Agenda packet — La Mesa City Council, May 9, 2023 (part 2 of 8)

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 4 ends

In the 1980’s, the City embarked on a major redevelopment effort to improve the Alvarado Creek corridor, with the goal of removing perceived blight, solving the ongoing flooding issues, and installing needed public improvements. The Project will accomplish these goals. The La Mesa General Plan Land Use & Urban Design Element designates the Project site as Regional Serving Commercial, and describes the designation as follows:

This land use designation is assigned to those areas of the City which are suitable for more intense urban activities, such as high volume retail sales, and other sales and services which are expected to draw local and Regional customers. Areas designated Regional Commercial are served by convenient freeway access and public transportation. Grossmont Center, Fletcher Parkway and Alvarado Road are examples of areas where the designation is applied.

Examples of uses intended in the Regional Commercial designation include retail shopping centers, large office complexes and uses providing services to the traveling public such as restaurants, service stations, hotels, and motels. Entertainment uses such as movie theaters and nightclubs may be conditionally permitted. Within larger areas of the City, which have been designated Regional Serving Commercial; there may be areas which are suitable for mixed-use or high density residential developments. The appropriate mix of uses permitted within these areas will be determined on a case-by-case review or by the amendment or adoption of a specific plan which will also establish the appropriate residential density.
(LU&UD Element, p. LD-32, emphasis added.)
The Land Use & Urban Design Element emphasizes the importance of encouraging transitoriented development:

Local jurisdictions have worked with SANDAG to develop the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. An important part of this strategy is commitment of more of the region’s transportation resources to improve the public transit system. Transit systems work best in neighborhoods characterized by dense residential and commercial development. The La Mesa General Plan encourages Transit Oriented Development, by permitting an intensification of a mix of uses adjacent to trolley stations and along transit corridors. (LU&UD Element, p. LD-26.)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 4 ends

Page 171 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 5 ends

The General Plan Housing Element includes a variety of “Implementing Programs,” including the following:

9. Facilitate the Development of Higher Density Housing.

In an urbanized area like La Mesa, land represents a significant cost component in both multi- and single-family development projects.

One way to lower the cost of land per unit is to allow a greater number of dwelling units per acre of land. Increased density generally results in a lower land cost per unit, and greater unit affordability.

As a means of reducing residential land costs, La Mesa will encourage development at the upper end of its residential density ranges, particularly in targeted areas such as the mixed use districts along the City’s transit corridors. The City has identified 12 opportunity sites/expected projects to accommodate a significant portion of the City’s remaining RHNA of 2,274 units.
(Housing Element, p. 106.)
Acknowledging the suitability of the Project site for high density residential development, the City’s Housing Element designates the Project site as an “Opportunity Site” in Table HE-49, with the following description:

The [Alvarado] Specific Plan will provide 900 units of housing at above moderate income.
(Housing Element, Table HE-49, p. 91.)
The Project is critical to the City’s satisfaction of its Housing Element goals and achieving Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) requirements in the 6th Housing Element Cycle (2021-2029). The Project accounts for 900 of the total 1,643 above moderate income dwelling units identified within the Opportunity Sites. (Housing Element, Table HE-49.) Of the 3,797 total dwelling units required to meet the City’s RHNA requirement, the Project accounts for 24%. (Housing Element, Table HE-53, p. 116.) With regard to the above moderate household RHNA requirement of 1,874 dwelling units, the Project represents 48%. (Ibid.) Of the “remaining RHNA of 2,274 units” referenced in the Housing Element above, the Project represents 40%.

There are no other housing projects being processed by the City that approach the size of the Project. The only other Opportunity Site of statistical consequence in achieving RHNA goals is Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 5 ends

The General Plan Housing Element includes a variety of “Implementing Programs,” including the following:

9. Facilitate the Development of Higher Density Housing.

In an urbanized area like La Mesa, land represents a significant cost component in both multi- and single-family development projects.

There are no other housing projects being processed by the City that approach the size of the Project. The only other Opportunity Site of statistical consequence in achieving RHNA goals is

Page 172 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 6 ends

Grossmont Center, which could produce 496 above moderate income units, as well as affordable housing. (Housing Element, p. 91.) That project will not be processed nor built in the near term.

The Project is consistent with and implements these key provisions of the City’s General Plan. The information above, essential to understanding the Project site planning history, the City’s housing strategy, and Project’s role in fulfilling the City’s RHNA obligations, has been omitted from the Staff Report.

IV. THERE ARE NO FACTS IN SUPPORT OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR

PROJECT DENIAL PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT As mentioned above, the Project is a housing development project, and thus subject to the HAA. Also known as the “anti-NIMBY law,” the HAA prohibits local governments from disapproving compliant housing development projects unless certain health or safety findings are made. Specifically, Government Code section 65589.5 provides:
(4) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

There is no basis to make these findings. Indeed, the FEIR concludes there are no significant, unmitigated environmental impacts caused by the Project.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 6 ends

Grossmont Center, which could produce 496 above moderate income units, as well as affordable housing. (Housing Element, p. 91.) That project will not be processed nor built in the near term.

IV. THERE ARE NO FACTS IN SUPPORT OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR

PROJECT DENIAL PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT As mentioned above, the Project is a housing development project, and thus subject to the HAA. Also known as the “anti-NIMBY law,” the HAA prohibits local governments from disapproving compliant housing development projects unless certain health or safety findings are made. Specifically, Government Code section 65589.5 provides:
(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

There is no basis to make these findings. Indeed, the FEIR concludes there are no significant, unmitigated environmental impacts caused by the Project.

Page 173 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 7 ends

In addition, a proposed housing development project may not be deemed inconsistent with otherwise applicable zoning standards and criteria if the proposed project is consistent with objective general plan standards and criteria, but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(4).) That is the case here, where the General Plan clearly contemplates high-density residential development but “multi-family residential units are not permitted and the project would not comply with the allowed uses, standards, and requirements established by the City of La Mesa Zoning Ordinance for the project site.” (Staff Report, p. 4.) Therefore, any inconsistent zoning standards and criteria which would not allow high-density residential development of the Project site consistent with the General Plan provisions outlined above, are not applicable and may not be imposed.

Also, in determining whether a proposed housing development project is consistent with applicable objective standards and criteria, a local agency has 60 days after an application is deemed complete (for projects of more than 150 dwelling units) to provide the applicant written documentation identifying the standard at issue and explaining the reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent with the requirement. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) If an agency fails to timely provide this written explanation, the housing development shall be deemed “consistent, compliant and in conformity” with the applicable requirement. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(3)(2)(B).) With regard to the Project, the City did not timely provide any written notice of non-compliance with applicable objective General Plan standards or criteria. Consequently, the Project is deemed consistent, compliant and in conformity with all objective General Plan requirements.

V. THE STAFF REPORT CONTAINS NUMEROUS INACCURACIES, AND IN MANY INSTANCES IS FLATLY CONTRADICTED BY THE CITY’S FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Staff Report contains a host of inaccurate and incorrect statements. Exhibit 1 to this letter includes a detailed response to each incorrect assertion made. We urge the Planning Commission to review the exhibit. In the interest of brevity, a few of the more significant misstatements are addressed below:

A. Project Consistency With General Plan, Urban Design Program and other City Policies. As noted above, statements that the Project is inconsistent with City policies, in particular the General Plan, is contradicted by extensive analysis. The FEIR, at section 4.8, Land Use, analyzes Project consistency with applicable policies and land use plans, and finds the Project to be consistent with them all. The Staff Report selectively references certain goals or policies and suggests the Project fails to further them. This is contradicted by the FEIR and seeks to interject subjectivity into the process, contrary to the HAA.

B. The Project Might Be a Health Hazard to Future Residents Due to its Proximity to 1-8. This assertion is demonstrably false and squarely addressed in the FEIR Air Quality analysis, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 7 ends

Also, in determining whether a proposed housing development project is consistent with applicable objective standards and criteria, a local agency has 60 days after an application is deemed complete (for projects of more than 150 dwelling units) to provide the applicant written documentation identifying the standard at issue and explaining the reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent with the requirement. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) If an agency fails to timely provide this written explanation, the housing development shall be deemed “consistent, compliant and in conformity” with the applicable requirement. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).) With regard to the Project, the City did not timely provide any written notice of non-compliance with applicable objective General Plan standards or criteria. Consequently, the Project is deemed consistent, compliant and in conformity with all objective General Plan requirements.

V. THE STAFF REPORT CONTAINS NUMEROUS INACCURACIES, AND IN MANY INSTANCES IS FLATLY CONTRADICTED BY THE CITY’S FINAL

B. The Project Might Be a Health Hazard to Future Residents Due to its Proximity to I-8. This assertion is demonstrably false and squarely addressed in the FEIR Air Quality analysis,

Page 174 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 8 ends

section 4.1. The environmental analysis included a Health Risk Assessment pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program — Risk Assessment Guidelines — Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015). The report concluded that future Project residents will be safe and not exposed to significant health risks under applicable California standards. (FEIR, p. 4.1-25.) The FEIR also demonstrates that the Project will comply with applicable noise standards. (FEIR, § 4.9, Noise.) C. Project Massing and Compatibility with the Neighborhood. The staff report suggests that the Project may not fit in with the neighborhood. Using code words often employed by opponents of multi-family housing, the staff report asks whether the Project is “consistent with the City’s unique community identity and historical image as a distinct suburban community,” appropriate in size and scale and compatible with the area. (Staff Report, p. 1, 7.) In addition to finding Project consistency with City land use and design policies addressed above, the FEIR contains extensive analysis of neighborhood compatibility, visual impacts and massing. (FEIR, § 4.14, Visual Resources.) In particular, FEIR Table 4.14-1 at page 4.14-20, addresses the issues raised in the Staff Report and finds the Project consistent with City policies, and concludes that no significant impacts will occur.

D. The Specific Plan is Unnecessarily Comprehensive. Staff criticizes the document for providing “extensive background discussion and support and rationale for the Plan.” (Staff Report, p. 5.) Staff complains that these aspects of the Specific Plan “would not provide guidance or serve a function in the implementation of the Plan.” Yet, staff does not indicate that these sections of the Specific Plan are inaccurate or intended to provide guidance. Rather, these sections provide historical context and explain how the Specific Plan came to be, what existing deficiencies it addresses and how it accomplishes those goals. Apparently, staff would have drafted these sections differently or eliminated them altogether. Yet such preferences don’t render the Specific Plan deficient.

E. Specific Plan Design Standards. The Staff Report suggests the Specific Plan “in its current state would not function properly as a regulatory tool...” (Staff Report, p. 5.) In particular, staff criticizes the objective design standards contained in the Specific Plan, drafted in order to comply with HAA requirements. (See Exhibit 2 hereto for the design standards at issue.) Staff states that the design standards provide “insufficient guidance” and is “far less articulated and varied than shown in illustrations in the Plan.” (/bid.) The Staff Report states that the graphics provided in the Specific Plan “could mislead decisionmakers and the public to expect future construction to be similar to what is shown.” (Staff Report, pp. 5-6.) The illustrations in the Specific Plan are examples of development consistent with the design parameters provided, and are not intended to the be the exact project which will be constructed.

Specific Plans are not intended as final construction drawings or design. Rather, the design standards provided ensure that a quality project meeting all of the requirements outlined. The Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 8 ends

section 4.1. The environmental analysis included a Health Risk Assessment pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015). The report concluded that future Project residents will be safe and not exposed to significant health risks under applicable California standards. (FEIR, p. 4.1-25.) The FEIR also demonstrates that the Project will comply with applicable noise standards. (FEIR, § 4.9, Noise.) C. Project Massing and Compatibility with the Neighborhood. The staff report suggests that the Project may not fit in with the neighborhood. Using code words often employed by opponents of multi-family housing, the staff report asks whether the Project is “consistent with the City’s unique community identity and historical image as a distinct suburban community,” appropriate in size and scale and compatible with the area. (Staff Report, p. 1, 7.) In addition to finding Project consistency with City land use and design policies addressed above, the FEIR contains extensive analysis of neighborhood compatibility, visual impacts and massing. (FEIR, § 4.14, Visual Resources.) In particular, FEIR Table 4.14-1 at page 4.14-20, addresses the issues raised in the Staff Report and finds the Project consistent with City policies, and concludes that no significant impacts will occur.

E. Specific Plan Design Standards. The Staff Report suggests the Specific Plan “in its current state would not function properly as a regulatory tool…” (Staff Report, p. 5.) In particular, staff criticizes the objective design standards contained in the Specific Plan, drafted in order to comply with HAA requirements. (See Exhibit 2 hereto for the design standards at issue.) Staff states that the design standards provide “insufficient guidance” and is “far less articulated and varied than shown in illustrations in the Plan.” (Ibid.) The Staff Report states that the graphics provided in the Specific Plan “could mislead decisionmakers and the public to expect future construction to be similar to what is shown.” (Staff Report, pp. 5-6.) The illustrations in the Specific Plan are examples of development consistent with the design parameters provided, and are not intended to the be the exact project which will be constructed.

Specific Plans are not intended as final construction drawings or design. Rather, the design standards provided ensure that a quality project meeting all of the requirements outlined. The

Page 175 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 9 ends

suggestion that the Specific Plan or its design component is deficient, misleading, lacking necessary content, or is not a functional document, is not supported by the evidence.

A key Project team member in the preparation of the Specific Plan, and the design components and standards, is the Dahlin Group. Highly regarded architects and planners with decades of combined experience, the Dahlin Group has been involved with successful projects throughout California, with an emphasis on complex projects with a high degree quality. Included as Exhibit 3 hereto is a memo from the Dahlin Group addressing the design standards included in the Specific Plan, and identifying each aspect the standards that will guide future development.

Also included are the qualifications of the Dahlin Group team members who are working on the Project and examples of other specific plans they have drafted and similar, large residential and mixed-use projects they have designed.

Next, staff indicates that the City’s Urban Design Program is subjective in nature, inconsistent with the objective design program required under the HAA, and complains it is referenced in the Specific Plan thereby creating an inconsistency. This misrepresents the proposed design guidelines. While the Urban Design Program is referenced, and developers are encouraged to use it as guidance, the requirements are not objective, and thus not mandatory:

This Chapter contains project development guidelines that provide the basis for project evaluation through the City’s review process as outlined in Chapter IV. Objective Design Standards are provided that combine the elements of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Objective Design Standards are included to implement Senate Bill (SB 35) signed into law in 2017 and SB 330 (which in part amended the Housing Accountability Act) signed into law in 2019, and will apply to projects within the Specific Plan Area which meet the requirements of such state laws. Projects in the Plan Area qualifying under SB 35 or SB 330 are subject to the objective design standards within this chapter. These projects are not subject to subjective design guidelines as a matter of state law; however, the intent and application of subjective guidelines is encouraged to be implemented by developers to the greatest extent feasible to ensure high-quality development that is consistent with the community identity of the Plan Area. (Specific Plan, Chapter III, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, pp. III-1 — II1-2.)
The City’s Urban Design Program is subjective in nature, as the Staff Report indicates, and thus inconsistent with State law. It may not be applied to any project absent the developer’s consent.

Thus, the Project includes the standards to be utilized on a voluntary basis. There is no inconsistency. Moreover, the statement in the staff report that a substantial conformance process necessarily is discretionary, and thus violates the HAA, is incorrect. Many jurisdiction utilize a Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 9 ends

suggestion that the Specific Plan or its design component is deficient, misleading, lacking necessary content, or is not a functional document, is not supported by the evidence.

This Chapter contains project development guidelines that provide the basis for project evaluation through the City’s review process as outlined in Chapter IV. Objective Design Standards are provided that combine the elements of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Objective Design Standards are included to implement Senate Bill (SB 35) signed into law in 2017 and SB 330 (which in part amended the Housing Accountability Act) signed into law in 2019, and will apply to projects within the Specific Plan Area which meet the requirements of such state laws. Projects in the Plan Area qualifying under SB 35 or SB 330 are subject to the objective design standards within this chapter. These projects are not subject to subjective design guidelines as a matter of state law; however, the intent and application of subjective guidelines is encouraged to be implemented by developers to the greatest extent feasible to ensure high‐quality development that is consistent with the community identity of the Plan Area. (Specific Plan, Chapter III, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, pp. III-1 – III-2.)
The City’s Urban Design Program is subjective in nature, as the Staff Report indicates, and thus inconsistent with State law. It may not be applied to any project absent the developer’s consent.

Page 176 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 10 ends

The City applied for and was awarded State grant funds under SB 2 to create new design standards in keeping with the HAA. This fact is reflected in the City’s Housing Element (6th Cycle), and the City is required to adopt such standards this calendar year. (Housing Element, p. 103 and p. 113.) We are unaware of any progress yet made towards satisfying this requirement.

No draft standards have been released to the public.

Ironically, in later Staff Report comments, the Project is criticized for supposedly not complying with the City’s Urban Design Program.

F. The Applicant Didn’t Adequately Respond To, Or Ignored Staff Comments. The Staff Report at page 5 asserts that the applicant didn’t address or didn’t fully address staff’s comments provided in letters dated October 18, 2019 and August 10, 2020, attached as Exhibits D and E to the Staff Report. The Staff Report also states that “Development and design standards initially requested of the applicant in May 2019 were provided to staff in June 2022” (referencing the objective design standards drafted by applicant to comply with HAA requirements, attached at Exhibit B to the Staff Report). These statements are inaccurate. Initially, the City provided the applicant comments on the Specific Plan in a letter dated October 18, 2019. It is important to note that this letter from the City represents the first written comments on the draft Specific Plan submitted one year earlier, in September 2018. The City’s letter resulted in the submittal of a substantially revised and reorganized Specific Plan in March 2020, addressing staff comments.

Subsequently, on August 10, 2020, staff provided the second comment letter to the applicant. The applicant responded in November 2020. (See applicant’s responses to City letter highlighted in bold at Exhibit 4 attached hereto.) The City thereafter did not respond in writing.

The City letter of August 10, 2020, is the last written communication from City staff with regard to the content of the Specific Plan, until issuance of the Staff Report on August 12, 2022. At no point did the City respond in writing to the applicant or dispute the applicant’s responses to the final staff comment letter.

Despite the position taken in the Staff Report that the Specific Plan is inadequate, on September 9, 2020, the City released the Draft EIR and Specific Plan for public review and comment.

Staff made verbal comments during recent meetings that the Specific Plan was “deficient.” In an effort to assuage staffs concern and to bring the Specific Plan up to the objective standard requirements set forth in the HAA, the applicant, on its own initiative, provided the revised design standards on June 7, 2022. (Exhibit 2 hereto includes those standards.) At a subsequent meeting on June 29, 2022, staff rejected the submittal as inadequate. Staff did not, and as of this writing has Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 10 ends

ministerial substantial conformance process to ensure that project submittals meet all applicable requirements. (See City of San Diego, Process 1, Substantial Conformance provisions at https://www.sandiego.gov/department-document/substantial-conformance-review-scr.) The City applied for and was awarded State grant funds under SB 2 to create new design standards in keeping with the HAA. This fact is reflected in the City’s Housing Element (6th Cycle), and the City is required to adopt such standards this calendar year. (Housing Element, p. 103 and p. 113.) We are unaware of any progress yet made towards satisfying this requirement.

No draft standards have been released to the public.

Ironically, in later Staff Report comments, the Project is criticized for supposedly not complying with the City’s Urban Design Program.

Despite the position taken in the Staff Report that the Specific Plan is inadequate, on September 9, 2020, the City released the Draft EIR and Specific Plan for public review and comment.

Staff made verbal comments during recent meetings that the Specific Plan was “deficient.” In an effort to assuage staff’s concern and to bring the Specific Plan up to the objective standard requirements set forth in the HAA, the applicant, on its own initiative, provided the revised design standards on June 7, 2022. (Exhibit 2 hereto includes those standards.) At a subsequent meeting on June 29, 2022, staff rejected the submittal as inadequate. Staff did not, and as of this writing has

Page 177 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 11 ends

not, provided any written comments or proposed revisions to the proposed design standards. At no point in time did staff request objective design standards. The Staff Report represents the first written comments on the design standards submitted.

VI. THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS DECLARED THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT NON-COMPLIANT WITH

STATE HOUSING LAW
The City presently is out of compliance with State laws regarding its Housing Element. As the Planning Commission is aware, HCD and the Attorney General of California have become more aggressive in their enforcement of such laws as the State-declared housing crisis worsens.

VII. CONCLUSION
The Staff Report, for the many reasons outlined herein, appears to suggest that the City should disregard its obligations and not implement the requirements of the General Plan to embrace transit-oriented, high-density residential development in certain locations within the City best suited to accommodate these housing needs. Rather, the Staff Report contains unsupported arguments and misinformation offered up as justification why La Mesa shouldn’t abide by its General Plan and State law. The Staff Report is far off-base in many instances, suggesting the Project might make people sick, failing to disclose studies and analysis in the FEIR which contradict the Staff Report, omitting explanation of the City’s Housing Element, making no mention of the HAA, and unfairly blaming the applicant for supposed non-responsiveness, to name a few. These tactics are exactly what the HAA was enacted to combat, and have caused HCD to threaten or take enforcement action against other non-compliant cities. La Mesa should reject the Staff Report’s invitation to follow rogue cities in defiance of State law.

We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to recommend certification of the FEIR, and approval of the Project.

Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC:sn
Attachments
cc: Reza Paydar
Christopher Wahl
Dave Witt
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 11 ends

VI. THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS DECLARED THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT NON-COMPLIANT WITH

We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to recommend certification of the FEIR, and approval of the Project.

Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC:sn
Attachments
cc: Reza Paydar
Christopher Wahl
Dave Witt

Page 178 of 1126 ends

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 12 ends

Crista Sosenko, Esq.

Greg Humora
Glenn P. Sabine, Esq.

Kerry Kusiak
Robin Huntley
Jose Ayala
Matthew T. Struhar, Esq.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
La Mesa Planning Commission
August 15, 2022

Page 12 ends

Crista Sosenko, Esq.

Greg Humora
Glenn P. Sabine, Esq.

Kerry Kusiak
Robin Huntley
Jose Ayala
Matthew T. Struhar, Esq.

Page 179 of 1126 ends

EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1

Page 180 of 1126 ends

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT

Page 4 ends

q3 those areas of the. City within floodways
or water courses in which flood control
structures and facilities are either
required or planned to be installed or
improved. The construction of buildings
and structures within areas in Overlay
Zone F are prohibited until adequate
flood protection facilities are constructed
or guaranteed to be constructed and
temporary alternate arrangements are
Under current zoning, multi-family
residential units are not permitted and the
project would not comply with the
allowed uses, standards, and requirements
established by the City of La Mesa
Zoning Ordinance for the project site.

The Plan is proposed to establish the
planning goals, policies, and objectives,
STAFF
REPORT STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
PAGE #

Page 3 ends

92 Plan designation of Regional Serving Land Use Designation of General Serving Commercial and a Zoning designation of | Commercial which matches with the City’s C CM-F-D (Light Industrial and (General Commercial) Zone. Nor is it Commercial Service with Floodway and | consistent with the written policy statement in Urban 2- / Design Overlays). The Light | the GP LU Element that identifies the site as:

Industrial and Commercial Service zone
(CM) is applied in areas that are “70th Street Station: There is redevelopment generally removed from residential uses | potential for more intensive mixed use projects such as along Alvarado Road. The CM located near the 70th Street Trolley Station in zone is intended to include heavy the Alvarado Creek Redevelopment Area. commercial activity and light industrial Sites in this area are designated for Regional services. Serving Commercial uses to contribute to the
local economy, such as office, hotel, multifamily or mixed use development.” The City’s rezoning in the late 1970’s from
Mobilehome Park (MPH) to CM rendered the
current RV park a legal non-conforming use.

Page 3 ends

q3 Zone F) is intended for application in construction of buildings and structures within areas in Overlay Zone F are prohibited until
adequate flood protection facilities are
constructed or guaranteed ....” is incorrect.

The Flood Overlay Zone requires new
construction to be protected at or above one
foot above the designated 100 year flood level.

The Project complies with this requirement.
made to protect persons and property.

Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act,
future review of proposed development may
only apply the objective standards provided in

the Specific Plan.
4875-3145-0670.1
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn
jac/scn

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT
STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE

Page 3 ends

¶ 2
The project site currently has a General
Plan designation of Regional Serving
Commercial and a Zoning designation of
CM-F-D (Light Industrial and
Commercial Service with Floodway and
Urban 2- / Design Overlays). The Light
Industrial and Commercial Service zone
(CM) is applied in areas that are
generally removed from residential uses
such as along Alvarado Road. The CM
zone is intended to include heavy
commercial activity and light industrial
services.

The CM Zone is not consistent with the GP
Land Use Designation of General Serving
Commercial which matches with the City’s C
(General Commercial) Zone. Nor is it
consistent with the written policy statement in
the GP LU Element that identifies the site as:
“70th Street Station: There is redevelopment
potential for more intensive mixed use projects
located near the 70th Street Trolley Station in
the Alvarado Creek Redevelopment Area.

Sites in this area are designated for Regional
Serving Commercial uses to contribute to the
local economy, such as office, hotel, multifamily or mixed use development.” The City’s rezoning in the late 1970’s from
Mobilehome Park (MPH) to CM rendered the
current RV park a legal non-conforming use.

Page 3 ends

¶ 3
The Floodway Overlay Zone (Overlay
Zone F) is intended for application in
those areas of the. City within floodways
or water courses in which flood control
structures and facilities are either
required or planned to be installed or
improved. The construction of buildings
and structures within areas in Overlay
Zone F are prohibited until adequate
flood protection facilities are constructed
or guaranteed to be constructed and
temporary alternate arrangements are
made to protect persons and property.

The Flood Overlay zone reference that “The
construction of buildings and structures within
areas in Overlay Zone F are prohibited until
adequate flood protection facilities are
constructed or guaranteed ….” is incorrect.

The Flood Overlay Zone requires new
construction to be protected at or above one
foot above the designated 100 year flood level.

The Project complies with this requirement.

Page 4 ends

¶ 3
Under current zoning, multi-family
residential units are not permitted and the
project would not comply with the
allowed uses, standards, and requirements
established by the City of La Mesa
Zoning Ordinance for the project site.

The Plan is proposed to establish the
planning goals, policies, and objectives,
Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act,
future review of proposed development may
only apply the objective standards provided in
the Specific Plan.

Page 181 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
PAGE #
and design guidelines and development
standards for the development J of the
site. Building design and site
development of the project would be
established through a form-based
approach of the Plan, intended to guide
design with text and diagrams to illustrate
ultimate development of the site.

Development on each parcel will require
the approval of a Site Development Plan
and Design Review application prior to
construction. The Design Review
application will be subject to ratification
by the City Council.

Page 5 ends

92 efficient, well-organized, regulatory requirements for content and format. These document that presents policies, rules, issues are addressed in the accompanying letter and regulations in a format that is from applicant’s counsel. relatively easy to understand and
navigate. It is important that a Specific
Plan provide clear regulation and
guidance to current and future staff as
well as to the property owner for
development of the property and
construction of the project. Since itis a
regulatory document, according to the
City Attorney, clarity and conciseness are
paramount for successful enforcement in
court, the same as any other zoning
ordinance.

Page 5 ends

q3 not reflect the desired attributes of a accompanying letter from applicant’s counsel.

Specific Plan and exhibits many
inconsistencies with the objectives, goals,
and policies of the General Plan. Staff
provided direction to the applicant in two
review letters (Attachments D and E)
with the intent of ensuring that the Plan
would be a functional document that
serves the City and the property owner as
a future development tool, as well as a
viable tool for enforcement purposes, if
necessary, and ensuring consistency with
4875-3145-0670.1
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn

jac/scn
the General Plan. The applicant
-2-
-2-
did not STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
and design guidelines and development
standards for the development J of the
site. Building design and site
development of the project would be
established through a form-based
approach of the Plan, intended to guide
design with text and diagrams to illustrate
ultimate development of the site.

Page 5 ends

¶ 2
A Specific Plan should be a concise,
efficient, well-organized, regulatory
document that presents policies, rules,
and regulations in a format that is
relatively easy to understand and
navigate. It is important that a Specific
Plan provide clear regulation and
guidance to current and future staff as
well as to the property owner for
development of the property and
construction of the project. Since it is a
regulatory document, according to the
City Attorney, clarity and conciseness are
paramount for successful enforcement in
court, the same as any other zoning
ordinance.

The Specific Plan meets all applicable
requirements for content and format. These
issues are addressed in the accompanying letter
from applicant’s counsel.

Page 5 ends

¶ 3
Staff review suggests that the Plan does
not reflect the desired attributes of a
Specific Plan and exhibits many
inconsistencies with the objectives, goals,
and policies of the General Plan. Staff
provided direction to the applicant in two
review letters (Attachments D and E)
with the intent of ensuring that the Plan
would be a functional document that
serves the City and the property owner as
a future development tool, as well as a
viable tool for enforcement purposes, if
necessary, and ensuring consistency with
the General Plan. The applicant did not
These issues are addressed in the
accompanying letter from applicant’s counsel.

Page 182 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #

STAFF REPORT COMMENT
address the majority of the concerns
presented in the review letters. The Plan
in its current state would not function
properly as a regulatory tool as discussed
herein.

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE

Page 5 ends

94 The proposed Plan contains extensive
background discussion and support and
rationale for the Plan. In several
instances, the Plan discusses the process
by which it will be adopted and/or
reviews, consultations, or other
interactions necessary from other
agencies to adopt the Plan. A Specific
Plan does not typically include lengthy
discussions of background or support for
its adoption or the processes that would
be completed prior to adoption of the
Plan, which are more suited for the staff
reports and supporting materials
presented to decision makers during the
adoption process. The excessive
background discussion and processing
narrative would not provide guidance or
serve a function in the implementation of
the Plan.

These issues are addressed in the
accompanying letter from applicant’s counsel.

Page 5 ends

95 The Plan states that only objective standards may be adopted and applied in compliance with state law. The Plan also
states that future projects would be
subject to a finding of substantial
conformance with the Plan. A finding of
substantial conformance relies on the
discretion of decision makers, who decide
based on their opinions. The plan also
references being subject to the Urban
Design Program, which establishes a
subjective, discretionary process for
consideration of projects. The Plan is
internally inconsistent and contradictory
in indicating both that subjective
standards apply and that only objective
standards may be applied.

These issues are addressed in the accompany
letter from applicant’s counsel.
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn

-3-
4875-3145-0670.1

391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn -3-
STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
address the majority of the concerns
presented in the review letters. The Plan
in its current state would not function
properly as a regulatory tool as discussed
herein.

Page 5 ends

¶ 4
The proposed Plan contains extensive
background discussion and support and
rationale for the Plan. In several
instances, the Plan discusses the process
by which it will be adopted and/or
reviews, consultations, or other
interactions necessary from other
agencies to adopt the Plan. A Specific
Plan does not typically include lengthy
discussions of background or support for
its adoption or the processes that would
be completed prior to adoption of the
Plan, which are more suited for the staff
reports and supporting materials
presented to decision makers during the
adoption process. The excessive
background discussion and processing
narrative would not provide guidance or
serve a function in the implementation of
the Plan.

These issues are addressed in the
accompanying letter from applicant’s counsel.

Page 5 ends

¶ 5
The Plan states that only objective
standards may be adopted and applied in
compliance with state law. The Plan also
states that future projects would be
subject to a finding of substantial
conformance with the Plan. A finding of
substantial conformance relies on the
discretion of decision makers, who decide
based on their opinions. The plan also
references being subject to the Urban
Design Program, which establishes a
subjective, discretionary process for
consideration of projects. The Plan is
internally inconsistent and contradictory
in indicating both that subjective
standards apply and that only objective
standards may be applied.

These issues are addressed in the accompany
letter from applicant’s counsel.

Page 183 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
PAGE #

Page 5 ends

96 initially requested of the applicant in accompanying letter from applicant’s counsel.

May 2019 were provided to staff in
June 2022 (Attachment B). The proposed
objective design standards provide
insufficient guidance for design of the
project and describe design that is far less
articulated and varied than shown in the
illustrations in the Plan. A project with
much less detail than shown could be
found to be consistent with the proposed
development standards and design
guidelines. The Plan inaccurately
portrays a level of architectural detail in
the provided drawings compared to the
text to the extent that it could mislead
decision makers and the public to expect
future construction to be similar to what
is shown.

Page 6 ends

q1 enter into a Development Agreement but instead are voluntary contracts negotiated with the City related to its between parties. The applicant chose not to implementation. However, the applicant | pursue a development agreement when City stated in their letter dated December 29, | staff proposed the developer pay roughly 2021 (included as part of Attachment F) | $8 million to $10 million to the City, in that they decided to discontinue pursuit of | addition to the $4.8 million in public benefits a Development Agreement. provided by the Project. See Staff Report Attachment F, Exhibit 1.

Page 6 ends

92 applicant perform community outreach to | requirements, and voluntarily has extended introduce the Plan to La Mesa residents mailed notice from the required 300 feet from and business owners. The applicant the property line to 1,000 feet. The City has no declined to do any outreach whatsoever. | “public outreach” program. Staff may be The only notification to the community confusing La Mesa with Encinitas, where there was the legally required notification for is a formal requirement to conduct “public the draft PEIR. The applicant has outreach.” The EIR and Specific Plan have insisted that the project site has no been posted on the City’s website for 2 years significant adjacency to other and we are not aware of any questions, neighborhoods and therefore cannot comments or concerns that have been possibly be the subject of community submitted to the City. interest.
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn 4-
4875-3145-0670.1

391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn -4-
STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE

Page 5 ends

¶ 6
Development and design standards
initially requested of the applicant in
May 2019 were provided to staff in
June 2022 (Attachment B). The proposed
objective design standards provide
insufficient guidance for design of the
project and describe design that is far less
articulated and varied than shown in the
illustrations in the Plan. A project with
much less detail than shown could be
found to be consistent with the proposed
development standards and design
guidelines. The Plan inaccurately
portrays a level of architectural detail in
the provided drawings compared to the
text to the extent that it could mislead
decision makers and the public to expect
future construction to be similar to what
is shown.

These issues are addressed in the
accompanying letter from applicant’s counsel.

Page 6 ends

¶ 1
The Plan states that the intent would be to
enter into a Development Agreement
with the City related to its
implementation. However, the applicant
stated in their letter dated December 29,
2021 (included as part of Attachment F)
that they decided to discontinue pursuit of
a Development Agreement.

Development Agreements are not mandatory,
but instead are voluntary contracts negotiated
between parties. The applicant chose not to
pursue a development agreement when City
staff proposed the developer pay roughly
$8 million to $10 million to the City, in
addition to the $4.8 million in public benefits
provided by the Project. See Staff Report
Attachment F, Exhibit 1.

Page 6 ends

¶ 2
Staff requested several times that the
applicant perform community outreach to
introduce the Plan to La Mesa residents
and business owners. The applicant
declined to do any outreach whatsoever.

The only notification to the community
was the legally required notification for
the draft PEIR. The applicant has
insisted that the project site has no
significant adjacency to other
neighborhoods and therefore cannot
possibly be the subject of community
interest.

The Project has complied with all public notice
requirements, and voluntarily has extended
mailed notice from the required 300 feet from
the property line to 1,000 feet. The City has no
“public outreach” program. Staff may be
confusing La Mesa with Encinitas, where there
is a formal requirement to conduct “public
outreach.” The EIR and Specific Plan have
been posted on the City’s website for 2 years
and we are not aware of any questions,
comments or concerns that have been
submitted to the City.

Page 184 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
PAGE #

Page 6 ends

q3 there are many other concerns with the raised in this paragraph all were addressed by document in its current state. These the resubmittal of a significantly revised include exhibits with text or graphics too | Specific Plan in March 2020. The applicant small to be readily legible, poor disagrees that the Specific Plan is “a poor organization, extraneous and/or repetitive | regulatory tool.” The comment accuses the text, and lack of needed detail. Together | applicant of making no effort to work with the these issues make the Plan a poor City. This is untrue. The applicant has paid regulatory tool for guidance of future roughly $500K to provide the City with the development for the property owner, staff and professional support needed to work decision makers, and the residents of the | with the developer to ensure that every element City. The applicant has declined to work | of the Project meets City’s standards. with City staff to make the document Concerns raised by all the City departments viable and have consistently (including Planning, Building, Engineering, demonstrated the expectation that the Public Works, Fire and Police) were addressed Plan be accepted as they propose, without | in the Project design. In addition, through the input from City staff or community and CEQA process, the developer met with all without consideration of any appropriate public agencies to address any of modifications or adjustments to ensure their concerns early in the Project development the Plan works for the City. stages (including Regional Water Quality, MTS, Caltrans, State and Federal Wildlife
Agencies, SDSU, and Helix Water District).

During the first three years of the Project
review, the developer team met on a monthly
basis with City staff to make changes or
provide detailed technical reports to address
any issues that were raised by the City.

Page 6 ends

94 requirements and is consistent with many | refutes all comments made in this portion of General Plan policies relating to the Staff Report. Moreover, these comments provision of housing and transit-oriented | disregard the HAA, which prohibits the development. However, staff is application of subjective standards to the concerned that many other important Project.

General Plan policies are not adequately
addressed or

Page 6 ends

9M 7 & 8 | Use Overlay Zone by promoting the to address the aging and outdated commercial rehabilitation of properties and new zones along La Mesa Blvd., El Cajon Blvd., development that fits into the context of | and University Avenue. It was not developed the existing neighborhoods while meeting | as a citywide program or one that would apply the City’s Urban Design Objectives for to a freeway frontage road like Alvarado Road. infill development. In fact, the City’s adopted Land Use Element discusses the ranges of possible uses for the
4875-3145-0670.1
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn
jac/scn -5-
-5-

STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE

Page 6 ends

¶ 3
As noted in the staff reviews of the Plan,
there are many other concerns with the
document in its current state. These
include exhibits with text or graphics too
small to be readily legible, poor
organization, extraneous and/or repetitive
text, and lack of needed detail. Together
these issues make the Plan a poor
regulatory tool for guidance of future
development for the property owner,
decision makers, and the residents of the
City. The applicant has declined to work
with City staff to make the document
viable and have consistently
demonstrated the expectation that the
Plan be accepted as they propose, without
input from City staff or community and
without consideration of any
modifications or adjustments to ensure
the Plan works for the City.

Initially, the comments about technical issues
raised in this paragraph all were addressed by
the resubmittal of a significantly revised
Specific Plan in March 2020. The applicant
disagrees that the Specific Plan is “a poor
regulatory tool.” The comment accuses the
applicant of making no effort to work with the
City. This is untrue. The applicant has paid
roughly $500K to provide the City with the
staff and professional support needed to work
with the developer to ensure that every element
of the Project meets City’s standards.

Concerns raised by all the City departments
(including Planning, Building, Engineering,
Public Works, Fire and Police) were addressed
in the Project design. In addition, through the
CEQA process, the developer met with all
appropriate public agencies to address any of
their concerns early in the Project development
stages (including Regional Water Quality,
MTS, Caltrans, State and Federal Wildlife
Agencies, SDSU, and Helix Water District).

Page 6 ends

¶ 4
The proposed Plan does address many
requirements and is consistent with many
General Plan policies relating to
provision of housing and transit-oriented
development. However, staff is
concerned that many other important
General Plan policies are not adequately
addressed or
Staff fails to acknowledge that the FEIR
refutes all comments made in this portion of
the Staff Report. Moreover, these comments
disregard the HAA, which prohibits the
application of subjective standards to the
Project.

Page 6 ends

¶¶ 7 & 8
Policy LU-2.1.5: Implement the MixedUse Overlay Zone by promoting the rehabilitation of properties and new
development that fits into the context of
the existing neighborhoods while meeting
the City’s Urban Design Objectives for
infill development.

The Mixed Use Overlay program was adopted
to address the aging and outdated commercial
zones along La Mesa Blvd., El Cajon Blvd.,
and University Avenue. It was not developed
as a citywide program or one that would apply
to a freeway frontage road like Alvarado Road.

In fact, the City’s adopted Land Use Element
discusses the ranges of possible uses for the

Page 185 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #

Page 7 ends

M1&2

STAFF REPORT COMMENT
The City's Urban Design Objectives are
established in the Land Use & Urban
Design Element of the General Plan, and
elucidated through the Urban Design
Program. The three large buildings
would be among the largest in the City of
La Mesa. are proposed of similar size and
massing with no transitioning from the
street or adjacent development, and are
divergent from the existing neighborhood
character. The Planning Commission
should consider the Plan's consistency
with the City's Urban Design Objectives
of the Land Use & Urban Design
Element and as expressed through the
Urban Design Program. The General
Plan's Urban Design Objectives are
addressed and analysis of the Plan in
relation to the Urban Design Program is
Policy LU-2.2.1: Create a superior living
environment for multi-family dwellings.

The Plan would site all of the proposed
units within 500 feet of I-8, and between
I-8 and the trolley tracks. CARB
recommends that housing units not be
sited within 500 feet of a freeway due to
air pollution and particulate matter risks.

The exterior sound environment is
heavily impacted by noise created by
traffic on 1-8 and by the trolley. The
Planning Commission should consider
whether these factors reflect consistency
with creating a superior living
environment for multi-family dwellings.

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
area along Alvarado Road adjacent to the
Trolley Station, and it does not reference the
use of the Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
provided below.

These statements are contradicted by the FEIR
Air Quality and Noise sections. The Project
will NOT result in health risks or violate noise
requirements.

Page 7 ends

M3&4 Policy LU-4.1.1: Opportunities for affordable housing should exist in all residential areas to support the policies
and programs of the City's Housing
Element. The City has no requirement to provide
affordable housing on a project by project
basis. This practice is known as “Inclusionary
Zoning,” and has not been adopted in La Mesa.

The Policy referenced is a general, aspirational
City-wide goal.
4875-3145-0670.1
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn
jac/scn -6-
-6-

STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
The City's Urban Design Objectives are
established in the Land Use & Urban
Design Element of the General Plan, and
elucidated through the Urban Design
Program. The three large buildings
would be among the largest in the City of
La Mesa. are proposed of similar size and
massing with no transitioning from the
street or adjacent development, and are
divergent from the existing neighborhood
character. The Planning Commission
should consider the Plan's consistency
with the City's Urban Design Objectives
of the Land Use & Urban Design
Element and as expressed through the
Urban Design Program. The General
Plan's Urban Design Objectives are
addressed and analysis of the Plan in
relation to the Urban Design Program is
provided below.
area along Alvarado Road adjacent to the
Trolley Station, and it does not reference the
use of the Mixed Use Overlay Zone.

