Chapter 2.1.4 Emergency Organization Department). The
Code requires coordination of the emergency functions of the City with other
public agencies, corporations, and organizations.
There may be occasions when a limited scale evacuation is the appropriate

response to an emergency situation. Under these circumstances, people
should be evacuated to neighborhood and community schools, hospitals and
public facilities, where they could receive adequate care and treatment. In the
event of a major disaster, where a large part of the City may require evacuation,
the circulation routes serving the Specific Plan area are:
• I-5, I-805, and SR-54
• E Street, H Street, J Street, and L Street
• Broadway, Fourth Avenue, Hilltop Drive, and Third Avenue
The Disaster Management Act of 2000 requires that, in order to remain eligible
for post-disaster Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding after
November 2004, every jurisdiction in the United States must have an approved
Hazard Mitigation Plan (HAZMIT Plan) to address the management of and
response to emergency situations. In addition, to be eligible for pre-disaster
FEMA funding for use in hazard mitigation, each jurisdiction’s approved HAZMIT
Plan must include the planned uses of these funds. The City of Chula Vista
adopted a HAZMIT Plan in May 2004 to help mitigate impact to the City in the
event of a natural or man-made disaster. The City’s HAZMIT Plan was included
in the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional HAZMIT Plan submitted to FEMA
for approval in compliance with Federal Law.

Chula Vista
Police and Fire Station Locations (Source: City of Chula Vista)

Fg. 9.3

Objectives and policies directing law enforcement, fire protection and emergency
responses are arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages
describe an issue or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for
the Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies
follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth (Police, Fire Protection
& Emergency Medical Service) (PFS 5)
The City of Chula Vista has experienced significant residential growth over
the last decade. The majority of new growth has occurred in the east, where
continued relatively high growth is expected in the coming years, along with
density increases in the west. Fire protection, emergency medical service and
police services will need to expand to match the demand brought on by this
anticipated growth.
While fire stations are located throughout the City, the Police Department
maintains one police headquarters, located in the western portion of the City.
The police headquarters is sufficient to accommodate the growth projected in
the Specific Plan.

1) “Continue to adequately equip and staff the Fire Department to ensure
that established service standards for emergency calls are met.” (PFS
5.1)
2) “Upgrade fire and emergency medical equipment as required to protect
the public from hazards and to ensure the safety of the fire fighters.”
(PFS 5.2)
b. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response and Development (PFS 6)
General Plan policies and Growth Management standards tie new development
and redevelopment to the provision of adequate public facilities and services,
including police and fire protection. Some design characteristics, such as
narrow street widths, aim to create walkable communities, serve to establish an
overall neighborly atmosphere, and tend to reduce traffic speeds. In mixed use
neighborhoods, density increases may result in taller buildings. The evolving
urban form and the cumulative increase in development will affect emergency
service response times as well as the equipment, facilities and personnel
needed for fire and police services.
“Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (CPTED) is a method of

incorporating design techniques into projects to help reduce the potential for

crime. CPTED is used in the development of parks, residential and commercial
projects, schools, transit stations and parking lots to reduce the number of calls
for service. The reduced call volume may favorably impact response times.
CPTED includes the use of four primary strategies:
• Providing natural access control into areas,
• Improving natural surveillance (i.e., increasing “eyes on the street”), Chula Vista
• Maintaining and managing a property to reduce crime and disorder,
and
• Using territorial reinforcement to distinguish private space from public
space.

1) “Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects to
demonstrate adequate access for fire and police vehicles.” (PFS 6.1)
2) “Require new development and redevelopment projects to demonstrate
adequate water pressure to new buildings.” (PFS 6.2)
3) “Encourage Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
techniques in new development and redevelopment projects.” (PFS
6.3)
Project review within the Specific Plan shall include the above-
listed criteria. Design requirements and recommendations found
in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines require future projects within the
Specific Plan area to incorporate CPTED principles.
c. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response Program (PFS 7)
A city-wide emergency response program provides the framework for
responding to any type of emergency or disaster that might occur in Chula Vista.
Accomplishing efficient emergency response involves coordination with other
agencies regarding disaster preparedness, preparation and regular update of
the emergency response plan, education of residents and businesses about
the plan and about evacuation routes, and periodic training of City staff and
other emergency response staff to effectively implement the plan.

All General Plan policies within this criterion are implemented city-wide.

d. General Plan Discussion: Post Emergency Response (PFS 8)
In the event of disasters and emergencies, a swift and efficient response
minimizes injuries, casualties and property damage. Planning post-disaster
operations ensures the safety, health and welfare of our residents by allowing
critical operations to continue as expeditiously and efficiently as possible
following a catastrophic event. Post-disaster analysis will help the City improve
safety plans and responses.

E. Schools
1. School Facilities
Excellent schools are assets to any community. Two school districts serve the
City. Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) operates kindergarten
through sixth grade; Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) operates
junior and senior high schools and ancillary programs. Higher education is Chula Vista
available through Southwestern Community College.
As of 2004, the CVESD operates 42 schools and the SUHSD operates 26

schools, both within and outside the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista.
(See Figure 9.4 Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista.)
Both districts actively plan for modernization and expansion of campuses
to accommodate anticipated increases in enrollments. The districts have
completed improvements through modernization programs and bond issues or
prepared modernization plans in preparation for construction.

Objectives and policies impacting schools are arranged around specific topics
or issues. The following pages describe an issue or topic and how the City has
planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan through the General Plan.
Supporting objectives and policies follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth and Technology

(School Facilities) (PFS 9)
Population growth in western Chula Vista may impact existing, older school
facilities. Modernization of school campuses is expected to continue as the
school districts plan for facility improvements. Technology continues to change
the work place and the social and cultural environments of our community. The
school system, which helps shape our children and our future, must keep pace
with development. While siting of schools falls under the jurisdiction of the
local school districts, not the City, it is the City’s intent to facilitate the district’s
efforts to provide school services.

1) Continue coordinating with local school districts during review of
land use issues requiring discretionary approval to provide adequate
school facilities, to meet needs generated by development, and to
avoid overcrowding in accordance with guidelines of Government Code
65996(b). (PFS 9.1)

Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista
(Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.4

2) Encourage the consideration of new approaches to accommodate
student enrollments, including alternative campus locations and
education programs. (PFS 9.2)
3) Assist school districts in identifying and acquiring school sites for new
construction in needed time frames. (PFS 9.3)
4) Assist school districts in identifying sources of funding for the expansion Chula Vista
of facilities in western Chula Vista as needed based on growth. (PFS
9.4)
5) Work closely with the school districts to identify needs for public education
facilities and programs, including developing and expanding extra-
curricular recreation and educational programs for primary, secondary,
and adult education, and providing state-of-the-art information services.
(PFS 9.5)
The foregoing policies reflect the need to plan and implement
schools over the relatively long period of development implementing
the Specific Plan. Cooperation in projecting growth and monitoring
new development and the resulting demographics will assure that
existing schools are expanded or new schools are built at the time
of need.
b. General Plan Discussion: Site Location and Design (School Facilities)
(PFS 10)
School districts control site selection and school design. In all instances, safe
pickup and drop-off of students is a primary concern. Schools are generally
designed with the intent of adding modular units to accommodate temporary
spikes in student enrollment. While both Chula Vista school districts use this
strategy, drawbacks include the fact that the units displace parking, open space
and recreation areas. Some schools in western Chula Vista are already running
out of limited buildable space and have no room to expand the campuses
horizontally in the current land locked locations.

1) “Continue to coordinate and make recommendations to the school
districts and property owners and developers on the location, size and
design of school facilities relative to the location in the community.
Encourage school districts to consider joint use and alternative structural
design such as multi-story buildings where appropriate.” (PFS 10.1)
Alternative structural designs will be especially important within the
Urban Core due to land availability.
2) “Encourage the central location of new schools within the neighborhoods
or areas they serve so as to further community development and enhance
the quality of life.” (PFS 10.4)

3) “Coordinate with the school districts on the design of school grounds
and fields to provide for use of these facilities by the City’s Youth Sports
Council leagues.” (PFS 10.5)
Joint use of facilities by the City and the School District can maximize
the public use of school and park sites.

F. Parks and Recreation
1. Facilities and Programs
Parks and recreation facilities and programming are essential to the health
and welfare of the individuals living and working in the City of Chula Vista.
Parks can provide a relief from the stress of daily life and can contribute
to neighborhood engagement, economic development and community Chula Vista
revitalization. The different types of parks and recreation facilities found in
Chula Vista are described below. (See Figure 9.5 Existing and Proposed Public
Parks and Recreation Facilities.)
Community parks, designed to serve more than one neighborhood, are ideally
30 or more acres and provide a wide variety of facilities, including swimming
pools, playing fields, recreation centers, cultural centers and picnic areas.
Neighborhood parks are intended to serve local residents; range in size from
5 to 15 acres; and include open play space, playing fields, play equipment and
picnic areas. Mini parks consist of both public and private facilities, are typically
less than four acres in size, serve a small number of homes, and contain very
limited facilities such as a tot lot or play structure and some grass play area.
Public mini parks are typically located in the older western portion of the City.
Urban parks are generally located in urban downtown areas and may contain
facilities such as public plazas, tot lots, play structures, public art features,
sports courts (such as basketball or tennis), walking/jogging trails, dog walk
areas, picnic or seating areas, some grass play area, and trees. Urban parks,
which will occur where infill and redevelopment activity is likely to occur, may be
considered for public park credit as a necessary component of an overall park
service solution where available and affordable land is scarce. Similar to mini
parks, urban parks may serve a smaller number of homes than neighborhood
parks, depending on the ultimate housing density within the service areas.
Urban parks will typically be less than four acres in size. Recreation facilities
are generally located within community parks and include community centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools, youth centers, and senior centers.
Several related documents address the development of parks and recreation

facilities in the City. The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted
in November 2002, contains an inventory of existing parks and recreations
facilities, a needs assessment, and policies to implement the General Plan. The
Master Plan envisions the City’s park and recreation facilities as an integrated
system of amenities, programs and services interwoven throughout over 700
acres of parkland to meet the expressed needs of the community.

The Greenbelt Master Plan identifies segments of an overall backbone system
of 28 linear miles of open space and parks that encircle the City. It discusses
unique opportunities for a continuous trail system to link City parks and other
resources outside of the City boundary.

Objectives and policies directing parks and recreation facilities and programs
are arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe
an issue or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the
Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth (Parks and Recreation)
(PFS 14)
The City strives to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities, to offer
recreational programs to meet current demand, and to plan and construct new
parks and facilities and develop new programs to meet future demand due to
growth. The majority of residential growth in the last decade has occurred in
eastern Chula Vista; however, it is anticipated that significant growth will occur
in both the east and the west in the future.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee program provide direction and financing for the size and location
of parks and recreation facilities, based on population, density and land use
designation.
Timely development and the provision of facilities, staffing, and equipment

that is responsive to growth and community demands and expectations are
important.

1) “Maximize the use of existing parks and recreation facilities through
upgrades and additions/changes to programs to meet the needs of the
community.“ (PFS 14.1)
2) “Construct new parks and recreation facilities that reflect the interests
and needs of the community.” (PFS 14.2)
3) “Continue to maintain and update the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, the Greenbelt Master Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance
and the recreation component of the Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee, as needed.” (PFS 14.3)

Map does not include future potential urban plaza
locations; these areas are shown in Figure 8.69
Chula Vista
Existing and Proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities (Source: City of

Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.5

4) “Use park dedication, location, site design and acceptance standards
as provided in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the
Park Dedication Ordinance and the Recreation DIF, as may be amended
from time to time.” (PFS 14.4)
5) “Work with proponents of new development projects and redevelopment
projects at the earliest stages to ensure that parks, recreation, trails
and open space facilities are designed to meet City standards and are
built in a timely manner to meet the needs of residents they will serve.”
(PFS 14.5)
6) “Design recreation programs to reflect the interests and recreation
needs of the children, teens, adults, and seniors living in our ethnically
diverse city.” (PFS 14.6)
7) “Explore opportunities for collaborations and partnerships with local
organizations, expand use of volunteers, and develop commercial
recreational facilities that meet public demand and need.” (PFS 14.7)
8) “Continue to provide adequate park maintenance, park ranger service
recreation services, staffing, and equipment to ensure safe, well-
maintained facilities.” (PFS 14.8)
The foregoing policies will apply to recreation and park facilities
within the Urban Core. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
development impact fee programs will be monitored during the life
of the Specific Plan and updated to meet service and demographic
needs of the community.
b. General Plan Discussion: Meeting Park Demand (PFS 15)
Historic park development in western Chula Vista has been impacted by several
factors: pre-existing park development standards that differ from current
City standards, the Quimby Act - state legislation limiting park dedication
requirements for new development, and Proposition 13- state legislation
limiting property tax revenues. Increased residential densities and intensity
of development will create a corresponding increase in demand for recreation
facilities and programs. The current city-wide standard for new development
provides for either the dedication or development of 3 acres of parkland for
every 1,000 residents or the payment of in-lieu fees. The City’s Recreation
Development Impact Fee provides a funding mechanism for development
of new recreation facility requirements. City-wide parkland and recreation
development policies to guide future ordinances and master planning are
identified below.
Scarce land tends to make parkland acquisition costs (in terms of cost of land
and displacement) in western Chula Vista significantly higher compared to

the City’s eastern territories. While future growth will result in the need and
requirement for additional parklands and recreational facilities, there will be
increased difficulty in securing appropriate park and recreation sites in western
Chula Vista where land is largely built out. Lack of vacant and underutilized land,
and/or competing demands and uses for land in the west provide challenges to
increasing the park and recreation facility inventory. Maximizing the utility of
existing parks and recreation facilities through renovation and expansion and Chula Vista
consideration of non-active recreational uses within existing recreation needs
is important in the western portion of the City; while this strategy will not provide
additional park acreage, it will partially meet the needs of future residents. In
addition to parkland acquisition efforts, potential solutions for new park sites
include the covering of portions of I-5 to create park and open space areas and
joint-use of school classrooms, playing fields and sports courts by the public
via joint-use agreements. The provision of a community center within urban
development areas should be considered, possibly within a new mixed-use
environment.
An overall combination of park and recreation facilities that will serve all Chula
Vista residents is planned. While a majority of the future demand for facilities
may be met within planned public park sites, there will continue to be a need to
rely on quasi-public park sites and joint-use facilities to increase the recreation
facility inventory in the City. Details and strategies for meeting park demand
will be addressed further through comprehensive revisions to the existing Parks
and Recreation Master Plan.
General Plan Policies Polices Related to the Urban Core

1) Continue to pursue a city-wide standard for the provision of developed
parkland for new development projects on a basis equivalent to three
acres per estimated one thousand new residents. (PFS 15.1)
2) Consider a combination of land dedication, improvements, and/or in-
lieu fees for park development improvements in the Northwest and
Southwest Planning Areas to better serve the public park and recreation
needs of future residents. (PFS 15.2)
3) Consider a broad mix of park types and facilities toward meeting park
requirements in the Northwest and Southwest planning areas in response
to existing development conditions and lack of land availability. Such
facilities could include urban parks, plazas, neighborhood parks and
community parks to meet the parkland dedication requirements of new
development in the west. (PFS 15.3)
4) Promote the inclusion of park and recreation facilities in or near
redevelopment areas to both serve the new development and to
contribute to meeting existing park and recreation needs. (PFS 15.4)

5) Use park dedication, location and site design and acceptance of dedication
standards as provided in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance and the Recreation Development
Impact Fee (DIF) program, as may be amended from time to time. (PFS
15.5)
6) Amend the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to add a new “urban park”
definition for parks that may be developed within western Chula Vista,
subject to specific siting, design and park dedication and credit criteria.
(PFS 15.8)
7) Pursue the funding, design and development of a connected park as
part of the Civic Center complex which links Will T. Hyde/Friendship
Park, the Civic Center and Parkway Memorial Park. (PFS 15.10)
8) Consider the design of non-traditional, uniquely themed parks in
the Urban Core and Bayfront that are “stand-alone” attractions or
destinations, having unique character and features. (PFS 15.11)
The foregoing polices will guide implementation of parks and facilities
within the Urban Core.
The Specific Plan area is expected to have a system of public parks, plazas,
promenades, and paseos that will contribute to the parks and recreation
facilities that currently exist in the City. The following parks and open spaces
exist or are expected to be constructed in the Specific Plan area.
Existing:
• Eucalyptus Park, approximately 18 acres
• Will T. Hyde/Friendship Park, approximately 4 acres
• Norman Park & Community Senior Center, approximately 1.5 acres
Proposed:
• Lower Sweetwater, approximately 15 to 20 acres
• Memorial Park Annex, approximately 3 to 5 acres
• Promenade Park west of Broadway, approximately 12 to 15 acres
In addition, a series of urban plazas are envisioned along Third Avenue, H Street,
and Broadway, as well as a pedestrian promenade along F Street connecting
downtown Third Avenue with the bayfront, which will also add recreational value
to urban life.

c. General Plan Discussion: Joint Use of Park and School Facilities (PFS
18)
Increased intensity of development in western Chula Vista and lack of vacant
and underutilized land for park facilities will result in an increased demand on
parks and schools for recreational facilities. Joint use of facilities provides an
opportunity for the school children and the general public to mutually benefit.
Chula Vista
Public demand for field space for youth leagues exceeds the City’s supply
of sports fields in City parks, due to competing demands with adult athletic
leagues and the sheer number of youth sports teams to accommodate. The
City currently relies on individual elementary, middle, and high schools to allow
use of the schools’ fields by Youth Sports Council leagues.

1) Promote the City Council and the Boards of the two School Districts
entering into long-term master agreements to allow allocation of
school fields to the City’s Youth Sports Council leagues via a process
administered by the City, and to allow after-school use of classrooms at
different schools for recreation classes. (PFS 18.1)
2) Coordinate with the School Districts on the design of school grounds
council leagues. (PFS 18.2)
3) Consider siting elementary schools adjacent to neighborhood parks,
where feasible, to allow for expanded use of the school grounds and
classrooms by the general public and the park area by the school
children. (PFS 18.3)
The foregoing polices will guide the City in discussions with the
School Districts on possible joint use of facilities within the Urban
Core.

G. Energy and Telecommunications
1. Energy
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) owns, operates and maintains the pipes,
wires and appurtenances needed to transport natural gas and transmit and
distribute electricity to Chula Vista residential, commercial, industrial and
institutional facilities. These two forms of energy are essential to everyday life
in Chula Vista. SDG&E estimates that additional infrastructure may be needed
to deliver energy, serve a growing population, maintain local and regional
reliability, and move energy through the western regional U.S. system. SDG&E
projects that infrastructure may include new electricity distribution substations
in the western part of the City. The following objective and policies relate to the
provision of energy to the City. A discussion and related policies addressing
energy conservation are contained in the Environmental Element, Chapter 9 of
the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan.
2. Telecommunications
Telecommunications services in Chula Vista include telephone, cable and
wireless communication services and are provided by several companies.
Future communication technologies may expand into other fields. Infrastructure
upgrades are being made by private providers to facilitate high-speed data
transmission and interactive video capabilities. The City encourages constructing
new office and industrial buildings with state-of-the-art telecommunication
circuits to utilize these upgrades.

Objectives and policies directing the generation and delivery of energy are
arranged around specific topics or issues. The following describes an issue
or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the Specific
Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies follow the
discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Powering Chula Vista (PFS 22)

Population growth in Chula Vista will increase demand for energy and power.
In response to energy needs, the City embarked on a mission to identify viable
options to control the City’s energy future. On May 29, 2001, the City Council
adopted the City of Chula Vista Energy Strategy and Action Plan (Energy Strategy)
and adopted an ordinance to investigate the possibility of creating a municipal
utility.

The Energy Strategy identifies recommended actions, including monitoring the
energy market and legal restrictions, being prepared to enter into an Electrical
Services Contract with an Energy Services Provider or power generator as allowed
by law, partnering with a third party to build and operate power generation
facilities, developing an emissions offset program based on mobile sources,
becoming a municipal “aggregator” and acquiring electricity at negotiated rates
for City facilities and participating residents and business owners, expanding Chula Vista
energy conservation projects for City facilities and promoting energy efficient
and renewable energy programs for businesses and residents, and developing
and implementing a legislative strategy that facilitates the City’s overall energy
plan.

All policies regarding energy and telecommunications are implemented
on a city-wide basis. The Specific Plan does provide for the review of
buildings for greater energy efficiency and promotes standards for
sustainability in Section 4. Special Guidelines of Chapter VII - Design
Guidelines.

X. Plan Implementation and Community Benefits
Program
A. Introduction X-1
B. Regulatory Framework X-2
C. Visualization X-4 Chula Vista
D. Long Term Implementation Process X-9
E. Description of Improvements X-11
F. Mobility Improvements X-12
G. Urban Amenity Improvements X-17
H. Additional Community Improvements X-20
I. Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects X-22
J. Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms and Funding Sources X-24
K. Community Benefit Analysis X-28
Chapter X Plan Implementation 1

Program
A. Introduction
The Plan Implementation and Community Benefits Program is a critical element
to realizing the desired improvements to Chula Vista’s Urban Core that are Chula Vista
outlined in the Specific Plan. The sole purpose of the Specific Plan is to improve
the quality of life for Chula Vista residents and visitors in general, with focus on
the west side in particular. The vision expressed in the Specific Plan includes
investments in streets, transit, parks, plazas, cultural facilities, protection of
historic resources, schools, and improvements to City services such as utilities,
police, fire, and health and human services. This investment will be supported
by a partnership between the City and the private sector as new development
occurs. Thus, this chapter of the Specific Plan contains information on and
forms a critical link between the improvements the City desires and how both
the City and private investment will contribute to make the improvements
happen.
The Specific Plan is the primary planning tool to initiate positive change and
enhance the western side of Chula Vista. The Specific Plan was prepared based
on the overarching policies outlined in the General Plan and refined based on
an analysis of important economic conditions. An intensive public involvement
program has also shaped the contents and outcome of the Specific Plan. The
result is a Specific Plan that is visionary, yet realistic, for the future of the
Specific Plan area.
Chapter X Plan Implementation X-1

B. Regulatory Framework
The Specific Plan was developed to create a conducive development environment,
one that is responsive to the prevailing market demand. Some of the key policy
changes that have been incorporated in the Specific Plan include:
• Zoning that is responsive to market needs;

• Increased density allowed through specialized “form and standard based”
development standards encouraging underutilized and dilapidated
properties to redevelop;
• Streamlined permitting and entitlement processes;
• Area-wide infrastructure and “amenity” (e.g., streetscape and landscape)
investments;
• Marketing of the Specific Plan area to both consumers and prospective
business tenants;
• Technical assistance to Specific Plan area businesses; and
• Enhanced code compliance to improve the visual appeal and function of
the urban environment.
An effective Specific Plan needs to be based on a realistic understanding

of the market and demographic conditions affecting the Specific Plan area.
Simply changing zoning on a map will not attract development unless there is
an underlying market demand for a particular land use. On the other hand, if
there is immediate demand for a desirable land use that is not permitted under
existing zoning, a change in zoning can bring about very significant results.
Moreover, appropriate zoning changes can be made more effective if these
changes are coupled with regulations that address other potential barriers to
development (e.g., onerous parking requirements). With this approach, private
and public sectors work together to provide a synergy of uses as well as public
improvements and urban amenities.
The Specific Plan is the first large-scale development plan pursuant to the
adoption of the City’s General Plan in 2005. As such, it is a critical test of
the concepts within the General Plan, particularly as they relate to facilities
financing. This Specific Plan assesses the needs for facilities and tests those
needs against the funding which would be made available as a result of the
development its regulations would accommodate, to prove that the facilities
assumptions within the plan are reasonable and feasible. The Specific Plan
anticipates, however, that the facilities funding programs to implement and
construct public facilities will be a part of larger facilities financing plans which
will be prepared for the entirety of western Chula Vista. These plans provide
X-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

for the coordinated provision of facilities to meet current deficiencies and the
demands of new infill development. Among such plans are the Parks Master
Plan and particular facilities implementation and fee programs related to
transportation, utilities and other public facilities. Over the life span anticipated
within the Specific Plan, these programs will be initiated, reviewed and revised
to keep pace with the amount, location and timing of development and need.
Chula Vista
Public improvements are especially important, as these elements add value to
the area and signal to the private sector that the City is committed to improving
the Urban Core. Public improvements thus lay a foundation for future private
sector investment, in a sense “priming the pump”, encouraging property owners,
merchants, and investors to do the same.

C. Visualization
To assist with the visualization of the benefits and amenities the Specific Plan
hopes to bring, photographic visualizations are presented to illustrate how the
Urban Core could be transformed in selected areas. Figures 10.1-10.4 show
existing conditions, simulations for interim conditions, and near buildout
conditions for areas along Third Avenue, F Street, H Street, and Broadway.
The rate of development is determined in large part by market forces and will
vary in architectural character and form, but the simulations demonstrate the
pedestrian improvements, public amenities, and anticipated private investment.
It is important to note that the simulations illustrate just one set, of an almost
infinite number, of possible scenarios.

Chula Vista
Intersection of Third Avenue and Davidson Street - Existing Conditions,

Interim Conditions, and Near Build-out Conditions
Fg. 10.1

F Street looking east - Existing Conditions, Interim Conditions, and Near Build-
out Conditions
Fg. 10.2

Chula Vista
H Street looking east towards Fifth Avenue- Existing Conditions, Interim

Conditions, and Near Build-out Conditions
Fg. 10.3

Intersection of Broadway and D Street - Existing Conditions, Interim
Conditions, and Near Build-out Conditions
Fg. 10.4

D. Long Term Implementation Process
From the beginning of the Specific Plan process, there has been a keen awareness
that the adoption and implementation of the plan will rest on the amenity value
that new development can bring. This value cannot be achieved by attractive
pictures and vague promises of future action. Among the key benefits of the
Specific Plan will be amenities and capacity enhancements, in the form of such
Chula Vista
elements as parks, pedestrian spaces, utilities, transit accommodation and
roadway improvements. The effort to plan and program the delivery of these
essential public facilities within the Urban Core will be especially challenging. In
new communities, the City has assessed such matters through the preparation
of Public Facilities Finance Plans (PFFPs). These documents have served well
to address the extension of facilities coinciding with the relatively short-term
timing of new master planned neighborhoods and subdivision improvements.
However, the Urban Core presents a vastly different set of circumstances: the
placement or upgrading of public facilities within an existing neighborhood, in
support of infill and redevelopment over a period of perhaps decades.
For the reasons stated above, the Specific Plan relies on a systematic approach
to the delivery of public facilities. These facilities are designed to fulfill the
obligations and objectives handed down from the General Plan. The public
facilities program also fits well with the ongoing efforts of City construction
and operating departments as these departments pursue their own particular
studies, creative implementation approaches, and master plans.
The flow chart presented in Figure 10.5 was prepared to show how the Urban
Core project includes necessary components to inform the future citywide or
western Chula Vista Impact Fee, Facilities Master Plan, and Capital Improvement
Program processes. The key bridge from the plan and its regulations into public
facilities is the Facilities Implementation Analysis found in Appendix D.
The implementation of the Specific Plan is also seen as somewhat dynamic and
is subject to ongoing monitoring and priority-setting. While projects are assigned
priorities based on 2005 factors, the timing and location of development may
require that certain facilities be advanced in priority. This schedule assessment
will be accomplished through a review of facility performance as part of the
biannual review of the Citywide Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget
and through the preparation and maintenance of the City’s facilities financing
and fee strategies, as these items may be adopted and amended from time to
time. Any change in priorities, timing and valuation from the facilities program
associated with the CIP or facilities program shall not require the amendment
of the Specific Plan, as long as such changes, additions or subtractions are not
in conflict with the applicable CEQA review documents for this Specific Plan.

URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
FACLITIES REGULATION AND INCENTIVE

[PUBLIC IMPLEMENTATION] [PRIVATE IMPLEMENTATION]
Facility List/Rough Costs/Fund Source Regulatory Requirements

Capacity [Utilities, Schools, etc] Design Standards
Amenity [Streetscape, Parks, etc] Amenity Standards and Bonuses
Mobility [Streets, Transit, etc] Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
ANALYSES
Facility Priority List by Type Funding Resources

Parks Sidewalks Other … Impact Fee TI/Bonding Gen’l Fund
Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1
INITIAL CIP MASTER PLANS IMPACT & PAD FEE

PROGRAM (i.e. – PARKS, FIRE) REVISIONS
Project Identification West Side Evaluation Citywide Programs
Budget and Source Program Proposals Fee System
ONGOING REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE, PRIORITIES AND FEES

CONDUCTED AS A PART OF THE TWO-YEAR CITY CIP BUDGET PROCESS
AND FINANCING FEE PROGRAM UPDATES
Urban Core Specific Plan Implementation Process

Fg. 10.5

E. Description of Improvements
The following components describe the general approach to achieve the vision
and fulfill the objectives for the Urban Core as outlined in the Specific Plan.
The following sections overview the factors and standards that have been
used to develop the facilities list for the Specific Plan. Appendix D - Facilities
Chula Vista
Implementation Analysis is a complete listing of facilities, initial priority, order
of magnitude costs, and likely funding source for implementation.
• Mobility Improvements: This component describes various methods of

improving mobility in the Urban Core through investments in pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, street and parking systems.
• Amenity Improvements: This component describes various methods of
improving the quality of the urban environment through investments in
amenities such as street furnishings, gateways, wayfinding signs, public
art, and storefront facade upgrades.
• Additional Community Improvements: This component addresses the
method for investing in and improving existing and new community
facilities such as parks, plazas, schools, utilities, and infrastructure.
• Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects: This section describes a number
of selected short-term public improvement projects that the City should
undertake to demonstrate its commitment to revitalizing the Urban Core
and the potential for achieving the goals of the Specific Plan.
• Potential Funding Sources: The method to obtain the community benefits
listed above includes harnessing the power of private investment and
the strategic use of available public funds. This section outlines both
private investment obligations and the most likely sources of public
funds that are potentially available to the City.

F. Mobility Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on mobility systems with the primary
goal of achieving a balanced transportation system. Inherent in this goal are
initiatives that serve to calm traffic, create a friendlier pedestrian and bicycle
environment, and vastly improve the availability and service of public transit.
Also important to the Specific Plan are mobility connections to other areas of
the city, including the eastern Chula Vista and Bayfront areas.
1. Pedestrian Facilities – Capital Projects

The primary goal of pedestrian facilities is to provide logical, convenient,
and safe paths of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making walking a
preferred method of travel.
a. Sidewalks on all streets throughout the planning area should be

improved to include adequate width, a safe and smooth walking surface,
and adequate lighting levels as specified in Chapter VIII - Public Realm
Design Guidelines. In some cases, additional right-of-way (ROW) or public
easements may be needed. Additional amenities such as directional
signs, benches, and shade trees are important elements that improve
the level of quality for pedestrian facilities. (See cross-sections and
intersections in Chapter V - Mobility.)
1) Third Avenue: special paving 14-foot or more wide, depending on
diagonal parking locations (between E Street and G Street)
2) E Street: standard paving, between 9-foot and 13-foot wide (need
additional 22 feet total, or 11 feet on each side, of easement between
I-5 and 300 feet east of ramp)
3) F Street: standard paving, 16-foot wide with a 6-foot wide Class I
bike path in the center of the sidewalk
4) H Street: special paving, 16-foot wide (need additional 38 feet total
of easement between I-5 and Broadway for sidewalk and additional
travel lane, need additional 8 feet total additional ROW of easement
between Broadway and Third Avenue for sidewalk)
5) Broadway: standard paving, 9-foot wide
6) Woodlawn Avenue: standard paving, 12-foot wide or 24 feet total
both sides
7) All other major streets: standard paving, minimum 10-foot wide
b. Crosswalks at all intersections throughout the planning area shall be
clearly marked and improved as specified in Chapter VIII - Public Realm
Design Guidelines.

1) Special paving at all intersections in the Village District along Third
Avenue
2) Special paving at intersections along H Street at Third Avenue, Fourth
Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn Avenue, and I-5
3) Special paving at intersections along Broadway at E Street, F Street,
G Street, and H Street Chula Vista
c. Mid-block crosswalks at selected locations, as described in Chapter VIII
- Public Realm Design Guidelines, shall be installed.
• Mid-block with special paving and advanced crossing technology at
four locations along Third Avenue in the Village District
d. Paseos that connect residential areas, public parking lots, and other
facilities to adjacent streets and pedestrian destinations are a key
element in an enhanced pedestrian environment. Paseos should be
incorporated into private and public improvement projects as necessary
to provide exemplary pedestrian access.
2. Bicycle Facilities – Capital Projects

The primary goal of bicycle facilities is to provide logical, convenient, and safe
paths of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making cycling a preferred
method of travel. To supplement the proposed actions, a bike users map will
be prepared to assist commuters and recreational riders in getting around the
Urban Core and finding directions to various destinations.
a. A boardwalk should be created along H Street and F Street that connects

the Urban Core to the Bayfront area. The boardwalk shall consist of an
elevated Class I bike path a minimum of 6-foot wide located in the center
of the sidewalk on each side of H Street and F Street. The bike paths
shall be marked with colored paving and signed to minimize conflicts
between pedestrians, vehicles, and bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards will
also be evaluated for Davidson Street and G Street.
b. Class II bicycle lanes, at a minimum of 6-foot wide, should be installed
on Broadway and along the segments of F Street where a Class I bike
path cannot be accommodated.
c. Class III bike routes should be established on the following streets:
Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Third Avenue, E Street, G Street, I Street, J Street,
K Street.
d. End of trip facilities, as specified in the updated City Bicycle Master Plan,
should include secured bike racks and bike lockers.

3. Transit Facilities – Policy Initiatives and Capital Projects
The primary goal of transit facilities is to provide a convenient and dependable
alternative to automobile travel throughout the Specific Plan area.
a. Policy Initiatives
• Establish a West Side Shuttle with service on H Street, Third Avenue, E
Street or F Street, and Broadway with connections to the Bayfront and
Trolley stations at E Street and H Street. The West Side Shuttle should
have a relatively short headway of approximately 15 minutes and should
run in both directions.
b. Capital Projects
1) Purchase shuttle vehicles as specified in West Side Shuttle program.
2) Establish shuttle stations consisting of expanded curb and vehicle
pullout areas and signs at the following locations:
• Third Avenue at H Street, F Street and E Street
• E Street at Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Trolley station and Bayfront
• Broadway at F Street and G Street
• H Street at Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn
Avenue, Trolley station and Bayfront
3) Provide bus stops and shelters at each of the shuttle locations for use
by shuttle loop service and city-wide bus and transit service.
4. Intersection Improvements - Capital Projects

The primary goal of street improvements is to provide a safe and efficient driving
environment, quality road surfaces, and improved traffic operations through
lane configurations and intersection designs. Intersections at the following
locations will need to be improved to accommodate expected traffic demands.
These improvements will include upgraded traffic control, signals and signal
timing, turning lanes, and through lane configurations.
a. Priority of Intersection Improvements

Intersection improvements have been divided into three tiers based on priority,
with the most important and immediate improvements classified as Tier 1. In
each individual tier, the City’s existing monitoring program will determine exactly
which projects are implemented first during the biannual CIP program review.
The intersection numbers correspond to the numbering system provided in
Appendix B – Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc.

1) Tier 1 Improvements
• #1 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street
• #2 I-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street
• #24 I-5 Southbound Ramp/H Street
• #25 I-5 Northbound Ramp/H Street Chula Vista
• #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street
• #27 Broadway/H Street
• #28 Fifth Avenue/H Street
• #29 Fourth Avenue/H Street
• #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound Ramp
• #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp
• #61 L Street/Bay Boulevard
• #63 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp
• #64 Industrial Boulevard/I-5 Northbound Ramp
• H Street from four lanes to six lanes from I-5 to Broadway
• #13 Broadway/F Street
• #45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street
• #57 Second Avenue/D Street

5. Parking Systems – Policy Initiatives
The primary goal of the parking policy is to provide ample, convenient and
dependable public parking facilities at three primary locations within the Urban
Core:
• The Village District
• H Street Transit Focus Area (TFA)
• E Street TFA
These areas will likely be parking districts designed to assist the private sector
in minimizing the provision of on-site parking and providing ample parking for
users in each of these areas.
a. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare an update

to the parking district in the Village District. This analysis shall address
the phased provision of additional public parking including:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of existing public spaces through shared
parking and parking management initiatives,
2) Provision of short-term off-street surface parking facilities,
3) Provision of selected long-term parking structures in this District,
and
4) Updating the in-lieu fee program.
b. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare a parking
analysis that addresses the following for the H Street and E Street
TFAs:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of existing public parking through shared
and
4) Determining the appropriateness of an in-lieu fee program.

G. Urban Amenity Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy and design guidance on urban amenities with
the primary goal of achieving a physically enhanced and visually attractive
urban environment that is a desirable destination within Chula Vista.
1. Streetscapes - Capital Projects Chula Vista

a. Prepare streetscape master plans for selected streets in the Urban Core.
Master plans should be prepared with community involvement and
should be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the
Specific Plan. Streetscape master plans should address the following
elements:
1) Coordination with adjacent infill development in order that street
widening and urban design amenities can be incrementally
implemented, to the extent feasible, concurrent with new development
projects.
2) Coordinated design with street improvement projects, including
intersection, infrastructure, and mid-block and crosswalk designs.
3) Detailed designs and materials specifications for all sidewalk areas,
including paving, street furnishings, street trees, decorative street
lights and other elements.
4) Street master plans should be prepared for the following areas:
a) Third Avenue between E Street and H Street
b) Broadway between C Street and L Street
c) H Street between I-5 and Del Mar Avenue
d) F Street between I-5 and Del Mar Avenue
e) E Street between I-5 and Del Mar Avenue
b. Prepare plans for the I-5 overcrossings that include enhanced sidewalk
paving, decorative lighting, street furnishings, public art, and other
elements. Coordinate the designs with gateways and streetscape plans
for these areas. Plans should be prepared for the following locations:
1) H Street
2) F Street
3) E Street

2. Gateways - Capital Projects
Prepare detailed design plans for selected gateways in the Urban Core.
Gateway plans should be prepared with community involvement and should
be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the Specific Plan.
The gateway plans may be developed and implemented as part of private
development occurring at gateway locations. Plans should be prepared for the
following locations:
a. Primary Gateways
1) I-5 and E Street
2) I-5 and H Street
3) Third Avenue and E Street
4) Fourth Avenue and C Street
b. Secondary Gateways
1) I-5 and F Street
2) Third Avenue and H Street
3. Wayfinding - Capital Projects

Prepare a wayfinding directional sign program for the Specific Plan area. The
program should include incorporation of the City logo or other Urban Core
identity brand, informational and directional sign designs to facilities such as
public parking, public facilities and other important destinations. The program
should include sign hierarchy and conceptual designs, should be prepared
with community involvement, and should be consistent with the guidelines and
recommendations of the Specific Plan. Actual capital projects will depend on
the resulting plan or sign program.
4. Public Art - Policy Initiatives

Complete the art in public places program and implement through project
review on individual developments and various public improvement projects.

5. Storefront/Facade Improvements – Policy Initiatives and
Capital Projects
1) Update the storefront façade improvement program in the Village
District.
Chula Vista
2) Prepare a new storefront façade improvement program for the Urban
Core District along Broadway.
b. Capital Projects
• Fund storefront and façade improvement projects through the provision
of grants in compliance with the adopted program.

H. Additional Community Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on a range of public facilities and
services with the primary goal of providing excellent facilities and services for
the Urban Core residents and visitors. Inherent in this goal are initiatives that
serve to produce additional park space; adequate and efficient use of public
schools, plazas, and paseo systems; and upgraded utilities and infrastructure.
1. Parks
Pursue park opportunity sites within the Urban Core. Each potential park site
should be located as specified in the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Each park should contain facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan update. The following are general areas for park improvements in
the Urban Core:
a. Lower Sweetwater Community Park (approximately 15 to 20 acres)
b. Memorial Park Annex (approximately 3 to 5 acres)
c. Park west of Broadway (approximately 12 to 15 acres)
2. Plazas - Capital Projects

Pursue plaza improvement projects, with amenities as outlined in this Specific
Plan, in conjunction with new development at the general locations shown on
Figure 8.69 of Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines.
3. Schools - Policy Initiatives

Coordinate with Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the
Sweetwater Unified High School District (SUHSD) to determine the need for
additional school facility space as outlined Chapter IX – Infrastructure and
Public Facilities.
4. Sustainable Development - Green Building Demonstration

The recently established National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities
(NECSC) will serve as a tremendous resource to the City throughout the life of
the Specific Plan. In partnership with the NECSC, the City will look to generate
grant funding specific to the Urban Core that will support commitments
from developers to undertake a green building demonstration program.
Through existing agreements and future development programs, the City will
target the Urban Core to create an urban model for sustainable community
development.

A new resource guide could be developed which includes expanded sustainability
goals, design principles and tools for designing and building in a mixed-use
or urban development market. A Resource Guide for Sustainable Urban
Development could expand upon the Environmental Sustainability Goals and
Design Principles included in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines and help establish
a framework for the creation of a sustainable Urban Core.
Chula Vista

I. Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects
The following section identifies key short-term projects or programs that
should be undertaken to demonstrate the potential growth and improvements
facilitated by the Specific Plan. These particular projects/programs have been
selected to create a synergistic approach to revitalization in one of the most
critical areas within the Urban Core, the Village District. The projects/programs
address private investment in new urban infill residential development, public
investment along a major pedestrian and business corridor, and public/private
investments to enhance existing businesses that are expected to remain in the
short-mid term.
1. Pursue Immediate Redevelopment of Opportunity Sites

Redevelopment of key underutilized sites, particularly within the Village District,
with new mixed-use developments should be pursued immediately to set the
momentum for other new development in the Urban Core. This initial activity
would begin to put more “feet on the street” and create the catalyst necessary
for adjoining commercial uses to really thrive and allow an active urban
environment to evolve.
A number of sites have already been identified and may present unique
opportunities for public/private partnerships. Several of the sites are City
owned and are either vacant or used as surface parking lots, providing readily
available land resources, thus streamlining the development process. The
process, review, and development of these, or other sites, would demonstrate
the positive enhancements provided by key elements of the Specific Plan.
In addition, because the area is within a designated redevelopment project

area, the new development would provide an almost immediate enhanced
revenue stream through new tax increment. In return, this new revenue
could be invested in key public improvements and urban amenities within the
redevelopment project area. Focus on the Village District is critical in order to
realize the benefits of new tax increment within the limited timeframe remaining
for the existing Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan.
2. Third Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Improvements

Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines provides the more detailed
engineering design of physical streetscape improvements of major streets
throughout the urban core. A focused effort to develop a streetscape master
plan and improvement plans for Third Avenue between E Street and G Street
should be undertaken as a priority action. Third Avenue was selected as a
priority due to its location as the traditional center of the Urban Core and the

ability to build upon and integrate the revitalization efforts described above
under Section 1. Pursue Immediate Redevelopment of Opportunity Sites. The
effort should include:
a. Involvement of the Downtown Business Association;

b. Development of a work program and request for proposals;
Chula Vista
c. Using the public realm design guidelines in Chapter VIII as a basis,
further develop detailed design plans, localized pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, and street improvement plans;
d. Prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) along with an
implementation/phasing strategy for improvements; and
e. Community participation with both area businesses and residents.
3. Improve Existing Storefront Renovation Program

Over the last several years, the City has implemented a storefront renovation
program that has had mediocre impacts on enhancing the existing and future
face of the Village District’s commercial corridor. While improvements were
made “one storefront at a time”, the results were often overshadowed by
adjoining properties that had not taken advantage of the program. Therefore,
it is recommended that the existing program be revamped to better leverage
public funds with private investments to promote business retention and growth
and augment other revitalization efforts..
The program could be redesigned to have a greater impact along the main
shopping corridor by instead improving a number of businesses located
cohesively or clustered together. By treating several properties in a row, the
architectural enhancements present a greater visual impact to pedestrians,
cyclists, and auto traffickers.
The initial pilot program should be focused on the Village District’s Third Avenue
commercial corridor and the Broadway commercial corridor. Improvements
that should be considered include new storefront signs, awnings, windows,
and paint. Restoration of vintage signs representative of significant periods of
history in the urban core may also contribute positively to the pedestrian and
vehicular streetscape. Program development and implementation should be
pursued and include incentivized financing options for participants.

J. Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms and Funding
Sources
The following is a list of commonly used mechanisms to fund public facilities.
The City of Chula Vista may currently be utilizing some of these mechanisms,
but there may be opportunities for better leveraging of funding or for pursuing
new funding sources.
1. Redevelopment Funds.
The majority of the Urban Core includes areas within various Redevelopment
Project Areas.
a. Tax Increment Financing (TIF).

Tax increment financing is the increase in property tax revenues resulting from
an increase in assessed property values that exceed base year values. Within a
redevelopment project area, the Redevelopment Agency collects a substantial
majority of the tax increment financing monies accrued in the project area. All tax
increment monies generated and adopted in redevelopment project areas are
allocated among four basic public uses: schools, neighborhood improvements,
affordable housing, and other public agencies. This funding source provides a
critical means to revitalization and public improvement activities by enabling
redevelopment agencies to issue tax increment bonds without using general
fund monies or raising taxes.
b. Set Aside Funds.

State law requires that at least 20 percent of all tax increment financing dollars
accrued within a redevelopment project area must be set aside and “used
by the agency for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the
community’s supply of low- and moderate-income housing …” (Health and
Safety Code §33334.2(a)). The set aside funds must be held in a separate
Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund until used, along with any interest
earned and repayments to the housing fund (§33334.3). The set aside funds
may be used inside or outside of the project area but must benefit the project
area. Use of set aside funds for the purposes of increasing, improving, and
preserving the community’s supply of low- and moderate-income housing may
include, but is not limited to, the following:
1) Acquisition and donation of land for affordable housing;
2) Construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units;
3) Financing insurance premiums for the construction and rehabilitation of
affordable housing units;

4) Providing subsidies to, or for the benefit of, extremely low, very low, and
lower income households as well as persons and families of low or
moderate income;
5) Paying principal and interest on bonds, loans, advances or other
indebtedness and financing or carrying charges;
6) Maintaining the supply of mobile homes; and Chula Vista
7) Preserving “at risk” affordable housing units threatened with imminent
conversion to market rate units.
2. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

CDBG are a Federal grant program administered by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. CDBG are administered on a formula
basis to entitled cities, urban counties and states to develop viable urban
communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment
and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-
income individuals. The Urban Core includes areas within the required low and
moderate census tracts. Eligible activities that may be proposed for funding
include, but are not limited to, housing, economic development, and public
facilities and improvements.
3. Business Improvement Districts

Business Improvement Districts (BID) or Property and Business Improvement
Districts (PBID) are mechanisms for assessing and collecting fees that can be
used to fund various improvements and programs within the district. There are
several legal forms of BIDs authorized by California law. The most common types
are districts formed under the Parking and Business Improvement Act of 1989.
Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) formed under the 1989 law impose a fee
on the business licenses of the businesses operating in the area, rather than
the property owners. The collected funds are used to pay for the improvements
and activities specified in the formation documents. A similar assessment
procedure was authorized by the Property and Business Improvement District
(PBID) Law of 1994. The distinction is that the PBID makes the assessment on
the real property and not on the business. A PBID is currently in operation in
the Village area. Other areas of the Specific Plan may also be ideally suited for
BID funding.
The range of activities that can potentially be funded through BIDs and PBIDs
is broad, and includes parking improvements, sidewalk cleaning, streetscape
maintenance, streetscape improvements (i.e., furniture, lighting, planting,
etc.), promotional events, marketing and advertising, security patrols, public
art, trash collection, landscaping and other functions. Generally speaking, the

BID format works well for marketing and other programmatic activities that
serve to directly benefit area businesses (i.e., tenants), whereas a PBID may be
more appropriate for permanent physical improvements that stand to improve
property values in the area. Given the size and diversity of the Specific Plan
area, it may be appropriate for separate BIDs or PBIDs to be formed for different
regions within the plan area. In this way, the collected funding could be more
specifically targeted to the unique improvement and programmatic needs of
each district.
4. Development Impact Fees

Property tax limitations imposed by Proposition 13, resulting in the decline in
property taxes available for public projects, has led local governments to adopt
alternative revenue sources to accommodate public facility and infrastructure
demands resulting from growth. Development Impact Fees is one of those
sources. AB 1600 (Cortese), which became effective on January 1, 1989,
regulates the way that impact fees are imposed on development projects.
Impact fees are one-time charges applied to offset the additional public facility
provision costs from new development. This may include provision of additional
services, such as water and sewer systems, roads, schools, libraries, and parks
and recreation facilities. Impact fees cannot be used for operation, maintenance,
alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities and cannot be channeled
to the local government’s discretionary general funds. Impact fees cannot be
an arbitrary amount and must be explicitly linked to the added cost of providing
the facility towards which it is collected.
The City of Chula Vista already has a range of impact fees that are updated
periodically. It is important, however, to realize that there are two primary
aspects of capital costs (based on which impacts fees are collected) – land costs
and building costs. Though the latter can be estimated at a citywide level and
adjusted periodically using appropriate inflation factors, land cost estimation is
more complicated, especially when one considers significant variations in land
values within the city and the necessity to provide land intensive public facilities,
such as parks. As a result the land acquisition component of a standardized
impact fee may not be consistent with the true costs involved.
5. TransNet
In 1987, voters approved the TransNet program − a half-cent sales tax to fund
a variety of important transportation projects throughout the San Diego region.
This 20-year, $3.3 billion transportation improvement program expires in 2008.
In November 2004, 67 percent of the region’s voters supported Proposition A,
which extends TransNet to 2048, thereby generating an additional $14 billion to
be distributed among highway, transit, and local road projects in approximately

equal thirds. In addition, it will support a robust public transportation system,
including new Bus Rapid Transit services and carpool/managed lanes along
many of the major freeways. Two percent of the available funds will be
earmarked annually for bicycle paths and facilities, pedestrian improvements,
and neighborhood safety projects. The San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) sets the priorities and allocates TransNet funds.
Chula Vista
6. Grant Funding
A variety of funding options are available though Federal, state and local grant
programs. Many of the grant programs target urban revitalization efforts, smart
growth enhancements, and transportation planning and are provided on a
competitive basis. Current grant programs, such as the Smart Growth Incentive
Pilot Program administered through SANDAG, can provide significant funding
towards projects that result in furthering smart growth approaches, such as the
elements embodied in the principles of the Specific Plan.
7. General Fund
The City receives revenue from a variety of sources, such as property taxes, sales
taxes, fees for recreation classes and plan checking. Revenue can be generally
classified into three broad categories: program revenue, general revenue and
restricted revenue. Depending on the revenue source, the General Fund may be
used for a variety of purposes, such as capital improvement projects or streets,
sewers, stormdrains and other infrastructure maintenance improvements.
8. Other Funding Sources

Examples of other funding sources that may be considered to assist in the
implementation of the community benefits outlined in this chapter include Ad
Valorem Property Taxes, the Sales and Use Tax, the Business License Tax and
the Transient Occupancy Tax.

K. Community Benefit Analysis
In addition to facilities and amenities outlined by this chapter, as development
proceeds in the Urban Core the specific contributions of each project to the
community shall be analyzed. Each discretionary project application shall be
accompanied by a memorandum form statement of the applicant outlining both
the obligatory contributions of the project (in the form of fees, revenue streams
and direct facilities construction), and any further voluntary contribution to the
community. Voluntary contributions may take the form of:
• Design features of the project, which meets some particular community

need or environmental goal
• Programs associated with the project which may benefit Chula Vistans
directly or indirectly
It is not the intent of this section that the Community Benefit Analysis be used
as criteria for approving or disapproving projects pursuant to this Specific
Plan. Rather, the analysis will provide an ongoing framework for citizens to
understand features of the project that positively contribute to Chula Vista in
ways beyond its physical design.

XI. Plan Administration
A. Introduction XI-1
B. Specific Plan Adoption XI-2
C. Specific Plan Administration XI-3
D. Specific Plan Amendment XI-9 Chula Vista
E. Five Year Review XI-12
Chapter XI Plan Administration 1

A. Introduction
This chapter describes the authority of a Specific Plan, the process which will be
used to consider development applications and the administrative procedures
required for amendments and/or modifications to the Plan. Chula Vista
A Specific Plan is a regulatory tool that local governments use to implement their
General Plan and to guide development in a localized area. While to the general
plan is the primary guide for growth and development throughout a community,
a Specific Plan is able to focus on the unique characteristics of a specialized
area by customizing the vision, land uses and development standards for that
area. This specific plan has been prepared and adopted pursuant to Section
65450 et seq of the California Government Code.
Chapter XI Plan Administration XI-1

B. Specific Plan Adoption
This Specific Plan has been adopted by City Council Ordinance. Adoption of this
Specific Plan followed soon after the adoption of a comprehensive General Plan
update. Upon adoption, the Specific Plan implements the adopted General Plan
by establishing the land uses, development standards and design guidelines
for the Specific Plan Focus Areas.
XI-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

C. Specific Plan Administration
1. Urban Core Development Permit and Design Review
Requirements
The Design Review Process for future development projects is established for
the Specific Plan focus areas. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4,
below, development projects within the Specific Plan Focus Areas will be subject Chula Vista
to a design review process to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan. In
addition, proposed developments would also be required to adhere to existing
CVMC regulations and processes for other discretionary review, such as those
for conditional use permits, variances, and subdivisions, as may be applicable.
(See CVMC 2.55, 19.14, and 19.54). All developments within the Specific Plan
Focus Areas require submittal and approval of an Urban Core Development
Permit (UCDP). The UCDP Review Process is illustrated in Figure 11.1. To be
approved, a development project must:
• comply with the permitted uses and development criteria contained in
Chapter VI - Land Use and Development Regulations of this Specific
Plan, and other applicable regulations contained in the CVMC; and,
• be found to be consistent with the design requirements and
recommendations contained in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines of this
Specific Plan.
For those projects which propose buildings that exceed 84 feet in height, the
further following findings will be required to be made:
• The building design reflects a unique, signature architecture and creates
a positive Chula Vista landmark;
• The project provides increased amenities such as public areas, plazas,
fountains, parks and paseos, extensive streetscape improvements,
or other public amenities that may be enjoyed by the public at large.
These amenities will be above and beyond those required as part of the
standard development approval process; and,
• The overall building height and massing provides appropriate transitions
to surrounding areas in accordance with the future vision for those areas,
or if in a Neighborhood Transition Combining District, the adjoining
neighborhood.
Except as provided in Section 3. Nonconforming Uses, Section 4. Exemptions,

and Section 5. Site Specific Variance below, all projects require a pre-submittal
meeting with staff to determine appropriate processing requirements and
preliminary issue identification. The UCDP will be issued if it is determined
that the project complies with the provisions of the Specific Plan, including the

Urban Core Development Permit Design Review Process
Fg. 11.1

development regulations, standards and design guidelines. Approval of the
UCDP will include all conditions of approval ranging from design, environmental
mitigation measures, public improvements, and others as may be determined
upon review of the specific development project. The UCDP process will ensure
an enhanced level of review for major projects, while minimizing processing for
minor projects, as defined by CVMC Section 19.14.582(i).
Chula Vista
The Specific Plan provides separate processes for design review for those
developments within established Redevelopment Project Areas and for those
developments located outside established Redevelopment Project Areas.
Figure 11.2 illustrates the boundaries of existing Redevelopment Project Areas,
which may be amended from time to time, within the Specific Plan boundaries.
Projects which include site areas within both areas shall be approved using the
process set forth for Redevelopment Project Areas.
a. Developments Within a Redevelopment Project Area

The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) has been established by the
City Council to assist with implementation and oversight of infill development in
the Redevelopment Project Areas within the Specific Plan, and elsewhere within
the City. The CVRC holds regularly scheduled meetings to review developments
and design proposals. The CVRC provides a vehicle for public participation
relating to the growth and redevelopment of the Chula Vista Urban Core, and
serves as a communications link between its citizens, the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency. In addition, the recently established Redevelopment
Advisory Committee will provide input on projects, early and often.
All developments within the Specific Plan Focus Areas that are all or in part
within a Redevelopment Project Area require submittal and approval of a UCDP.
The UCDP process requires review and approval by either the CVRC Executive
Director or the CVRC Board. For minor projects, design review will be subject to
review and approval by the Executive Director of the CVRC with the opportunity
for appeal to the CVRC. Design review of other projects will be conducted by
staff with recommendation to the CVRC.
b. Developments Not Within a Redevelopment Project Area

Projects within the Specific Plan area, but outside a Redevelopment Project
Area, will be subject to the City’s existing design review processes. Large-scale
projects, as defined above, will require review by the Design Review Committee.
Minor projects may be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator, or
his/her designee in a manner consistent with CVMC Section 19.14.

Urban Core Specific Plan and Redevelopment Areas
Fg. 11.2
XI-6
c. Other Discretionary Approvals
The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to other discretionary permits
or actions (e.g. Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permits) shall be applied as
required based on individual development projects.
2. Permitted Land Uses

Chula Vista
Permitted land uses within the Specific Plan Focus Areas are identified in
the Land Use Matrix found in Figures 6.2-6.6 of Chapter VI – Land Use and
Development Regulations. The Community Development Director or his/her
designee may determine in writing that a proposed use is similar and compatible
to a listed use and may be allowed upon making one or more of the following
findings:
• The characteristics of and activities associated with the proposed
use is similar to one or more of the allowed uses and will not involve
substantially greater intensity than the uses listed for that District;
• The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and vision of the
applicable District;
• The proposed use will be otherwise consistent with the intent of the
Specific Plan;
• The proposed use will be compatible with the other uses listed for the
applicable District.
The Community Development Director or his/her designee may refer the

question of whether a proposed use is allowable directly to the CVRC or
Planning Commission on a determination at a public hearing. A determination
of the Community Development Director or his/her designee, CVRC or Planning
Commission may be appealed in compliance with the procedure set forth in the
CVMC.

3. Nonconforming Uses
Existing uses that are not listed in the allowable land uses table or determined
to be permitted pursuant to the findings and procedure above are declared
nonconforming uses. Refer to the CVMC Chapter 19.64 – Nonconforming Uses
for definitions and policies managing nonconforming uses such as:
• Continuances (continuing operation of nonconforming uses)
• Changing uses
• Terminations of nonconforming uses
A one time extension of up to six months, according to the provisions of CVMC

Chapter 19.64.070A, may be granted by the CVRC or Planning Commission, as
applicable, where undue economic hardship is demonstrated.
Standards contained within the Specific Plan are mandatory requirements that
must be satisfied for all new projects and building renovations except where
CVMC nonconforming regulations (Chapter 19.64) provide exemptions or
allowances.
4. Exemptions
Exemptions to Specific Plan requirements include minor modifications to existing
structures such as painting, maintenance or repair, re-roof, modifications that
increase the total building area by 200 square feet or less (within a 2-year
period) as well as other exceptions and modifications described in Chapter
19.16 of the CVMC.
5. Site Specific Variance

Standards contained within the Specific Plan are mandatory requirements
that must be satisfied for all new projects and building renovations except
where CVMC Variance regulations (Chapter 19.14.140 -- 19.14.270) provide
for a variation from the strict application of the regulations of a particular
subdistrict.

D. Specific Plan Amendment
Over time, various sections of the Specific Plan may need to be revised, as
economic conditions or City needs dictate. The policies presented in the Specific
Plan contain some degree of flexibility, but any Specific Plan amendments
must be judged by relatively fixed criteria. The California Government Code
(§ 65453) clearly states that a Specific Plan “may be amended as often as
Chula Vista
deemed necessary by the legislative body.” Amendments to this Plan may be
initiated by a developer, any individual property owner, by the CVRC or by the
City, in accordance with any terms and conditions imposed during the original
approval or in accordance with any terms and conditions pertaining to Chula
Vista Municipal Code. The Community Development Director or his/her designee
is responsible for making the determination of whether an amendment to the
Specific Plan text or maps is needed. Amendment procedures are described
below.
• Proposals to amend the Specific Plan must be accompanied by detailed

information to document the change required. This information should
include revised Specific Plan text (or excerpt thereof) and revised
land use diagram or map amendment, where relevant, depicting the
amendment requested.
• The City has conducted a comprehensive analysis and invested a
significant amount of time and money in the preparation of the Specific
Plan, therefore, any proposals to amend the Specific Plan must document
the need for such changes. The City and/or applicant should indicate
the economic, social, or technical issues that generate the need to
amend the Specific Plan. Costs incurred for the amendments shall be
the responsibility of the party requesting the amendment.
• The City and/or applicant must provide an analysis of the amendment’s
impacts relative to the adopted Environmental Impact Report. Depending
on the nature of the amendment, supplemental environmental analysis
may be necessary. The need for such additional analysis shall be
determined by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines § 15162).
1. Major Amendments
The Community Development Director, or his/her designee shall within 10
days of any submittal of a request to amend this Plan, determine whether
the amendment is “minor” (administrative) or “major”. Major amendments
(described below) require an advisory recommendation by the CVRC and Planning
Commission and approval by the City Council. If the amendment is determined
to be minor, the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, may

approve or deny the application. Minor amendments must be determined by
the Community Development Director to be in substantial conformance with the
provisions of the Specific Plan and do not include any changes described below
for major amendments. Any decision of the Community Development Director,
or his/her designee, may be appealed to the CVRC and Planning Commission
and/or City Council, provided said appeal is initiated within 10 working days
of receipt by the applicant of written notice of the decision of the Community
Development Director, or his/her designee.
Examples of “major” amendments include:

• The introduction of a new land use designation not contemplated in the
Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to time.
• Changes in the designation of land uses affecting two acres or more
from that shown in the Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to
time.
• Changes to the circulation system or other community facility which
would materially affect a planning concept detailed in the Specific Plan,
as may be amended from time to time.
• Changes or additions to the design guidelines which materially alter
the stated intent of the Specific Plan, as may be amended from time to
time.
• Any change which would result in new significant, direct adverse
environmental impacts not previously considered in the EIR.
2. Necessary Findings
The Community Development Director, or his/her designee will review the request
for Specific Plan Amendment and all submitted supporting material and develop
a recommendation on the Specific Plan Amendment for consideration by the
CVRC, Planning Commission and City Council. The Community Development
Director, or his/her designee may also request further clarification and
submittal of additional supporting information, if necessary. The consideration
of any proposed amendment to the Specific Plan shall require that the following
findings be made:
• Changes have occurred in the community since the approval of the original
Specific Plan which warrant approving the proposed amendment.
• The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan for the
City of Chula Vista.
• The proposed amendment will result in a benefit to the area within the
Specific Plan.

• The proposed amendment will not result in significant unmitigated
impacts to adjacent properties.
• The proposed amendment will enable the deliver of services and
public facilities to the population within the Specific Plan area.
Chula Vista

E. Five Year Review
Conducting periodic reviews of the Specific Plan is important to ensure
proper functioning and implementation over time. A five-year review will
offer an opportunity to make sure the Specific Plan is on track, check in on
the implementation process to ensure that the goals and objectives are being
achieved and make changes in case they are not. Over the life of the Specific
Plan, the changing landscape of the Urban Core may impact the effectiveness
of implementing actions. Thus, a five-year review cycle allows for adjustments
to the plan to be made as necessary.
Items of particular importance to consider are:

• Review the total amount of development against the thresholds
established in this Specific Plan
• Evaluate the need for planned improvements based on development
patterns and programs in the CIP
• Review the various Incentives Programs to evaluate if these elements
are providing the intended results
A Five-Year Progress Report will be prepared and may be included as part of

Budget Cycle or Strategic Plan Updates.

A Appendix
Appendices
Appendix B. Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix D. Public Facilities and Services Program Chula Vista
Appendix
Chula Vista
A Appendix
The following glossary is provided primarily in support of the Urban Core Design
Guidelines. For further definitions, please refer to Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 19.04.
Chula Vista
#
360-degree Architecture
The full articulation of building facades on all four sides of a structure, including
variation in massing, roof forms, and wall planes, as well as surface articulation.
See four-sided architecture.
A
Access
An opening in a fence, wall or structure, or a walkway or driveway, permitting
pedestrian or vehicular approach to or within any structure or use.
Accessibility
A means of approaching, entering, exiting, or making use of; passage. The right
to approach, enter, exit, or make use of; often used in the form of disabled
accessibility.
Adaptive Reuse
The reuse of older structures that would have otherwise been demolished, often
involving extensive restoration or rehabilitation of the interior and/or exterior to
accommodate the new use. (See also Recycling)
Addition
Any construction that increases the size of a building, dwelling, or facility in
terms of site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area, occurring after
the completion of the original.
Aesthetics
Characterized by a heightened sensitivity or appreciation of beauty and often
discussed in conjunction with view impacts.
A Appendix A-1
Alignment (Architectural)
The visual alignment and subsequent placement of architectural elements such
as windows, cornice elements, soffits, awnings, from one structure to adjacent
structures in order to promote continuity along a block.
Alley
A narrow street or passageway between or behind a series of buildings which
affords only secondary access to abutting property.
Alteration
Any construction or substantial change in the exterior appearance of any
building or structure.
Amenities
Something that contributes to physical or material comfort. A feature that
increases attractiveness or value, especially of a piece of real estate or a
geographic location.
Arcade
A roofed passageway or lane. A series of arches supported by columns, piers,
or pillars, either freestanding or attached to a wall to form a gallery.
Arch
A curved structure supporting its weight over an open space such as a door or
window.
Articulation
Describes the degree or manner in which a building wall or roofline is made
up of distinct parts or elements. The small parts or portions of a building form
that are expressed (materials, color, texture, pattern, modulation, etc.) and
come together to define the structure. A highly articulated wall will appear to
be composed of a number of different planes, usually made distinct by their
change in direction (projections and recesses) and/or changes in materials,
colors or textures.
Asymmetry
Irregular correspondence of form and configuration on opposite sides
of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis; having unbalanced
proportions.
Atrium
A dramatic enclosed glass-roofed indoor space typically associated with high-
rise hotels and office buildings.
A-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Attached
Joined to or by a wall, especially by sharing a wall with another building; not
freestanding.
Awning
A fixed cover, typically comprised of cloth over a metal frame that is placed over
windows or building openings as protection from the sun and rain. Chula Vista
Awning Sign
A sign painted on, printed on, or attached flat against the surface of an
awning.
B
Balcony
A railed projecting platform found above ground level on a building.
Baluster
Any of the small posts that make up a railing, as in a staircase; may be plain,
turned, or pierced.
Balustrade
A series of balusters surmounted by a rail.
Barrel Tiles
Rounded clay roof tiles most often used on Spanish-style houses. Usually red
but are often available in may colors.
Bay (Structural)
A regularly repeated spatial element in a building defined by beams or ribs and
their supports.
Bay Window
A window that projects out from an exterior wall.
Beautification
The transformation of barren or uninteresting spaces, buildings, forms,
structures, into a comfortable or attractive place or environment.
Berm
An artificially raised area of soil or turf intended to screen undesirable attributes
of a project or site.
A Appendix A-3
Blockscape
The aggregated facade wall composed of uninterrupted placement of individual
urban oriented structures located side-by-side along an entire block as opposed
to individual buildings located within the block.
Bollards
A series of short posts of metal, concrete, or wood set at intervals to delineate
an area or to exclude vehicles from an area.
Breezeway
A roofed area usually found between a garage and house proper or between
commercial and industrial buildings and designed to provide shelter for outdoor
comfort.
Buffer
A term often applied to landscaped areas separating incompatible land uses.
Can also mean an area of a “transitional” land use that lies between two
incompatible land uses.
Building
Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, used or intended to
be used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property.
Building Frontage
The building elevation that fronts a public street where customer access to the
building is available.
Building Height
The building height as measured from finish grade to top of roof, not including
parapets or other architectural features.
Building Stepback
The minimum horizontal distance, as measured from the street property line,
that the upper portion of a building must step back from the lower portion of
the building; must occur at or below the noted building height.
Bulkhead
The space located between the pavement/sidewalk and the bottom of a
traditional storefront window.

Business Frontage
The portion of a building frontage occupied by a single tenant space having a
public entrance within the building frontage. For businesses located on the
interior of a building without building frontage, the building elevation providing
customer access should be considered the business frontage.
Chula Vista
C
Canopy
A protective roof-like covering, often of canvas, mounted on a frame over a
walkway or door or niche; often referred to as an awning.
Cantilever
A projecting element, such as a beam or porch, supported at a single point or
along a single line by a wall or column, stabilized by counterbalancing downward
force around the point of fulcrum.
Channel Letters
Three-dimensional individually cut letters or figures, illuminated or not
illuminated, affixed directly to a structure.
Clerestory Window
A window (usually narrow) placed in the upper walls of a room to provide extra
light.
Colonnade
A row of columns forming an element of an architectural composition, carrying
either a flat-topped entablature or a row of arches.
Column
A vertical support, usually cylindrical, consisting of a base, shaft and capital,
either monolithic or built-up, of drums the full diameter of the shaft.
Complement
In new construction, it means to add to the character of the area by attempting
to incorporate compatible architectural styles, setbacks, height, scale, massing,
colors, and materials.
Contextual
Relating to the existing built and natural environment.
A Appendix A-5
Coping (Cap)
A flat cover of stone or brick that protects the top of a wall.
Corbel
1) A projecting wall member used as a support for some elements of the
superstructure. 2) Courses of stone or brick in which each course projects
beyond the course beneath it. 3) Two such structures, meeting at the topmost
course creating an arch.
Cornice
The horizontal projection at the top of a wall or part of a roof which projects over
the side wall and serves as a crowning member.
Court
1) An extent of open ground partially or completely enclosed by walls or buildings;
a courtyard. 2) A short street, especially a wide alley walled by buildings on
three sides. 3) A large open section of a building. 4) A large building, such as a
mansion, standing in a courtyard.
Cupola
A small, dome-like structure, on top of a building to provide ventilation and
decoration.
Curb Cut
The elimination of a street curb to enable increased access to crosswalks/
sidewalks, entry driveways or parking lots.
D
Deciduous
Trees or shrubs, usually in temperate climates, that shed leaves annually.
Dentil
A band of small, square, tooth-like blocks forming part of the characteristic
ornamentation of the Ionic, Corinthian, and Doric orders.
Detached
Standing apart from others; separate or disconnected.
Detached Garage
A garage that is completely surrounded by open space or connected to a building
by an uncovered terrace.

Detail
An element of a building such as trim, moldings, other ornamentation or
decorative features.
Dormer Window
A vertical window which projects from a sloping roof placed in a small gable.
Chula Vista
Downspout
A vertical pipe used to conduct water from a roof drain or gutter to the ground
or cistern.
E
Eave
The projecting lower edge of a roof.
Eclectic
Selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems,
or styles.
Elevation
An orthographic view of the vertical features of a building (front, rear, side,
interior elevation).
Enhancement
To make better either functionally or in appearance.
Espalier
A trellis of framework on which the trunk and branches of fruit trees or shrubs
are trained to grow in one plane.
Eyebrow Window
A small, horizontal, rectangular window, often located on the uppermost story
and aligned with windows below.
External illumination
The lighting of an object from a light source located a distance from the
object.
A Appendix A-7
F
FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measure of the bulk of buildings on a lot or site.
FAR is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot or site
by the lot or site area. Gross floor area includes the total enclosed area of all
floors of a building measured from the exterior walls including halls, stairways,
elevator shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment rooms,
balconies, recreation rooms, and attics having a height of more than seven feet
but excluding area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading. (See Chapter
VI - Land Use and Development Regulations for example FAR diagrams.)
Façade
The exterior face of a building, which is the architectural front, sometimes
distinguished from other faces by elaboration of architectural or ornamental
details.
Fascia
The outside horizontal board on a cornice.
Faux
A simulation or false representation of something else, as in faux wood or
stone.
Fenestration
The stylistic arrangement of windows in a building.
Fieldstone
A stone used in its natural shape and condition.
Figurative Sign
A sign utilizing a three dimensional object to communicate the business product
or services.
Fixture
A design element considered to be permanently established or fixed in its built
or natural environment.
Focal Point
A building, object, or natural element in a street-scene that stands out and
serves as a point of focus, catching and holding the viewer’s attention.

Four-sided Architecture
The full articulation of building facades on all four sides of a structure, including
variation in massing, roof forms, and wall planes, as well as surface articulation.
See 360-degree architecture.
G Chula Vista
Gable Roof
A ridge roof that slopes up from only two walls. A gable is the vertical triangular
portion of the end of a building from the eaves to the ridge of the roof.
Gambrel
A roof where each side has two slopes; a steeper lower slope and a flatter upper
one; a ‘barn roof’. Often found in Colonial revival houses in the “Dutch” style.
Glazed Brick
A brick that has been glazed and fired on one side.
Gutter
A shallow channel of metal or wood that is set immediately below and along the
eaves of a building for catching and carrying rainwater from the roof.
H
Hardscape
Areas which water does not easily penetrate; surfaces that are not landscaped,
i.e., sidewalks, streets, building pads, etc.
Hedge
A row of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or
boundary.
Hipped (Hip Roof)

A roof with four uniformly pitched sides.
Historic
Having importance in or influence on history.
Homogeneity
The state or quality of being the same.
A Appendix A-9
I
Infill
A newly constructed building within an existing development area.
Internally Illuminated Sign

A sign whose light source is located in the interior of the sign so that rays shine
through the face of the sign, or a light source that is attached to the face of the
sign and is perceived as a design element of the sign.
K
Kicker
A piece of wood that is attached to a formwork member to take the thrust of
another member.
L
Landmark
A building or site that has historical significance, especially one that is marked
for preservation.
Landscaping
An area devoted to or developed and maintained with indigenous or exotic
planting, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials,
decorative outdoor landscape elements, pools, fountains, water feature, paved
or decorated surfaces of rock, stone, brick, block, or similar material (excluding
driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas), and sculpture elements. Plants
on rooftops, porches or in boxes attached to buildings are not considered
landscaping for purposes of meeting minimum landscaping requirements.
Additional guidance regarding acceptable landscaping elements is provided in
Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines.
Lattice
A grillwork created by crisscrossing or decoratively interlacing strips of
material.

Level of Service (LOS)
A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream
in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort and convenience, and safety. Labeled on a continuum from A to F, Level
A denotes the best traffic conditions while Level F indicates traffic gridlock.
Light Trespass Chula Vista

Extraneous light on adjacent property, typically produced by stray light from
outdoor lighting systems
Lintel
A horizontal support member that supports a load over an opening, as a
window or door opening, usually made of wood, stone or steel; may be exposed
or obscured by wall coverings.
Loading Space
An area used exclusively for the loading and unloading of goods from a vehicle
in connection with the use of the site on which such space is located.
Loft
A large, usually unpartitioned floor over a factory, warehouse, or other
commercial or industrial space. An open space under a roof; an attic or a
garret. This is also a type of housing product.
Lot
A piece or parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a principal
building or a group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a
principal use and uses accessory thereto, together with such open spaces, and
having frontage on a public or an approved private street.
Lot Coverage
Lot coverage is the percentage of a lot or site covered by buildings.
Lumen
The rate of flow of light used to express the overall light output of a lamp.
M
Maintenance
The work of keeping something in proper condition; upkeep.
A Appendix A-11
Mansard
Traditionally a hip roof, each face of which has a steeper lower part and a
shallower upper part. In contemporary commercial development, the second
portion of the roof is replaced with a flat roof or equipment well. These are
referred to as mansard roofs but bear little resemblance to the original.
Masonry
Wall construction of such material as stone, brick and adobe.
Mass
Mass describes three-dimensional forms, the simplest of which are cubes,
boxes (or “rectangular solids”), cylinders, pyramids and cones. Buildings are
rarely one of these simple forms, but generally are composites of varying types
of assets. This composition is generally described as the “massing” of forms in
a building.
Mixed-Use
Mixed-use developments combine different types of land uses or structures (such
as commercial/office and residential uses) on a single-lot, or as components
of a single development. The uses may be combined either vertically within
the same structure or spread horizontally on the site in different areas and
structures.
Monolithic
A single large flat surface (facade) without relief. A massive unyielding
structure.
Monument Sign
Permanent signs where the entire bottom of the sign is affixed to the ground,
not to a building.
Mullions
The divisional pieces in a multi-paned window.
Muntin
Wood or metal strips separating panels in a window.
N
Neon Sign
Glass tube lighting in which a combination of gas and phosphors are used to
create colored light.

Newel
The terminating baluster at the lower end of a handrail.
Niche
A recess in a wall.
Chula Vista
O
Open Space
For the purposes of the open space requirement, the term “open space” refers
to any areas with minimum dimensions of 60 square feet (6’x10’) and devoted
to the following common, private, or public uses: patio, porch, balcony, deck,
garden, playground, plaza, swimming pool, sports court/field, recreation room,
gym, spa, community room, cultural arts, lawn/turf, pond, fountain, atrium,
sunroom, theater, amphitheater, band shell, gazebo, picnic area, shelter, roof,
or similar passive or active recreational/leisure use or facility that is not used
for enclosed dwelling unit floor area or commercial use space.
Ornamentation.
Details added to a structure solely for decorative reasons (i.e. to add shape,
texture or color to an architectural composition).
Outbuilding
An auxiliary structure that is located away from a house or principal building
(e.g. garage, studio, guest house, shed).
P
Parapet
A low retaining wall at the edge of a roof, porch, or terrace.
Parking
An open area used for the purpose of storing an automobile, usually for a
temporary time period.
Parkway
The public area between the curbing and the sidewalk.
A Appendix A-13
Paseo
A place that allows for a pedestrian to take a slow, easy stroll or walk outdoors
and often between buildings; often covered or partially covered, the path, series
of paths, or walkway along which such a walk is taken.
Pattern
The pattern of material can also add texture and can be used to add character,
scale and balance to a building. The lines of the many types of brick bonds are
examples of how material can be placed in a pattern to create texture.
Pediment
The low triangular gable following the roof slopes over the front and rear of a
building; also used to crown features such as doors and windows.
Pergola
An arbor formed of horizontal trelliswork supported on columns or posts, over
which vines or other plants are trained.
Permeable Paving
Paving material that allows the passage of water between and through voids in
its surface.
Pedestrian-scale
Refers to building and landscape elements that are modest in size; suitable to
average human size.
Permanent Sign
A sign constructed of durable materials and intended to exist for the duration of
time that the use or occupant is located on the premises.
Pier
A vertical, non-circular masonry support, more massive than a column.
Pilaster
A rectangular column with a capital and base, set into a wall as an ornamental
motif.
Pillar
Similar to but more slender than a pier, also non-circular.
Pitch
The slope of a roof expressed in terms of ratio of height to span.

Platted
A piece of land; a plot. A map showing actual or planned features, such as
streets and building lots.
Plaza
A public square with room for pedestrians and associated activities.
Chula Vista
Pocket Park
A very small, lushly landscaped open space often nestled between residential
homes, and intended for limited use by local residents only.
Pole Sign
A sign mounted on a freestanding pole or other support so that the bottom
edge of the sign face is six feet or more above finished grade.
Pop-out
Applied to exterior walls, pop-outs create shadow patterns and depths on the
wall surfaces.
Porch
A covered entrance or semi-enclosed space projecting from the facade of a
building, usually having a separate roof. An open or enclosed gallery or room
attached to the outside of a building; a veranda.
Portico
A porch or vestibule (lobby or passage between entrance and lobby) roofed and
partly opened on at least one side.
Preservation
Places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation,
maintenance and repair. It reflects a building’s continuum over time, through
successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that
are made. Standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials,
features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a
property its historic character.
Primary Building Façade

The particular facade of a building that faces the street to which the address of
the building pertains.
Project
Any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alteration, or
enlargement of any structure that is subject to the provisions of this manual.
A Appendix A-15
Projecting Sign
A sign that protrudes horizontally from the facade of a building, usually at a 90-
degree angle to the building..
Promenade
A public place to take a leisurely walk for pleasure, such as an avenue.
Proportion
The relationship of size, quantity, or degree between two or more things or parts
of something. Proportion can describe height-to-height ratios, width-to-width
ratios, and width-to-height ratios, as well as ratios of massing. Landscaping
can be used to establish a consistent rhythm along a streetscape, which will
disguise the lack of proportion in building size and placement.
Public Art
Any sculpture, fountain, monument, mural or other form of art located in a
public space or private space open to public view.
R
Recess
A hollow place, as in a wall.
Reconstruction
Establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non-surviving site, landscape,
building, structure, or object in all new materials.
Recycling
The reuse of older structures that would have otherwise been demolished, often
involving extensive restoration or rehabilitation of the interior and/or exterior to
accommodate the new use. (See also Adaptive Reuse.)
Refuge Island
A defined area between traffic lanes that provides a safe place for pedestrians
to wait when crossing the street.

Rehabilitation
Emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude
is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property is more
deteriorated prior to work. Standards focus attention on the preservation of
those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that,
together, give a property its historic character.
Chula Vista
Relief
Carving raised above a background plane, as in base relief.
Remodeling
Any change or alteration to a building that substantially alters its original
state.
Renovation
The modification of or changes to an existing building in order to extend its
useful life or utility through repairs or alterations.
Restoration
Focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property’s
history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods.
Return
A surface turned back from a principal surface, such as the side of pilaster or
the jamb of a window or door opening.
Reuse
To use again, especially after salvaging or special treatment or processing.
Reveal
The vertical side section of a doorway or window frame.
Rhythm
In urban design, the regular recurrence of lines shapes, forms, elements, colors,
or other architectural or natural elements, usually within a proportional system,
such as even placing of trees down a street or similar widths and heights of
buildings in a street block.
Ridge
The horizontal line formed by the juncture of two sloping planes, especially the
line formed by the surfaces at the top of a roof.
A Appendix A-17
Right-of-way
Land that has been established by reservation, dedication, prescription,
condemnation, or other means and that is occupied by a road, walkway, railroad,
utility distribution or transmission facility, or other similar use.
Rise
The vertical distance from one stair tread to the next.
Riser
The vertical portion of a step. The board covering the open space between stair
treads.
Rooflines
Various forms to a roof, such as pitch, ridge, hip, etc., often at different
angles.
Roof Pitch
Degree of roof slant stated in inches rise per foot.
Roof Span
The distance equal to twice the roof run, or the horizontal distance between the
outside faces of bearing wall plates.
Roofscape
The collective image of rooflines and roof styles of adjacent buildings and
structures as seen against the sky.
Row Townhouse
An unbroken line of houses sharing one or more sidewalls with its neighbors.
Rustication
A method of forming stonework with recessed joints and smooth or roughly
textured block faces.
S
Sash
The framework into which windowpanes are set.

Scale
The proportion of one object to another. “Pedestrian” or “human” scale
incorporates building and landscape elements that are modest in size.
“Monumental” scale incorporates large or grand building elements.
Screening
A method of visually shielding or obscuring a structure, or portion of, by a fence, Chula Vista
wall, berm, or similar structure.
Setback
The distance between the property line and the building, measured horizontally
and perpendicular to the property line.
Shed Roof
A roof shape having only one sloping pane.
Shutter
A movable cover for a window used for protection from weather and intruders.
Side Loading Garage

An accessory building or portion of a principal building, located and accessed
from the side of such and designed or used for the parking or temporary storage
of the motor vehicles of principal building occupants.
Sidewalk
A paved walkway along the side of a street.
Siding
The finish covering on the exterior of a frame building (with the exception
of masonry). The term cladding is often used to describe any exterior wall
covering, including masonry.
Skyline
The upper outline or silhouette of a building, buildings, or landscape as seen
against the sky.
Sill
The framing member that forms the lower side of an opening, such as a doorsill.
A windowsill forms the lower, usually projecting, lip on the outside face of a
window.
A Appendix A-19
Sign
Please refer to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.04. Supplemental
definitions are provided in Chapter VII - Development Design Guidelines.
Site
A lot, or group of contiguous lots not divided by an alley, street, other right-of-
way, or city limit that is proposed for development in accord with the provisions
of this manual, and is in a single ownership or has multiple owners, all of whom
join in an application for development.
Soffit
The underside of a beam, arch, eave, overhang, dropped ceiling, etc.
Spandrel Glass
Non-vision glass, available in reflective, patterned, and solid colors. Can be
used to give the appearance of having windows.
Spark Arrester
A device that is located at the top of a chimney used to prevent sparks, embers,
or other ignited material above a certain size from being expelled to the
atmosphere.
Stoop
A small porch, platform, or staircase leading to the entrance of a house or
building.
Storefront
The side of a store or shop facing a street. The traditional “main street” facade
bounded by a structural pier on either side, the sidewalk on the bottom and
the lower edge of the upper facade on top, typically dominated by retail display
windows.
Stormwater
Water running on the surface of the ground due to rainfall from a storm event.
Story
That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the
floor or ceiling next above it.
Streetscape
The overall appearance of a street or grouping of streets in an area and/or the
relationship of buildings to the surrounding sidewalk and streets.

Street Wall
The edges created by buildings and landscaping that enclose the street and
create space.
Street Wall Frontage

The percentage of street front that must be built to, with the ground floor
building façade at the minimum setback. Chula Vista
Structure
Anything constructed, the use of which requires permanent location on the
ground, or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground,
excluding swimming pools, patios, walks, access drive, or similar paved areas.
Stucco
A durable finish for exterior walls, usually composed of cement, sand, and lime
and applied while wet. A fine plaster for interior wall ornamentation, such as
moldings.
Surface Materials
Can be used to create a texture for a building - from the roughness of stone or
a ribbed metal screen to the smoothness of marble or glass. Some materials,
such as wood, may be either rough (such as wood shingles or re-sawn lumber)
or smooth (such as clapboard siding).
Surround(s)
The molding that outlines an object or opening.
Symmetry
Exact correspondence of form and configuration on opposite sides of a dividing
line or plane or about a center or an axis; having balanced proportions.
T
Temporary Sign
Any sign intended to be displayed for a limited period of time and capable of being
viewed from any public right-of-way, parking area, or neighboring property.
Texture
Texture refers to variations in the exterior facade and may be described in terms
of roughness of the surface material, the patterns inherent in the material or the
patterns in which the material is placed. Texture and lack of texture influence
the mass, scale, and rhythm of a building. Texture also can add intimate scale to
large buildings by the use of small detailed patterns, such as brick masonry.
A Appendix A-21
Tower
Any floor above the defined street wall height used for framing the street.
Traffic
The passage of people, vehicles, or messages along routes of transportation or
communication. Vehicles or pedestrians in transit.
Traffic Calming
Techniques that are used to reduce the speed of vehicular traffic, such as lane
narrowing, sharp offsets, sidewalk bulge-outs, speed bumps, and road surface
variations.
Transit
Conveyance of people or goods from one place to another, especially on a local
public transportation system.
Transition
A change from one place or state or stage to another. In an urban planning
context, a “transition” could describe a step in scale of one development to
another.
Transom
A small window just above a door.
Trash Receptacle
A fixture or container for the disposal of garbage. Sometimes ornamental in
nature.
Trellis
A system of horizontal joists supported on posts, often designed to support
growing plants.
Trim
The decorative finish around a door or window; the architrave or decorative
casing used around a door or window frame. Any visible woodwork or moldings
that cover or protect joints, edges, or ends of another material. Examples:
baseboards, cornices, door trim, and window trim.
Turf Island
A landscaped area located at the base of a building to buffer the hard edge of
a building from a paved surface.

Turret
A small tower, often at the corner of a building.
U
Chula Vista
Use
The purpose for which the land or a building is arranged, designed, or intended
to be used and for which it is or may be used.
V
Valley
A low region on a roof between gables.
Veneer
A thin facing of finishing material.
Veneer Wall
The covering of wall construction by a second material to enhance wall beauty,
i.e., brick or stone over frame, brick or stone over concrete block.
W
Wall Sign
A sign that is attached to or painted on the exterior wall of a structure with the
display surface of the sign approximately parallel to the building wall.
Window Sill
The flat piece of wood, stone, or the like, at the bottom of a window frame.
Window Sign
A sign posted, painted, placed, or affixed in or on a window exposed to public
view. An interior sign that faces a window exposed to public view that is located
within three feet of the window is considered a window sign for the purpose of
calculating the total area of all window signs.
A Appendix A-23
Window Types
• Awning - Top hinged.
• Bay - Extends beyond the exterior face of the wall.
• Bow - Projected window with a curved surface often in the glass itself.
• Casement - Side hinged.
• Combination - The integration of two or more styles into one unit.
• Double Hung - Two sash, vertical sliding.
• Hopper - Bottom hinged.
• Horizontal sliding - Two or more sashes designed to slide over one
another.
• Jalousie - Glass slats (Venetian blind principle) with hand crank to
open.
• Oriel - Windows that project from an upper story, supported by a
bracket.
• Picture Window - Fixed sash.

Appendix B. Traffic Analysis
Chula Vista
B Appendix
FINAL Traffic Impact Analysis
Chula Vista
Urban Core
October 2005
Prepared for:
RRM Design Group
Project No. 095413000
© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2005

FINAL Traffic Impact Analysis
Chula Vista
Urban Core
October 2005
Prepared for:
RRM Design Group
31831 Camino Capistrano, Suite 200
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
517 Fourth Avenue, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92101
Project No. 095413000

© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
2.0 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
STUDY INTERSECTIONS........................................................................................................................... 2-1
ANALYSIS PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 2-3
Analysis Software ................................................................................................................................ 2-3
Signalized Intersections....................................................................................................................... 2-3
Effects of At-Grade Trolley Crossings.................................................................................................. 2-4
Roadway Segments.............................................................................................................................. 2-6
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION .............................................................................................................. 2-7
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................. 3-1
ROAD NETWORK .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................................................................................................................... 3-11
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 3-21
ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 3-21
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE ................................................................................................................. 3-21
4.0 URBAN CORE TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................. 4-1
LAND USES ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1
URBAN CORE TRAFFIC GENERATION ...................................................................................................... 4-2
TRANSPORTATION MODELING ................................................................................................................ 4-4
5.0 YEAR 2030 CONDITIONS................................................................................................................. 5-1
ROAD NETWORK .................................................................................................................................... 5-1
TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................................................................................. 5-1
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 5-9
ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 5-9
FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICE ................................................................................................................... 5-15
6.0 YEAR 2030 WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS .................................................................... 6-1
ROAD NETWORK .................................................................................................................................... 6-1
E Street Corridor ................................................................................................................................ 6-3
F Street Bike Lanes ............................................................................................................................. 6-4
H Street Corridor................................................................................................................................ 6-5
Broadway Corridor............................................................................................................................. 6-7
3rd Avenue Pedestrian Enhancements................................................................................................... 6-8
Woodlawn Avenue Couplet................................................................................................................ 6-11
ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 6-12
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................................. 6-14
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 6-15
WEST SIDE SHUTTLE SERVICE .............................................................................................................. 6-16
7.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 7-1
i
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................1-2

Figure 1-2 Urban Core Specific Plan ...................................................................................................1-3
Figure 2-1 Study Intersections .............................................................................................................2-5
Figure 3-1 Existing Intersection Geometrics ........................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-2 Existing Roadway Geometrics ..........................................................................................3-10
Figure 3-3 Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................3-14
Figure 3-4 Existing ADT Volumes ....................................................................................................3-20
Figure 4-1 Location of Urban Core Land Uses .....................................................................................4-3
Figure 5-1 Year 2030 Conditions Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..............................................................5-2
Figure 5-2 Year 2030 Conditions ADT Volumes .................................................................................5-8
Figure 5-3 Regional Transit Routes ...................................................................................................5-16
Figure 6-1 Proposed Cross Section, E Street Between I-5 and 300’East of I-5 N Ramp .......................6-3
Figure 6-2 Proposed Cross Section, E Street Between 3rd Avenue and Broadway .................................6-3
Figure 6-3 Proposed Cross Section, F Street Between Third Avenue and I-5 ........................................6-4
Figure 6-4 Proposed Cross Section, H Street Between Third Avenue and Broadway ............................6-5
Figure 6-5 Proposed Cross Section, H Street Between Broadway and I-5 .............................................6-6
Figure 6-6 Proposed Cross Section, Broadway Between C Street and L Street .....................................6-7
Figure 6-7 Proposed Cross Section, 3rd Avenue With Diagonal Parking ..............................................6-9
Figure 6-8 Proposed Cross Section, 3rd Avenue Without Diagonal Parking .........................................6-9
Figure 6-9 Proposed Cross Section, 3rd Avenue At Signalized Intersections ......................................6-10
Figure 6-10 Proposed Cross Section, Entire Length of Woodlawn Avenue.......................................... 6-11
Figure 6-11 Year 2030 With Improvements Intersection Geometrics.................................................. 6-17
Figure 6-12 Project Features/Improvements at Study Intersections.....................................................6-19
Figure 6-13 Study Intersections Remaining at LOS E ........................................................................6-22
Figure 6-14 West Side Shuttle Proposed Route ..................................................................................6-23
ii
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Study Intersections...............................................................................................................2-1

Table 2-2 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria For Signalized Intersections................................................2-4
Table 2-3 Roadway Segment Capacity Level of Service ......................................................................2-6
Table 2-4 Levels of Significance Criteria For Intersections and Roadway Segments.............................2-7
Table 3-1 Existing Roadway Segment Dimensions ..............................................................................3-2
Table 3-2 Intersection Count Data Source..........................................................................................3-11
Table 3-3 Roadway Segment Count Data Source ...............................................................................3-13
Table 3-4 Existing Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary .............................3-22
Table 3-5 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary....................................3-26
Table 4-1 Urban Core Specific Plan Projected Buildout .......................................................................4-1
Table 4-2 Trip Generation Summary....................................................................................................4-2
Table 5-1 Year 2030 Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary..........................5-10
Table 5-2 Year 2030 Conditions Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ................................5-14
Table 6-1 Proposed Roadway Segment Dimensions.............................................................................6-2
Table 6-2 Year 2030 With Improvements Conditions Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary.6-13
Table 6-3 Year 2030 With Improvements Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary
...................................................................................................................................................6-20
List of Appendices
Appendix A
§ Benefits of Grade Separation Memorandum
Appendix B
§ Existing Peak-Hour and ADT Volumes
Appendix C
§ Peak-Hour Intersection LOS Worksheets
Appendix D
§ Figures from City of Chula Vista General Plan
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study evaluates the potential traffic-related impacts associated with the adoption of the Chula Vista
Urban Core Specific Plan. This study determines the appropriate geometric design of the urban arterials,
as defined in the Chula Vista General Plan. In addition, this study will recommend improvements to
achieve acceptable LOS for any potential traffic impacts associated with the project. This study will
serve as the traffic impact analysis for future redevelopment projects consistent with the Urban Core
Specific Plan.
Project Description
The Chula Vista Urban Core is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista, California.
Figure 1-1 illustrates the project study area in a regional context. The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP)
Study Area covers approximately 1,700 acres within the northwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
It is generally bordered by the San Diego Freeway (I-5) to the west, C Street to the north, Del Mar Street
to the east, and L Street to the south. While there are 1,700 acres within the UCSP Study Area, it was
determined that the proposed changes to land use designations be focused on areas more in need of
revitalization. Therefore, the Specific Plan boundary focuses on the development and redevelopment of
approximately 690 gross acres within the larger UCSP Study Area. Figure 1-2 illustrates both the UCSP
Study Area and the Focus Area.
Analysis Scenarios
A total of three scenarios were analyzed as part of the Urban Core project, which are listed below:
§ Existing Conditions
Ø Existing Conditions: Represents the traffic conditions of the existing street network, primarily
in the Urban Core Focus Area, but also includes key intersections and roadway segments
within and near the Urban Core Specific Plan Study Area.
§ Year 2030
Ø Year 2030 Conditions: Represents the traffic conditions of the street network consistent with
the adopted general plan update, implementation of the regional transit vision, and full build-
out of the Urban Core.
Ø Year 2030 With Improvements Conditions: Represents the traffic conditions of the street
network with improvements to several roadways and intersections.
It should be noted that due to urban revitalization, the timing, sequencing, and the extent of development
is not predictable and is speculative. The Urban Core Specific Plan covers a large geographic area, which
could redevelop in many different ways. As a result, the intermediate years were not analyzed; only the
full buildout of the Urban Core was analyzed. As such, the impacts resulting from the full buildout of the
Urban Core would be considered cumulative impacts.
Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction

Chula Vista Urban Core 1-1 October 2005
Urban Core Specific Plan
Figure 1-1
1-2
RegionalVicinity Map
1-3
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The following section describes the methodology used in the determination of study intersections,
analysis process, and determination of significant impacts.
Study Intersections
The Urban Core is located in the Northwest Planning Subarea, located south of SR-54, west of I-805,
north of L Street, and east of I-5. More specifically, the Urban Core Specific Plan is bounded by C Street,
Del Mar Avenue, L Street, and I-5. The following intersections shown in Table 2-1 were identified for
evaluation. These intersections represent all key intersections in the Urban Core Specific Plan and others
that could be influenced by land use intensifications within the Urban Core.
Table 2-1 Study Intersections
TABLE 2-1
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Intersection Traffic Control (a)

1 Bay Blvd-I-5 SB Ramp @ E St (b) Signal
2 I-5 NB Ramp @ E St Signal
3 Woodlawn Ave @ E St Signal
4 Broadway @ E St Signal
5 5th Ave @ E St Signal
6 4th Ave @ E St Signal
7 3rd Ave @ E St Signal
8 2nd Ave @ E St Signal
9 1st Ave @ E St (b) Signal
10 Flower St @ E St (b) Signal
11 Bonita Glen Dr @ Bonita Rd (b) Signal
12 Bay Blvd @ F St (b) AWSC
13 Broadway @ F St Signal
14 5th Ave @ F St Signal
15 4th Ave @ F St Signal
16 3rd Ave @ F St Signal
17 2nd Ave @ F St Signal
18 Broadway @ G St Signal
19 5th Ave @ G St Signal
20 4th Ave @ G St Signal
21 3rd Ave @ G St Signal
22 2nd Ave @ G St AWSC
23 Hilltop Dr @ G St (b) AWSC
24 I-5 SB Ramp @ H St Signal
25 I-5 NB Ramp @ H St Signal
Notes:
(a) Signal = Traffic signal, AWSC = All-way Stop Control, TWSC = Two-way Stop Control
(b) Outside of Urban Core Specific Plan study area, but due to proximity and ingress/egress patterns, these
intersections were included as part of the study area.
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology

TABLE 2-1
STUDY INTERSECTIONS (Continued)
Intersection Traffic Control (a)

26 Woodlawn Ave @ H St Signal
27 Broadway @ H St Signal
28 5th Ave @ H St Signal
29 4th Ave @ H St Signal
30 3rd Ave @ H St Signal
31 2nd Ave @ H St Signal
32 1st Ave @ H St (b) Signal
33 Hilltop Dr @ H St (b) Signal
34 Broadway @ SR-54 WB Ramp (b) Signal
35 Broadway @ SR-54 EB Ramp (b) Signal
36 Broadway @ C St Signal
37 Broadway @ D Street Signal
38 Broadway @ Flower St Signal
39 Broadway @ I St Signal
40 Broadway @ J St Signal
41 Broadway @ K St Signal
42 Broadway @ L St Signal
43 4th Ave @ SR-54 WB Ramp (b) Signal
44 4th Ave @ SR-54 EB Ramp (b) Signal
45 4th Ave @ Brisbane St (b) Signal
46 4th Ave @ C St Signal
47 4th Ave @ D St Signal
48 4th Ave @ I St Signal
49 4th Ave @ J St Signal
50 4th Ave @ K St Signal
51 4th Ave @ L St Signal
52 3rd Ave @ Davidson St Signal
53 3rd Ave @ I St Signal
54 3rd Ave @ J St Signal
55 3rd Ave @ K St Signal
56 3rd Ave @ L St Signal
57 2nd Ave @ D St AWSC
58 J St @ I-5 SB Ramp Signal
59 J St @ I-5 NB Ramp Signal
60 Woodlawn Ave @ J St TWSC
61 L St @ Bay Blvd TWSC
62 L St @ Industrial Blvd Signal
63 Bay Blvd @ I-5 SB Ramp (b) TWSC
64 Industrial Blvd @ I-5 NB Ramp (b) AWSC
Notes:
(a) Signal = Traffic signal, AWSC = All-way Stop Control, TWSC = Two-way Stop Control
(b) Outside of Urban Core Specific Plan study area, but due to proximity and ingress/egress patterns, these
intersections were included as part of the study area.

As shown in Table 2-1, 56 signalized intersections exist near and within the Urban Core Specific Plan
study area under existing conditions. It should be noted that intersections 1, 9 through 12, 23, 32 through
35, 43 through 45, 63, and 64 are outside of the Urban Core Specific Plan study area, but are included in
the analysis due to the proximity and ingress/egress patterns. Figure 2-1 displays the location of the
study intersections.
Analysis Process
The analysis process includes determining the operations at the study intersections for the a.m. and p.m.
peak-hours and operations on roadway segments using ADT volumes. Intersections will be measured and
quantified by using the Synchro traffic analysis software package. Roadway segments will be measured
based on each segment’s volume and assigned capacity. Results will be compared to the City’s standards
to determine the level of service (LOS).
Analysis Software
To analyze the operations of both signalized and unsignalized intersections, Synchro 6 (Trafficware) was
used for the analysis. Synchro 6 uses the methodologies outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM).
The default peak-hour factor (PHF) of 0.92 was used for the Existing Conditions and Year 2030
scenarios. Under the Year 2030 scenario, all signal timings and phasings at the study intersections were
optimized as a network and a common cycle length was selected at all intersections. Also, it should be
noted that at each interchange, the two ramp intersections were optimized separately and assumed to be
coordinated.
Signalized Intersections
The 2000 HCM published by the Transportation Research Board establishes a system whereby highway
facilities are rated for their ability to process traffic volumes. The terminology "level of service" is used
to provide a "qualitative" evaluation based on certain "quantitative" calculations, which are related to
empirical values.
LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption, and loss of travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the
average control delay per vehicle for the peak 15-minute period within the hour analyzed. The average
control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, and final acceleration time in
addition to the stop delay. The criteria for the various levels of service designations are given in Table 2-
2.

Table 2-2 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria For Signalized Intersections
TABLE 2-2
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Control Delay
LOS (sec/veh) (a) Description
A <10.0 Operations with very low delay and most vehicles do not stop.
B <10.0 and <20.0 Operations with good progression but with some restricted movement.
Operations where a significant number of vehicles are stopping with some backup and
C >20.0 and <35.0
light congestion.
Operations where congestion is noticeable, longer delays occur, and many vehicles stop.
D >35.0 and <55.0
The proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
E >55.0 and <80.0 Operations where there is significant delay, extensive queuing, and poor progression.
Operations that are unacceptable to most drivers, when the arrival rates exceed the
F >80.0
capacity of the intersection.
Notes:
(a) 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 16, Page 2, Exhibit 16-2
Effects of At-Grade Trolley Crossings
As part of the General Plan Update transportation analysis, the effects of the trolley grade crossings at E
Street and H Street were evaluated. The analysis replicated the effects of a trolley/rail crossing by
assuming a signal at the trolley crossings. A summary of this analysis is included as an attachment to this
report (see Appendix A). The analysis assumed that a trolley would cross once per every five minutes,
using current trolley service and once every two and a half minutes using planned service increases. Field
observations indicate that the trolley crossing guards stay down for about 54 seconds. This means that
one-sixth of the time, the trolley crossings are down and with future service enhancements, the trolley
crossing guards are down one-third of the time.
With the trolley crossings down, queues would start to form in the east-west direction and extend into
adjacent intersections. This would cause additional delays and affect the operations at each impacted
intersection. As such, delays shown in the respective intersection summary tables for the intersections
affected by the trolley crossings would be increased between 17 and 40 seconds per vehicle, causing a
drop in LOS grade.

2-5
Roadway Segments
In order to determine the LOS for a street segment on a daily basis, the average daily traffic (ADT)
volume is compared to its maximum acceptable volume for each type of roadway (arterial, collector, etc.)
in the City. The roadway segment capacities of Circulation Element roadways (Class I Collectors and
above) were evaluated under existing and proposed conditions using LOS thresholds published by the
City of Chula Vista’ s adopted General Plan. Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) ratios were calculated for each
segment. It should be noted that the capacity of a roadway is equal to the maximum LOS E volume, but
the LOS is based on the acceptable volume for each respective type of facility. Table 2-3 summarizes the
acceptable volumes with its corresponding LOS for each Circulation Element and Urban Core Circulation
Roadway. A more detailed discussion related to the development of the Urban Core Circulation Element
is contained in Section 1.2 of the 2005 adopted General Plan.
Table 2-3 Roadway Segment Capacity Level of Service
TABLE 2-3
ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)

ACCEPTABLE
CLASS (a) LANES LOS A B C D E
CIRCULATION ELEMENT ROADWAYS
Expressway 7/8 C 52,500 61,300 70,000 78,800 87,500
Prime 6 C 37,500 43,800 50,000 56,300 62,500
6 C 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

Major
Street
4 C 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500
Class I
4 C 16,500 19,300 22,000 24,800 27,500
Collector
URBAN CORE CIRCULATION ELEMENT ROADWAYS
6 D 40,800 47,600 54,400 61,200 68,000
Gateway
Street
4 D 28,800 33,600 38,400 43,200 48,000
Urban
4 D 25,200 29,400 33,600 37,800 42,000
Arterial
Commercial
4 D 22,500 26,250 30,000 33,750 37,500
Boulevard
4 D 22,500 26,250 30,000 33,750 37,500
Downtown
Promenade
2 D 9,600 11,200 12,800 14,400 16,000
Note:
Shaded cells correspond to the acceptable traffic volumes for each respective roadway.
(a) The adopted Circulation Element roadways are considered to be Class I Collector Streets and above, and the
Urban Core Circulation Element are considered to be 6-lane Gateway Streets and below.

Significance Determination
The significance criteria to evaluate the project impacts to intersections are based on the City of Chula
Vista’s Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the City of Chula Vista, February 13, 2001 and on the City
of Chula Vista’s adopted General Plan. At intersections, the measurement of effectiveness (MOE) is based
on allowable increases in delay. At roadway segments, the MOE is based on allowable increases in the
ADT.
Within the City of Chula Vista, the goal is to achieve LOS D or better at all signalized and unsignalized
intersections. A project specific impact would occur if the operations at intersections are at LOS E or F
and the project trips comprise five percent or more of the entering volume. Entering volumes are defined
as the number of vehicles “entering” an intersection during a peak-hour. A cumulative impact would
occur if the operations at intersections are at LOS E or F only.
For non-Urban Core Circulation Element roadways (Expressway, Prime Arterial, Major Street, Town Center
Arterial, Class I Collector), a roadway segment that currently operates at LOS C or better and with the
proposed changes would operate at LOS D or worse at General Plan buildout is considered a significant
impact. In addition, a roadway segment that currently operates at LOS D or E would operate at LOS E or F
at General Plan buildout, respectively, or which operates at LOS D, E, or F and would worsen by five
percent or more at General Plan buildout is considered a significant impact.
For Urban Core Circulation Element roadways (Gateway Street, Urban Arterial, Commercial Boulevard,
Downtown Promenade), a roadway segment that currently operates at LOS D or better and with the
proposed changes would operate at LOS E or F at General Plan buildout is considered a significant impact.
In addition, a roadway segment that currently operates at LOS F and would worsen by five percent of more
at General Plan buildout is considered a significant impact. Table 2-4 shows the criteria for determining
levels of significance at intersections and roadway segments.
Table 2-4 Levels of Significance Criteria For Intersections and Roadway Segments
TABLE 2-4
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Measurement of
Facility Effectiveness (MOE) Significance Threshold
Intersection Seconds of delay LOS E or F and >5% of entering volume
Non Urban Core Circulation Element Roadways:

LOS C or better à LOS D or worse at buildout or LOS D/E à LOS E/F
at buildout and >5% of entering volume
Roadway Segment ADT
Urban Core Circulation Element Roadways:
LOS D or better à LOS E/F at buildout or LOS E/F and >5% of
entering volume
Source: Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the City of Chula Vista, February 13, 2001 and City of Chula Vista Adopted General Plan.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section summarizes the existing roadway circulation network, peak-hour and daily traffic volumes,
and operations at the study intersections and roadway segments.
Road Network
The following provides a description of the existing street system within the Urban Core study area. It
should be noted that the street network is set up in a grid system, with “Streets”typically running east-
west and “Avenues” typically running north-south. In addition, each section contains an exhibit of a
typical cross section for each respective roadway segment.
E Street is an east-west roadway. E Street is classified as a four-lane gateway street between I-5 and I-
805, with the exception of the segment between Broadway and First Avenue, which is classified as a four-
lane urban arterial. E Street is four lanes between 3rd Avenue and Broadway, approximately 62 feet in
width. Parallel parking is provided on both sides of the street in this section. E Street to the west of
Broadway has four lanes, is approximately 70 feet in width, has a two-way left-turn lane, and has no on-
street parking. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway in both sections. The posted speed
limit is 30 mph.
F Street is an east-west roadway. F Street is classified as a four-lane downtown promenade between I-5
and Broadway and as a two-lane downtown promenade between Broadway and Third Avenue. F Street is
four lanes between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue with a raised median in the center and is
approximately 65 feet in width. The only on-street parking provided in this segment is limited parallel
parking on the north side of F Street between Third Avenue and Garret Avenue. Between Fourth Avenue
and Broadway, F Street is a two-lane roadway, approximately 40 feet in width with parallel parking on
both sides. F Street has four lanes between Broadway and I-5 with parallel parking on both sides and is
approximately 66 feet in width. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway in all three sections.
The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
H Street is an east-west roadway with a center two-way left turn lane. H Street is classified as a six-lane
gateway street between I-5 and Broadway and between Hilltop Drive and I-805 and as a four-lane urban
arterial between Broadway and Hilltop Drive; however, it should be noted that H Street is not built to its
ultimate classification and functions as a four-lane roadway between I-5 and Broadway. Parking is
provided on-street east of Third Avenue. H Street is approximately 70 feet in curb-to-curb width between
Third Avenue and Broadway and 64 feet in curb-to-curb width between Broadway and I-5. Sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Broadway is a north-south roadway. Broadway is classified as a four-lane gateway street between SR-54
and C Street and a four-lane commercial boulevard between C Street and L Street. Parallel parking is
provided on both sides of the roadway. Between F Street and H Street, there is a two-way left turn lane
and the roadway is approximately 82 feet in width. Broadway is approximately 68 feet in width between
E Street and F Street. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35
mph.
3rd Avenue is a north-south roadway. Third Avenue is classified as a four-lane commercial boulevard
between C Street and E Street and between H Street and L Street and classified as a two/four-lane
downtown promenade between E Street and H Street. Third Avenue is two lanes between E Street and F
Street, approximately 72 feet in width. Between F Street and Madrona Street, Third Avenue is a four-lane
Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions

roadway with a raised median, approximately 101 feet in width. Between Madrona Street and G Street,
Third Avenue is four lanes and approximately 72 feet in width. Angled parking is provided in these first
three sections. Third Avenue is a four-lane roadway with a center two-way left-turn lane between G
Street and H Street; approximately 66 feet in width and including parallel parking. Sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the street in all four sections. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Table 3-1 summarizes the existing roadway segment dimensions based on field observations and
measurements by Kimley-Horn staff.
Figures 3-1 to 3-1.5 show the existing lane configurations and traffic control at the study intersections and
Figure 3-2 shows the number of lanes and street classification on each evaluated roadway segment within
the vicinity of the project site.
Table 3-1 Existing Roadway Segment Dimensions
TABLE 3-1
EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT DIMENSIONS
Total Curb-to-
Travel Curb Bike
Street Segment Lanes Median/Turn Lane Width Parking Lane
E St between I-5 and Woodlawn Ave 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 70’ N N
E St between Woodlawn Ave and Broadway 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 70’ N N
E St between Broadway and 1st Ave 4 N 62’ Y N
E St between 1st Ave and I-805 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 71’ N Y
F St between I-5 and Woodlawn Ave 4 N 66’ Y N
F St between Woodlawn Ave and Broadway 4 N 66’ Y N
F St between Broadway and 4th Ave 2 N 40’ Y N
F St between 4th Ave and 3rd Ave 4 Raised Median 65’ N N
H St between I-5 and Broadway 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 64’ N N
H St between Broadway and 3rd Ave 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 64’ N N
H St between 3rd Ave and Hilltop Dr 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 64’ N Y
H St between Hilltop Dr and I-805 4 N 65’ N N
J St between Bay Blvd and Broadway 4 Raised Median 67’ N N
L St between I-5 and Broadway 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 63’ N N
L St between Broadway and Hilltop Dr 4 N 64’ Y N
Woodlawn Ave between E St and F St 2 N 36’ Y N
Woodlawn Ave between G St and H St 2 N 33’ Y N

TABLE 3-1
EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT DIMENSIONS (Continued)
Total Curb-to-
Travel Curb Bike
Street Segment Lanes Median/Turn Lane Width Parking Lane
Broadway between SR-54 and C St 4 N 68’ N N
Broadway between C St and E St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 70’ Y N
Broadway between E St and F St 4 N 68’ Y N
Broadway between F St and H St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 82’ Y N
Broadway between H St and K St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 80’ Y N
Broadway between K St and L St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 80’ Y N
Broadway south of L St 4 Raised Median 82’ Y N

Raised Median
4th Ave between SR-54 and C St 4 90’ N N
Extended NB/SB RT Lanes
4th Ave between C St and E St 4 N 64’ Y N
4th Ave between E St and H St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 64’ N N
4th Ave between H St and L St 4 N 63’ Y N
3rd Ave between C St and E St 4 N 64’ Y N
3rd Ave between E St and F St 2 N 62’ Y N
3rd Ave between F St and Madrona St 4 Raised Median 101’ Y N
3rd Ave between Madrona St and G St 4 N 72’ Y N
3rd Ave between G St and H St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 66’ Y N
3rd Ave between H St and L St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 63’ N N
3rd Ave south of L St 4 Two-Way Left Turn Lane 61’ N N

3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
Traffic Volumes
Existing a.m. (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak-hour turning movement
counts were conducted by Southland Car Counters, Turning Point Traffic Service, and Traffic Data
Service Southwest at the study intersections. These counts were taken during several different time
periods in 2004/2005 and are summarized in Table 3-2. The existing ADT for the roadway segments
were obtained from the City of Chula Vista. Dates of these counts ranged between 1995 and 2003 and are
summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-2 Intersection Count Data Source
TABLE 3-2
INTERSECTION SEGMENT COUNT DATA SOURCE
INTERSECTION SOURCE DATE

1 Bay Blvd-I-5 SB Ramp @ E St TPTS 11/16/04
2 I-5 NB Ramp @ E St TPTS 11/23/04
3 Woodlawn Ave @ E St SCC 6/16/04
4 Broadway @ E St SCC 6/22/04
5 5th Ave @ E St SCC 6/23/04
6 4th Ave @ E St SCC 6/22/04
7 3rd Ave @ E St SCC 6/23/04
8 2nd Ave @ E St SCC 6/23/04
9 1st Ave @ E St SCC 6/23/04
10 Flower St @ E St SCC 6/23/04
11 Bonita Glen Dr @ Bonita Rd SCC 6/23/04
12 Bay Blvd @ F St TPTS 11/18/04
13 Broadway @ F St SCC 6/16/04
14 5th Ave @ F St SCC 6/24/04
15 4th Ave @ F St SCC 6/23/04
16 3rd Ave @ F St SCC 6/16/04
17 2nd Ave @ F St TDSS 4/20/05
18 Broadway @ G St SCC 6/22/04
19 5th Ave @ G St SCC 6/16/04
20 4th Ave @ G St SCC 6/16/04
21 3rd Ave @ G St SCC 6/22/04
22 2nd Ave @ G St TDSS 4/20/05
23 Hilltop Dr @ G St TDSS 4/20/05
24 I-5 SB Ramp @ H St TPTS 11/18/04
25 I-5 NB Ramp @ H St SCC 11/14/04
26 Woodlawn Ave @ H St SCC 1/19/04
27 Broadway @ H St SCC 1/15/04
28 5th Ave @ H St SCC 1/15/04
29 4th Ave @ H St SCC 1/14/04
30 3rd Ave @ H St SCC 1/14/04
31 2nd Ave @ H St SCC 1/14/04
32 1st Ave @ H St SCC 1/15/04
Notes:
SCC = Southland Car Counters; TPTS = Turning Point Traffic Services, TDSS = Traffic Data Service Southwest

TABLE 3-2
INTERSECTION SEGMENT COUNT DATA SOURCE (Continued)
INTERSECTION SOURCE DATE

33 Hilltop Dr @ H St SCC 1/15/04
34 Broadway @ SR-54 WB Ramp TDSS 4/20/05
35 Broadway @ SR-54 EB Ramp TDSS 4/20/05
36 Broadway @ C St SCC 6/16/04
37 Broadway @ D Street SCC 6/16/04
38 Broadway @ Flower St SCC 6/16/04
39 Broadway @ I St TDSS 4/20/05
40 Broadway @ J St TDSS 3/30/05
41 Broadway @ K St TDSS 4/20/05
42 Broadway @ L St TDSS 4/20/05
43 4th Ave @ SR-54 WB Ramp TDSS 4/20/05
44 4th Ave @ SR-54 EB Ramp TDSS 4/20/05
45 4th Ave @ Brisbane St SCC 6/16/04
46 4th Ave @ C St SCC 6/16/04
47 4th Ave @ D St SCC 6/16/04
48 4th Ave @ I St SCC 6/23/04
49 4th Ave @ J St SCC 6/16/04
50 4th Ave @ K St SCC 6/16/04
51 4th Ave @ L St SCC 6/16/04
52 3rd Ave @ Davidson St SCC 6/23/04
53 3rd Ave @ I St SCC 6/23/04
54 3rd Ave @ J St SCC 6/16/04
55 3rd Ave @ K St SCC 6/16/04
56 3rd Ave @ L St SCC 6/16/04
57 2nd Ave @ D St TDSS 5/3/05
58 J St @ I-5 SB Ramp TPTS 11/16/04
59 J St @ I-5 NB Ramp TPTS 11/16/04
60 Woodlawn Ave @ J St TDSS 4/20/05
61 L St @ Bay Blvd TPTS 11/17/04
62 L St @ Industrial Blvd TPTS 11/17/04
63 Bay Blvd @ I-5 SB Ramp TPTS 11/17/04
64 Industrial Blvd @ I-5 NB Ramp TPTS 11/17/04
Notes:
SCC = Southland Car Counters; TPTS = Turning Point Traffic Services, TDSS = Traffic Data Service Southwest

Table 3-3 Roadway Segment Count Data Source
TABLE 3-3
ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNT DATA SOURCE
STREET SEGMENT COUNT SOURCE COUNT DATE

I-5 - Woodlawn Avenue City of Chula Vista 2003
E Street Woodlawn Avenue - Broadway City of Chula Vista 2003
Broadway - First Avenue City of Chula Vista 2002/2003
Bay Boulevard - Broadway City of Chula Vista 2000

F Street
Broadway - 3rd Avenue City of Chula Vista 1996/2000/2001
I-5 - Broadway City of Chula Vista 2002

H Street
Broadway - Hilltop Drive City of Chula Vista 2002/2003
J Street Bay Boulevard - Broadway City of Chula Vista 2002/2003
L Street I-5 - Broadway City of Chula Vista 2002/2003
Woodlawn E Street –F Street City of Chula Vista 2002/2003

Avenue G Street –H Street City of Chula Vista 2002/2003
C Street - E Street City of Chula Vista 1997
Broadway E Street - H Street City of Chula Vista 1996/1997/2003
H Street - L Street City of Chula Vista 1997/2003
C Street - E Street City of Chula Vista 2000
4th Avenue E Street - H Street City of Chula Vista 1996/2002
H Street - L Street City of Chula Vista 1995/1996/2000/2003
C Street - E Street City of Chula Vista 1995/1996
3rd Avenue E Street - H Street City of Chula Vista 2002
H Street - L Street City of Chula Vista 2002/2003
Figures 3-3 to 3-3.5 illustrate the existing peak-hour traffic volumes at the study intersections and Figure
3-4 illustrates the existing ADT volumes along the roadway segments.
Appendix B contains the existing peak-hour traffic volume data at the study intersections and the existing
ADT volume data for the roadway segments.

Chula Vista Urban Core Traffic Study
Intersection 1: Intersection 2: Intersection 3:
Bay Blvd-I-5 SB Ramp @ E St I-5 NB Ramp @ E St Woodlawn Ave @ E St
693
803
27
13
11
16
0
0
0
4 20 538 508 5 9
327
327
12
7
0
0
0
4
0
20 79 249 465 698 844
2 5 0 0 78 66
0 0 120 242 3 11
2 13 251 743 540 833
1 2 0 0 81 62
344
403
124
17
40
6
0
5
170
289
385
113
14
14
56
0
0
Broadway @ E St 5th Ave @ E St 4th Ave @ E St

254
786
114
683
195
93
45
18
72
114 50 26 36 48 98
160
142
257
27
26
33
34
98
7
407 469 435 500 372 439
28 112 19 43 79 121
305 318 21 36 38 55
238 513 337 615 271 526
88 170 15 40 53 80
202
508
106
461
70
28
84
48
92
160
406
228
40
24
38
18
81
31
3rd Ave @ E St 2nd Ave @ E St 1st Ave @ E St

210
134
271
46
84
84
33
20
8
91 84 123 51 37 16
107
26
66
34
36
75
65
36
6
463 501 710 648 688 682
132 182 51 75 58 38
16 43 39 41 141 43
312 613 368 865 374 849
52 144 16 38 27 103
100
198
121
202
36
78
57
16
48
178
122
137
56
39
29
58
59
42
Intersection 10: Intersection 11:
Flower St @ E St Bonita Glen Dr @ Bonita Rd

108
16
22
10
77
1
96 131 21 20 Legend
118
11
18
48
1
720 651 833 818 XX YY =AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes

78 116 95 201
3 28 16 22
375 867 554 1022
1 3 17 30
144
121
33
1
1
5
110
85
21
0
1
Figure 3-3
3-14 Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Bay Blvd @ F St Broadway @ F St 5th Ave @ F St
304
294
980
184
33
49
74
36
32
65 96 41 61 16 41
206
109
247
51
29
36
45
15
9
57 18 118 120 142 225
46 64 56 89 8 37
30 157 27 47 14 15
17 62 99 281 163 317
4 13 90 159 19 64
687
107
64
29
81
82
32
20
4
545
14
64
21
64
56
11
47
11
4th Ave @ F St 3rd Ave @ F St 2nd Ave @ F St

740
398
320
31
85
63
41
32
87
43 114 28 39 86 42
282
183
146
45
50
30
26
16
6
189 189 174 157 194 145
25 98 42 79 8 11
23 45 9 63 16 47
81 316 108 254 91 320
54 106 57 182 14 38
537
118
349
202
50
97
62
23
23
293
227
232
48
48
69
61
34
19
Broadway @ G St 5th Ave @ G St 4th Ave @ G St

1087
108
162
830
83
29
17
31
54
43 95 11 33 27 29
354
326
37
23
20
69
12
11
15
30 83 62 167 56 121
13 49 17 18 33 31
63 61 22 21 12 37
46 77 85 160 67 126
39 62 5 17 24 51
655
104
539
53
44
13
23
64
44
464
407
18
18
20
22
14
3
3rd Ave @ G St 2nd Ave @ G St

557
309
30
36
34
31
49 34 21 21 Legend
269
171
23
18
22
13

39 51 42 20
24 22 32 28
55 137 86 150
20 54 32 47
492
220
44
53
37
28
320
299
30
35
46
22
Figure 3-3.1
Hilltop Dr @ G St I-5 SB Ramp @ H St I-5 NB Ramp @ H St
304
658
15
38
7
0
0
0
154 10 14 0 0 364 542
429
15
54
6
0
0
0
31 42 71 47 508 601
45 83 478 547 0 0
4 5 0 0 9 62
28 43 19 88 435 651
85 128 15 82 0 0
210
531
70
63
11
0
0
0
0
364
472
90
65
36
0
0
0
0
Woodlawn Ave @ H St Broadway @ H St 5th Ave @ H St

109
136
782
207
112
113
173
73
2
35 35 112 135 193 70

103
385
139
66
59
82
94
12
1
536 835 375 581 598 776

14 7 147 322 34 188
32 92 198 163 187 51
728 898 442 512 544 722
16 25 80 233 9 122
239
656
193
124
158
19
62
9
1
896
24
97
91
10
34
11
1
9
4th Ave @ H St 3rd Ave @ H St 2nd Ave @ H St

198
562
185
150
509
177
247
51
81
108 140 129 140 186 75
328
299
149
79
95
55
95
25
76
528 725 582 617 828 936
75 116 216 233 124 68
117 149 81 142 22 30
462 758 368 677 451 991
95 197 160 206 33 51
150
427
190
459
182
155
105
84
12
177
426
132
464
197
73
76
15
55
1st Ave @ H St Hilltop Dr @ H St

160
243
150
25
39
52 39 160 94 Legend
106
161
104
12
26

156 72 402 345
11 12 9 24
583 1150 690 1207
26 23 76 67
325
299
96
80
66
9
129
104
103
309
496
15
Figure 3-3.2
3-16
Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Broadway @ SR-54 WB off Ramp Broadway @ SR-54 EB on Ramp Broadway @ C St
1427
1237
346
892
116
0
0
267 1043 213 0 0 158 115
100
352
223
35
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
181 278 0 0 40 174
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
429
251
436
601
102
0
0
1086
1115
188
778
57
0
0
Broadway @ D St Broadway @ Flower St Broadway @ I St
1064
951
868
124
32
43
18
39
12
57 30 10 20 135 95
212
239
416
31
20
10
16
28
74
53 28 66 11 105 147
30 48 28 44 82 209
45 31 54 12 87 61
23 28 57 15 113 170
41 51 94 91 50 52
664
722
690
100
41
69
99
68
42
629
106
640
710
24
31
14
44
70
Broadway @ J St Broadway @ K St Broadway @ L St

195
997
965
126
924
111
71
62
80
62 78 94 98 106 85
380
321
148
394
82
55
35
81
63
303 316 56 72 435 380
31 48 69 95 102 152
115 177 51 28 116 130
277 426 72 71 395 554
78 135 30 26 88 179
116
756
766
161
701
116
67
57
62
620
640
121
109
452
99
35
33
60
4th Ave @ SR-54 WB Ramp 4th Ave @ SR-54 EB Ramp

1261
363
904
235
0
383 315 0 0 Legend

142
455
794
189
0

390 599 0
0 0 255 267
0 0 0 0
0 0 301 522
287
874
881
643
0
0
201
761
642
500
0
Figure 3-3.3
3-17
Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
4th Ave @ Brisbane St 4th Ave @ C St 4th Ave @ D St
1030
739
165
111
815
301
867
30
45
156 139 256 302 36 26
325
667
158
404
233
353
26
19
15
10 13 99 118 34 45
24 31 38 72 10 14
219 579 77 147 41 54
8 16 58 137 30 32
44 122 26 76 33 46
150
783
513
513
13
92
34
46
22
634
357
377
55
27
73
68
37
18
4th Ave @ I St 4th Ave @ J St 4th Ave @ K St

846
118
744
160
810
75
48
49
68
34 26 60 56 120 124
380
430
430
20
24
39
57
51
42
133 192 397 403 179 216
15 29 48 72 78 47
42 68 42 46 58 32
130 266 467 632 184 236
12 50 46 42 115 74
546
572
107
566
60
23
89
86
65
490
485
433
20
36
46
62
31
60
4th Ave @ L St 3rd Ave @ Davidson St 3rd Ave @ I St
1223
674
114
482
86
32
11
62
51
83 95 16 30 53 27
132
365
233
485
90
11
26
26
9
500 455 4 9 107 144

83 118 7 6 75 28
60 77 7 12 38 68
395 551 12 34 86 229
47 115 15 27 49 121
386
465
736
57
73
19
24
57
91
130
427
118
252
848
10
37
36
7
3rd Ave @ J St 3rd Ave @ K St

1057
1097
169
106
188
155
69 47 31 44 Legend
434
111
462
42
51
59

105 117 40 77
98 102 68 74
313 528 159 140
149 272 102 118
127
633
708
75
79
67
124
709
726
48
67
34
Figure 3-3.4
3rd Ave @ L St 2nd Ave @ D St J St @ I-5 SB Ramp
162
917
245
412
396
31
95
0
0
142 98 0 0 0 0
423
187
194
218
97
81
21
0
418 404 0 0 414 231
185 157 0 0 142 247
161 115 33 31 0 0
316 573 0 0 98 343
119 95 33 88 18 179
100
598
180
259
39
0
0
0
569
479
84
89
72
0
0
0
J St @ I-5 NB Ramp Woodlawn Ave @ J St L St @ Bay Blvd
118
21
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
346 298 45 51 92 6
40
49
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
314 375 601 724 0 0
0 0 0 0 341 584
50 172 0 0 0 0
262 629 560 977 0 0
0 0 12 33 0 0
100
277
859
0
0
0
9
0
7
225
211
490
455
18
70
0
0
0
L St @ Industrial Blvd Bay Blvd @ I-5 SB Ramp Industrial Blvd @ I-5 NB Ramp
155
471
291
426
9
8
5
0
5 12 458 697 0 0
317
214
262
51
3
4
7
0
324 419 0 0 0 0
228 354 62 24 0 0
4 6 0 0 339 281
348 540 0 0 0 0
244 453 0 0 135 171
446
128
331
224
83
13
2
0
421
335
151
89
48
3
Legend
XX YY =AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 3-3.5
Intersection Analysis
Table 3-4 displays the LOS analysis results for the study intersections under Existing Conditions. As
shown in this table, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak periods, except for
the following intersections:
§ #34 Broadway @ SR-54 WB Ramp (LOS F –AM Peak);

§ #61 L Street @ Bay Boulevard (LOS F –PM Peak); and
§ #63 Bay Boulevard @ I-5 SB Ramp (LOS E –PM Peak).
It should be noted that the E Street and H Street intersections at the I-5 interchange (including Woodlawn
Avenue) do not take into account the queues associated with the at-grade trolley crossings at both of these
locations. As noted in the methodology section, the E Street and H Street intersections affected by the
trolley crossing would experience additional delay along the arterial and at adjacent intersections.
Additional delays would be between 17 and 40 seconds per vehicle (depending on the direction and time
of day) and drop the LOS by at least one grade.
Appendix C contains the peak-hour intersections LOS calculation worksheets.
Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 3-5 summarizes the existing condition LOS analysis for the roadway segments located in the Urban
Core. The existing volume is compared to the acceptable volume as defined in the City of Chula Vista’s
General Plan. Roadway segments that are part of the Urban Core Circulation Element have an acceptable
volume equal to LOS D or better. All other roadway segments within the City have an acceptable volume
equal to LOS C or better. As shown in this table, all Urban Core roadways currently function at LOS D
or better.
Existing Transit Service
The Urban Core of Chula Vista is currently served by 11 Chula Vista Transit (CVT) routes (Routes 701,
702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 711, and 712), two Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) routes
(Routes 929 and 932), and the San Diego Trolley’s Blue Line. Several CVT transit routes circulate
within the Urban Core and Bayfront area; others serve the greater Chula Vista area and provide
connections to National City Transit and other transit providers. MTS route 929 runs along 3rd and 4th
Avenues through the Urban Core; MTS transit route 932 runs along Broadway. The San Diego Trolley’s
Blue Line provides service between Qualcomm Stadium and San Ysidro/Tijuana and extends through the
Urban Core parallel to and on the east side of I-5, with stations at Bayfront/E Street and H Street. Service
is provided seven days a week with service starting around 5:00 a.m. and ending around 12:00 a.m.
During the peak periods, service is provided with 7.5-minute headways and 15 minutes during the off-
peak periods.
Figure 3-5 displays the existing transit routes in the Urban Core.