Page 7 ends

¶¶ 1 & 2
Policy LU-2.2.1: Create a superior living
environment for multi-family dwellings.

These statements are contradicted by the FEIR
Air Quality and Noise sections. The Project
will NOT result in health risks or violate noise
requirements.

Page 7 ends

¶¶ 3 & 4
Policy LU-4.1.1: Opportunities for
affordable housing should exist in all
residential areas to support the policies
and programs of the City's Housing
Element.

The City has no requirement to provide
affordable housing on a project by project
basis. This practice is known as “Inclusionary
Zoning,” and has not been adopted in La Mesa.

The Policy referenced is a general, aspirational
City-wide goal.

Page 186 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #

STAFF REPORT COMMENT
The Plan does not provide any affordable
housing.

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE

Page 7 ends

MS5&6
Policy LU-4.3.1: Promote citizen
involvement and partnerships between
residents, community organizations, and
agencies, such as school districts.

Community involvement is an important
and integral part of the planning process.

During processing of the Plan, the
applicant declined to perform any
outreach to the community about the
proposed development.

See earlier response regarding “public
outreach” and confusion with City of
Encinitas.

Page 7 ends

M7&8
Policy LU-6.1.4: Provide incentives for
Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use
development, such as a parking reduction
consistent with Regional Standards, for
more intense development and higher
density residential uses along major
transportation corridors or in areas
accessible to transit use.

Although the Plan is identified as a
Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use
development, no specific details are
provided or outlined relative to transit
oriented incentives or ridership.

Necessary detail to determine how
incentives will be applied (i.e. reduction
in rent for transit ridership, discount
transit passes, etc.) is not provided.

There is only general discussion relative
to transit discount programs and a
definition and brief discussion regarding
"unbundled parking" as a transit-oriented
strategy.

This comment misrepresents the Policy cited.

The Project is a Transit-oriented development
along a major transportation corridor. The
City need not provide incentives to the
applicant, as the Policy suggests, in order to
construct the Project.

Page 7 ends

M9 & 10 Policy UD-1.1.1: The visual quality and
continuity of the community will be
enhanced through consistent circulation
patterns, definition of community edges
and boundaries, distinct gateways and These statements are contradicted by the FEIR,

Section 4.14, Visual Resources.
4875-3145-0670.1
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn
jac/scn -7-
-7-

STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
The Plan does not provide any affordable
housing.

Page 7 ends

¶¶ 5 & 6
Policy LU-4.3.1: Promote citizen
involvement and partnerships between
residents, community organizations, and
agencies, such as school districts.

Community involvement is an important
and integral part of the planning process.

During processing of the Plan, the
applicant declined to perform any
outreach to the community about the
proposed development.

See earlier response regarding “public
outreach” and confusion with City of
Encinitas.

Page 7 ends

¶¶ 7 & 8
Policy LU-6.1.4: Provide incentives for
Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use
development, such as a parking reduction
consistent with Regional Standards, for
more intense development and higher
density residential uses along major
transportation corridors or in areas
accessible to transit use.

Although the Plan is identified as a
Transit-Oriented and Mixed-Use
development, no specific details are
provided or outlined relative to transit
oriented incentives or ridership.

Necessary detail to determine how
incentives will be applied (i.e. reduction
in rent for transit ridership, discount
transit passes, etc.) is not provided.

There is only general discussion relative
to transit discount programs and a
definition and brief discussion regarding
"unbundled parking" as a transit-oriented
strategy.

This comment misrepresents the Policy cited.

The Project is a Transit-oriented development
along a major transportation corridor. The
City need not provide incentives to the
applicant, as the Policy suggests, in order to
construct the Project.

Page 7 ends

¶¶ 9 & 10
Policy UD-1.1.1: The visual quality and
continuity of the community will be
enhanced through consistent circulation
patterns, definition of community edges
and boundaries, distinct gateways and
These statements are contradicted by the FEIR,
Section 4.14, Visual Resources.

Page 187 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #

STAFF REPORT COMMENT
nodes, and removal of visually disruptive
elements.

The Planning Commission should
consider whether or not the development
proposed in the Plan enhances the visual
quality and continuity of the community.

The large, clustered buildings would be
substantially larger than any development
in the vicinity, and would visually
dominate the area. The project site sits at
the western gateway to the City and
would largely define the character of La
Mesa to travelers on 1-8. The proposed
Plan and massing of the large buildings
could be construed as adding a visually
disruptive element that does not enhance
the visual quality and continuity of the
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
community.

Policy UD-1.2.2: Commercial signage
should improve rather than detract from
12 the quality of the surrounding
The Project does not propose new billboards.

The City requested ownership or revenue
sharing from the existing billboards as part of
neighborhood. New billboard structures
are prohibited.

The proposed Plan would retain the
multiple billboards on the project site.
[lustrations in the Plan show the
billboards in relation to the proposed
buildings. The Planning Commission
should consider whether the billboards
are compatible with the Plan and the
proposed development, and whether they
improve or detract from the quality of the
surrounding neighborhood.
development agreement negotiations.

Page 8 ends

M1&2 Policy UD-2.1.1: Give careful attention to Urban Design Standards related to building scale, architectural materials,
landscaping, and other elements to
emphasize attractive building and site
design in new developments and
redevelopments.

As explained in the letter from applicant’s
counsel, the City Urban Design Program is
obsolete, violates the HAA, as the City is
required to adopt a new, HAA-compliant

program pursuant to its Housing Element.
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn -8-
4875-3145-0670.1

391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn -8-
STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
nodes, and removal of visually disruptive
elements.

The Planning Commission should
consider whether or not the development
proposed in the Plan enhances the visual
quality and continuity of the community.

Page 7 ends

¶¶ 11 &
12 Policy UD-1.2.2: Commercial signage
should improve rather than detract from
the quality of the surrounding
neighborhood. New billboard structures
are prohibited.

The proposed Plan would retain the
multiple billboards on the project site.

Illustrations in the Plan show the
billboards in relation to the proposed
buildings. The Planning Commission
should consider whether the billboards
are compatible with the Plan and the
proposed development, and whether they
improve or detract from the quality of the
surrounding neighborhood.

The Project does not propose new billboards.

The City requested ownership or revenue
sharing from the existing billboards as part of
development agreement negotiations.

Page 8 ends

¶¶ 1 & 2
Policy UD-2.1.1: Give careful attention
to Urban Design Standards related to
building scale, architectural materials,
landscaping, and other elements to
emphasize attractive building and site
design in new developments and
redevelopments.

As explained in the letter from applicant’s
counsel, the City Urban Design Program is
obsolete, violates the HAA, as the City is
required to adopt a new, HAA-compliant
program pursuant to its Housing Element.

Page 188 of 1126 ends

STAFF
REPORT STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
PAGE #
The City's Urban Design Standards were
established by the City Council as the
Urban Design Program, which is intended
to ensure that development is consistent
with the City's commitment to design
excellence and is compatible with the
surrounding uses and neighborhoods, and
the community as whole. The Planning
Commission should consider the Plan's
consistency with the City's Urban Design
Standards as expressed through the Urban
Design Program. Analysis of the Plan in
relation to the Urban Design Program is
provided below.

Page 8 ends

993 & 4 | step-backs should be evaluated to FEIR analysis at Section 4.14, Visual maintain La Mesa's pedestrian emphasis | Resources.
and character.

Proposed building scale and special form
are not consistent with surroundings and
2- existing development or in scale with
existing neighborhoods nearby.
[Nlustrations and standards within the Plan
identify buildings up to eight stories in
height and in excess of 80-feet, thus
proposing buildings amongst the largest
in the City of La Mesa. The buildings
rise to their full height in close proximity
to pedestrian throughways with no or
little step-back. The Planning
Commission should consider whether the
Plan in this respect maintains the City's
pedestrian emphasis and character.

Pages 8- | Urban Design Program Consistency All comments in the Staff Report regarding 10 “Urban Design Program Consistency” are
inapplicable to the Project. The standards
therein are purely subjective (“Will the project
be a good neighbor?”’) and may not be applied
under the HAA. The City has acknowledged
this in its Housing Element (6™ Cycle) and has
accepted State funds to draft new objective
4875-3145-0670.1
4875-3145-0670.1
391389.00001/8-15-22/
391389.00001/8-15-22/jac/scn

jac/scn

-9-
-9-
standards. STAFF
REPORT
PAGE #
STAFF REPORT COMMENT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
The City's Urban Design Standards were
established by the City Council as the
Urban Design Program, which is intended
to ensure that development is consistent
with the City's commitment to design
excellence and is compatible with the
surrounding uses and neighborhoods, and
the community as whole. The Planning
Commission should consider the Plan's
consistency with the City's Urban Design
Standards as expressed through the Urban
Design Program. Analysis of the Plan in
relation to the Urban Design Program is
provided below.

Page 8 ends

¶¶ 3 & 4
Policy UD-2.1.4: Building setbacks and
step-backs should be evaluated to
maintain La Mesa's pedestrian emphasis
and character.

Proposed building scale and special form
are not consistent with surroundings and
2- existing development or in scale with
existing neighborhoods nearby.

Illustrations and standards within the Plan
identify buildings up to eight stories in
height and in excess of 80-feet, thus
proposing buildings amongst the largest
in the City of La Mesa. The buildings
rise to their full height in close proximity
to pedestrian throughways with no or
little step-back. The Planning
Commission should consider whether the
Plan in this respect maintains the City's
pedestrian emphasis and character.

These statements are contradicted by extensive
FEIR analysis at Section 4.14, Visual
Resources.

Pages 8-
10 Urban Design Program Consistency All comments in the Staff Report regarding “Urban Design Program Consistency” are
inapplicable to the Project. The standards
therein are purely subjective (“Will the project
be a good neighbor?”) and may not be applied
under the HAA. The City has acknowledged
this in its Housing Element (6th Cycle) and has
accepted State funds to draft new objective
standards.

Page 189 of 1126 ends

EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2

Page 190 of 1126 ends

CHAPTER li
Development Standards and
Design Guidelines
Previous chapters in the Alvarado Specific Plan include the planning background and policy foundation for a new and forward looking land use plan for this unique location.

The Specific Plan Area has a history that has been impacted by the growth and development major transportation infrastructure in La Mesa. The Alvarado Specific Plan represents a “master development plan” for the revitalization of the Area in a manner which is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Mesa General Plan. As discussed in Chapters | and Il, implementation of the development plans is anticipated to occur in two major phases of construction. The Specific Plan will be implemented as primarily private development projects in partnership with the City of La Mesa and other affected public Agencies to achieve the public safety, environmental protection and enhancement, and infrastructure needs in the Specific Plan Area.

This Chapter provides the land use and regulatory framework for development projects and public improvements to be implemented in the Plan Area to:
= create a high quality “transit-oriented development” with a diversity of new multi-family housing
= provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area; = be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa; = be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and, = be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.

The purpose of the development standards and design guidelines is to provide direction and clarity to owners, design professionals and builders, City staff, public decision makers and the public in the process of designing and approving future projects within the Plan Area. The Development Standards and Design Guidelines are intended to intended to assist in achieving the goals and objective of the Specific Plan and not to unnecessarily limit flexibility and creativity through the implementation of these provisions. Project designs that vary from the plan illustrative concepts in the Plan, yet are able to meet the design intent and vision for the Alvarado Specific Plan can be deemed in substantial conformance through the implementation process. A project can be determined to be in conformance with the Specific Plan without the project being consistent with every development standard or design guideline.

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines

CHAPTER III
Development Standards and
Design Guidelines
Previous chapters in the Alvarado Specific Plan include the planning background and policy foundation for a new and forward looking land use plan for this unique location.

The Specific Plan Area has a history that has been impacted by the growth and development major transportation infrastructure in La Mesa. The Alvarado Specific Plan represents a “master development plan” for the revitalization of the Area in a manner which is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Mesa General Plan. As discussed in Chapters I and II, implementation of the development plans is anticipated to occur in two major phases of construction. The Specific Plan will be implemented as primarily private development projects in partnership with the City of La Mesa and other affected public Agencies to achieve the public safety, environmental protection and enhancement, and infrastructure needs in the Specific Plan Area.

This Chapter provides the land use and regulatory framework for development projects and public improvements to be implemented in the Plan Area to:
 create a high quality “transit-oriented development” with a diversity of new multi-family housing
 provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area;  be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa;  be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and,  be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.

Page 191 of 1126 ends

that combine the elements of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Objective Design Standards are included to implement Senate Bill (SB 35) signed into law in 2017 and SB 330 (which in part amended the Housing Accountability Act) signed into law in 2019, and will apply to projects within the Specific Plan Area which meet the requirements of such state laws. Projects in the Plan Area qualifying under SB 35 or SB 330 are subject to the objective design standards within this chapter. These projects are not subject to subjective design guidelines as a matter of state law; however, the intent and application of subjective guidelines is encouraged to be implemented by developers to the greatest extent feasible to ensure high-quality development that is consistent with the community identity of the

Plan Area.

Ill — A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
lll - A. 1. Consistency with Specific Plan
This Chapter serves to outline the regulatory development standards and design guidelines to be used in the final design and basis of review for the development projects that will implement the private and public improvement plans described within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will be the guiding reference for the implementation and project review steps which are further described in Chapter IV - Implementation. As the guiding regulatory tool for all subsequent implementing projects, each future discretionary and ministerial project authorized by the Plan will be subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the supporting Program EIR documentation for the Plan.

lll — A. 2. Substitution for Zoning Ordinance
All subsequent projects to implement the Alvarado Specific Plan will rely on the Plans, Development Standards and Design Guidelines approved by the City and subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the project EIR.

As described in this Section, the Specific Plan will substitute for the land use and zoning standards that would traditionally be used to regulate new private development in the Specific Plan Area. Documentation of this transfer of regulatory standards will be implemented through the approval of an "Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone” to clearly establish the implementation areaq, role, and authority of the Specific Plan as outlined in Chapter IV - Implementation.

III -
m-2|Page
2 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines that combine the elements of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Objective Design Standards are included to implement Senate Bill (SB 35) signed into law in 2017 and SB 330 (which in part amended the Housing Accountability Act) signed into law in 2019, and will apply to projects within the Specific Plan Area which meet the requirements of such state laws. Projects in the Plan Area qualifying under SB 35 or SB 330 are subject to the objective design standards within this chapter. These projects are not subject to subjective design guidelines as a matter of state law; however, the intent and application of subjective guidelines is encouraged to be implemented by developers to the greatest extent feasible to ensure high-quality development that is consistent with the community identity of the Plan Area.

III – A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
III - A. 1. Consistency with Specific Plan
This Chapter serves to outline the regulatory development standards and design guidelines to be used in the final design and basis of review for the development projects that will implement the private and public improvement plans described within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will be the guiding reference for the implementation and project review steps which are further described in Chapter IV - Implementation. As the guiding regulatory tool for all subsequent implementing projects, each future discretionary and ministerial project authorized by the Plan will be subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the supporting Program EIR documentation for the Plan.

III – A. 2. Substitution for Zoning Ordinance
All subsequent projects to implement the Alvarado Specific Plan will rely on the Plans, Development Standards and Design Guidelines approved by the City and subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the project EIR.

As described in this Section, the Specific Plan will substitute for the land use and zoning standards that would traditionally be used to regulate new private development in the Specific Plan Area. Documentation of this transfer of regulatory standards will be implemented through the approval of an “Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone” to clearly establish the implementation area, role, and authority of the Specific Plan as outlined in Chapter IV - Implementation.

Page 192 of 1126 ends

Ill -— A. 3. Form-Based Development Approach
As describe above, a new approach is proposed to clearly communicate what development standards are to be used to review and evaluate individual projects within the Alvarado Specific Plan Area. This section of the Plan defines a “form-based” approach as an effective means to ensure the goals and policies of the Plan are met at the project review level. This Section includes the set of defining characteristics and limiting factors that can achieve the development goals and policies of La Mesa for the Specific Plan Area. Application of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines will:
= create a high quality “transit-oriented development” with a diversity of new multi-family housing
= provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area; = be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa; = be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and, * be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.

The form-based approach serves to clearly communicate with text and diagrams the type, size, location, mix of uses, open spaces, landscaping and quality of the development that is authorized by the Specific Plan. The form-based approached established by the descriptions and diagrams in the Specific Plan provides a much more well defined and predictable image of the what will be built and how it will fit info the site and surrounding community than the traditional general plan/zoning classification approach.

This approach is in contrast to the traditional zoning regulations which focus on separation of uses, setbacks from adjoining properties, parking ratios and density calculations, with little emphasis on the unique characteristics or constraints of an actual location. Equally as important, this method describes the project review process and defines elements within each phase for providing the site improvements, public improvements, environmental enhancements, open space elements and fransit connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other infrastructure that is not as clearly defined by a traditional zoning approach.

Figures 39 and 40 show a diagram of the overall site area and illustrate site sections through the project to specify the key dimensions that will define the proposed building envelope, distribution of uses, limiting factors that describe the individual multi-family residential buildings and the site improvements for the Alvarado Specific Plan. The descriptive elements in these diagrams correspond to the overall Site Development Plan shown in Figure 12 and described in detail in Chapter Il - Land Use and Development Plan.

III -
m-3|
3 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – A. 3. Form-Based Development Approach
As describe above, a new approach is proposed to clearly communicate what development standards are to be used to review and evaluate individual projects within the Alvarado Specific Plan Area. This section of the Plan defines a “form-based” approach as an effective means to ensure the goals and policies of the Plan are met at the project review level. This Section includes the set of defining characteristics and limiting factors that can achieve the development goals and policies of La Mesa for the Specific Plan Area. Application of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines will:
 create a high quality “transit-oriented development” with a diversity of new multi-family housing
 provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area;  be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa;  be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and,  be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.

The form-based approach serves to clearly communicate with text and diagrams the type, size, location, mix of uses, open spaces, landscaping and quality of the development that is authorized by the Specific Plan. The form-based approached established by the descriptions and diagrams in the Specific Plan provides a much more well defined and predictable image of the what will be built and how it will fit into the site and surrounding community than the traditional general plan/zoning classification approach.

This approach is in contrast to the traditional zoning regulations which focus on separation of uses, setbacks from adjoining properties, parking ratios and density calculations, with little emphasis on the unique characteristics or constraints of an actual location. Equally as important, this method describes the project review process and defines elements within each phase for providing the site improvements, public improvements, environmental enhancements, open space elements and transit connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other infrastructure that is not as clearly defined by a traditional zoning approach.

Page 193 of 1126 ends

There are two key elements that have been used to create this “form-based” definition for the Development Plan. One is the overall site plan which has been designed to reflect the site's physical characteristics and constraints in concert with the broader land use goals and infrastructure needs for the Area. The second primary basis for the development standards is the application of the current applicable Building Codes in California that define the limiting dimensions allowed for the proposed multi-family residential construction type over a Type | parking garage structures.

Within the “form-based” building envelope established by the Specific Plan, it is intended that the Plan may permit flexibility during implementation through the City's Site Development Plan and Urban Design Program review process to achieve a determination of consistency with the Plan through an alternative mix of residential unit types and/or architectural design approaches.

the overall height limits for the primary structures,
the requirements to comply with the minimum floodway elevations, and the maximum number of residential floors above the parking levels.

Figure 42 provides an oblique view of the overall Specific Plan Area with a simplified graphic representation of the building envelopes that are defined by the site Figures 43a - e illustrate the typical floor levels for Buildings 1-4 to define arrangement of uses with project vehicle parking levels, parking access points, and multi-family residential uses on levels above the parking structure podium deck level.

Figure 43 - c represents the location and design concept for “liner units” that will be permitted on building facades oriented to the interior of the site and away from Alvarado Road.

On the Building facades oriented to Alvarado Road, parking levels will be adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle facility zone and required to be architecturally screened as described in the Design Guidelines section of this Chapter.

Figure 39 Alvarado Specific Plan Land Use and Development Plan (with details identified) Figure 40 Form-based Development Standards Plan View
Figure 41 a. b. c. d. Form-based Development Standards Section Views Figure 42 Form-based Development Standards Schematic View of Development Envelopes
Figure 43 a. b. c. d. e. Form-based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View by Floor Level
III -
M-4|Page
4 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines There are two key elements that have been used to create this “form-based” definition for the Development Plan. One is the overall site plan which has been designed to reflect the site’s physical characteristics and constraints in concert with the broader land use goals and infrastructure needs for the Area. The second primary basis for the development standards is the application of the current applicable Building Codes in California that define the limiting dimensions allowed for the proposed multi-family residential construction type over a Type I parking garage structures.

Within the “form-based” building envelope established by the Specific Plan, it is intended that the Plan may permit flexibility during implementation through the City’s Site Development Plan and Urban Design Program review process to achieve a determination of consistency with the Plan through an alternative mix of residential unit types and/or architectural design approaches.

Figures 41 to 44 define the areas in which Buildings 1-4 will be constructed in relation to the Alvarado Road improvements and the interior private street/emergency access road. Figures 40 and 41a - d provide typical site sections to define:
the overall height limits for the primary structures,
the requirements to comply with the minimum floodway elevations, and the maximum number of residential floors above the parking levels.

Figure 43 - c represents the location and design concept for “liner units” that will be permitted on building facades oriented to the interior of the site and away from Alvarado Road.

Page 194 of 1126 ends

Figure 44 Plan View to Show Site Access Points and Distance to Parking Structure Entries and Sec Gates
Ill — A. 4. Multi-family Residential Unit Mix
Multi-family Apartments: The unit mix for buildings 1-4 will include Studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. Final unit mix will be set at the time of Site Development Plan and Design Review by the City. The total number of residential units in an individual project will be limited by the location, site area, height and building massing parameters set in the form-based development standards established in this Chapter.

“Liner” Units: Buildings may incorporate liner units located below the parking structure podium deck levels on the interior elevations of the projects not directly oriented to the Alvarado Road frontage. The liner units may use a “loft” style design concepts within the mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units. This design concept may also employ designs which include a front “stoop” element where direct access is available to the creek side interior private street and pedestrian pathways and open space areas. The liner units will meet the Flood Overlay zone requirements.

Student Housing: As described in the Land Use and Development Plan, Building 2 may be built as a “student housing” project focused on serving college and university students in the community with an economical housing option and direct and convenient existing Trolley access to the campus. Although the same standards for building location, size, and mass within the “form-based” concept described above apply, the net residential unit count for Building 2 will be lower with the “student housing” option due to the use of larger shared living design concepts as shown in Chapter ll. The unit mix with the “student housing” concept may include a mix of: one-bedroom/one-bed units; two-bedroom/ two and four-bed units; and four-bedroom/four-bed units.

The student housing configurations are much closer to dormitory style housing, allowing for independent living, yet within a fully managed and operated residential concept.

Some of the key elements of the Student Housing project will include:
» Fully furnished units
» Limited access and secured building
= 24/7 Security presence
» On-site management and professionally trained staff
» Defined policy on resident behavior and enforcement
Ill - A. 5. Parking and Vehicle Access
III -
m-5|Page
5 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Figure 44 Plan View to Show Site Access Points and Distance to Parking Structure Entries and Sec Gates
III – A. 4. Multi-family Residential Unit Mix

Multi-family Apartments: The unit mix for buildings 1-4 will include Studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. Final unit mix will be set at the time of Site Development Plan and Design Review by the City. The total number of residential units in an individual project will be limited by the location, site area, height and building massing parameters set in the form-based development standards established in this Chapter. “Liner” Units: Buildings may incorporate liner units located below the parking structure podium deck levels on the interior elevations of the projects not directly oriented to the Alvarado Road frontage. The liner units may use a “loft” style design concepts within the mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units. This design concept may also employ designs which include a front “stoop” element where direct access is available to the creek side interior private street and pedestrian pathways and open space areas. The liner units will meet the Flood Overlay zone requirements.

Student Housing: As described in the Land Use and Development Plan, Building 2 may be built as a “student housing” project focused on serving college and university students in the community with an economical housing option and direct and convenient existing Trolley access to the campus. Although the same standards for building location, size, and mass within the “form-based” concept described above apply, the net residential unit count for Building 2 will be lower with the “student housing” option due to the use of larger shared living design concepts as shown in Chapter II. The unit mix with the “student housing” concept may include a mix of: one-bedroom/one-bed units; two-bedroom/ two and four-bed units; and four-bedroom/four-bed units.

The student housing configurations are much closer to dormitory style housing, allowing for independent living, yet within a fully managed and operated residential concept.

Some of the key elements of the Student Housing project will include:
 Fully furnished units
 Limited access and secured building
 24/7 Security presence
 On-site management and professionally trained staff
 Defined policy on resident behavior and enforcement
III – A. 5. Parking and Vehicle Access

Page 195 of 1126 ends

Although the Alvarado Specific Plan is conceived as a Transit Oriented Development, parking and vehicle access still remains an important development and design standard.

Implementation of the Specific Plan requires review and approval of Site Development Plans as described in Chapter IV - Implementation. Individual projects will provide vehicle parking and access as described in Chapter lll - Land Use and Development Plan. The development standards for parking and project circulation are outline below and illustrated in Figure 44.

Parking Structures: Resident vehicle parking for each Building will be provided within a multi-level parking structures as illustrated in Figures 41 — 43 above for Buildings 2,3, and 4.

Building 1 plans for one level of structured parking. Each parking structure will provide adequate ingress and egress to the interior private street. Parking structure access locations will provide sufficient distance from Alvarado Road for queuing space on-site and away from public street traffic.

Parking Ratios: For Buildings 2,3, and 4, within the multi-level parking structures to be constructed, the estimated parking ratio will be approximately 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit as described in Chapter Il. This off-street parking ratio will be compatible with the reduced parking and automobile dependency objectives for a ftransit-oriented development (TOD). This same parking volume will be provided in the student housing option for Building 2 which results in a similar parking amount when correlated with the planned “bed” count with fewer but larger residential units. For Building 1 with an estimated 60 residential units above one level of parking, the off-street parking ratio will be approximately 0.5 space per residential unit.

These parking levels will serve as the total off-street parking requirements for the project and will be inclusive of the anticipated demand for guest parking and the secondary resident-oriented mixed uses that may be permitted on a limited basis within the project.

Guest Parking: Guest parking within each project is accounted for in two general areas.

A limited number of exterior spaces surface parking spaces will be provided in the vicinity of the main entry/leasing office for each project as shown on the Specific Plan diagram in Figure 39. Visitor parking spaces will also be designated within the lower level of Buildings 2-4, and near building leasing offices and parking garage entrances.

Security: Resident parking within the parking structures will be secured with gates and require an automated access control system within the parking structure. Along the private interior streets, there will also be security gates beyond the parking garage enfrances to prevent through vehicle traffic and reserve this area as primarily a part of the pedestrian pathways and creek-side open space. Limited vehicle access will be permitted beyond the security gates for deliveries and move-ins.

Unbundled Resident Parking: As described in Chapter Il - Land Use and Development Plan, all on-site vehicle parking provided within the required parking areas and structured parking levels may be unbundled from any requirement for an on-site parking per-unit ratio or an assigned residential unit parking space designation. With this unbundled III -
m-6|
6 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Although the Alvarado Specific Plan is conceived as a Transit Oriented Development, parking and vehicle access still remains an important development and design standard.

Implementation of the Specific Plan requires review and approval of Site Development Plans as described in Chapter IV - Implementation. Individual projects will provide vehicle parking and access as described in Chapter III – Land Use and Development Plan. The development standards for parking and project circulation are outline below and illustrated in Figure 44.

Parking Structures: Resident vehicle parking for each Building will be provided within a multi-level parking structures as illustrated in Figures 41 – 43 above for Buildings 2,3, and 4.

Parking Ratios: For Buildings 2,3, and 4, within the multi-level parking structures to be constructed, the estimated parking ratio will be approximately 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit as described in Chapter II. This off-street parking ratio will be compatible with the reduced parking and automobile dependency objectives for a transit-oriented development (TOD). This same parking volume will be provided in the student housing option for Building 2 which results in a similar parking amount when correlated with the planned “bed” count with fewer but larger residential units. For Building 1 with an estimated 60 residential units above one level of parking, the off-street parking ratio will be approximately 0.5 space per residential unit.

Guest Parking: Guest parking within each project is accounted for in two general areas.

Security: Resident parking within the parking structures will be secured with gates and require an automated access control system within the parking structure. Along the private interior streets, there will also be security gates beyond the parking garage entrances to prevent through vehicle traffic and reserve this area as primarily a part of the pedestrian pathways and creek-side open space. Limited vehicle access will be permitted beyond the security gates for deliveries and move-ins.

Unbundled Resident Parking: As described in Chapter II - Land Use and Development Plan, all on-site vehicle parking provided within the required parking areas and structured parking levels may be unbundled from any requirement for an on-site parking per-unit ratio or an assigned residential unit parking space designation. With this unbundled

Page 196 of 1126 ends

parking standard, the management, use, and charges for resident on-site parking for each Building will be the responsibility of the project owner(s).

Services, Deliveries and Move-ins: The Alvarado Specific Plan has been designed with serious consideration given to the changes that have occurred in how people shop and live in a contemporary multi-family environment. As a result, the site development plan will provide access and space for vehicles within the site for service and delivery vehicles, as well as move-in locations that will maintain the required emergency vehicle access requirements. This is intended to assist with maintaining the interior private street and pedestrian pathways and primarily on open space feature and to keep traffic flow and safety directed to Alvarado Road.

On-street Parking: The streetscape plans for Alvarado Road in the Specific Plan include the construction of improvements along the entire length of the site Area as part of Phase 1 projects. This includes on-street parallel parking spaces along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage in areas that insure proper site distances from primary project ingress/egress locations. The on-street parking areas are planned to be delineated by “bulb-out” features as part of the streetscape plan. This concept proposes to dedicate a limited number of spaces in the vicinity of each primary project entry as “timed parking” and/or “loading zones” to facilitate and encourage the use of shared transportation options, such as ride sharing and delivery services.
= Alternative Transportation Support: As a fransit-oriented development, a key goal of the project is to facilitate future tenant use of alternatives to the single person vehicle trip.
» Bicycle Parking: All multi-family residential projects will include bicycle parking facilities.
» EV Charging Stations: All multi-family residential parking structures will incorporate spaces dedicated for electric vehicle charging stations. » Transit Access: The primary feature of the project supporting this objective is the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. The project proposes constructing new public pedestrian improvements for access to the Station on Alvarado Road to complete the missing public links to the MTS station. Phase 1 projects will also improve and complete pedestrian access for project tenants from the interior private streets along Alvarado Creek to the Station.
» Transit Passes: It the intent of the Specific Plan to work with MTS and project developments to incorporate incentives for transit use by project residents.

III-A. 6. Open Space and Site Landscaping
Two of the most important design elements in the Alvarado Specific Plan are the mix of high-quality open space concepts and landscaping solutions. These two key areas were assigned a high priority in the formulation of the Land Use and Development Plans. This III -
m-7|Page
7 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines parking standard, the management, use, and charges for resident on-site parking for each Building will be the responsibility of the project owner(s).

On-street Parking: The streetscape plans for Alvarado Road in the Specific Plan include the construction of improvements along the entire length of the site Area as part of Phase 1 projects. This includes on-street parallel parking spaces along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage in areas that insure proper site distances from primary project ingress/egress locations. The on-street parking areas are planned to be delineated by “bulb-out” features as part of the streetscape plan. This concept proposes to dedicate a limited number of spaces in the vicinity of each primary project entry as “timed parking” and/or “loading zones” to facilitate and encourage the use of shared transportation options, such as ride sharing and delivery services.
 Alternative Transportation Support: As a transit-oriented development, a key goal of the project is to facilitate future tenant use of alternatives to the single person vehicle trip.
 Bicycle Parking: All multi-family residential projects will include bicycle parking facilities.
 EV Charging Stations: All multi-family residential parking structures will incorporate spaces dedicated for electric vehicle charging stations.  Transit Access: The primary feature of the project supporting this objective is the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. The project proposes constructing new public pedestrian improvements for access to the Station on Alvarado Road to complete the missing public links to the MTS station. Phase 1 projects will also improve and complete pedestrian access for project tenants from the interior private streets along Alvarado Creek to the Station.
 Transit Passes: It the intent of the Specific Plan to work with MTS and project developments to incorporate incentives for transit use by project residents.

III – A. 6. Open Space and Site Landscaping
Two of the most important design elements in the Alvarado Specific Plan are the mix of high-quality open space concepts and landscaping solutions. These two key areas were assigned a high priority in the formulation of the Land Use and Development Plans. This

Page 197 of 1126 ends

commitment in the Plan can work within the physical demands of the site and still create a very livable and transformative environment the future tenants of the Area and achieve the objectives of La Mesa’s General Plan.

To balance the physical demands of the site improvements and with the goal of creating a quality living environment for the future tenants and the community as a whole, the master plan provides for a mix of well-designed and highly functional open space and landscaping solutions.

An illustration of the basic elements of the open space concepts and the major landscaping features of the project is shown in Figure 45. The overall site development plan shown in Figure 39 also graphically represents the important role of open spaces and landscaping elements distributed throughout the project Area. Each of these key components is briefly described below:

Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvements:

The proposed frontage along Alvarado Road includes parallel parking, a minimum 25 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle and landscaping zone along the entire Alvarado Road frontage. The shared pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle shown in Figure 46 includes street trees with tree grates, foundation planting, and vines planting at the building facade to assist in screen garage levels. The streetscape design also proposes a new pedestrian bridge that will provide a crossing over Alvarado Creek providing a contiguous sidewalk connection within the project limits to the existing 70th Street trolley station. The streetscape concept also will provide for on-street parallel parking zones defined by popouts that will include tree planting.

Interior Private Street and Creek-side Pedestrian Pathway:

The project proposes a pedestrian promenade around the perimeter of the building that embraces the Alvarado Creek, providing pedestrians better access to the new landscape areas and a visual connection to the Creek. Figure 47 illustrates the key design elements to be incorporated into the interior street plans. The pedestrian pathways have several nodes that are designed for outdoor activity. Improvements may include shade elements, park benches, and synthetic turf. Each node accentuates and highlights the existing creek habitat while also increasing the outdoor walkable open space that also serves as the projects Emergency Vehicle Access plan. The pathway will be secured with and incorporate decorative fencing, lighting and paving to provide safety as well as enhance the pedestrian experience. Some creek side areas along the interior streets may also serve as part of the on-site storm water retention systems to meet regional water quality standards.

III -
m-8|
8 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines commitment in the Plan can work within the physical demands of the site and still create a very livable and transformative environment the future tenants of the Area and achieve the objectives of La Mesa’s General Plan.

Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvements:

The proposed frontage along Alvarado Road includes parallel parking, a minimum 25 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle and landscaping zone along the entire Alvarado Road frontage. The shared pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle shown in Figure 46 includes street trees with tree grates, foundation planting, and vines planting at the building façade to assist in screen garage levels. The streetscape design also proposes a new pedestrian bridge that will provide a crossing over Alvarado Creek providing a contiguous sidewalk connection within the project limits to the existing 70th Street trolley station. The streetscape concept also will provide for on-street parallel parking zones defined by popouts that will include tree planting.

Interior Private Street and Creek-side Pedestrian Pathway:

Page 198 of 1126 ends

Exterior Courtyard Open Spaces and Indoor Amenities:

Each building is proposed with exterior courtyards landscaped to provide residents a variety of outdoor spaces and indoor facilities to meet the open space and recreational activity needs of residents. The open space conceptsinclude passive restorative spaces, social nodes, and flexible spaces for a wide array of community activities. Furniture and social elements animate the spaces while garden landscapes and pools and water features help refresh and provide a sense of retreat. The courtyard amenities are planned to accommodate features such as pool and spas, outdoor seating, cabanas, water and fire elements, and barbeques with picnic tables. The project features are illustrated in Figure 48. In addition, as shown in the Development Standards, Buildings 2-4 will evaluate the feasibility of providing “sky deck” outdoor spaces that provided an additional amenity for residents and capture the opportunity to provide longer vistas of the surrounding community.

Alvarado Creek Flood Improvements and Urban Creek Restoration:

In concert with the interior private street, described above, is the goal of restoring and maintaining the riparian environment within Alvarado Creek as a key visual element of the open space plan. A goal of the Specific Plan is to address the impact from flooding and urban storm-water drainage from much of north La Mesa on the site by improving and maintaining Alvarado Creek as a valued open space resource for the future residents of this newly created urban village. Figure 49 illustrates the proposed Alvarado Creek restoration and maintenance area.

Figure 45 Open Space Concept Plan
Figure 46 Plan View of Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvement Plans Figure 47 Plan View of Interior Street Improvement Plans Figure 48 Plan View to lllustrate Podium Deck Open Space and Landscaping Concept Figure 49 Plan View to lllustrate the Alvarado Creek Planting and Restoration Area Ill-A. 7. Site Grading and Flood Chanel Improvements
The Specific Plan site characteristics and constraints are described in detail in Chapter | which outlines the planning context and history associated with the Area. While the site has many challenges, it is also unusual for La Mesa in that it is relatively flat. Developed originally in the 1950's with the alignment of Interstate 8 and Alvarado Road as a freeway frontage road, the initial urbanization of the site created an essentially flat site for use as a mobile-home park. The site has a very low slope gradient from east to west generally matching the flow line of Alvarado Creek.

III -
m-9
9 |
|
Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Exterior Courtyard Open Spaces and Indoor Amenities:

Each building is proposed with exterior courtyards landscaped to provide residents a variety of outdoor spaces and indoor facilities to meet the open space and recreational activity needs of residents. The open space concepts include passive restorative spaces, social nodes, and flexible spaces for a wide array of community activities. Furniture and social elements animate the spaces while garden landscapes and pools and water features help refresh and provide a sense of retreat. The courtyard amenities are planned to accommodate features such as pool and spas, outdoor seating, cabanas, water and fire elements, and barbeques with picnic tables. The project features are illustrated in Figure 48. In addition, as shown in the Development Standards, Buildings 2-4 will evaluate the feasibility of providing “sky deck” outdoor spaces that provided an additional amenity for residents and capture the opportunity to provide longer vistas of the surrounding community.

Alvarado Creek Flood Improvements and Urban Creek Restoration:

Figure 45 Open Space Concept Plan
Figure 46 Plan View of Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvement Plans Figure 47 Plan View of Interior Street Improvement Plans Figure 48 Plan View to Illustrate Podium Deck Open Space and Landscaping Concept Figure 49 Plan View to Illustrate the Alvarado Creek Planting and Restoration Area III – A. 7. Site Grading and Flood Chanel Improvements
The Specific Plan site characteristics and constraints are described in detail in Chapter I which outlines the planning context and history associated with the Area. While the site has many challenges, it is also unusual for La Mesa in that it is relatively flat. Developed originally in the 1950’s with the alignment of Interstate 8 and Alvarado Road as a freeway frontage road, the initial urbanization of the site created an essentially flat site for use as a mobile-home park. The site has a very low slope gradient from east to west generally matching the flow line of Alvarado Creek.

Page 199 of 1126 ends

The development plans for public improvements and multi-family housing will require grading of nearly all of the site area with the exception of the areas within the defined Alvarado Creek channel. Grading of the project site is largely driven the Alvarado Creek floodplain and floodway. The project will increase the capacity of the flood channel so that the required 100-year flood flows will be contained within the channel. This will be done through a combination of minor widening the channel width and raising the elevation of the top of the bank. Retaining walls will steepen the creek edge, thus allowing the bed of the Creek to be widened without significantly impacting the developable area of the building pads. The top of bank elevation for the site and garage entry elevations will all be elevated a minimum of 1.0 foot above the 100-year flood elevation.

Grading within the channel will be limited to the minimum needed to construct the retaining walls and the relocation of the City’s sanitary sewer trunk line from the channel to a new easement within the interior private street as shown in Figure 50. The flood control improvements will actually increase the area of the channel and allow for additional planting of appropriate riparian plant materials as an environmental enhancement from the past conditions.

All earth work in the channel and the site which is within the FEMA mapped “floodplain” will be part of the required multi-agency cooperation and authorization needed to implement the Specific Plan. In addition, all grading and earthwork construction activity will be subject to any mitigation measures and monitoring requirements established by the Project EIR. m-10| Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
III - 10 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines The development plans for public improvements and multi-family housing will require grading of nearly all of the site area with the exception of the areas within the defined Alvarado Creek channel. Grading of the project site is largely driven the Alvarado Creek floodplain and floodway. The project will increase the capacity of the flood channel so that the required 100-year flood flows will be contained within the channel. This will be done through a combination of minor widening the channel width and raising the elevation of the top of the bank. Retaining walls will steepen the creek edge, thus allowing the bed of the Creek to be widened without significantly impacting the developable area of the building pads. The top of bank elevation for the site and garage entry elevations will all be elevated a minimum of 1.0 foot above the 100-year flood elevation.

Page 200 of 1126 ends

III-A. 9. Public Improvements, Utilities, and Infrastructure The public improvements that will be provided through the approval of the Specific Plan and its implementing actions are described below. These improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the Phase 1 development plans as part of the private development requirements. The agencies that will be involved in coordinating and approving the plans are listed with each project.

Alvarado Road: Improvement of Alvarado Road will include the following components:

Streetscape improvement plans to include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lights, street trees, bulb-out landscape tree planting area, on-street parallel parking land, pedestrian connection to 70" Street Trolley Station, pedestrian bridge on south side of Alvarado Creek bridge, a traffic safety signal west of the Alvarado Creek bridge (City of La Mesa, MTS).

Overhead Power and Communication Line Relocation: The existing 12KV and communications lines that cross I-8 from Parkway Drive currently cross overhead in the San Diego RV Resort facility. This major power transmission line will need to be relocated underground generally around the west end of the project area before going overhead again to its current location on the south side of the MTS light rail tracks (City of La Mesa, SDG&E, Caltrans, MTS).

Flood Channel Improvements: The project includes seeking approvals to finally address the FEMA mapped need to address the flooding of the project site from Alvarado Creek.

This will involve multi-agency approval to make the necessary channel improvements with engineered retaining walls within the San Diego RV Resort property (City of La Mesa, MTS, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of San Diego).

Sanitary Sewer System Improvements: The environmental improvements to Alvarado Creek willinclude the relocation of one City sewer trunk line out of the channel and under the planned interior street. The sewer work will also address the removal of abandoned sewer lines in the creek and raising and capping an existing manhole that cannot be relocated to above the flood flow levels (City of La Mesa, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, City of San Diego).