TABLE 3-4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
EXISTING
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR DELAY (a) LOS (b)
AM 10.1 B
1 Bay Blvd-I-5 SB Ramp @ E St
PM 16.6 B
AM 33.2 C
2 I-5 NB Ramp @ E St
PM 18.2 B
AM 21.7 C
3 Woodlawn Ave @ E St
PM 15.5 B
AM 16.9 B
4 Broadway @ E St
PM 26.3 C
AM 5.0 A
5 5th Ave @ E St
PM 6.4 A
AM 13.5 B
6 4th Ave @ E St
PM 18.8 B
AM 11.9 B
7 3rd Ave @ E St
PM 15.2 B
AM 7.3 A
8 2nd Ave @ E St
PM 11.0 B
AM 6.8 A
9 1st Ave @ E St
PM 5.5 A
AM 10.6 B
10 Flower St @ E St
PM 12.5 B
AM 12.1 B
11 Bonita Glen Dr @ Bonita Rd
PM 16.5 B
AM 8.8 A
12 Bay Blvd @ F St
PM 14.7 B
AM 16.5 B
13 Broadway @ F St
PM 24.1 C
AM 5.7 A
14 5th Ave @ F St
PM 8.2 A
AM 13.5 B
15 4th Ave @ F St
PM 17.7 B
AM 13.9 B
16 3rd Ave @ F St
PM 19.2 B
AM 9.7 A
17 2nd Ave @ F St
PM 12.5 B
AM 12.3 B
18 Broadway @ G St
PM 14.9 B
AM 6.3 A
19 5th Ave @ G St
PM 7.5 A
AM 8.9 A
20 4th Ave @ G St
PM 10.3 B
Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. At a two-way stop-controlled
intersection, delay refers to the worst movement.
(b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and performed using Synchro 6.0
K:\095413000\Excel\October 2005 Final Report\[413in08(MODIFIED).xls]Existing
3-22
TABLE 3-4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY (Continued)
EXISTING
AM 8.6 A
21 3rd Ave @ G St
PM 9.2 A
AM 14.1 B
22 2nd Ave @ G St
PM 16.3 C
AM 16.7 C
23 Hilltop Dr @ G St
PM 14.4 B
AM 28.8 C
24 I-5 SB Ramp @ H St
PM 21.1 C
AM 12.7 B
25 I-5 NB Ramp @ H St
PM 14.8 B
AM 38.0 D
26 Woodlawn Ave @ H St
PM 22.3 C
AM 25.7 C
27 Broadway @ H St
PM 27.1 C
AM 10.8 B
28 5th Ave @ H St
PM 11.3 B
AM 22.1 C
29 4th Ave @ H St
PM 29.2 C
AM 19.3 B
30 3rd Ave @ H St
PM 23.8 C
AM 8.4 A
31 2nd Ave @ H St
PM 11.5 B
AM 7.6 A
32 1st Ave @ H St
PM 8.2 A
AM 32.2 C
33 Hilltop Dr @ H St
PM 41.3 D
AM 82.9 F
34 Broadway @ SR-54 WB Ramp
PM 11.8 B
AM 3.3 A
35 Broadway @ SR-54 EB Ramp
PM 6.3 A
AM 18.1 B
36 Broadway @ C St
PM 15.1 B
AM 9.2 A
37 Broadway @ D Street
PM 10.2 B
AM 11.5 B
38 Broadway @ Flower St
PM 14.0 B
AM 16.3 B
39 Broadway @ I St
PM 17.3 B
AM 13.6 B
40 Broadway @ J St
PM 18.6 B
Notes:
Bold values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
3-23
TABLE 3-4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
AM 11.7 B
41 Broadway @ K St
PM 13.2 B
AM 15.5 B
42 Broadway @ L St
PM 20.4 C
AM 14.7 B
43 4th Ave @ SR-54 WB Ramp
PM 25.9 C
AM 13.4 B
44 4th Ave @ SR-54 EB Ramp
PM 27.2 C
AM 21.5 C
45 4th Ave @ Brisbane St
PM 27.3 C
AM 23.2 C
46 4th Ave @ C St
PM 31.4 C
AM 9.1 A
47 4th Ave @ D St
PM 10.5 B
AM 8.8 A
48 4th Ave @ I St
PM 10.1 B
AM 9.3 A
49 4th Ave @ J St
PM 15.7 B
AM 8.5 A
50 4th Ave @ K St
PM 10.1 B
AM 24.6 C
51 4th Ave @ L St
PM 26.6 C
AM 9.9 A
52 3rd Ave @ Davidson St
PM 13.2 B
AM 10.1 B
53 3rd Ave @ I St
PM 12.2 B
AM 18.8 B
54 3rd Ave @ J St
PM 35.9 D
AM 9.5 A
55 3rd Ave @ K St
PM 11.0 B
AM 18.1 B
56 3rd Ave @ L St
PM 27.0 C
AM 14.9 B
57 2nd Ave @ D St
PM 14.9 B
AM 8.9 A
58 J St @ I-5 SB Ramp
PM 15.1 B
AM 10.6 B
59 J St @ I-5 NB Ramp
PM 8.2 A
AM 11.0 B
60 Woodlawn Ave @ J St
PM 11.9 B
Notes:
3-24
TABLE 3-4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
AM 16.8 C
61 L St @ Bay Blvd
PM 120.3 F
AM 18.9 B
62 L St @ Industrial Blvd
PM 25.4 C
AM 22.2 C
63 Bay Blvd @ I-5 SB Ramp
PM 48.6 E
AM 15.4 C
64 Industrial Blvd @ I-5 NB Ramp
PM 17.7 C
Notes:
3-25
TABLE 3-5
EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
DAILY VOLUME TO DAILY

STREET TRAFFIC ACCEPTABLE LOS E CAPACITY SEGMENT
STREET SEGMENT CLASSIFICATION (b) VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY (V/C) LOS
I-5 - Woodlawn Avenue 4 Lanes Gateway Street 26,924 43,200 48,000 0.56 (b) A
Woodlawn Avenue - Broadway 4 Lanes Gateway Street 21,997 43,200 48,000 0.46 (b) A
E Street
Broadway - 1st Avenue 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 17,493 37,800 42,000 0.42 (b) A
1st Avenue - I-805 4 Lanes Gateway Street 17,966 43,200 48,000 0.37 (b) A
Bay Boulevard - Woodlawn Avenue 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 5,336 33,750 37,500 0.14 (b) A
Woodlawn Avenue - Broadway 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 9,263 33,750 37,500 0.25 (b) A
F Street
Broadway - 4th Avenue 2 Lanes Downtown Promenade 8,574 14,400 16,000 0.54 (b) A
4th Avenue - 3rd Avenue 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 11,395 33,750 37,500 0.30 (b) A
I-5 - Broadway 4 Lanes Gateway Street (c) 33,116 43,200 48,000 0.69 (b) B
Broadway - 3rd Avenue 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 24,637 37,800 42,000 0.59 (b) A
H Street
3rd Avenue - Hilltop Drive 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 27,474 37,800 42,000 0.65 (b) A
Hilltop Drive - I-805 4 Lanes Gateway Street (c) 40,184 43,200 48,000 0.84 (b) D
J Street Bay Boulevard - Broadway 4 Lanes Major Street 19,024 40,000 37,500 0.51 (b) A
I-5 - Broadway 4 Lanes Gateway Street 15,450 43,200 48,000 0.32 (b) A
L Street
Broadway - Hilltop Drive 4 Lanes Class I Collector 16,430 22,000 27,500 0.60 (b) A
E Street - F Street 2 Lanes Downtown Promenade 4,900 14,400 16,000 0.31 (b) A
Woodlawn Avenue
G Street - H Street 2 Lanes Downtown Promenade 2,600 14,400 16,000 0.16 (b) A
SR-54 - C Street 4 Lanes Gateway Street 22,107 43,200 48,000 0.46 (b) A
C Street - E Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 20,015 33,750 37,500 0.53 (b) A
E Street - H Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 23,208 33,750 37,500 0.62 (b) B
Broadway
H Street - K Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 25,713 33,750 37,500 0.69 (b) B
K Street - L Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 26,599 33,750 37,500 0.71 (b) C
South of L Street 4 Lanes Major Street 27,053 40,000 37,500 0.72 C
SR-54 - C Street 4 Lanes Gateway Street (c) 36,923 43,200 48,000 0.77 (b) C
C Street - E Street 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 17,812 37,800 42,000 0.42 (b) A
4th Avenue
E Street - H Street 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 17,001 37,800 42,000 0.40 (b) A
H Street - L Street 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 16,101 37,800 42,000 0.38 (b) A
E Street - G Street 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 14,413 33,750 37,500 0.38 (b) A
3rd Avenue G Street - H Street 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 18,071 33,750 37,500 0.48 (b) A
H Street - L Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 23,459 33,750 37,500 0.63 (b) B
South of L Street 4 Lanes Class I Collector 21,814 22,000 27,500 0.79 C
NOTE: Values in bold indicate roadway segments exceeding the City's minimum performance standard.
(a) Street classification is based on the standards provided in the 2005 Chula Vista General Plan, but will be analyzed with existing number of lanes for each respective roadway segment.
(b) This roadway segment is part of the Urban Core Circulation Element.
(c) This roadway segment is classified as a 6-lane roadway, but is assumed to function as a 4-lane roadway for this scenario.
K:\095413000\Excel\October 2005 Final Report\[413rs050504.xls]Existing 10/11/2005 10:29
3-26
3-27
Figure 3-5
Existing Transit Routes
K:\095413000\Figures\October2005FinalReport\ExistingTransit.doc
4.0 URBAN CORE TRAFFIC
The following section describes the City of Chula Vista’s Urban Core Specific Plan project including the
projected land uses, Urban Core traffic generation, and transportation modeling assumptions.
Land Uses
In order to realize the vision for the urban core established by the updated General Plan, it was recognized
that existing zoning for the Urban Core focus area or “subdistricts”needed “re-tooling”. The 30+ year-
old zoning regulations either precluded or created a cumbersome entitlement process to achieve the
variety of living, employment, and service choices envisioned by the General Plan and quite common
place in the 21st century. Therefore, the Specific Plan was prepared to provide a set of contemporary
implementing tools to allow new development and redevelopment to occur over the next 20 to 25 years.
To that end, the Specific Plan anticipates the following projected buildout over the life of the plan
consistent with the General Plan, which is summarized in Table 4-1.
Figure 4-1 shows the location of the land uses assumed in the Urban Core.
Table 4-1 Urban Core Specific Plan Projected Buildout
TABLE 4-1
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECTED BUILDOUT
Land Use Existing Net Increase Total

Residential 3,700 du 7,100 du 10,800 du
Retail 3,000,000 sf 1,000,000 sf 4,000,000 sf
Office 2,400,000 sf 1,300,000 sf 3,700,000 sf
Visitor Serving Commercial -- 1,300,000 sf 1,300,000 sf

Note:
All totals are approximate and may include a combination of new infill development and existing uses.
Traffic Impact Analysis Urban Core Traffic

Urban Core Traffic Generation
The traffic associated with the Urban Core has been included in the traffic volumes used for the General
Plan Update. The traffic forecasts from the General Plan Update were used for the UCSP transportation
analysis because the trip generation for the Urban Core is generally consistent with the General Plan land
uses associated projected traffic volumes and distribution patterns. Based on the Urban Core land uses
shown in Figure 4-1, Table 4-2 summarizes the trip generation for the Chula Vista Urban Core project.
As shown in the table, a total of approximately 331,100 ADT is expected with the full build-out of the
Urban Core. This would be an increase of 141,100 ADT over existing conditions. The largest percentage
increase in ADT would occur from the residential land use, with an increase of approximately 100
percent.
Table 4-2 Trip Generation Summary
TABLE 4-2
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Existing ADT Net ADT Increase Total ADT

Residential 22,200 42,600 64,800
Retail 120,000 40,000 160,000
Office 48,000 26,000 74,000
Visitor Serving Commercial -- 32,500 32,500
TOTALS 190,200 141,100 331,100

Note:
Trip generation values shown above were based rates referenced in the Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic
Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, SANDAG, April 2002. (6 trips/du for residential, 40
trips/1,000 sf for retail, 20 trips/1,000 sf for office, and 50% hotel/50% retail for visitor serving
commercial)

4-3
Figure4-1
Location of Urban Core Land Uses
K:\095413000\Figures\October2005FinalReport\LocationofUrbanCoreLandUses.doc
Transportation Modeling
Traffic volumes for of the proposed Urban Core Specific Plan were generated using the SANDAG
TRANPLAN regional traffic model, which is based on Series 10 employment and population projections
for the San Diego region. This computerized model takes land use and transportation network
information as inputs and estimates the volumes of traffic on existing and future roadways under long-
term future conditions using the four-step Urban Transportation Planning Process:
1) Trip generation;
2) Mode split;
3) Trip distribution; and
4) Traffic assignment.
Regional transportation infrastructure was modeled using SANDAG’s “reasonably expected” Mobility
2030 assumptions and General Plan land use assumptions. The following list summarizes the land use
and network assumptions evaluated in this study:
Land Use Assumptions

§ Full build-out of planned future land uses in the City of Chula Vista
§ 2030 Population and Employment in the region
§ See General Plan for other/all considerations
Network Assumptions
§ Woodlawn Avenue would not be connected between F Street and G Street. H Street between
Broadway and Hilltop Drive would be reclassified from a six-lane major to four-lane major
(Circulation element changes within Urban Core. For other changes in Chula Vista, refer to
Figure 1.2-1 of the City of Chula Vista General Plan shown in Appendix D.)
§ SR-125 is a four-lane toll road
§ See General Plan for other/all considerations
Transit Assumptions
§ Regional Transit Vision (RTV) described in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) emphasizes
integration of transit service within communities and neighborhoods, makes use of high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and/or managed lanes, incorporates signal priority or transit-only
lanes on arterials, increasing transit competitiveness with automobile trips, and improved transit
customer service.

§ Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) incorporates smart growth, which involves identifying
appropriate land patterns and a complementary multi-modal transportation system so as to
improve the viability of public transit and other travel modes for the whole range of trip types,
including commuting, shopping, school, etc.
§ A Yellow Car Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route would be provided along I-5, additional Blue Line
Light Rail Transit (LRT) service would be provided along the existing trolley tracks, and a BRT
route would be provided along H Street connecting the west and east ends of Chula Vista (For
other routes outside of the Urban Core, refer to Figure 1.2-3 of the City of Chula Vista General
Plan shown in Appendix D.)

5.0 YEAR 2030 CONDITIONS
This section provides a description of the year 2030 traffic conditions with the full build-out of the City of
Chula Vista’s Urban Core Specific Plan project land uses.
Road Network
It was assumed that roads within the Urban Core would be reclassified, but not yet built to their ultimate
classification. As a result, no changes would be made to the roadway network compared to Existing
Conditions. See previously shown Figures 3-1 to 3-1.5 and 3-2 for the traffic control and lane
configurations at the study intersections and the number of lanes and street classifications on each
roadway segment in 2030, respectively.
Traffic Volumes
Year 2030 traffic volumes at study intersections were calculated by applying growth factors to existing
traffic volumes. These growth factors were determined by comparing the Year 2030 ADT by the existing
ADT for each respective roadway segment. This growth in traffic varied between a minimum of 10
percent to a more than doubling of traffic on some intersection approaches. In cases where extreme
traffic growth was projected, adjustments were made to account for spreading of the peak hour. This
spreading presumes that the peak hour may last for more than one hour in the morning or afternoon peak
hour.
The Year 2030 Conditions ADT volumes along the roadway segments were obtained from SANDAG.
This forecast model was based on Series 10 and included the Regional Transit Vision (RTV) assumption.
Figures 5-1 to 5-1.5 illustrate the Year 2030 Conditions peak-hour traffic volumes at the study
intersections and Figure 5-2 illustrates the Year 2030 Conditions ADT volumes along the roadway
segments.
Traffic Impact Analysis Year 2030 Conditions

Bay Blvd-I-5 SB Ramp @ E St I-5 NB Ramp @ E St Woodlawn Ave @ E St
290
500
964
26
22
32
0
0
0
292 518 646 610 6 11
158
327
392
24
0
0
0
8
0
451 227 671 738 838 1013
24 95 0 0 180 160
0 0 163 361 4 13
199 557 431 1236 648 1000
4 12 0 0 200 150
344
484
300
100
10
44
20
0
2
170
289
462
280
140
11
89
35
0
Broadway @ E St 5th Ave @ E St 4th Ave @ E St

1022
1025
330
121
160
108
293
63
25
137 60 31 43 58 118
208
185
386
147
35
36
46
10
51
488 563 522 600 446 527
34 134 23 52 95 145
366 382 25 43 46 66
286 616 404 738 325 631
106 204 18 48 64 96
263
660
118
138
599
120
91
39
67
208
528
105
296
52
34
53
25
40
3rd Ave @ E St 2nd Ave @ E St 1st Ave @ E St

273
174
101
325
101
60
40
24
10
109 101 246 102 74 32
128
34
86
44
43
90
78
43
7
556 601 1420 1296 1376 1364
230 310 102 150 116 76
19 52 47 49 282 86
374 736 442 1038 748 1698
90 250 19 46 54 206
170
340
210
242
43
94
68
19
58
100
300
146
164
70
35
70
71
50
Flower St @ E St Bonita Glen Dr @ Bonita Rd

130
19
26
12
92
1
192 262 25 24 Legend

142
13
22
58
1

156 232 114 241
6 56 19 26
750 1734 665 1226
2 6 20 36
173
145
40
1
1
6
102
132
25
0
1
Figure 5-1
5-2
Year 2030 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Bay Blvd @ F St Broadway @ F St 5th Ave @ F St
1372
365
353
104
221
40
69
43
38
78 115 49 73 19 49
247
131
346
61
41
50
11
54
18
68 22 142 144 170 270
55 77 67 107 10 44
36 188 68 118 17 18
20 74 248 703 196 380
5 16 225 398 23 77
113
962
115
128
77
35
38
24
5
763
17
77
25
90
78
13
56
13
4th Ave @ F St 3rd Ave @ F St 2nd Ave @ F St

888
102
110
680
170
384
104
37
38
52 137 50 60 103 50
338
310
175
54
60
50
10
31
19
227 227 209 188 233 174
30 118 50 95 10 13
28 54 30 100 19 56
97 379 130 305 109 384
65 127 68 218 17 46
644
116
142
419
242
60
74
28
28
352
272
278
58
58
83
73
41
23
Broadway @ G St 5th Ave @ G St 4th Ave @ G St

1522
151
116
194
996
35
20
37
65
52 114 13 40 32 35
496
391
52
32
24
83
14
30
30
36 100 74 200 67 145
16 59 20 22 40 37
76 73 26 25 30 44
55 92 102 192 120 151
47 74 6 20 150 120
917
125
647
74
62
16
28
77
80
650
488
25
25
24
60
50
4
3rd Ave @ G St 2nd Ave @ G St

800
371
36
43
41
37
59 41 25 25 Legend
350
205
28
22
26
16

47 61 50 24
29 26 38 34
66 164 103 180
24 65 38 56
590
264
53
64
44
34
384
359
36
42
55
26
5-3 Figure 5-1.1

Hilltop Dr @ G St I-5 SB Ramp @ H St I-5 NB Ramp @ H St
365
599
855
18
8
0
0
0
185 12 17 0 0 473 705
886
558
18
7
0
0
0
37 50 841 539 1226 1073
54 100 621 711 0 0
5 6 0 0 460 932
34 52 775 1489 871 1376
102 154 120 343 0 0
252
212
690
84
76
0
0
0
0
108
437
240
614
78
0
0
0
1
Woodlawn Ave @ H St Broadway @ H St 5th Ave @ H St
1173
300
100
190
204
311
146
250
225
150 250 64 162 232 84
450
100
230
578
123
122
181
89
60
1200 1400 600 1200 718 931
275 200 176 386 120 400
250 350 300 400 224 61
1100 1400 800 1200 653 1000
160 150 104 303 130 350
350
100
100
359
984
290
410
200
450
1344
146
137
130
130
80
40
20
70
4th Ave @ H St 3rd Ave @ H St 2nd Ave @ H St

238
674
222
210
611
212
296
61
97
130 250 155 168 223 90
394
114
100
359
114
179
95
30
91
910 1150 850 800 1100 1200
120 200 259 280 149 82
140 179 97 170 26 36
750 1000 500 1010 600 1350
114 236 192 247 40 61
180
512
101
228
551
218
186
126
14
212
511
158
557
236
88
91
18
66
1st Ave @ H St Hilltop Dr @ H St

192
292
180
30
47
10
62 47 192 113 Legend

127
193
125
14
31
11

187 86 482 414
13 14 11 29
700 666 828 866
31 28 91 80
115
390
359
11
96
79
155
125
124
371
595
18
Figure 5-1.2
5-4
Broadway @ SR-54 WB off Ramp Broadway @ SR-54 EB on Ramp Broadway @ C St
1712
1484
1070
415
139
0
0
320 1252 256 0 0 190 138
120
422
268
42
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
217 334 0 0 48 209
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
558
326
567
781
133
0
0
1412
1450
1011
244
74
0
0
Broadway @ D St Broadway @ Flower St Broadway @ I St

1236
1277
1042
149
42
56
22
47
14
68 36 12 24 162 114
276
287
499
40
26
12
19
34
89
64 34 79 13 126 176
36 58 34 53 98 251
54 37 65 14 104 73
28 34 68 18 136 204
49 61 113 109 60 62
863
119
866
828
120
53
90
82
50
818
127
768
852
31
40
17
53
84
Broadway @ J St Broadway @ K St Broadway @ L St

1196
1158
1109
234
151
133
85
74
96
74 94 113 118 127 102
456
385
178
473
98
66
42
97
76
364 379 67 86 522 456
37 58 83 114 122 182
138 212 61 34 139 156
332 511 86 85 474 665
94 162 36 31 106 215
139
907
919
193
841
139
80
68
74
119
744
768
145
131
542
42
40
72
4th Ave @ SR-54 WB Ramp 4th Ave @ SR-54 EB Ramp

1085
1513
436
282
0
460 378 0 0 Legend

170
546
953
227
0

468 719 0
0 0 306 320
0 0 0 0
1049
1057
0 0 361 626
344
772
0
0
241
913
770
600
0
Figure 5-1.3
5-5
4th Ave @ Brisbane St 4th Ave @ C St 4th Ave @ D St
1236
1301
887
198
133
978
361
45
68
187 167 307 362 43 31
390
800
190
485
280
530
31
29
23
12 16 119 142 41 54
29 37 46 86 12 17
263 695 92 176 49 65
10 19 70 164 36 38
53 146 31 91 40 55
180
940
138
770
770
16
51
69
33
761
110
536
102
566
66
32
56
27
4th Ave @ I St 4th Ave @ J St 4th Ave @ K St

1015
142
893
192
972
90
58
59
82
41 31 72 67 144 149
456
516
516
24
29
47
68
61
50
160 230 476 484 215 259
18 35 58 86 94 56
50 82 50 55 70 38
156 319 560 758 221 283
14 60 55 50 138 89
655
107
686
128
103
679
72
28
78
588
582
520
24
43
55
74
37
72
4th Ave @ L St 3rd Ave @ Davidson St 3rd Ave @ I St
1468
103
809
137
578
38
13
74
61
100 114 19 36 64 32
158
438
108
280
582
13
11
31
31
600 546 5 11 128 173
100 142 8 7 90 34
72 92 8 14 46 82
474 661 14 41 103 275
56 138 18 32 59 145
463
558
883
109
68
88
23
29
68
1018
156
512
142
302
12
44
43
8
3rd Ave @ J St 3rd Ave @ K St

1268
1316
203
127
226
186
83 56 37 53 Legend
521
133
554
50
61
71

126 140 48 92
118 122 82 89
376 634 191 168
179 326 122 142
152
760
850
90
95
80
149
851
871
58
80
41
5-6 Figure 5-1.4

3rd Ave @ L St 2nd Ave @ D St J St @ I-5 SB Ramp
1100
194
294
494
210
475
37
0
170 118 0 0 0 0
116
508
224
383
262
97
25
0
502 485 0 0 1238 705
222 188 0 0 170 296
193 138 40 37 0 0
379 688 0 0 422 933
143 114 40 106 266 580
120
718
216
311
47
0
0
0
101
683
107
575
86
0
0
0
J St @ I-5 NB Ramp Woodlawn Ave @ J St L St @ Bay Blvd
153
730
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
415 358 54 61 675 367
334
40
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
763 709 721 869 0 0
0 0 0 0 389 623
164 358 0 0 0 0
524 1159 672 1172 0 0
0 0 14 40 0 0
316
332
891
11
42
0
0
0
0
693
211
588
165
531
18
0
0
0
L St @ Industrial Blvd Bay Blvd @ I-5 SB Ramp Industrial Blvd @ I-5 NB Ramp
280
471
291
689
9
8
5
0
5 12 458 697 0 0
135
317
214
406
3
4
7
0
692 659 0 0 0 0
228 354 62 24 0 0
4 6 0 0 339 281
550 921 0 0 0 0
388 716 0 0 135 171
243
446
194
331
384
13
2
0
351
421
219
335
413
3
Legend
XX YY =AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 5-1.5
5-7
5-8
Table 5-1 displays the LOS analysis results for the study intersections under the Year 2030 Conditions
scenario. As shown in this table, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak
periods, except for the following 19 intersections:
§ #1 Bay Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramp @ E Street (LOS E –AM Peak, LOS F –PM Peak);
§ #2 I-5 NB Ramp @ E Street (LOS E –AM Peak);
§ #13 Broadway @ F Street (LOS E –PM Peak);
§ #24 I-5 SB Ramp @ H Street (LOS F –PM Peak);
§ #25 I-5 NB Ramp @ H Street (LOS F –PM Peak);
§ #26 Woodlawn Avenue @ H Street (LOS F –PM Peak);
§ #27 Broadway @ H Street (LOS F –PM Peak);
§ #28 5th Avenue @ H Street (LOS E –PM Peak);
§ #29 4th Avenue @ H Street (LOS E –PM Peak);
§ #33 Hilltop Drive @ H Street (LOS E –AM and PM Peak);
§ #34 Broadway @ SR-54 WB Ramp (LOS F –AM Peak);
§ #44 4th Avenue @ SR-54 EB Ramp (LOS F –PM Peak);
§ #45 4th Avenue @ Brisbane Street (LOS E –PM Peak);
§ #54 3rd Avenue @ J Street (LOS E –PM Peak);
§ #57 2nd Avenue @ D Street (LOS E –PM Peak);
§ #59 J Street @ I-5 NB Ramp (LOS F –AM Peak, LOS E –PM Peak);
§ #61 L Street @ Bay Boulevard (LOS F –PM Peak);
§ #63 Bay Boulevard @ I-5 SB Ramp (LOS F –AM and PM Peak); and
§ #64 Industrial Boulevard @ I-5 NB Ramp (LOS F –PM Peak).
The majority of the interchange study intersections along I-5 or SR-54 would operate at an unacceptable
LOS. In addition, many of the intersections along the H Street corridor would operate at an unacceptable
LOS. As previously noted in Section 3, the delay at the E Street and H Street intersections affected by the
trolley crossing would be worse than the delay shown in Table 5-1. Additional delays would be between
17 and 40 seconds per vehicle (depending on the direction and time of day) and drop the LOS by at least
one grade. By providing a grade-separated trolley crossing at E Street and H Street, delays and LOS
would be similar to the results shown in Table 5-1.
Appendix C contains the peak-hour intersections LOS calculation worksheets.
Table 5-2 summarizes the Year 2030 Conditions LOS analysis for the roadway segments located in the
Urban Core. The projected volume, estimated using the approved transportation model of SANDAG, is
compared to the acceptable volume of the roadways using the adopted functional classifications from the
Chula Vista General Plan. As shown in this table, all roadway segments meet the adopted LOS standard
of D for the Urban Street System, except for the following roadway segments:
§ H Street between I-5 and Broadway (LOS F)

§ H Street between Hilltop Drive and I-805 (LOS E)

TABLE 5-1
YEAR 2030 CONDITIONS
EXISTING YEAR 2030

INCREASE IN SIGNIFICANT
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR DELAY (a) LOS (b) DELAY (a) LOS (b) DELAY IMPACT?
AM 10.1 B 58.4 E 48.3 YES
1 Bay Blvd-I-5 SB Ramp @ E St
PM 16.6 B 302.9 F 286.3 YES
AM 33.2 C 60.5 E 27.3 YES
2 I-5 NB Ramp @ E St
PM 18.2 B 31.9 C 13.7 NO
AM 21.7 C 25.8 C 4.1 NO
3 Woodlawn Ave @ E St
PM 15.5 B 20.5 C 5.0 NO
AM 16.9 B 30.3 C 13.4 NO
4 Broadway @ E St
PM 26.3 C 47.2 D 20.9 NO
AM 5.0 A 5.6 A 0.6 NO
5 5th Ave @ E St
PM 6.4 A 7.7 A 1.3 NO
AM 13.5 B 16.2 B 2.7 NO
6 4th Ave @ E St
PM 18.8 B 33.3 C 14.5 NO
AM 11.9 B 12.9 B 1.0 NO
7 3rd Ave @ E St
PM 15.2 B 24.8 C 9.6 NO
AM 7.3 A 15.5 B 8.2 NO
8 2nd Ave @ E St
PM 11.0 B 28.9 C 17.9 NO
AM 6.8 A 40.6 D 33.8 NO
9 1st Ave @ E St
PM 5.5 A 10.1 B 4.6 NO
5-10
AM 10.6 B 20.2 C 9.6 NO

10 Flower St @ E St
PM 12.5 B 37.1 D 24.6 NO
AM 12.1 B 12.5 B 0.4 NO
11 Bonita Glen Dr @ E St
PM 16.5 B 23.0 C 6.5 NO
AM 8.8 A 9.8 A 1.0 NO
12 Bay Blvd @ F St
PM 14.7 B 21.4 C 6.7 NO
AM 16.5 B 17.7 B 1.2 NO
13 Broadway @ F St
PM 24.1 C 66.1 E 42.0 YES
AM 5.7 A 6.6 A 0.9 NO
14 5th Ave @ F St
PM 8.2 A 10.0 A 1.8 NO
AM 13.5 B 15.3 B 1.8 NO
15 4th Ave @ F St
PM 17.7 B 23.7 C 6.0 NO
AM 13.9 B 15.9 B 2.0 NO
16 3rd Ave @ F St
PM 19.2 B 23.5 C 4.3 NO
AM 9.7 A 13.4 B 3.7 NO
17 2nd Ave @ F St
PM 12.5 B 12.7 B 0.2 NO
AM 12.3 B 14.0 B 1.7 NO
18 Broadway @ G St
PM 14.9 B 21.0 C 6.1 NO
AM 6.3 A 7.7 A 1.4 NO
19 5th Ave @ G St
PM 7.5 A 8.3 A 0.8 NO
AM 8.9 A 12.8 B 3.9 NO
20 4th Ave @ G St
PM 10.3 B 18.0 B 7.7 NO
Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. At a two-way stop-controlled intersection, delay refers to the worst movement.
K:\095413000\Excel\October 2005 Final Report\[413in08(MODIFIED).xls]Plan to Ground
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING YEAR 2030

AM 8.6 A 11.8 B 3.2 NO
21 3rd Ave @ G St
PM 9.2 A 10.5 B 1.3 NO
AM 14.1 B 22.2 C 8.1 NO
22 2nd Ave @ G St
PM 16.3 C 32.3 D 16.0 NO
AM 16.7 C 33.7 D 17.0 NO
23 Hilltop Dr @ G St
PM 14.4 B 24.1 C 9.7 NO
AM 28.8 C 36.7 D 7.9 NO
24 I-5 SB Ramp @ H St
PM 21.1 C 84.5 F 63.4 YES
AM 12.7 B 47.6 D 34.9 NO
25 I-5 NB Ramp @ H St
PM 14.8 B 138.4 F 123.6 YES
AM 38.0 D 33.7 C -4.3 NO
26 Woodlawn Ave @ H St
PM 22.3 F 260.6 F 238.3 YES
AM 25.7 C 42.7 D 17.0 NO
27 Broadway @ H St
PM 27.1 C 118.1 F 91.0 YES
AM 10.8 B 15.2 B 4.4 NO
28 5th Ave @ H St
PM 11.3 B 61.6 E 50.3 YES
AM 22.1 C 38.6 D 16.5 NO
29 4th Ave @ H St
PM 29.2 C 59.4 E 30.2 YES
5-11
AM 19.3 B 23.0 C 3.7 NO

30 3rd Ave @ H St
PM 23.8 C 39.7 D 15.9 NO
AM 8.4 A 13.7 B 5.3 NO
31 2nd Ave @ H St
PM 11.5 B 31.4 C 19.9 NO
AM 7.6 A 9.8 A 2.2 NO
32 1st Ave @ H St
PM 8.2 A 12.5 B 4.3 NO
AM 32.2 C 58.3 E 26.1 YES
33 Hilltop Dr @ H St
PM 41.3 D 74.2 E 32.9 YES
AM 82.9 F 190.6 F 107.7 YES
34 Broadway @ SR-54 WB Ramp
PM 11.8 B 16.2 B 4.4 NO
AM 3.3 A 10.1 B 6.8 NO
35 Broadway @ SR-54 EB Ramp
PM 6.3 A 17.7 B 11.4 NO
AM 18.1 B 20.1 C 2.0 NO
36 Broadway @ C St
PM 15.1 B 18.1 B 3.0 NO
AM 9.2 A 12.1 B 2.9 NO
37 Broadway @ D Street
PM 10.2 B 14.9 B 4.7 NO
AM 11.5 B 12.3 B 0.8 NO
38 Broadway @ Flower St
PM 14.0 B 17.4 B 3.4 NO
AM 16.3 B 16.4 B 0.1 NO
39 Broadway @ I St
PM 17.3 B 21.1 C 3.8 NO
AM 13.6 B 15.7 B 2.1 NO
40 Broadway @ J St
PM 18.6 B 29.6 C 11.0 NO
Notes:
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING YEAR 2030

AM 11.7 B 14.5 B 2.8 NO
41 Broadway @ K St
PM 13.2 B 16.4 B 3.2 NO
AM 15.5 B 17.5 B 2.0 NO
42 Broadway @ L St
PM 20.4 C 34.7 C 14.3 NO
AM 14.7 B 23.1 C 8.4 NO
43 4th Ave @ SR-54 WB Ramp
PM 25.9 C 42.3 D 16.4 NO
AM 13.4 B 37.2 D 23.8 NO
44 4th Ave @ SR-54 EB Ramp
PM 27.2 C 95.2 F 68.0 YES
AM 21.5 C 25.8 C 4.3 NO
45 4th Ave @ Brisbane St
PM 27.3 C 61.5 E 34.2 YES
AM 23.2 C 24.7 C 1.5 NO
46 4th Ave @ C St
PM 31.4 C 40.0 D 8.6 NO
AM 9.1 A 13.5 B 4.4 NO
47 4th Ave @ D St
PM 10.5 B 12.6 B 2.1 NO
AM 8.8 A 11.9 B 3.1 NO
48 4th Ave @ I St
PM 10.1 B 18.0 B 7.9 NO
AM 9.3 A 12.0 B 2.7 NO
49 4th Ave @ J St
PM 15.7 B 42.7 D 27.0 NO
5-12
AM 8.5 A 12.7 B 4.2 NO

50 4th Ave @ K St
PM 10.1 B 20.0 B 9.9 NO
AM 24.6 C 27.6 C 3.0 NO
51 4th Ave @ L St
PM 26.6 C 35.3 D 8.7 NO
AM 9.9 A 14.7 B 4.8 NO
52 3rd Ave @ Davidson St
PM 13.2 B 19.2 B 6.0 NO
AM 10.1 B 11.6 B 1.5 NO
53 3rd Ave @ I St
PM 12.2 B 18.3 B 6.1 NO
AM 18.8 B 22.9 C 4.1 NO
54 3rd Ave @ J St
PM 35.9 D 74.5 E 38.6 YES
AM 9.5 A 12.3 B 2.8 NO
55 3rd Ave @ K St
PM 11.0 B 22.4 C 11.4 NO
AM 18.1 B 22.9 C 4.8 NO
56 3rd Ave @ L St
PM 27.0 C 44.1 D 17.1 NO
AM 14.9 B 31.2 D 16.3 NO
57 2nd Ave @ D St
PM 14.9 B 36.0 E 21.1 YES
AM 8.9 A 17.5 B 8.6 NO
58 J St @ I-5 SB Ramp
PM 15.1 B 40.4 D 25.3 NO
AM 10.6 B 135.2 F 124.6 YES
59 J St @ I-5 NB Ramp
PM 8.2 A 61.7 E 53.5 YES
AM 11.0 B 16.3 C 5.3 NO
60 Woodlawn Ave @ J St
PM 11.9 B 18.2 C 6.3 NO
Notes:
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING YEAR 2030

AM 16.8 C 22.7 C 5.9 NO
61 L St @ Bay Blvd
PM 120.3 F 203.0 F 82.7 YES
AM 18.9 B 30.9 C 12.0 NO
62 L St @ Industrial Blvd
PM 25.4 C 52.6 D 27.2 NO
AM 22.2 C 84.0 F 61.8 YES
63 Bay Blvd @ I-5 SB Ramp
PM 48.6 E 221.2 F 172.6 YES
AM 15.4 C 26.0 D 10.6 NO
64 Industrial Blvd @ I-5 NB Ramp
PM 17.7 C 66.5 F 48.8 YES
Notes:
ECL= Exceeds calculable limit . At intersections at or over capacity, the calculated delay value becomes unreliable.
5-13
TABLE 5-2
YEAR 2030 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
DAILY VOLUME TO DAILY

STREET TRAFFIC ACCEPTABLE LOS E CAPACITY SEGMENT
STREET SEGMENT CLASSIFICATION (b) VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY (V/C) LOS
I-5 - Woodlawn Avenue 4 Lanes Gateway Street 32,000 43,200 48,000 0.67 (b) B
Woodlawn Avenue - Broadway 4 Lanes Gateway Street 32,000 43,200 48,000 0.67 (b) B
E Street
Broadway - 1st Avenue 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 21,000 37,800 42,000 0.50 (b) A
1st Avenue - I-805 4 Lanes Gateway Street 24,000 43,200 48,000 0.50 (b) A
Bay Boulevard - Woodlawn Avenue 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 19,000 33,750 37,500 0.51 (b) A
Woodlawn Avenue - Broadway 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 18,000 33,750 37,500 0.48 (b) A
F Street
Broadway - 4th Avenue 2 Lanes Downtown Promenade 11,000 14,400 16,000 0.69 (b) B
4th Avenue - 3rd Avenue 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 13,000 33,750 37,500 0.35 (b) A
I-5 - Broadway 4 Lanes Gateway Street (c) 52,000 43,200 48,000 1.08 (b) F
Broadway - 3rd Avenue 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 37,000 37,800 42,000 0.88 (b) A
H Street
3rd Avenue- Hilltop Drive 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 35,000 37,800 42,000 0.83 (b) A
Hilltop Drive - I-805 4 Lanes Gateway Street (d) 47,500 43,200 48,000 0.99 (b) E
J Street Bay Boulevard - Broadway 4 Lanes Major Street 25,000 40,000 37,500 0.67 (b) B
I-5 - Broadway 4 Lanes Gateway Street 24,000 43,200 48,000 0.50 (b) A
L Street
Broadway - Hilltop Drive 4 Lanes Class I Collector 20,000 22,000 27,500 0.73 (b) C
E Street - F Street 2 Lanes Downtown Promenade 12,000 14,400 16,000 0.75 (b) C
Woodlawn Avenue
G Street - H Street 2 Lanes Downtown Promenade 9,000 14,400 16,000 0.56 (b) A
SR-54 - C Street 4 Lanes Gateway Street 25,000 43,200 48,000 0.52 (b) A
C Street - E Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 28,000 33,750 37,500 0.75 (b) C
E Street - H Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 28,000 33,750 37,500 0.75 (b) C
Broadway
H Street - K Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 29,000 33,750 37,500 0.77 (b) C
K Street - L Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 31,000 33,750 37,500 0.83 (b) D
South of L Street 4 Lanes Major Street 29,000 40,000 37,500 0.77 C
SR-54 - C Street 6 Lanes Gateway Street 42,000 61,200 68,000 0.62 (b) B
C Street - E Street 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 23,000 37,800 42,000 0.55 (b) A
4th Avenue
E Street - H Street 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 20,000 37,800 42,000 0.48 (b) A
H Street - L Street 4 Lanes Urban Arterial 18,000 37,800 42,000 0.43 (b) A
5-14
E Street - G Street 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 21,000 33,750 37,500 0.56 (b) A
3rd Avenue G Street - H Street 4 Lanes Downtown Promenade 19,000 33,750 37,500 0.51 (b) A
H Street - L Street 4 Lanes Commercial Boulevard 24,000 33,750 37,500 0.64 (b) B
South of L Street 4 Lanes Class I Collector 22,000 22,000 27,500 0.80 C
NOTE: Values in bold indicate roadway segments exceeding the City's minimum performance standard.
(a) Street classification is based on the standards provided in the 2005 Chula Vista General Plan.
(b) This roadway segment is part of the Urban Core Circulation Element.
(c) This roadway segment is classified as a 6-lane roadway, but is assumed to function as a 4-lane roadway for this scenario.
(d) The ADT was taken from the March 25, 2005 Espanada Mixed Use Development Traffic Study prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc.
K:\095413000\Excel\October 2005 Final Report\[413rs050504.xls]2030 10/11/2005 8:16
Future Transit Service
A number of regional transit improvements are envisioned that will either serve the Urban Core area.
Many of these lines provide transit stations within the Urban Core Specific Planning area and are
integrated into the land use and transportation components of the specific plan. Other routes are located
with transit stations nearby; these routes could serve the urban core area. It should be noted that most
routes listed below do not have implementation dates except for the first phase of the regional BRT
project and that some of the route numbers may change in the future. Figure 5-3 depicts those planned
regional routes in the South Bay.
Route 510 (Existing Blue Line Trolley) would have increased frequency of service. LRT headways
would be reduced from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. In order to achieve this level of transit service, it would
be necessary to grade separate the LRT tracks from key surface streets, such as E Street and H Street
within the project area.
South Bay Transit First Project would provide Regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service between
Otay Ranch in eastern Chula Vista and downtown San Diego. The first phase of the project would follow
I-805 and SR-94, along with East Palomar Street. Phase 1 of the project could be completed by the Year
2010. The second phase of the project would extend the line to the Otay Border crossing and serve
businesses in Otay Mesa.
Route 540 (I-5 Express Service) would provide Regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service from San
Ysidro to downtown San Diego and Old Town. This route would use median lanes in I-5 and would have
a transit stop at H Street (with elevators to the H Street over crossing at I-5. This route would have
infrequent stations, which would allow for shorter travel times, as compared to Route 510.
Route 627 (H Street BRT) would provide a transit connection between the Chula Vista Urban Core
Specific Plan area and Southwestern College and the Eastern Urban Center. This route will connect the
major activity centers in the redeveloping areas of western Chula Vista to the rapidly growing areas of
eastern Chula Vista.
Route 680 (Sorrento Valley to San Ysidro International Border) would provide Regional BRT service
between the San Ysidro and Sorrento Mesa along the I-805 corridor. This service would connect Chula
Vista to major employment centers in Kearny Mesa and Sorrento Mesa. Transit stations for this route
would be located on I-805 at H Street.

627
694
5-16
694
510 RC1
680
540
625
Figure 5-3
Regional Transit Routes
K:\095413000\Figures\October2005FinalReport\TransitFirst.doc
6.0 YEAR 2030 WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS
This section provides a description of the Year 2030 traffic conditions at locations where improvements
were assumed due to the addition of a project feature or recommended to achieve acceptable LOS.
Project features were assumed at locations where either the roadway segment or study intersection
operates within acceptable thresholds, but were due to improvements associated with the UCSP.
Improvements are recommended at the majority of roadway segments/intersections that exceeded the
acceptable thresholds.
Road Network
The following section describes the recommended improvements along the roadway segments in the
Urban Core study area. These recommended roadway widths will be used in developing the parkway
recommendations and ROW dimensions. It should be noted that right-of-way (ROW) value for the
Woodlawn Avenue segment is not shown on the cross section figure due to the uncertainty of the park
area at this time.
Table 6-1 summarizes the proposed changes to the existing roadway network. It should be noted that
roadway segments that did not have any changes compared to existing conditions were omitted from the
table. As shown in the table, all improvements shown for Third Avenue, F Street, Broadway, and
Woodlawn Avenue would be considered project features. Improvements along E Street and H Street are
recommended to achieve acceptable LOS.
Figures 6-1 to 6-10 illustrate the proposed cross sections for the corridors of E Street, F Street, H Street,
Broadway, 3rd Avenue, and Woodlawn Avenue.
Traffic Impact Analysis Year 2030 With Improvements Conditions

Table 6-1 Proposed Roadway Segment Dimensions
TABLE 6-1
PROPOSED ROADWAY SEGMENT DIMENSIONS
Total Total Proposed

Existing Proposed Existing Curb-to- Existing Proposed
Travel Travel Existing Turn Proposed Turn Curb-to- Curb Existing Proposed Bike Bike
Street Segment Lanes Lanes Lane/Median Lane/Median Curb Width Width Parking Parking Lanes Lanes
Project Feature
Third Avenue between E Street
2 2 No Median No Median 72’ 24’/68’* Y Y/N * N N
and F Street
Third Avenue between F

4 2 Raised Median Raised Median 101’ 24’/68’* Y Y/N * N N
Street and Madrona Street
Third Avenue between

4 2 No Median No Median 72’ 24’/68’* Y Y/N * N N
Madrona Street and G Street
Two-way Left Turn

F Street between Third Raised Median, Bike
4 2 Lane/Raised Median, 65’ 48’ Y Y Y Y
Avenue and Fourth Avenue Lanes (Class III)
Bike Lanes (Class I)
Two-way Left Turn
F Street between Fourth No Median, Bike
2 2 Lane/Raised Median, 40’ 48’ Y Y Y Y
Avenue and I-5 Lanes (Class III)
Bike Lanes (Class I)
Broadway between E Street Raised Median, Bike

4 4 No Median 68’ 82’ Y Y N Y
And F Street Lanes (Class II)
Broadway between F Street Two-way Left Turn Raised Median, Bike

4 4 82’ 82’ Y Y N Y
and H Street Lane Lanes (Class II)
Woodlawn Avenue between

2 2 No Median Park Area 36’ Varies Y Y N N
E Street and H Street
Improvements to Achieve Acceptable LOS

Two-Way Left Turn
E Street between I-5 and Two-Way Left Turn
4 4 Lane, Westbound Right 70’ 76’ N N N N
300’east of I-5 Lane
Turn Lane
H Street between I-5 and Two-Way Left Turn Raised Median, Bike
4 6 64’ 94’ N N N Y
Broadway Lane Lanes (Class II)
* The 24-foot cross section assumes no parking along Third Avenue and the 68-foot cross section assumes diagonal parking on both sides of Third Avenue.

E Street Corridor
The roadway cross section on E Street is adequate to serve future traffic needs except for the segment
between Woodlawn Avenue and I-5. To mitigate the intersection impact at the I-5 NB Ramp with E
Street, a westbound right-turn lane is required. It is recommended that E Street be widened between
Woodlawn Avenue and I-5, which would add an additional six feet in the curb-to-curb width. This
segment will need an additional 22 feet of ROW. This added width will allow for an extended right-turn
lane on westbound E Street onto the I-5 northbound on-ramp. This improvement would help to reduce
the queues in the westbound direction and improve the operations at the I-5 NB ramp and at Woodlawn
Avenue intersection.
Figure 6-1 Proposed Cross Section, E Street Between I-5 and 300’East of I-5 N Ramp
* Sidewalks with tree wells
Figure 6-2 Proposed Cross Section, E Street Between 3rd Avenue and Broadway

F Street Bike Lanes
As a project feature of the Urban Core Specific Plan, Class I bike lanes would be added to F Street
between Third Avenue and I-5. The new Class I bike lanes (“bikeway”) will improve the connectivity of
the Urban Core to the Bayfront Area encouraging better synergy between uses/users on the Bayfront and
Urban Core, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Wide parkways, off-street bike lanes, and wide
sidewalks will provide an opportunity to stroll or bicycle through the Urban Core. A Class II facility
would exist on F Street where a Class I bikeway cannot be accommodated due to mature trees or
new/existing medians. For F Street, a 16-foot parkway is provided between Fourth Avenue and
Broadway and a 12-foot parkway is provided between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue. Existing trees
from Third Avenue to Broadway are proposed to be preserved and incorporated into the streetscape
theme. It is suggested that the overhead utility line be placed underground as part of this improvement
project.
* Raised median east of Broadway in

some segments
** Parkway includes 5’of trees
(mature trees to be preserved), 6’bike
lane, and 5’of sidewalks
Figure 6-3 Proposed Cross Section, F Street Between Third Avenue and I-5

H Street Corridor
The segment of H Street from Third Avenue to Broadway will be widened by eight feet. The new
segment configuration will feature two travel lanes and a bike lane in each direction, as well as a raised
center median. One side of the street will also have parallel parking.
An additional 30 feet in the curb-to-curb width will be added to H Street between Broadway and I-5 to
include an additional travel and in both directions. This improvement is consistent with the ultimate
classification of H Street as defined in the adopted General Plan. The additional travel lane is needed to
accommodate buildout daily and peak-hour traffic on H Street and would improve the operations along
this segment.
Further, a Class II bikeway is proposed to be added to H Street between Third Avenue and I-5. H Street
is intended as the “backbone”of the Urban Core, as it connects the transit focus areas at H Street/Third
Avenue and H Street/I-5 and facilitates local and regional transit routes (and Bus Rapid Transit in the
future). Twenty-foot wide sidewalks are proposed in order to create a grand boulevard feeling and
promote pedestrian use.
Figure 6-4 Proposed Cross Section, H Street Between Third Avenue and Broadway

Figure 6-5 Proposed Cross Section, H Street Between Broadway and I-5

Broadway Corridor
Broadway would be improved by adding a 12-foot raised median as a project feature. In addition, a Class
II bikeway is proposed to be added along Broadway between C Street and L Street. Broadway will be
widened by 14 feet between E Street and F Street to accommodate a final configuration consisting of the
raised median, bike lanes in both directions, and narrower traffic lanes. Between F Street and H Street,
the roadway would not need to be widened and the existing median would be converted to a raised
median. Nine-foot wide sidewalks will support pedestrian circulation. It is proposed to retain the
existing palm trees within parkway areas.
* 8’sidewalks with tree wells
Figure 6-6 Proposed Cross Section, Broadway Between C Street and L Street

3rd Avenue Pedestrian Enhancements
As a project feature of the Urban Core Specific Plan, the sidewalks on 3rd Avenue between E Street and
G Street will be widened. The widening of the sidewalks will encourage a higher pedestrian use of 3rd
Avenue and provide opportunity for outdoor activity areas within the Village Area. The cross section of
3rd Avenue varies greatly between E Street and G Street. The roadway width varies between 72 feet and
101 feet.
The roadway will be narrowed to provide one through lane in each direction between E Street and G
Street. The remainder of Third Avenue to L Street will stay in the current four-lane configuration. It is
proposed to retain the existing median. Three distinct cross sections will be provided. On-street parking
may be reduced with the implementation of the Third Avenue enhancements. It is recommended that
these enhancements be provided in coordination with the provision of off-street parking in the vicinity so
that parking impacts do not occur to surrounding areas.
Diagonal parking will be provided for most parts of Third Avenue. Figure 6-7 shows the cross section
where angled parking is permitted. Due to relatively high through traffic volumes, it is recommended that
the roadway be of sufficient width to allow vehicles to back out without blocking through traffic lanes. It
should be noted that the curb-to-curb dimension is not reduced where diagonal parking is provided on the
segment of Third Avenue between E Street and F Street.
Figure 6-8 illustrates selected mid-block locations where pedestrian crossing will occur. The roadway
would be narrowed to 24 feet by extending the curb into the street. Curbs will be extended toward the
roadway centerline about 38 feet on each side of the roadway. This reconfiguration would allow for
additional pedestrian crossings with reduced crossing distances at selected locations.
Figure 6-9 shows the treatment at intersections. This cross section allows for a right-turn lane and a left-
turn lane to be provided. Although the turning volumes from Third Avenue are not very high, these lanes
are needed to remove turning traffic from the through traffic. Turning vehicles will need to yield to
anticipated high pedestrian traffic volumes; the turn lanes allow these yielding vehicles to pull out of the
through travel lanes. This intersection configuration will adequately accommodate future traffic demands
along Third Avenue while providing a significantly enhanced pedestrian friendly streetscape.

Figure 6-7 Proposed Cross Section, 3rd Avenue With Diagonal Parking
Figure 6-8 Proposed Cross Section, 3rd Avenue Without Diagonal Parking

Figure 6-9 Proposed Cross Section, 3rd Avenue At Signalized Intersections

Woodlawn Avenue Couplet
As a project feature, Woodlawn Avenue would be extended and converted to a one-way couplet between
south of E Street and north of H Street. Woodlawn Avenue is not built as a continuous roadway between
E Street and H Street. The creation of the one-way couplet would include the construction of a
neighborhood park between the one-way streets. The neighborhood park may include a variety of
recreational uses such as playgrounds, walkways, and basketball courts. The couplet could be
implemented over time as property redevelops.
** Park area and ROW to be determined
Figure 6-10 Proposed Cross Section, Entire Length of Woodlawn Avenue

Table 6-2 summarizes the Year 2030 With Improvement Conditions LOS analysis for the roadway
segments with assumed improvements located in the Urban Core. As shown in this table, H Street
between I-5 and Broadway would be widened to a six-lane gateway. As a result, the acceptable ADT
would increase and result in an acceptable LOS. For 3rd Avenue between E Street and G Street, this
segment would be retained or narrowed as a two-lane downtown promenade. As a result, the acceptable
ADT would decrease and result in an unacceptable LOS. However, 3rd Avenue corridor intersections
would operate at acceptable levels of service and the narrowing of 3rd Avenue and increasing the width of
the sidewalks would create a friendlier pedestrian atmosphere.

TABLE 6-2
YEAR 2030 WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
DAILY ACCEPTABLE DAILY ACCEPTABLE DAILY

TRAFFIC BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS VOLUME SEGMENT AFTER IMPROVEMENTS VOLUME SEGMENT
STREET SEGMENT VOLUME LOS LOS
H Street I-5 - Broadway 52,000 4 Lanes 43,200 F 6 Lanes 61,200 D
3rd Avenue E Street - G Street 21,000 2/4 Lanes 14,400/ 33,350 A 2 Lanes 14,400 F
K:\095413000\Excel\October 2005 Final Report\[413rs050504.xls]Table 6-2
6-13
Intersection Improvements
Due to the unique nature of urban revitalization, the exact timing, sequence and extent of infill
development is hard to predict and doing so would be speculative. The anticipated 20-25 year
implementation of the Specific Plan therefore necessitates a different approach to implementing the
recommended long-term intersection improvements in order to achieve acceptable LOS thresholds. The
20 intersection improvements that follow have been divided into three tiers for phased long term
implementation based on need and enhancement to the function of the overall street network. It should be
noted that three of the intersections (#7, #16, and #21) are proposed as project features rather than
necessitated to improve intersection LOS and the improvements will likely be related to and timed with
implementation of streetscape improvements along Third Avenue. The intersection numbers correspond
to the intersection numbering system outlined in this report.
Tier 1 Improvements
§ Provide a grade-separated intersection at the E Street and H Street trolley crossing locations. This
improvement would be considered a regional improvement as the trolley provides service
throughout the region. Coordination with MTS/SANDAG will be required for this improvement.
§ #1 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street: Add an eastbound through and right-turn
lane, southbound right-turn lane, and northbound right-turn lane. Coordination with Caltrans will
be required for this improvement.
§ #2 I-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street: Add a westbound right-turn lane. Coordination with
Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
§ #24 I-5 Southbound Ramp/H Street: Add a southbound left, eastbound through and right-turn
lanes. Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
§ #25 I-5 Northbound Ramp/H Street: Add a westbound through and right-turn lane and restripe
south approach to accommodate dual left-turn lanes. Coordination with Caltrans will be required
for this improvement.
§ #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street: Change Woodlawn Avenue to a one-way couplet. This
improvement is required to serve the intense redevelopment occurring on both sides of H Street.
The couplet improvement is not required further north toward E Street.
§ #27 Broadway/H Street: Add an eastbound transit queue jumper lane and westbound through
and right-turn lanes.
§ #28 Fifth Avenue/H Street: Change the northbound/southbound approaches to include protective
plus permissive phasing and add a westbound right-turn lane.
§ #29 Fourth Avenue/H Street: Add an eastbound/westbound right-turn lane.
§ #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound Ramp: Add an eastbound right-turn lane. Coordination
with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
Tier 2 Improvements
§ #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp: Add a westbound right-turn lane. Coordination with
§ #59 J Street/I-5 Northbound Ramp: Add an eastbound left-turn and westbound right-turn lane.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
§ #61 L Street/Bay Boulevard: Signalize the intersection, add a southbound left-turn lane, and a
northbound right-turn overlap phase to the traffic signal.

§ #63 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp: Signalize the intersection. Coordination with
§ #64 Industrial Boulevard/I-5 Northbound Ramp: Signalize the intersection. Coordination
with Caltrans will be required for this improvement.
§ H Street from four lanes to six lanes from I-5 to Broadway
Tier 3 Improvements
§ #7 Third Avenue/E Street: Convert the northbound and southbound shared right-through lane
into exclusive right-turn lanes.
§ #13 Broadway/F Street: Add an eastbound right-turn lane.
§ #16 Third Avenue/F Street: Separate the southbound shared through-right lane into an exclusive
through and right-turn lanes, convert the northbound shared through-right lane into an exclusive
right-turn lane.
§ #21 Third Avenue/G Street: Convert the northbound/southbound shared through-right lane into
exclusive right-turn lanes.
§ #45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street: Add a southbound right-turn overlap phase to the traffic
signal.
§ #57 Second Avenue/D Street: Convert to an all-way stop controlled intersection.
In each individual tier, the City’s existing monitoring program will determine exactly which projects are
implemented first during the biannual CIP program review. In addition to determining timing and need,
this systems and operations monitoring approach should also be used to further ascertain final design
details of the intersection improvements and may include consideration of the effects on traffic flow as
well as the impacts/benefits to other travel modes (e.g. pedestrians and bicycles) that are foundational to
the successful implementation of the Specific Plan.
The recommended improvements at the study intersections listed above are shown in Figure 6-11 and 6-
11.1. It should be noted that the E Street and H Street intersections between the I-5 NB Ramp and
Woodlawn Avenue assumes a Light Rail Transit (LRT) grade separation, which would separate vehicular
traffic from the trolley. It is recommended that the trolley tracks be grade separated along E and H Streets
to improve intersection operations and to accommodate the planned increase in trolley frequency.
Recommendations at intersections 27, 33, and 54 do not improve conditions to an acceptable LOS due to
ROW constraints. Figure 6-12 shows the intersections that have improvements that are considered to be
project features or improvements.
Table 6-3 displays the LOS analysis results for the study intersections that have assumed improvements
under the Year 2030 With Improvements scenario. As shown in this table, all study intersections could
operate at LOS D or better during both peak periods with the proposed improvements, except for the
following intersections:
§ #27 Broadway/H Street

§ #33 Hilltop Drive/H Street
§ #54 3rd Avenue/J Street

At the Broadway/H Street intersection (Int. #27), an additional northbound and southbound through lane
would be required in order to achieve an acceptable LOS D conditions. However, this improvement
would require extensive widening of Broadway and H Street to allow for lane drops. Furthermore, this
widening would create longer pedestrian crossings. As such, the recommended improvements of the
eastbound queue jumper lane and the additional westbound through and right-turn lanes would improve
the intersection from LOS F to LOS E conditions.
At the Hilltop Drive/H Street intersection (Int. #33), no improvements would be recommended due to
ROW constraints. The poor LOS at this intersection is primarily caused by the high traffic volumes in the
eastbound/westbound movements. Additional through and/or turn lanes would be required in order to
improve this intersection to an acceptable LOS. With no improvements, this intersection would remain at
LOS E during both peak periods.
At the 3rd Avenue/J Street intersection (Int. #54), the required improvement of an additional southbound
right-turn lane would impact the Henry’s Marketplace building, which is built adjacent to the sidewalk.
Therefore, this improvement is not recommended. As a result, the LOS would remain at LOS E.
However, if the property were to redevelop in the future, additional ROW could be obtained for the
southbound right-turn lane.
It should be noted that all of the study intersections along 3rd Avenue would operate at an acceptable LOS
without improvements. However, due to the narrowing of 3rd Avenue to create a friendlier pedestrian
atmosphere, one of the through lanes along 3rd Avenue in each direction would be converted to an
exclusive right-turn lane.
Figure 6-13 shows the locations of these intersections that would still remain at LOS E. Appendix C
contains the peak-hour intersections LOS calculation worksheets.
West Side Shuttle Service
West Side Shuttle is a concept proposed to serve both the Urban Core Specific Plan and the Bayfront
Master Plan areas in western Chula Vista. This service would complement existing and planned future
transit improvements. The shuttle would provide localized service between various uses in western Chula
Vista and provide connections to the regional transit system. Figure 6-14 depicts the proposed routing of
the West Side Shuttle. The shuttle would provide regional connectivity with stations serving Route 510 at
the existing E Street station, Routes 510, 540 (future service), and 627 (future service) at the existing H
Street trolley station, and the future station on H Street near Third Avenue serving future Route 627. In
addition, five other stations are planned to serve destinations within the Urban Core Specific Plan, along
with three additional stations within the Bayfront Master Plan.

6-17
6-18
6-19
TABLE 6-3
YEAR 2030 WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS
BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS AFTER IMPROVEMENTS

INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR DELAY (a) LOS (b) DELAY (a) LOS (b) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (c)
AM 58.4 E 25.5 C
1 Bay Blvd-I-5 SB Ramp @ E St (f) Add EBT, EBR, SBL, SBR and NBR lanes.
PM 302.9 F 37.2 D
AM 60.5 E 26.1 C
2 I-5 NB Ramp @ E St (f) Add WBR lane.
PM 31.9 C 20.6 C
AM 12.9 B 21.5 C
7 3rd Ave @ E St (d) Convert NBT shared RT lane and SBT shared RT lane into exclusive RT lanes.
PM 24.8 C 25.7 C
AM 17.7 B 20.0 B
13 Broadway @ F St Add EBR lane.
PM 66.1 E 39.7 D
AM 15.9 B 20.4 C Separate SBT shared RT lane into an exclusive SBR lane and a SBT lane; Convert
16 3rd Ave @ F St (d)
the NBT shared RT lane into an exclusive NBR lane.
PM 23.5 C 23.2 C
AM 11.8 B 10.3 B
21 3rd Ave @ G St (d) Convert NBT shared RT lane and SBT shared RT lane into exclusive RT lanes.
PM 10.5 B 15.2 B
AM 36.7 D 21.5 C
6-20
24 I-5 SB Ramp @ H St (f) Add SBL, EBT, and EBR lanes.

PM 84.5 F 27.1 C
AM 47.6 D 23.1 C
25 I-5 NB Ramp @ H St (f) Add WBR, WBT, and restripe south approach to accommodate dual left turns.
PM 138.4 F 31.7 C
AM 33.7 C 32.2/13.3 (e) C/B (e)

26 Woodlawn Ave @ H St (e) Change Woodlawn Ave. to a one way couplet.
PM 260.6 F 22.2/28.8 (e) C/C (e)
AM 42.7 D 36.4 D
27 Broadway @ H St Add EBT Queue Jumper Lane, WBT and WBR lanes
PM 118.1 F 77.0 E
AM 15.2 B 19.1 B Change NB and SB approaches to protective + permissive phasing and add WBR
28 5th Ave @ H St
lane.
PM 61.6 E 52.0 D
AM 38.6 D 30.3 C
29 4th Ave @ H St Add EBR and WBR lanes.
PM 59.4 E 40.2 D
AM 58.3 E 58.3 E
33 Hilltop Dr @ H St Do nothing due to ROW Constraints.
PM 74.2 E 74.2 E
Notes:
EBL=Eastbound left turn lane; EBT=Eastbound through lane; EBR=Eastbound right turn lane; NBL=Northbound left turn lane; NBT=Northbound through lane; NBR=Northbound right turn lane; WBL=Westbound left turn lane; WBT=Westbound through lane; WBR=Westbound right
turn lane; SBL=Southbound left turn lane; SBT=Southbound through lane; SBR=Southbound right turn lane.
(c) See figures 6-21 to 6-21.1 for the proposed improvements at the study intersections.
(d) Change in travel lanes is due to narrowing of 3rd Avenue.
(e) The Woodlawn Avenue couplet creates 2 new intersections. The first number/letter corresponds to the delay/LOS at the west intersection and the second number/letter corresponds to the delay/LOS at the east intersection.
(f) Coordination with Caltrans will be required for the proposed improvement at this intersection.
K:\095413000\Excel\October 2005 Final Report\[413in08(MODIFIED).xls]Mitigation Summary
TABLE 6-3
YEAR 2030 WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS
BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS AFTER IMPROVEMENTS

INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR DELAY (a) LOS (b) DELAY (a) LOS (b) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (c)
AM 190.6 F 45.2 D
34 Broadway @ SR-54 WB Ramp (f) Add WBR lane
PM 16.2 B 14.8 B
AM 37.2 D 22.6 C
44 4th Ave @ SR-54 EB Ramp (f) Add EBR lane.
PM 95.2 F 25.2 C
AM 25.8 C 24.2 C
45 4th Ave @ Brisbane St Add SBR overlap phase.
PM 61.5 E 50.1 D
AM 22.9 C 22.9 C
54 3rd Ave @ J St Do Nothing due to impacts on Henry's Building.
PM 74.5 E 74.5 E
AM 31.2 D 27.0 D
57 2nd Ave @ D St Convert to an all-way stop control intersection.
PM 36.0 E 18.6 C
AM 135.2 F 28.3 C
59 J St @ I-5 NB Ramp (f) Add EBL and WBR lanes.
PM 61.7 E 24.1 C
AM 22.7 C 18.1 B
6-21
61 L St @ Bay Blvd Add SBL lane, signalize intersection, and add NBR overlap phasing.
PM 203.0 F 17.1 B
AM 84.0 F 17.7 B
63 Bay Blvd @ I-5 SB Ramp (f) Signalize intersection.
PM 221.2 F 46.9 D
AM 26.0 D 12.6 B
64 Industrial Blvd @ I-5 NB Ramp (f) Signalize intersection.
PM 66.5 F 20.8 C
Notes:
ECL= Exceeds calculable limit . At intersections at or over capacity, the calculated delay value becomes unreliable.
EBL=Eastbound left turn lane; EBT=Eastbound through lane; EBR=Eastbound right turn lane; NBL=Northbound left turn lane; NBT=Northbound through lane; NBR=Northbound right turn lane; WBL=Westbound left turn lane; WBT=Westbound through lane; WBR=Westbound right
turn lane; SBL=Southbound left turn lane; SBT=Southbound through lane; SBR=Southbound right turn lane.
(c) See figures 6-21 to 6-21.1 for the proposed improvements at the study intersections.
(d) Change in travel lanes is due to narrowing of 3rd Avenue.
(e) The Woodlawn Avenue couplet creates 2 new intersections. The first number/letter corresponds to the delay/LOS at the west intersection and the second number/letter corresponds to the delay/LOS at the east intersection.
(f) Coordination with Caltrans will be required for the proposed improvement at this intersection.
K:\095413000\Excel\October 2005 Final Report\[413in08(MODIFIED).xls]Mitigation Summary
6-22
6-23
Legend
Transit Transfer Station
Transit Stop
Figure 6-14
West Side Shuttle Proposed Route
K:\095413000\Figures\October2005FinalReport\WestSiteShuttleProposedRoute.doc
7.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The following section provides a summary of the key findings and study recommendations.
§ The Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) focus area is located east of I-5, west of Del Mar Avenue,
north of L Street, and south of C Street.
§ Approximately 331,000 ADT is expected with the full build-out of the Urban Core, which is an
increase of 141,000 ADT over existing conditions.
§ A total of 64 intersections and 32 roadway segments were identified for analysis.
§ Under existing conditions, three intersections operate at LOS E or worse during the peak periods
and all roadway segments function at an acceptable LOS.
§ Under Year 2030 conditions, 20 intersections operate at LOS E or worse during the peak periods
and all but two roadway segment functions at an acceptable LOS.
§ Recommended improvements were made along nine roadway segments within the study area,
which include E Street, F Street, H Street, Woodlawn Avenue, and several segments along
Broadway and 3rd Avenue.
§ With the recommended improvements, the segment of H Street between I-5 and Broadway would
function at an acceptable LOS, but the segment of 3rd Avenue between E Street and G Street
would function at LOS F.
§ The 3rd Avenue corridor intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service and the
narrowing of 3 rd Avenue and increasing the width of the sidewalks would create a friendlier
pedestrian atmosphere.
§ Recommended improvements were made at the 20 intersections that would operate at LOS E or
worse during the peak periods and at locations where improvements to the road network would
also affect the intersections at either end of the segment.
§ Three of the 20 intersections (#7, #16, and #21) are proposed as project features rather than
necessitated to improve intersection LOS and the improvements will likely be related to and
timed with implementation of streetscape improvements along Third Avenue.
K:\095413000\Word\October 2005 Final Report\Chula Vista UC Final Traffic Study.doc
Traffic Impact Analysis Findings and Conclusions

Chula Vista
C Appendix
CITY OF CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE
SPECIFIC PLAN MARKET ANALYSIS
Submitted to:
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Prepared by:
Economics Research Associates
June 2, 2005
ERA Project No. 15362

GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
This study is based on estimates, general knowledge of the industry and consultations with the
client and the client’s representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting
by the client, the client’s agent and representatives or any other data source used in preparing or
presenting this study. Research was conducted from April 2004 through July 2004, and
Economics Research Associates has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such
date. No warranty or representation is made by Economics Research Associates that any of the
projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. This report is not to
be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities or other similar purpose
where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client without first
obtaining the prior written consent of Economics Research Associates. This study may not be
used for purposes other than that for which it is prepared. This study is qualified in its entirety
by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions, and considerations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. Introduction and Summary Findings 7
Introduction 7
Summary Findings 7
II. Market Context 17

Regional Economic Base 17
Employment Trends 22
Retail Trends 29
Visitor Market 33
The Mexican Market 34
III. Demographic Context 37

Population 37
Households 41
Household Income 42
Implications for the Urban Core 44
IV. Real Estate Market Overview 46

Retail Market 46
Office Market 48
Residential Market 50
Lodging Trends 53
Recent Property Sales Transactions 56
Implications for the Urban Core 59
V. Market Demand Parameters 61

Office Demand 61
Retail Demand 66
Housing Demand 72
Urban Core Capacity 78
Financial Feasibility Issues 79
VI. SWOT Analysis 82

Strengths 82
Weaknesses 82
Opportunities 83
Threats 83
Economics Research Associates 2

LIST OF TABLES
Section Page
Table II-1 San Diego County Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030 23
Table II-2 South Suburban Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030 24
Table II-3 South Suburban Net Growth Employment Share of San Diego County
between 2000 and 2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade and Services Sectors 24
Table II-4 Chula Vista Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030 25
Table II-5 Chula Vista Net Growth Employment Share of South Suburban between
2000 and 2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade and Services Sectors 26
Table II-6 SRA-21 Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030 27
Table II-7 SRA-21 Job Growth As a Share of Chula Vista’s Job Growth between
2000 and 2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade and Services Sectors 28
Table II-8 1995 and 2000 Urban Core Taxable Sales 31
Table II-9 1995 and 2000 Urban Core percentage of citywide Taxable Sales 32
Table III-1 Population Growth Trends 2000-2030 38
Table III-2 Age Distribution Share in 2000 and 2030 39
Table III-3 2000 and 2030 Age Distribution 40
Table III-4 SRA 21, Chula Vista and San Diego County Growth Trends 42
Table III-5 2000 and 2030 SRA-21, Chula Vista and San Diego County Race and
Ethnicity 44
Table IV-1 Chula Vista and Urban Core Retail Space Sales Price/SF and Sales/Year 48
Table IV-2 Chula Vista and Urban Core Office Space Sales Price/SF and Sales/Year 50

Table IV-3 Chula Vista Existing Single Family and Condominium Home Sales for
April 2003 and 2004 51
Table IV-4 Chula Vista New Single Family and Condominium Home Sales for April
2003 and 2004 51
Table IV-5 June 2004 Asking Rents for Apartments located in the Chula Vista
Urban Core 52
Table IV-6 Chula Vista Urban Core Motels 56
Table IV-7 Building Sales Transactions by Category 57
Table IV-8: Chula Vista SF and Price per SF for Building Sales Transactions
by Category 57
Table IV-9: Urban Core SF and Price per SF for Building Sales Transactions
by Category 58
Table IV-10: Land Sales Transactions by Category 58
Table IV-11: Chula Vista SF and Price per SF for Land Sales Transactions by Category 59
Table IV-12: Urban Core SF and Price per SF for Land Sales Transactions by Category 59
Table V-1 San Diego County Employment Based Office Space Projections,
2000 to 2030 63
Table V-2 Projected Demand for Office Space in San Diego County, South Suburban,
Chula Vista and SRA 21, 2000 to 2030 64
Table V-3 Assumed Distribution of Office Space Demand in Chula Vista 2000-2030 65
Table V-4 Chula Vista Potential Retail Sales 2030: Downtown (Primary Market)
Resident Market Support Based on the Existing General Plan 67
Table V-5 Chula Vista Potential Retail Sales 2030: Rest of Chula Vista Excluding
Downtown (Secondary Market) 68

Table V-6 Chula Vista Potential Retail Sales 2030: Rest of San Diego County
(Tertiary Market) Resident Market Support Based on the Existing GP 69
Table V-7 Downtown Chula Vista: Potential Retail Support from Other
Sources (2030) Based on the Existing General Plan 70
Table V-8 Supportable Retail Space in Downtown Chula Vista (2030)

Under the Existing General Plan 71
Table V-9 Chula Vista Urban Core Study Area Housing Demand for 2010,
2020 and 2030 73
Table V-10 Estimated Single and Multiple Family Housing Demand in the
Chula Vista Urban Core Study Area for 2010, 2020 and 2030 74
Table V-10 Chula Vista Urban Housing Demand for 2010, 2020 and 2030
(Second Scenario – Assuming 2010-2020 Growth Rate Continues Between 2020-2030) 76
Table V-11 Single and Multiple Family Housing Demand in the Chula Vista
Urban Core Study Area for 2010, 2020 and 2030 (Second Scenario –
Assuming 2010-2020 Growth Rate Continues Between 2020-2030) 77
Table V-12 Urban Core Plan Capacity for New Incremental Growth 78
Table V-13 Growth Capacity vs. Estimated Demand (2004-2030) 78

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Section Page
Exhibit I-1 Urban Core Study Area 8
Exhibit II-1 San Diego County Real Gross Regional Product 18
Exhibit II-2 San Diego County Real per Capita Income 19
Exhibit II-3 Countywide Development Permit Value 21
Exhibit II-4 Chula Vista Development Permit Value 22
Exhibit II-5 SRA-21 Share of Chula Vista Employment by Industry Sector for 2000
and 2030 28
Exhibit II-6 City of Chula Vista Taxable Retail Sales Trends 30
Exhibit II-7 City of Chula Vista Eating and Drinking Taxable Retail Sales Trends 31
Exhibit II-8 San Diego County Distribution of Total Visitors in 2002 (38 Million) 34
Exhibit III-1 San Diego County, Chula Vista and SRA-21 Education 41
Exhibit III-2 2000 Annual Household Income 43
Exhibit IV-1 Hotel Performance by Sub-markets 53
Exhibit IV-2 San Diego South Sub-market Occupancy Trends 54
Exhibit IV-3 San Diego Hotel Performance by Type of Hotel 55

I. Introduction and Summary Findings
Introduction
The City of Chula Vista retained Economics Research Associates (ERA), under subcontract with
RRM Associates, to review the market for infill development and redevelopment as input to the
Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan. Exhibit I-1 shows the Study Area, which is bordered by
Freeway I-5 to the West, Palm Oaks Street to the East, C Street to the North, and L Street to the
South.
The purpose of this report is to describe the regional economic and demographic context in which
development will take place, review the current real estate market for commercial and housing
development; assess the Urban Core’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for
development; and estimate support for the long-term development in the Urban Core.
Summary Findings
Regional Economic Context

The strong and relatively secure regional economic environment provides an excellent context in
which to undertake future development in the Urban Core. The shortage of affordable market
rate housing presents an opportunity for the Urban Core to increase its housing stock and find a
ready market.
Regionally, residential development is the dominant land use in terms of aggregate value among
the classes of new development. A strategy to transform the Urban Core sooner rather than later
should fundamentally be based on opportunities for new residential development.
Urban Core’s Economic Position
Redevelopment, infill development, and revitalization of existing development will take place
within a growing and dynamic market, though one that is increasingly less affordable. The
region’s diversified economy provides stability, while projected shifts in regional growth patterns
towards South County will generate new opportunities for the Urban Core if development there is
priced competitively. The Urban Core’s location between two growing economic hubs –
Downtown San Diego and Tijuana -- is well positioned within coastal South County for capturing
a significant share of regional growth.

Exhibit I-1 Study Area

While Chula Vista has been growing along with the region, western Chula Vista’s 8,000
additional jobs projected between 2000 and 2030 is a declining share of citywide job growth.
Existing SANDAG forecasts indicate that western Chula Vista, which includes the Urban Core,
may continue to see a declining share of sub-regional growth as new development continues in
eastern Chula Vista and elsewhere in South County. Despite its declining share of citywide
employment, western Chula Vista’s (SRA-21) 44,800 jobs forecasted by 2030 will still remain a
majority share of citywide employment (56 percent in 2030 compared to 68 percent in 2000).
Some of the projected declining share of future job growth reflects existing land use policies and
the build-out nature of western Chula Vista, compared to other, newer areas of South County.
Policies in the Urban Core and elsewhere in western Chula Vista, such as the Bayfront, that
expand development capacity could change these assumptions, particularly if the development
and community characteristics are of a competitive quality.
Chula Vista’s taxable sales per capita are approximately 9 percent lower than the countywide
average, which reflects net leakage of retail sales and Chula Vista’s lack of tourism sales. Still,
taxable sales grew by 3.7 percent per year between 1997 and 2002. The Urban Core can play a
role in recapturing some sales that are lost to other jurisdictions. The Urban Core traditionally
has been an important retail area for Chula Vista and South Bay residents, and consumers from
Mexico; however, its share of citywide sales, though still large, is falling except for apparel and
food stores in recent years, as new retail centers are developed in eastern Chula Vista.
Retail development and revitalization will be an important component of the Urban Core’s future.
The Urban Core’s share of citywide apparel sales is rising. Apparel sales may have increased its
market share due growth in cross border trade that is important to Chula Vista Center, growth in
the South Bay regional population, and the limited amount of fashion stores included in the new
developments in eastern Chula Vista (though this will change when the new regional mall
planned in Otay Ranch is developed). While the Urban Core’s retail outlets will benefit from the
growing consumer base in South Bay, the Urban Core’s traditional commercial role will have to
adjust to growing competition, including eastern Chula Vista, the border communities (especially
for Mexican trade), and downtown San Diego (for entertainment and dining), by finding new
niches and serving more focused geographic areas. The Urban Core’s market share of regional
sales will probably decline as new competition develops, but absolute sales and supportable space
will expand as the market population, particularly in western Chula Vista, grows.
While the Urban Core has visitor-serving uses, such as motels, and is along a major tourist travel
corridor along the I-5 to Mexico, it currently is not very competitive in the regional tourism
market. Its current minor niche is lodging for the budget traveler. Chula Vista’s Bayfront is key
for penetrating the region’s visitor market, especially the traveler market to Mexico. The Urban
Core’s opportunity to improve its share of the visitor market would be enhanced with a strong
link to the Bayfront. If the Urban Core is to attract visitors to the region on its own, it will have

to develop a unique nic he, probably centered on culture, music, and food, and as an affordable
location with amenities for the business market. Still, regional competition is great, and tourism
will probably be a minor component of the Urban Core’s economy.
The Urban Core, with the Bayfront, does have the opportunity to leverage the Mexican market to
expand the reasons Mexicans shop in Chula Vista, from staples, fashion, and services, to dining
and entertainment, particularly for families. There are many links between residents in South Bay
and Tijuana, such as business, family, and friends, and the Urban Core can position itself as one
of the primary areas within the border zone region where cross border business networking and
personal gatherings can occur. The importance of the Mexican market to Chula Vista, however,
should diminish somewhat, though remain significant, as the resident consumer base in the South
Bay market area grows and opportunities diversify.
Demographics
SANDAG forecasts relatively lesser population and household growth, a largely aging
population, a more diversified Hispanic and multicultural population, and relatively lower
incomes and education levels in western Chula Vista and the Urban Core compared to
countywide averages. These characteristics have implications for housing affordability and
consumer buying power and preferences.
SANDAG’s forecasts, however, reflect existing trends and capacities associated with current
General Plan land use policies. Since SANDAG forecasts significant growth in South Bay that
will change South Bay’s demographic characteristics, the opportunity exists for the Urban Core to
reinvent itself by changing land use policy to accommodate a greater share of South Bay and
countywide growth, and modify its projected demographic characteristics in the process. The
natural aging of the existing population in the Urban Core, particularly in single -family housing
neighborhoods where properties overtime will turnover to new households, may also change the
Urban Core’s demographic profile over the next couple of decades.
While the opportunity exists to diversify the Urban Core’s demographic trends, it should be
recognized that most of the Urban Core’s and western Chula Vista’s demographic characteristics
is already in place, associated with existing housing, and that these characteristics will continue to
have influence even as the Urban Core diversifies with new development.
Many of the demographic trends are regional. The average age of the population is rising, as the
baby-boom generation ages, and housing and districts that appeal to an aging population will be
important. Environments that appeal to a multi-cultural population will be important. Housing
that is affordable will be important.

The Real Estate Market
The real estate market indicators are strong for the residential and retail sectors, with rising prices
and low vacancy rates countywide and within the Urban Core. Though rising, commercial retail
monthly rents ($1.00 to $2.60 NNN per s.f.) and apartment rental rates ($0.61 to $1.29 NNN per
s.f.) in the Urban Core are below average, reflecting its older building stock. Occupancy rates are
very high, indicating strong demand at existing price points. It would be difficult to support new
development at commercial retail and apartment rental rates associated with the Urban Core’s
older building stock. New development will have to achieve rents that are higher than average
for the Urban Core. Limited recent examples demonstrate that this is possible, such as the Chula
Vista Gateway mixed-use project, with retail in the first story and office space above. While
there has been little new housing development in the Urban Core, several projects are proposed,
which demonstrate that developers believe they can command rents and prices that are higher
than existing market rents and prices for older properties.
Examples of new ownership housing are limited; however, the resale price of existing single -
family homes ($468,000 in April, 2004) and condominiums ($350,000 in April, 2004) are
growing and healthy, and only moderately lower than the countywide average. The relative
affordability of housing in the Urban Core provides a near to mid-term advantage and market
opportunity.
While the office sector countywide has moderately higher vacancy rates than other types of
income property, office space in the Urban Core has low occupancy rates. Monthly rents in the
Urban Core for most properties ($1.65 to$1.85 NNN) are lower than average, reflecting the older
nature of most existing office buildings. The higher rents ($2.50 to $2.75 NNN) and strong
occupancy rates achieved at the Gateway project, however, indicate that quality new office
developments can generate relatively high rental income. Whether these values were achieved
due to pent-up demand from a market that had not seen new Class A office development in
decades, or reflect a developing and sustainable office sub-market remains to be seen.
The lodging inventory in the Urban Core, which is comprised of older properties, is positioned
for the budget traveler. The low rents and occupancy rates, and declining transient occupancy
taxes (TOT) revenues indicate that lodging is the weakest of the land uses that the Urban Core
may potentially develop. While South Bay at some point may support a business hotel, Chula
Vista’s Bayfront or the Eastern Urban Center may be better positioned.
Commercial and residential land prices in the Urban Core ($47 to $63 per s.f. for commercial and
$20 per s.f. for residential), though high for Chula Vista, are low relative to downtown San
Diego, and present an opportunity to capture development, particularly urban housing
development, that use to be feasible in downtown San Diego, but are no longer feasible given

downtown San Diego’s land prices. Compared to eastern Chula Vista, however, the Urban Core
achieves lower rents, but higher land prices, which makes it financially difficult to develop a
financially feasible project. Future densities in the urban core probably have to be higher than
existing densities to achieve enough revenue per acre to cover land costs. How developers
provide parking affordably while increasing densities, while keeping rents and prices in line with
the market, will be an important challenge.
Long-Term Development Parameters
Office Development
It is estimated that the Urban Core may reasonably expect to absorb approximately 750,000 to 1.1
million square feet of office space by 2030, in addition to existing supply, under the Moderate to
High scenarios. The potential amount demanded would be less under a Low scenario, but
planning policy should not unduly constrain potential upside growth if the more optimistic
scenarios materialize.
Retail Development
The Urban Core has access to several potential consumer markets, including local and out-of-area
households, downtown area employees, overnight visitors and cross border shoppers.
It is estimated that the Urban Core could support approximately 2.3 million square feet of gross
leasable retail space, including existing retail space within the Urban Core, such as Chula Vista
Shopping Center, 3rd Avenue, E Street, H Street, and Broadway. This amount could be higher if
household and population capacity is enhanced, and average incomes rise with new development.
Housing Development
It is reasonable to assume that build-out capacity in the South Suburban MSA will increase,
which would result in greater growth in the sub-market than SANDAG currently forecasts past
the year 2020. Chula Vista is contemplating such increases as it updates its General Plan,
including within the Eastern Urban Center, Downtown, and the upland portions of the Bayfront.
The City of San Diego is considering adding housing capacity to the Otay Mesa Community Plan.
San Ysidro and National City redevelopment efforts contemplate new urban housing capacity.
While most of these changes in policies that will increase housing capacity have not yet been
approved, it is likely that some will be approved given the regional housing affordability issue.
Assuming that household growth in the South Suburban MSA continues between 2020-2030 at
the same rate as SANDAG forecasts for the 2010-2020 period, and that the Urban Core can

capture a significant share of this growth, the Urban Core might accommodate over 1,500 to over
3,600 new housing units between 2000 and 2030, including potentially small-lot single-family
homes and attached town homes, and multi-family ownership and rental properties at various
densities and heights.
Lodging
Lodging prospects are limited due to the lack of a major generator for overnight tourism demand,
and the competitive advantage of lodging planned on Chula Vista’s Bayfront. Waterfront hotels
have traditionally performed better than the general lodging market due to the popularity of ocean
views and bay access. Lodging within the Urban Core will probably have to position itself for the
economy class, or a lower price point than planned at the Chula Vista Bayfront, and target
travelers along Interstate 5 heading to and from Baja California, business travelers, and visiting
families and friends.
Financial Considerations
The amount of revenue a property can generate relative to increases in costs must be greater to
induce private redevelopment and renovation, without public subsidies. Rents and home prices,
and densities, will have to be greater to generate this additional revenue.
How parking is addressed, in terms of standards (such as reducing standards near transit or
allowing shared parking standards for mixed-use development), location (forming parking
districts that can pool parking in-lieu fees to provide serviceable off-site parking at a lower cost
due to economies of scale), and type (ensuring parking development costs are commensurate with
achievable rents) is important.
Another major issue that will affect feasibility is the ultimate impact fee costs, given the
potentially higher cost of providing public facilities in an existing community to serve the
additional population.
If the Urban Core Plan’s allowable densities requires subterranean parking, rents and home prices
per square foot will have to be even greater to afford the high cost of subterranean parking. A
Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) study for the City of Chula Vista that tested the residual value
of alternative forms of housing at different densities and assumed impacts concluded that
townhomes and mid-rise condominium development currently are the most feasible housing
prototype, supporting current estimates of acquisition costs for improved properties in western
Chula Vista. The feasibility of high-rise condominium development appeared low because of the
higher costs relative to prices, although a relatively modest increase in high-rise price

assumptions (which the Chula Vista Urban Core could evolve into) would make high-rise
development feasible. KMA concluded that rental rates currently are too low to support increases
in land values and construction costs.
Building upon KMA’s analysis and using similar impact fee factors, ERA evaluated three
hypothetical mixed-use housing and retail scenarios on 50,000 square foot lots, and applied the
draft development standards prepared by RRM Associates. The first two scenarios were
variations of mixed-use development within the V-2 Village area. The first scenario, V-2-A,
assumes that development maximizes the allowed floor-area ratio (FAR), necessitating
subterranean parking. The second scenario, V-2-B, assumes that only one level of lower cost
tuck-under parking (half level below grade and half above grade, utilizing natural ventilation) is
developed and the number of residential units is limited by the parking supply. Both of these
scenarios assume that commercial parking requirements is satisfied off-site through parking in-
lieu fees. The third scenario, V-12, assumes a high-rise, transit-oriented, mixed-use development
were all parking is placed on site. Theses analyses are presented in Appendix A.
The estimated residual land values that these scenarios may support are as follows:
Scenario Residual Land Value Per S.F. of Land Area

V-2A: FAR Capacity $21
V-2B: Parking Constrained $71
UC-12: Transit-Oriented High-Rise $22
While these prices are comparable for higher density residential and commercial land in the urban
areas of South Bay, only the Parking Constrained scenario generates sufficient value to recover
the cost of property acquisition that includes land and existing improvements, which is the more
common scenario within the Urban Core. The reason the Parking Constrained scenario performs
better is that the high cost of subterranean parking is avoided. The UC-12 scenario, the Transit-
Oriented High Rise Scenario, must compensate for higher construction costs per unit associated
with high-rise development, which reduces residual value given market prices.
Based on this analysis, the City should strive to improve the feasibility of private redevelopment
by doing the following:
• Strive to reduce the impact fee cost burden on development through efficient
infrastructure planning, and the use of public funds (such as redevelopment funds) to
cover some of the costs of infrastructure and public facility provision;

• Reduce parking in-lieu fees by developing district parking as a public/private partnership,
and/or base fees on the provision of common surface lots, rather than structured parking.
These measures are particularly important in the early phases of the Urban Core’s redevelopment.
Overtime, as prices and rents rise in real terms relative to construction costs, the residual land
value of development will rise and the ability for private parties to purchase existing properties,
without subsidy will improve, as will development’s capacity to absorb higher parking and
impact fee costs.
The Urban Core’s Competitive Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats
Development prospects within the Urban Core have many competitive strengths and
opportunities, but also some competitive weaknesses to overcome and potential threats to avoid
and prepare against.
Strengths
• Location between downtown San Diego and Tijuana

• Established retail market concentration
• Proximity to the Bay and potential view development
• Established employment, retail, and residential center with high occupancy
• Transit linkages and good regional highway access
Weaknesses

• Limited visitor industry
• Low hotel room rates and occupancy rates
• Relatively lower rents that discourage investment
• Public facility deficiencies
• Relatively weak linkage with the Bayfront

Opportunities
• Affordable development relative to downtown San Diego

• Ability to capture a larger share of housing demand than SANDAG forecasts
• An alternative and more affordable urban lifestyle than downtown San Diego
• Ability to intercept Mexican consumers
• Become South County’s office employment, retail, and entertainment center
• Become a meeting place for San Diego/Mexico business and personal networks
Threats

• Competition from the Eastern Urban Center if not adequately distinguished
• Cost and complexity of land assembly and infill development
• Infrastructure and public facility constraints and mitigation costs
• Not overcoming a “second tier” reputation in the regional market
• Exposure to Mexican currency fluctuations
Concentrating efforts in keystone districts within the Urban Core to show success and generate
some critical mass, rather than dilute efforts with individual scattered developments, may be
important for generating momentum and long-term success, so that people choose to live, shop,
and work in the Urban Core because of its own distinct identity.

II. Market Context
Regional Economic Base
San Diego has a strong and diversified regional economy. The major contributors to the economy
(as measured by contribution to the Gross Regional Product) are manufacturing, the military,
tourism, business and technology services, and trade. This diversity provides both stability and
an entrepreneurial spirit exemplified by the region’s many small businesses.
According to the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, San Diego County’s gross regional
product1 (GRP) grew dramatically in real terms (adjusted for inflation) from 1980 to 1990. The
economy faced a structural change as the Cold War ended and the defense industry, in particular
the aerospace industry, contracted. This structural change combined with a national recession
stagnated and even decreased the GRP in the early 1990s. The economy rebounded slowly up to
1995. Since then, the economy’s growth has accelerated until the early 2000s, and has continued
to grow at a slower rate in the early 2000s. The period from 1997 to 2000 registered the most
impressive growth, as shown in Exhibit II-1.
Population has grown with the economy’s growth, fueled by foreign and national migration and
the natural increase of the base population. San Diego County’s population grew by almost
494,000 people between 1990 and 2003, from 2.5 million to 3.0 million, for an average
compounded annual growth rate of 1.4 percent. Due to the recession experienced during the first
years of the 1990’s decade, the real gross regional product per capita, adjusted for inflation,
experienced negative annual growth rates between 1991 and 1993, grew 0.7 percent in 1994 and
increased steadily thereafter, reaching 6.9 percent in 1999 and 8.0 percent in 2000.
During the period between 2000 and 2003, the San Diego Region added more than 173,400 new
residents, increasing its population by 6.1 percent. Due to the growth in population, the real gross
regional product per capita, adjusted for inflation, experienced more modest annual growth rates
in 2001 (0.6 percent), 2002 (0.3 percent) and 2003 (1.4 percent), compared to much higher GRP
growth rates per capita from 1996 to 2000.
The tragic events of 9/11, 2001 have resulted in an increase in spending for military and defense,
which has reinvigorated these traditional San Diego industries. In 2002, the region had more than
105,000 Active Duty Personnel and 24,000 Department of Defense civilian jobs. Defense
1
This measure is the regional version of the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, which is a measure of total
economic output.

expenditures in the region increased by $3.2 billion in 2002, a 30 percent increase from
Department of Defense expenditures in 2001,
While the military and defense industries are important to the region, businesses, universities, and
institutes in San Diego County developed strong technical industries in the later 1980s and 1990s,
such as biotechnology (the region is the third largest biotech cluster in the United States),
telecommunications, software, medical instruments, electronics, etc. Trade has grown, first with
the maquiladora program, then NAFTA. Tourism remains strong.
Today, the region’s economic base is more diverse than it has ever been and is better prepared to
face future economic downturns, thereby lessening the region’s reliance on the defense industry
and federal expenditures, the contraction of which greatly affected the economy during the 1990’s
recession.
Exhibit II-1 San Diego County Real Gross Regional Product

160.0
140.0
120.0
Billions in 2003 Dollars
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0 2003(f)
2002(e)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Source: San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

San Diego Economic Bulletin, Forecast 2003, Volume 51, Number 1.
In 2003, 1.43 million people were employed on average in San Diego County throughout the year
and the unemployment rate stood at 4.4 percent. Although the unemployment rate has increased
from the 3.4 percent in 2001, San Diego has performed better than the state of California, which

recorded an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent2 in 2003. It should be mentioned that the recent
increase in the unemployment rate is partly due to people moving to the region, attracted to the
strong economy, and not the result of a weak job generation. In 2002, more than 10,0003 jobs
were added to the local economy, contrasting with the 125,0004 jobs lost in the State of California
as a whole. San Diego’s rate of 4.4 percent is at or near the generally accepted “full
employment” threshold.
San Diego County’s personal income per capita, in real terms adjusted for inflation, increased
substantially during the 1980’s, but declined during the first half of the 1990’s as a result of the
recession. Recovery started in 1994 and per capita income topped in 2000, but has decreased
slightly in recent years, as illustrated in Exhibit II-2.
Exhibit II-2 San Diego County Real per Capita Income
$36,000
Anual Income in 2003 Dollars
$34,000
$32,000
$30,000
$28,000
$26,000
$24,000
2003(f)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Source: San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Perhaps the greatest contributor to price inflation in the region is the cost of housing. San Diego
County has become one of the least affordable housing markets in the country. Following the
1990’s recession, home prices have increased every year since 1996. Adjusted for inflation, the
2
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, 2003 Economic Outlook
3
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, 2002 Year in Review, Volume 51, Number 3
4
idem

average home value in the county has increased 76.45 percent since 1995, for a compound annual
growth rate of 7.3 percent, well above the annual inflation rate. Such increases are the result of
various economic factors, such as stable economic growth, high migration rates that increase the
demand for housing, scarcity of land and housing supply, and historically low interest rates.
Affordability has become a major concern for the region’s economy, as the proportion of local
households that can afford a home has dramatically decreased in the last 10 years. During the
1994 recession, the proportion of households who could afford the median price home was 48
percent; today, only 16 percent of households can afford the median price home in San Diego
County6 .
The future bodes well for the region’s economy due to its diversity, federal expenditures,
proximity to Mexico, qualified workforce, and amenities and destinations that attract tourists.
Defense will continue to be an important part of the region’s economy for the foreseeable future.
Technology companies will also drive growth for the region. The tourism industry is expected to
attract more visitors in years to come. San Diego County’s proximity to large short-haul markets,
such as Southern California, Northern California, Arizona and other western states shelter the
region’s tourism economy somewhat from potential disruptions to national and international
travel. The region’s economy has also benefited from NAFTA related trade given its strategic
geographic location. Since its inception in 1994, the total dollar volume of international trade has
more than tripled in the region.
The strong and relatively secure economic environment provides an excellent context in which to
undertake future development in the Urban Core. The shortage of affordable market rate housing
presents an opportunity for the Urban Core to increase its housing stock and find a ready market.
Development Trends
Exhibit II-3 shows San Diego County development trends measured by permit valuation (in 2002
dollars) for residential development, non-residential development excluding retail, and retail
development. Residential permit value averaged $2.4 billion from 1990 to 2002 in constant 2002
dollars, reaching $3.5 billion in 2002. Non-residential permit value, excluding retail permits,
averaged $0.9 billion from 1990 to 2002 in constant 2002 dollars, reaching $1.0 billion in 2002.
Retail permit value averaged $145 million from 1990 to 2002 in constant 2002 dollars, reaching
$138 million in 2002.
5
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, Economics Research Associates
6
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, San Diego Economic Bulletin

Exhibit II-4 shows development trends in the City of Chula Vista measured by permit valuation
(in 2002 dollars) for residential development, non-residential development excluding retail, and
retail development. Residential permit value averaged $288 million from 1990 to 2003 in
constant 2002 dollars, reaching $606 million in 2003. Non-residential permit value, excluding
retail permits, averaged $29 million from 1990 to 2003 in constant 2002 dollars, reaching $50
million in 2000. Retail permit value averaged $23 million from 1990 to 2003 in constant 2002
dollars, reaching $53 million in 2003.
Exhibit II-3 Countywide Development Permit Value
$4,000 Residential
$3,500 Non-Residential Excluding Retail
Retail
$3,000
In 2002 Million Dollars
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Regionally, residential development is by far the dominant land use in terms of aggregate value
among the classes of new development. A strategy to transform the Urban Core sooner rather
than later should fundamentally be based on opportunities for new residential development.

Exhibit II-4 Chula Vista Development Permit Value
$700
Residential
$600
Non-Residential Excluding Retail
In 2002 Million Dollars
$500
Retail
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Employment Trends
San Diego County
According to SANDAG, the San Diego Region is expected to increase its workforce from 1.38
million to 1.82 million between 2000 and 2030, for a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of
0.9 percent. Employment growth projections for the San Diego Region are evenly distributed
throughout the 30-year term; it is estimated, on average, that 146,000 jobs will be added to the
local economy every ten years. Table II-1 shows forecasted employment growth by industry for
San Diego County between 2000 and 2030.
The Financial, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector is projected to grow by 54 percent during
the 30-year period, adding 37,715 new jobs, while the Services sector is forecasted to grow by 50
percent, adding 201,295 jobs to the regional economy. These sectors are particularly important
for the private office market. Retail trade, another important sector for downtown development,
is expected to add almost 67,000 new jobs.

Table II-1 San Diego County Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030
2000 2010 % Change 2020 % Change 2030 % Change

Agriculture 11,800 10,648 -9.76% 9,897 -7.05% 9,782 -1.16%
Construction 70,000 78,655 12.36% 79,396 0.94% 78,621 -0.98%
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 69,501 81,759 17.64% 95,641 16.98% 107,216 12.10%
Government 206,600 240,239 16.28% 257,928 7.36% 273,174 5.91%
Manufacturing 129,200 116,562 -9.78% 116,822 0.22% 118,494 1.43%
Military 90,093 90,093 0.00% 90,093 0.00% 90,093 0.00%
Retail trade 217,100 239,456 10.30% 260,113 8.63% 283,899 9.14%
Self employment, domestic workers 89,380 98,305 9.99% 108,281 10.15% 118,673 9.60%
Services 399,202 461,117 15.51% 529,159 14.76% 600,497 13.48%
Transportation, Comm. & P.Utilities 50,800 55,880 10.00% 60,683 8.60% 69,128 13.92%
Wholesale trade 51,000 55,808 9.43% 64,870 16.24% 74,453 14.77%
Total 1,384,676 1,528,522 10.39% 1,672,883 9.44% 1,824,030 9.04%
Source: SANDAG and Economics Research Associates
South Suburban Market Area
Employment growth in the South Suburban Major Statistical Area (MSA), where western Chula
Vista and the Urban Core are located, is expected to increase from 85,900 to 167,300 between
2000 and 2030, adding more than 81,000 jobs for a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of
2.2 percent, well above the regional average. Table II-2 shows employment growth by industry
for the South Suburban Major Statistical Area in San Diego County between 2000 and 2030.
In the South Suburban Area, the FIRE sector is projected to increase by 204 percent during the
30-year period, adding 6,900 new jobs, while the Services sector is forecasted to grow by 242
percent, adding 35,689 new jobs to the South Bay economy.
Table II-3 shows the South Suburban MSA’s projected share of San Diego County’s net growth
in employment between 2000 and 2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade, Government, and
Services sectors, important sectors for the Urban Core. As shown, South Suburban MSA’s share
of regional growth for all categories is projected to increase each subsequent decade. According
to SANDAG’s estimates, the South Suburban Area may increase its share of total employment in
San Diego County from 6.2 percent in 2000 to 9.2 percent by 2030.

Table II-2 South Suburban Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030

Agriculture 251 253 0.8% 257 1.6% 258 0.4%
Construction 1,905 2,153 13.0% 2,174 1.0% 2,491 14.6%
Government 19,312 23,251 20.4% 26,426 13.7% 29,338 11.0%
Manufacturing 9,998 9,046 -9.5% 9,080 0.4% 9,355 3.0%
Military 200 200 0.00% 200 0.00% 200 0.0%
Retail trade 17,927 20,446 14.1% 23,839 16.6% 28,370 19.0%
Self emp loyment, domestic workers 10,660 12,463 16.9% 14,989 20.3% 17,410 16.2%
Services 14,737 20,929 42.0% 33,661 60.8% 50,426 49.8%
Transportation, Comm. & P.Utilities 3,433 4,612 34.3% 5,972 29.5% 8,790 47.2
Wholesale trade 4,112 5,272 28.2% 7,587 43.9% 10,346 36.4%
Total 85,904 103,140 20.1% 131,576 27.6% 167,253 27.1%
Source: SANDAG; and Economics Research Associates
Table II-3 South Suburban Net Growth Employment Share of San Diego County between
2000 and 2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade and Services Sectors
2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 9.3% 20.7% 24.9%
Government 11.7% 17.9% 19.1%
Retail trade 11.3% 16.4% 19.0%
Services 10.0% 18.7% 23.5%
Chula Vista
In the case of Chula Vista, SANDAG forecasts that jobs will increase from 53,700 to 79,400
between 2000 and 2030, for a CAGR of 1.3 percent, which is less than the South Suburban
growth rate, but still above the countywide average growth rate. SANDAG is forecasting that a
higher proportion of South Bay job growth will occur elsewhere, such as Otay Mesa. The City
of Chula Vista is expected to receive 6,074 new jobs between 2000 and 2010, 9,086 between
2010 and 2020, and 10,551 between 2020 and 2030. Table II-4 shows SANDAG’s forecasted
employment growth by industry for the City of Chula Vista between 2000 and 2030.

The FIRE sector in Chula Vista is projected to increase by 107 percent, adding 2,451 jobs
between 2000 and 2030, while the Services sector is forecasted to grow 88 percent, adding 10,314
jobs to the city’s employment base during the 30-year period.
These forecasts are based on existing land use policy. If land-use policy changes to allow for
more or less employment, the forecasted share of regional employment growth occurring in Chula
Vista may also change.
Table II-4 Chula Vista Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030

Agriculture 165 165 0.0% 165 0.0% 165 0.0%
Construction 1,378 1,558 13.1% 1,567 0.6% 1,672 6.7%
Government 8,814 10,788 22.4% 11,707 8.5% 12,644 8.00%
Manufacturing 6,051 5,357 -11.5% 5,363 0.1% 5,477 2.1%
Military 0 0 0 0
Retail trade 11,794 12,500 6.0% 13,530 8.2% 15,142 11.9%
Services 11,727 13,533 15.4% 17,419 28.7% 22,041 26.5%
Wholesale trade 2,069 2,338 13.0% 2,853 22.0% 3,455 21.1%
Total 53,731 59,805 11.3% 68,891 15.2% 79,442 15.3%
Table II-5 shows Chula Vista’s forecasted share of South Suburban MSA’s net employment
growth between 2000 and 2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade and Services sectors. As
shown in the table, Chula Vista’s share of FIRE category net growth is forecasted to decrease
from 42.5 percent between 2000 and 2010 to 32.0 percent between 2020 and 2030, while its share
of Government’s net growth is forecasted to decrease from 50.1 percent to 32.2 percent during
the same timeframe. Chula Vista’s share for Retail Trade’s net growth is forecasted to increase
from 28.0 percent to 35.6 percent and decrease slightly in the services sector.
The South Suburban MSA is forecasted to add over 81,300 new jobs between 2000 and 2030.
During the same timeframe, the City of Chula Vista is projected to add over 25,700 new jobs.
According to SANDAG’s forecasts, the City of Chula Vista is forecasted to capture 31.6 percent
of the total employment growth in the South Suburban Area during the 30-year period.

Table II-5 Chula Vista Net Growth Employment Share of South Suburban between 2000
and 2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade and Services Sectors
2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030

Government 50.1% 28.9% 32.2%
Retail trade 28.0% 30.4% 35.6%
Services 29.2% 30.5% 27.6%
Even though the City of Chula Vista is projected to add more than 25,700 new jobs between 2000
and 2030, its share of the total employment growth within the South Suburban Area is expected
to decrease from 62.5 percent in 2000 to 47.5 percent by 2030. Chula Vista’s declining shares are
expected because of growth in other areas in the South Suburban MSA, particularly Otay Mesa,
which would decrease Chula Vista’s existing shares. Again, if land use policies change in Chula
Vista to allow more or less growth, the city’s projected share of South Suburban growth may also
change.
SRA-21 (Western Chula Vista)
The Urban Core comprises approximately 20-25 percent of SANDAG’s Sub-Regional Area 21
(SRA-21) land, the smallest geographic area for which SANDAG reports employment by sector.
SRA-21 generally comprises western Chula Vista. SANDAG forecasts that jobs in SRA-21
will increase from 36,800 to 44,800 between 2000 and 2030, adding almost 8,000 new jobs to the
local economy for a 0.7 percent compounded annual growth rate (CAGR). The CAGR for SRA-
21 is significantly lower than the 1.3 percent CAGR forecasted for the City of Chula Vista, which
in turn is lower than the 2.2 percent CAGR for the South Suburban Area, and reflects that SRA-
21 is closer to build-out under existing General Plan policies. Again, changes in land use policy
would influence these projections.
SRA-21 is forecasted to capture 31 percent of the total employment growth in the City of Chula
Vista during the 30-year period. Table II-6 shows employment growth by industry for SRA-21
between 2000 and 2030.
Within SRA-21, the FIRE industry sector is projected to increase 36.0 percent during the 30-year
period, adding 518 jobs, while the Services sector is forecasted to grow by 37.9 percent, adding
3,067 jobs. The Retail Trade sector is projected to increase 19.8 percent, adding 1,682 jobs.

Table II-6 SRA-21 Employment Growth by Industry 2000-2030

Agriculture 160 160 0.0% 160 0.0% 160 0.0%
Construction 959 1,042 8.7% 1,046 0.4% 1,124 7.5%
Government 6,312 7,503 18.9% 7,729 3.0% 8,329 7.8%
Manufacturing 5,042 4,418 -12.4% 4,421 0.1% 4,519 2.2%
Military 0 0 0 0
Retail trade 8,487 8,858 4.4% 9,158 3.4% 10,169 11.0%
Services 8,092 8,888 9.8% 9,332 5.0% 11,159 19.6%
Wholesale trade 1,673 1,678 0.3% 1,731 3.2% 1,944 12.3%
Total 36,789 38,885 5.7% 40,135 3.2% 44,777 11.6%
Table II-7 shows SRA-21’s share of Chula Vista’s net growth between 2000 and 2030 for FIRE,
Government, Retail Trade and Services sectors. SRA-21’s is projected to account for 32.6
percent of Chula Vista’s FIRE net growth between 2000 and 2010, decrease to 8.6 percent
between 2010 and 2020, and increase to 29.2 percent between 2020 and 2030. SRA-21’s share of
Chula Vista’s Government net growth share follows a similar pattern, accounting for 60.3 percent
of total forecasted Chula Vista net growth between 2000 and 2010, decreasing to 24.6 percent
between 2010 and 2020, and increasing again to 64.0 percent between 2020 and 2030. Retail
trade and Services follow similar patterns as well.
Presumably, this fluctuation in market share that SANDAG is forecasting anticipates that western
Chula Vista will capture a large share this decade, but will lose market share to eastern Chula
Vista, particularly the Eastern Urban Center, during the next decade, and regain some market
share the following decade as the EUC approaches build-out.
SRA-21’s share of total employment in Chula Vista is expected to decrease from 68.4 percent in
2000 to 56.3 percent by 2030, attributable to the development of new employment centers within
the City of Chula Vista (particularly in eastern Chula Vista). Exhibit II-5 shows SRA-21’s
projected share of citywide employment by industry sector from 2000 and 2030.

Table II-7 SRA-21 Job Growth As a Share of Chula Vista’s Job Growth between 2000 and
2030 for FIRE, Government, Retail Trade and Services Sectors
2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030

Government 60.3% 24.6% 64.0%
Retail trade 52.5% 29.1% 62.7%
Services 44.1% 11.4% 39.5%
Exhibit II-5 SRA-21 Share of Chula Vista Employment by Industry Sector for 2000 and
2030
Total
Wholesale trade
Transportation, Comm. & P.Utilities 2030
2000
Services
Self employment, domestic workers
Retail trade
Manufacturing
Government
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
Construction
Agriculture
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00%
Implications for the Urban Core
Redevelopment, infill development, and revitalization of existing development will take place
within a growing and dynamic market, though increasingly less affordable. The region’s
diversified economy provides stability, while projected shifts in regional growth patterns towards
South County will generate new opportunities for the Urban Core if it is priced competitively.
The Urban Core’s location between two growing economic hubs –Downtown San Diego and

Tijuana -- is well positioned within coastal South County for capturing a significant share of
regional growth.
While Chula Vista has been growing along with the region, western Chula Vista’s share of the
city’s job and retail growth has been declining. Existing SANDAG forecasts indicate that
western Chula Vista, which includes the Urban Core, may continue to see a declining share of
sub-regional growth as new development continues in eastern Chula Vista and elsewhere in South
County, though western Chula Vista’s share of total jobs (new and existing) will still remain
significant. Some of the projected declining share of future job growth reflects existing land use
policies and the build-out nature of western Chula Vista, compared to other, newer areas of South
County. Policies in the Urban Core and elsewhere in western Chula Vista, such as the Bayfront,
that expand development capacity could change these assumptions, particularly if the
development and the community characteristics are of a competitive quality.
Retail Trends
Retail Sales
Taxable retail sales in the City of Chula Vista has grown in real terms adjusted for inflation from
1997 to 2002. As shown in Exhibit II-6, City of Chula Vista taxable retail sales (in 2002 constant
dollars) increased from $1.3 billion in 1997 to $1.5 billion in 2000, for a 6.4 percent average
compounded annual growth rate. Taxable retail sales in Chula Vista slightly decreased in 2001
and 2002. Between 1997 and 2002, the average compounded annual growth rate of taxable retail
sales was 3.7 percent.
Chula Vista’s taxable retail sales per capita in 2002 was $7,913, 18.5 percent lower than the
countywide average of $9,378. This may be attributable to the time delay associated with
developing new commercial development to serve the growing population in eastern Chula Vista.
Chula Vista’s relatively lower penetration of the regional tourism market may also be a factor,
though this is countered by Chula Vista’s higher than average share of sales to the Mexican
market.

Exhibit II-6 City of Chula Vista Taxable Retail Sales Trends
$1,600,000
City of Chula Vista
$1,400,000
In 2002 Thousand Dollars
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: State Board of Equalization
Restaurants are potentially an important part of the Urban Core’s future retail offerings,
especially if the Urban Core is to become a regional destination for eastern Chula Vista and other
South County residents. In 2002, eating and drinking places represented 11.2 percent of all
taxable retail sales in the City of Chula Vista, lower than the 12.8 percent they represent in San
Diego County, and the 12.6 percent they represent in the State of California. Exhibit II-7 shows
taxable sales for eating and drinking places in 2002 dollars for the City of Chula Vista.
The Urban Core Retail Sales
Table II-8 shows taxable sales by category in the Urban Core for 1995, 2000 and 2003 and
CAGR. The Urban Core includes commercial corridors along E Street, H Street, Broadway
Avenue and 3rd Avenue.
Table II-9 shows taxable sales by category in the Urban Core as a percentage of Chula Vista for
1995 and 2000. The categories that showed an increasing share of citywide sales were apparel
and food stores. The Urban Core’s share of all other categories decreased between 1995 and
2000.

Exhibit II-7 City of Chula Vista Eating and Drinking Taxable Retail Sales Trends
$172,000
City of Chula Vista
$170,000
In 2002 Thousand Dollars
$168,000
$166,000
$164,000
$162,000
$160,000
1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: State Board of Equalization
Table II-8 1995 and 2000 Urban Core Taxable Sales
CAGR CAGR
1995 2000 (1995-2000) 2003 (2000-2003)
Apparel Stores 28,529,500 44,729,800 9% 47,028,300 2%
General Merchandise Stores 86,778,000 146,005,800 11% 150,855,200 1%
Food Stores 26,154,700 34,415,100 6% 37,706,800 3%
Eating & Drinking Places 48,673,800 55,208,500 3% 68,240,900 7%
Building Materials & Farm Implements 7,023,900 5,376,200 -5% 6,323,400 6%
Auto Dealers & Auto Supplies 21,978,400 32,606,000 8% 38,179,300 5%
Service Stations 32,509,200 33,191,000 0% 35,184,700 2%
Other Retail Stores 41,069,900 67,158,100 10% 84,827,900 8%
All Other Categories 29,067,400 33,191,000 3% 35,116,400 2%
Total 321,784,800 451,881,500 503,462,900
Source: City of Chula Vista and ERA

Table II-9 1995 and 2000 Urban Core Percentage of Citywide Taxable Sales
1995 2000
Apparel Stores 51.9% 67.2%
General Merchandise Stores 33.4% 29.5%
Food Stores 37.2% 38.0%
Eating & Drinking Places 41.2% 35.5%
Building Materials & Farm Implements 12.0% 5.3%
Auto Dealers & Auto Supplies 25.5% 22.3%
Service Stations 32.7% 27.4%
Other Retail Stores 42.9% 42.7%
All Other Categories 21.4% 16.0%
Source: California Board of Equalization, City of Chula Vista and ERA
Retail Space
In 2003, retail sales in the county supported 48.1 million square feet of retail space (in buildings
50,000 square feet or greater), compared to 35.3 million in 1993, for an average annual increase
of 1.3 million square feet and an average compounded annual growth rate of 3.1 percent.
According to CB Richard Ellis, vacancy rates for retail space are at the lowest levels in 10 years
(2.7 percent at the end of 2003); in marked contrast to 1993 when vacancy rates stood at 8.7
percent. During 2003, the region absorbed 1.5 million square feet of new retail space.
In the 3rd quarter of 2003, the Chula Vista/Bonita retail market had 2.7 million square feet (in
buildings 50,000 square feet or greater) and vacancy rates much lower than the county average, at
0.60 percent, reflecting an under-served local market. Of the 1.7 million square feet under
construction in San Diego County during the 3rd quarter of 2003, the Chula Vista/Bonita retail
market accounted for 380,000 square feet, or 22.4 percent.
The Urban Core traditionally has been an important retail area for Chula Vista and South Bay
residents, and consumers from Mexico. Retail development and revitalization will be an
important component of the Urban Core’s future. While the Urban Core’s retail outlets will
benefit from the growing consumer base in South Bay, the Urban Core’s traditional commercial
role will have to adjust to growing competition in South Bay, including eastern Chula Vista, the
border communities (especially for Mexican trade), and downtown San Diego (for entertainment

and dining), by finding new niches and serving more focused geographic areas. The Urban
Core’s market share of regional sales will probably decline as new competition develops, but
absolute sales and supportable space will expand as the market population, particularly in western
Chula Vista, grows.
Visitor Market
Visitor Characteristics
According to the San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau, there were approximately 38 million
total visitors to San Diego County in 2002. Total visitation declined 1.2 percent in 2002
compared to the prior year. Overnight visitation increased 1.6 percent, while day visitation
decreased 4.7 percent.
Exhibit II-8 shows the visitor distribution for San Diego County in 2002. The exhibit shows that
most visitors to San Diego were day visitors primarily from Southern California, (Mexican day-
visitors are not counted as tourists and are discussed separately). Overnight visitors accounted for
approximately 42 percent of all visitors. In 2002, there were 15.8 million overnight visitors to
San Diego County. This figure increased from 14.7 million in 1997, for a 1.5 percent
compounded annual growth rate.
While the Urban Core has visitor-serving uses, such as motels, and is along a major tourist travel
corridor - the I-5 to Mexico, it currently is not very competitive in the regional tourism market.
Its current minor niche is lodging for the budget traveler. Chula Vista’s Bayfront is key for
penetrating the region’s visitor market, especially the traveler market to Mexico. The Urban
Core’s opportunity to improve its share of the visitor market would be enhanced with a strong
link to the Bayfront. If the Urban Core were to attract visitors to the region on its own, it would
have to develop a unique niche, probably centered on culture, music, and food, and as an
affordable location with amenities for the business market. Still, the regional competition is
great, and tourism will probably be a minor component of the Urban Core’s economy.

Exhibit II-8 San Diego County Distribution of Total Visitors in 2002 (38 Million)
Overnight
Hotel/Motel Guests
30%
Day Visitors
41%
Other Overnight Overnight

3% Household Guests
26%
Source: San Diego County 2002 Overnight Visitor Profile Report
(San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and CIC Research)
The Mexican Market
The Mexican market from the Tijuana metro area is more an extension of the region’s resident
market than a tourist market. They are an important source of consumers for the region’s
retailers, particularly in South County. The city of Tijuana experienced dramatic growth during
the 1990-2000 period, increasing its population by 62 percent. According to the 2000 census, 1.2
million7 people lived in Tijuana, compared to 750,000 in 1990, for a 4.9 percent compounded
annual growth rate. In addition, the state of Baja California increased its population by 49.8
percent, from 1.7 million to 2.5 million people during the same period for a 4.1 percent
compounded annual growth rate. This trend is expected to continue, as Baja California has the
second highest positive net migration among the states in Mexico.
During the second half of the 1990’s, the Tijuana metro area grew economically due to the
industrial growth associated with the Maquiladora program and NAFTA. However, this growth
subsided due to the United States recession and increased competition and factory relocations to
Asian countries. Job and economic growth has begun to rebound during the last year as the U.S.
economy recovers.
7
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica (INEGI)

Mexicans crossing the border for shopping account for a notable amount of total retail sales in
different cities in San Diego County. San Diego Dialogue estimates that between 40-60 percent
of all northbound border crossings are made for shopping. According to a survey of Chula Vista
retailers conducted in the early 2000’s by the Social, Behavorial, and Research Institute (SBRI) at
California State University, San Marcos, in association with ERA, 25 percent of all business sales
were to Mexican shoppers. San Diego Dialogue estimates that up to 65 percent of all retail sales
in San Ysidro come from Mexican shoppers, while in Coronado, this figure is estimated at 10
percent. As the City of Tijuana continues to receive migration from central Mexico and the
middle-class population increases, cities in south San Diego County will continue to experience
significant sales volumes to Mexican nationals.
According to the United States Customs service, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa together had more
than 9.7 million northbound pedestrian crossings in 2003, which represented 20.1 percent of all
pedestrian crossings into the United States, increasing from 17.5 percent in 1997. San Ysidro and
Otay Mesa increased its share of total northbound pedestrian crossings into California, from 43.7
percent in 1997 to 53.7 percent in 2003.
San Ysidro and Otay Mesa represented 25.3 percent of all private vehicle northbound crossings
into the United States in 2003 and 68.3 percent of California, with 22.3 million crossings.
San Ysidro is the most traveled border crossing at either border; it alone comprised 13.8 percent
of all border crossings in the United States. San Ysidro and Otay border crossings combined
represent nearly one fifth of all U.S. border crossings, with 17.2 percent.
The majority of Mexicans crossing the border at San Ysidro and Otay are residents of the Tijuana
metropolitan area, or approximately 92 percent. Many residents of Tijuana commute to work and
do their shopping in the United States. The Universidad Autonoma de Baja California (UABC)
conducted a survey in 2001 and estimated that people from Baja California spend at least $1.6
billion dollars every year in the San Diego region. The increase in average hourly crossings
during weekends is directly associated to Mexicans crossing the border for shopping.
Since Mexicans are an important source of consumers in Chula Vista, the city is particularly
vulnerable to the stability of the peso. When the peso was devalued in the early 1990s, taxable
sales per capita in Chula Vista, in real terms adjusted for inflation, declined by more than 20
percent.
The Urban Core, with the Bayfront, does have the opportunity to leverage the Mexican market to
expand the reasons Mexicans shop in Chula Vista, from staples, fashion, and services, to dining
and entertainment, particularly for families. There are many links between residents in South Bay
and Tijuana, such as business, family, and friends, and the Urban Core could position itself as one

of the primary areas within the border zone region where cross border business networking and
personal gatherings can occur. The importance of the Mexican market to Chula Vista, however,
should diminish somewhat, though remain significant, as the resident consumer base in the South
Bay grows.

III. Demographic Context
The following section examines population growth and characteristics for the region, the City of
Chula Vista, SRA-21 (western Chula Vista), and the Urban Core project area.
Population
SANDAG forecasts that San Diego County will grow from 2.8 million people in 2000 to almost
than 3.9 million in 2030, adding 1.1 million people to the region, a 37 percent increase with a 1.1
percent compounded annual growth rate (CAGR). During the same period, SANDAG forecasts
that the City of Chula Vista will grow from 173,000 to 278,000 people, increasing more than
105,000 people during the 30-year period, for a 60 percent increase and a 1.6 percent CAGR.
Chula Vista is projected to receive approximately 10 percent of total population growth in San
Diego County between 2000 and 2030. However, most of the growth in the City of Chula Vista
is forecasted to occur east of Interstate Freeway I-805.
SANDAG’s forecasts that population in SRA-21, western Chula Vista, will increase by 13
percent during this time period, from 108,000 to 123,000 people, for a net growth of 14,000, or a
CAGR of 0.4 percent, well below citywide and countywide rates. SRA-21 is forecasted to house
13.5 percent of the net growth projected for the City of Chula Vista over the 30-year period.
SANDAG’s current forecasts assume a higher proportion of growth for Eastern Chula Vista and
limited capacity for growth in the older SRA-21 neighborhoods, which limits population
projections.
Urban Core Population
Since the Urban Core Study Area includes residents from ten different census tracts, ERA
obtained the population of each census tract and applied percentages depending on the area of the
census tract that formed part of the Urban Core to estimate population characteristics in the Urban
Core8 .
SANDAG forecasts that population in the Urban Core Study Area may grow by 14.4 percent
between 2000 and 2030, from 22,700 to 26,000, for a net growth of almost 3,300 people.
8
The relevant census and their assumed proportions within the Urban Core are as follows: CT123.02
(100%), CT123.03 (20%), CT124.01 (30%), CT124.02 (100%), CT125 (25%), CT126 (20%), CT127
(100%), CT128 (20%), CT129 (20%) and CT 130 (100%).