Figure 50 Preliminary Grading Plan and Sections for Flood Channel Improvements Figure 51 Plan View with Major Public Improvements and Utilities m-11|Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
III - 11 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC

PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – A. 9. Public Improvements, Utilities, and Infrastructure The public improvements that will be provided through the approval of the Specific Plan and its implementing actions are described below. These improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the Phase 1 development plans as part of the private development requirements. The agencies that will be involved in coordinating and approving the plans are listed with each project.

Alvarado Road: Improvement of Alvarado Road will include the following components:

Streetscape improvement plans to include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lights, street trees, bulb-out landscape tree planting area, on-street parallel parking land, pedestrian connection to 70th Street Trolley Station, pedestrian bridge on south side of Alvarado Creek bridge, a traffic safety signal west of the Alvarado Creek bridge (City of La Mesa, MTS).

Flood Channel Improvements: The project includes seeking approvals to finally address the FEMA mapped need to address the flooding of the project site from Alvarado Creek.

Sanitary Sewer System Improvements: The environmental improvements to Alvarado Creek will include the relocation of one City sewer trunk line out of the channel and under the planned interior street. The sewer work will also address the removal of abandoned sewer lines in the creek and raising and capping an existing manhole that cannot be relocated to above the flood flow levels (City of La Mesa, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, City of San Diego).

Figure 50 Preliminary Grading Plan and Sections for Flood Channel Improvements Figure 51 Plan View with Major Public Improvements and Utilities

Page 201 of 1126 ends

ll — B. Specific Plan Project Design Guidelines
Implementation of the Specific Plan will require all the multi-family residential projects to complete the City's Site Development Plan and Design Review process. The two primary objectives of the implementation steps will be to make sure the future projects are: one, consistent with the Alvarado Specific Plan; and two, meet the principles of the City’s Urban Design Program.

Principles from the Urban Design Program that have been employed in formulating the Land Use and Development Plans for the Specific Plan projects include:

The design guidelines that can be applied more directly to the projects as part of the Preserve and enhance the community character and sense of place by delivering projects and programs that build upon positive design features.
promote a positive community identity and imageability; enhance the visual quality and confinuity of the community through circulation patterns, definition of community edges and boundaries, distinct gateways;
assure high quality community design for new construction; encourage energy conservation and safety conscious design methods for new development; and,
provide specific project elements that will provide the attributes including: vitality, function, spatial form and quality, safe and efficient access, structural orientation, congruence, safety and defensible space principles, and stability. La Mesa Urban Design Program, page 13.

implementation steps for the Specific Plan are outlined in the following sections. m-12 | Page
PLAN
III - 12 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC

ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – B. Specific Plan Project Design Guidelines
Implementation of the Specific Plan will require all the multi-family residential projects to complete the City’s Site Development Plan and Design Review process. The two primary objectives of the implementation steps will be to make sure the future projects are: one, consistent with the Alvarado Specific Plan; and two, meet the principles of the City’s Urban Design Program.

Principles from the Urban Design Program that have been employed in formulating the Land Use and Development Plans for the Specific Plan projects include:
 Preserve and enhance the community character and sense of place by delivering projects and programs that build upon positive design features.
 promote a positive community identity and imageability;  enhance the visual quality and continuity of the community through circulation patterns, definition of community edges and boundaries, distinct gateways;
 assure high quality community design for new construction;  encourage energy conservation and safety conscious design methods for new development; and,
 provide specific project elements that will provide the attributes including: vitality, function, spatial form and quality, safe and efficient access, structural orientation, congruence, safety and defensible space principles, and stability. La Mesa Urban Design Program, page 13.

The design guidelines that can be applied more directly to the projects as part of the implementation steps for the Specific Plan are outlined in the following sections.

Page 202 of 1126 ends

Ill -B. 1. Site Design
a.) The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements will use a coordinated set of street lighting, tree grates, street trees, landscaping, and paving materials to establish a strong design statement that ties the four development parcels into a cohesive project area. b.) Within the private interior streets, a coordinated palette of enhanced paving, decorative fencing and gates, lighting, street furniture, shade structures, tree planting and landscaping will be used to tie the overall site development plan together. c.) Project lighting and landscaping along Alvarado Road, the interior private streets and pedestrian pathways connecting to the 70th Street Trolley Station will used to create a safe and secure residential environment.
d.) Project signs may include entry monument signs and/or signs incorporated into the project architecture. Each sign shall be so designed to complement the architectural style of the main building. Project signs should add clarity and direction to the project circulation system.
e.) Throughout the Specific Plan Area, a unified system of site features and signage will be used to enhance the wayfinding character of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. f.) As a unique location that will be transformed from a challenging freeway oriented location, landscaping will play a strong role in creating a vital residential environment. Key areas that should be the focus to meet the project design objectives with landscaping solutions will be the:
» Alvarado Road streetscape street tree types, frequency and initial planting sizes. » Significant role of planting areas and materials within the podium deck open space and recreations areas
» Coordinated use of planting materials and design features along the interior private street creek side pathways and socializing nodes = Alvarado Creek flood channel plant restoration and maintenance plan

Ill — B. 2. Architectural Design Guidelines
a.) All four primary multi-family residential project buildings should have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style or theme, yet express an individual character with varying forms, features and materials to avoid an overuse of a single design concept for the Specific Plan Area.
b.) As a major new land use change and highly visible gateway statement along the I8 corridor, individual project design will provide strong forms and architectural elements at the primary project entrances to the interior private streets. m-13| Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
III - 13 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC

PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – B. 1. Site Design
a.) The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements will use a coordinated set of street lighting, tree grates, street trees, landscaping, and paving materials to establish a strong design statement that ties the four development parcels into a cohesive project area. b.) Within the private interior streets, a coordinated palette of enhanced paving, decorative fencing and gates, lighting, street furniture, shade structures, tree planting and landscaping will be used to tie the overall site development plan together. c.) Project lighting and landscaping along Alvarado Road, the interior private streets and pedestrian pathways connecting to the 70th Street Trolley Station will used to create a safe and secure residential environment.
d.) Project signs may include entry monument signs and/or signs incorporated into the project architecture. Each sign shall be so designed to complement the architectural style of the main building. Project signs should add clarity and direction to the project circulation system.
e.) Throughout the Specific Plan Area, a unified system of site features and signage will be used to enhance the wayfinding character of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. f.) As a unique location that will be transformed from a challenging freeway oriented location, landscaping will play a strong role in creating a vital residential environment. Key areas that should be the focus to meet the project design objectives with landscaping solutions will be the:
 Alvarado Road streetscape street tree types, frequency and initial planting sizes.  Significant role of planting areas and materials within the podium deck open space and recreations areas
 Coordinated use of planting materials and design features along the interior private street creek side pathways and socializing nodes  Alvarado Creek flood channel plant restoration and maintenance plan III – B. 2. Architectural Design Guidelines
a.) All four primary multi-family residential project buildings should have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style or theme, yet express an individual character with varying forms, features and materials to avoid an overuse of a single design concept for the Specific Plan Area.
b.) As a major new land use change and highly visible gateway statement along the I8 corridor, individual project design will provide strong forms and architectural elements at the primary project entrances to the interior private streets.

Page 203 of 1126 ends

c.) On the northern Alvarado Road facades, where balconies may not be feasible due
to noise attenuation requirements, buildings will use sufficient architectural design forms, features and changes in materials to provide visual interest and variance in the elevations from the 1-8 view corridor.
d.) On the Alvarado Road frontages with exposed parking garage levels, buildings will incorporate both architecturally coordinated building materials and landscaping solutions to add value to the pedestrian scale and environment along the Alvarado Road streetscape zone.
e.) Roof top mechanical equipment should be architecturally screened from views from locations above the site to the south.
f.) Interior elevations viewed from the podium deck open space areas and elevations fronting on to the interior private street pathways should reflect sufficient architectural interest with forms, massing, fenestration, balconies and viewing locations to enhance a sense of an active residential environment.

Ill — C. Objective Design Standards

TO BE ADDED AS ADDENDOM
Mm-14| Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
III - 14 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC

PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines c.) On the northern Alvarado Road facades, where balconies may not be feasible due to noise attenuation requirements, buildings will use sufficient architectural design forms, features and changes in materials to provide visual interest and variance in the elevations from the I-8 view corridor.
d.) On the Alvarado Road frontages with exposed parking garage levels, buildings will incorporate both architecturally coordinated building materials and landscaping solutions to add value to the pedestrian scale and environment along the Alvarado Road streetscape zone.
e.) Roof top mechanical equipment should be architecturally screened from views from locations above the site to the south.
f.) Interior elevations viewed from the podium deck open space areas and elevations fronting on to the interior private street pathways should reflect sufficient architectural interest with forms, massing, fenestration, balconies and viewing locations to enhance a sense of an active residential environment.

III – C. Objective Design Standards

TO BE ADDED AS ADDENDOM

Page 204 of 1126 ends

1|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards

ALAVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER Ill UPDATE
DRAFT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS - 6/6/2022
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT:

The purpose and intent of the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan Objective Design Standards are to provide clear direction and understanding of the City's expectations for multifamily residential projects that are proposed within the Specific Plan Area. The following Objective Design Standards have been written to be consistent with the goals, objectives, development plans and guidelines established by the Alvarado Specific Plan. The Objective Design Standards shall be applied to projects which qualify under state housing laws which mandate the application of objective design standards, such as the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Projects that meet these requirements shall be deemed to be in substantial conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the Alvarado Specific Plan and any requirements established by the Alvarado Specific Plan Project EIR.

B. LAND USE:

1. The primary land use within the Specific Plan Area shall be multi-family residential located in Buildings 1-4 (See Exhibit 37). The primary multi-family residential structures will comply with the Form-Based Development Standards established by the Specific Plan and further described within the Development Standards below, which define the building locations, massing, orientation, separations, setbacks, description and distribution of open spaces, parking, circulation, and public improvements, as shown in Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e.

2. Parking to serve each primary multi-family residential structure (Buildings 1-4) shall be provided within structured parking levels for each Building. Development Standards for off-street parking are described further below.

3. Non-residential uses shall be permitted, but not required within each of Buildings 1-4.

Such uses shall be limited to uses providing commercial and service uses intended primarily for the residents of the SP projects. Such non-residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet within any one Building.

C. SITE DEVELOPMENT:
1 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

ALAVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN

CHAPTER III UPDATE
DRAFT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS – 6/6/2022
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT:

The purpose and intent of the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan Objective Design Standards are to provide clear direction and understanding of the City’s expectations for multifamily residential projects that are proposed within the Specific Plan Area. The following Objective Design Standards have been written to be consistent with the goals, objectives, development plans and guidelines established by the Alvarado Specific Plan. The Objective Design Standards shall be applied to projects which qualify under state housing laws which mandate the application of objective design standards, such as the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Projects that meet these requirements shall be deemed to be in substantial conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the Alvarado Specific Plan and any requirements established by the Alvarado Specific Plan Project EIR.

B. LAND USE:

3. Non-residential uses shall be permitted, but not required within each of Buildings 1-4.

C. SITE DEVELOPMENT:

Page 205 of 1126 ends

2|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards

1. All new residential structures and the improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel will be constructed to meet the requirements of the City’s Floodplain Ordinance.

2. Contingent upon approvals from all required Federal, State and local agencies, the project will construct improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel as illustrated in Figure 48. As part of the Flood Channel improvements, the improvements will require restoration of any disturbed area of the channel with appropriate plant materials defined by the permitting agencies.

3. Individual multi-family residential projects as defined by the Alvarado Specific Plan are to be developed in a coordinated manner that can be completed in Phases as further defined in the Specific Plan. All development of projects in Building sites 1-4, whether constructed individually or grouped by phases, shall guarantee all necessary site preparation, including but not limited to: site grading, installation of public utilities, construction public improvements and public utilities, and public safety access, as a condition of occupancy.

4. All site grading shall be in accordance with the overall project development plans established by the Alvarado Specific Plan and the City's grading regulations and standards.

D. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

1. Form Based Development Standards: As described in this Chapter, a Form Based Development Standards is used to define the physical locations and limits of the primary multi-family residential projects authorized by the Alvarado Specific Plan. This concept is described in detail in both the text and exhibits within the Specific Plan. The following Development Standards apply to multi-family development projects within the Specific Plan Area, as illustrated in Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 410-e. a. Building Height and Step-Backs:
(1). Maximum height per California Building Code
(a). 75" to top of habitable floor.
(b). 85" to top of roof sheathing
(2). No vertical step-backs required (see Massing Articulation section below)
b. Building Setbacks and Encroachments:
2 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

1. All new residential structures and the improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel will be constructed to meet the requirements of the City’s Floodplain Ordinance.

4. All site grading shall be in accordance with the overall project development plans established by the Alvarado Specific Plan and the City’s grading regulations and standards.

D. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

1. Form Based Development Standards: As described in this Chapter, a Form Based Development Standards is used to define the physical locations and limits of the primary multi-family residential projects authorized by the Alvarado Specific Plan. This concept is described in detail in both the text and exhibits within the Specific Plan. The following Development Standards apply to multi-family development projects within the Specific Plan Area, as illustrated in Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e. a. Building Height and Step-Backs:
(1). Maximum height per California Building Code
(a). 75’ to top of habitable floor.
(b). 85’ to top of roof sheathing
(2). No vertical step-backs required (see Massing Articulation section below)
b. Building Setbacks and Encroachments:

Page 206 of 1126 ends

3|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Building Height encroachments
are permitted for non-habitable roof
appurtenances of up to a maximum of 12'-0".
(2). Where no minimum setbacks are provided, residential units shall be located a minimum 5' from back of a pedestrian path or walkway.

2. Off-street parking shall be provided for each of the proposed Buildings 1-4 within parking garage structures as illustrated in Figures 37, 39a-g, 41a-c, and 42, and shall meet the following standards:
a. Off-street parking will be provided for Buildings 2-4 in three levels and will meet the City’s structured parking garage design requirements for size, access and circulation. Building 1 will provide just one level of structured parking at the ground level.
b. All off-street parking spaces located within parking structures will utilize Universal Parking Space dimensions of 9’ wide by 18’ deep with 24’ wide twoway travel lanes. c. The only exception to structured parking locations will this be for limited on-site parking spaces outside the parking structures that will serve as visitor parking as shown on the Alvarado SP site development plan.
d. All off-street parking spaces provided in Buildings 1-4 shall be “unbundled” and made available residents of the individual buildings as part of the rent for the residential unit as managed by the project owners. Parking spaces within the parking structures can be reserved for related uses such as, but not limited to, deliveries, guest parking, and shared EV charging stations. e. All parking structures shall provide secured bicycle parking enclosures at the ground level.
f. All off-street parking shall comply with the number, distribution and location of spaces to meet the requirements for Disabled Persons.

E. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS:

1. Massing Articulation and Building Design:
a. Vertical plane breaks — Min. 3' deep x 10’ wide break every 150" maximum b. The horizontal composition of building planes shall provide visual breaks as follows:
3 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Building Height encroachments are permitted for non-habitable roof appurtenances of up to a maximum of 12’-0”.
(2). Where no minimum setbacks are provided, residential units shall be located a minimum 5’ from back of a pedestrian path or walkway.

c. The only exception to structured parking locations will this be for limited on-site parking spaces outside the parking structures that will serve as visitor parking as shown on the Alvarado SP site development plan.
d. All off-street parking spaces provided in Buildings 1-4 shall be “unbundled” and made available residents of the individual buildings as part of the rent for the residential unit as managed by the project owners. Parking spaces within the parking structures can be reserved for related uses such as, but not limited to, deliveries, guest parking, and shared EV charging stations. e. All parking structures shall provide secured bicycle parking enclosures at the ground level.
f. All off-street parking shall comply with the number, distribution and location of spaces to meet the requirements for Disabled Persons.

E. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS:

1. Massing Articulation and Building Design:
a. Vertical plane breaks – Min. 3’ deep x 10’ wide break every 150’ maximum b. The horizontal composition of building planes shall provide visual breaks as follows:

Page 207 of 1126 ends

4|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Base and top definition for buildings 3 stories or lower (2). Base, middle, and top definition for buildings over 3 stories (3). Vertical plane continuity is allowed for a maximum 40% of the facade length
c. Building entrances shall be visible from, and face, the public right-of-way or a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway, incorporating at least one of the following:
(1). Change of massing through vertical or horizontal plane breaks (see above)
(2). Change of exterior finish color and/or materials
(3). Change of transparency by using glazing for a minimum of 50% of the enfrance width
d. Roofline variation: Vertical and horizontal variation every 150° maximum using one or more of the following in combination:
(1). Varying parapet heights by a minimum of 12”
(2). Eave overhangs
(3). Parapet offsets every 150’ following vertical plane standards above e. Buildings shall carry the same design theme and pallet of colors and materials on all exterior elevations. For the purpose of this standard, a theme includes primary (non-accent) forms, materials and colors. Exterior Finish Materials and Colors for Buildings 1-4 shall use:
(1). A minimum two (2) exterior finish materials, each material must cover min.
20% of building facade
(2). A minimum two (2) exterior colors, each color must cover min. 20% of building facade
(3). Material changes with a minimum 6" offset in depth or equivalent as appropriate to the materials used
(4). No mirrored glass
4 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Base and top definition for buildings 3 stories or lower (2). Base, middle, and top definition for buildings over 3 stories (3). Vertical plane continuity is allowed for a maximum 40% of the façade length
c. Building entrances shall be visible from, and face, the public right-of-way or a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway, incorporating at least one of the following:
(1). Change of massing through vertical or horizontal plane breaks (see above)
(2). Change of exterior finish color and/or materials
(3). Change of transparency by using glazing for a minimum of 50% of the entrance width
d. Roofline variation: Vertical and horizontal variation every 150’ maximum using one or more of the following in combination:
(1). Varying parapet heights by a minimum of 12”
(2). Eave overhangs
(3). Parapet offsets every 150’ following vertical plane standards above

e. Buildings shall carry the same design theme and pallet of colors and materials on all exterior elevations. For the purpose of this standard, a theme includes primary (non-accent) forms, materials and colors. Exterior Finish Materials and Colors for Buildings 1-4 shall use:
(1). A minimum two (2) exterior finish materials, each material must cover min.
20% of building façade
(2). A minimum two (2) exterior colors, each color must cover min. 20% of building façade
(3). Material changes with a minimum 6” offset in depth or equivalent as appropriate to the materials used
(4). No mirrored glass

Page 208 of 1126 ends

5|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards
f. Mixed-Use Spaces shall be integrated into the Form-Based Standards for Buildings 1-4 and required to be differentiated from residential and commercial/ retail spaces through the use of:
(1). At least one contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
g. Building shall clearly differentiate residential and non-residential service/commercial spaces through the use of:
(1). Atleast one (1) contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
h. Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate a distinctive vertical corner design element to identify the primary entry location for each Building in the immediate vicinity of the driveway entry serving that Building.
i. All mechanical equipment located on building rooftops shall be screen with visual screening panels or devices with a minimum height of 42".

a. As shown in Exhibit 16a, 16b and 16c, liner units are proposed along the interior facades for Buildings 2,3, and 4. The liner units add more direct interaction and visibility for the pedestrian promenade areas. If incorporated into these locations, the ground level liner units located within 36” of adjacent finished grade shall provide direct access to the promenade via steps and/or ramps.

3. Podium Deck Open Spaces: Buildings 2-4, which incorporate a Podium Deck Area as part of the active and passive open space amenities provided for the project. The Podium Deck Area for Buildings 2-4 is defined by the space created by the location of a double-loaded interior corridor serving residential units that face either to the building's exterior or to the Podium Deck Area (see Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e). Due to 5 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
f. Mixed-Use Spaces shall be integrated into the Form-Based Standards for Buildings 1-4 and required to be differentiated from residential and commercial/ retail spaces through the use of:
(1). At least one contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
g. Building shall clearly differentiate residential and non-residential service/commercial spaces through the use of:
(1). At least one (1) contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
h. Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate a distinctive vertical corner design element to identify the primary entry location for each Building in the immediate vicinity of the driveway entry serving that Building.
i. All mechanical equipment located on building rooftops shall be screen with visual screening panels or devices with a minimum height of 42”.

2. Liner Units: Interior elevations (not facing Alvarado Road) that include liner units, shall incorporate a pallet of materials and colors that clearly differentiate these lower floors from the residential floors above the podium deck level. a. As shown in Exhibit 16a, 16b and 16c, liner units are proposed along the interior facades for Buildings 2,3, and 4. The liner units add more direct interaction and visibility for the pedestrian promenade areas. If incorporated into these locations, the ground level liner units located within 36” of adjacent finished grade shall provide direct access to the promenade via steps and/or ramps.

Page 209 of 1126 ends

6|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards
the irregular shape of the Specific Plan Area each Building site results in an irregularly shaped parking structure and corresponding Podium Deck open space area is defined by the residential unit arrangement around the perimeter of the parking structure. a. Each unique Podium Deck Area will be oriented toward the interior of the Specific Plan Area (i.e., away from |-8) and incorporate at least one segment that is open to views of the pedestrian promenade area and Alvarado Creek.

4. Exterior Parking Levels: All elevations with exposed parking garage levels above grade facing Alvarado Road shall use a combination of architectural screening materials and landscaping to differentiate the parking level elevations from the residential floors above podium deck, and to screen all views of parked vehicles on the interior of the parking structures.

5. Signs: Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate building identification with project naming signage and street numbers, and located on the building facade in a location that assists in directing people to the appropriate project address and entrance. a. Monument signs shall be permitted in the vicinity of each primary Building entrance in a limited in size and location that will not limit site visibility for vehicles, pedestrians or bicycles.
b. Building identification signs shall be indirectly lighted and shall not use internal illumination.

F. MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION:

1. No direct access to individual parking structures will be permitted from Alvarado Road.
a. Access to off-street parking for all residential units will from driveway entrances to the interior loop roads serving Buildings 1-4. Parking garage entrance and exits shall be located as shown in the Specific Plan to allow sufficient queuing on the project site and prevent waiting for turning movements on Alvarado Road. b. All security gates defining the pedestrian promenade area shall be located beyond the parking structure entrances to allow free vehicle movements into the structure.

c. Recess gates at vehicular entrances to parking structures shall provide a minimum of 20’ from the primary building facade.
6 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
the irregular shape of the Specific Plan Area each Building site results in an irregularly shaped parking structure and corresponding Podium Deck open space area is defined by the residential unit arrangement around the perimeter of the parking structure. a. Each unique Podium Deck Area will be oriented toward the interior of the Specific Plan Area (i.e., away from I-8) and incorporate at least one segment that is open to views of the pedestrian promenade area and Alvarado Creek.

5. Signs: Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate building identification with project naming signage and street numbers, and located on the building façade in a location that assists in directing people to the appropriate project address and entrance. a. Monument signs shall be permitted in the vicinity of each primary Building entrance in a limited in size and location that will not limit site visibility for vehicles, pedestrians or bicycles.
b. Building identification signs shall be indirectly lighted and shall not use internal illumination.

F. MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION:

Page 210 of 1126 ends

7|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards

2. A combined public pedestrian walkway and bike lane will be constructed along the Alvarado Road frontage of the SP Area. These public improvements will include a pedestrian bridge of a minimum 15’ in width to cross Alvarado Creek on the south side of the existing Alvarado Road bridge within the City’s right-of-way to maintain connectivity between the public sidewalk and bike lane from the building sites for Buildings 1-3 and Building 4.

3. The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall include: planting of street trees, installation of tree grates and decorative street lights in accordance with the City's standards for spacing and design.

4. Project improvements shall include the construction of pedestrian connections from the Alvarado Road frontage improvements and from the private interior ring road improvements to the 70th Street MTS Trolley/Bus Station.

5. All parcels developed for Building 1-4 shall provide for reciprocal access for the shared use of the interior pedestrian promenade areas along the restored Alvarado Creek areas.

6. The interior ring road area improved to provide pedestrian access to the linear open spaces along the restored Alvarado Creek shall incorporate a unified set of landscape planting, street furniture, pedestrian scale lighting, enhanced paving materials, creekside viewing nodes and wayfinding signage.

7. The interior ring road will provide control gates at locations beyond the parking garage entrances to prevent through vehicle traffic except for service vehicles and move-in locations.

G. PUBLIC SAFETY:

1. Emergency access to serve Buildings 1-4 shall be provided by the interior loop roads provided for Buildings 1-3 to the west of the Alvarado Road bridge and for Building 4 on the east side of the Alvarado Road bridge.
a. The interior ring road will be constructed to meet the City’s specifications for access and load baring capability for Fire Department vehicles. A dedicated Fire Lane shall be executed for the emergency access use of the interior loop road.

2. If Building 2 is developed with the Student Housing option described in the SP, the project will be required to operate with the following services:
a. Fully furnished units
7 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

3. The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall include: planting of street trees, installation of tree grates and decorative street lights in accordance with the City’s standards for spacing and design.

5. All parcels developed for Building 1-4 shall provide for reciprocal access for the shared use of the interior pedestrian promenade areas along the restored Alvarado Creek areas.

7. The interior ring road will provide control gates at locations beyond the parking garage entrances to prevent through vehicle traffic except for service vehicles and move-in locations.

G. PUBLIC SAFETY:

2. If Building 2 is developed with the Student Housing option described in the SP, the project will be required to operate with the following services:
a. Fully furnished units

Page 211 of 1126 ends

8|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards
b. Access to the building via a secured entry with a staffed 24/7 presence c. On-site management and professionally trained staff
d. A designated staff liaison with San Diego State University e. A clear policy requiring a lease agreement with provisions regarding resident behavior and enforcement for all tenants

3. As shown on the approved Alvarado SP site development plan, automated securing gates will be installed in locations beyond the parking garage level access points with pedestrian gates to maintain the value of the promenade area as part of the project open space and to provide access to the adjacent transit facilities.

4. Site Lighting: All development projects shall comply with the following standards to create a safe environment for the residents of the Specific Plan Area:
a. All active outdoor open spaces, including the Creekside pedestrian area, the Alvarado Road streetscape area, the Alvarado Creek pedestrian bridge, podium level open space areas, and pathways connecting the project to the 70th Street MTS Trolley/Bus Stations shall provide dusk to dawn pedestrian scale safety lighting with a uniform design standard throughout the Specific Plan Area. Other than street light installed in the Alvarado Road public sidewalk and bike lane, freestanding lighting fixtures shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, unless approved by the Director of Community Development b. All outdoor lighting, shall be focused, directed, and arranged to minimize glare and illumination of streets, the night sky, or adjoining property. This will require the use of shields and the appropriate lighting design and specifications, and can limit the location, type and height of light fixtures.
c. Service area lighting shall be contained within the service area boundaries d. Lights shall be durable, recessed, or otherwise designed to reduce the problems associated with damage and vandalism
e. All electrical meter pedestals and light switch/control equipment shall be located with minimum public visibility if possible or shall be screened with appropriate plant material
f. All community landscape common areas, private facilities, streetscape areas, and other use Specific Plan areas are permitted, at the discretion of the project developer or builders, to use accent or other night lighting elements H. UTILITIES, SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
8 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
b. Access to the building via a secured entry with a staffed 24/7 presence c. On-site management and professionally trained staff
d. A designated staff liaison with San Diego State University e. A clear policy requiring a lease agreement with provisions regarding resident behavior and enforcement for all tenants

Page 212 of 1126 ends

9|Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards

1. All existing overhead utilities will be placed underground and all new utilities will be placed underground. The existing SDG&E electrical fransmission line that crosses the site will receive a down pole on the Alvarado Rd frontage and continue underground to the south side of the new residential structures where it will connect with a new up-pole on the north side of Alvarado Creek to continue in service to the south of the SP Area.

2. All trash collection facilities shall be located within the parking structure serving each of Buildings 1-4 individually.

3. Contingent upon the execution of a mutually agreed upon reimbursement agreement, to the extent feasible, the project will facilitate the relocation of the existing sewer main located within the SP Area in the Alvarado Creek channel to a new location in a public easement within the proposed ring road serving Buildings 1-3.

4. Improvements to the Alvarado Creek Flood Channel as described above.

I. LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE

1. Open space will be provided in elements that are shared throughout the Specific Plan Area and in locations that are provided for the use of residents of the in each multi-family development project. Open spaces for the benefit of the Specific Plan Area shall include both active and passive spaces and uses. To reflect the unique characteristics and opportunities as outlined in the Specific Plan (illustrated in Figures 43- 47), the Open Space objectives will be provided within the following areas which will combine both active and passive open space functions:
a. Outdoor podium deck areas and adjoining interior facilities for community rooms, gym spaces serving Buildings 2-4. Building 1 shall include interior spaces for active recreation and community room
b. Interior promenade areas adjacent to Alvarado Creek and within the vehicle control gates
c. The Alvarado Creek restoration area
d. The Alvarado Road shared pedestrian path and bicycle lane, including landscape areas
e. Landscape areas included within required stormwater management facilities

2. Podium deck areas for Buildings 2-4 shall consist of a network of gardens, social nodes, flexible use areas, and planting include at least 4 of the following elements:
9 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

1. All existing overhead utilities will be placed underground and all new utilities will be placed underground. The existing SDG&E electrical transmission line that crosses the site will receive a down pole on the Alvarado Rd frontage and continue underground to the south side of the new residential structures where it will connect with a new up-pole on the north side of Alvarado Creek to continue in service to the south of the SP Area.

2. All trash collection facilities shall be located within the parking structure serving each of Buildings 1-4 individually.

4. Improvements to the Alvarado Creek Flood Channel as described above.

I. LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE

2. Podium deck areas for Buildings 2-4 shall consist of a network of gardens, social nodes, flexible use areas, and planting include at least 4 of the following elements:

Page 213 of 1126 ends

10| Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards
a. Pool
b. Landscaping to include canopy frees and low planting materials to define spaces within the podium deck
c. Seating areas for individuals and group settings
d. Shade structures and/or umbrellas
e. Direct access to adjoining recreation and community activity rooms f. BBQ facilities or adjoining community room with cooking facilities g. Alvarado Creek viewing areas

3. All project landscaping shall comply with the City of La Mesa Water Efficient Landscaping standards and Model
Water Efficient Landscape ordinance.

b. The shared 16’-0" bike lane and pedestrian sidewalk shall extend from the easterly property line frontage, connect with the planned pedestrian bridge at Alvarado Creek, and extend westerly to connect with the existing MTS 70 Street Trolley Station. The shared bike land and pedestrian sidewalk will be paved and striped to define 8'-0" for the bicycles and 8'-0" for the pedestrian zone. c. A minimum of one short-term bike rack shall be located with the streetscape improvements in the vicinity of each entrance to Buildings 1-4. d. A minimum 5'-0" landscaped buffer area shall be provided between bike lane/pedestrian sidewalk and the building facades facing Alvarado Road. The planting design and materials in this area shall be coordinated with the project 10 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
a. Pool
b. Landscaping to include canopy trees and low planting materials to define spaces within the podium deck
c. Seating areas for individuals and group settings
d. Shade structures and/or umbrellas

e. Direct access to adjoining recreation and community activity rooms f. BBQ facilities or adjoining community room with cooking facilities g. Alvarado Creek viewing areas

3. All project landscaping shall comply with the City of La Mesa Water Efficient Landscaping standards and Model Water Efficient Landscape ordinance.

4. Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall be constructed along the Alvarado Road frontage within the Alvarado Specific Plan Area as illustrated in Exhibit 48 to improve traffic and pedestrian safety, provide stormwater management, enhance the streetscape environment, and implement the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies. The facilities to be constructed as part of the Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall include:
a. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lane, pedestrian bridge crossing Alvarado Creek, driveway aprons, street trees with tree grates, and street lighting to meet the City’s standards and specifications. Street trees species, size and distribution shall meet the City’s specifications and standards.
b. The shared 16’-0” bike lane and pedestrian sidewalk shall extend from the easterly property line frontage, connect with the planned pedestrian bridge at Alvarado Creek, and extend westerly to connect with the existing MTS 70th Street Trolley Station. The shared bike land and pedestrian sidewalk will be paved and striped to define 8’-0” for the bicycles and 8’-0” for the pedestrian zone. c. A minimum of one short-term bike rack shall be located with the streetscape improvements in the vicinity of each entrance to Buildings 1-4. d. A minimum 5’-0” landscaped buffer area shall be provided between bike lane/pedestrian sidewalk and the building facades facing Alvarado Road. The planting design and materials in this area shall be coordinated with the project

Page 214 of 1126 ends

11 | Page
Chapter Ill — Draft Objective Design Standards
requirements for screening the parking structure elevations facing Alvarado Road.

5. The interior roadway serving as the linear creek-side pedestrian promenade open space element shall include:
a. Enhanced paving
b. The promenade/fire lane shall be secured with decorative vehicular and pedestrian gates at all vehicular points of entry and exit
c. Bench seating and gathering nodes distributed throughout the project area with a minimum of 100’ spacing
d. Pedestrian scale lighting
e. Canopy trees that will not interfere with access or movement within the dedicated fire lane
f. Wayfinding signage
g. Landscaped bioswales area
J. SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS:

1. All new residential dwelling units will use electrical services and appliances only.

2. All new residential buildings will be constructed to meet or exceed Calgreen requirements.
11 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
requirements for screening the parking structure elevations facing Alvarado Road.

1. All new residential dwelling units will use electrical services and appliances only.

2. All new residential buildings will be constructed to meet or exceed Calgreen requirements.

Page 215 of 1126 ends

EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 3

Page 216 of 1126 ends

DAHLIN

August 12, 2022
Attn: Jeffrey A. Chine
Allen Matkins
Partner
600 W. Broadway, 271 Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: Alvarado Specific Plan
Dear Jeffrey,
As requested, following is a summary prepared by Dahlin Group (Dahlin) outlining the project development and building design standards provided in Chapter Ill of the Alvarado Specific Plan (ASP) as well as the Objective Design Standards (ODS) amendment to the ASP, dated June 6, 2022. The outline below identifies each standard and references specific figure(s) and/or text section(s) that were provided in the above-referenced documents. These standards establish building design criteria which are intended to be comprehensive and cover key building design aspects such as height and stories, setbacks and encroachments, massing and step-backs, in addition to finishes, colors and materials.

Figures referenced below are provided as exhibits in Appendix A enclosed.

In addition to building design, Chapter Ill of the ASP and the subsequent ODS amendment also address the size, location, and mix of uses and frontages within the project site including the location of surface and structured parking; screening of garages by applying architectural devices and liner uses; treatment of facades along Alvarado Road and the Creekside Promenade; distribution of usable open space; and finally, the provision of services and emergency vehicle access roads.

Outline of Project Development and Building Design Standards:

Land Use Development Plan:
o ASP, Chapter lll, Figure 37
Building Boundaries:
o ASP, Chapter lll, Figure 38
Building Height and Setbacks:
o ASP, Chapter lll, Figures 39a through 39g
o ODS Amendment, Section D (a) and D (b)
Building Envelope:
o ASP, Chapter lll, Figure 40
Building Plan Configuration:
o ASP, Chapter lll, Figures 41a through 41c
501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 +1-858-350-0544
San Diego, CA 92101
WWW.DAHLINGROUP.COM
August 12, 2022
Attn: Jeffrey A. Chine
Allen Matkins
Partner
600 W. Broadway, 27th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: Alvarado Specific Plan

Dear Jeffrey,
As requested, following is a summary prepared by Dahlin Group (Dahlin) outlining the project development and building design standards provided in Chapter III of the Alvarado Specific Plan (ASP) as well as the Objective Design Standards (ODS) amendment to the ASP, dated June 6, 2022. The outline below identifies each standard and references specific figure(s) and/or text section(s) that were provided in the above-referenced documents. These standards establish building design criteria which are intended to be comprehensive and cover key building design aspects such as height and stories, setbacks and encroachments, massing and step-backs, in addition to finishes, colors and materials.

Figures referenced below are provided as exhibits in Appendix A enclosed.

In addition to building design, Chapter III of the ASP and the subsequent ODS amendment also address the size, location, and mix of uses and frontages within the project site including the location of surface and structured parking; screening of garages by applying architectural devices and liner uses; treatment of facades along Alvarado Road and the Creekside Promenade; distribution of usable open space; and finally, the provision of services and emergency vehicle access roads.

Outline of Project Development and Building Design Standards:
• Land Use Development Plan:
o ASP, Chapter III, Figure 37
• Building Boundaries:
o ASP, Chapter III, Figure 38
• Building Height and Setbacks:
o ASP, Chapter III, Figures 39a through 39g
o ODS Amendment, Section D (a) and D (b)
• Building Envelope:
o ASP, Chapter III, Figure 40
• Building Plan Configuration:
o ASP, Chapter III, Figures 41a through 41c

Page 217 of 1126 ends

Letter to Jeffrey Chine
RE: Alvarado Specific Plan
August 12,2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

* Building Massing and Articulation:
o Vertical and Horizontal Articulation: ODS Amendment, Section E (1) a—c Roofline Articulation: ODS Amendment, Section E (1) d
Building Colors and Materials: ODS Amendment, Section E (1) e Mixed-Use Design Standards: ODS Amendment, Section E (1)f&g oO Structured Parking Design: ODS Amendment, Section E (4) 0 O Oo e Uses Lining Structured Parking:
o ASP, Chapter Il, Figures 16a through 16¢
o ODS Amendment, Section E (2)
The figures and sections above illustrate, in both text and graphics, key building design criteria that help define a coherent architectural vernacular that is specific to the site in the way it responds to site conditions, constraints, and characteristics. The implementation of the above-described standards is intended to be practical and achievable, ultimately resulting in a coherent, site-specific, and contextsensitive design.

Enclosed (in Appendix B) is additional information about Dahlin’s experience in community planning and urban design, highlighting our expertise in the design and planning of specific plans and mixed-use master plans that are similar in nature, size, and complexity to the Alvarado Specific Plan. Also included in Appendix B are resumes of the key team members at Dahlin who participated in the preparation of the ASP.

Jirair Garabedian, AIA, NCARB
Senior Associate, Senior Architect
Attachments
. Appendix A
. Appendix B
cc: David Witt
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Letter to Jeffrey Chine
RE: Alvarado Specific Plan
August 12,2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

• Building Massing and Articulation:
o Vertical and Horizontal Articulation: ODS Amendment, Section E (1) a – c o Roofline Articulation: ODS Amendment, Section E (1) d o Building Colors and Materials: ODS Amendment, Section E (1) e o Mixed-Use Design Standards: ODS Amendment, Section E (1) f & g o Structured Parking Design: ODS Amendment, Section E (4) • Uses Lining Structured Parking:
o ASP, Chapter II, Figures 16a through 16c
o ODS Amendment, Section E (2)
The figures and sections above illustrate, in both text and graphics, key building design criteria that help define a coherent architectural vernacular that is specific to the site in the way it responds to site conditions, constraints, and characteristics. The implementation of the above-described standards is intended to be practical and achievable, ultimately resulting in a coherent, site-specific, and contextsensitive design.

Jirair Garabedian, AIA, NCARB
Senior Associate, Senior Architect
Attachments
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
cc: David Witt

Page 218 of 1126 ends

APPENDIX A

Page 219 of 1126 ends

Alvarado Specific Plan
Liner Units: Throughout residential Buildings 2-4, there will be the opportunity to use liner units along the interior private streets. Liner units are not proposed for project facades adjacent to the Alvarado Road frontages. These units will include a similar mix of residential unit size from studios to 1-2 bedrooms. The Liner Units may also create the opportunity to provide for some variety of unit types that could include “loft” type units and units that have “front-stoop” type units with direct access to the Creekside promenade area. Examples of a typical floor plan, building sections and photographs are provided below to further describe this concept. Adding direct access and unit entries to the Creekside areas, creating more visibility, lighting and activity levels that represents a good use of defensible space design concepts into the Land Use and Development Plan.

/ _- — | / _ — ! |
———
/ oo _
J —
— _—
ee] A . | | a eT = _
I ! |
(I
| [I a
—
ol IE I _—- Ea -
I J 1 ! pe HR oo _— ”
rT _ ety —
TTT — rT
i | ! RN : bd [ E—— i.
— Tl _— mE — — _—
bo
_ oo est — —
_— — — -
oo
i
a
i LL — = _— B a . pe ~
- = ~~ -
—L - = » a : I — oo oT erst o = aT 5 = — = ROM! a Ci
= _
— R _ A
pV
To i eT — —
— — = : - ¢ DL
— — ja . EE — a
= 2 = / )
_ I Co — — ; A BLDG. 4 =
——— BO 2

Figure 16a - Liner Units
Page I-16
Land Use and Development Plan
Land Use and Development Plan
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page II-16
Liner Units: Throughout residential Buildings 2-4, there will be the opportunity to use liner units along the interior private streets. Liner units are not proposed for project facades adjacent to the Alvarado Road frontages. These units will include a similar mix of residential unit size from studios to 1-2 bedrooms. The Liner Units may also create the opportunity to provide for some variety of unit types that could include “loft” type units and units that have “front-stoop” type units with direct access to the Creekside promenade area. Examples of a typical floor plan, building sections and photographs are provided below to further describe this concept. Adding direct access and unit entries to the Creekside areas, creating more visibility, lighting and activity levels that represents a good use of defensible space design concepts into the Land Use and Development Plan.

Figure 16a - Liner Units
24'
20'
20'
26'
26'
26'
20'
26'
26'
20'
26'
DN

AMENITY

ALVARADO CREEK
T
T
ST1 E2 ST2 E1
E1
MECH.

STORAGE
MECH. STO.

DN
MECH.

T
PATIOS
ST1
ST2
E2
E4
E1
MECH.

STORAGE

AMENITY
E2
ST2
E4
ST1
DN
T
T
MECH.

STO
STO/
BIKES
MECH.

AMENITY
T
E3 ST4 ST3
E3
ST3 E3
ST3
STO.

AMENITY
BELOW

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.001
0 50 100 200
501 West Broadway
Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
858-350-0544
NORTH
3RD FLOOR PLAN
A1.03
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 3
BLDG. 4 BLDG. 2

ALVARADO ROAD
INTERSTATE 8
BLDG. 1
Fig 16a

ALVARADO ROAD
INTERSTATE 8

Page 220 of 1126 ends

Land Use and Development Plan Page II-17 =
|

Podium Deck Level
Garage Level 3 Liner Unit
Garage Level 2 Liner Unit
Garage Level 1
Building 2 Pedestrian i Alvarado Creek
Promenade / Existing 20’ Wide EVA Retaining Wall
Linear Unit Entries ey —
0 10 20 40
Figure 16b - Building Section with Liner Unit Examples
Alvarado
Alvarado Specific Plan
Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Plan Page II-17Figure 16b - Building Section with Liner Unit Examples

Page 221 of 1126 ends

Page 11 ends

Podium Deck —> A.

Level
<— Podium Deck
Level
Garage
Level 3 Liner Unit
Garage
Liner Unit Level 3

Garage
Level 2 Liner Unit
Garage Liner Unit Level 2

Garage Level 1 Garage Level 1

Building 3 Pedestrian Alvarado Creek Pedestrian Building 4 Podium Terrace Promenade / Promenade / Podium Terrace 26’ Wide EVA Bio-filtration Basin Retaining Walls 26° \Wide EVA a | Sidewalk at Creek Edge 0 10 20 40
Figure 16c - Building Section with Liner Unit Examples
Alvarado Specific Plan
Land Use and Development Plan
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page II-18
Figure 16c - Building Section with Liner Unit Examples

Page 222 of 1126 ends

Alvarado Specific Plan

LEGEND
(1) Outdoor courtyard at podium level 0 Proposed entry monument ® Accent street trees ® Loading zone 21) Public connection to MTS Trolley Station dD Pole light, Typ.

Decorative paving in pedestrian promenade a : . .

Po Set a oy ) 16’-0” wide pedestrian sidewalk / shared bike nih y ) ) ) . " . oa a / Emergency Vehicular (7) lois (2-0 tne gris, 12-0" shared path) ® Existing power pole to remain ® Future resident parking dD Private connection to MTS Trolley Station (27) Retaining wall at interstate Parallel parkin Prefabricated pedestrian bridge Vehicular and pedestrian gate MTS Trolley Station Parking structure entry points (3) Retaining wall at creek edge 0 y 9 ® ® ® 4 9 yp [4] Parcel division oO Pick up & drop off zone @ Bio-filtration basin, Typ. ® Existing creek / flood channel (24) Building 3 private residential patios k Primary vehicle entry points (5 } Social node with shade element and turf area @ Palm trees in 5x8 tree grates ® Rain event bio-filtration basin (20) Existing billboards to remain 25) Building 2 landscape corridor between buildings Lo) Secondary vehicle entry points

1 BUILDING 4

o
L

CLUB HOUSE

CLUBHOUSE

i A 4

AO S / /i Ll / —

Figure 37 - Alvarado Specific Plan Land Use Development Plan (with details identified) Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page IlI-5
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-5
Figure 37 - Alvarado Specific Plan Land Use Development Plan (with details identified)

Page 223 of 1126 ends

Alvarado Specific Plan

TROLLEY

STATION

= 7] SECTION

I REFERENCES

FOR FIGURES

—

Figure 38 - Form-Based Development Standards Plan View Buliding Area Boundaries and Figure 39a-g Section Lines Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page IlI-7
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-7
Figure 38 - Form-Based Development Standards Plan View Buliding Area Boundaries and Figure 39a-g Section Lines ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
858-350-0544
JOB NO. 1386.001 N
A.7

ALVARADO CREEK
ST1 ST2
E2
E4
ST1 E2 ST2
E1
ST3
E3
STO.

ST3
E3
E1
STO.
51'-0"
E2
ST2
E4
ST1
E1
ST3 E3

AMENITY

AMENITY
STUDY

AMENITY
BLDG. 4

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.001
0 50 100 200
501 West Broadway
Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
858-350-0544
NORTH
PODIUM (4TH) FLOOR PLAN
A1.04
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 3
BLDG. 2

ALVARADO ROAD
INTERSTATE 8

FORM-BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE
a.
c.
d.
e.
g.
f.
b.

CALTRANS
15’ SETBACK
1 TROLLEY

STATION

SECTION

REFERENCES

FOR FIGURES
39a-g
Fig 40
MTS

ALVARADO CREEK

ALVARADO ROAD
INTERSTATE 8

Page 224 of 1126 ends

Alvarado Specific Plan

BUILDING

ENVELOPE
MTS

CHANNEL | PODIUM
DECK

[===
PATH

PEDESTRIAN ALVARADO

¥ SKYDECK

d0074 319vV1IgvH
dO1 O01 .0-SZ ONIHLVY3HS

400d 40 dO1 OL XVIN 0-58

ALVARADO ROAD

RIGHT OF WAY
hs

CALTRANS =
1 AVE GRADE PLAN

LOWEST ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD ELEVATION

SECTION A
Figure 39a - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section a Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page I1I-9
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-9
501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 1386.001 JOB NO. N
A.9
PL

SKYDECK
PL
. .
.
.
39a - Section Diagram of Typical Site and
ment Standards
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544

CIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0
10-31-20
DATE

BUILDING ENVELOPE
ENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE: HIEGHT & SETBACK GUIDELINES - FIGURE 41a MTS

PODIUM DECK

PEDESTRIAN
PATH

ALVARADO ROAD

RIGHT OF WAY
85’-0” MAX TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
75’-0” TO TOP

HABITABLE FLOOR

ALVARADO CREEK
E4
E2 ' 42 ' 20
20' ' 6
2 26' 26' 20'
26' 2
6'
20'
26'

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD
16’-0” ±4’-0”

SECTION A

LOWEST ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD ELEVATION

AVE GRADE PLANE

CALTRANS

ALVARADO

CHANNEL
Figure 39a - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section a

Page 225 of 1126 ends

Alvarado Specific Plan

ENVELOPE
Q
Zz
o
=
p=
[1]
ONIHLYIHS 400d 40 dO1 OL XVI 0-58
¥OO014 F1avLIavH | dOLOL.0-GZ

PODIUM DECK

AMENITY

AT GRADE BLDG ENTRY
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
<= 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
(lela tel tele elle Cellet} Up
26’ EVA

PODIUM DECK
) 400714 378vLIgvH 1
dOL 01 .0-S.

ONIHLVIHS

400d 40 dOL OL XVIN .0-58
SECTION B Figure 39b - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section b

AVE GRADE PLANE
~ LOWEST ADJACENT TREET/ROAD ELEVATION
Page IlI-10
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page III-10
Figure 39b - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section b RADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101 858-350-0544
1386.001 JOB NO. N
A.10
.
.
.
.

SECTION 1
A3.2
FIGURE 39b - Section Diagram of Typical Site and
Development Standards
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544

LVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.001
10-31-2018 DATE
M-BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE: HIEGHT & SETBACK GUIDELINES - FIGURE 41a 26’ EVA
85’-0” MAX TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
85’-0” MAX TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
75’-0” TO TOP

HABITABLE FLOOR
75’-0” TO TOP

HABITABLE FLOOR

BUILDING ENVELOPE ALVARADO CREEK
E4
E2 ' 42 ' 20
20' ' 6
2 26' 26'
20'
26' 2
6'
20'
26' PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD SECTION B

PODIUM DECK

AT GRADE BLDG ENTRY

AMENITY

LOWEST ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD ELEVATION

AVE GRADE PLANE

Page 226 of 1126 ends

Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page IlI-11 ALVARADO ROAD RIGHT OF WAY " ONIHLV3HS 4004 40 dO1 OL XVIN .0~.G8 PODIUM DECK
¥00T4 319vLIgvH
dO1 OL 0-6.

CALTRANS

AVE GRADE PLAN

| 26’ EVA

LOWEST

ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD

ELEVATION

ALVARADO

CHANNEL
MT:

ENVELOPE SECTION C = fe" : > : i : BUILDING

Figure 39c - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section c Alvarado
Alvarado Specific Plan
Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-11 ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101 858-350-0544
1386.001 JOB NO. N
A.11
PL PL
.
.

PL PL
. .

SECTION 2
A3.20
FIGURE 39c - Section Diagram of Typical Site and
Development Standards
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN JOB NO. 1386.001
10-31-2018 DATE

ALVARADO CREEK
E4
E2 ' 42 ' 02
20' ' 6
2 26'
26'
20'
26' 2
6'
20'
26'

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD
FORM-BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE: HIEGHT & SETBACK GUIDELINES - FIGURE 41a 85’-0” MAX TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
75’-0” TO TOP

HABITABLE FLOOR
16’-0” ±7’-0”

BUILDING ENVELOPE SECTION C
26’ EVA

PODIUM DECK

ALVARADO CHANNEL
MTS

ALVARADO ROAD

RIGHT OF WAY
LOWEST

ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD

ELEVATION

AVE GRADE PLANE

CALTRANS
Figure 39c - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section c

Page 227 of 1126 ends

Page 111 ends

ONIHLV3HS 400d 40 401 OL WNINIXVYIA .0-S8 ADJACENT STREET/ROAD ELEVATION ~ “LOWEST | SECTION D Figure 39d - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section d me

12'-0" FOR NON-HABITABLE

ROOF APPURTENANCES
26’ EVA

ALVARADO CHANNEL

BUILDING ENVELOPE

MTS
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page III-12
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101 858-350-0544
1386.001 JOB NO. N
A.12
.

PL
.
.

PL
.
. .

SECTION 3
A3.20
FIGURE 39d - Section Diagram of Typical Site and
Development Standards
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN JOB NO. 1386.001
10-31-2018 DATE
FORM-BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE: HIEGHT & SETBACK GUIDELINES - FIGURE 41b

SECTION D BUILDING

ENVELOPE

PODIUM DECK
26’ EVA

ALVARADO CHANNEL MTS
12’-0” FOR NON-HABITABLE

ROOF APPURTENANCES
12’-0” FOR NON-HABITABLE ROOF APPURTENANCES

CALTRANS
85’-0” MAXIMUM TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
75’-0” MAXIMUM TO TOP HABITABLE FLOOR

ALVARADO CREEK
E4
E2 ' 24 ' 20
20' ' 6
2 26' 26'
20' 26' 2
6'
20'
26' PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD
16’-0” ±7’-0”

ALVARADO ROAD

RIGHT OF WAY
LOWEST

ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD

ELEVATION

AVE GRADE PLANE
Figure 39d - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section d

Page 228 of 1126 ends

PODIUM
DECK
Development Standards and Design Guidelines PODIUM DECK dO1l Ol.0-G.
400714 31gv.LidvH
dOl Ol.0-S.

ONIHLVY3HS 400d 40 dO1 OL XVIN .0-.58
d00714 31avLIgvH
"ONIHLY3HS 4008 40 dOL OL XVIN .0-S8 ~ AVE GRADE PLANE AVE GRADE PLANE LOWEST

ADJACENT LOWEST

STREET/ROAD ADJACENT

ELEVATION STREET/ROAD ELEVATION

SECTION E

ENVELOPE

N BUILDING
1 Figure 3%e - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section e Page IlI-13

Alvarado
Alvarado Specific Plan
Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-13 Figure 39e - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section e ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101 858-350-0544
1386.001 JOB NO. N
A.13
FORM-BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE: HIEGHT & SETBACK GUIDELINES - FIGURE 41c .
.
.
.

SECTION 4
A3.20
FIGURE 39e - Section Diagram of Typical Site and
Development Standards
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN JOB NO. 1386.001
10-31-2018 DATE

SECTION E

BUILDING ENVELOPE ALVARADO CREEK
E4
E2
24'
' 02
20'
' 62
26'
26'
20'
26'
26'
20'
26' PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
INTERSTATE 8

ALVARADO ROAD
85’-0” MAX TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
85’-0” MAX TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
75’-0” TO TOP

HABITABLE FLOOR
75’-0” TO TOP

HABITABLE FLOOR
26’ EVA 26’ EVA

PODIUM DECK

PODIUM DECK
LOWEST

ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD

ELEVATION
LOWEST

ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD

ELEVATION

AVE GRADE PLANE AVE GRADE PLANE

Page 229 of 1126 ends

Page IllI-14 Development Standards and Design Guidelines ALVARADO ROAD RIGHT OF WAY R PODIUM DECK CALTRANS 5) AVE GRADE PLANE, LOWEST ADJACENT STREET/ROAD ELEVATION ¥00714 31avLIgvH dOL OL .0-SL
ONIHLY3HS 400d 40 dOL OL WNIXVYIA 0-58

LANDSCAPE

SLOPE AREA
SECTION F — = = : ; | “1 Buon I ENVELOPE

Figure 39f - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section f Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page III-14
Figure 39f - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section f ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101 858-350-0544
1386.001 JOB NO. N
A.14
PL .
.

PL
. .

SECTION 4
A3.20
FIGURE 39f - Section Diagram of Typical Site and
Development Standards
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN JOB NO. 1386.001
10-31-2018 DATE
FORM-BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE: HIEGHT & SETBACK GUIDELINES - FIGURE 41d

SECTION F BUILDING

ENVELOPE

PODIUM DECK
MTS

LANDSCAPE SLOPE AREA
85’-0” MAXIMUM TO TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING
75’-0” TO TOP HABITABLE FLOOR

ALVARADO CREEK
E4
E2 ' 42 ' 20
20' ' 6
2 26' 26'
20'
26' 2
6'
20'
26' PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD
LOWEST

ADJACENT

STREET/ROAD

ELEVATION

AVE GRADE PLANE

CALTRANS

ALVARADO ROAD

RIGHT OF WAY
16’-0” ±6’-0”
26’ EVA

Page 230 of 1126 ends

12-0” FOR NON-HABITABLE

ROOF APPURTENANCES
R

Development Standards and Design Guidelines PODIUM DECK fh dOL OL .0-S.
40 401 OL WNINIXVIN 0-58
d00714 3T1dvLigvH
ONIHLV3IHS 400d AVE GRADE PLANE

LOWEST ADJACENT STREET/

ROAD ELEVATION
——
BUILDING SECTION G — PR A
Sp
Figure 39g - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section g Alvarado Specific Plan
Page IlI-15
Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-15 Figure 39g - Form-Based Development Standards, Fig. 38 Section g ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101 858-350-0544
1386.001 JOB NO. N
A.15
.

PL
.
.

SECTION 4
A3.20
FIGURE 39g - Section Diagram of Typical Site and
Development Standards
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544

LVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.001
10-31-2018 DATE
FORM-BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BUILDING ENVELOPE: HIEGHT & SETBACK GUIDELINES - FIGURE 41c

SECTION G

BUILDING ENVELOPE ALVARADO CREEK
E4
E2 ' 42 ' 02
20' ' 6
2 26' 26' 20' 26' 2
6'
20'
26'

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD
26’ EVA

PODIUM DECK
85’-0” MAXIMUM TO TOP OF

ROOF SHEATHING
75’-0” TO TOP

HABITABLE FLOOR
12’-0” FOR NON-HABITABLE ROOF APPURTENANCES

LOWEST ADJACENT STREET/

ROAD ELEVATION

AVE GRADE PLANE

Page 231 of 1126 ends

Alvarado Specific Plan

Figure 40 - Form-Based Development Standards Schematic View of Development Envelopes Page Ill-16
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page III-16
Figure 40 - Form-Based Development Standards Schematic View of Development Envelopes

Page 232 of 1126 ends

LEGEND:
= BUILDING ENVELOPE PARKING LEVELS
[1] RESI. LEVELS PODIUM DECK OPEN

SPACE AREAS
JOB NO. 1386.001
DATE

THREE-DIMENSIONAL BUILDING AREA BOUNDARIES

ALVARADO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN
05-13-2021
A.
501 West Broadway, Suite 1080
San Diego, CA 92101
858-350-0544
PAYDAR « PROPERTIES panun

ALVARADO CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1080 San Diego, CA 92101
858-350-0544
1386.001
05-20-2021
JOB NO.

DATE
A.1

THREE-DIMENSIONAL BUILDING AREA BOUNDARIES
BLDG 4
BLDG 3
BLDG 2
BLDG 1
I-8

PARKWAY DRIVE

MTS TROLLEY

ALVARADO CREEK

ALVARADO ROAD
BUILDING ENVELOPE RESI. LEVELS LEGEND: PARKING LEVELS

PODIUM DECK OPEN

SPACE AREAS
05-13-2021

Page 233 of 1126 ends

Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page IlI-17 LLL » ars iE FLL I 1, 11), 1111101, 14111: JL) 11 LLLLLL / A LossY/ Figure 41a - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Ground Floor Alvarado
Alvarado Specific Plan
Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-17Figure 41a - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Ground Floor 24' 20' 20' 26' 26' 26' 20' 26' 26'
20'
26'

LEASING/
LOBBY/
MGMT
BIKES
12%
ELEC.

UP
ENTRY
MECH.

T (COMPACT)

ALVARADO CREEK
ST1
MECH.

MECH.

LEASING/
LOBBY
12%
UP

T (COMPACT)
T
ENTRY
ST1
ST2
E2
E4
ST4
MECH.

E1 UP

LEASING/
LOBBY
T E2
ST2
ST3 E3
E4
ST1 E1
T
MECH.

MECH.

ELEC.

E1
ST2 E2
E3 ST4

MOVE-IN/LOADING

MOVE-IN/LOADING
ST3
E3

MOVE-IN/

OPTIONAL

MOVE-IN/LOADING
DN
ENTRY
DN
DN
ELEC.

BIKES
ST3
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 3

PHASE I & PHASE II
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A1.01
BLDG. 4 BLDG. 2

Page 234 of 1126 ends

Page IlI-18 Development Standards and Design Guidelines SE TT | | ~ | i I |! | Figure 41b - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Second Floor Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page III-18
Figure 41b - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Second Floor UP 12%
DN

ALVARADO CREEK
T
T
ST1
ST4
MECH.

STORAGE
MECH.
12%
DN
UP
MECH.

LEASING/
LOBBY
BELOW
ST2
E4
ST1
ST4
MECH.

STORAGE
T
T
UP DN

LEASING/
LOBBY
BELOW
MECH.

ST2
E4
ST1 E1
T
STO
STO/
BIKES
MECH.

LEASING/
LOBBY
BELOW
E1
ST2 E2
E3 ST4
STO. STO.

ST3
E3
T
ST3 E3 ST3
ST1

LEASING/

AMENITY

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
2ND FLOOR PLAN
A1.02
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 3
BLDG. 4 BLDG. 2
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD

Page 235 of 1126 ends

Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page IlI-19 Figure 41c - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Third Floor Alvarado
Alvarado Specific Plan
Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-19 Figure 41c - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Third Floor 24' 20' 20' 26' 26' 26' 20' 26' 26'
20'
26'
DN

AMENITY

ALVARADO CREEK
T
T
ST1
ST2 E2
E1
E1
MECH.

STORAGE
MECH.

STO.

DN
MECH.

T
PATIOS
ST1
ST2
E2
E4
E1
MECH.

STORAGE

AMENITY
E2
ST2
E4
ST1
DN
T
T
MECH.

STO
STO/
BIKES
MECH.

AMENITY
T
E3 ST4
ST3
E3
ST3 E3
ST3
STO.

AMENITY
BELOW

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
3RD FLOOR PLAN
A1.03
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 3
BLDG. 4 BLDG. 2
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD
BLDG. 1
Fig 43c (aka 41c)
ALVARADO ROAD INTERSTATE 8
MTS

Page 236 of 1126 ends

Page III-20 Development Standards and Design Guidelines | . | [ _- ll —-—— | ee TT | | | | Figure 41d - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View by Fourht Floor Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page III-20
Figure 41d - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View by Fourht Floor

ALVARADO CREEK
ST1
ST2
E2
E4
ST1
ST2 E2
E1
ST3
E3
STO.

ST3
E3
E1
STO.
51'-0"
E2
ST2
E4
ST1 E1
ST3 E3

AMENITY

AMENITY
STUDY

AMENITY
BLDG. 4

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
PODIUM (4TH) FLOOR PLAN
A1.04
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 3
BLDG. 2
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD

Page 237 of 1126 ends

Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page 11-21 PLAN LEGEND: Hl Ro.W.CevicAToN SEAS iT Alvarado Specific Plan Figure 41e - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Eighth Floor Alvarado Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page III-21Figure 41e - Form-Based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View at Eighth Floor ALVARADO CREEK E2 24' 20' 20' 26' 26' 26' 20' 26' 26'
20'
26'
R.O.W. DEDICATION
& EASEMENT
26' EVA2-STORY HIGH AMENITY
1-STORY HIGH AMENITY
PLAN LEGEND:

ROOF TOP AMENITY

PHASE I & PHASE II

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO. 1386.0010 200 100 50
501 West BroadwaySuite 1080San Diego, CA 92101858-350-0544 NORTH
8TH FLOOR PLAN (FLOORS 6 & 7 SIM.)
A1.06
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 3
BLDG. 4
BLDG. 2
INTERSTATE 8 ALVARADO ROAD

Page 238 of 1126 ends

APPENDIX B

Page 239 of 1126 ends

ANDREW “JACK” GALLAGHER an, eso ar
Managing Principal
Jack has been with DAHLIN for over 22 years, and has over 35 years experience designing, detailing and managing a wide variety of projects including golf clubs and recreational facilities, multi-family housing, mixed use, affordable housing, high-end custom homes, office buildings, retail shops and warehouses. His background has also been enriched by his travels to over 50 countries across 6 continents, experiencing an extensive diversity of successful architectural styles and “place-making” solutions. Jack strives to keep each project on time and within budget by his exceptional design vision, constant redefinition of “next steps”, management and coordination of all consultants, cost control, scheduling, and continuous conscientious oversight of the design process on behalf of the client. EDUCATION Jack's philosophy is that every endeavor in architecture, as in life, should be based BS, ARCHITECTURE, on a “Big Idea”. Success depends on a passion for defining and pursuing your Big OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Idea to the end, in spite of every obstacle, and avoiding the poison of complacency MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE, along the way.