Approximately 23 percent of the net growth in SRA-21 between 2000 and 2030 is forecasted to
occur in the Urban Core.
Table III-1 shows population for San Diego County, Chula Vista, SRA-21 and the Project Area.
Table III-1 Population Growth Trends 2000-2030
Market Areas 2000 2003 2010 2020 2030 Numeric Percent Average
Change Change Annual
2000-2030 2000-2030 Growth
Rate 2000-
2030
Urban Core 22,709 23,177 23,543 25,138 25,975 3,266 14.4% 0.5%
SRA 21 108,907 109,789 113,140 119,048 123,053 14,146 13.0% 0.4%
Chula Vista 173,556 199,680 247,885 268,970 278,183 104,627 60.3% 1.6%
San Diego County 2,813,833 2,961,579 3,211,721 3,528,605 3,855,085 1,041,252 37.0% 1.1%
Age Distribution
As shown in Table III-2, by 2030 the proportion of the total population that are children and
young adults in San Diego County, Chula Vista, SRA 21 and the Urban Core are expected to be
less than in 2000. The age cohort between 35 and 54 is projected to remain approximately the
same. In turn, the proportion of older-age cohorts is forecasted to increase significantly during
this period. People between 55 and 74 years old are projected to increase from 13.4 percent to
22.8 percent of the total population in the Urban Core between 2000 and 2030. Similar increases
are expected in SRA-21, the City of Chula Vista, and the county as a whole.
Table III-3 shows the age distribution for the Urban Core, SRA-21, Chula Vista and San Diego
County in 2000 and 2030. SANDAG forecasts that the number of children and young adults in
the Urban Core and SRA-21 will decline, and the number of middle -aged and senior adults will
grow during the 30-year period, even though they are projected to grow in absolute numbers
countywide. The number of people 55-years and older in the Urban Core and SRA-21 is
projected to grow by over 4,000 and 18,700 people, respectively.

SANDAG’s forecasts reflect the aging of the “baby-boom” generation, and the 140 percent
increase in the number, and 70 percent increase in the percentage, of people 65 years and older by
2030. Since their projections are based on existing planning policy, they do not account for how
a significant increase in urban housing may change the Urban Core’s demographics and age
distribution. The Urban Core’s new urban housing development will help Chula Vista position
itself to increase its share of the regional young adult market. Although new infill development
in the Urban Core should appeal to young adults, who are often associated with urban housing,
the young adult population is not expected to grow as rapidly regionally as the 55+ age groups.
Secure urban housing also appeals to older populations due to their low maintenance, walkable
street environments, and access to services. Consequently, the growing empty-nestor and senior
market will also be important over the long-term.
Table III-2 Age Distribution Share in 2000 and 2030
Urban Core SRA-21 Chula Vista SD County
Age Groups
(Years) 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030
Total Pop 22,709 25,975 108,907 123,053 173,556 278,183 2,813,833 3,855,085
0-9 15.3% 11.2% 15.8% 11.0% 16.2% 11.6% 14.6% 11.7%
10-19 13.1% 10.9% 15.0% 12.0% 15.4% 12.6% 14.2% 12.1%
20-34 24.6% 19.7% 22.6% 18.3% 21.7% 17.3% 24.0% 20.7%
35-54 25.6% 24.1% 25.7% 25.1% 28.3% 28.7% 28.8% 25.2%
55-64 6.7% 11.1% 7.4% 12.7% 7.4% 12.8% 7.3% 11.1%
65-74 6.7% 11.7% 7.0% 11.6% 6.0% 9.8% 5.7% 10.2%
75+ 8.0% 11.3% 6.5% 9.2% 5.0% 7.1% 5.5% 9.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table III-3 2000 and 2030 Age Distribution
Urban Core SRA 21 Chula Vista SD County

Age
Groups
(Years) 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030 2000 2030
0-9 3,479 2,916 17,235 13,539 28,063 32,384 411,450 451,210
10-19 2,986 2,833 16,383 14,790 26,683 35,035 399,588 467,415
20-34 5,595 5,110 24,579 22,502 37,720 48,130 674,313 796,297
35-54 5,804 6,265 28,016 30,854 49,040 79,788 810,066 971,914
55-64 1,526 2,889 8,078 15,670 12,921 35,710 204,666 427,320
65-74 1,512 3,036 7,583 14,331 10,442 27,286 160,059 394,142
75+ 1,807 2,926 7,033 11,367 8,687 19,850 153,691 346,787
Total Pop 22,709 25,975 108,907 123,053 173,556 278,183 2,813,833 3,855,085
Education
In 2000, the population of the Urban Core and SRA-21 had less schooling than the population of
Chula Vista as a whole and San Diego County, as shown in Exhibit III-1. In 2000, of the total
adult population 25 years and over, 26 percent of the Urban Core and 28 percent of SRA-21 did
not finish high school, compared to 22 percent for the City of Chula Vista and 17 percent for San
Diego County. Likewise, only 8 percent of the population 25 years and over in the Urban Core
had a bachelor’s degree and 9 percent in SRA-21, compared to 15 percent in Chula Vista and 19
percent for San Diego County.

Exhibit III-1 San Diego County, Chula Vista and SRA-21 Education
Region
PhD
Prof
Chula Vista MA
BA
AA
some coll
SRA-21 hs grad
9-12 grade
<9 grade
Urban Core
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Households
SANDAG forecasts that the Urban Core may add 540 new households between 2000 and 2030,
representing 24 percent of total new households in SRA-21 during this timeframe. SANDAG
forecasts that SRA-21 will receive 8.2 percent of total new household formation in the City of
Chula Vista between 2000 and 2030, adding almost 2,200 households, for a 0.2 percent CAGR.
Household projections forecast most of the growth in eastern Chula Vista. Nevertheless, Chula
Vista is projected to add over 26,800 new households or 8.8 percent of total household formation
in San Diego County between 2000 and 2030, for a 1.3 percent CAGR. San Diego County is
projected to add more than 300,000 new households during this time period, for a 0.9 percent
CAGR. Therefore, while Chula Vista is projected to grow faster than the countywide average,
SRA-21 and the Urban Core are not.
Table III-4 shows households for the Urban Core, SRA-21, Chula Vista and San Diego County
for 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2030.

Table III-4 SRA 21, Chula Vista and San Diego County Growth Trends
Market Areas 2000 2010 2020 2030 Numeric Percent Average

Change Change Annual
2000- 2000- Growth
2030 2030 Rate 2000-
2030
Urban Core 8,769 8,891 9,182 9,309 540 6.2% 0.2%
SRA-21 37,694 38,373 39,205 39,890 2,196 5.8% 0.2%
Chula Vista 57,705 78,779 82,843 84,519 26,814 46.5% 1.3%
Region 994,677 1,116,323 1,193,475 1,296,496 301,819 30.3% 0.9%

Household Income
According to SANDAG, the Urban Core and SRA-21 had a disproportionate amount of low-
income households compared to Chula Vista and the county as a whole in 2000. Households
earning less than $20,000 represented 29.7 percent of all households in the Urban Core and 24.5
percent of households in SRA-21. In Chula Vista and San Diego County, only 18 percent of all
households earned less than $20,000 per year. Households with average incomes between
$20,000 and $39,999 represented 33.6 percent and 32.7 percent of all households in the Urban
Core and SRA-21 respectively, compared to 26.4 percent in Chula Vista and 24.1 percent
countywide.
All areas had approximately the same share of households with incomes between $40,000 and
$59,999. Approximately 14.1 percent of households in the Urban Core and 16.8 percent of
households in SRA-21 earned between $60,000 and $100,000, significantly lower than Chula
Vista and San Diego County, with 23.5 and 22.6 respectively.
Households earning more than $100,000 represented only 3.8 percent of all households in the
Urban Core and 5.8 percent of households in SRA-21. Comparatively, 11.8 percent and 15.7
percent of all households in the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County respectively earned
more than $100,000 in 2000.

Exhibit III-2 shows the estimated annual household income distribution for the individual market
areas in 2000.
Exhibit III-2 2000 Annual Household Income
SD County
$100,000 or more
$100,000 to $149,999
$75,000 to $99,999
Chula Vista
$60,000 to $74,999
$40,000 to $59,999
$20,000 to $39,999
SRA-21 Less than $20,000
Urban Core
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%
ERA calculated a weighted average median household income of $31,797 for the Urban Core in
2000, $3,328 lower than the SRA-21 median household income of $35,125. SRA-21 median
household income is $9,700 lower than Chula Vista’s median household income of $44,834. In
2000, median household income for San Diego County stood at $47,268, $12,100 higher than the
City of Chula Vista. Median household income citywide relative to the countywide average,
however, is expected to improve as higher-income communities are developed in Chula Vista,
particularly in eastern Chula Vista.
Racial and Ethnic Composition
Table III-5 shows race distribution for the Urban Core, SRA-21, Chula Vista and San Diego
County for 2000 and 2030. Hispanics are noted separately, as it is an ethnic distinction that
crosses races, rather than a racial distinction. Of the Non-Hispanic population, Whites occupy the
highest percentage for all regions in 2000. By 2030, however, Whites are forecasted to decrease
considerably as a percentage of the total population in all regions.
Table III-5 2000 and 2030 SRA-21, Chula Vista and San Diego County Race and Ethnicity
Race and Ethnicity

Year 2000 2000 2000 2000 2030 2030 2030 2030
Area Urban Core SRA-21 Chula Vista SD County Urban Core SRA-21 Chula Vista SD County
NH White 32.2% 30.0% 31.7% 55.0% 9.7% 9.2% 10.5% 39.7%
NH Black 5.0% 4.3% 4.3% 5.5% 5.8% 5.0% 5.8% 5.1%
NH Am Indian 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%
NH Asian 4.9% 5.0% 10.6% 8.7% 5.1% 5.2% 13.8% 9.5%
NH Hawaiian 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 1.5% 1.6% 2.6% 2.1%
NH other 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1.6% 1.3% 2.6% 2.3%
NH 2+ races 2.8% 2.5% 2.7% 2.9% 3.3% 3.2% 4.3% 3.9%
Subtotal 45.9% 42.9% 50.4% 73.3% 27.3% 25.7% 40.1% 63.1%
Hispanic Origin 54.1% 57.1% 49.6% 26.7% 72.7% 74.3% 59.9% 36.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Hispanics are projected to increase as a percentage of total population in all regions between 2000
and 2030. In the Urban Core, the Hispanic population is forecasted to increase from 54 percent
of the total population in 2000 to 73 percent in 2030; in SRA-21, Hispanics are projected to
increase from 57.0 percent to 74.0 percent of total population during the 30-year period.
SANDAG forecasts relatively lesser population and household growth, a largely aging, largely
Hispanic and multicultural population, with relatively lower incomes and education levels in
western Chula Vista and the Urban Core compared to countywide averages. These
characteristics have implications for housing affordability and consumer buying power and
preferences.
These forecasts, however, reflect existing trends and capacities associated with current General
Plan land use policies. Since SANDAG forecasts significant growth in South Bay that will
change South Bay’s demographic characteristics, the opportunity exists for the Urban Core to
reinvent itself by changing land use policy to accommodate a greater share of South Bay and
countywide growth, and modify its projected demographic characteristics in the process.
For example, SANDAG forecasts continued high shares of lower income households and a
declining young adult population, even though incomes are projected to rise regionally and the

young adult population is projected to grow in number regionally, though declining
proportionately. New development in the Urban Core can help diversify its household income
profile and increase the Urban Core’s share of the growing regional young adult population,
which will present new opportunities for retail services.
While this opportunity exists to diversify the Urban Core’s demographic trends, it should be
recognized that most of the Urban Core’s and western Chula Vista’s demographic characteristics
is already in place, associated with existing housing, and that these characteristics will continue to
have influence even as the Urban Core diversifies with new development.
Many of the demographic trends are regional. The average age of population is rising, as the
baby-boom generation ages, and housing and districts that appeal to an aging population will be
important. Environments that appeal to a multi-cultural population will be important. Housing
that is affordable will be important.

IV. Real Estate Market Overview
This section presents real estate market trends for office, retail, and residential uses in Chula
Vista and the Urban Core project area.
Retail Market
The retail sector in San Diego County has remained strong over the past few years. According to
CB Richard Ellis, vacancy rates throughout the county in the 4th Quarter 2003 stood at 2.7
percent, compared to the national average of 6.8 percent. From the 4th quarter 2002 to the 4th
quarter 2004, the countywide average vacancy rate averaged 3.2 percent. The vacancy rate has
been declining steadily since the early 1990’s when the rate peaked at 9 percent.
It is estimated that 1.5 million square feet of new retail space was absorbed in 2003, a notable
increase from 2002 when 1.1 million square feet were absorbed.
According to CB Richard Ellis, there are 2.7 million square feet of retail space in the Chula
Vista/Bonita sub-market, representing 5.7 percent of the 48.1 million leasable retail space in the
region (including San Diego County and Temecula/Murrieta) that CB Richard Ellis inventories
(50,000 square feet or greater). Approximately 380,000 square feet was under-construction in the
Chula Vista/Bonita sub-market, or approximately 44.3 percent of the 858,000 square feet under
construction in San Diego County, as of the 4th Quarter, 2003. The Chula Vista/Bonita retail
market maintains a very low vacancy rate, 0.6 percent, at lower-than average rents. The average
retail lease rate of $1.65 in the 4th Quarter 2003 was 91 percent of the countywide average of
$1.82.
The CoStar Group reports 80.1 million square feet of total retail space countywide in March
2004, plus 538,000 square feet under-construction, including owner occupied and smaller retail
space, of which 2.8 million square feet, or 3.6 percent, is vacant and available.
The Urban Core Retail Market
Retail space in the Urban Core is mostly concentrated in four distinct business corridors, namely
H Street, Broadway Avenue, 3rd Avenue and E Street. F Street also has retail space at the
intersection with Third Avenue. All four retail corridors attract shoppers from the local market,
South County, and Mexico, though some are more regional serving while others are more local

serving. H Street includes the frontage for Chula Vista Center, an 870,000 square foot older
regional shopping center owned by General Growth that is undergoing renovation. Third Avenue
is Chula Vista’s historic downtown “Main Street.” Broadway is a community and regional
serving strip-retail corridor that serves western South County.
Retail Rents
Most of the retail space in these corridors is small to medium size, with the exception of the
Chula Vista Shopping Center, located on H Street. Average asking triple-net (NNN) rents per
square foot in the Urban Core vary depending on the business corridor, as follows:
§ According to Grubb and Ellis, asking triple -net (NNN) rents in the L Street Corridor
range between $1.30 and $1.40 per square foot, with some exceptions where rents range
between $2.00 and $2.50 per square foot.
§ Asking NNN rents at the intersection of Broadway and H range between $2.25 and $2.60
per square foot, with vacancy rates around 5 and 7 percent.
§ According to Voit Commercial, along Broadway Avenue, rates vary between $1.50 and
$2.00 per square foot NNN, while rents along 3rd Avenue range between $1.00 and $1.25
per square foot, with occupancy rates at nearly 100 percent.
Some projects are reportedly obtaining higher lease rates, such as the Gateway project at the
corner of 3rd Avenue and H Street. According to Jim Pieri at Mountain West Real Estate, the
phase I Gateway project is completely leased, with rates ranging between $2.75 and $3.00 NNN
per square foot per month.
For comparison, these rates, including the new Gateway project fall below asking rates at the
Eastlake Village Center in eastern Chula Vista, with asking rents at $3.50 per square foot NNN.
Retail Building Sales
Sales of retail buildings in the City of Chula Vista and the Urban Core have appreciated in recent
years, as shown in Table IV-1. The Urban Core significantly increased its sales price per square
foot in 2001 compared to 2000. Nevertheless, it remained below the average Price/SF for the
City of Chula Vista in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, the study area surpassed the City by almost $9
per SF, and 16 of the 21 sales in the city occurred in the Urban Core.

Table IV-1 Chula Vista and Urban Core Retail Space Sales Price/SF and Sales/Year

Year Price/SF Sales/Yr. Price/SF Sales/Yr.
2000 $135.03 15 $82.54 5
2001 $121.28 20 $119.42 11
2002 $137.60 18 $132.39 8
2003 $172.89 21 $181.48 16
Mar-04 $202.55 4 $188.33 2
Source: Costar and Economics Research Associates
Office Market
According to CB Richard Ellis, in the 4th quarter of 2003 there were 48.6 million square feet of
leasable office space in San Diego County, out of which more than 952,000 were located in South
San Diego (which includes Chula Vista), accounting for approximately 2 percent of total office
leasable space in the region. The South San Diego office sub-market is defined as space located
south of Freeway 94 and east of Freeway 5. The square footage mentioned includes buildings
with 10,000 square feet or more and does not include owner occupied buildings.
In the 4th quarter of 2003, office space vacancy rates stood at 11.5 percent for San Diego County
and 10.0 percent for South San Diego. San Diego County recorded average lease rates of $1.80
per square foot, while rates for South San Diego stood at $1.12. Of the more than 600,000 square
feet under construction in the region, approximately 67,000, or 10.5 percent, were being built in
the South San Diego sub-market.
According to the CoStar Group, the region had 82.1 million square feet of total office space,
including owner-occupied buildings (except government), medical buildings (except hospitals),
and smaller buildings, or 69 percent greater than CB Richard Ellis’ count of leasable office space
greater than 10,000 square feet. CoStar Group estimates that 11.4 million square feet of this
inventory, or 13.9 percent, is vacant including sublet space that is available.

The Urban Core Office Market
Most of the office space within the Chula Vista Urban Core is comprised of professional services
offices and medical services. The services include medical and dental clinics, insurance, tax
preparation and travel agencies. Office space in the study area is mostly located in small one or
two story buildings, although new multiple story buildings have been built in the past few years,
such as the Chula Vista Gateway, with its first phase built in 2001 and the second phase currently
in construction.
Once completed, the Chula Vista Gateway project will add a total of 285,000 square feet of office
space and 62,000 square feet of retail space to the Urban Core. This project, which is the first
major office development in downtown for more than 20 years, is an important indicator for
demonstrating demand for Class A space in the Urban Core. However, as the first new office
development in decades, its relatively rapid absorption and high achievable rents may also reflect
pent-up demand rather than stable, sustainable demand. Additional office developments are
needed to test the depth of demand over time.
Office Rents
Asking rents for other office space in the Urban Core ranges between $1.65 and $1.85 per square
foot triple net, well below asking rents for office space at the Eastlake Business Center for
example, where rents go for $2.25 per square foot plus janitorial and electric. Lease rates for
office space in the Gateway project range between $2.5 and $2.75 per square foot per month,
well above the countywide average and the Eastlake Business Center.
Office Building Sales
The average sales price per square foot for office space in Chula Vista has fluctuated since 2000,
with the highest value recorded in 2001. Price per square foot for sales transactions in the Urban
Core has been higher than the City of Chula Vista for the last three years, although they have also
been inconsistent, as shown in Table IV-2.

Table IV-2 Chula Vista and Urban Core Office Space Sales Price/SF and Sales/Year

Year Price/SF Sales/Yr. Price/SF Sales/Yr.
2000 $138.18 10 $110.57 4
2001 $145.03 8 $149.31 7
2002 $140.45 11 $163.64 6
2003 $130.22 5 $143.49 3
Residential Market
For Sale Housing
As with most of San Diego County, home prices in the City of Chula Vista have increased
dramatically in recent years. According to DataQuick Information Systems, the median home
price in San Diego County increased from $358,000 in April 2003 to $439,000 in April 2004, a
22.6 percent increase during the one-year period.
During the same time period, single -family home appreciation increased more than 26.0 percent
in all Zip Codes in the City of Chula Vista. The median sale price for existing single -family
homes in the 91910 Zip Code (where the Urban Core is located), increased from $365,000 in
April 2003 to $480,000 in April 2004, for a 31.5 percent increase. Condominium sales in the
91910 Zip Code increased from $267,000 to $300,000 during the same time period, for an
increase of 12.4 percent. Table IV-3 shows total sales and median homes sale values for existing
single-family and condominium homes for all Zip Codes in Chula Vista for April 2003 and 2004.
The highest appreciation for existing single -family homes occurred in the newer areas of Chula
Vista, in Zip Codes 91914 and 91915. Interestingly, appreciation for existing condominiums
between April 2003 and 2004 was higher than 26 percent in all Zip Codes, except Zip Code
91910.
Table IV-4 shows total sales and median homes sale values for new single -family and
condominium homes combined for all Zip Codes in Chula Vista for April 2003 and 2004. Zip
Code 91910 had only one new home sale in April 2003 and none in 2004, compared to all other
Zip Codes where new housing is still being developed.

Table IV-3 Chula Vista Existing Single Family and Condominium Home Sales for April
2003 and 2004
Single Family Homes Condominiums

Place ZipCode No. Sold Median 03 Median 04 %Change No. Sold Median 03 Median 04 %Change
Chula Vista N 91910 60 67 $ 365,000 $ 480,000 31.5% 29 40 $ 267,000 $ 300,000 12.4%
Chula Vista S 91911 54 58 $ 329,500 $ 417,500 26.7% 43 37 $ 216,500 $ 287,500 32.8%
CV-E.Lake-Otay Ranch 91913 43 63 $ 379,000 $ 510,000 34.6% 22 15 $ 269,500 $ 340,000 26.2%

Chula Vista NE 91914 13 13 $ 425,000 $ 600,000 41.2% 7 5 $ 305,000 $ 395,000 29.5%
Chula Vista SE 91915 25 39 $ 380,000 $ 567,500 49.3% 13 12 $ 302,000 $ 373,500 23.7%
Source: DataQuick Information Systems
Table IV-4 Chula Vista New Single Family and Condominium Home Sales for April 2003
and 2004
New Single-Family/Condominiums
Place ZipCode No. Sold Median 03 Median 04 %Change
Chula Vista N 91910 1 n/a $ 418,000 $ -
Chula Vista S 91911 50 22 $ 259,000 $ 358,250 38.3%
CV-E.Lake-Otay Ranch 91913 30 80 $ 471,250 $ 434,750 -7.7%
Chula Vista NE 91914 85 62 $ 455,000 $ 531,250 16.8%
Chula Vista SE 91915 12 52 $ 494,250 $ 583,000 18.0%
Source: DataQuick Information Systems
In June 2004, the median sales price of homes in Zip Code 91910, compared to the countywide
average, was as follows:
Re-Sale Re-Sale New

Single-family Condominiums Single-Family/Condominiums
CV Zip Code 91910 $467,500 $350,000 $667,750
SD Countywide $520,000 $365,000 $440,000
CV/SD County Median 90% 96% 152%

Rental Housing
According to Market-Pointe Realty, the average rent in San Diego County in September 2003
stood at $1,123 per month, while vacancy rates increased slightly to 2.06 percent, well below the
vacancy level needed for a fluid and competitive market. The average monthly rental asking
price in San Diego County was $1.31 per square foot.
In the case of the Urban Core Project Area, most of the rental housing was built more than 20
years ago and is reflected in the asking prices compared to the newer areas of Chula Vista. ERA
found average rental rates in the Urban Core to be $0.99 per square foot, compared to $1.44 in the
Otay Ranch areas. Average asking rents in the Urban Core were $930 per month. According to
Market Pointe Realty, the vacancy rate in zip code 91910 stood at 2.4 percent, also below what is
necessary for a competitive market. The vacancy rate was obtained with a sample of 80 projects
and 4,132 units.
Table IV-5 shows asking rents for several apartment buildings in the Urban Core study area.
Table IV-5 June 2004 Asking Rents for Apartments located in the Chula Vista Urban Core
Project Name Type Rent per Month SQFT PR/SQFT/MNTH

Woodlawn Colonial 1 Br/1 Bth $720 576 $1.25
2 Br/2 Bth $920 900 $1.02
Palm Shadows 1 Br/1 Bth $725 560 $1.29
2 Br/1 Bth $895 800 $1.12
2 Br/2 Bth $995 890 $1.12
Alva Gardens 2 Br/2 Bth $1,175 1900 $0.62
2 Br/1.5 Bth $1,150 1872 $0.61
Park Marina Apts 2 Br/2 Bth $950 1250 $0.76
Meheli Palm Apts 1 Br/1 Bth $675 800 $0.84
Center Towers 1 Br/1 Bth $795 700 $1.14
2 Br/1 Bth $995 900 $1.11
2 Br/2 Bth $1,100 1100 $1.00
Sunnyfresh Apts. 2 Br/1 Bth $1,000 950 $1.05
Average $0.99
Source: Economics Research Associates

Lodging Trends
San Diego County’s hotel inventory has grown over the last few years with the addition of several
hotels. All new hotels have been built outside of Chula Vista, in the northern part of the County
or downtown San Diego.
Exhibit IV-1 shows occupancy rates in 2002 by sub-market. As shown in the Exhibit, the San
Diego South Market, which includes the City of Chula Vista, had the lowest occupancy rate of all
sub-markets with 61.1 percent throughout 2002, a 3.9 percent decrease compared to the 65.0
percent occupancy rate for South San Diego in 2001. Occupancy rates for San Diego County
were 69.9 percent in 2001 and 68.4 percent in 2002.
Occupancy rates in the San Diego South sub-market increased 2.0 percentage points between
1997 and 2003, from 58.4 percent to 60.4 percent respectively, as shown in Exhibit IV-2. As
shown in the Exhibit, rates increased consistently between 1997 and 2001, but fell in 2002 and
2003 after the 9/11 attacks.
Exhibit IV-1 Hotel Performance by Sub-markets
80.0% Occupancy Rate $160.00

Ave. Room Rate
70.0% $140.00
60.0% $120.00
50.0% $100.00
40.0% $80.00
30.0% $60.00
20.0% $40.00
10.0% $20.00
0.0% $-
La Jolla/Point Loma
San Diego Central
San Diego North
Carlsbad/Oceanside
San Diego South
Mission Valley

The average daily room rate in South San Diego was the lowest of all sub-markets, at $59.85. In
San Diego County, the average daily room rate in 2002 was $110.81.
Exhibit IV-3 shows occupancy rates in 2002 by type of hotel in the San Diego Region. Luxury
and upscale hotels (as defined by Smith Travel Research and the Convention & Visitors Bureau)
recorded the highest annual occupancy rates, while the economy hotel category recorded the
lowest occupancy rate of all groups at 62.2 percent. Nevertheless, when compared to occupancy
rates in 1993, the occupancy rate for the economy category increased 8 percentage points, while
the budget category recorded the biggest jump, from 56.4 percent occupancy in 1993 to 69.8
percent in 2002, a 13.4 percentage point increase. During the same period, the occupancy rate for
the luxury category decreased by 1.5 percentage points, while upscale and mid-priced hotels
showed a slight increase in occupancy rate.
Exhibit IV-2 San Diego South Sub-market Occupancy Trends
66.0%
64.0%
62.0%
60.0%
58.0%
56.0%
54.0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: Smith Travel Research

Exhibit IV-3 San Diego Hotel Performance by Type of Hotel
80.0% $200.00
Occupancy Rate
Ave. Room Rate $180.00
70.0%
$160.00
60.0%
$140.00
50.0%
$120.00
40.0% $100.00
$80.00
30.0%
$60.00
20.0%
$40.00
10.0%
$20.00
0.0% $-
Luxury Upscale Mid-Price Economy Budget

(San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and CIC Research)
Transient Occupancy Tax
There are 15 motels in the Urban Core Study Area. Table IV-6 shows the list of motels. The
Urban Core only has small motels. The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) received from these
motels was $227, 894 in 2002 and $224, 102 in 2003, for a 1.7 percent decrease. The TOT
collected seems low considering the number of motels in the Urban Core. It should be noted,
however, that some of these hotels are rather small, and rentals of 30 or more days are customary,
excluding them from paying TOT.

Table IV-6 Chula Vista Urban Core Motels
RAC Rate
Name Address Rooms Week Weekend
1 Motel 6 745 E Street 176 $ 45.99 $ 59.99
2 Days Inn 699 E St. 104 $ 79.00 $ 149.00
3 South Bay Inn (Best Western) 710 E St. 76 $ 94.46 $ 104.46
4 Traveler Inn Suites 235 Woodlawn Ave. 85 $ 69.99 $ 79.99
5 Royal Vista Inn 632 E St. 80 $ 51.70 $ 66.00
6 Vagabond Inn 230 Broadway 90 $ 69.95 $ 79.95
7 Highway Inn Motel 74 Broadway 41 $ 65.00 $ 50.00
8 Avon Motel 99 Broadway
9 Big 7 Motel 333 Broadway 45
10 Riviera Motel 372 Broadway 22 $ 40.00 $ 45.00
11 Travel Inn 394 Broadway 70 $ 90.00 $ 110.00
12 Rodeway Inn 778 Broadway
13 Bay Cities Motel 864 Broadway
14 Early California Motel 692 H St. 41 $ 42.00 $ 75.00
15 El Primero Hotel 416 3rd Ave. 22 $ 80.00 $ 90.00
Recent Property Sales Transactions
According to Costar, since January 2000, there have been 318 commercia l property sales
transactions in the City of Chula Vista, out of which 139 were in the Urban Core Study Area,
representing almost 44 percent of total property sales in the City. The majority of the sales in
both the City of Chula Vista and the study area were building transactions, with 257 and 132
respectively. Land sales transactions in Chula Vista since January 2000 totaled 57, while the
Urban Core registered 7 in the same time period.
Property Sales Transactions
More than 80 percent of all property sales transactions (building and land) in the City of Chula
Vista since January 2000 have been building sales. In the case of the Urban Core Study Area, 95
percent of all transactions were building sales. Interestingly, more than 60 percent of all office,
apartment and hotel buildings sold in the City of Chula Vista were located within the Urban Core.

In addition, 54 percent of all retail buildings sold since January 2000 were in the study area.
Conversely, only 5 percent of total industrial buildings sold in the city since 2000 were located in
the study area.
In total, since January 2000, building sales transactions in the Urban Core represented 51 percent
of all building sales transactions in the City of Chula Vista, as shown in Table IV-7.
Table IV-7 Building Sales Transactions by Category since January 2000
City of Urban Core

Chula Vista Study Area Percent
Office Building 35 21 60%
Industrial Building 39 2 5%
Apartment Building 97 62 64%
Retail Building 78 42 54%
Hotel/Motel Building 8 5 63%
Total 257 132 51%
For every category, ERA compiled median square footage and price per square foot for property
sales transactions in the City of Chula Vista as well as the Urban Core since 2003, as shown in
Table IV-8 and Table IV-9. Median values were preferred as mean averages were significantly
skewed upwards due to a few properties that sold for well above average.
Table IV-8: SF and Price per SF for Building Sales Transactions by Category in Chula
Vista since 2003
SF Price/SF
Median Low High Median Min Max
Office Building 16,626 748 35,000 $ 139.76 $ 80.90 $ 441.18
Industrial Building 10,000 3,250 90,000 $ 84.73 $ 70.00 $ 115.38
Apartment Building 7,776 2,400 68,925 $ 154.21 $ 97.21 $ 225.83
Retail Building 4,730 750 55,750 $ 176.14 $ 44.81 $ 1,626.67
Hotel/Motel Building 3,684 - - $ 176.44 $ - $ -

Table IV-9: SF and Price pe r SF for Building Sales Transactions by Category in the Urban
Core since 2003
SF Price/SF
Office Building 8,700 748 35,000 $ 166.67 $ 94.29 $ 441.18
Industrial Building 1/ 10,150 - - $ 66.95 - -
Apartment Building 6,744 2,400 63,750 $ 150.33 $ 117.54 $ 225.83
Retail Building 4,730 1,512 19,200 $ 161.09 $ 97.25 $ 474.71
Hotel/Motel Building - - - - - -
1/ Only two transactions. Average instead of median taken
Land Sales Transactions
Table IV-10 shows land sales transactions by category for the City of Chula Vista and the Urban
Core Study Area, as well as the percent of the total in the study area. Most of the land sales
transactions occurred outside the Urban Core, which has limited vacant parcels. Noticeably, five
of the seven land sales transactions in the Urban Core were commercial related, representing
more than 20 percent of the total commercial land sales transactions in the City of Chula Vista.
In total, land sales transactions in the Urban Core represented 11 percent of all land sales in the
City of Chula Vista since January 2000.
Table IV-10: Land Sales Transactions by Category
City of Urban Core

Chula Vista Study Area Percent
Commercial Land 23 5 22%
Industrial Land 14 0 0%
Residential Land 20 1 5%
Total 57 6 11%

Table IV-11 and Table IV-12 show median square footage and price per square foot for land sales
transactions in the City of Chula Vista and the Urban Core since 2003.
Table IV-11: SF and Price per SF for Land Sales Transactions by Category in Chula Vista
since 2003
SF Price/SF
Commercial Land 40,510 5,750 576,299 $ 15.86 $ 3.66 $ 65.22
Industrial Land 252,212 20,037 1,943,647 $ 6.80 $ 3.09 $ 32.44
Residential Land 469,000 146,500 741,000 $ 39.29 $ 22.75 $ 39.56
Table IV-12: SF and Price per SF for Land Sales Transactions by Category in the Urban
Core since 2003
SF Price/SF
Median Low High Median Low High
Commercial Land 1/ 9,775 - - $ 56.16 $ - $ -
Industrial Land - - - -
Residential Land 2/ - - - $ - - -
1/ Only two transactions. Average instead of median taken
The real estate market indicators are strong for the residential and retail sectors, with rising prices
and low vacancy rates countywide and within the Urban Core. Though rising, commercial retail
rents and apartment rental rates in the Urban Core are below average, reflecting its older building
stock. Occupancy rates are very high, indicating strong demand at existing price points. It would
be difficult to support new development at commercial retail and apartment rental rates associated
with the Urban Core’s older building stock. New development will have to be able to command
higher than average rents for the Urban Core.

Examples of new ownership housing are limited; however, the resale price of single -family
homes and condominiums are growing and healthy, though moderately lower than the
countywide average and prices in eastern Chula Vista. The relative affordability of housing in the
Urban Core provides a near to mid-term advantage and market opportunity.
While the office sector countywide has moderately higher vacancy rates than other types of
income property, office space in the Urban Core has low vacancy rates. Rents in the Urban Core,
however, are lower than average, reflecting the older nature of most existing office buildings.
The higher rents and strong occupancy rates achieved at the Gateway project indicate that quality
new office developments can generate relatively high rental income. Whether these values were
achieved due to pent-up demand from a market that had not seen new Class A office development
in decades, or reflect a developing and sustainable office sub-market remains to be seen.
The lodging inventory in the Urban Core, which is comprised of older properties, is positioned
for the budget traveler. The low rents and occupancy rates, and declining TOT revenues indicate
that lodging is the weakest of the land uses that the Urban Core may potentially develop. While
South Bay at some point may support a business hotel, Chula Vista’s Bayfront or the Eastern
Urban Center may be better positioned.
Commercial land prices in the Urban Core, though high for Chula Vista, are low relative to
downtown San Diego, and present an opportunity to capture development, particularly urban
housing development, that use to be feasible in downtown San Diego, but is no longer feasible
given downtown San Diego’s land prices. Compared to eastern Chula Vista, however, the Urban
Core achieves lower rents, but high land prices, which makes it financially difficult to develop a
financially feasible project. Future densities in the Urban Core probably have to be higher to
achieve enough revenue per acre to cover land prices. How developers provide parking
affordably while increasing densities, while keeping rents and prices in line with the market, will
be an important challenge.

V. Market Demand Parameters
Based on the analysis of the economic base, historic and current demographic characteristics, and
real estate market trends, potential long-term demand for three types of land uses that may
become integral to the Urban Core strategy was estimated. These include retail, residential and
office uses. The purpose of these forecast ranges are to provide capacity parameters for long-
term land use planning. Given the long-term nature of these forecasts and the uncertainty
associated with a 30-year time horizon, they should not be interpreted as precise annual market
absorption projections.
Office Demand
Table V-1 presents projected growth for leasable office space over time countywide using an
average employment density factor of 249 square feet per worker, which is calculated by dividing
growth in leasable office space from 1990 to 2000 by employment growth in office-related
industries from 1990 to 2000. This ratio may be more than required per worker since it may
include a modest amount of new office space built to replace older obsolete office space. This
factor is applied to SANDAG’s projected countywide employment growth in office-related
industries to forecast demand for occupied office space over time. Total supply demanded is
estimated allowing for a structural vacancy rate of 7 percent.
Table V-2 presents projected demand for total office space, including owner-occupied or build-
to-suit space other than hospitals and government buildings. South County’s share of countywide
demand is expected to grow over time given its growing share of regional population and
employment, and the approaching build-out of other business park locations in the region. The
low-demand estimate assumes that South County’s capture of regional growth will increase over
the next 25 years, reaching 7 percent of the market’s growth from 2020-2030 (compared to 1.9
percent of the countywide inventory today). Some of this demand for office space may be filled
by new business park locations as well as more urban locations. The moderate and high-demand
scenarios assume more aggressive and accelerated growth rates of South County’s market share,
anticipating that pent-up demand, the growing population base in South County, economic
growth in Mexico, and regional traffic congestion will provide greater incentive for new
employment space in South County, reaching 15-20 percent of countywide growth between 2020
and 2030.
Office is a flexible land use that can adjust to changing land values and growing demand with
increases in density. Consequently, unlike industrial space, there will continue to be significant
regional capacity for additional office development in sub-markets that are competitive because

of their central locations in the region, their proximity to the region’s tech industry clusters, their
existing critical mass, and their ability to redevelop to higher densities.
Given these assumptions, South County’s share of total countywide office supply would equal
approximately 2.8 to 5.1 percent by 2030, compared to 1.9 percent today.
Chula Vista is and should continue to be the dominant office location within South County.
Chula Vista’s share of South County demand is estimated for low to high scenarios, with the low
scenario based approximately on Chula Vista’s existing share of South County office space.
From 2000 to 2030, total office space demanded in Chula Vista is estimated to range from 0.9 to
3.2 million square feet, with a moderate scenario of 2.1 million square feet, including multi-tenant
space, owner-occupied space, and medical office space, but excluding hospitals and government
space. This is in addition to Chula Vista’s year 2000 office space supply, and would place Chula
Vista’s 2030 supply near today’s supply in East County (under the low scenario), Rancho
Bernardo/Scripps Ranch (under the moderate scenario), and University City (under the high
scenario).
Unlike University City, the office space supply in Chula Vista would be distributed among
several areas, in particular the Bayfront, Downtown (primarily within the Urban Core), and the
Eastern Urban Center in Otay Ranch. Table V-3 presents a possible allocation of citywide
demand among the major potential office locations within the city – Bayside, Downtown,
EUC/Otay Ranch, and elsewhere – based on the Moderate and High scenarios. Downtown and
the EUC (Eastern Urban Center) are envisioned as the dominant office locations within the city,
but the Bayside may be quite competitive given its waterfront location. The Bayside, however,
has limitations on allowable uses within the State Tidelands Trust and strong demand for other
public and commercial recreation uses that may limit it potential office development capacity.
As shown, based on reasonable allocation assumptions, the Urban Core may expect to absorb
approximately 750,000 to 1.1 million square feet of office space by 2030, in addition to existing
supply, under the Moderate to High scenarios. The potential amount demanded would be less
under a Low scenario, but planning policy should not unduly constrain potential upside growth if
the more optimistic scenarios materialize.

Table V-1 San Diego County Employment Based Office Space Projections, 2000 to 2030
1990-2000 Trends(1): Occupied GLA Occupied GLA

Avg. Annual
Yr. Total GLA Occupied GLA Total Increase Increase CAGR
1990 35,067,159 27,808,257
2000 40,889,421 38,436,056 10,627,799 1,062,780 3.3%
Assumed
% Using
Office 2000 2010 2020 2030
Employment (SIC Categories)

FIRE 100% 69,501 81,759 95,641 107,216
Manufacturing 3% 3,876 3,497 3,505 3,555
Self Employed and Domestic 10% 8,938 9,831 10,828 11,867
Services 34.0% 135,729 156,780 179,914 204,169
Transportation, Comm. & Pub. Util. 10.0% 5,080 5,588 6,068 6,913
Total 223,124 257,454 295,956 333,720
Increase in Office Employment By Period 71,218 34,330 38,502 37,764
Assumed Occupied Office Space / Empl. 249 249 249 249
Total Increase in Leasable Office Space Demand By Period 10,627,799

from Employment Growth
Factor for Owner-occupied/Build-to-suit buildings (3) 1.67
Total Increase in Leasable & Owner-Occupied Office Space Demand 17,748,424 8,555,622 9,595,222 9,411,253
By Period from Employment Growth
Total Supportable Space Allowing for Structural Vacancy of: 9,199,594 10,317,443 10,119,626
Annual Average Increase in Supportable Office Space Supply By Period 919,959 1,031,744 1,011,963
Total Leasible and Owner-Occupied Space at End of Period 82,142,777 91,342,371 101,659,814 111,779,440
Cumulative Increase in Supportable Office Space Supply 2000-2030 9,199,594 19,517,037 29,636,663
Notes:
(1)
Torto Wheaton Research, A CB Richard Ellis Buinsess Unit; Sedway Group
(2)
Per SANDAG's 2030 Projections
(3)
Based on Co-Stars 2004 inventory of 82m s.f., including owner-occupied space
(except government & hopsitals) vs. CB Richard Ellis' inventory of 49.2m of rentable space

Table V-2 Projected Demand for Office Space in San Diego County and Chula Vista 2000 to
2030
2010 2020 2030

Countywide
Estimated Increase in Lesable Office Space During Previous 10 Years 9,199,594 10,317,443 10,119,626
South County Capture Rate Scenarios

Low Scenario 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%
Moderate Scenario 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%
High Scenario 7.0% 13.0% 20.0%
South County Space Demand for Period

Low Scenario 275,988 515,872 708,374
Moderate Scenario 459,980 1,031,744 1,517,944
High Scenario 643,972 1,341,268 2,023,925
South County Cummulative Space

Low Scenario 275,988 791,860 1,500,234
High Scenario 643,972 1,985,239 4,009,164
Chula Vista as Percentage of South Suburban
Chula Vista Capture Rate Scenarios

Low Scenario 60.0% 60.0% 60.0%
Moderate Scenario 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
High Scenario 80.0% 80.0% 80.0%
Chula Vista Space Demand for Period

Low Scenario 165,593 309,523 425,024
Moderate Scenario 321,986 722,221 1,062,561
High Scenario 515,177 1,073,014 1,619,140
Chula Vista Cummulative Space

Low Scenario 165,593 475,116 900,140
High Scenario 515,177 1,588,191 3,207,332

Table V-3 Assumed Distribution of Office Space Demand in Chula Vista 2000-2030
% 2010 % 2020 % 2030
Cumulative Office Space

Moderate Scenario: 100% 322,000 100% 1,044,000 100% 2,107,000
Bayside 10% 32,200 15% 157,000 23% 485,000
Downtown 40% 128,800 40% 417,600 35% 737,000
EUC/Otay Ranch/EastLake 45% 144,900 40% 417,600 40% 843,000
Elsewhere 5% 16,100 5% 52,000 2% 42,000
High Scenario: 100% 515,000 100% 1,588,000 100% 3,207,000

Bayside 10% 51,500 15% 238,000 23% 738,000
Downtown 45% 231,750 40% 635,200 35% 1,122,000
EUC/Otay Ranch/EastLake 45% 231,750 40% 635,200 40% 1,283,000
Elsewhere 5% 25,750 5% 79,000 2% 64,000

Retail Demand
The Urban Core has access to several potential consumer markets, including local and out-of-area
households, downtown area employees, overnight visitors and cross border shoppers.
Retail support attributed to downtown area employees follows the current General Plan allocation
of space at build-out.
Table V-4 through Table V-6 presents estimated retail sales from the primary, secondary, and
tertiary resident markets based on estimated household buying power in each market and assumed
capture rates for different types of retail centers. The estimated number of future households in
the resident market areas are based on existing forecasts, which are based on existing land use
plans. If these plans change to add more residents, the estimate of buying power, and therefore
supportable retail space would be proportionately greater.
The share of total sales by shopping center type was assigned based on expenditures in San Diego
County. Additionally, ERA assumed capture rates by store type, which varies by type of center
and market analyzed. The closer the market area to the Urban Core, the higher the capture rate
assumed.
Table V-7 shows potential retail support from other sources, including downtown employees,
cross border traffic and overnight visitors. For the employee component, the average daily retail
spending was assumed at $4.00. It is assumed that supportable sales-per-SF for new retail
development is $300. Downtown retail is assumed to capture 25 percent of cross border
expenditures in Chula Vista, which in turn is assumed to capture 20 percent of total cross border
expenditures in San Diego County. For overnight visitors, ERA assumed hotel occupancy rates at
60 percent and average retail expenditures per room night of $25.00
Table V-8 provides a final summary of supportable retail space from residents, downtown
employees, cross border traffic and overnight visitors. It is assumed that the Urban Core would
capture 85 percent of supportable space for the Chula Vista downtown area, or 2.3 million square
feet of gross leasable retail space, including existing retail space within the Urban Core, such as
Chula Vista Shopping Center, 3rd Avenue, E Street, H Street, and Broadway.
The City has particular interest in support for restaurants within the Urban Core, especially
higher-end restaurants. In response to this particular interest, ERA projected the number of
households required to support 20,000 square feet of eating and drinking space considering
$1,467 average annual eating and drinking sales per household for San Diego County and average
sales per square foot of $312. The households needed to support 20,000 square feet of restaurant
space (a cluster of 3-4 restaurants) at various capture rates are as follows:

Capture Rate Households Needed
100 % 4,259
50 % 8,518
10 % 42,588
5% 85,176
If the restaurants achieved higher than average sales per square foot, the number of households
required would be more at each capture rate assumption. It is important to note that in the highly
competitive San Diego regional market, no specific restaurant cluster will attract 100 percent, or
event 50 percent, of household dining and drinking expenditures. The number of households
needed in the market area under a 5 to 10 percent capture rate scenario is probably closer to
reality for a specific restaurant cluster.
Table V-4 Chula Vista Potential Retail Sales 2030: Downtown Residents (Primary Market)
Resident Market Support Based on the Existing General Plan
Coutywide Expenditure/HH $ 20,401

Countywide Avg. HH Income $ 69,805
Market Area Avg. HH Income $ 51,629
Market Area Exp./HH Income

Relative to Countywide Average 80.6%
Market Area Exp./HH Income $ 16,441
Households (2030) 20,504
Super
Regional Regional Community Neighborhood
Center Center Center Center Other Total
Share of Total Sales 10.8% 12.1% 21.0% 17.5% 38.6% 100.0%
Distribution/Household $ 1,779 $ 1,993 $ 3,448 $ 2,875 $ 6,346 $ 16,441
Capture Rate/Store Type 40.0% 40.0% 70.0% 90.0% 70.0% --

Captured Sales/Household $ 711 $ 797 $ 2,414 $ 2,587 $ 4,442 $ 10,952
Total Captured Sales ($000s) $ 14,587 $ 16,345 $ 49,494 $ 53,048 $ 91,083 # $ 224,557
Sales/s.f. (by center type) $ 258 $ 254 $ 269 $ 323 $ 300 --

Supportable GLA (s.f.) 56,585 64,264 183,706 164,215 303,611 772,382
Supportable Acreage @ FAR 0.3 4.33 4.92 14.06 12.57 23.23 59.10
Source: Economics Research Associates.

Table V-5 Chula Vista Potential Retail Sales 2030: Rest of Chula Vista Excluding
Downtown (Secondary Market) Resident Market Support Based on the Existing GP
Coutywide Expenditure/HH $ 20,401

Countywide Avg. HH Income $ 69,805
Market Area Avg. HH Income $ 64,332
Market Area Exp./HH Income

Relative to Countywide Average 94.6%
Market Area Exp./HH Income $ 19,309
Households (2030) 68,435
Super
Regional Regional Community Neighborhood
Center Center Center Center Other Total
Share of Total Sales 10.8% 12.1% 21.0% 17.5% 38.6% 100.0%
Distribution/Household $ 2,089 $ 2,341 $ 4,050 $ 3,376 $ 7,453 $ 19,309
Capture Rate/Store Type 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 10.0% 10.0% --

Captured Sales/Household $ 522 $ 585 $ 608 $ 338 $ 745 $ 2,798
Total Captured Sales ($000s) $ 35,737 $ 40,045 $ 41,574 $ 23,105 $ 51,006 # $ 57,365
Sales/s.f. (by center type) $ 258 $ 254 $ 269 $ 323 $ 300 --

Supportable GLA (s.f.) 138,632 157,446 154,311 71,524 170,020 691,932
Supportable Acreage @ FAR 0.3 10.61 12.05 11.81 5.47 13.01 52.95

Table V-6 Chula Vista Potential Retail Sales 2030: Rest of San Diego County (Tertiary
Market) Resident Market Support Based on the Existing GP
Estimated Tertiary Market

Capture (2003) $ 654 Million (from ERA's Fiscal Impact analysis)
Projected Countywide HH
Growth 1.09% annually between 2000-2030 (excluding Chula Vista)
Potential Tertiary Market Capture
in Chula Vista (2030) $ 876 Million
Tertiary Market Capture (2030)
adjusted for Vehicle purchases
(less 12%) $ 771
Downtown Share of Citywide

Retail Land Inventory at buildout 24.5%
Estimated Regional Capture in
Downtown (2030) $ 214 Million
Supportable GLA (s.f.) @ $300/s.f. 714,463

Supportable Acreage @ FAR 0.3 54.67

Table V-7 Downtown Chula Vista: Potential Retail Support from Other Sources (2030)
Based on the Existing General Plan
Retail Support Attributed to Downtown Area Employees

Land Use at Buildout Acres Est. Employee/acre Employees
Office Commercial CO 81.3 76.7 6,231
Retail Commercial CR 218.4 20.5 4,486
Thoroughfare Commercial CT 66.9 10.5 699
Visitor Commercial CV 22.5 14.0 315
Resort/Recreational RES - 22.3 -
General Industrial I - 12.1 -
Research & Limited Industrial IL 94.9 24.0 2,274
Public/Quasi-Public Uses PQ 211.5 6.0 1,269
Total Employment 15,274
Average Annual Workdays 235
Average Daily Employee Spending $4.00
Total Annual Expenditure $14.4 Million
Estimated Supportable Sales/s.f. $300
Estimated Supportable GLA (s.f.) 47,859 s.f.
Estimated Supportable Acreage @ FAR 0.30 3.66 Acres
Retail Support Attributed to Cross-Border (Mexican) Traffic - excluding workers and tourists
Estimated countywide cross border retail expenditure (2003):
Gross Retail Exp. $ 1,917.3 Million
Estimated Capture in Chula Vista 20% $383.5 Million
Estimated Downtown Capture (2003) 25% $95.9 Million
Estimated Mexican Exp. Growth (2003-2030) 0.5% Annually
Estimated Mexican Retail Exp.in Downtown (2030) $109.7 Million
Retail Support Attributed to Overnight Visitors (Hotel Rooms)

Developed Visitor Commercial (CV) Acres 22.5 acres
Estimated Existing Rooms/developed acre 22 rooms/acre
Estimated Total Rooms 497 rooms
Annual room-nights @ occupancy of 60% 108,771 room nights
Avg. retail expenditure/room night $ 25.00 /room-night
Estimated taxable retail sales attributed to hotel rooms $ 2.72 Million

Table V-8 Supportable Retail Space in Downtown Chula Vista (2030) Under the Existing
General Plan
Area (s.f.) Acres

Resident Market
Primary Market Support 772,382 59.1
Secondary Market Support 691,932 52.9
Tertiary Market Support 714,463 54.7
Subtotal 2,178,777 166.7
Other retail Sources

Area Employees 47,859 3.7
'Cross-Border' Shoppers 365,619 28.0
Other overnight visitors 9,064 0.7
Subtotal 422,542 32.3
Urban Core Capture of Downtown Area 85%
TOTAL 2,211,121 169.2

Housing Demand
Table V-9 presents projected housing demand for the Urban Core in 2010, 2020 and 2030. To
calculate the demand, ERA obtained SANDAG’s projected net growth figures for the 2000-
2010, 2010-2020 and 2020-2030 periods for SRA-21 (western Chula Vista) and the South
Suburban Major Statistical Area. SRA-21’s share of the South Suburban MSA’s projected net
growth is the basis for the low demand scenario. Even though SRA-21’s share of the South
Suburban MSA’s household growth increased significantly from 2 percent (between 2000 and
2010) to 6 percent (between 2010 and 2020) to 17 percent (between 2020 and 2030), absolute
increases in households for SRA-21 did not vary greatly, since, according to SANDAG’s
forecasts, South Suburban’s net growth share of San Diego County growth is forecasted to
decrease greatly after 2020.
Medium and High scenarios assumed that SRA-21 will capture a higher than projected share of
total household growth in the South Suburban MSA, assuming that the City of Chula Vista
implements policies that facilitate redevelopment and infill development, and increases the Urban
Core’s potential development capacity. ERA assumed that the Urban Core might capture half of
all future growth in SRA-21, with remaining growth occurring in the Bayfront and elsewhere
within downtown and western Chula Vista. This percentage is consistent with expected growth
in the Chula Vista Bayfront, considering that some of the growth in the Bayfront would come
from households that otherwise would not live in the area.
Total cumulative housing projections by 2030 in the Urban Core estimate almost 1,098 new
households in the low scenario, more than 1,924 in the medium scenario and 2,749 in the high
scenario.
Table V-10 shows single and multiple family housing units for the Urban Core Study Area in
2010, 2020 and 2030. ERA assumed 30 percent of all future housing units to be single -family
units and 70 percent to be multiple housing units. Single -family housing within the Urban Core
may include small lot single-family homes, as found in downtown Oceanside, or attached town
homes, as found in San Diego’s Uptown Community Plan area. Multi-family housing may
include ownership and rental multi-level housing at various densities and heights within the
Urban Core.

Table V-9 Chula Vista Urban Core Study Area Housing Demand for 2010, 2020 and 2030
2000 2004 2010 2020 2030

South Suburban MSA Households
Total Households 94,080 108,083 121,787 135,377 139,522
South Suburban Housing Net Growth

Total Households 27,707 13,590 4,145
SRA 21 Households
SRA-21Housing Net Growth

Total Households 679 832 685
SRA 21 Net Growth as a Percentage of South Suburban Net Growth

Low Scenario 2% 6% 17%
Moderate Scenario 5% 11% 23%
High Scenario 8% 15% 30%
Estimated SRA 21 Household Growth

Low Scenario 679 832 685
Moderate Scenario 1,448 1,435 964
High Scenario 2,217 2,039 1,244
Urban Core Household Growth Per Period @ 50% of SRA 21 Growth

Low Scenario 50% 340 416 343
Moderate Scenario 724 718 482
High Scenario 1,108 1,019 622
Cumulative Urban Core Household Growth

Low Scenario 340 756 1,098
Moderate Scenario 724 1,442 1,924
High Scenario 1,108 2,128 2,749

Table V-10: Estimated Single and Multiple Family Housing Demand in the Chula Vista
Urban Core Study Area for 2010, 2020 and 2030
2010 2020 2030

Urban Core Single Family Housing Demand @ 30 Percent of Estimated Urban Core Demand
Low Scenario 30% 102 125 103
High Scenario 332 306 187
Cumulative Urban Core Single Family Housing Demand

Urban Core Multi-Family Housing Demand @ 70 Percent of Estimated Urban Core Demand
Low Scenario 70% 238 291 240
Cumulative Urban Core Multi-Family Housing Demand

High Scenario 776 1,489 1,924

Scenario 2 – Continued South Suburban MSA Growth
SANDAG’s household forecasts for the South Suburban MSA assume a significant tapering of
growth in each decade from 2000 to 2030. SANDAG assumes a 2.6 percent annual growth rate
between 2000 and 2010, falling to 1.1 percent from 2010 to 2020, falling to 0.30 percent from
2020 and 2030. Some decline in the annual growth rate is expected as the household base in the
South Suburban MSA increases. However, the decline is faster than the decline assumed
countywide. SANDAG’s forecasts may assume that growth in the South Suburban MSA will
fall dramatically as Otay Ranch approaches build-out.
If the communities in the South Suburban MSA increase their potential build-out capacity, South
Suburban MSA’s household growth rates should not decline so rapidly. There is no reason to
assume that the South Suburban MSA would be less appealing between 2020 and 2030 than it is
prior to 2020 if capacity is increased unless infrastructure and public facility standards are not
maintained.
It is reasonable to assume that build-out capacity in the South Suburban MSA will increase.
Chula Vista is contemplating such increases as it updates its General Plan, including within the
Eastern Urban Center, Downtown, and the upland portions of the Bayfront. The City of San
Diego is considering adding housing capacity to the Otay Mesa Community Plan. San Ysidro
and National City redevelopment efforts contemplate new urban housing capacity. While most of
these changes in policies that will increase housing capacity have not yet been approved, it is
likely that some will be approved given the regional housing affordability issue.
Assuming that household growth in the South Suburban MSA continues between 2020-2030 at
the same rate as SANDAG forecasts for the 2010-2020 period, and that the Urban Core can
capture a significant share of this growth, the Urban Core might accommodate over 1,500 to over
3,600 new housing units between 2000 and 2030, as presented in Table V-10, of which most
would be multi-family housing given land prices, as estimated in Table V-11.

Table V-10 Chula Vista Urban Housing Demand for 2010, 2020 and 2030
(Second Scenario – Assuming 2010-2020 Growth Rate Continues Between 2020-2030)
2000 2004 2010 2020 2030

South Suburban MSA Households
South Suburban Housing Net Growth

Total Households 27,707 13,590 15,106
SRA 21 Net Growth as a Percentage of South Suburban Net Growth

Low Scenario 2% 6% 10%
Moderate Scenario 5% 11% 15%
High Scenario 8% 15% 20%
Estimated SRA 21 Household Growth

Moderate Scenario 1,448 1,435 2,266
High Scenario 2,217 2,039 3,021
Urban Core Household Growth Per Period @ 50% of SRA 21 Growth

Low Scenario 50% 340 416 776
Moderate Scenario 724 718 1,133
High Scenario 1,108 1,019 1,511
Cumulative Urban Core Household Growth

High Scenario 1,108 2,128 3,639

Table V-11 Single and Multiple Family Housing Demand in the Chula Vista Urban Core
Study Area for 2010, 2020 and 2030
(Second Scenario – Assuming 2010-2020 Growth Rate Continues Between 2020-2030)
2000 2004 2010 2020 2030

Urban Core Single Family Housing Demand @ 30 Percent of Estimated Urban Core Demand
Low Scenario 30% 102 125 233
Cumulative Urban Core Single Family Housing Demand

High Scenario 332 638 1,091
Urban Core Multi-Family Housing Demand @ 70 Percent of Estimated Urban Core Demand
Low Scenario 70% 238 291 543
High Scenario 776 713 1,058
Cumulative Urban Core Multi-Family Housing Demand

High Scenario 776 1,489 2,547

Urban Core Capacity
Estimated build-out capacity for residential, retail and office space in the Urban Core under the
proposed General Plan update is presented in Table V-12, based on data provided by the City of
Chula Vista. The table also presents total existing land uses in 2004 and the development
capacity for new incremental growth.
Table V-12 Urban Core Plan Capacity for New Incremental Growth
Residential Units Retail S.F. Office S.F.

Build-out Capacity 10,865 4,795,712 2,936,818
Total Existing Land Use 2004 5,036 2,990,978 2,377,766
Development Capacity for New Incremental Growth 5,829 1,804,734 559,052
As shown in the table, existing residential units in 2004 represent only 46 percent of the Urban
Core’s total capacity at build-out, which leaves capacity for over 5,800 units in the Urban Core.
Estimated retail space in the Urban Core in 2004 represents approximately 62 percent of the total
capacity at build-out, which leaves around 1.8 million square feet of retail space to be developed.
Estimated office space in the Urban Core in represents almost 81 percent of the total build-out
capacity, leaving 560,000 square feet for new development.
Table V-13 compares development capacity for residential, retail and office space in the Urban
Core with estimated demand projected by ERA.
Table V-13 Growth Capacity vs. Estimated Demand (2004-2030)
Residential Units Retail S.F. Office S.F.

Development Capacity for New Incremental Growth 5,829 1,804,734 559,052
Estimated Demand (1) (2004-2030, High Scenarios) 3,639 530,536 1,122,000
Net Surplus <Deficit> Capacity at 2030 2,190 1,274,198 (562,948)

Based on this comparison, it appears that the Urban Core plan, as currently planned, may have
additional capacity for residential and retail development, and perhaps insufficient capacity for
potential office development. The extra residential and retail capacity could be considered upside
potential for additional growth if market forecasts prove too conservative. It may also represent
additional capacity beyond the year 2030. It appears, however, that the City has the flexibility of
considering some re-allocation of uses if it so chooses. In particular, the City may want to
designate that some of the commercial-retail capacity would be mixed-use commercial that could
be developed either as commercial retail or commercial office space. This would help address the
potential shortfall in office space capacity.
Given the long term housing needs in the region, the housing capacity should not be reduced
necessarily since it will be needed someday as the region continues to grow, unless a reduction is
required to address other planning objectives and policies. However, infrastructure and public
facility financing strategies may want to anticipate that not all of this capacity will be built by
2030.
Financial Feasibility Issues
The amount of revenue a property can generate relative to increases in costs must be greater to
induce private redevelopment and renovation, without public subsidies. Rents and home prices,
and densities, will have to be greater to generate this additional revenue.
How parking is addressed, in terms of standards (such as reducing standards near transit or
allowing shared parking standards for mixed-use development), location (forming parking
districts that can pool parking in-lieu fees to provide serviceable off-site parking at a lower cost
due to economies of scale), and type (ensuring parking development costs are commensurate with
achievable rents) is important.
Another major issue that will affect feasibility is the ultimate impact fee costs, given the
potentially higher cost of providing public facilities in an existing community to serve the
additional population.
If the Urban Core Plan’s allowable densities requires subterranean parking, rents and home prices
per square foot will have to be even greater to afford the high cost of subterranean parking. A
Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) study for the City of Chula Vista that tested the residual value
of alternative forms of housing at different densities concluded that townhomes and mid-rise
condominium development currently are the most feasible housing prototype, supporting current
estimates of acquisition costs for improved properties in western Chula Vista. The feasibility of

high-rise condominium development appeared low because of the higher costs relative to prices,
although a relatively modest increase in high-rise price assumptions (which the Chula Vista
Urban Core could evolve into) would make high-rise development feasible. KMA concluded that
rental rates currently are too low to support increases in land values and construction costs.
Building upon KMA’s analysis and using similar impact fee factors, ERA evaluated three
hypothetical mixed-use housing and retail scenarios on 50,000 square foot lots, and applying the
draft development standards prepared by RRM Associates. The first two scenarios were
variations of mixed-use development within the V-2 Village area. The first scenario, V-2-A,
assumes that development maximizes the allowed floor-area ratio (FAR), necessitating
subterranean parking. The second scenario, V-2-B, assumes that only one level of lower cost
tuck-under parking (half level below grade and half above grade, utilizing natural ventilation) is
developed and the number of residential units is limited by the parking supply. Both of these
scenarios assume that commercial parking requirements is satisfied off-site through parking in-
lieu fees. The third scenario, V-12, assumes a high-rise, transit-oriented, mixed-use development
were all parking is placed on site. Theses analyses are presented in Appendix A.
The estimated residual land values that these scenarios may support are as follows:
Scenario Residual Land Value Per S.F. of Land Area

V-2A: FAR Capacity $21
V-2B: Parking Constrained $71
UC-12: Transit-Oriented High-Rise $22
There are limited land sales in the Urban Core against which to compare with the estimated
residual values since the Urban Core’s land is mostly developed. Since 2003, the median price of
commercial retail land in Chula Vista was $15.90 per square foot, and the median price for
residential land was $39 per square foot. There were only a couple of commercial land sales
within the Urban Core, averaging $56 per square foot. KMA reports prices for lower density
residential developments (20 units per acre or less) of $10 per square foot, a sale price of $20 per
square foot for a site forming a portion of the proposed Esplanade condominium on H Street, and
a median sales price for commercial sites in urban South Bay of $22 per square foot, with the
highest value site in Downtown Chula Vista.
While the residual land values estimated are comparable for higher density residential and
commercial land in the urban areas of South Bay, only the Parking Constrained scenario
generates sufficient value to recover the cost of property acquisition that includes land and
existing improvements (assuming under-performing and obsolete buildings), which is the more
common scenario within the Urban Core. KMA reports median sales prices for improved

properties in urban South Bay range from $41 to $63 per square foot of land area, considerably
higher than unimproved land.
The reason the Parking Constrained scenario performs better is that the high cost of subterranean
parking is avoided. The UC-12 scenario, the Transit-Oriented High Rise Scenario, also must
compensate for higher construction costs per unit associated with high-rise development. While a
10 percent average premium per square foot was assumed for the high-rise development, a greater
view premium would be required to compensate for the extra development costs.
Based on this analysis, the City should strive to improve the feasibility of private redevelopment
by doing the following:
• Strive to reduce the impact fee cost burden on development through efficient
infrastructure planning, and the use of public funds (such as redevelopment funds) to
cover some of the costs of infrastructure and public facility provision;
• Reduce parking in-lieu fees by developing district parking as a public/private partnership,

and/or base fees on the provision of common surface lots, rather than structured parking.
These measures are particularly important in the early phases of the Urban Core’s redevelopment.
Overtime, as prices and rents rise in real terms relative to construction costs, the residual land
value of development will rise and the ability for private parties to purchase existing properties,
without subsidy will improve, as will development’s capacity to absorb higher parking and
impact fee costs.

VI. SWOT Analysis
This section provides an outlook of the Urban Core’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats from a market and economic perspective. The Urban Core should build-upon its
strengths, overcome or mitigate its weaknesses, exploit its opportunities, and monitor its threats
as it develops in the future.
Strengths
• Location between downtown San Diego and Tijuana

• Strong and established retail market
• Proximity to the Bay
• Established employment, retail, and residential center with high occupancy
• Transit linkages
• Good regional access
Weaknesses

• Limited visitor industry
• Low hotel room rates and occupancy rates
• Relatively lower rents
• Public facility deficiencies
• Relatively weak linkage with the Bayfront

Opportunities
• Affordable development relative to downtown San Die go

• Ability to capture a larger share of housing demand than SANDAG forecasts
• An alternative urban lifestyle than downtown San Diego
• Intercept Mexican market consumers
• Become South County’s office employment, retail, and entertainment center
Threats

• Competition from the Eastern Urban Center if not adequately distinguished
• Cost and complexity of land assembly and infill development
• Infrastructure and public facility constraints
• Not overcoming “second tier” reputation in regional market
• Exposure to Mexican currency fluctuations
Concentrating efforts in keystone districts within the Urban Core to show success and generate
some critical mass, rather than dilute efforts with individual scattered developments, may be
important for generating momentum and long-term success, so that people choose to live, shop,
and work in the Urban Core because of its own distinct identity.

Appendix A

Table 1
First Scenario - FAR Capacity
V-2A VILLAGE ASSUMPTIONS
Lot Size 50,000

Maximum Coverage 90%
Lot Available for Construction 45,000
Floor Area Ratio 3

Maximum Construction SF 150,000
Square Feet Breakdown Percentage SF

- Residential 70% 105,000
- Retail 20% 30,000
- Office 10% 15,000
Parking Spaces Zoning Reg. Spaces

- Onsite Residential * 1.5 143
- Offsite Commercial 3 135
* 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit

* Capacity of 121 parking spaces per underground parking level

Table 2
V-2A VILLAGE ESTIMATED REVENUES FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALE
Total Average Size # of Square Footage Price Per Price Per Total Sales
Unit Type Residential SF per Unit Units Per Unit Unit Square Foot Revenue
Condominium Units 105,000 1,100 95 1,100 $313,500 $285.00 $29,782,500
Total 95 $29,782,500
Residential Revenue
Total Sales $29,782,500
Cost of Sale 4% ($1,191,300)
Net Residential Revenue $28,591,000
Revenue per SF $272

Table 3
V-2A VILLAGE ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL SPACE REVENUE
Leasable Retail SF 30,000 SF

Leasable Office SF 15,000 SF
Total Leasable SF 45,000 SF
NNN Monthly Retail Rental Rate $ 1.75 per month
NNN Monthly Office Rental Rate $ 2.00 per month
Gross Retail Annual Rental Income $630,000

Gross Office Annual Rental Income $360,000
Total Gross Annual Rental Income $990,000
Less Vacancy & Collection 5% $ (49,500)
Gross Effective Income $940,500
Non-reimbursable operating expenses 4% (37,620)
Net Operating Income $902,880
Cap Rate 9%
Estimated Capitalized Value $10,032,000
Capitalized Value per SF $223

Table 4
V-2A VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Project Square Footage

Retail 30,000
Office 15,000
Residential for Sale 105,000
Underground Parking (Residential Spaces only) 143 2 underground parking levels
Total Per SF Per Space Per Unit % of Total

Direct Costs
Direct Costs, Retail /1 $2,880,000 $96 8.6%
Direct Costs, Office /1 $2,025,000 $135 6.0%
TI Allowance $900,000 $20 2.7%
Direct Costs, Residential /1 $11,970,000 $114 35.7%
Direct costs, Underground Parking $3,562,500 $25,000 10.6%
Subtotal Direct Costs $21,337,500 63.6%
Commercial Parking Fee $2,193,750 $13,000 6.5%
Soft Costs
Developer Overhead 2/ $853,500 2.5%
Residential Open Space Fee $950,000 $10,000 2.8%
Commercial and Residential Fees 3/ $2,336,814 7.0%
Financing Costs /4 $1,920,375 5.7%
Architectural & Engineering 5/ $640,125 1.9%
Miscelaneous (Legal and Other) $250,000 0.7%
Subtotal Indirect Costs $6,950,814 20.7%
Contingency 6/ $3,048,206 9.1%
Total Development Cost (excluding land) $33,530,271 100.0%
1/ Includes site improvements, demolition, construction cost, contingency, etc.

2/ Based on 4% of Subtotal Direct Costs
3/ Includes Public Facility, Sewer, Park, Plan Check, Building Permit, School and Water Capacity Fees
4/ Based on 9% of Subtotal Direct costs
6/ Based on 10% of Subtotal Direct Costs, Commercial Parking Fee and Subtotal Indirect Costs

Table 5
V-2A VILLAGE FINANCING ESTIMATE
Revenues Amount
For-sale Housing Revenue $28,591,000
Capitalized Value of Retail Rental Property $10,032,000
Total Sources of Revenue $38,623,000
Costs
Direct Costs $21,337,500
Commercial Parking Fee $2,193,750
Indirect Costs (Soft Costs, Financing & Fees) $6,951,000
Contingency $3,048,000
Total Costs Excluding Land $33,530,250
Developer Profit 12% $4,023,630
NET $1,069,120
Residential Value per SF of Land $21.4

Table 6
Second Scenario - Parking Constrained
V-2B VILLAGE ASSUMPTIONS
Lot Size 50,000

Floor Area Ratio 3


- Residential 70% 105,000
- Retail 20% 30,000
- Office 10% 15,000
Parking Spaces Zoning Reg. Spaces

- Onsite Residential * 1.5 121
- Offsite Commercial 3 135
* 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit

* Capacity of 121 parking spaces per tuckunder parking level

Table 7
V-2B VILLAGE ESTIMATED REVENUES FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALE
Total Average Size Square Footage Price Per Price Per Total Sales
Unit Type Residential SF per Unit # of Units Per Unit Unit Square Foot Revenue
Total 81 $25,393,500
Residential Revenue
Cost of Sale 4% ($1,015,740)
Revenue per SF $274

Table 8
V-2B VILLAGE ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL SPACE REVENUE


Total Gross Annual Rental Income $990,000
Gross Effective Income $940,500
Net Operating Income $902,880
Cap Rate 9%

Table 9
V-2B VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Retail 30,000
Office 15,000
Underground Parking (Residential Spaces only) 121 1 underground parking level
Total Per SF Per Space Per Unit % of Total

Direct Costs
TI Allowance $900,000 $20 3.3%
Direct costs, Underground Parking $1,092,857 $9,000 4.0%
Commercial Parking Fee $2,193,750 $13,000 8.0%
Soft Costs
Developer Overhead 2/ $682,194 2.5%
Residential Open Space Fee $810,000 $10,000 2.9%
Architectural & Engineering 5/ $511,646 1.9%
Contingency 6/ $2,503,115 9.1%


Table 10
V-2B VILLAGE FINANCING ESTIMATE
Revenues Amount
Costs
Commercial Parking Fee $2,193,750
NET $3,571,240

Table 11
UC-12 H STREET TROLLEY ASSUMPTIONS
Lot Size 50,000

Floor Area Ratio 6


- Residential 83.3% 250,000
- Retail 8.3% 25,000
- Office 8.3% 25,000
Parking Spaces
- Onsite Residential * 1 227
- Onsite Commercial 2 100
* 1 parking space per residential unit


Table 12
UC-12 H STREET TROLLEY ESTIMATED REVENUES FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALE
Total Average Size # of Square Footage Price Per Price Per Total Sales
Unit Type Residential SF per Unit Units Per Unit Unit Square Foot Revenue
Total 227 $78,280,950
Residential Revenue
Cost of Sale 4% ($3,131,238)
Revenue per SF $301

Table 13
UC-12 H STREET TROLLEY ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL SPACE REVENUE


Total Gross Annual Rental Income $1,425,000
Gross Effective Income $1,353,750
Net Operating Income $1,299,600
Cap Rate 9%

Table 14
UC-12 H STREET TROLLEY DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Retail 25,000
Office 25,000
Underground Parking (Residential Spaces) 227 2 underground residential parking levels

Underground Parking (Commercial Spaces) 100 1 underground commercial parking level
Total Per SF Per Unit % of Total

Direct Costs
TI Allowance $1,000,000 $20 1.3%
Direct costs, Residential Underground Parking $5,675,000 $25,000 7.2%
Direct costs, Commercial Underground Parking $2,500,000 $25,000 3.2%
Soft Costs
Developer Overhead 2/ $2,198,000 2.8%
Residential Open Space Fee $2,270,000 $10,000 2.9%
Architectural & Engineering 5/ $1,648,500 2.1%
Contingency 6/ $7,181,849 9.1%


Table 15
UC-12 H STREET TROLLEY FINANCING ESTIMATE
Revenues Amount
Costs
NET $1,109,625

Appendix D. Public Facilities and Services
Program
A. Introduction D-1
Background D-1
Public Facilities and Services Program D-3 Chula Vista
B. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment D-6
Chapter IX - Infrastructure and Public Facilities D-7
A. Introduction D-9
B. Growth Forecasts D-10
C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste D-11
D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services D-21
E. Schools D-27
F. Parks and Recreation D-31
G. Energy and Telecommunications D-38
Chapter X - Plan Implementation and Community Benefits
Program D-41
E. Description of Improvements D-43
F. Mobility Improvements D-44
G. Urban Amenity Improvements D-49
H. Additional Community Improvements D-52
C. Long Term Implementation D-54
Chapter X - Plan Implementation and Community Benefits
Program D-55
D. Long Term Implementation Process D-57
FInal Report on Facilities Implementation Analysis D-59(1)
Chapter XI - Plan Administration D-101
C. Specific Plan Administration D-103
Final Environmental Impact Report’s Mitigation and Monitoring
Program D-109
D Appendix 29
Appendix D. Public Facilities and Services Program
A. Introduction
The City of Chula Vista’s General Plan was updated in December 2005 and
created a new vision for the city. A large part of that vision, developed over a
five-year planning process, focused on the revitalization and redevelopment of Chula Vista
western Chula Vista. New growth is planned around “smart growth” principles
such as mixed use and transit oriented development that concentrates infill
and redevelopment to select focus areas and corridors to protect stable single
family neighborhoods, better utilize land resources, reduce environmental
effects, and make more efficient use of existing infrastructure.
The General Plan calls for the preparation and adoption of specific plans to
carry out the vision of the General Plan in an organized and orderly fashion.
This Specific Plan implements the policies and objectives of the General Plan
Update to direct a portion of the growth expected to occur in the City over the
next 20 years to the Urban Core Area, by providing zone changes, development
regulations, and design guidelines to accommodate future growth. Along with
the plan for new land uses, this Specific Plan also identifies the proposed
distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public
and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities that would be located within the area
covered by the Specific Plan and needed to support the land uses described in
the Specific Plan.
This Appendix has been compiled using the various existing chapters of the
Specific Plan, the Final Report on Facilities Implementation Analysis,and the
Final Environmental Impact Report to provide a consolidated location for the
various components of the Specific Plan Public Facilities and Services Program,
prepared pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.07, Specific Plans,
and the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8,
Section 65451.
1. Background
In the late 1980s, a citizen’s initiative, referred to as the “Cumming’s Initiative”,
was passed by a majority vote of the electorate and was incorporated as Chula
Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.80 (Ord. 2309 Initiative 1988). The
purpose and intent of the initiative was generally to ensure the quality of life for
the residents of Chula Vista through a variety of measures such as:
• preserving the character of the community;

• protecting the open space of the city;
D Appendix D-1
• ensuring the adequacy of city facilities, school facilities, recreation and
park facilities and services; fire, police, and paramedic protection; and
water and sanitary sewer systems;
• ensuring the balanced development of the city; and
• ensuring that the future traffic demands do not exceed the capacity of
streets.
The Ordinance states that the intent is “not designed to halt quality growth,
but to ensure that rampant, unplanned development does not overtax
facilities and destroy the quality and home town character of Chula Vista”.
In order to accomplish this goal, the Ordinance requires the staged provision
of public services and facilities commensurate with growth through funding
mechanisms such as a system of fees collected from developers at the time of
new development. These fees are to be spent by the City, in a timely manner,
on public facilities and services to ensure that new development will not have a
negative impact on the residents of Chula Vista.
The City has specifically met the provisions of CVMC Section 19.80.020 through
the implementation of funding mechanisms such as Development Impact Fees
that are determined by land use category and paid upon the issuance of a
building permit. Other fee programs include Transportation Development Impact
Fees and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees that provide financing
for transportation and recreation facility improvements based on population,
density, and land use designation.
Since the passage of the Cummings Initiative in the late 1980s, many of the
quality of life issues described above are now routinely addressed during the
City’s development review process. The City has established quality of life
“thresholds” that are evaluated as part of the environmental review process for
projects that are proposed and developed. The Growth Management Ordinance
and Development Impact Fee Ordinances have been enacted to ensure that
new development provides the timely payment of fees for public facilities
needed as a result of new growth. Development Impact Fees have been put
in place to require new development to provide a proportionate contribution
to public services and facilities. These fees include fees for sewer and storm
drain improvements, park acquisition and development, public facilities and
services, and traffic improvements. School impacts fees are required pursuant
to Government Code 65996.
Monitoring programs have been developed to track the rate and effect of
growth on an annual basis. For example, the City has established the traffic
monitoring program, which annually monitors the actual performance of the
street system by conducting roadway segment travel time studies. A Growth
D-2 Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Management Oversight Commission has been established and annually
reviews the growth management program. An annual report is submitted to the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
2. Public Facilities and Services Program for the Specific Plan

The Specific Plan includes an assessment of the proposed distribution,
location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private Chula Vista
transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other
essential facilities that would be located within the area covered by the Specific
Plan and needed to support the land uses described in the Specific Plan. In
addition, the Specific Plan includes a program of implementation measures
including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures
necessary to carry out the Specific Plan.
Specifically, Chapters IX - Infrastructure and Public Facilities, X - Plan

Implementation and Community Benefits Program, and XI - Plan Adminstration
of the Specific Plan; the Final Report on Facilities Implementation Analysis; and
the Specific Plan FEIR 06-01, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), provide an assessment of the demands on public facilities
and infrastructure due to development that may occur as a result of the Specific
Plan and the plan and mechanisms to ensure public facilities and services
occur commensurate with subsequent development. Chapter V - Mobility and
Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines provide an expanded discussion
and illustrations of some of the public facilities, such as mobility improvements
– traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle-- and other improvements such as parks and
plazas.
As described in the Specific Plan and FEIR, subsequent new development would
be required to provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate
with development’s impact. The Final Report on Facilities Implementation
Analysis provides projected cost estimates, projected timing of facilities, and
financing mechanisms and revenues. The revenues are based on projected tax
increment and development impacts fees routinely collected as development
occurs in the City. Existing City-wide Development Impact Fees (DIF) related to
the provision of public facilities include:
• City-wide Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee

• Public Facilities (PF) DIF (police, fire, libraries, and recreation facilities)
• Sewer fees
• Storm drain fees
• Traffic signal fees
D Appendix D-3
• School impacts fees (collected pursuant to Government Code 65996)
These fees would continue to be collected from new development as it occurs
in the urban ore.
In addition, the Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), prepared
as a Program EIR, includes an evaluation of the City’s growth management quality
of life thresholds at a programmatic level based on development projections
over the course of the next 20 years. The EIR identifies mitigation measures
that would be applied on a project-by-project basis during subsequent review
of individual development projects. The Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of the impacts analysis and/
or mitigation measures for significant impacts that address provision of public
services and facilities. The MMRP ensures that subsequent new development
implements timely mitigation for impacts associated with new development,
which includes, but is not limited to, the installation of infrastructure or the
payment of fees for needed public facilities as a result of new growth. These
requirements would be assured through the subsequent discretionary design
review and approval of future project specific Urban Core Development
Permits.
Although the Specific Plan is intended to attract future development to the

Specific Plan Subdistricts Area, the timing, location, and extent of subsequent
development projects are unpredictable due to the unique nature of urban
revitalization. To further ensure the timely provision of public services and
facilities, monitoring of on-going development activity would be assessed
through the City’s existing annual growth management monitoring and
reporting. Monitoring programs, such as the traffic monitoring program, which
monitors the actual performance of the street system by conducting real
time roadway segment travel time studies, would track the rate and effect of
growth on an annual basis. In addition to the annual GMO review, the bi-annual
Budget/CIP cycle and a five-year status report would provide additional checks
and balances of future growth. The integrated system of growth management
programs, standards, regulations, facility master plans, funding systems, and
monitoring activities provide an effective system of checks and balances to
ensure that the provision of public services and facilities keeps in step with new
development.
Following is a flow chart that identifies the pertinent sections of the Specific Plan
and FEIR that contain information regarding the long term implementation plan
and process for the provision of public facilities and services commensurate
with new demand.

Chula Vista
FACLITIES REGULATION AND INCENTIVE

[PUBLIC IMPLEMENTATION] [PRIVATE IMPLEMENTATION]
Facility List/Rough Costs/Fund Source Regulatory Requirements

Capacity [Utilities, Schools, etc] Design Standards
Amenity [Streetscape, Parks, etc] Amenity Standards and Bonuses
Mobility [Streets, Transit, etc] Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
ANALYSES
Facility Priority List by Type Funding Resources

Parks Sidewalks Other … Impact Fee TI/Bonding Gen’l Fund
INITIAL CIP MASTER PLANS IMPACT & PAD FEE

PROGRAM (i.e. – PARKS, FIRE) REVISIONS
Project Identification West Side Evaluation Citywide Programs
Budget and Source Program Proposals Fee System
ONGOING REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE, PRIORITIES AND FEES

CONDUCTED AS A PART OF THE TWO-YEAR CITY CIP BUDGET PROCESS
AND FINANCING FEE PROGRAM UPDATES
Implementation Flow Chart

Fg. D.1
D Appendix D-5
B. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
This section consists of Chapter IX - Infrastructure and Public Facilities, in its
entirety, and Chapter X - Plan Implementation and Community Benefits Program,
Section E. Description of Improvements, Section F. Mobility Improvements,
Section G. Urban Amenity Improvements, and Section H. Other Community
Improvements.

IX. Infrastructure and Public Facilities D-7
A. Introduction D-9
B. Growth Forecasts D-10
C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste D-11
D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services D-21 Chula Vista
E. Schools D-27
F. Parks and Recreation D-31
G. Energy and Telecommunications D-38
D Appendix D-7
A. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the infrastructure and public facilities
applicable to the Specific Plan, including water supply, sewer, drainage, solid
waste disposal, law enforcement and emergency services, schools, parks and Chula Vista
recreation facilities, and energy and telecommunications. As part of its overall
facilities planning and maintenance activities, the infrastructure related to the
Specific Plan area has been studied during the City’s General Plan effort. Since
the Specific Plan implements the General Plan, these studies provide the basis
of utilities and services needed for the Urban Core. Information from these
studies and the corresponding city-wide implementation strategies are relied
upon in large part for this chapter and have been brought forward into the
Specific Plan for reference.
The Public Facilities and Services Element of the City’s General Plan establishes
a comprehensive strategy to provide and maintain infrastructure and public
services for future growth without diminishing services to existing development.
Public facilities collectively refer to utilities such as water, sewer, drainage, power
and telecommunications services. Public services collectively refer to schools,
library, law enforcement and fire protection. The City of Chula Vista includes
public facilities and services in the General Plan that support and enrich the
community including parks and recreation centers, art and cultural facilities
and programs, childcare opportunities and health and human services. This
chapter of the Specific Plan focuses on the General Plan proposals and criteria
that have particular relevance to the Urban Core area.
D Appendix D-9
B. Growth Forecasts
Based on the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, the City’s population is projected
to reach approximately 300,000 by the year 2030. The General Plan (2005)
includes intensification of retail, office and residential uses with relatively lower
emphasis on industrial uses in western Chula Vista, as compared to the previous
version. The General Plan also proposes the replacement of a significant
amount of existing lower density commercial and residential development in
western Chula Vista with mixed use and higher density residential types.
Within the Specific Plan area, the implementation of the General Plan will
result in a net increase of 7,100 dwelling units, an increase of commercial
retail development by 1,000,000 square feet, increase of commercial office
development by 1,300,000 square feet and the introduction of 1,300,000
square feet of visitor serving commercial use. The net increase in dwelling
units would result in a population increase for the plan area of 18,318 persons
(using a factor of 2.58 persons per household).
The foregoing calculation of population relies largely on historic family size

information. The changing form of western Chula Vista may alter these
forecasts significantly. The population projection will be affected by any change
in national and regional demographics brought about by rates of immigration,
aging in the population and alterations in birth rates. Moreover, the kind and
intensity of development proposed for the focus areas of the Specific Plan and
the pace of development within the Specific Plan area may result in changes to
the historically observed family size and makeup.
Historically, smaller attached dwellings in multi-family developments have

historically had lower family sizes than single family housing. Recent infill
and urban core neighborhood developments in the San Diego region reflect
even lower household populations and fewer minors per dwelling, with many
developments predominantly occupied by childless couples of all ages.
Calculating and tracking trends in the occupancy of the planned multi-family
dwellings of the Urban Core will be critically important to correctly plan and
program for facilities such as parks and schools.

C. Water, Sewer, Drainage and Solid Waste
1. Water Supply
Chula Vista has historically received the majority of its water supply from the
San Diego County Water Authority (CWA). The CWA generally imports from
75 to 95 percent of this water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
of Southern California. The Sweetwater Authority provides water service to Chula Vista
western Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan area. The Sweetwater Authority
assures conformance to the same quality and service standards established
by the State Department of Health Services (DHS) and the federal Clean Water
Act. In addition to providing water supplies, the Sweetwater Authority provides
emergency storage systems and implements conservation efforts.
Sweetwater Authority indicates approximately $5 million in incremental capital

costs for system improvements to serve western Chula Vista per General Plan
projections. Approximately $3 million of this amount will be for pipeline needs
and the remaining $2 million will go toward increasing treatment capacity at
the Perdue Treatment Plant. These amounts reflects capital costs in excess of
what is currently planned to accommodate growth under the 1989 General
Plan. These capital improvements are addressed by the Sweetwater Authority
through its development impact fee structure, which is subject to ongoing
review during the 30-year plan development period.
2. Sewer
Sewer services are essential for public health, safety and welfare. The City
maintains and operates sewer facilities in the form of wastewater/sewer
pipelines. These facilities feed into the larger regional system for treatment
and disposal.
The City is already engaged in planning and upgrading improvement projects

and will continue to do so in a phased manner under an adopted wastewater
master plan. Connection fees are the primary funding source for capital
improvement costs.
The City of Chula Vista purchases wastewater treatment capacity from the City
of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater System (METRO). This allows the City
to treat and dispose of wastewater flows at METRO facilities. The City’s future
wastewater flows will exceed the current treatment capacity necessitating the
need to purchase additional capacity (in a phased manner). The City of Chula
Vista has purchased 19.8 million gallons per day (MGD) of capacity rights in
the METRO Sewage System. Based on existing conditions in 2004, the City
discharges approximately 16.6 MGD into the METRO Interceptor. Based on
flow analyses, it is estimated that by the year 2030, the City will generate
D Appendix D-11
approximately 6.4 MGD of additional sewage. The General Plan (2005) projects
an additional treatment capacity need of 1.57 MGD at buildout in western
Chula Vista, which includes the projected demand of approximately 0.88 MGD
for the Specific Plan area. These needed improvements equate to a cost of
approximately $20.4 million.
It is important to note that these are broad and preliminary estimates and are
based largely on the wastewater generation rates stated in the Wastewater
Master Plan, which will be subject to periodic update and review throughout the
life of the Specific Plan. The City currently operates and maintains approximately
400 miles of sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 6 inches to 48 inches in
diameter, as well as an extensive network of manholes, metering stations, pump
lifts and lift stations (See Figure 9.1 Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater
Collection.)
The system is the subject of ongoing review and wastewater master plans. An
update of the plan has been prepared in support of the General Plan Update
(2005). In addition to maintaining the existing systems and replacing outdated
components, the City must also address system upgrades and expansions to
accommodate new sewer connections, especially in the eastern portion of the
City. The costs of system upgrades, capacity and infrastructure management
and planning is reflected in connection fees and sewer rates.
3. Drainage Infrastructure
Drainage facilities are public improvements to control storm water runoff so that
peak runoff does not threaten public health or safety in the form of flooding and
erosion. The City maintains strict requirements for sediment control from water
runoff, which are reviewed and applied to new development on a project-by-
project basis. These requirements are found in various programs and policies,
including the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Manual,
Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual, development and
redevelopment projects and “best management practices” (BMP) requirements
for construction sites.
The condition of the overall drainage system is the subject of a Drainage Master
Plan, which is undertaken and continually monitored for any major deficiencies
or problems. (See Figure 9.2 Drainage Channels.) Within already urbanized
areas such as the Urban Core, most needed drainage facilities are already in
place, and since runoff is largely not changed by the redevelopment of one
land use into another, the system of facilities for storm water runoff are equally
largely in place. With the monitoring and review of construction and water
quality practices conducted for each development project, the City, working
through its Drainage Master Plan has a program in place to control runoff and
meet applicable water quality standards.

Chula Vista
Backbone Infrastructure for Wastewater Collection (Source:

City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.1
D Appendix D-13
Drainage Channels (Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.2

Chula Vista is part of the San Diego watershed area. The San Diego watershed
area’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires
that all runoff be treated so that pollutant levels at the storm water outfalls
are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Subsequently, drainage
infrastructure may need to be constructed or modified to insure that “first flush”
pollutants are captured through the Chula Vista Storm Water Management
Unit. Typically, NPDES on-site detention/desiltation facilities will be required Chula Vista
on development projects. The City will maintain its ability to enforce adequate
maintenance of these facilities. The Environmental Element of the General
Plan (2005) also addresses drainage issues throughout the City as they relate
to water quality.
4. Solid Waste Infrastructure and Operations

The City of Chula Vista has established an exclusive franchise collection
agreement with Pacific Waste Services for the removal, conveyance, and
disposal of any non-recyclable waste. The agreement is in effect through June
2028 with extension clauses for both City and Pacific Waste Services. The
agreement includes a number of programs and incentives for the franchise and
the public to maximize recycling and other forms of landfill diversion. Pacific
Waste’s parent company, Allied, owns and operates both the Otay Landfill and
the Sycamore Canyon Landfill located further north in San Diego County. Most
of the solid waste generated in the City is disposed at the Otay Landfill.
The Otay Landfill is estimated to reach capacity in the year 2028. In south San
Diego County, an area in East Otay Mesa was previously identified by the County
as a tentative site. However, the County is no longer pursuing landfill siting at
this location and there are no private siting efforts currently proposed. Once the
Otay Landfill is closed, it is anticipated that a portion of the site could be used
for a trash transfer facility and/or a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) where
recyclables are prepared for secondary markets. The City has also acquired
rights to approximately 30 acres of space at the Otay Landfill for a composting
facility when the landfill closes. Therefore, continued efforts to expand recycling
and to accommodate compostable materials will reduce future waste transfer
costs.
The City has the ability to control waste production within its general plan area,
including the Urban Core. Current solid waste management strategies include
source reduction, recycling and composting to decrease the waste stream
impacting landfills.
D Appendix D-15
Objectives and policies directing water, sewer and drainage facilities are
arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe an issue
or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan
through the General Plan policies. Supporting objectives and policies follow the
discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth and Maintenance

Needs (Water, Sewer, Drainage) (PFS 1)
The City and its servicing districts strive to maintain existing water, sewer and
drainage facilities to meet current and future demand and to comply with federal,
state, and local requirements. The challenge posed by density increases in
older parts of the City system is to repair existing deficiencies and maintain and
possibly upsize older infrastructure. Over time, as the City continues to expand
and additional water, sewer and drainage facilities are added, the demand for
maintenance, along with associated fiscal impacts, will also grow.
Recent assessments have been completed to address water supply, wastewater

and drainage facilities. The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the
Sweetwater Authority dated June 8, 2005 evaluates existing conditions and
future water needs for the Specific Plan. Existing average water demand for
the Specific Plan area is cited as 1.96 MGD with a projected average water
demand of 3.54 MGD at 2030 buildout. The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California and San Diego County Water Authority are
The Wastewater Master Plan, prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula Vista
and dated May 2005, provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the
City’s wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment capacity requirements
under existing and ultimate buildout conditions. Specific recommendations
are made for the repair, upgrading, and buildout of wastewater collection and
pumping facilities. The City currently has capacity rights in the METRO system
(comprised of conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities) equal to 19.8
MGD and will soon be allocated additional capacity through a re-rating process
currently underway.

Wastewater facility improvements recommended for the Specific Plan area
include:
• Colorado Street Sewer Main (replace 1,314 feet of pipe between K Street
and J Street)
• Center Street Main (replace 630 feet of pipe between Fourth Avenue
and Garrett Avenue) Chula Vista
• Police Station Department (SPS-01) New Pump Station
• G Street (SPS-02) New Pump Station
The Wastewater Master Plan also provides sewer system design standards and
capital improvements program recommendation,s as well as a capacity fee
update and facilities financing plan for both METRO facilities and Chula Vista
pipelines, to ensure adequate wastewater facilities are provided for the Specific
Plan area.
The 2004 Drainage Master Plan prepared by PBS&J for the City of Chula
Vista consists of a city-wide hydrologic analysis and an updated version of the
City’s storm water conveyance system GIS database. The Drainage Master
Plan includes 21 stand-alone technical appendices, each one with hydraulic
calculations and accompanying 200-scale work maps. The hydraulic analyses
were prepared for the 50-year and, where required, 100-year storm events
for existing and projected conditions. Recommendations are provided for
replacement of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm drain facilities as well as
other capital improvement strategies. Additional updates and recommendations
will be available upon the County of San Diego’s completion of a calibration
study to supplement the existing Hydrology Manual.

1) “For new development, require on-site detention of storm water flows
such that, where practical, existing downstream structures will not be
overloaded. Slow runoff and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.”
(PFS 1.4)
Development within the Urban Core will be reviewed within the context
of the drainage master plan and water quality rules applicable to the
development, on a project-by-project basis.
2) “To avoid recently improved streets from being torn up repeatedly,
maintain a comprehensive facility phasing and capital improvement
program. The program should be based on anticipated land development
and be conducted in coordination with all utilities.” (PFS 1.6)
The Urban Core facilities program, summarized in the following
chapter, sets out timeframes for the improvement of streets, sidewalks
D Appendix D-17
and other improvements. These timeframes will be coordinated with
the master plans for sewer and drainage to minimize disruption of
public streets.
3) “Identify ways to obtain timely funding for public facility and service needs.
Upon request by community representatives, facilitate the possible
formation of assessment districts to finance public infrastructure,
upgrades and maintenance.” (PFS 1.7)
The criteria are largely applicable to eastern territories, where

master planned communities can facilitate the implementation of
such districts. The implementation program for the Urban Core will
act in a similar fashion to program and time facilities with need.
The above-described Water Supply Assessment, Wastewater Master
Plan and Drainage Master Plan analyze the existing and future
facilities needs for Chula Vista, including the Specific Plan area. With
implementation of recommended improvements and programs,
adequate facilities will be provided to serve the Urban Core as relates
to water, wastewater and storm water drainage.
b. General Plan Discussion: Meeting Demand Through Alternative
Technologies (PFS 2)
Growth will generate increased demand for water delivery and for sewer and
drainage systems throughout the City. Water will continue to be a limited
resource in semi-arid southern California. The ability to treat wastewater will be
affected by the limitations of the San Diego Metro system. Drainage facilities
will need to handle increased storm water runoff and potential pollutants in
the face of increased growth and diminishing supplies of land. Building more
infrastructure and acquiring more capacity can and should be offset by using
alternative technologies to handle demand both in the older established parts of
the City and in the newly developing areas. The following objective and policies
address meeting resource and service demands through use of alternative
technologies.

1) “As part of project construction and design, assure that drainage facilities
in new development incorporate storm water runoff and sediment
control, including state-of-the-art technologies where appropriate.” (PFS
2.2)
The City conducts and maintains a Storm Water Master Plan. It also
reviews new development in a manner consistent with the applicable
water quality standards.

c. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Water Supplies (PFS 3)
The California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within the state to
prepare urban water management plan(s) and update them every five years,
in years ending in five or zero. The plans are to identify supply and demand,
infrastructure and funding. In accordance with the Act, the County Water
Authority (CWA) adopted an Urban Water Management Plan in 2000 and will
be updating it in 2005. The 2000 Plan forecasts total projected water demand Chula Vista
for the entire area served by the CWA as 813,000 acre-feel of water in the year
2020. This figure includes municipal, industrial and agricultural demand and
is adjusted for conservation savings. The report estimates total projected local
water supplies in the year 2020 as 223,500 acre-feet. Local water supplies
include surface water, water recycling, groundwater and seawater desalination.
Through a shortage contingency analysis, the report also concludes that the
CWA and its member agencies, through Emergency Response Plans (ERP)
and Emergency Storage Projects (ESP), are taking actions to prepare for and
appropriately handle a catastrophic interruption of water supplies.
While the CWA relies almost entirely on water imported from outside the region,
the Sweetwater Authority has historically imported less than half of its water
to meet demand. The Authority’s remaining supply has been from two large
local surface water reservoirs, Sweetwater and Loveland, which store surface
runoff from the Sweetwater River. The Authority also adheres to development
of additional local resources such as groundwater pumping and groundwater
desalination. As the City grows, the need to identify the long-term supply of
water continues.
The Water Supply Assessment prepared by the Sweetwater Authority dated

June 8, 2005 evaluates existing conditions and future water needs for the
Specific Plan. Existing average water demand for the Specific Plan area is cited
as 1.96 million gallons per day (MGD) with a projected average water demand
of 3.54 MGD at 2030 buildout. The Sweetwater Authority, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and San Diego County Water Authority are

1) Assist the water agencies (Sweetwater Authority) in preparing and
maintaining Urban Water Management Plans that identify water demand
anticipated by existing and new development. (PFS 3.1)
This activity will largely occur through city-wide development
monitoring and reporting.
D Appendix D-19
d. General Plan Discussion: Long-Term Sewer Capacities (PFS 4)
The City maintains and regularly updates a Wastewater Management Plan to
evaluate the adequacy of the existing wastewater collection system to sustain
the long-term growth of the City. The Wastewater Management Plan helps the
City budget for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), allocate resources for the
acquisition of additional sewage capacity, and determine the short and long-
term sewer capacity needs of the City.

1) “Continually monitor wastewater flows and anticipate future wastewater
increases that may result from changes in adopted land use patterns.”
(PFS 4.1)
As cited above, the City’s Wastewater Master Plan is undertaken to
identify needed expansions, which are paid for by connection and
service fees.
e. General Plan Discussion: Providing for Solid Waste Disposal (PFS 24)
The following objective and policies address the efficient handling of solid waste
throughout the City. The important and related topics of reducing overall solid
waste and of handling hazardous wastes are addressed in the Environment
Element, Chapter 9 of the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan. The Otay Landfill
is estimated to reach capacity within the next 23 years, requiring closure of the
facility. Meeting future needs of the planning area may require the creation of a
regional transfer station, where solid waste collected from individual collection
routes is transferred into large trucks for disposal. The transportation of solid
waste to an alternate site must occur in an efficient manner that restricts
adverse circulation, visual, and noise impacts.

1) “Plan for adequate systems and facilities to manage the City’s solid
waste generation, treatment and disposal.” (PFS 24.1)
Solid waste programs and recycling are addressed through city-wide
programs. Design Guidelines are provided in the Specific Plan for
future development which reflect the ability to service for trash and
recycling collection.

D. Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency
Services
1. Facilities and Services
In the City of Chula Vista, fire protection and emergency medical services are
provided by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Law enforcement services are
Chula Vista
provided by the Chula Vista Police Department. Fire stations are dispersed
throughout the City, while police facilities are centered in headquarters located
in downtown Chula Vista (See Figure 9.4 Police and Fire Station Locations.)
The current Fire Station Master Plan calls for nine fire stations, eight of which
have been constructed. The Master Plan is being updated to reflect changes
to General Plan and to respond to a revised set of performance criteria as
proposed in the Fire Department Strategic Plan. Therefore, the number and
location of future fire stations, along with how the stations are equipped, is
subject to change.
To maintain the high level of dependable, competent fire protection and

emergency medical services the City enjoys, several strategies will continue to
be employed. The City will continue to use a growth-related service standard,
through its Growth Management Ordinance and program, to help determine if
public safety is adequately protected. Fire Department staffing and equipment
will continue to be expanded as needed to meet the service standard and to
minimize hazards to the firefighters and public, in conformance with changes
to the updated Fire Department Master Plan. The Fire Department will continue
to enhance its capabilities and staffing through mutual aid agreements with
fire departments in the surrounding communities.
Similar strategies also facilitate the provision of law enforcement services

that meet the City’s needs. The Department will continue to monitor calls for
service, analyze crime statistics and resident survey data, and make changes
in staffing and patrols to reflect the growing community’s needs.
Effective fire protection, emergency medical, and law enforcement services

require two-way relationships with the community. The unique needs and
conditions in the community must be understood and the community must
lend support to the various programs and efforts of the Police Department
and Fire Department. The City encourages active participation by the Fire and
Police Departments in all facets of community life, including involvement in
area business, senior, and youth activities.
D Appendix D-21
2. Disaster and Emergency Response Program
State regulations establish the Standardized Emergency Management System,
or SEMS. The system includes requirements for incident command systems,
multi-agency coordination systems, mutual aid agreements and the “operational
area” concept. As an agency (municipality) with emergency response capability
within the state, Chula Vista is required to use the SEMS system.
Chula Vista provides for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the
protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency
(Municipal Code, Chapter 2.1.4 Emergency Organization Department). The
Code requires coordination of the emergency functions of the City with other
public agencies, corporations, and organizations.
There may be occasions when a limited scale evacuation is the appropriate

response to an emergency situation. Under these circumstances, people
should be evacuated to neighborhood and community schools, hospitals and
public facilities, where they could receive adequate care and treatment. In the
event of a major disaster, where a large part of the City may require evacuation,
the circulation routes serving the Specific Plan area are:
• I-5, I-805, and SR-54
• E Street, H Street, J Street, and L Street
• Broadway, Fourth Avenue, Hilltop Drive, and Third Avenue
The Disaster Management Act of 2000 requires that, in order to remain eligible
for post-disaster Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding after
November 2004, every jurisdiction in the United States must have an approved
Hazard Mitigation Plan (HAZMIT Plan) to address the management of and
response to emergency situations. In addition, to be eligible for pre-disaster
FEMA funding for use in hazard mitigation, each jurisdiction’s approved HAZMIT
Plan must include the planned uses of these funds. The City of Chula Vista
adopted a HAZMIT Plan in May 2004 to help mitigate impact to the City in the
event of a natural or man-made disaster. The City’s HAZMIT Plan was included
in the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional HAZMIT Plan submitted to FEMA
for approval in compliance with Federal Law.

Chula Vista
Police and Fire Station Locations (Source: City of Chula Vista)

Fg. 9.3
D Appendix D-23
Objectives and policies directing law enforcement, fire protection and emergency
responses are arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages
describe an issue or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for
the Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth (Police, Fire Protection
& Emergency Medical Service) (PFS 5)
The City of Chula Vista has experienced significant residential growth over
the last decade. The majority of new growth has occurred in the east, where
continued relatively high growth is expected in the coming years, along with
density increases in the west. Fire protection, emergency medical service and
police services will need to expand to match the demand brought on by this
anticipated growth.
While fire stations are located throughout the City, the Police Department
maintains one police headquarters, located in the western portion of the City.
The police headquarters is sufficient to accommodate the growth projected in
the Specific Plan.

1) “Continue to adequately equip and staff the Fire Department to ensure
that established service standards for emergency calls are met.” (PFS
5.1)
2) “Upgrade fire and emergency medical equipment as required to protect
the public from hazards and to ensure the safety of the fire fighters.”
(PFS 5.2)
b. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response and Development (PFS 6)
General Plan policies and Growth Management standards tie new development
and redevelopment to the provision of adequate public facilities and services,
including police and fire protection. Some design characteristics, such as
narrow street widths, aim to create walkable communities, serve to establish an
overall neighborly atmosphere, and tend to reduce traffic speeds. In mixed use
neighborhoods, density increases may result in taller buildings. The evolving
urban form and the cumulative increase in development will affect emergency
service response times as well as the equipment, facilities and personnel
needed for fire and police services.
“Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (CPTED) is a method of

incorporating design techniques into projects to help reduce the potential for

crime. CPTED is used in the development of parks, residential and commercial
projects, schools, transit stations and parking lots to reduce the number of calls
for service. The reduced call volume may favorably impact response times.
CPTED includes the use of four primary strategies:
• Providing natural access control into areas,
• Improving natural surveillance (i.e., increasing “eyes on the street”), Chula Vista
• Maintaining and managing a property to reduce crime and disorder,
and
• Using territorial reinforcement to distinguish private space from public
space.

1) “Continue to require new development and redevelopment projects to
demonstrate adequate access for fire and police vehicles.” (PFS 6.1)
2) “Require new development and redevelopment projects to demonstrate
adequate water pressure to new buildings.” (PFS 6.2)
3) “Encourage Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
techniques in new development and redevelopment projects.” (PFS
6.3)
Project review within the Specific Plan shall include the above-
listed criteria. Design requirements and recommendations found
in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines require future projects within the
Specific Plan area to incorporate CPTED principles.
c. General Plan Discussion: Emergency Response Program (PFS 7)
A city-wide emergency response program provides the framework for
responding to any type of emergency or disaster that might occur in Chula Vista.
Accomplishing efficient emergency response involves coordination with other
agencies regarding disaster preparedness, preparation and regular update of
the emergency response plan, education of residents and businesses about
the plan and about evacuation routes, and periodic training of City staff and
other emergency response staff to effectively implement the plan.

D Appendix D-25
d. General Plan Discussion: Post Emergency Response (PFS 8)
In the event of disasters and emergencies, a swift and efficient response
minimizes injuries, casualties and property damage. Planning post-disaster
operations ensures the safety, health and welfare of our residents by allowing
critical operations to continue as expeditiously and efficiently as possible
following a catastrophic event. Post-disaster analysis will help the City improve
safety plans and responses.

E. Schools
1. School Facilities
Excellent schools are assets to any community. Two school districts serve the
City. Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) operates kindergarten
through sixth grade; Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) operates
junior and senior high schools and ancillary programs. Higher education is Chula Vista
available through Southwestern Community College.
As of 2004, the CVESD operates 42 schools and the SUHSD operates 26

schools, both within and outside the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista.
(See Figure 9.4 Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista.)
Both districts actively plan for modernization and expansion of campuses
to accommodate anticipated increases in enrollments. The districts have
completed improvements through modernization programs and bond issues or
prepared modernization plans in preparation for construction.

Objectives and policies impacting schools are arranged around specific topics
or issues. The following pages describe an issue or topic and how the City has
planned for adequate service for the Specific Plan through the General Plan.
Supporting objectives and policies follow the discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth and Technology

(School Facilities) (PFS 9)
Population growth in western Chula Vista may impact existing, older school
facilities. Modernization of school campuses is expected to continue as the
school districts plan for facility improvements. Technology continues to change
the work place and the social and cultural environments of our community. The
school system, which helps shape our children and our future, must keep pace
with development. While siting of schools falls under the jurisdiction of the
local school districts, not the City, it is the City’s intent to facilitate the district’s
efforts to provide school services.

1) Continue coordinating with local school districts during review of
land use issues requiring discretionary approval to provide adequate
school facilities, to meet needs generated by development, and to
avoid overcrowding in accordance with guidelines of Government Code
65996(b). (PFS 9.1)
D Appendix D-27
Existing Primary and Secondary Schools Serving Chula Vista
(Source: City of Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.4

2) Encourage the consideration of new approaches to accommodate
student enrollments, including alternative campus locations and
education programs. (PFS 9.2)
3) Assist school districts in identifying and acquiring school sites for new
construction in needed time frames. (PFS 9.3)
4) Assist school districts in identifying sources of funding for the expansion Chula Vista
of facilities in western Chula Vista as needed based on growth. (PFS
9.4)
5) Work closely with the school districts to identify needs for public education
facilities and programs, including developing and expanding extra-
curricular recreation and educational programs for primary, secondary,
and adult education, and providing state-of-the-art information services.
(PFS 9.5)
The foregoing policies reflect the need to plan and implement
schools over the relatively long period of development implementing
the Specific Plan. Cooperation in projecting growth and monitoring
new development and the resulting demographics will assure that
existing schools are expanded or new schools are built at the time
of need.
b. General Plan Discussion: Site Location and Design (School Facilities)
(PFS 10)
School districts control site selection and school design. In all instances, safe
pickup and drop-off of students is a primary concern. Schools are generally
designed with the intent of adding modular units to accommodate temporary
spikes in student enrollment. While both Chula Vista school districts use this
strategy, drawbacks include the fact that the units displace parking, open space
and recreation areas. Some schools in western Chula Vista are already running
out of limited buildable space and have no room to expand the campuses
horizontally in the current land locked locations.

1) “Continue to coordinate and make recommendations to the school
districts and property owners and developers on the location, size and
design of school facilities relative to the location in the community.
Encourage school districts to consider joint use and alternative structural
design such as multi-story buildings where appropriate.” (PFS 10.1)
Alternative structural designs will be especially important within the
Urban Core due to land availability.
2) “Encourage the central location of new schools within the neighborhoods
or areas they serve so as to further community development and enhance
the quality of life.” (PFS 10.4)
D Appendix D-29
3) “Coordinate with the school districts on the design of school grounds
Council leagues.” (PFS 10.5)
Joint use of facilities by the City and the School District can maximize
the public use of school and park sites.

F. Parks and Recreation
1. Facilities and Programs
Parks and recreation facilities and programming are essential to the health
and welfare of the individuals living and working in the City of Chula Vista.
Parks can provide a relief from the stress of daily life and can contribute
to neighborhood engagement, economic development and community Chula Vista
revitalization. The different types of parks and recreation facilities found in
Chula Vista are described below. (See Figure 9.5 Existing and Proposed Public
Parks and Recreation Facilities.)
Community parks, designed to serve more than one neighborhood, are ideally
30 or more acres and provide a wide variety of facilities, including swimming
pools, playing fields, recreation centers, cultural centers and picnic areas.
Neighborhood parks are intended to serve local residents; range in size from
5 to 15 acres; and include open play space, playing fields, play equipment and
picnic areas. Mini parks consist of both public and private facilities, are typically
less than four acres in size, serve a small number of homes, and contain very
limited facilities such as a tot lot or play structure and some grass play area.
Public mini parks are typically located in the older western portion of the City.
Urban parks are generally located in urban downtown areas and may contain
facilities such as public plazas, tot lots, play structures, public art features,
sports courts (such as basketball or tennis), walking/jogging trails, dog walk
areas, picnic or seating areas, some grass play area, and trees. Urban parks,
which will occur where infill and redevelopment activity is likely to occur, may be
considered for public park credit as a necessary component of an overall park
service solution where available and affordable land is scarce. Similar to mini
parks, urban parks may serve a smaller number of homes than neighborhood
parks, depending on the ultimate housing density within the service areas.
Urban parks will typically be less than four acres in size. Recreation facilities
are generally located within community parks and include community centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools, youth centers, and senior centers.
Several related documents address the development of parks and recreation

facilities in the City. The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted
in November 2002, contains an inventory of existing parks and recreations
facilities, a needs assessment, and policies to implement the General Plan. The
Master Plan envisions the City’s park and recreation facilities as an integrated
system of amenities, programs and services interwoven throughout over 700
acres of parkland to meet the expressed needs of the community.
D Appendix D-31
The Greenbelt Master Plan identifies segments of an overall backbone system
of 28 linear miles of open space and parks that encircle the City. It discusses
unique opportunities for a continuous trail system to link City parks and other
resources outside of the City boundary.

Objectives and policies directing parks and recreation facilities and programs
are arranged around specific topics or issues. The following pages describe
an issue or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the
Specific Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies
a. General Plan Discussion: Keeping Pace with Growth (Parks and Recreation)
(PFS 14)
The City strives to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities, to offer
recreational programs to meet current demand, and to plan and construct new
parks and facilities and develop new programs to meet future demand due to
growth. The majority of residential growth in the last decade has occurred in
eastern Chula Vista; however, it is anticipated that significant growth will occur
in both the east and the west in the future.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee program provide direction and financing for the size and location
of parks and recreation facilities, based on population, density and land use
designation.
Timely development and the provision of facilities, staffing, and equipment

that is responsive to growth and community demands and expectations are
important.

1) “Maximize the use of existing parks and recreation facilities through
upgrades and additions/changes to programs to meet the needs of the
community.“ (PFS 14.1)
2) “Construct new parks and recreation facilities that reflect the interests
and needs of the community.” (PFS 14.2)
3) “Continue to maintain and update the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, the Greenbelt Master Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance
and the recreation component of the Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee, as needed.” (PFS 14.3)

Map does not include future potential urban plaza
locations; these areas are shown in Figure 8.69
Chula Vista
Existing and Proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities (Source: City of

Chula Vista)
Fg. 9.5
D Appendix D-33
4) “Use park dedication, location, site design and acceptance standards
as provided in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the
Park Dedication Ordinance and the Recreation DIF, as may be amended
from time to time.” (PFS 14.4)
5) “Work with proponents of new development projects and redevelopment
projects at the earliest stages to ensure that parks, recreation, trails
and open space facilities are designed to meet City standards and are
built in a timely manner to meet the needs of residents they will serve.”
(PFS 14.5)
6) “Design recreation programs to reflect the interests and recreation
needs of the children, teens, adults, and seniors living in our ethnically
diverse city.” (PFS 14.6)
7) “Explore opportunities for collaborations and partnerships with local
organizations, expand use of volunteers, and develop commercial
recreational facilities that meet public demand and need.” (PFS 14.7)
8) “Continue to provide adequate park maintenance, park ranger service
recreation services, staffing, and equipment to ensure safe, well-
maintained facilities.” (PFS 14.8)
The foregoing policies will apply to recreation and park facilities
within the Urban Core. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
development impact fee programs will be monitored during the life
of the Specific Plan and updated to meet service and demographic
needs of the community.
b. General Plan Discussion: Meeting Park Demand (PFS 15)
Historic park development in western Chula Vista has been impacted by several
factors: pre-existing park development standards that differ from current
City standards, the Quimby Act - state legislation limiting park dedication
requirements for new development, and Proposition 13- state legislation
limiting property tax revenues. Increased residential densities and intensity
of development will create a corresponding increase in demand for recreation
facilities and programs. The current city-wide standard for new development
provides for either the dedication or development of 3 acres of parkland for
every 1,000 residents or the payment of in-lieu fees. The City’s Recreation
Development Impact Fee provides a funding mechanism for development
of new recreation facility requirements. City-wide parkland and recreation
development policies to guide future ordinances and master planning are
identified below.
Scarce land tends to make parkland acquisition costs (in terms of cost of land
and displacement) in western Chula Vista significantly higher compared to

the City’s eastern territories. While future growth will result in the need and
requirement for additional parklands and recreational facilities, there will be
increased difficulty in securing appropriate park and recreation sites in western
Chula Vista where land is largely built out. Lack of vacant and underutilized land,
and/or competing demands and uses for land in the west provide challenges to
increasing the park and recreation facility inventory. Maximizing the utility of
existing parks and recreation facilities through renovation and expansion and Chula Vista
consideration of non-active recreational uses within existing recreation needs
is important in the western portion of the City; while this strategy will not provide
additional park acreage, it will partially meet the needs of future residents. In
addition to parkland acquisition efforts, potential solutions for new park sites
include the covering of portions of I-5 to create park and open space areas and
joint-use of school classrooms, playing fields and sports courts by the public
via joint-use agreements. The provision of a community center within urban
development areas should be considered, possibly within a new mixed-use
environment.
An overall combination of park and recreation facilities that will serve all Chula
Vista residents is planned. While a majority of the future demand for facilities
may be met within planned public park sites, there will continue to be a need to
rely on quasi-public park sites and joint-use facilities to increase the recreation
facility inventory in the City. Details and strategies for meeting park demand
will be addressed further through comprehensive revisions to the existing Parks
and Recreation Master Plan.
General Plan Policies Polices Related to the Urban Core

1) Continue to pursue a city-wide standard for the provision of developed
parkland for new development projects on a basis equivalent to three
acres per estimated one thousand new residents. (PFS 15.1)
2) Consider a combination of land dedication, improvements, and/or in-
lieu fees for park development improvements in the Northwest and
Southwest Planning Areas to better serve the public park and recreation
needs of future residents. (PFS 15.2)
3) Consider a broad mix of park types and facilities toward meeting park
requirements in the Northwest and Southwest planning areas in response
to existing development conditions and lack of land availability. Such
facilities could include urban parks, plazas, neighborhood parks and
community parks to meet the parkland dedication requirements of new
development in the west. (PFS 15.3)
4) Promote the inclusion of park and recreation facilities in or near
redevelopment areas to both serve the new development and to
contribute to meeting existing park and recreation needs. (PFS 15.4)
D Appendix D-35
5) Use park dedication, location and site design and acceptance of dedication
standards as provided in the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, the Park Dedication Ordinance and the Recreation Development
Impact Fee (DIF) program, as may be amended from time to time. (PFS
15.5)
6) Amend the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to add a new “urban park”
definition for parks that may be developed within western Chula Vista,
subject to specific siting, design and park dedication and credit criteria.
(PFS 15.8)
7) Pursue the funding, design and development of a connected park as
part of the Civic Center complex which links Will T. Hyde/Friendship
Park, the Civic Center and Parkway Memorial Park. (PFS 15.10)
8) Consider the design of non-traditional, uniquely themed parks in
the Urban Core and Bayfront that are “stand-alone” attractions or
destinations, having unique character and features. (PFS 15.11)
The foregoing polices will guide implementation of parks and facilities
within the Urban Core.
The Specific Plan area is expected to have a system of public parks, plazas,
promenades, and paseos that will contribute to the parks and recreation
facilities that currently exist in the City. The following parks and open spaces
exist or are expected to be constructed in the Specific Plan area.
Existing:
• Eucalyptus Park, approximately 18 acres
• Will T. Hyde/Friendship Park, approximately 4 acres
• Norman Park & Community Senior Center, approximately 1.5 acres
Proposed:
• Lower Sweetwater, approximately 15 to 20 acres
• Memorial Park Annex, approximately 3 to 5 acres
• Promenade Park west of Broadway, approximately 12 to 15 acres
In addition, a series of urban plazas are envisioned along Third Avenue, H Street,
and Broadway, as well as a pedestrian promenade along F Street connecting
downtown Third Avenue with the bayfront, which will also add recreational value
to urban life.

c. General Plan Discussion: Joint Use of Park and School Facilities (PFS
18)
Increased intensity of development in western Chula Vista and lack of vacant
and underutilized land for park facilities will result in an increased demand on
parks and schools for recreational facilities. Joint use of facilities provides an
opportunity for the school children and the general public to mutually benefit.
Chula Vista
Public demand for field space for youth leagues exceeds the City’s supply
of sports fields in City parks, due to competing demands with adult athletic
leagues and the sheer number of youth sports teams to accommodate. The
City currently relies on individual elementary, middle, and high schools to allow
use of the schools’ fields by Youth Sports Council leagues.

1) Promote the City Council and the Boards of the two School Districts
entering into long-term master agreements to allow allocation of
school fields to the City’s Youth Sports Council leagues via a process
administered by the City, and to allow after-school use of classrooms at
different schools for recreation classes. (PFS 18.1)
2) Coordinate with the School Districts on the design of school grounds
council leagues. (PFS 18.2)
3) Consider siting elementary schools adjacent to neighborhood parks,
where feasible, to allow for expanded use of the school grounds and
classrooms by the general public and the park area by the school
children. (PFS 18.3)
The foregoing polices will guide the City in discussions with the
School Districts on possible joint use of facilities within the Urban
Core.
D Appendix D-37
G. Energy and Telecommunications
1. Energy
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) owns, operates and maintains the pipes,
wires and appurtenances needed to transport natural gas and transmit and
distribute electricity to Chula Vista residential, commercial, industrial and
institutional facilities. These two forms of energy are essential to everyday life
in Chula Vista. SDG&E estimates that additional infrastructure may be needed
to deliver energy, serve a growing population, maintain local and regional
reliability, and move energy through the western regional U.S. system. SDG&E
projects that infrastructure may include new electricity distribution substations
in the western part of the City. The following objective and policies relate to the
provision of energy to the City. A discussion and related policies addressing
energy conservation are contained in the Environmental Element, Chapter 9 of
the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan.
2. Telecommunications
Telecommunications services in Chula Vista include telephone, cable and
wireless communication services and are provided by several companies.
Future communication technologies may expand into other fields. Infrastructure
upgrades are being made by private providers to facilitate high-speed data
transmission and interactive video capabilities. The City encourages constructing
new office and industrial buildings with state-of-the-art telecommunication
circuits to utilize these upgrades.

Objectives and policies directing the generation and delivery of energy are
arranged around specific topics or issues. The following describes an issue
or topic and how the City has planned for adequate service for the Specific
Plan through the General Plan. Supporting objectives and policies follow the
discussion.
a. General Plan Discussion: Powering Chula Vista (PFS 22)

Population growth in Chula Vista will increase demand for energy and power.
In response to energy needs, the City embarked on a mission to identify viable
options to control the City’s energy future. On May 29, 2001, the City Council
adopted the City of Chula Vista Energy Strategy and Action Plan (Energy Strategy)
and adopted an ordinance to investigate the possibility of creating a municipal
utility.

The Energy Strategy identifies recommended actions, including monitoring the
energy market and legal restrictions, being prepared to enter into an Electrical
Services Contract with an Energy Services Provider or power generator as allowed
by law, partnering with a third party to build and operate power generation
facilities, developing an emissions offset program based on mobile sources,
becoming a municipal “aggregator” and acquiring electricity at negotiated rates
for City facilities and participating residents and business owners, expanding Chula Vista
energy conservation projects for City facilities and promoting energy efficient
and renewable energy programs for businesses and residents, and developing
and implementing a legislative strategy that facilitates the City’s overall energy
plan.

All policies regarding energy and telecommunications are implemented
on a city-wide basis. The Specific Plan does provide for the review of
buildings for greater energy efficiency and promotes standards for
sustainability in Section 4. Special Guidelines of Chapter VII - Design
Guidelines.
D Appendix D-39
Program
E. Description of Improvements D-43
F. Mobility Improvements D-44
G. Urban Amenity Improvements D-49 Chula
ChulaVista
Vista
H. Additional Community Improvements D-52
D Appendix D-41
Program
E. Description of Improvements
The following components describe the general approach to achieve the vision
and fulfill the objectives for the Urban Core as outlined in the Specific Plan. Chula Vista
The following sections overview the factors and standards that have been
used to develop the facilities list for the Specific Plan. Appendix D - Facilities
Implementation Analysis is a complete listing of facilities, initial priority, order
of magnitude costs, and likely funding source for implementation.
• Mobility Improvements: This component describes various methods of

improving mobility in the Urban Core through investments in pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, street and parking systems.
• Amenity Improvements: This component describes various methods of
improving the quality of the urban environment through investments in
amenities such as street furnishings, gateways, wayfinding signs, public
art, and storefront facade upgrades.
• Additional Community Improvements: This component addresses the
method for investing in and improving existing and new community
facilities such as parks, plazas, schools, utilities, and infrastructure.
• Key Short-Term Demonstration Projects: This section describes a number
of selected short-term public improvement projects that the City should
undertake to demonstrate its commitment to revitalizing the Urban Core
and the potential for achieving the goals of the Specific Plan.
• Potential Funding Sources: The method to obtain the community benefits
listed above includes harnessing the power of private investment and
the strategic use of available public funds. This section outlines both
private investment obligations and the most likely sources of public
funds that are potentially available to the City.
D Appendix D-43
F. Mobility Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on mobility systems with the primary
goal of achieving a balanced transportation system. Inherent in this goal are
initiatives that serve to calm traffic, create a friendlier pedestrian and bicycle
environment, and vastly improve the availability and service of public transit.
Also important to the Specific Plan are mobility connections to other areas of
the city, including the eastern Chula Vista and Bayfront areas.
1. Pedestrian Facilities – Capital Projects

The primary goal of pedestrian facilities is to provide logical, convenient,
and safe paths of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making walking a
preferred method of travel.
a. Sidewalks on all streets throughout the planning area should be

improved to include adequate width, a safe and smooth walking surface,
and adequate lighting levels as specified in Chapter VIII - Public Realm
Design Guidelines. In some cases, additional right-of-way (ROW) or public
easements may be needed. Additional amenities such as directional
signs, benches, and shade trees are important elements that improve
the level of quality for pedestrian facilities. (See cross-sections and
intersections in Chapter V - Mobility.)
1) Third Avenue: special paving 14-foot or more wide, depending on
diagonal parking locations (between E Street and G Street)
2) E Street: standard paving, between 9-foot and 13-foot wide (need
additional 22 feet total, or 11 feet on each side, of easement between
I-5 and 300 feet east of ramp)
3) F Street: standard paving, 16-foot wide with a 6-foot wide Class I
bike path in the center of the sidewalk
4) H Street: special paving, 16-foot wide (need additional 38 feet total
of easement between I-5 and Broadway for sidewalk and additional
travel lane, need additional 8 feet total additional ROW of easement
between Broadway and Third Avenue for sidewalk)
5) Broadway: standard paving, 9-foot wide
6) Woodlawn Avenue: standard paving, 12-foot wide or 24 feet total
both sides
7) All other major streets: standard paving, minimum 10-foot wide
b. Crosswalks at all intersections throughout the planning area shall be
clearly marked and improved as specified in Chapter VIII - Public Realm
Design Guidelines.

1) Special paving at all intersections in the Village District along Third
Avenue
2) Special paving at intersections along H Street at Third Avenue, Fourth
Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn Avenue, and I-5
3) Special paving at intersections along Broadway at E Street, F Street,
G Street, and H Street Chula Vista
c. Mid-block crosswalks at selected locations, as described in Chapter VIII
- Public Realm Design Guidelines, shall be installed.
• Mid-block with special paving and advanced crossing technology at
four locations along Third Avenue in the Village District
d. Paseos that connect residential areas, public parking lots, and other
facilities to adjacent streets and pedestrian destinations are a key
element in an enhanced pedestrian environment. Paseos should be
incorporated into private and public improvement projects as necessary
to provide exemplary pedestrian access.
2. Bicycle Facilities – Capital Projects

The primary goal of bicycle facilities is to provide logical, convenient, and safe
paths of travel throughout the Specific Plan area, making cycling a preferred
method of travel. To supplement the proposed actions, a bike users map will
be prepared to assist commuters and recreational riders in getting around the
Urban Core and finding directions to various destinations.
a. A boardwalk should be created along H Street and F Street that connects

the Urban Core to the Bayfront area. The boardwalk shall consist of an
elevated Class I bike path a minimum of 6-foot wide located in the center
of the sidewalk on each side of H Street and F Street. The bike paths
shall be marked with colored paving and signed to minimize conflicts
between pedestrians, vehicles, and bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards will
also be evaluated for Davidson Street and G Street.
b. Class II bicycle lanes, at a minimum of 6-foot wide, should be installed
on Broadway and along the segments of F Street where a Class I bike
path cannot be accommodated.
c. Class III bike routes should be established on the following streets:
Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Third Avenue, E Street, G Street, I Street, J Street,
K Street.
d. End of trip facilities, as specified in the updated City Bicycle Master Plan,
should include secured bike racks and bike lockers.
D Appendix D-45
3. Transit Facilities – Policy Initiatives and Capital Projects
The primary goal of transit facilities is to provide a convenient and dependable
alternative to automobile travel throughout the Specific Plan area.
• Establish a West Side Shuttle with service on H Street, Third Avenue, E
Street or F Street, and Broadway with connections to the Bayfront and
Trolley stations at E Street and H Street. The West Side Shuttle should
have a relatively short headway of approximately 15 minutes and should
run in both directions.
b. Capital Projects
1) Purchase shuttle vehicles as specified in West Side Shuttle program.
2) Establish shuttle stations consisting of expanded curb and vehicle
pullout areas and signs at the following locations:
• Third Avenue at H Street, F Street and E Street
• E Street at Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Trolley station and Bayfront
• Broadway at F Street and G Street
• H Street at Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Woodlawn
Avenue, Trolley station and Bayfront
3) Provide bus stops and shelters at each of the shuttle locations for use
by shuttle loop service and city-wide bus and transit service.
4. Intersection Improvements - Capital Projects

The primary goal of street improvements is to provide a safe and efficient driving
environment, quality road surfaces, and improved traffic operations through
lane configurations and intersection designs. Intersections at the following
locations will need to be improved to accommodate expected traffic demands.
These improvements will include upgraded traffic control, signals and signal
timing, turning lanes, and through lane configurations.
a. Priority of Intersection Improvements

Intersection improvements have been divided into three tiers based on priority,
with the most important and immediate improvements classified as Tier 1. In
each individual tier, the City’s existing monitoring program will determine exactly
which projects are implemented first during the biannual CIP program review.
The intersection numbers correspond to the numbering system provided in
Appendix B – Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc.

• #1 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street
• #2 I-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street
• #24 I-5 Southbound Ramp/H Street
• #25 I-5 Northbound Ramp/H Street Chula Vista
• #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street
• #27 Broadway/H Street
• #28 Fifth Avenue/H Street
• #29 Fourth Avenue/H Street
• #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound Ramp
• #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp
• #61 L Street/Bay Boulevard
• #63 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp
• #64 Industrial Boulevard/I-5 Northbound Ramp
• H Street from four lanes to six lanes from I-5 to Broadway
• #13 Broadway/F Street
• #45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street
• #57 Second Avenue/D Street
D Appendix D-47
5. Parking Systems – Policy Initiatives
The primary goal of the parking policy is to provide ample, convenient and
dependable public parking facilities at three primary locations within the Urban
Core:
• The Village District
• H Street Transit Focus Area (TFA)
• E Street TFA
These areas will likely be parking districts designed to assist the private sector
in minimizing the provision of on-site parking and providing ample parking for
users in each of these areas.
a. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare an update

to the parking district in the Village District. This analysis shall address
the phased provision of additional public parking including:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of existing public spaces through shared
and
4) Updating the in-lieu fee program.
b. In five years, or sooner upon identification of need, prepare a parking
analysis that addresses the following for the H Street and E Street
TFAs:
1) Maintaining the equivalent of existing public parking through shared
and
4) Determining the appropriateness of an in-lieu fee program.

G. Urban Amenity Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy and design guidance on urban amenities with
the primary goal of achieving a physically enhanced and visually attractive
urban environment that is a desirable destination within Chula Vista.
1. Streetscapes - Capital Projects Chula Vista

a. Prepare streetscape master plans for selected streets in the Urban Core.
Master plans should be prepared with community involvement and
should be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the
Specific Plan. Streetscape master plans should address the following
elements:
1) Coordination with adjacent infill development in order that street
widening and urban design amenities can be incrementally
implemented, to the extent feasible, concurrent with new development
projects.
2) Coordinated design with street improvement projects, including
intersection, infrastructure, and mid-block and crosswalk designs.
3) Detailed designs and materials specifications for all sidewalk areas,
including paving, street furnishings, street trees, decorative street
lights and other elements.
4) Street master plans should be prepared for the following areas:
a) Third Avenue between E Street and H Street
b) Broadway between C Street and L Street
c) H Street between I-5 and Del Mar Avenue
d) F Street between I-5 and Del Mar Avenue
e) E Street between I-5 and Del Mar Avenue
b. Prepare plans for the I-5 overcrossings that include enhanced sidewalk
paving, decorative lighting, street furnishings, public art, and other
elements. Coordinate the designs with gateways and streetscape plans
for these areas. Plans should be prepared for the following locations:
1) H Street
2) F Street
3) E Street
D Appendix D-49
2. Gateways - Capital Projects
Prepare detailed design plans for selected gateways in the Urban Core.
Gateway plans should be prepared with community involvement and should
be consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the Specific Plan.
The gateway plans may be developed and implemented as part of private
development occurring at gateway locations. Plans should be prepared for the
following locations:
a. Primary Gateways
1) I-5 and E Street
2) I-5 and H Street
3) Third Avenue and E Street
4) Fourth Avenue and C Street
b. Secondary Gateways
1) I-5 and F Street
2) Third Avenue and H Street
3. Wayfinding - Capital Projects

Prepare a wayfinding directional sign program for the Specific Plan area. The
program should include incorporation of the City logo or other Urban Core
identity brand, informational and directional sign designs to facilities such as
public parking, public facilities and other important destinations. The program
should include sign hierarchy and conceptual designs, should be prepared
with community involvement, and should be consistent with the guidelines and
recommendations of the Specific Plan. Actual capital projects will depend on
the resulting plan or sign program.
4. Public Art - Policy Initiatives

Complete the art in public places program and implement through project
review on individual developments and various public improvement projects.

5. Storefront/Facade Improvements – Policy Initiatives and
Capital Projects
1) Update the storefront façade improvement program in the Village
District.
Chula Vista
2) Prepare a new storefront façade improvement program for the Urban
Core District along Broadway.
b. Capital Projects
• Fund storefront and façade improvement projects through the provision
of grants in compliance with the adopted program.
D Appendix D-51
H. Additional Community Improvements
The Specific Plan provides policy guidance on a range of public facilities and
services with the primary goal of providing excellent facilities and services for
the Urban Core residents and visitors. Inherent in this goal are initiatives that
serve to produce additional park space; adequate and efficient use of public
schools, plazas, and paseo systems; and upgraded utilities and infrastructure.
1. Parks
Pursue park opportunity sites within the Urban Core. Each potential park site
should be located as specified in the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Each park should contain facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan update. The following are general areas for park improvements in
the Urban Core:
a. Lower Sweetwater Community Park (approximately 15 to 20 acres)
b. Memorial Park Annex (approximately 3 to 5 acres)
c. Park west of Broadway (approximately 12 to 15 acres)
2. Plazas - Capital Projects

Pursue plaza improvement projects, with amenities as outlined in this Specific
Plan, in conjunction with new development at the general locations shown on
Figure 8.69 of Chapter VIII - Public Realm Design Guidelines.
3. Schools - Policy Initiatives
Coordinate with Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the
Sweetwater Unified High School District (SUHSD) to determine the need for
additional school facility space as outlined Chapter IX – Infrastructure and
Public Facilities.
4. Sustainable Development - Green Building Demonstration

The recently established National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities
(NECSC) will serve as a tremendous resource to the City throughout the life of
the Specific Plan. In partnership with the NECSC, the City will look to generate
grant funding specific to the Urban Core that will support commitments
from developers to undertake a green building demonstration program.
Through existing agreements and future development programs, the City will
target the Urban Core to create an urban model for sustainable community
development.

A new resource guide could be developed which includes expanded sustainability
goals, design principles and tools for designing and building in a mixed-use
or urban development market. A Resource Guide for Sustainable Urban
Development could expand upon the Environmental Sustainability Goals and
Design Principles included in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines and help establish
a framework for the creation of a sustainable Urban Core.
Chula Vista
D Appendix D-53
C. Long Term Implementation
This section consists of the Final Report on Facilities Implementation Analysis,
which addresses projected cost estimates, projected timing, and projected
revenues, such as development impact fees and tax increment financing;
Chapter XI - Plan Administration, Section C. Specific Plan Administration, which
addresses the Specific Plan’s application to subsequent development projects;
and the Final Environmental Impact Report’s Mitigation and Monitoring Program
(MMRP).

Program
D. Long Term Implementation Process D-57
Chula
ChulaVista
Vista
D Appendix D-55
D. Long Term Implementation Process
From the beginning of the Specific Plan process, there has been a keen awareness
that the adoption and implementation of the plan will rest on the amenity value
that new development can bring. This value cannot be achieved by attractive
pictures and vague promises of future action. Among the key benefits of the
Specific Plan will be amenities and capacity enhancements, in the form of such Chula Vista
elements as parks, pedestrian spaces, utilities, transit accommodation and
roadway improvements. The effort to plan and program the delivery of these
essential public facilities within the Urban Core will be especially challenging. In
new communities, the City has assessed such matters through the preparation
of Public Facilities Finance Plans (PFFPs). These documents have served well
to address the extension of facilities coinciding with the relatively short-term
timing of new master planned neighborhoods and subdivision improvements.
However, the Urban Core presents a vastly different set of circumstances: the
placement or upgrading of public facilities within an existing neighborhood, in
support of infill and redevelopment over a period of perhaps decades.
For the reasons stated above, the Specific Plan relies on a systematic approach
to the delivery of public facilities. These facilities are designed to fulfill the
obligations and objectives handed down from the General Plan. The public
facilities program also fits well with the ongoing efforts of City construction
and operating departments as these departments pursue their own particular
studies, creative implementation approaches, and master plans.
The flow chart presented in Figure D.1 was prepared to show how the Urban
Core project includes necessary components to inform the future citywide or
western Chula Vista Impact Fee, Facilities Master Plan, and Capital Improvement
Program processes. The key bridge from the plan and its regulations into public
facilities is this Appendix D.
The implementation of the Specific Plan is also seen as somewhat dynamic and
is subject to ongoing monitoring and priority-setting. While projects are assigned
priorities based on 2005 factors, the timing and location of development may
require that certain facilities be advanced in priority. This schedule assessment
will be accomplished through a review of facility performance as part of the
biannual review of the Citywide Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget
and through the preparation and maintenance of the City’s facilities financing
and fee strategies, as these items may be adopted and amended from time to
time. Any change in priorities, timing and valuation from the facilities program
associated with the CIP or facilities program shall not require the amendment
of the Specific Plan, as long as such changes, additions or subtractions are not
in conflict with the applicable CEQA review documents for this Specific Plan.
D Appendix D-57
Economic &
Planning Systems
Real Estate Economics
Regional Economics
Public Finance
Land Use Policy
FINAL REPORT

CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS

Prepared for:

City of Chula Vista

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

May 2007

EPS #15001
BERKELEY SACRAMENTO DENVER

2501 Ni nt h St., Suite 200 Phone : 510-841-9190 Phone : 916-649-8010 Phone : 303-623-3557
Berkele y, CA 94710-2515 Fax: 510-841-9208 Fax: 916-649-2070 Fax: 303-623-9049
www.epsys.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...........................................................1
Summary of Findings ...............................................................................................1
II. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS ....................................................................................3
III. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS...................................................................................14
IV. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS ....................................................................17

Calculation of Applicable Impact Fees..................................................................17
Development Feasibility Impacts of Impact Fees.................................................26
V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POTENTIAL................................................................30
VI. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................40

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements .........................................4
Table 2: Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements—
Percentages .........................................................................................................8
Table 3: Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements—
Dollar Amounts ................................................................................................10
Table 4: Allocation of Improvement Costs by Purpose and Geography
through Time ....................................................................................................12
Table 5: Development Absorption Projections by Time Period..................................16
Table 6: Transportation Development Impact Fee Estimate .......................................19
Table 7: Transportation Development Impact Fee Projections through Time ...........20
Table 8: Traffic Signal Development Impact Fee Estimate ..........................................22
Table 9: Traffic Signal Fee Projections through Time ..................................................23
Table 10: Parks Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Estimate ...........................24
Table 11: Parks Acquisition and Development Fee Projections through Time............25
Table 12: Total Combined Development Impact Fee Projections through Time.........27
Table 13: Feasibility Impacts of Estimated Development Impact Fees ........................28
Table 14: Projected Tax Increment Available for Urban Core Projects
through Time ....................................................................................................32
Table 15: Improvement Costs vs. Projected Tax Increment and Impact Fees
through Time ....................................................................................................35
Table 16: Projected Tax Increment Bonding Capacity by Year .....................................36
Table 17: Projected Tax Increment and Bonding Capacity Available
for Urban Core Projects through Time............................................................37
Table 18: Required Tax Increment Bond and Debt Service to Cover
Years 5‐10 Shortfall...........................................................................................38

Figure 1: City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Areas ........................................31

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) and McGill Martin Self (MMS) have been retained
by the City of Chula Vista to prepare a Facilities Implementation Analysis (FIA) for the
Urban Core Specific Plan. The FIA involves the following analyses:

1. Cost estimates, definitions of purpose, and allocation of geographic areas of
benefit for the public improvements called for in the Specific Plan;

2. Projections of development in the Urban Core Specific Plan area over the next
several decades;

3. Identification of public improvements that may be funded through nexus‐based
development impact fee programs;

4. Identification of any temporary and overall funding deficits attributable to
shortfalls in fee revenues versus the costs of improvements;

5. Evaluation of the impacts of such fees on the feasibility of new development;

6. Discussion of the availability and applicability of alternative funding
mechanisms, including redevelopment tax increment;

7. Revenue estimates for the tax increment likely to be generated through
redevelopment in the Urban Core.

This analysis is intended to provide the decision‐makers of the City of Chula Vista with
an understanding of the purposes of various improvements, the extent to which the
development in the Urban Core is likely to support the required costs of those
improvements, and the various mechanisms through which those funds could be
generated. This knowledge will be critical in prioritizing the public infrastructure and
facility investments in various locations and at various times.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This analysis has led to the following conclusions:

1. The public improvements called for in the Urban Core Specific Plan are
estimated to cost a total of $135 million in today’s dollars. These improvements
include projects for transportation, traffic signalization, transit, and public spaces
(parks and plazas).

2. A limited group of these public improvements are required to provide new
capacity for development expected to occur in the Urban Core. The remaining
improvements are required to address existing deficiencies and/or aesthetic
1 P:\15000s\15001Chula\Report\051607FinalRpt.doc
Final Report
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis
May 16, 2007

improvements in the Urban Core, and may have wider areas of benefit, including
the Bayfront, Western Chula Vista, or the entire City.

3. Based on the findings and projections of market research, it is estimated that
roughly 3,600 housing units, 259,000 square feet of retail, 1.1 million square feet
of office space, and 650,000 square feet of hotel/motel will be developed in the
Urban Core Specific Plan area through the year 2030. Full buildout of the Urban
Core’s expected future development—an additional 3,500 housing units and
200,000 square feet of office—may not occur for several additional decades.

4. The imposition of development impact fees in the Urban Core based only on
those improvements required to mitigate the demands from new development
would result in Transportation and Traffic Signal fees that are below the current
levels being levied in Chula Vista. The Parks Acquisition and Development
(PAD) fee calculated for the Urban Core would be slightly higher than the PAD
fees currently applicable in Western Chula Vista, but well below the current
levels in the Eastern Territories.

5. The impact fee revenues would not cover the full costs of improvements as
detailed in the Specific Plan, and are also expected to lag behind the desired pace
of improvements, which are heavily concentrated in the “5‐10 year” timeframe.
In sum, the impact fees calculated herein would be expected to cover roughly
half of the total costs of improvements included in the Specific Plan.

6. The impact fees, as calculated for the Urban Core, would not materially affect the
feasibility of desired residential or commercial development.

7. The development and continued value escalation of Redevelopment Project Area
parcels within Western Chula Vista is projected to yield a total of nearly $200
million (present value) in tax increment through the year 2036. This does not
include or assume any increase in revenue related to development proposals
currently being discussed for the Bayfront area.

8. If impact fees are levied in the Urban Core as calculated in this document, only
about $67 million or 35 percent of the tax increment would be required to fund
other improvements not covered by the impact fees, leaving roughly $127 million
(present value) for other projects within western Chula Vista redevelopment
areas.

9. Alternative funding sources such as regional or intergovernmental grants,
Capital Improvements Program funds, developer exactions, and land‐secured
financing (Mello‐Roos districts) may also be appropriate and attainable for
certain improvements, thereby lowering the financial burden on the desired
Urban Core development and allowing more tax increment funds to be used for
other priorities in the City.


II. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS
The Urban Core Specific Plan identifies a variety of public facilities for which this
implementation analysis has been prepared. Some of these facilities are required to
provide capacity for new residents, workers, and visitors to the Urban Core. Examples
include intersection and roadway improvements, park improvements, etc. Other public
facilities in the Specific Plan serve users beyond the Urban Core, such as the interchange
and transit improvements that will be used by Bayfront and Eastern Chula Vista
populations as well as those in Urban Core.

City staff, MMS, and EPS have established the list and estimated the costs of public
improvements associated with the Urban Core Specific Plan, as shown on Table 1. The
costs for these improvements have been estimated with contingencies included, and
have been verified as reasonably conservative by City engineering staff. As shown, it is
estimated that the total costs of public improvements for the Urban Core Specific Plan
will total roughly $135 million, in today’s dollars.

The list of improvements has been segregated into four categories: transportation
improvements, traffic signals, transit improvements, and public spaces. This
categorization is helpful in estimating the levels of impact fees that would be required to
provide such improvements, and comparing those fees to the existing fees imposed in
the City of Chula Vista.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of the public improvement costs are categorized as
transportation improvements. These include freeway interchange improvements, street
widenings, added turn lanes, roadway restriping, etc. Sidewalk and crosswalk
improvements are also shown in this category, as these improvements would be most
efficiently constructed during the improvement of the streets.

Public spaces comprise the second largest category of costs. Table 1 shows that three
major park improvements would be required under the Specific Plan—Lower
Sweetwater Park, Memorial Park, and Promenade Park. The costs of acquiring land and
developing park features are included in these cost estimates. In addition, numerous
plazas are envisioned throughout the Urban Core. These plazas would provide a
different type of public space than would a traditional park, but are similar in providing
public access to places for congregation and recreation.

EPS has assumed that the public space acquisitions and improvements generally would
be phased according to the demands created by residential development in the Urban
Core, but in fact may occur more opportunistically as parcels are available. Also, it is
important to note that the park improvements (excluding the plazas) sum to roughly 33
to 40 acres. This amount may not be adequate for all of the residential development
ultimately envisioned by the Specific Plan, but the total demand is assumed to be met in
combination with proposed plazas in the Urban Core and parks in the Bayfront area.
Table 1
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements
Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis; EPS #15001
Total Time Description/

Improvements Comments Cost Frame Comments
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Bay Blvd/I-5 SB Ramp/E Street Restripe At Ramp $10,000 0-5 years Add EB, SB and NB right-turn lanes
F Street Improvements (I-5 to Fourth Ave.) 48 feet wide, Includes Class I or II Bike Lane $6,056,000 0-5 years
Standard paving of 16' wide incl. landscaping,

F Street Sidewalk Improvements (I-5 to Fourth Ave.) sidewalk lighting $3,813,000 0-5 years tree wells and furniture/lighting?
Add protective plus permissive phasing, add a 12'
wide westbound right turn lane 120' in length
Fifth Ave/H Street Change Approach included in CIP $74,000 0-5 years Change NB/SB approaches
Fourth Ave/H Street Add Lane $74,000 0-5 years Add EB/WB right-turn lane
Fourth Ave/SR-54 EB Ramp Add Lane $74,000 0-5 years Add EB right-turn lane
I-5 NB Ramp/E Street Add Lane & LRT Coordinate with CalTrans, Only Restripe $10,000 0-5 years Add lane and LRT grade separation
I-5 NB Ramp/H Street Add Lanes/LRT/Restripe Coordinate with CalTrans, Only Restripe $10,000 0-5 years Add lanes, LRT grade separation & restripe
I-5 SB Ramp/H Street Add Lanes Coordinate with CalTrans, Only Restripe $10,000 0-5 years Add SB left, EB thru and right turn lanes
Third Ave/E Street Convert Lanes Right Turn lanes, striping Convert to exclusive right-turn lanes
4
$10,000 0-5 years

Third Ave/F Street Convert Lanes Right Turn lanes, striping $10,000 0-5 years Convert to exclusive right-turn lanes
Third Ave/G Street Convert Lanes Right Turn lanes, striping $10,000 0-5 years Convert to exclusive right-turn lanes
Third Avenue Crosswalk Paving (Village District) Includes 8 crosswalks at intersections $550,000 0-5 years Crosswalk special paving along Third Ave
Assume Special Paving between 14 to 38' wide
(depends on diagonal parking)' Sidewalk
monolithic curb and gutter, driveways and 16' wide improvements incl. landscaping,
Third Avenue Sidewalk Improvements sidewalk lighting. $1,744,000 0-5 years furniture, tree wells, and lighting
38' wide improvements at mid-block crossings
incl. landscaping, furniture, tree wells, and
Third Avenue Midblock Improvements (5 @ 50' LF each) Midblock Crossings and enhanced sidewalk $954,000 0-5 years lighting
Third Avenue Street Improvements (E to G St.) Narrow most of Third repave entire road $5,014,000 0-5 years
Assume Special Paving 9' wide Sidewalk
monolithic curb and gutter, driveways, sidewalk
Broadway Sidewalk Improvements (C to L St.) lighting $7,469,000 5-10 years
Broadway Special Paving-Crosswalks Assume Stamped Paving 8' wide $93,000 5-10 years Crosswalk special paving at E, F, G, H Streets
Widen Road 14 ' New pavement (82' curb to curb
with 12' raised median), street lights, lane Median & landscaping, lighting, curb-gutter,
Broadway Street Improvements (E to F St.) markings, curb, gutter and drainage $3,066,000 5-10 years bike lanes
New pavement (82' curb to curb with 12' raised
median), street lights, lane markings, curb, gutter Total cost adjusted by $6M to incl. current
Broadway Street Improvements (C to E St., F to L St.) and drainage $15,635,000 5-10 years TransNet program improvements.
Broadway/SR-54 WB Ramp Restripe Restripe At Ramp $10,000 5-10 years Restripe into shared left-right lane
Widen E Street Six Feet 300 feet in length,
E Street Improvements (I-5 to 300' east of ramp) railroad arms relocate, restripe bridge $139,000 5-10 years
H Street Improvements (I-5 to Broadway) 86' wide, 14' raised median, street lights $4,951,000 5-10 years
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5/18/2006 P:\15000s\15001ChulaVistaCoreSP\Models\051806tbles.xls

Table 1

J Street/I-5 NB Ramp Add Lane Construction feasibility under review $10,000 5-10 years Add EB left-turn and WB right-turn lane
L Street/Bay Blvd Signal/Add lane Construction feasibility under review $474,000 5-10 years Add signal, SB left-turn, and NB right-turn
Standard paving 8'-13' incl. landscaping,
furniture, tree wells and lighting. Figure shown
Enhanced landscaping, driveways, sidewalk = 50% of estimate provided due to reduced
E Street Streetscape Improvements (I-5 to Broadway, 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave.) lighting $2,211,500 10 + Years scope of area to be improved.
H Street Improvements (Broadway to Third) 70' wide, 14' raised median, street lights $9,231,000 10 + Years
Assume Special Paving 16' wide Sidewalk
monolithic curb and gutter, driveways, sidewalk
lighting, need 38' ROW between I-5/Broadway, 8'
H Street Sidewalk Improvements ROW between Broadway/Third Ave) $1,988,000 10 + Years Does not incl. additional ROW costs.
Crosswalk special paving at Third, Fourth,
H Street Special Paving-Crosswalks (I-5 to Third Ave.) Assume Stamped Paving 8' wide $389,000 10 + Years Fifth, Broadway, Woodlawn & I-5
Woodlawn Ave Sidewalk Improvements (E to H St.) 20' wide standard $1,710,000 10 + Years
Woodlawn Ave Street Improvements (E to G St.) Include raised median connect to H street $4,668,750 10 + Years Doesn't include land acquisition costs
5
Subtotal, Transportation $70,468,250
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Bay Blvd/I-5 SB Ramp Signal Coordinate with Caltrans & CCV $250,000 5-10 years Add signal
Broadway/H Street Jumper Lane Signs, Traffic Signal Modification $38,000 5-10 years Add jumper lane or thru lane
Industrial Blvd/I-5 NB Ramp Signal Per CCV, CalTrans coordination. $250,000 5-10 years Add signal
Second Ave/D Street All-way Stop 4 Way Stop/ 2 Stop Signs $10,000 10 + Years Convert to all-way stop
Fourth Ave/Brisbane Street Signal Phase Per CCV add signal head, restripe, reprogram $74,000 10 + Years Add SB right-turn overlap phase to signal
Subtotal, Traffic Signal $622,000
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Cost per CCV (3 @ 3rd Ave, 4 @ E St., 2 @ At each shuttle stop by shuttle loop service and
Bus Shelters Broadway and 6 @ H St.) $169,000 5-10 years citywide bus and transit service
Subtotal, Transit Improvements $169,000

Table 1

PUBLIC SPACES
Parks
Lower Sweetwater Park & Improvements (UCSP Est.) 15-20 ac $30,000,000 5-10 years
Memorial Park Annex & Park Improvements (UCSP Est.) 3-5 ac $7,500,000 10 + Years
Promenade Park & Improvements (West of Broadway between E & H St.) (UCSP Est.) 15 ac $22,000,000 10 + Years
Subtotal, Parks $59,500,000

Plazas
3rd Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $350,000 0-5 years
I-5 & F Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 0-5 years
Third Ave & F Street Plaza Existing $350,000 0-5 years
Third Ave @ Memorial Park Plaza Existing $350,000 0-5 years
4th Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $350,000 5-10 years
5th Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $500,000 5-10 years
Broadway/E Street Plaza & Improvements $350,000 5-10 years
6
Broadway/H Street Plaza & Improvements $350,000 5-10 years

E St. @ Trolley Station $350,000 5-10 years
H Street @ Chula Vista Center (Mall) $350,000 10 + Years
H Street @ Woodlawn Plaza $350,000 10 + Years
I-5 & E Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 10 + Years
I-5 & H Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 10 + Years
Subtotal, Plazas $4,700,000
Subtotal, All Public Spaces (Parks and Plazas) $64,200,000
TOTAL, ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $135,459,250
Unit costs are expressed in 2005 dollars through the entire spreadsheet and will
be subject to change. Numbers are rounded to the thousandths dollar.
Sources: City of Chula Vista; McGill Martin Self; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Final Report
May 16, 2007

The costs for transit improvements and traffic signals are fairly minimal in the Urban
Core Specific Plan, with each category representing less than $1 million.

Tables 2 and 3 further define the costs of various improvements according to the
purpose of each improvement and the geographical areas of benefit. These distinctions
are critical in understanding the nexus between new development in the Urban Core
and the need for additional improvements, as well as identifying costs that should be
borne by a larger geographic area than just the Urban Core. For example, new
development in the Urban Core may not be responsible for fully funding improvements
that will substantially benefit new development in the Bayfront area or existing
development in the Eastern Territories. EPS has worked with City staff to conceptually
allocate the costs for various improvements by purpose and geography. Table 2 shows
these allocations by percentage of costs, while Table 3 calculates the actual dollars
amounts implied by those allocations.

It is important to note that the improvements shown as being the responsibility of the
Urban Core to provide new capacity are only those improvements identified as required
for mitigation in environmental impact assessments. All other costs are “optional” in
the sense that they are not required for environmental mitigation, and thus would not be
wholly attributable to new development in the Urban Core. This distinction represents a
highly conservative assumption regarding the nexus requirements for impact fees, as it
is possible that other improvements intended to serve new Urban Core development
may also be eligible for impact fee funding. This present study is not intended to fully
document the nexus relationships between development and needed improvements;
such analysis would be required separately prior to the adoption of any impact fees
unique to the Urban Core.

Table 4 provides an estimate of the improvement costs by category, purpose, and
geography in three different time periods—within five years, five to ten years, and ten
or more years. This assessment distinguishes those improvements that are most critical
to support new development in the near term from those that are likely to be required
only as the Urban Core undergoes substantial new development. As Table 4 shows,
most of the costs attributable to the need for added capacity for development in the
Urban Core are associated with public spaces. The transportation improvements are
largely allocated to Citywide responsibility, as many of the improvements are required
or desired to enhance traffic flow and the urban experience on major corridors that serve
the entire City rather than just Urban Core populations. Again, the Urban Core is
assigned only those transportation improvements identified as being required to
mitigate additional traffic associated with new development in the Urban Core—the
remaining costs are assumed to be more broadly shared.

It is important to note that several improvements envisioned for the Urban Core area are
not included in this analysis, for various reasons. Parking structures for the transit
stations and for the Village have not been included as costs in this Urban Core facilities
analysis, because they serve a City‐wide or even regional population and may be funded
through other means. Similarly, the costs of building pedestrian paseos have not been
Table 2
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements -- Percentages
Total Time % Needed For: Geographical Responsibility (%)

Improvements Cost Frame New Urban Bay- Western City-
Capacity Amenity Core Front C.V. wide
Bay Blvd/I-5 SB Ramp/E Street $10,000 0-5 years 100% 67% 33%
F Street Improvements (I-5 to Fourth Ave.) $6,056,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
F Street Sidewalk Improvements (I-5 to Fourth Ave.) $3,813,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Fifth Ave/H Street Change Approach $74,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Fourth Ave/H Street Add Lane $74,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Fourth Ave/SR-54 EB Ramp Add Lane $74,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
I-5 NB Ramp/E Street Add Lane & LRT $10,000 0-5 years 100% 67% 33%
I-5 NB Ramp/H Street Add Lanes/LRT/Restripe $10,000 0-5 years 100% 67% 33%
I-5 SB Ramp/H Street Add Lanes $10,000 0-5 years 100% 67% 33%
Third Ave/E Street Convert Lanes $10,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Third Ave/F Street Convert Lanes $10,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Third Ave/G Street Convert Lanes $10,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Third Avenue Crosswalk Paving (Village District) $550,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Third Avenue Sidewalk Improvements $1,744,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Third Avenue Midblock Improvements (5 @ 50' LF each) $954,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Third Avenue Street Improvements (E to G St.) $5,014,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
8
Broadway Sidewalk Improvements* (C to L St.) $7,469,000 5-10 years 100% 100%

Broadway Special Paving-Crosswalks $93,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Broadway Street Improvements (E to F St.) $3,066,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Broadway Street Improvements (C to E St., F to L St.) $15,635,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Broadway/SR-54 WB Ramp Restripe $10,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
E Street Improvements (I-5 to 300' east of ramp) $139,000 5-10 years 100% 67% 33%
H Street Improvements (I-5 to Broadway) $4,951,000 5-10 years 100% 67% 33%
J Street/I-5 NB Ramp Add Lane $10,000 5-10 years 100% 67% 33%
L Street/Bay Blvd Signal/Add lane $474,000 5-10 years 100% 67% 33%
E Street Streetscape Improvements (I-5 to Broadway, 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave.) $2,211,500 10 + Years 100% 50% 50%
H Street Improvements (Broadway to Third) $9,231,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
H Street Sidewalk Improvements $1,988,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
H Street Special Paving-Crosswalks (I-5 to Third Ave.) $389,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
Woodlawn Ave Sidewalk Improvements (E to H St.) $1,710,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
Woodlawn Ave Street Improvements (E to G St.) $4,668,750 10 + Years 100% 100%
Subtotal, Transportation $70,468,250
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Bay Blvd/I-5 SB Ramp Signal $250,000 5-10 years 100% 67% 33%
Broadway/H Street Jumper Lane $38,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Industrial Blvd/I-5 NB Ramp Signal $250,000 5-10 years 100% 67% 33%
Second Ave/D Street All-way Stop $10,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
Fourth Ave/Brisbane Street Signal Phase $74,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
Subtotal, Traffic Signal $622,000

Table 2
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements -- Percentages
Total Time % Needed For: Geographical Responsibility (%)

Bus Shelters $169,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Subtotal, Transit Improvements $169,000
PUBLIC SPACES
Parks
Lower Sweetwater Park & Improvements $30,000,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Memorial Park Annex & Park Improvements $7,500,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
Promenade Park & Improvements (West of Broadway between E & H St.) $22,000,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
Subtotal, Parks $59,500,000
Plazas
3rd Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $350,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
I-5 & F Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
9
Third Ave & F Street Plaza $350,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
Third Ave @ Memorial Park Plaza $350,000 0-5 years 100% 100%
4th Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $350,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
5th Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $500,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Broadway/E Street Plaza & Improvements $350,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
Broadway/H Street Plaza & Improvements $350,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
E St. @ Trolley Station $350,000 5-10 years 100% 100%
H Street @ Chula Vista Center (Mall) $350,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
H Street @ Woodlawn Plaza $350,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
I-5 & E Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
I-5 & H Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 10 + Years 100% 100%
Subtotal, Plazas $4,700,000
Subtotal, All Public Spaces (Parks and Plazas) $64,200,000
TOTAL, ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $135,459,250

Table 3
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements -- Dollar Amounts
Total Time $ Needed For: Geographical Responsibility ($)

Bay Blvd/I-5 SB Ramp/E Street $10,000 0-5 years $10,000 $0 $6,700 $3,300 $0 $0
F Street Improvements (I-5 to Fourth Ave.) $6,056,000 0-5 years $0 $6,056,000 $0 $0 $6,056,000 $0
F Street Sidewalk Improvements (I-5 to Fourth Ave.) $3,813,000 0-5 years $0 $3,813,000 $0 $0 $3,813,000 $0
Fifth Ave/H Street Change Approach $74,000 0-5 years $74,000 $0 $74,000 $0 $0 $0
Fourth Ave/H Street Add Lane $74,000 0-5 years $74,000 $0 $74,000 $0 $0 $0
Fourth Ave/SR-54 EB Ramp Add Lane $74,000 0-5 years $74,000 $0 $74,000 $0 $0 $0
I-5 NB Ramp/E Street Add Lane & LRT $10,000 0-5 years $10,000 $0 $6,700 $3,300 $0 $0
I-5 NB Ramp/H Street Add Lanes/LRT/Restripe $10,000 0-5 years $10,000 $0 $6,700 $3,300 $0 $0
I-5 SB Ramp/H Street Add Lanes $10,000 0-5 years $10,000 $0 $6,700 $3,300 $0 $0
Third Ave/E Street Convert Lanes $10,000 0-5 years $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Third Ave/F Street Convert Lanes $10,000 0-5 years $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Third Ave/G Street Convert Lanes $10,000 0-5 years $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
Third Avenue Crosswalk Paving (Village District) $550,000 0-5 years $0 $550,000 $0 $0 $0 $550,000
Third Avenue Sidewalk Improvements $1,744,000 0-5 years $0 $1,744,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,744,000
Third Avenue Midblock Improvements (5 @ 50' LF each) $954,000 0-5 years $0 $954,000 $0 $0 $0 $954,000
Third Avenue Street Improvements (E to G St.) $5,014,000 0-5 years $0 $5,014,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,014,000
10
Broadway Sidewalk Improvements* (C to L St.) $7,469,000 5-10 years $0 $7,469,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,469,000

Broadway Special Paving-Crosswalks $93,000 5-10 years $0 $93,000 $0 $0 $0 $93,000
Broadway Street Improvements (E to F St.) $3,066,000 5-10 years $0 $3,066,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,066,000
Broadway Street Improvements (C to E St., F to L St.) $15,635,000 5-10 years $0 $15,635,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,635,000
Broadway/SR-54 WB Ramp Restripe $10,000 5-10 years $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0
E Street Improvements (I-5 to 300' east of ramp) $139,000 5-10 years $139,000 $0 $93,130 $45,870 $0 $0
H Street Improvements (I-5 to Broadway) $4,951,000 5-10 years $4,951,000 $0 $3,317,170 $1,633,830 $0 $0
J Street/I-5 NB Ramp Add Lane $10,000 5-10 years $10,000 $0 $6,700 $3,300 $0 $0
L Street/Bay Blvd Signal/Add lane $474,000 5-10 years $474,000 $0 $317,580 $156,420 $0 $0
E Street Streetscape Improvements (I-5 to Broadway, 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave.) $2,211,500 10 + Years $0 $2,211,500 $1,105,750 $0 $1,105,750 $0
H Street Improvements (Broadway to Third) $9,231,000 10 + Years $0 $9,231,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,231,000
H Street Sidewalk Improvements $1,988,000 10 + Years $0 $1,988,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,988,000
H Street Special Paving-Crosswalks (I-5 to Third Ave.) $389,000 10 + Years $0 $389,000 $0 $0 $0 $389,000
Woodlawn Ave Sidewalk Improvements (E to H St.) $1,710,000 10 + Years $0 $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $0 $0 $0
Woodlawn Ave Street Improvements (E to G St.) $4,668,750 10 + Years $0 $4,668,750 $4,668,750 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal, Transportation $70,468,250 $5,846,000 $64,622,250 $11,477,880 $1,852,620 $10,974,750 $46,163,000
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Bay Blvd/I-5 SB Ramp Signal $250,000 5-10 years $250,000 $0 $167,500 $82,500 $0 $0
Broadway/H Street Jumper Lane $38,000 5-10 years $38,000 $0 $38,000 $0 $0 $0
Industrial Blvd/I-5 NB Ramp Signal $250,000 5-10 years $250,000 $0 $167,500 $82,500 $0 $0
Second Ave/D Street All-way Stop $10,000 10 + Years $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0
Fourth Ave/Brisbane Street Signal Phase $74,000 10 + Years $74,000 $0 $74,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal, Traffic Signal $622,000 $622,000 $0 $457,000 $165,000 $0 $0

Table 3
Allocation of Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements -- Dollar Amounts
Total Time $ Needed For: Geographical Responsibility ($)

Bus Shelters $169,000 5-10 years $0 $169,000 $0 $0 $0 $169,000
Subtotal, Transit Improvements $169,000 $0 $169,000 $0 $0 $0 $169,000
PUBLIC SPACES
Parks
Lower Sweetwater Park & Improvements $30,000,000 5-10 years $30,000,000 $0 $30,000,000 $0 $0 $0
Memorial Park Annex & Park Improvements $7,500,000 10 + Years $7,500,000 $0 $7,500,000 $0 $0 $0
Promenade Park & Improvements (West of Broadway between E & H St.) $22,000,000 10 + Years $22,000,000 $0 $22,000,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal, Parks $59,500,000 $59,500,000 $0 $59,500,000 $0 $0 $0
Plazas
3rd Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $350,000 0-5 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
11
I-5 & F Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 0-5 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
Third Ave & F Street Plaza $350,000 0-5 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
Third Ave @ Memorial Park Plaza $350,000 0-5 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
4th Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $350,000 5-10 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
5th Ave/H Street Plaza Improvements $500,000 5-10 years $500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0
Broadway/E Street Plaza & Improvements $350,000 5-10 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
Broadway/H Street Plaza & Improvements $350,000 5-10 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
E St. @ Trolley Station $350,000 5-10 years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
H Street @ Chula Vista Center (Mall) $350,000 10 + Years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
H Street @ Woodlawn Plaza $350,000 10 + Years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
I-5 & E Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 10 + Years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
I-5 & H Street Overcrossing Plaza $350,000 10 + Years $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal, Plazas $4,700,000 $4,700,000 $0 $4,700,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal, All Public Spaces (Parks and Plazas) $64,200,000 $64,200,000 $0 $64,200,000 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $135,459,250 $70,668,000 $64,791,250 $76,134,880 $2,017,620 $10,974,750 $46,332,000

Table 4
Allocation of Improvement Costs by Purpose and Geography through Time
Improvement Category Geography 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Total
Transportation Costs
New Capacity
Urban Core $248,800 $3,744,580 $0 $3,993,380
Bayfront $13,200 $1,839,420 $0 $1,852,620
Total $262,000 $5,584,000 $0 $5,846,000
Amenity
Urban Core $0 $0 $7,484,500 $7,484,500
Bayfront $0 $0 $0 $0
Western Chula Vista $9,869,000 $0 $1,105,750 $10,974,750
Citywide $8,292,000 $26,263,000 $11,608,000 $46,163,000
Total $18,161,000 $26,263,000 $20,198,250 $64,622,250
Traffic Signals
New Capacity
Urban Core $0 $373,000 $84,000 $457,000
Bayfront $0 $165,000 $0 $165,000
Total $0 $538,000 $84,000 $622,000
Transit Improvements
Amenity
Urban Core $0 $0 $0 $0
Western Chula Vista $0 $0 $0 $0
Citywide $0 $169,000 $0 $169,000
Total $0 $169,000 $0 $169,000
Public Spaces
New Capacity
Urban Core $1,400,000 $31,900,000 $30,900,000 $64,200,000
Total Improvements
New Capacity
Urban Core $1,648,800 $36,017,580 $30,984,000 $68,650,380
Bayfront $13,200 $2,004,420 $0 $2,017,620
Total $1,662,000 $38,022,000 $30,984,000 $70,668,000
Amenity
Urban Core $0 $0 $7,484,500 $7,484,500
Western Chula Vista $9,869,000 $0 $1,105,750 $10,974,750
Citywide $8,292,000 $26,432,000 $11,608,000 $46,332,000
Total $18,161,000 $26,432,000 $20,198,250 $64,791,250
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5/18/2006 12 P:\15000s\15001ChulaVistaCoreSP\Models\051806tbles.xls

Final Report
May 16, 2007

included, as it is assumed that private development would be encouraged to construct
these as part of their site plans. The costs of wastewater treatment facilities required to
serve new development are assumed to be fully funded through existing user fee
programs. And finally, the costs for grade crossings at E and H Streets are to be funded
through SANDAG as regional transportation improvements that will appropriately rely
on a combination of local, state and federal transportation dollars.

III. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The Urban Core Specific Plan proposes new zones to implement new development and
redevelopment within designated areas consistent with the Cityʹs General Plan over the
next 20 to 25 years. Because of the current developed condition of the Urban Core, and
the unique nature of urban revitalization, the exact extent, timing and sequence of infill
development and redevelopment pursuant to the new zones is unpredictable and
depends on a variety of factors. These include, but are not limited to, long‐term viability
associated with recent development; longevity of other existing residential and
commercial uses that may not redevelop over the 25 year planning horizon; preservation
of significant historic structures; and development costs associated with the acquisition,
demolition, and cleanup of urbanized land. To that end, the Specific Plan anticipates the
following projected buildout over the life of the plan consistent with the General Plan:

Type of Development Net New Development Potential in
Urban Core at Full Buildout
Multifamily Residential 7,100 units
Retail 1,650,000 square feet
Commercial 1,300,000 square feet
Hotel/Motel 650,000 square feet

Previous analyses generated by Economics Research Associates (ERA) projected the
amount of various types of development that are likely to occur during the next several
decades. The ERA work, presented in a documented entitled City of Chula Vista Urban
Core Specific Plan Market Analysis (June 2, 2005), indicated the following assumptions
could represent an aggressive growth scenario for the Urban Core through 2030:

Development Type Total Demand through 2030 Average Annual Absorption
Residential 3,639 Units 146 Units
Office 1,122,000 Square Feet 44,880 Square Feet

Note that the ERA study indicated that there would be no net new retail development in
the Urban Core, as the report determined that the Urban Core already had as much
retail as could be envisioned for the future. Also, the ERA report did not attempt to
estimate demand and absorption for hotel/motel space.

To estimate the total new development in the Urban Core over the next several decades,
EPS has used the ERA absorption projections for residential and office space, shown
above, and created new projections for retail and hotel/motel uses. The retail projections
are based on the amount of retail square footage envisioned in development projects
currently proposed or in various stages of the development pipeline. These retail square
footage figures were provided by City staff. EPS’s hotel/motel projections assume that
lodging development will be fully built out by 2030, because of high demand in the
Urban Core as the developments and amenities envisioned for the Bayfront are
completed.

Final Report
May 16, 2007

In sum, EPS has assembled the development projections for the Urban Core Specific
Plan Area shown on Table 5. These figures are applied to the various analyses that
follow in the next Chapter of this Report.
Table 5
Development Absorption Projections by Time Period
Absorption Projections by Time Period

Land Use Category 0-5 years 5-10 years 10-25 years >25 Years Total
Residential Units 730 730 2,179 3,461 7,100
Retail Square Feet (1) 234,000 25,000 0 0 259,000
Office Square Feet 224,400 224,400 673,200 178,000 1,300,000
Hotel/Motel Square Feet 130,000 130,000 390,000 0 650,000
(1) Total retail absorption is well below capacity created in the Specific Plan, corresponding to ERA's market analysis findings.
16
Only retail square footage included in currently proposed projects is assumed to be built in Urban Core.
Sources: City of Chula Vista; Economics Research Associates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

IV. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Enabled by AB 1600, development impact fees are required to establish the “nexus” or
quantitative relationship between new development’s demands on infrastructure, and
the costs to provide capacity to meet those demands. Jurisdictions may not charge
development impact fees that exceed the nexus‐based costs attributable to new
development. While this Facilities Implementation Analysis is not intended to establish
the nexus for development impact fees at the level of engineering detail required for a
legally defensible ordinance, it provides an estimate of the levels of fees that could be
charged to new development in accordance with nexus principles, and evaluates the
effects that such added costs may have on the feasibility of the types of development
desired in the Urban Core.

This analysis calculates what fees might be charged by impact type, based on the
development projected for the Urban Core Specific Plan alone, as a test of the feasibility
of the plan. For reference, the discussion refers to transportation development impact
fees (“TransDIF”), the Park Acquisition and Development Fee (“PAD”), and other terms
generally used in Chula Vista based on existing fee programs. However, this analysis is
restricted to the public improvement projects of the Urban Core Specific Plan and the
developments projected to take place within that plan area. It is not expected that the
City would establish a separate fee structure within this limited geography. Thus, at
such time as a TransDIF is established for this area, or future adjustments are made to
the PAD fees, those fees may vary significantly from the estimates contained in this
report.
CALCULATION OF APPLICABLE IMPACT FEES
As discussed in Chapter II, the public facilities included in the Urban Core Specific Plan
can be aggregated into only a few categories:

• Transportation Improvements—street widening, turning lanes, sidewalks and
crosswalks, etc.
• Traffic Signals—lights, stop signs, phasing, etc.
• Transit Improvements—bus shelters
• Public Spaces—acquisition and development of parks and plazas

Of these categories, it is clear that the costs for certain transportation improvements,
traffic signals, and public spaces would be eligible for funding through development
impact fees, as they are demonstrably related to new development and impact fees
currently exist for these purposes. Transit improvements are not as definitively related
to new development in the Urban Core, as they may represent expanded services that
serve the whole City or region, rather than just the residents, workers, and visitors of the
Urban Core.
Final Report
May 16, 2007

Certain transportation improvements are required to provide additional capacity on the
existing roadway network, so that the vehicular traffic added from residents, workers,
and visitors of the Urban Core will not cause congestion that causes health or safety
problems. The City currently imposes a Transportation Development Impact Fee
(TransDIF) on development in the Eastern Territories, and has proposed a similar fee to
be applied throughout the City. The TransDIF in the Eastern Territories was structured
for “greenfield” development, and in some cases is applied on a per‐acre basis that does
not reflect the conditions of the Urban Core, where redevelopment and higher density
uses will be more prevalent than development on vacant land, and per‐acre densities
and mixes of uses will be more variable.

Transportation improvements are typically allocated to development based on trip
generation—the number of vehicular trips that various types of development are likely
to generate on the local road network. Trip generation varies by the type of
development (residential, retail, office, etc.) and the context of the development
(pedestrian‐oriented mixed‐use area vs. auto‐oriented area). Table 6 shows trip
generation assumptions and calculations for the Urban Core Specific Plan at full
buildout. As shown, it is projected that development in the Urban Core will generate
over 100,000 daily vehicular trips at buildout, with residential development being
responsible for the largest proportion of these trips.

Table 6 also applies the trip generation calculations to the costs for transportation
improvements attributable to new development in the Urban Core, and calculates the
fees that may be applicable to each type of development. As the table also illustrates, the
calculated TransDIF’s for all land uses in the Urban Core are substantially lower than
those fees currently applied to new development in Eastern Chula Vista.

It is important to note that the costs used to calculate these TransDIF estimates do not
include 100 percent of the projected costs of transportation improvements, as a large
portion of those costs is required to address existing operational and aesthetic
deficiencies and/or are assumed to be shared with development elsewhere in the City.

Table 7 compares the projected timing of TransDIF funding from new development in
the Urban Core to the expected timing of various improvement costs. As shown, a
disproportionate amount of improvement costs are shown to be desired in the five‐ to
ten‐year timeframe, creating a deficit in that period. In such instances, either projects
would need to be deferred until more TransDIF funding is available from new
development, or an alternative funding source would need to be utilized, which could
then be back‐filled with TransDIF funds as the development occurs in subsequent years.
Table 6
Transportation Development Impact Fee Estimate
Estimated
Percent of Total New
Net New Development at Percent Proportionate Potential Fee
Traffic Signal Fee (1) Development Buildout Trip Generation Total Trips/ of Total Share of per Unit or Sq. Range of Proposed or
Activity Type Land Use Classification by Activity (Units of Sq. Ft.) per Day Day Trips Total Costs Ft. Existing Fees (2)
Residential Condo/Duplex 60% 4,260 8/DU 34,080 31.7% $1,265,887 $297

Apartments 40% 2,840 6/DU 17,040 15.8% $632,943 $223
Total/Average 100% 7,100 51,120 47.5% $1,898,830 $267 $4,020 - $6,030/Unit
Retail Commercial/Retail Center 50% 129,500 40/1000 SF 5,180 4.8% $192,409 $1.49
Community Shopping Center 40% 103,600 80/1000 SF 8,288 7.7% $307,854 $2.97
Restaurant/Lounge 10% 25,900 160/1000 SF 4,144 3.9% $153,927 $5.94
Total/Average 100% 259,000 17,612 16.4% $654,190 $2.53 $5.08 - $12.30/SF
Office Commercial office building <100,000 SF 30% 390,000 20/1000 SF 7,800 7.3% $289,728 $0.74
Commercial office building >100,000 SF 50% 650,000 17/1000 SF 11,050 10.3% $410,447 $0.63
Corporate office building (single user) 10% 130,000 14/1000 SF 1,820 1.7% $67,603 $0.52
Medical/dental building 10% 130,000 50/1000 SF 6,500 6.0% $241,440 $1.86
19
Total/Average 100% 1,300,000 27,170 25.3% $1,009,218 $0.78 $2.08 - $8.04/SF
Hotel/Motel Hotel w/ convention & restaurant (3) 50% 325,000 10/Room 6,109 5.7% $226,917 $0.70
Motel (2) 50% 325,000 9/Room 5,498 5.1% $204,225 $0.63
Total/Average 100% 650,000 11,607 10.8% $431,142 $0.66 $3.23 - $8.04/SF
Total 107,509 100% $3,993,380
(1) Traffic Signal Fee assumptions are used because they explicitly state the trip generation factors necessary to allocate costs.
(2) For residential, proposed fees provided by City staff. For non-residential, EPS estimated fees based on Eastern Territories fees (applied on per-acre basis),
adjusted for likely densities of development in Urban Core.
(3) Assumes hotels/motels at 532 average gross square feet per room.

Table 7
Transportation Development Impact Fee Projections through Time
Traffic Signal Fee (1) Estimated 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Total
Activity Type Land Use Classification TransDIF Units/SF Fees Units/SF Fees Units/SF Fees Units/SF Fees
Residential Condo/Duplex $297 438 $130,155 438 $130,155 3,384 $1,005,578 4,260 $1,265,887
Apartments $223 292 $65,077 292 $65,077 2,256 $502,789 2,840 $632,943
Total/Average $267 730 $195,232 730 $195,232 5,640 $1,508,366 7,100 $1,898,830
Retail Commercial/Retail Center $1.49 117,000 $173,837 12,500 $18,572 0 $0 129,500 $192,409
Community Shopping Center $2.97 93,600 $278,138 10,000 $29,716 0 $0 103,600 $307,854
Restaurant/Lounge $5.94 23,400 $139,069 2,500 $14,858 0 $0 25,900 $153,927
Total/Average $2.53 234,000 $591,044 25,000 $63,146 0 $0 259,000 $654,190
Office Commercial office building <100,000 SF $0.74 67,320 $50,011 67,320 $50,011 255,360 $189,705 390,000 $289,728
Commercial office building >100,000 SF $0.63 112,200 $70,850 112,200 $70,850 425,600 $268,748 650,000 $410,447
Corporate office building (single user) $0.52 22,440 $11,669 22,440 $11,669 85,120 $44,264 130,000 $67,603
20
Medical/dental building $1.86 22,440 $41,676 22,440 $41,676 85,120 $158,087 130,000 $241,440
Total/Average $0.78 224,400 $174,207 224,400 $174,207 851,200 $660,805 1,300,000 $1,009,218
Hotel/Motel Hotel w/ convention & restaurant (2) $0.70 65,000 $45,383 65,000 $45,383 195,000 $136,150 325,000 $226,917
Motel (3) $0.63 65,000 $40,845 65,000 $40,845 195,000 $122,535 325,000 $204,225
Total/Average $0.66 130,000 $86,228 130,000 $86,228 390,000 $258,685 650,000 $431,142
Total TransDIF Fees $1,046,711 $518,813 $2,427,856 $3,993,380
Total Costs Eligible for TransDIF (Urban Core Only) $248,800 $3,744,580 $0 $3,993,380
TransDIF Surplus/(Deficit) in each Period $797,911 ($3,225,767) $2,427,856 $0
(1) Traffic Signal Fee assumptions are used because they explicitly state the trip generation factors necessary to allocate costs.
(2) Assumes hotels at 650 gross square feet per room
(3) Assumes motels at 450 gross square feet per room

Final Report
May 16, 2007

TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Traffic signals are required to safely and efficiently manage the flow of the vehicular
traffic added from residents, workers, and visitors of the Urban Core. The City currently
imposes a Traffic Signal Fee on most development projects throughout the City. The
Traffic Signal Fee is allocated to development based on trip generation. Table 8 applies
the trip generation calculations to the costs for traffic signal improvements, and
calculates the fees that may be applicable to each type of development.

Table 8 also compares the Traffic Signal Fees as calculated for the Urban Core to those
currently applied to new development in Chula Vista. As shown, the projected Traffic
Signal Fees for all land uses in the Urban Core are substantially lower than those
currently levied by the City.

Table 9 compares the projected timing of Traffic Signal Fee funding from new
development in the Urban Core to the expected timing of various improvement costs.
As with the TransDIF improvements, a disproportionate amount of traffic signal
improvement costs is shown to be desired in the five to ten year timeframe, creating a
deficit in that period.
PUBLIC SPACES
Public spaces are also eligible for impact fee funding, as the amount of acreage required
for parks and plazas is based on the residential population of an area, and is required to
meet or exceed 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The City has an existing Park Acquisition
and Development (PAD) fee ordinance, which is applied at one price level in the Eastern
Territories and another (lower) level in Western Chula Vista. PAD fees are applied only
to residential and hotel/motel development—retail and office projects are not currently
required to contribute to park acquisition and development costs.

In the City’s current PAD fee structure, the fee paid per hotel/motel room is 57.7 percent
of the fee paid per residential unit. Table 10 uses this ratio to allocate the estimated
costs of park and plaza improvements included in the Urban Core Specific Plan. Table
10 also compares the PAD Fees as calculated for the Urban Core to those currently
applied to new development in Chula Vista. As shown, the calculated Urban Core fees
are somewhat higher than the fees currently imposed in Western Chula Vista, but well
below the fees being levied in the City’s Eastern Territories.

Table 11 compares the projected timing of PAD funding from new development in the
Urban Core to the expected timing of various improvement costs. Once again, a
disproportionate amount of improvement costs is shown to be desired in the five‐ to ten‐
year timeframe, creating a deficit in that period. If park additions are required in
proportion to population increases (3.0 acres per 1,000 population), this timing
Table 8
Traffic Signal Development Impact Fee Estimate
Total New
Percent of Development Currently
Net New at Buildout Proportionate Potential Fee Applicable
Traffic Signal Fee Land Use Development (Units/Sq. Trip Generation Total Trips/ Percent of Share of per Unit/Sq. Traffic Signal
Activity Type Classification by Activity Ft./Rooms) per Day Day Total Trips Total Costs Ft./Room Fee
Residential Condo/Duplex 60% 4,260 8/DU 34,080 31.7% $144,865 $34.01 $213.20
Apartments 40% 2,840 6/DU 17,040 15.8% $72,432 $25.50 $159.90
Total/Average 100% 7,100 51,120 47.5% $217,297 $30.61
Retail Commercial/Retail Center 50% 129,500 40/1000 SF 5,180 4.8% $22,019 $0.17 $1.07
Community Shopping Center 40% 103,600 80/1000 SF 8,288 7.7% $35,230 $0.34 $2.13
Restaurant/Lounge 10% 25,900 160/1000 SF 4,144 3.9% $17,615 $0.68 $4.26
Total/Average 100% 259,000 17,612 16.4% $74,864 $0.29
Office Commercial office building <100,000 SF 30% 390,000 20/1000 SF 7,800 7.3% $33,156 $0.09 $0.53
Commercial office building >100,000 SF 50% 650,000 17/1000 SF 11,050 10.3% $46,971 $0.07 $0.45
Corporate office building (single user) 10% 130,000 14/1000 SF 1,820 1.7% $7,736 $0.06 $0.37
Medical/dental building 10% 130,000 50/1000 SF 6,500 6.0% $27,630 $0.21 $1.33
Total/Average 100% 1,300,000 27,170 25.3% $115,492 $0.09
22
Hotel/Motel Hotel w/ convention & restaurant (1) 50% 611 10/Room 6,110 5.7% $25,972 $42.51 $266.50/Room
Motel (2) 50% 611 9/Room 5,499 5.1% $23,375 $38.26 $239.85/Room
Total/Average 100% 1,222 11,609 10.8% $49,347 $40.38
Total 107,511 100% $457,000


Table 9
Traffic Signal Fee Projections through Time
0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Total

Estimated Units/SF/ Units/SF/ Units/SF/ Units/SF/
Activity Type Land Use Classification Fee Rooms Fees Rooms Fees Rooms Fees Rooms Fees
Residential Condo/Duplex $34.01 438 $14,895 438 $14,895 3,384 $115,076 4,260 $144,865
Apartments $25.50 292 $7,447 292 $7,447 2,256 $57,538 2,840 $72,432
Total/Average $30.61 730 $22,342 730 $22,342 5,640 $172,614 7,100 $217,297
Retail Commercial/Retail Center $0.17 117,000 $19,893 12,500 $2,125 0 $0 129,500 $22,019
Community Shopping Center $0.34 93,600 $31,829 10,000 $3,401 0 $0 103,600 $35,230
Restaurant/Lounge $0.68 23,400 $15,915 2,500 $1,700 0 $0 25,900 $17,615
Total/Average $0.29 234,000 $67,638 25,000 $7,226 0 $0 259,000 $74,864
Office Commercial office building <100,000 SF $0.09 67,320 $5,723 67,320 $5,723 255,360 $21,709 390,000 $33,156
Commercial office building >100,000 SF $0.07 112,200 $8,108 112,200 $8,108 425,600 $30,755 650,000 $46,971
23
Corporate office building (single user) $0.06 22,440 $1,335 22,440 $1,335 85,120 $5,066 130,000 $7,736
Medical/dental building $0.21 22,440 $4,769 22,440 $4,769 85,120 $18,091 130,000 $27,630
Total/Average $0.09 224,400 $19,936 224,400 $19,936 851,200 $75,621 1,300,000 $115,492
Hotel/Motel Hotel w/ convention & restaurant (1) $42.51 122 $5,194 122 $5,194 367 $15,581 611 $25,968
Motel (2) $38.26 122 $4,674 122 $4,674 367 $14,023 611 $23,371
Total/Average $40.38 244 $9,868 244 $9,868 733 $29,603 1,222 $49,339
Total Traffic Signal Fees Projected (rounded) $119,800 $59,400 $277,800 $457,000
Total Costs Eligible for Traffic Signal Fees (Urban Core Only) $0 $373,000 $84,000 $457,000
Traffic Signal Surplus/(Deficit) in each Period $119,800 ($313,600) $193,800 $0


Table 10
Parks Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Estimate
Total New Currently Currently

Development at Proportionate Potential Fee Applicable Applicable
Buildout Share of Total per PAD Fee in PAD Fee in
Activity Type (Units/Rooms) Costs Unit/Room Western CV Eastern CV
Residential 7,100 $58,404,955 $8,226.05 $6,651.00 $12,352.00
Hotel/Motel (1) 1,222 $5,790,086 $4,738.20 $3,835.00 $7,122.00
Total (rounded) $64,200,000

24
(1) Assumes hotels/motel rooms pay 57.6% of the fees paid by residential units,
as in current ordinance, and average 532 gross square feet per room.

Table 11
Parks Acquisition and Development Fee Projections through Time
0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Total

Estimated Units/ Fees Units/ Fees Units/ Fees Units/ Fees
Activity Type Fee Rooms Rooms (rounded) Rooms (rounded) Rooms (rounded)
Residential $8,226.05 730 $6,010,000 730 $6,010,000 5,640 $46,390,000 7,100 $58,410,000
Hotel/Motel $4,738.20 244 $1,160,000 244 $1,160,000 733 $3,470,000 1,222 $5,790,000
Total PAD Fees Projected $7,170,000 $7,170,000 $49,860,000 $64,200,000
Total Costs Eligible for PAD Fees (Urban Core Only) $1,400,000 $31,900,000 $30,900,000 $64,200,000
PAD Fee Surplus/(Deficit) in each Period $5,770,000 ($24,730,000) $18,960,000 $0

25

Final Report
May 16, 2007

assumption is overly aggressive. The improvement timing assumptions on Table 1
equate to the addition of 15 to 20 acres of parks (not including additional plaza acreage)
within the first ten years – substantially more than the 11 acres that would be required
for the new population (assuming 1,460 total units at 2.5 people per unit). From a
funding perspective, it may be advisable to delay the acquisition and development of
much of this required park land.
COMBINED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Table 12 summarizes the total development impact fees calculated herein, and compares
them to the total estimated costs of improvements eligible for impact fee funding.
Consistent with the findings for each impact fee individually, Table 12 shows that there
is a projected surplus in the first five years, followed by a cumulative deficit in the 5‐
to10‐year period that would then be recouped after 10 years.
DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY IMPACTS OF IMPACT FEES
The Urban Core Specific Plan is creating capacity for new development that is desired in
an effort to revitalize this important area of Chula Vista. As such, it is important that the
development impact fees imposed upon new development not create major hurdles to
development feasibility. If the development impact fees are too high, the added costs to
satisfy those fee requirements will in turn require higher price points for the
development itself (residential values, commercial lease rates, etc.), assuming that other
development costs (construction, design, financing, etc.) remain constant. To the extent
that the market will not support these higher values or rents, the desired development is
not likely to occur.

It is important to note that the City currently levies development impact fees beyond
those estimated in this report. Examples include sewerage participation fees and Public
Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF). In addition, the Sweetwater Authority
water district charges impact fees for water infrastructure. These additional fees have
not been included in this analysis because no corresponding infrastructure or facility
improvements have been expressly identified in the Urban Core Specific Plan.
However, these additional fees will continue to be levied upon new development in the
Urban Core, and used to support the growing demand for improvements such as police
and fire facilities, libraries, recreational facilities, and water and wastewater
infrastructure.

Table 13 compares the total development impact fees that may be imposed by the City
to the estimated costs of development of various types. As shown, the combination of
development impact fees calculated herein and the PFDIF and sewerage participation
fees currently required represents a small fraction of the total costs associated with new
development. At the levels calculated in this analysis, it is not expected that the
development impact fees would substantially affect the feasibility of development in the
Table 12
Total Combined Development Impact Fee Projections through Time
Fee Type 0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Total
TransDIF $1,046,711 $518,813 $2,427,856 $3,993,380

Traffic Signal Fee $119,800 $59,400 $277,800 $457,000
PAD Fee $7,170,000 $7,170,000 $49,860,000 $64,200,000
Total Combined Fees Projected $8,336,511 $7,748,213 $52,565,656 $68,650,380
Total Costs Eligible for Fees (Urban Core Only) $1,648,800 $36,017,580 $30,984,000 $68,650,380
27
Combined Fee Surplus/(Deficit) in each Period $6,687,711 ($28,269,367) $21,581,656 $0

Table 13
Feasibility Impacts of Estimated Development Impact Fees
Estimated Sewerage
Development Cost Traffic Signal Participation Fees as % of
Activity Type (1) TransDIF (2) Fee PAD Fee PFDIF (3) Fee (3) Total Fees Costs
Residential (per Unit)

With Existing Fees $300,000 $4,020.00 $159.90 $6,651.00 $5,109.00 $2,608.50 $18,548.40 6.2%
With Newly Calculated Fees $300,000 $267.44 $30.61 $8,226.05 $5,109.00 $2,608.50 $16,241.60 5.4%
Retail (per Sq. Ft.)

With Existing Fees $200 $5.08 $1.07 $0.00 $1.66 $0.73 $8.54 4.3%
With Newly Calculated Fees $200 $2.53 $0.29 $0.00 $1.66 $0.73 $5.20 2.6%
Office (per Sq. Ft.)

28
Hotel/Motel (per Sq. Ft.) (4)

(1) Residential cost assumptions based on Mid-Rise Condo costs in Keyser Martson "West Side Residential In-Fill Feasibility Analysis"
(August 30, 2004), increased by 20% to reflect inflation of construction costs. Retail, Office, and Hotel/Motel costs are estimated based on
EPS experience on other recent urban development projects. Development costs do not include property acquisition costs.
(2) Existing TransDIF fees are based on EPS extrapolation of fees applied in Eastern Territories, based on assumed density of Urban Core development.
(3) Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) and Sewerage Participation Fee are not assumed to be different than those currently levied on Urban Core development.
(4) Assumes average of 532 gross square feet per room
Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Final Report
May 16, 2007

Urban Core. By far, the greater factors will be the achievable price points (sale or lease)
for the new development, and the costs of construction and property acquisition.

Furthermore, it is possible that development impact fees levied elsewhere in the City of
Chula Vista could be used for some of the improvements listed in the Urban Core
Specific Plan. As noted on Tables 2 through 4, there are numerous improvements
included in the Specific Plan that may have benefits beyond the Urban Core. Impact
fees on development in the Bayfront, broader Western Chula Vista, or the entire City
could potentially be used to fund some of these additional improvements.

V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POTENTIAL
The City has retained Harrell & Company Advisors to provide tax increment projections
for each of the Redevelopment Project Areas in Chula Vista. None of these Project Areas
conforms perfectly to the boundaries of the Urban Core Specific Plan area. Some parcels
in the Urban Core Specific Plan area are located within the Town Center I and Town
Center II Project Areas, while others are located within the Amended Project Area, and
still others are not located in any Redevelopment Project Area. The boundaries of each
Redevelopment Project Area are shown on Figure 1.

EPS has worked with City staff and Harrell & Company to estimate the tax increment
projections for each Redevelopment Project Area except the Bayfront area. The tax
increment projections are based on the following assumptions:

1. Tax increment from projects that are currently in the development pipeline
(planned, permitted, or under construction) is estimated based on the specific
known attributes of the project (size, price points, timing, etc.). This analysis does
not include assumptions of tax increment from the evolving plans for redevelopment of
the Bayfront (Gaylord, housing, etc.).

2. The tax increment from all other Project Area parcels on which no specific
projects are currently proposed is estimated based on an average of 4 percent
annual growth in assessed value. This approach deliberately exceeds the 2
percent growth cap required under Proposition 13, as it is expected that many
parcels in the Urban Core and the Redevelopment Project Areas will be
redeveloped for significantly higher‐value uses over the next several decades,
and that there will be additional reassessments triggered by the sales of existing
properties that do not redevelop. City staff has confirmed that this 4 percent
growth assumption is reasonable, given the level of investment expected as well
as the assessed value increases associated with ongoing resales of existing
properties.

3. Desired improvements in the Urban Core are eligible to be funded using tax
increment from any of the Redevelopment Project Areas shown on Figure 1.
This assumption has been confirmed as accurate and appropriate by the City’s
Redevelopment Manager.

Table 14 shows the tax increment projections for each of the Redevelopment Project
Areas in various time periods. As shown, these areas are expected to generate a total of
$340 million of net tax increment (after housing set‐asides, agency pass‐throughs,
County administrative costs, etc.) through the year 2036, when the last of the
Redevelopment Project Areas is scheduled to sunset. However, $28 million of this
combined net tax increment will be used to pay debt service (principal and interest) on
bonds issued in 2000. Therefore, the net tax increment that could potentially be
available for projects and operations in the Urban Core is estimated at $312 million.
Figure 1
31
Table 14
Projected Tax Increment Available for Urban Core Projects through Time
Total Tax
Increment for Debt Service Available for
Amended Southwest Otay Valley All Project for 2000 Projects and
Year Town Center I Town Center II Project Area Project Area Project Area Areas Bonds Operations
2006 $1,325,200 $910,600 $231,600 $980,600 $1,070,200 $4,518,200 ($1,203,083) $3,315,117

2007 $1,366,200 $939,400 $334,200 $1,087,400 $1,209,600 $4,936,800 ($1,201,313) $3,735,487
2008 $1,531,600 $1,102,800 $529,600 $1,256,400 $1,339,200 $5,759,600 ($1,203,898) $4,555,702
2009 $1,894,600 $1,268,000 $848,000 $1,586,400 $1,375,800 $6,972,800 ($1,200,623) $5,772,177
2010 $2,363,400 $1,438,800 $1,206,800 $1,791,400 $1,413,800 $8,214,200 ($1,201,263) $7,012,937
2011 $2,412,800 $1,611,400 $1,466,800 $1,867,200 $1,452,400 $8,810,600 ($1,200,563) $7,610,037
2012 $2,465,200 $1,790,400 $1,607,200 $1,944,400 $1,493,400 $9,300,600 ($1,203,483) $8,097,117
2013 $2,517,000 $1,837,200 $1,750,800 $2,026,200 $1,536,800 $9,668,000 ($1,204,748) $8,463,252
2014 $2,571,800 $1,885,400 $1,901,000 $2,110,200 $1,580,800 $10,049,200 ($1,204,308) $8,844,892
2015 $2,627,800 $1,585,000 $2,057,200 $2,198,200 $1,613,200 $10,081,400 ($1,142,113) $8,939,287
32
2016 $2,686,800 $1,620,000 $2,172,400 $2,290,400 $1,647,800 $10,417,400 ($1,141,113) $9,276,287

2017 $2,746,000 $1,655,400 $2,292,000 $2,383,800 $1,685,000 $10,762,200 ($1,138,318) $9,623,882
2018 $2,808,200 $1,691,400 $2,415,700 $2,483,000 $1,723,400 $11,121,700 ($1,138,678) $9,983,022
2019 $2,873,200 $1,727,600 $2,545,600 $2,584,200 $1,762,200 $11,492,800 ($1,142,178) $10,350,622
2020 $2,939,200 $1,764,200 $2,679,300 $2,692,000 $1,802,400 $11,877,100 ($1,138,840) $10,738,260
2021 $3,009,000 $1,802,200 $2,818,600 $2,790,600 $1,845,800 $12,266,200 ($1,138,595) $11,127,605
2022 $3,079,000 $1,844,200 $2,963,100 $2,894,000 $1,889,400 $12,669,700 ($1,141,495) $11,528,205
2023 $3,154,400 $1,884,800 $3,112,600 $3,002,800 $1,934,400 $13,089,000 ($1,142,275) $11,946,725
2024 $3,230,600 $1,926,400 $3,268,700 $3,115,000 $1,982,400 $13,523,100 ($1,140,350) $12,382,750
2025 $3,308,800 $1,971,400 $3,430,300 $3,230,800 $2,031,600 $13,972,900 ($1,141,275) $12,831,625
2026 $3,391,400 $2,016,600 $3,598,000 $3,351,600 $2,082,000 $14,439,600 ($1,139,781) $13,299,819
2027 $3,475,800 $2,063,800 $3,773,000 $3,478,600 $2,135,400 $14,926,600 ($1,140,869) $13,785,731
2028 $3,564,600 $2,111,400 $3,953,100 $3,609,600 $2,190,000 $15,428,700 ($1,139,269) $14,289,431
2029 $0 $2,160,800 $4,141,300 $3,745,600 $2,247,400 $12,295,100 ($754,981) $11,540,119
2030 $0 $2,211,400 $4,336,500 $3,886,400 $2,305,200 $12,739,500 ($753,431) $11,986,069
2031 $0 $261,200 $4,539,500 $4,032,800 $2,366,600 $11,200,100 $0 $11,200,100
2032 $0 $264,200 $4,749,600 $4,185,800 $2,430,800 $11,630,400 $0 $11,630,400
2033 $0 $266,200 $4,969,400 $4,345,200 $2,496,200 $12,077,000 $0 $12,077,000
2034 $0 $268,200 $5,195,900 $4,509,800 $2,565,200 $12,539,100 $0 $12,539,100
2035 $0 $272,000 $5,432,400 $4,681,400 $2,636,000 $13,021,800 $0 $13,021,800
2036 $0 $274,000 $5,677,400 $4,860,200 $0 $10,811,600 $0 $10,811,600
Total $61,342,600 $44,426,400 $89,997,600 $89,002,000 $55,844,400 $340,613,000 ($28,296,843) $312,316,157

Table 14
Projected Tax Increment Available for Urban Core Projects through Time
Total Tax
Increment for Debt Service Available for
Amended Southwest Otay Valley All Project for 2000 Projects and
Year Town Center I Town Center II Project Area Project Area Project Area Areas Bonds Operations
Values by Time Period
0-5 Years (2006-2010)

Nominal Value $8,481,000 $5,659,600 $3,150,200 $6,702,200 $6,408,600 $30,401,600 ($6,010,180) $24,391,420
Present Value at 3% Discount Rate $7,928,965 $5,300,888 $2,903,531 $6,264,022 $6,022,088 $28,419,495 ($5,670,242) $22,749,253
5-10 Years (2011-2015)

Nominal Value $12,594,600 $8,709,400 $8,783,000 $10,146,200 $7,676,600 $47,909,800 ($5,955,215) $41,954,585
33
10+ Years (2016-2036)

Nominal Value $40,267,000 $30,057,400 $78,064,400 $72,153,600 $41,759,200 $262,301,600 ($16,331,448) $245,970,152
All Years (2006-2036)

Nominal Value $61,342,600 $44,426,400 $89,997,600 $89,002,000 $55,844,400 $340,613,000 ($28,296,843) $312,316,157
Sources: Harrell & Company Advisors; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Final Report
May 16, 2007

Table 14 also translates the tax increment projections into today’s dollars, assuming a
discount rate of 3 percent per year. The 3 percent discount rate simply translates the
figures into today’s dollars using a general inflation rate, which can be considered
the appropriate figures to compare to the estimated improvement costs in today’s
dollars if the tax increment is simply dedicated on a “pay‐as‐you‐go” basis over the next
several decades. The sum of the tax increment under the 3 percent discount rate,
therefore, is the appropriate point of comparison to the improvement costs if the City
chooses not to issue a tax increment bond. As shown, EPS has estimated that the tax
increment will yield roughly $194 million in today’s dollars over the next 30 years.

Table 15 compares the total improvement costs to the combined funding from the tax
increment projections and the estimated development impact fees from the previous
chapter. As that table clearly shows, the combination of these potential funding sources
greatly exceeds the total improvement costs (by nearly double). In addition, Table 15
shows that, if all estimated impact fees are received, only 35 percent of the projected
available tax increment would be required to fund Urban Core improvements, leaving
65 percent (roughly $127 million) in funding available for other projects.

It is important to note that, on a pay‐as‐you‐go basis, the combination of tax increment
and impact fees can more than cover the costs of all desired improvements in the first
five years and over the full buildout of the Urban Core, but would not meet the full
expected costs in the 5‐10 year period. While the tax increment itself would cover the
costs of improvements not funded by impact fees, the tax increment is not projected to
cover those costs and the temporary deficit in impact fee funding. Thus, it is clear that
either temporary funding would have to be secured or some of those 5‐10 year
improvements would need to be deferred.

Tables 16 through 18 explore one approach to closing the temporary funding gap in the
5‐10 year time period—bonds based on tax increment realized at the time of bond
issuance. Table 16 shows the bonding capacity of the tax increment an annual basis.
This analysis assumes that bonds issued on the tax increment would be subject to a 1.20
debt coverage ratio, meaning projected annual revenues exceed the amount dedicated to
debt service by 20 percent to allow room for fluctuations in the actual tax increment
received. EPS has also assumed that the bonds would have a 6.0 percent interest rate,
that issuance costs would equal three percent of the total bond amount, and that the
terms of the bonds would be only as many years as the tax increment was projected to
be collected (through 2036). Thus, a bond issued in 2006 would have a 30‐year term,
while a bond issued in 2016 would have a 20‐year term. As shown, EPS has estimated
that the available tax increment in 2012 (year 6) could support a bond that would yield
$82 million of up‐front dollars from which improvements could be funded over time.
The present value of that bond capacity is estimated at roughly $69 million.

As was shown on Table 15, the combination of annual tax increment and impact fees
could fully fund the improvement costs in the first five‐year period, but would not fully
fund the costs in the 5‐10 year period. Table 17 shows that, if a bond is issued in Year 6
to fully fund the period’s improvements not covered by impact fees, such a bond would
Table 15
Improvement Costs vs. Projected Tax Increment and Impact Fees Through Time
0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

Item (2006 - 2010) (2011 - 2015) (2016 - 2036) Total
Improvements to be Funded through Impact Fees on URBAN CORE

Development (1) $1,648,800 $36,017,580 $30,984,000 $68,650,380
Improvements NOT Funded by Impact Fees on URBAN CORE
Development $18,174,200 $28,436,420 $20,198,250 $66,808,870
Total Improvement Costs $19,823,000 $64,454,000 $51,182,250 $135,459,250
Present Value of Available Tax Increment at 3% Discount Rate (2) $22,749,253 $34,060,550 $136,765,082 $193,574,884
Impact Fees on URBAN CORE Development (3) $8,336,511 $7,748,213 $52,565,656 $68,650,380
35
Total Combined Funding (Tax Increment plus Impact Fees) $31,085,764 $41,808,762 $189,330,738 $262,225,264
Net Surplus/(Deficit) in Combined Funding by Period $11,262,764 ($22,645,238) $138,148,488 $126,766,014
Cumulative Surplus/(Deficit) $11,262,764 ($11,382,474) $126,766,014 $126,766,014
Tax Increment Required to Fund Urban Core Improvements

NOT Covered by Impact Fees on URBAN CORE Development
(4) $66,808,870
Percent of Available Tax Increment Required for Urban Core Improvements 35%
Remaining Tax Increment Available for Other Projects $126,766,014
(1) From Table 12

(2) From Table 14
(3) From Table 12
(4) Difference between total present value of projected tax increment and total impact fees on Urban Core development.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Table 16
Projected Tax Increment Bonding Capacity by Year
Years from Available for Projects

Present and Operations Potential Bonding Present Value of
Year (2006) (All Project Areas) Capacity (1) Bonding Capacity (2)
2006 0 $3,315,117 $36,885,887 $36,885,887

2007 1 $3,735,487 $41,037,436 $39,842,171
2008 2 $4,555,702 $49,368,546 $46,534,589
2009 3 $5,772,177 $61,638,279 $56,407,757
2010 4 $7,012,937 $73,712,228 $65,492,360
2011 5 $7,610,037 $78,636,132 $67,832,219
2012 6 $8,097,117 $82,144,218 $68,794,490
2013 7 $8,463,252 $84,168,999 $68,437,099
2014 8 $8,844,892 $86,092,746 $67,962,409
2015 9 $8,939,287 $85,006,320 $65,150,266
2016 10 $9,276,287 $86,005,277 $63,996,003
2017 11 $9,623,882 $86,802,387 $62,707,891
2018 12 $9,983,022 $87,374,531 $61,282,738
2019 13 $10,350,622 $87,660,642 $59,692,631
2020 14 $10,738,260 $87,720,116 $57,993,331
2021 15 $11,127,605 $87,359,874 $56,072,979
2022 16 $11,528,205 $86,616,538 $53,976,563
2023 17 $11,946,725 $85,489,793 $51,722,731
2024 18 $12,382,750 $83,917,160 $49,292,487
2025 19 $12,831,625 $81,804,479 $46,651,951
2026 20 $13,299,819 $79,125,992 $43,810,143
2027 21 $13,785,731 N/A N/A
2028 22 $14,289,431 N/A N/A
2029 23 $11,540,119 N/A N/A
2030 24 $11,986,069 N/A N/A
2031 25 $11,200,100 N/A N/A
2032 26 $11,630,400 N/A N/A
2033 27 $12,077,000 N/A N/A
2034 28 $12,539,100 N/A N/A
2035 29 $13,021,800 N/A N/A
2036 30 $10,811,600 N/A N/A
Total $312,316,157
(1) Assumptions:
Debt Coverage Ratio = 120.0%
Bonding Interest Rate = 6.0%
Issuance Costs= 3.0%
Term = Number of Years remaining on Project Areas (through 2036) IF at least 10 years remain;
Assumes no bond issue for less than 10-year term.
(2) Assumes 3% discount rate.

Table 17
Projected Tax Increment and Bonding Capacity Available for Urban Core Projects through Time
0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

Item (2006 - 2010) (2011 - 2015) (2016 - 2036) Total
Total Improvement Costs (1) $19,823,000 $64,454,000 $51,182,250 $135,459,250

less Impact Fees on URBAN CORE Development (2) $8,336,511 $7,748,213 $52,565,656 $68,650,380
Surplus/(Shortfall) of Available Impact Fees ($11,486,489) ($56,705,787) $1,383,406 ($66,808,870)
Tax Increment Revenues

Present Value of Required Tax Increment Bond (3) $0 $56,705,787 $0 $56,705,787
37
Present Value of Tax Increment NOT Used for Bond Debt Service (4) $22,749,253 $13,085,413 $70,138,278 $105,972,944
Present Value of Remaining Tax Increment After Fully Funding
Improvement Costs In Excess of Available Impact Fees $11,262,764 $13,085,413 $71,521,684 $95,869,862
(1) See Tables 2 through 4.

(2) See Table 12.
(3) Used to offset shortfall in Years 5-10. See Table 18 for bond capacity and debt service estimates. Present value calculated at 3% discount rate.
(4) Present Value at 3% discount rate of tax increment not used to pay annual bond debt service of $5,395,040
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Table 18
Required Tax Increment Bond and Debt Service to Cover Years 5-10 Shortfall
Available for
Years Projects and
from Operations Nominal Value of Annual Debt Available Tax
Present (All Project Required Bond Service on Bonds Increment After
Year (2006) Areas) (1) Issued in Year 6 (2) Debt Service
2006 0 $3,315,117 $0 $3,315,117

2007 1 $3,735,487 $0 $3,735,487
2008 2 $4,555,702 $0 $4,555,702
2009 3 $5,772,177 $0 $5,772,177
2010 4 $7,012,937 $0 $7,012,937
2011 5 $7,610,037 $0 $7,610,037
2012 6 $8,097,117 $67,709,676 $5,395,040 $2,702,077
2013 7 $8,463,252 $5,395,040 $3,068,212
2014 8 $8,844,892 $5,395,040 $3,449,852
2015 9 $8,939,287 $5,395,040 $3,544,247
2016 10 $9,276,287 $5,395,040 $3,881,247
2017 11 $9,623,882 $5,395,040 $4,228,842
2018 12 $9,983,022 $5,395,040 $4,587,982
2019 13 $10,350,622 $5,395,040 $4,955,582
2020 14 $10,738,260 $5,395,040 $5,343,220
2021 15 $11,127,605 $5,395,040 $5,732,565
2022 16 $11,528,205 $5,395,040 $6,133,165
2023 17 $11,946,725 $5,395,040 $6,551,685
2024 18 $12,382,750 $5,395,040 $6,987,710
2025 19 $12,831,625 $5,395,040 $7,436,585
2026 20 $13,299,819 $5,395,040 $7,904,779
2027 21 $13,785,731 $5,395,040 $8,390,691
2028 22 $14,289,431 $5,395,040 $8,894,391
2029 23 $11,540,119 $5,395,040 $6,145,079
2030 24 $11,986,069 $5,395,040 $6,591,029
2031 25 $11,200,100 $5,395,040 $5,805,060
2032 26 $11,630,400 $5,395,040 $6,235,360
2033 27 $12,077,000 $5,395,040 $6,681,960
2034 28 $12,539,100 $5,395,040 $7,144,060
2035 29 $13,021,800 $5,395,040 $7,626,760
2036 30 $10,811,600 $5,395,040 $5,416,560
Total $312,316,157 $134,875,990 $177,440,167
(1) Based on shortfall after impact fees in Years 5-10 shown on Table 17, inflated by 3% per year.
(1) Assumptions:
Debt Coverage Ratio = 120.0%
Bonding Interest Rate = 6.0%
Issuance Costs= 3.0%
Term = Number of Years remaining on Project Areas (through 2036) IF at least 10 years remain;
Assumes no bond issue for less than 10-year term.

Final Report
May 16, 2007

have to yield roughly $57 million in current dollars. This figure is well below the actual
capacity created by the tax increment in Year 6, which was projected at $69 million
(present value) on Table 16. As such, funding the deficit would not require the full
bonding capacity available in Year 6, leaving revenues available for other projects. In
addition, the portion of tax increment that is not required for debt service in the years
following the bond issuance could also be available for other projects, as detailed on
Table 18.

In sum, Table 17 shows that the combination of impact fees on Urban Core
development, “pay‐as‐you‐go” tax increment funds and tax increment bonding capacity
would be more than adequate to fully fund all of the improvement costs envisioned in
the Specific Plan. Nearly $100 million of surplus revenue is shown to be likely, which
could then be used for additional improvements in the Urban Core or elsewhere in
Chula Vista.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
This Facilities Implementation Analysis for the Urban Core Specific Plan has estimated
the costs of various public improvements and allocated those costs according to their
purpose and the geographic areas of benefit/responsibility. This analysis has also
estimated the improvement costs that could be funded through development impact
fees, and identified financial gaps in certain time periods and overall that would need to
be addressed through other funding mechanisms. One such mechanism is tax increment
financing from the City’s Redevelopment Project Areas, which are projected to generate
sufficient revenues over the next several decades to fully cover the costs of Urban Core
improvements.

To the extent that other funding sources and mechanisms can be utilized, the costs
addressed through impact fees and tax increment financing can be reduced. The
reduction of impact fees can enhance the feasibility of desired development in the Urban
Core, although it is not expected that the cost burden of the impact fees calculated herein
would represent a significant feasibility hurdle for development. The reduction of the
reliance on tax increment financing would enable those funds to be used for other
improvement projects elsewhere in the City.

Other funding mechanisms that could be considered and sought to finance the public
improvements envisioned in the Urban Core Specific Plan include the following:

• Regional funding—TransNet, SANDAG, and other funding sources may be
available for certain improvements that have regional significance.

• Capital Improvement Program funding—Many of the improvements represent
benefits to the City generally, and could be funded through the CIP budget.

• Developer exactions—The provision of plazas, park land (especially for the
Promenade Park), streetscape improvements, etc. could be required as a
condition of approval for certain developments (where feasible).

• Land‐secured financing—Mello‐Roos districts or other assessments on
landowners or building occupants could be imposed to provide funding for
improvements beyond those funded by impact fees. Application of these
mechanisms is likely to be limited, however, because of multiple ownerships and
developed conditions in the Urban Core.

It is important to note that this Facilities Implementation Analysis presents an analysis
of the potential funding for the improvements detailed in the Urban Core Specific Plan.
Policy‐makers are not required to impose fees or allocate funding as described herein,
but rather will be expected to assess the importance of various improvements and the
appropriateness of various funding mechanisms in a context of competing policy and
financial priorities, as well as under market conditions that will evolve through the next
several decades as the Urban Core is undergoing re‐investment and redevelopment.
C. Specific Plan Administration D-103
Chula
ChulaVista
Vista
D Appendix
Chapter XI Plan Administration D-101
C. Specific Plan Administration
1. Urban Core Development Permit and Design Review
Requirements
Chula Vista
The Design Review Process for future development projects is established for
the Specific Plan focus areas. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4,
below, development projects within the Specific Plan Focus Areas will be subject
to a design review process to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan. In
addition, proposed developments would also be required to adhere to existing
CVMC regulations and processes for other discretionary review, such as those
for conditional use permits, variances, and subdivisions, as may be applicable.
(See CVMC 2.55, 19.14, and 19.54). All developments within the Specific Plan
Focus Areas require submittal and approval of an Urban Core Development
Permit (UCDP). The UCDP Review Process is illustrated in Figure 11.1. To be
approved, a development project must:
• comply with the permitted uses and development criteria contained in
Chapter VI - Land Use and Development Regulations of this Specific
Plan, and other applicable regulations contained in the CVMC; and,
• be found to be consistent with the design requirements and
recommendations contained in Chapter VII - Design Guidelines of this
Specific Plan.
For those projects which propose buildings that exceed 84 feet in height, the
further following findings will be required to be made:
• The building design reflects a unique, signature architecture and creates
a positive Chula Vista landmark;
• The project provides increased amenities such as public areas, plazas,
fountains, parks and paseos, extensive streetscape improvements,
or other public amenities that may be enjoyed by the public at large.
These amenities will be above and beyond those required as part of the
standard development approval process; and,
• The overall building height and massing provides appropriate transitions
to surrounding areas in accordance with the future vision for those areas,
or if in a Neighborhood Transition Combining District, the adjoining
neighborhood.
Except as provided in Section 3. Nonconforming Uses, Section 4. Exemptions,

and Section 5. Site Specific Variance below, all projects require a pre-submittal
meeting with staff to determine appropriate processing requirements and
preliminary issue identification. The UCDP will be issued if it is determined
D Appendix D-103
Urban Core Development Permit Design Review Process
Fg. D.2

that the project complies with the provisions of the Specific Plan, including the
development regulations, standards and design guidelines. Approval of the
UCDP will include all conditions of approval ranging from design, environmental
mitigation measures, public improvements, and others as may be determined
upon review of the specific development project. The UCDP process will ensure
an enhanced level of review for major projects, while minimizing processing for
minor projects, as defined by CVMC Section 19.14.582(i). Chula Vista
The Specific Plan provides separate processes for design review for those
developments within established Redevelopment Project Areas and for those
developments located outside established Redevelopment Project Areas.
Figure 11.2 illustrates the boundaries of existing Redevelopment Project Areas,
which may be amended from time to time, within the Specific Plan boundaries.
Projects which include site areas within both areas shall be approved using the
process set forth for Redevelopment Project Areas.
a. Developments Within a Redevelopment Project Area

The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) has been established by the
City Council to assist with implementation and oversight of infill development in
the Redevelopment Project Areas within the Specific Plan, and elsewhere within
the City. The CVRC holds regularly scheduled meetings to review developments
and design proposals. The CVRC provides a vehicle for public participation
relating to the growth and redevelopment of the Chula Vista Urban Core, and
serves as a communications link between its citizens, the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency. In addition, the recently established Redevelopment
Advisory Committee will provide input on projects, early and often.
All developments within the Specific Plan Focus Areas that are all or in part
within a Redevelopment Project Area require submittal and approval of a UCDP.
The UCDP process requires review and approval by either the CVRC Executive
Director or the CVRC Board. For minor projects, design review will be subject to
review and approval by the Executive Director of the CVRC with the opportunity
for appeal to the CVRC. Design review of other projects will be conducted by
staff with recommendation to the CVRC.
b. Developments Not Within a Redevelopment Project Area

Projects within the Specific Plan area, but outside a Redevelopment Project
Area, will be subject to the City’s existing design review processes. Large-scale
projects, as defined above, will require review by the Design Review Committee.
Minor projects may be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator, or
his/her designee in a manner consistent with CVMC Section 19.14.
D Appendix D-105
Urban Core Specific Plan and Redevelopment Areas
D-106
Fg. D.3
c. Other Discretionary Approvals
The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to other discretionary permits
or actions (e.g. Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permits) shall be applied as
required based on individual development projects.
2. Permitted Land Uses

Chula Vista
Permitted land uses within the Specific Plan Focus Areas are identified in
the Land Use Matrix found in Figures 6.2-6.6 of Chapter VI – Land Use and
Development Regulations. The Community Development Director or his/her
designee may determine in writing that a proposed use is similar and compatible
to a listed use and may be allowed upon making one or more of the following
findings:
• The characteristics of and activities associated with the proposed
use is similar to one or more of the allowed uses and will not involve
substantially greater intensity than the uses listed for that District;
• The proposed use will be consistent with the purpose and vision of the
applicable District;
• The proposed use will be otherwise consistent with the intent of the
Specific Plan;
• The proposed use will be compatible with the other uses listed for the
applicable District.
The Community Development Director or his/her designee may refer the

question of whether a proposed use is allowable directly to the CVRC or
Planning Commission on a determination at a public hearing. A determination
of the Community Development Director or his/her designee, CVRC or Planning
Commission may be appealed in compliance with the procedure set forth in the
CVMC.
D Appendix D-107
CHULA VISTA URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
(Public Facilities and Services Program)
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula Vista
Urban Core Specific Plan to comply with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, which
requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation
measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional
mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project
throughout the project approval process. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista designates the Environment Review Coordinator and the
City Clerk as the custodians of the documents or their material which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which its decision is based.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation
identified in the EIR and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures
to guide future decisions. The program includes the following:
• Monitor qualifications
• Specific monitoring activities
• Reporting system
• Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed project is the adoption of the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). The
UCSP would govern the development and revitalization of the urban core of the City of Chula
Vista. The UCSP includes land use objectives, development regulations (zoning), and
development design guidelines to implement the adopted General Plan vision for the urban core.
The UCSP’s planning horizon is the year 2030.
The City of Chula Vista is located in southern San Diego County, between National City and the
southernmost portion of the City of San Diego which abuts the U.S.-Mexican border. The UCSP
area occupies 1,700 acres in the northwest portion of the City. A smaller, 690-gross-acre
Subdistricts Area was determined to be most in need of revitalization and is the focus of all the
regulatory land use provisions of the UCSP. The new zoning, development standards, and
design guidelines proposed in the UCSP will apply only to the Subdistricts Area of the UCSP.
Existing zoning and land use regulations will not be changed in the remaining portion of the
UCSP study area outside the Subdistricts Area. The UCSP Subdistricts Area comprises the
traditional downtown area east of I-5, west of Del Mar Avenue, north of L Street, and south of C
Street.
Under the proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, the urban core would be organized
into three planning districts (Urban Core, Village, and Corridors) and 26 subdistricts.
D-109
The proposed Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan is described in the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) text. The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues determined to
be potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the EIR include
land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological
resources, population and housing, hydrology and water quality, traffic circulation and access,
noise, air quality, public services, public utilities, and hazards/risk of upset. The environmental
analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and
potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of
recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were
identified for landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils,
paleontological resources, water quality, traffic circulation and access, noise, air quality, public
services, public utilities (energy), and hazards/risk of upset.
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as
significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Urban Core Specific Plan
therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
Mitigation Monitoring Team

The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached
MMRP table. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of Chula Vista, the
monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
• Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in
working under trying field circumstances;
• Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special features
found in the project area;
• Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-
effective mitigation options; and
• Excellent communication skills.
Program Procedural Guidelines

Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved
to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the
participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior
to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring
effects.
An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties
involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these
mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would
have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista would
include the City of Chula Vista and its Mitigation Monitor. The Mitigation Monitor would
distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list of
mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame
that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented.
D-110
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report
(MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below the
stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness
of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MM
following the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the conclusions of the MMR into
an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula
Vista. This report will describe the major accomplishments of the monitoring program,
summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions
developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring
programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each Environmental Monitor or Environmental
Specialist will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the Mitigation Monitor.
The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the
monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated
from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e.,
memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula
Vista to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the
project.
Actions in Case of Noncompliance

There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted
conditions of approval:
• Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
• Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or task
delay; and
• Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task
delay.
There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program should
noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include “stop
work” orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and
injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and
responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are
the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures
are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are recommended
as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate for such
conditions. In addition, once the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan has been approved, and
during various stages of implementation, the designated monitor, the City of Chula Vista, will
further refine the mitigation measures.
D-111
URBAN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PROGRAM)
Time Frame of Monitoring Reporting

Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Agency
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Surface and Ground Water Quality. 5.7-1: Prior to approval of subsequent individual Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
Implementation of the proposed UCSP development projects, compliance with all any construction permits, (CCV)
would allow a three-fold increase in applicable federal, state and local laws and including but not limited
population and associated intensification of regulations regarding water quality (e.g. JURMP, to the first Grading
existing urban land uses which would SUSMP, NPDES, SWPP, and City Development Permit, Demolition
likely result in a substantial increase in and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Permit, and Urban Core
direct runoff to drainage basins, municipal Manual) shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction Development Permit
storm sewer systems, and eventual of the City Engineer. (UCDP).
drainage to surface water and/or the ocean.
This runoff will likely contain typical
urban runoff pollutants such as sediment,
pathogens, heavy metals, petroleum
products, nutrients (phosphates and
nitrates) and trash. This comprises a
potentially significant long-term water
quality impact.
The potential long-term impacts to water
quality which may result from
implementation of the proposed UCSP
would be required to be reduced to
acceptable levels through the mandatory
controls imposed by local, state, and
federal regulations.
D-112
(continued)
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY (cont.)
Selected provisions of the UCSP that allow 5.7-2: Prior to approval of subsequent individual Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
and encourage native plant landscaping development projects, project applicants shall any construction permits, (CCV)
and sustainable building practices (water demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City including but not limited
input and waste efficiencies, living roofs, Engineer that the proposed on-site storm drain to the first Grading
bioswales, etc.) would potentially lessen systems fully mitigate drainage impacts and meet Permit, Demolition
future runoff volumes, flow rate and all federal, state, and regional water quality Permit, and Urban Core
pollutant concentration. objectives and all City standards and requirements. Development Permit
Land development construction drawings and (UCDP).
The construction activities of subsequent
individual projects would also potentially associated reports shall include details, notes, and
cause short-term water quality impacts discussions relative to the required or
through direct discharge of pollutants, soil recommended Best Management Practices
excavation/sedimentation, and through (BMPs). Permanent storm water BMP
encountering of shallow groundwater requirements shall be incorporated into the project
during subfloor grading. This comprises a design and all subsequent individual development
potentially significant short-term water projects are required to complete the applicable
quality impact. Storm Water Compliance Form and comply with
the City of Chula Vista’s Storm Water
Management Standards Requirements Manual.
D-113
(continued)
(cont.)
5.7-3: The City of Chula Vista requires that all new Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
development and significant redevelopment any construction permits, (CCV)
projects comply with the requirements of the including but not limited
NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01. to the first Grading
According to said permit, all projects falling under Permit, Demolition
the Priority Development Project Categories are Permit, and Urban Core
required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Development Permit
Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric (UCDP).
Sizing Criteria. Future projects shall comply with
all applicable regulations, established by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), as set forth in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements for urban runoff and storm water
discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City
of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations
and requirements. Further, the applicant shall file
a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water
Resource Control Board to obtain coverage under
the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
and shall
D-114
(continued)
(cont.)
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPP) concurrent with the commencement
of grading activities. The SWPP shall include
both construction and post-construction pollution
prevention and pollution control measures, and
shall identify funding mechanisms for the
maintenance of post-construction control
measures.
5.7-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
Permit or other discretionary permit, all an Urban Core (CCV)
subsequent individual development projects shall Development Permit
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community (UCDP) or other
Development Director, conformance with discretionary permit.
Mediterranean/indigenous landscaping and other
relevant design recommendations provided in
UCSP Chapter VII Development Design
Guidelines.
D-115
(continued)
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Road Segments and Intersections Level 5.8.5 -1: Intersection Improvements. Impacts to the Three-tiered phasing of City of Chula Vista
of Service. A substantial increase in traffic 19 affected intersections will be mitigated to implementation based on (CCV)
on area roadways and at area intersections below significance by the implementation of need. Tier 1, short-term,
will result from planned population growth improvements that have been divided into three improvements are to
in the urban core area over the next 25 tiers for phased implementation based on need occur within the first five
years. Without the intersection and and enhancement of the overall street network. years of implementation
roadway improvements envisioned in the Generally, time frames associated with the tiered of the UCSP or as may
proposed UCSP, by year 2030 conditions, improvements are anticipated as short-, mid- and be modified by results of
2 road segments and 19 intersections long-term. In each tier, the City’s existing TMP the annual Traffic
would operate at unacceptable LOS E or will determine the order in which projects are Monitoring Program
implemented during the biannual CIP program (TMP).
worse during peak traffic periods. This
comprises a significant traffic impact prior review. The Tier 1 improvements would be
to mitigation. included in the current CIP and subsequently
monitored for improvement within the first five
The significant impacts to intersections
years of implementation of the UCSP. It should
will be mitigated to below significance by
be noted that three of the intersections (#7, #16,
implementation of the improvements
and #21) are proposed as project features rather
recommended in Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-
than as needed to improve intersection LOS and
1, with the exception of #27 Broadway/H
most likely will be related to and timed with
Street, #33 Hilltop Drive/H Street and #54
implementation of streetscape improvements
Third Avenue/J Street. Impacts to these 3
along Third Avenue.
intersections would remain significant and
unmitigated.
D-116
(continued)
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION (cont.)
Recommendations at intersections #27, The intersection numbers in the improvements
#33, and #54 do not improve conditions to described below correspond to the intersection
an acceptable LOS due to ROW and design numbering system used in the TIA (Appendix C
constraints. The following describes the of this EIR):
constraints at the three intersections: a. Tier 1 Improvements
• At the Broadway/H Street intersection • #1 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp/E
(#27), an additional northbound and Street: Add an eastbound through and right-
southbound through lane would be turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, and
required in order to achieve an northbound right-turn lane. Coordination with
acceptable LOS D conditions. However, Caltrans will be required for this
this improvement would require improvement.
extensive widening of Broadway and H
• #2 I-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street: Add a
Street to allow for lane drops.
westbound right-turn lane. Coordination with
Furthermore, this widening would
Caltrans will be required for this improvement
create longer pedestrian crossings. As
such, the recommended improvements • #7 Third Avenue/E Street: Convert the
of the eastbound queue jumper lane and northbound and southbound shared right-
the additional westbound through and through lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
right-turn lanes would improve the • #16 Third Avenue/F Street: Separate the
intersection from LOS F to LOS E southbound shared through-right lane into an
conditions. exclusive through and right-turn lanes,
convert the northbound shared through-right
lane into an exclusive right-turn lane.
D-117
(continued)
• At the Hilltop Drive/H Street • #21 Third Avenue/G Street: Convert the
intersection (#33), no improvements northbound/southbound shared through-right
would be recommended due to ROW lane into exclusive right-turn lanes.
constraints. The poor LOS at this • #24 I-5 Southbound Ramp/H Street: Add a
intersection is primarily caused by the southbound left, eastbound through and right-
high traffic volumes in the turn lanes. Coordination with Caltrans will be
eastbound/westbound movements. required for this improvement.
Additional through and/or turn lanes
• #25 I-5 Northbound Ramp/H Street: Add a
would be required in order to improve
westbound through and right-turn lane and
this intersection to an acceptable LOS.
restripe south approach to accommodate dual
With no improvements, this intersection
left-turn lanes. Coordination with Caltrans
would remain at LOS E during both
will be required for this improvement.
peak periods.
• #26 Woodlawn Avenue/H Street: Change
• At the Third Avenue/J Street
Woodlawn Avenue to a one-way couplet. This
intersection (#54), the required
improvement is required to serve the intense
improvement of an additional
redevelopment occurring on both sides of H
southbound right-turn lane would
Street. The couplet improvement is not
impact the existing commercial building
required mitigation further north toward E
(Henry’s Marketplace), which is built
Street.
adjacent to the sidewalk. Therefore, this
improvement is not recommended. • #27 Broadway/H Street: Add an eastbound
transit queue jumper lane and westbound
through and right-turn lanes.
D-118
(continued)
As a result, the LOS would remain at • #28 Fifth Avenue/H Street: Change the
LOS E. However, if the property were northbound/southbound approaches to include
to redevelop in the future, additional protective plus permissive phasing and add a
ROW could be obtained for the westbound right-turn lane.
southbound right-turn lane. • #29 Fourth Avenue/H Street: Add an
While existing TransNet funding is eastbound/westbound right-turn lane.
expected to cover some of the costs of • #44 Fourth Avenue/SR-54 Eastbound Ramp:
roadway and transit improvements and Add an eastbound right-turn lane.
existing traffic signal fees currently Coordination with Caltrans will be required
collected as new development occurs for this improvement.
would be applied, as appropriate, to
identified signal-phasing improvements,
the Facilities Implementation Analysis b. Tier 2 Improvements
(FIA) has identified proposed development • #34 Broadway/SR-54 Westbound Ramp: Add
fees that may be needed to fund some of a westbound right-turn lane. Coordination
the recommended traffic improvements. In with Caltrans will be required for this
addition, some of the improvements will improvement.
require right of way dedications either as • #59 J Street/I-5 Northbound Ramp: Add an
part of the development process or eastbound left-turn and westbound right-turn
concurrent with capital improvements, lane. Coordination with Caltrans will be
and/or coordination with Caltrans. required for this improvement.
D-119
(continued)
• #61 L Street/Bay Boulevard: Signalize the
intersection, add a southbound left-turn lane,
and a northbound right-turn overlap phase to
the traffic signal.
• #63 Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp:
Signalize the intersection. Coordination with
Caltrans will be required for this
improvement.
• #64 Industrial Boulevard/I-5 Northbound
Ramp: Signalize the intersection.
Coordination with Caltrans will be required
for this improvement.
• H Street from four lanes to six lanes from I-5
to Broadway
c. Tier 3 Improvements
• #13 Broadway/F Street: Add an eastbound
right-turn lane.
• #45 Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Street: Add a
southbound right-turn overlap phase to the
traffic signal.
• #57 Second Avenue/D Street: Convert to an
all-way stop controlled intersection.
D-120
(continued)
On an annual basis during buildout of the UCSP,
the City shall apply the TMP to monitor actual
performance of the street system in the
Subdistricts Area by conducting roadway segment
travel time studies in accordance with the City’s
Growth Management Program and Traffic
Threshold Standards. The results of the annual
study under the TMP will be used by the City to
determine the timing and need for implementation
of improvements to the nineteen intersections
identified above as having potential significant
impacts. The City shall implement the intersection
improvements in phases based on the results of the
annual TMP and on need and enhancement to the
function of the overall street network. In addition
to determining timing and need, this systems and
operations monitoring approach should also be
used to further ascertain final design details of the
intersection improvements and may include
consideration of the effects on traffic flow as well
as the impacts/benefits to other travel modes (e.g.,
pedestrians and bicycles) that are foundational to
the successful implementation of the Specific
Plan.
D-121
(continued)
The potential significant impacts to street 5.8.5-2: Segment Improvements. During build-out of Timing of City of Chula Vista
segments will be mitigated to below the UCSP, the City shall apply the Traffic implementation based on (CCV)
significance by implementation of the Monitoring Program (TMP) to monitor actual (1) results of the annual
improvements recommended in Mitigation performance of the street system in the Traffic Monitoring
Measure 5.8.5-2, with the exception of Subdistricts Area by conducting roadway Program (TMP); (2) need
Third Avenue between E and G Streets. segment travel time studies in accordance with and enhancement to the
The significant and unavoidable impact to the City’s Growth Management Program and function of the overall
this street segment result from the design Traffic Threshold Standards. The results of the street network; and (3) in
of the project, which is intended to reduce annual study under the TMP will be used by the a manner that efficiently
Third Avenue to a two-lane downtown City to determine the timing and need for implements with phasing
promenade to facilitate an enhanced implementation of improvements to the street of necessary adjacent
pedestrian environment along the segments identified as having potential intersection
traditional commercial village. Although significant impacts. The City shall implement the improvements.
the planned improvements would result in following street segment improvements:
an unacceptable LOS, they would meet the (1) based on the results of the annual TMP; or
project objectives of creating a more (2) based on need and enhancement to the
pedestrian friendly and active streetscape function of the overall street network; and (3) in
that will accommodate multi-modes of a manner that efficiently implements with
transportation rather than accommodating phasing of necessary adjacent intersection
only the automobile. improvements.
D-122
(continued)
1) H Street between I-5 and Broadway would be
reclassified as a six-lane gateway. As a result,
the acceptable ADT would increase and result
in an acceptable LOS.
2) Third Avenue between E Street and G Street
would be constructed as a two-lane downtown
promenade to facilitate an enhanced
pedestrian environment along the traditional
commercial village. As a result, the acceptable
ADT along the segment would decrease and
result in an unacceptable LOS. As such,
impacts to Third Avenue will be significant
and unavoidable. However, the Third Avenue
corridor intersections at E, F and G Streets
would all operate at an acceptable LOS.
D-123
(continued)
Due to the long-term nature of some of the 5.8.5- 3:Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
improvements, the fee program and Permit, subsequent development projects shall an Urban Core (CCV)
coordination have either not been prepare a traffic assessment to quantify the Development Permit
implemented or begun, respectively, projects’ potential traffic impacts. Subsequent (UCDP) or other
whereas the right of way exactions would projects will be required to contribute their fair discretionary permit.
occur with redevelopment. While these share to the Tiered Improvements listed above
improvements are intended to be under Mitigation 5.8.5.1. Mitigation may be in
implemented when necessary and within the form of:
the Tiers noted above, their long-term 1. Payment of Transportation Development
implementation cannot be assured at this Impact Fee (TDIF), as may be established in
time. Identified significant impacts will be the future for the western portion of the City;
partially mitigated but due to the lack of
2. Payment of existing Traffic Impact Signal
funding assurances at this time, future
Fee;
coordination with CALTRANS and
SANDAG, and future right of way 3. Construction of improvements within the
exactions, impacts are considered project boundaries; and/or
significant and unmitigated. 4. Early advancement of improvements beyond
the project boundaries, subject to a
reimbursement agreement.
D-124
(continued)
The City’s TDIF program for the west side of the
City, including the Urban Core is anticipated to
be developed within the subsequent twelve
months following adoption of the UCSP. The
TDIF will clearly establish the costs of the
improvements identified above as well as the fair
share costs to be applied to all subsequent
development projects. Once the TDIF has been
established, the fee will be consistently applied
to all subsequent development projects, until
such time that the TDIF is amended or rescinded.
In the interim, if subsequent development
projects are processed and approved prior to the
establishment of a TDIF, a condition of approval
will be included that prior to issuance of building
permits the project will contribute to the TDIF,
as may be established.
D-125
(continued)
Pedestrian, Bicycling and Public 5.8.5-4: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
Transit. The three-fold increase in Permit for subsequent development projects, the an Urban Core (CCV)
population projected for the UCSP traffic assessment prepared to quantify the Development Permit
Subdistricts Area by 2030 would place projects’ potential traffic impacts will also (UCDP) or other
greater demands on public transit services. identify how alternative modes of transportation discretionary permit.
However, provisions of the UCSP serve to will be accommodated. Mitigation may be in the
benefit, rather than to deteriorate, mobility form of:
conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and 1) Compliance with the development regulations
public transit users. Additionally, the and design guidelines of the UCSP to
UCSP does not conflict with any adopted accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and
plans or programs supporting alternative public transit; and
transportation.
2) Where applicable, construction of
Impacts to alternative forms of improvements within the project boundaries;
transportation as a result of the proposed and/or
UCSP would not be significant nor adverse 3) Early advancement of improvements beyond
given adherence of subsequent projects to the project boundaries, subject to a
relevant regulations and guidelines of the reimbursement agreement.
UCSP as outlined in Mitigation Measure
5.8.5-4.
D-126
(continued)
Parking. A projected total of 18,560 5.8.5-5: Prior to issuance of an Urban Core Development Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
parking spaces would be required to serve Permit, subsequent development projects shall an Urban Core (CCV)
future development of the proposed UCSP comply with the parking standards set forth in Development Permit
at buildout. the UCSP development regulations and design (UCDP) or other
guidelines for the type and intensity of discretionary permit.
Potential significant impacts to parking development proposed.
would be reduced to below significance by
the incorporation of these development
regulations and design guidelines into
subsequent development projects, as
required as part of the UCSP design review
process. Parking improvements will either
be made on-site (i.e. where required of
subsequent development projects), or off-
site (i.e. in coordination with the City’s
Parking District or in Lieu Fee program).
A number of other parking improvement
strategies are included in the UCSP
including raking buffers, parking districts
and parking structures.
D-127
(continued)
Multi-Jurisdictional Efforts. The 5.8.5-6: The City shall participate in a multi-jurisdictional To coincide with multi- City of Chula Vista
proposed UCSP will result in both direct effort conducted by Caltrans and SANDAG to year planning effort that (CCV), in cooperation
and cumulatively significant traffic impacts assist in developing a detailed engineering study began June 2005, is with other jurisdictions.
to study area freeway segments and ramps. of the freeway right-of-way that will identify ongoing and scheduled to
As described above under Road Segments transportation improvements along with funding, conclude in three to five
and Intersections Level of Service, the including federal, state, regional, and local years.
following freeway interchanges would be funding sources, and phasing, that would reduce
significantly impacted by the proposed congestion consistent with Caltrans Standards on
UCSP: the I-5 South corridor from the State Route 54
(SR-54) interchange to State Route 75 (SR-
• #1: Bay Boulevard/I-5 SB ramp at E 75)/Palm Avenue (the “I-5 South Corridor”)
Street (LOS E – AM Peak, LOS F – PM (hereinafter, the “Plan). Local funding sources
Peak); may include fair share contributions by private
• #2: I-5 NB Ramp at E Street (LOS E – development based on nexus as well as other
AM and PM Peak); mechanisms. The Plan required by this
• #24: I-5 SB Ramp at H Street (LOS F – mitigation shall include the following:
PM Peak); 1) The responsible entities (the “Entities”)
• #25: I-5 NB Ramp at H Street (LOS F – included in this effort will include, but may
PM Peak); not be limited to the City, the Port, SANDAG,
and Caltrans. Other entities may be included
• #34: Broadway at SR-54 WB Ramp upon the concurrence of the foregoing
(LOS F – AM Peak); Entities.
• #44: Fourth Avenue at SR-54 EB
Ramp (LOS F – PM Peak);
D-128
(continued)
• #59: J Street at I-5 NB Ramp (LOS F – 2) The Plan will specifically identify physical
AM Peak, LOS E – PM Peak); and operational improvements to I-5, relevant
• #63: Bay Boulevard at I-5 SB Ramp arterial roads and transit facilities (the
(LOS F – AM and PM Peak); and “Improvements”), that are focused on specific
transportation impacts and will also identify
• #64: Industrial Boulevard at I-5 NB
the fair share responsibilities of each Entity
Ramp (LOS F – PM Peak).
for the construction and financing for each
The monitoring of traffic as stipulated by Improvement. The Plan may also identify
Mitigation Measure 5.8.5-1 will assist in other improvements necessary to address
establishing the need and timing for regional transportation needs, but for purposes
transportation improvements, including of this mitigation measure, the Improvements
freeway-related improvements, serving the included in the Plan need only be designed to
UCSP area. In addition, Mitigation mitigate the impacts created by the Proposed
Measure 5.8.5-3 requires subsequent Project.
development projects to prepare a traffic 3) The Plan will set forth a timeline and other
assessment to quantify the project’s agreed-upon relevant criteria for
potential traffic impacts. Subsequent implementation of each Improvement.
projects will also be required to contribute
their fair share to the Tiered Improvements
listed above under Mitigation 5.8.5.1.
D-129
(continued)
Mitigation of impacts will require 4) The Plan will identify the total estimated
development and regional acceptance of a design and construction cost for each
feasible program to improve freeway Improvement and the responsibility of each
segments and ramps in the Urban Core Entity for both implementation and funding of
area. The City, along with Caltrans, and such costs.
SANDAG will continue to pursue and
5) The Plan will include the parameters for any
promote improvement of the I-5 freeway
fair-share funding contributions to be
facilities adjacent to the UCSP area. The
implemented, that would require private
concept of promoting/requiring “fair- and/or public developers to contribute to the
share” contributions on the part of costs, in a manner that will comply with
developers for improvements to the applicable law.
freeway system will need to be addressed
as part of the implementation of an 6) In developing the Plan, the Entities shall also
acceptable program to improve freeway consider ways in which the Improvements can
segments and ramps. As such, the be coordinated with existing local and
specification of such requirements cannot regional transportation and facilities financing
be determined at this time. Mitigation plans and programs, in order to avoid
duplication of effort and expenditure;
Measure 5.8.5-6 was developed to ensure
however, the existence of such other plans
the continued participation in regional
and programs shall not relieve the Entities of
transportation planning efforts by the City,
their collective obligation to develop and
Caltrans, SANDAG, and other entities as implement the Plan as set forth in this
may be identified. mitigation measure. Nothing in the Plan shall
be construed as relieving any Entity (or any
other entity) from its independent
responsibility (if any) for the implementation
of any transportation improvement.
D-130
(continued)
The City of Chula Vista shall continue to 7) The City shall seek adoption of the Plan
work with SANDAG and Caltrans on an before the City Council upon the completion
ongoing basis to identify sources and of the multi-jurisdictional effort to develop
obtain funding for a variety of the Plan. The City shall report, to their
transportation system improvements. governing bodies regarding the progress made
Future residential growth in the Urban to develop the Plan within six months of the
Core will be subject to the Regional first meeting of the Entities. Thereafter, the
Transportation Congestion Improvement City shall report at least annually regarding
Program, as stipulated by the Transnet the progress of the Plan, for a period of not
legislation and will provide additional less than five years, which may be extended at
funds for improvement of the regional the request of the City Council.
arterial system. 8) The Plan shall also expressly include each
Entity’s pledge that it will cooperate with
each other in implementing the Plan.
The failure or refusal of any Entity other than the
City to cooperate in the implementation of this
mitigation measure shall not constitute failure of
the City to implement this mitigation measure;
however, the City shall use its best efforts to
obtain the cooperation of all responsible Entities to
fully participate in order to achieve the goals of
the mitigation measure.
D-131
(continued)
PUBLIC SERVICES
Law Enforcement. Future development in 5.11.1-1: Subsequent development projects shall Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
accordance with the proposed UCSP would demonstrate that significant impacts to police an Urban Core (CCV)
result in a significant impact to law services resulting from an individual project are Development Permit
enforcement services because of the addressed prior to approval of an Urban Core (UCDP) or other
anticipated increase in calls for service and Development permit or other discretionary discretionary permit.
the additional travel time required to approval. As part of project review, subsequent
answer these calls. While the police development projects shall be evaluated for
facility at Fourth Avenue and F Street is adequate access for police vehicles (pursuant to
sufficient to meet the law enforcement GPU Policy PFS 6.1) and integration of Crime
needs created by increased demand Prevention Through Environmental Design
resulting from development, more police (CPTED) techniques (pursuant to GPU Policy
officers will be needed in order to maintain PFS 6.3). Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
response times. Significant impacts would an Urban Core (CCV)
5.11.1-2: As a condition of project approval, individual
result if timing of these provisions does not Development Permit
developers shall pay the public facilities
coincide with projected increase in demand (UCDP) or other
development impact fees (PFDIF) at the rate in
for services and populations growth. discretionary permit.
effect at the time building permits are issued.
Implementation of mitigation measures
5.11.1-3: As part of the annual budgeting process, the City
5.11-1-1 through 5.11.1-3 would mitigate Needs assessed during
shall assess the need for additional police City of Chula Vista
impacts to the provisions of adequate law
personnel to provide protection services annual City budget (CCV)
enforcement services resulting from the review.
adoption of the UCSP to below a level of consistent with established City service levels
significance. and commensurate with the increase in
population.
D-132
(continued)
PUBLIC SERVICES (cont.)
Fire Protection. The Chula Vista Fire 5.11.2-1: Prior to approval, subsequent individual Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
Department does not currently meet the development projects in the UCSP shall an Urban Core (CCV)
threshold standard for response time for the demonstrate provision of adequate access and Development Permit
City, including the UCSP Subdistricts water pressure for new buildings. (UCDP) or other
Area. Buildout of the proposed UCSP discretionary permit.
5.11.2-2: As a condition of project approval, individual
would increase demand for fire protection Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
developers shall pay the public facilities
services. However, as population growth an Urban Core (CCV)
development impact fees at the rate in effect at
in the service area warrants, additional fire Development Permit
the time building permits are issued.
protection personnel and fire protection (UCDP) or other
equipment and facilities would be provided 5.11.2-3: As part of the annual budgeting process, the City discretionary permit.
to help ensure adequate service within the will assess the need for additional fire
Needs assessed during City of Chula Vista
requirements of the GMOC threshold personnel to provide protection services
annual City budget (CCV)
standards. Significant impacts to fire consistent with established City service levels
review.
protection services would result if timing and commensurate with the increase in
of these provisions does not coincide with population.
projected increase in demand for services
and population growth.
With the implementation of mitigation
measures 5.11.2-1 through 5.11.2-3,
significant impacts to the provision of fire
protection services would be mitigated to
less than significant.
D-133
(continued)
Schools. The proposed UCSP will result in 5.11.3-1: Prior to approval, subsequent development Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
a three-fold increase in population within projects in the UCSP shall demonstrate that an Urban Core (CCV)
the Subdistricts Area at buildout and an significant impacts to public educational Development Permit
associated increase in demand for schools. services resulting from the individual project (UCDP) or other
At buildout, the UCSP is expected to have been addressed. As a condition of project discretionary permit.
generate a net increase of approximately approval, individual developers shall pay the
3,877 students between elementary, middle statutory school impact fees at the rate in effect
school, and high school grades. The at the time building permits are issued.
generation of approximately 2,485 addi-
tional elementary students would have a
significant impact on existing elementary
schools serving the area because they are
already at or near capacity. New students
generated by the UCSP would require at
least 59 additional elementary school
classrooms.
However, potentially fewer students may
result from UCSP buildout or interim
conditions due to the intensified urban
environment of the UCSP, with new mid-
to high-rise mixed uses likely to be
occupied by single or childless young
couples, or empty nesters. Therefore, the
impacts may be overstated and will be
monitored to accurately plan for new
student enrollment.
D-134
(continued)
Libraries. Buildout of the UCSP may The following mitigation measure will mitigate library Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
require additional library space in order to impacts resulting from the adoption of the UCSP to below an Urban Core (CCV)
meet and maintain the City criteria of 500 a level of significance. Development Permit
square feet per 1,000 population and 3 (UCDP) or other
books per person for new development. 5.11.4-1: Prior to approval, subsequent individual discretionary permit.
Based on the expected net increase in development projects in the UCSP shall
population of 18,318 with buildout of the demonstrate that significant impacts to the
UCSP, increased demand on existing provision of library services resulting from
library services would amount to individual projects have been addressed. As a
approximately 9,159 square feet of library condition of project approval, individual
facilities and 54,954 books. Existing developers shall pay the public facilities
library service conditions in the City are development impact fees at the rate in effect at
inadequate and not in compliance with City the time building permits are issued.
standards. Additional library capacity is
planned by 2007, however, with the
construction of the 30,000-square-foot
Rancho Del Rey Library. In the absence of
this or other new library construction, any
additional demand on library services
would comprise a significant impact.
D-135
(continued)
Parks and Recreation. Implementation of 5.11.5-1: Prior to approval of an Urban Core Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
the proposed UCSP would generate Development Permit, each subsequent project an Urban Core (CCV)
increased demand for parks and recreation shall establish to the satisfaction of the Development Permit
facilities. Full buildout of the UCSP would Community Development Director that the (UCDP) or other
be required to provide up to approximately project meets the City’s parkland dedication discretionary permit.
55 acres of new parkland (incrementally requirement. As a condition of project
and commensurate with new development) approval, individual developers shall provide
in order to meet the Chula Vista Municipal required parkland and facilities on-site, if
Code, Park Development Ordinance possible and consistent with potential site
standard of 3 acres of parkland for every locations identified in the UCSP and Parks
1,000 people. A significant impact could Master Plan; or pay the applicable parkland
occur if dedication of parkland and acquisition and parkland development fee and
construction of new facilities does not recreation facility development impact fees at
coincide with project implementation and the rates in effect at the time building permits
project population growth. are issued.
Implementation of mitigation measure
5.11.5-1 would reduce impacts to the
provisions of park and recreation services
and facilities resulting from the adoption of
the UCSP to below a level of significance.
D-136
(continued)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Based 5.12.2-1: Prior to the approval of subsequent individual Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
on buildout projections, impacts to the development projects, project plans shall an Urban Core (CCV)
provision of sewer service would be demonstrate that there is sufficient wastewater Development Permit
significant. Chula Vista owns capacity in capacity available to serve the proposed project. (UCDP) or other
the Metro system, which provides Conditions of approval may require sewer discretionary permit.
conveyance of City wastewater flows. capacity fees to be contributed to mitigate
Increasing population will place additional project-related impacts.
demand on sewer services. While it is the
intent of the City to ensure that services are
provided concurrent with need, the
provision of sewer services is not solely
within its authority. Although the City is in
the process of acquiring additional capacity
from Metro, that acquisition has not yet
been finalized. Based on GPU buildout
projections, the City will be generating
approximately 26.2 mgd of wastewater
citywide by 2030 and would need to
acquire additional 6.4 mgd of capacity
rights by the year 2030 in order to meet
citywide projected demand. Of this total,
1.57 mgd are projected to be generated in
western Chula Vista, including a projected
generation of 0.88 mgd for the UCSP
Subdistricts Area.
D-137
(continued)
PUBLIC UTILITIES (cont.)
Energy. Impacts to energy are considered 5.12.4-1: The City shall continue to implement the Energy Prior to the approval of City of Chula Vista
significant because there is no long-term Strategy Action Plan that addresses demand an Urban Core (CCV)
assurance that energy supplies will be side management, energy efficient and Development Permit
available at buildout of the UCSP. renewable energy outreach programs for (UCDP) or other
Avoidance of energy impacts cannot be businesses and residents, energy acquisition, discretionary permit.
assured regardless of land use designation power generation, and distributed energy
or population size. Although changes to resources and legislative actions, and continue
planned land uses in the City would to implement the CO2 Reduction Plan to lessen
continue to implement the Energy Strategy the impacts on energy.
Action Plan, San Diego Regional Energy
While implementation of the above mitigation
Plan and Transit First Plan, implementation
measure reduces energy related impacts, because
of the proposed land uses identified in the there is no assurance that energy resources will be
UCSP has the potential to result in available to adequately serve the projected increase
significant impacts to nonrenewable and in population resulting from adoption of the UCSP,
slowly renewable energy resources as a the impact remains significant.
result of anticipated growth.
The environmental sustainability measures
of the UCSP(Chapter VI, G.) may further
serve to reduce energy consumption
associated with construction and
occupation of structures within the UCSP
area.
D-138

Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

April 2007

City Council Ordinance No. 3070