APARTMENTS + MIXED-USE
Enso Apartments
San Jose, California, USA
Fairfield Residential
11th Street Lofts Condos/Mixed-Use
Gilroy, California, USA
Pinn Bros. Construction
233 Place Condos/Mixed-Use
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Warmington Homes
Sandalwood Affordable Housing
City of Big Bear Lake, California, USA
EAH Housing
Newark Opera House Shops/Condos
Newark, Delaware, USA
APARTMENTS + MIXED-USE
Monte Vista Il Affordable Apartments
Murrieta, California, USA
Affirmed Housing Group
Eastgate
San Marcos, California, USA
Affirmed Housing Group
Summerhouse
Carlsbad, California, USA
Zephyr Partners
Qizi Bay Resort Villas
Hainan Island, China
Robertson Ranch Senior Apartments
Carlsbad, Califorina, USA
Shapell Properties

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

AFFILIATIONS

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

URBAN LAND INSTITUTE

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL

REGISTRATION BOARDS
GOLF CLUB + RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Marion V. Ashley Community Center
Riverside California, USA
Riverside County EDA
Balboa Golf Clubhouse Master Plan
San Diego, California, USA
City of San Diego
Torrey Pines Golf Club Master Plan
San Diego, California, USA
City of San Diego
Harveston Lakehouse Amenity
Temecula, California, USA
Lennar Communities
Cielo Clubhouse
Rancho Santa Fe, California, USA
Rancho Cielo Estates
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Jack has been with DAHLIN for over 22 years, and has over 35 years experience designing, detailing and managing a wide variety of projects including golf clubs and recreational facilities, multi-family housing, mixed use, affordable housing, high-end custom homes, office buildings, retail shops and warehouses. His background has also been enriched by his travels to over 50 countries across 6 continents, experiencing an extensive diversity of successful architectural styles and “place-making” solutions. Jack strives to keep each project on time and within budget by his exceptional design vision, constant redefinition of “next steps”, management and coordination of all consultants, cost control, scheduling, and continuous conscientious oversight of the design process on behalf of the client.

Jack’s philosophy is that every endeavor in architecture, as in life, should be based on a “Big Idea”. Success depends on a passion for defining and pursuing your Big Idea to the end, in spite of every obstacle, and avoiding the poison of complacency along the way.

EDUCATION

BS, ARCHITECTURE,

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE,

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

AFFILIATIONS

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

URBAN LAND INSTITUTE

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL

REGISTRATION BOARDS
ANDREW “JACK” GALLAGHER AIA, LEED AP
Managing Principal
APARTMENTS + MIXED-USE
Enso Apartments
San Jose, California, USA
Fairfield Residential
11th Street Lofts Condos/Mixed-Use
Gilroy, California, USA
Pinn Bros. Construction
233 Place Condos/Mixed-Use
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Warmington Homes
Sandalwood Affordable Housing
City of Big Bear Lake, California, USA
EAH Housing
Newark Opera House Shops/Condos
Newark, Delaware, USA
GOLF CLUB + RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Marion V. Ashley Community Center
Riverside California, USA
Riverside County EDA
Balboa Golf Clubhouse Master Plan
San Diego, California, USA
City of San Diego
Torrey Pines Golf Club Master Plan
San Diego, California, USA
City of San Diego
Harveston Lakehouse Amenity
Temecula, California, USA
Lennar Communities
Cielo Clubhouse
Rancho Santa Fe, California, USA
Rancho Cielo Estates
APARTMENTS + MIXED-USE
Monte Vista II Affordable Apartments
Murrieta, California, USA
Affirmed Housing Group
Eastgate
San Marcos, California, USA
Affirmed Housing Group
Summerhouse
Carlsbad, California, USA
Zephyr Partners
Qizi Bay Resort Villas
Hainan Island, China
Robertson Ranch Senior Apartments
Carlsbad, Califorina, USA
Shapell Properties

Page 240 of 1126 ends

SEAN WHITACRE a»
Principal - Senior Architect
Sean Whitacre is a talented and experienced designer, and problem solver with a wide range of abilities in the field of architecture. He leads our multi-family sector, by delivering an exceptional client experiences. His commitment to listening to clients and leading the process has helped DAHLIN to consistently add value and generate positive outcomes for our clients. In his over 18 years with DAHLIN, Sean has designed nearly all forms of residential architecture supplemented with, retail complexes and resorts. His design skills and deep knowledge of code and construction make him a highly valuable resource to developers as he leads our next generation of architects and designers.

MULTIFAMILY + MIXED-USE
The Spencer 68
Kenmore, Washington, USA
Main Street Property Group
The LINQ Lofts + Flats
Kenmore, Washington, USA
MainStreet Property Group
The Flyway
Kenmore, Washington, USA
Main Street Property Group
The Bond
Kenmore, Washington, USA
MainStreet Property Group

Airway Gardens
San Diego, California, USA
Colrich Communities
MULTIFAMILY + MIXED-USE
The Harlow
San Diego, California, USA
Colrich Communities
Agave at La Floresta
Brea, California, USA
The New Home Company
The Braydon
Napa, California, USA
Fairfield Residential Company LLC
Azure Apartments
Petaluma, California, USA
Trammel Crow
Enso at Baypointe Station
San Jose, California, USA
Fairfield Residential

EDUCATION

BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE, CALIFORNIA

POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY,

SAN LUIS OBISPO

AFFILIATIONS

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL

REGISTRATION BOARDS
APARTMENTS + AFFORDABLE
Nova
Oakland, California, USA
Affirmed Housing
Villas on the Park
San Jose, CA
Affirmed Housing
Alora
San Marcos, California, USA
Affirmed Housing
The Grove
Vista, California, USA
Wakeland Housing
Carlsbad Veterans
Carlsbad, California USA
Affirmed Housing
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Sean Whitacre is a talented and experienced designer, and problem solver with a wide range of abilities in the field of architecture. He leads our multi-family sector, by delivering an exceptional client experiences. His commitment to listening to clients and leading the process has helped DAHLIN to consistently add value and generate positive outcomes for our clients. In his over 18 years with DAHLIN, Sean has designed nearly all forms of residential architecture supplemented with, retail complexes and resorts. His design skills and deep knowledge of code and construction make him a highly valuable resource to developers as he leads our next generation of architects and designers.

EDUCATION

BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE, CALIFORNIA

POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY,

SAN LUIS OBISPO

AFFILIATIONS

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL

REGISTRATION BOARDS

SEAN WHITACRE AIA
Principal - Senior Architect
MULTIFAMILY + MIXED-USE
The Spencer 68
Kenmore, Washington, USA
Main Street Property Group
The LINQ Lofts + Flats
Kenmore, Washington, USA
MainStreet Property Group
The Flyway
Kenmore, Washington, USA
Main Street Property Group
The Bond
Kenmore, Washington, USA
MainStreet Property Group
Airway Gardens
San Diego, California, USA
Colrich Communities
APARTMENTS + AFFORDABLE
Nova
Oakland, California, USA
Affirmed Housing
Villas on the Park
San Jose, CA
Affirmed Housing
Alora
San Marcos, California, USA
Affirmed Housing
The Grove
Vista, California, USA
Wakeland Housing
Carlsbad Veterans
Carlsbad, California USA
Affirmed Housing
MULTIFAMILY + MIXED-USE
The Harlow
San Diego, California, USA
Colrich Communities
Agave at La Floresta
Brea, California, USA
The New Home Company
The Braydon
Napa, California, USA
Fairfield Residential Company LLC
Azure Apartments
Petaluma, California, USA
Trammel Crow
Enso at Baypointe Station
San Jose, California, USA
Fairfield Residential

Page 241 of 1126 ends

JIRAIR GARABEDIAN an, eo ar
Senior Associate / Senior Architect
Jirair’s collaborative approach in shaping our built environment allows him to work closely with all stakeholders, including future residents and the larger community, actively listening to understand their needs. His design approach and problemsolving methodology are rooted in his expertise in leveraging zoning and building code requirements, taking advantage of both opportunities and constraints, and preparing comprehensive feasibility studies to evaluate highest and best use scenarios.

With over two decades of demonstrated experience in planning, designing and securing entitlements for complex and multi-faceted, private and public sector projects, encompassing a wide variety of typologies, building occupancies, and construction types (Type-I, Type-lll, and Type-V), clients benefit from all the lessons learned from problems solved.

He has extensive experience in high-density, transit-oriented, mixed-use, multi-family residential, market rate, affordable, for sale and for rent, and retail development.

SENIOR LIVING + MULTIFAMILY
Woodland Hills Seniors
Woodland Hills, California, USA
CA Ventures
Firmin Court
Los Angeles, California, USA
The Decro Group
Otay Ranch Affordable Housing
Chula Vista, California, USA
Meta Housing
Alvarado Specific Plan
La Mesa, California, USA
The Paydar Companies
Desert Marketplace Apartments
Las Vegas, NV
Warmington Apartment Communities
MULTIFAMILY + MIXED-USE
Allison Avenue Mixed-Use
La Mesa, California, USA
USA Properties
Crowther Avenue Mixed-Use
Placentia, California, USA
USA Properties

PRIOR TO JOINING DAHLIN
6250 Sunset Mixed Use
Los Angeles, California, USA
Essex Properties
Paragon at Old Town
Monrovia, California, USA
Urban Housing Group

EDUCATION

MASTERS, CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING &

MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

BERKELEY
B. ARCH, MAGNA CUM LAUDE, CAL POLY POMONA

COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

REGISTRATIONS & AFFILIATIONS

LICENSED ARCHITECT IN CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL

REGISTRATION BOARDS (NCARB) CERTIFIED
MULTIFAMILY + MIXED-USE

PRIOR TO JOINING DAHLIN
The Village at USC
Los Angeles, California, USA
USC Real Estate & Capital Construction Group
Central Park West
Irvine Business Complex, California, USA
Lennar
Avalon Wilshire Mixed-Use
Los Angeles, California, USA
Avalon Bay
Trio Mixed Use Apartments
Pasadena, California, USA
Shea Properties
100 W. Walnut Mixed Use
Pasadena, California, USA
AMLI Residential
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Jirair’s collaborative approach in shaping our built environment allows him to work closely with all stakeholders, including future residents and the larger community, actively listening to understand their needs. His design approach and problemsolving methodology are rooted in his expertise in leveraging zoning and building code requirements, taking advantage of both opportunities and constraints, and preparing comprehensive feasibility studies to evaluate highest and best use scenarios.

With over two decades of demonstrated experience in planning, designing and securing entitlements for complex and multi-faceted, private and public sector projects, encompassing a wide variety of typologies, building occupancies, and construction types (Type-I, Type-III, and Type-V), clients benefit from all the lessons learned from problems solved.

He has extensive experience in high-density, transit-oriented, mixed-use, multi-family residential, market rate, affordable, for sale and for rent, and retail development.

EDUCATION

MASTERS, CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING &

MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

BERKELEY
B. ARCH, MAGNA CUM LAUDE, CAL POLY POMONA

COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

REGISTRATIONS & AFFILIATIONS

LICENSED ARCHITECT IN CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL

REGISTRATION BOARDS (NCARB) CERTIFIED

JIRAIR GARABEDIAN AIA, LEED AP
Senior Associate / Senior Architect
SENIOR LIVING + MULTIFAMILY
Woodland Hills Seniors
Woodland Hills, California, USA
CA Ventures
Firmin Court
Los Angeles, California, USA
The Decro Group
Otay Ranch Affordable Housing
Chula Vista, California, USA
Meta Housing
Alvarado Specific Plan
La Mesa, California, USA
The Paydar Companies
Desert Marketplace Apartments
Las Vegas, NV
Warmington Apartment Communities
MULTIFAMILY + MIXED-USE
Allison Avenue Mixed-Use
La Mesa, California, USA
USA Properties
Crowther Avenue Mixed-Use
Placentia, California, USA
USA Properties

PRIOR TO JOINING DAHLIN
6250 Sunset Mixed Use
Los Angeles, California, USA
Essex Properties
Paragon at Old Town
Monrovia, California, USA
Urban Housing Group
MULTIFAMILY+ MIXED-USE

Page 242 of 1126 ends

RITU RAJ SHARMA acs ween ae
Principal / Senior Planner
Ritu Raj Sharma is a dynamic urban designer with over 16 years of planning, urban design and architectural experience working with communities, private developers and public agencies. As leader of the planning team, he provides design and planning expertise on a wide scale of planning projects, including large master plans, urban mixed-use projects, streetscape plans, and design guidelines, encompassing issues of equity, community and urban design and open space.

Ritu Raj's projects are focused on placemaking, context sensitive design and creating consensus in the communities he works in. His familiarity with building typologies and densities, ability to convey issues of scale and mass, and knowledge of building and municipal codes brings rigor to the guidelines and standards he is involved with. His extensive involvement in these various planning projects spans the entire project lifecycle.

Through years of seeing numerous projects through from start to finish, Ritu Raj has developed a holistic perspective on the planning process, from which he actively draws insights for creating innovative planning and development strategies for better communities with a strong focus on sustainability. Several of these projects have received awards and industry recognition, such as the Watson Ranch Specific Plan in American Canyon, the Duarte Station TOD Specific Plan, the University Villages Specific Plan and the Villages of Black Diamond Master Plan.

PLANNING + COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vacaville Residential Standards Update
Vacaville, California, USA
City of Vacaville
TRANSIT-ORIENTED + INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Duarte TOD Specific Plan
Duarte, California, USA
City of Duarte
Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan
Newark, California, USA
City of Newark
Tamien Station Redevelopment
San Jose, California, USA
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Natomas Joint Vision Area Master Plan
Sacramento, California, USA
Brookfield Land
Watson Ranch Specific Plan
American Canyon, California, USA
McGrath Properties
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Roseville, California, USA
Brookfield Sunset LLC
Villages of Black Diamond
Black Diamond, Washington, USA
YarrowBay
Alum Rock Station Redevelopment
San Jose, California, USA
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Blossom Hill Station Redevelopment
San Jose, California, USA
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

EDUCATION

MASTERS, URBAN PLANNING,

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

BA, ARCHITECTURE,

JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY, INDIA

AFFILIATIONS

AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
SPUR

COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA
TRANSIT-ORIENTED + INFILL DEVELOPMENT
SoHay (South Hayward) Master Plan
Hayward, California, USA
City of Hayward/William Lyon Homes
The Dunes
Former Fort Ord, Marina, California, USA
Marina Community Partners
Prynt
Milpitas, California, USA
SRE Company / Taylor Morrison
Waterline
Point Richmond, California, USA
Shea Homes
Kottinger Gardens
Pleasanton, California, USA
Mid Peninsula Housing
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Ritu Raj Sharma is a dynamic urban designer with over 16 years of planning, urban design and architectural experience working with communities, private developers and public agencies. As leader of the planning team, he provides design and planning expertise on a wide scale of planning projects, including large master plans, urban mixed-use projects, streetscape plans, and design guidelines, encompassing issues of equity, community and urban design and open space.

Ritu Raj’s projects are focused on placemaking, context sensitive design and creating consensus in the communities he works in. His familiarity with building typologies and densities, ability to convey issues of scale and mass, and knowledge of building and municipal codes brings rigor to the guidelines and standards he is involved with. His extensive involvement in these various planning projects spans the entire project lifecycle.

EDUCATION

MASTERS, URBAN PLANNING,

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

BA, ARCHITECTURE,

JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY, INDIA

AFFILIATIONS

AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
SPUR

COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA

RITU RAJ SHARMA AICP, LEED AP
Principal / Senior Planner
TRANSIT-ORIENTED + INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Duarte TOD Specific Plan
Duarte, California, USA
City of Duarte
Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan
Newark, California, USA
City of Newark
Tamien Station Redevelopment
San Jose, California, USA
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Alum Rock Station Redevelopment
San Jose, California, USA
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Blossom Hill Station Redevelopment
San Jose, California, USA
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
PLANNING + COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vacaville Residential Standards Update
Vacaville, California, USA
City of Vacaville
Natomas Joint Vision Area Master Plan
Sacramento, California, USA
Brookfield Land
Watson Ranch Specific Plan
American Canyon, California, USA
McGrath Properties
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Roseville, California, USA
Brookfield Sunset LLC
Villages of Black Diamond
Black Diamond, Washington, USA
YarrowBay
TRANSIT-ORIENTED + INFILL DEVELOPMENT
SoHay (South Hayward) Master Plan
Hayward, California, USA
City of Hayward/William Lyon Homes
The Dunes
Former Fort Ord, Marina, California, USA
Marina Community Partners
Prynt
Milpitas, California, USA
SRE Company / Taylor Morrison
Waterline
Point Richmond, California, USA
Shea Homes
Kottinger Gardens
Pleasanton, California, USA
Mid Peninsula Housing

Page 243 of 1126 ends

PLANNING EXPERTISE
DAHLIN's planning expertise is
complemented by a strong architectural
presence throughout California
that started over 45 years ago.

DAHLIN is deeply rooted in both new
development and redevelopment
of existing urban areas in the
San Francisco Bay Area and
throughout the West Coast.

Our deep commitment to cities has
helped communities articulate their
visions through plans and design
requirements that are sensitive
to historical context and existing
neighborhoods, provide key open
spaces and linkages, and promote
pedestrian orientation. Our firm is
led by a passion for, and expertise
in, translating civic sustainability
and development goals into
practical, cost-effective plans
and standards that promote rich,
varied, and identifiable districts,
communities and neighborhoods.

Many thriving California communities
were both planned and designed
by DAHLIN, such as Blackhawk in
Danville, CA, Evergreen in San Jose,
CA, and Rivermark in Santa Clara, CA
to name only a few. As community
planners and architects, we truly
understand the importance and
relationship between quality urban
design, sustainable development,
and successful neighborhoods. Our
well thought out and planned urban
design creates a layered sequencing
of space: the private realm, the
intermediate transition, and the public
realm. In incorporating all three layers
for our clients, we've helped them
achieve their visions to define and
create successful neighborhoods.

For over four decades, DAHLIN's
community planning and urban
design work has shaped much
of the San Francisco Bay Area's
growth, providing innovative and
environmentally sensitive community
plans throughout the U.S., as well as
Canada, China, Dubai, Iraq, Libya,
Russia, South Africa and Spain. More
than 100,000 buildings have been
built in these communities from
DAHLIN designs ranging from singlefamily homes, townhomes, multifamily homes, and mixed-use urban lofts,
to high-rise urban centers, civic and
retail buildings. Our planning studio
has a wide range of planning and
urban design experience including:
° Public Municipality work,
such as specific plans
° Large scale master planning
. Entitlement services
e Design work

BLACKHAWK
Danville, California
QUALIFICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR URBAN DESIGN + COMMUNITY PLANNING

QUALIFICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR URBAN DESIGN + COMMUNITY PLANNING 7

PLANNING EXPERTISE
design creates a layered sequencing
of space: the private realm, the
intermediate transition, and the public
realm. In incorporating all three layers
for our clients, we’ve helped them
achieve their visions to define and
create successful neighborhoods.

For over four decades, DAHLIN’s
community planning and urban
design work has shaped much
of the San Francisco Bay Area’s
growth, providing innovative and
environmentally sensitive community
plans throughout the U.S., as well as
Canada, China, Dubai, Iraq, Libya,
Russia, South Africa and Spain. More
than 100,000 buildings have been
built in these communities from
DAHLIN designs ranging from singlefamily homes, townhomes, multifamily homes, and mixed-use urban lofts,
to high-rise urban centers, civic and
retail buildings. Our planning studio
has a wide range of planning and
urban design experience including:
• Public Municipality work,
such as specific plans
• Large scale master planning
• Entitlement services
• Design work
DAHLIN’s planning expertise is
complemented by a strong architectural
presence throughout California
that started over 45 years ago.

BLACKHAWK
Danville, California
DAHLIN is deeply rooted in both new
development and redevelopment
of existing urban areas in the
San Francisco Bay Area and
throughout the West Coast.

Page 244 of 1126 ends

DUARTE STATION

SPECIFIC PLAN

DUARTE, CALIFORNIA, USA

CITY OF DUARTE
Use / Type: Urban Residential TOD;
Infill / Redevelopment
Site: 19.1 acres
Building: 400,000 sqft office; 12,000
sqft commercial / retail; 250-room hotel
Density / FAR: 40-70 du/ac
Units: 475
The City-initiated Duarte Station
Specific Plan establishes the use and
development character of this transitoriented development surrounding the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension. The
context and transportation infrastructure
surrounding the plan area facilitates
economic development in Duarte and
is an ideal location for the City’s new
urban, mixed-use transit core. The
transit village will support residential
uses, office, commercial / retail,
hospitality and urban green space. The
development standards and guidelines
of the specific plan focus on defining
the scale and mass of the urban form,
while allowing land use flexibility
for changing market conditions.
2014 APA LA MERIT AWARD,

ECONOMIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Use / Type: Urban Residential TOD;
Infill / Redevelopment
Site: 19.1 acres
Building: 400,000 sqft office; 12,000
sqft commercial / retail; 250-room hotel
Density / FAR: 40–70 du/ac
Units: 475
The City-initiated Duarte Station
Specific Plan establishes the use and
development character of this transitoriented development surrounding the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension. The
context and transportation infrastructure
surrounding the plan area facilitates
economic development in Duarte and
is an ideal location for the City’s new
urban, mixed-use transit core. The
transit village will support residential
uses, office, commercial / retail,
hospitality and urban green space. The
development standards and guidelines
of the specific plan focus on defining
the scale and mass of the urban form,
while allowing land use flexibility
for changing market conditions.

DUARTE STATION

SPECIFIC PLAN

DUARTE, CALIFORNIA, USA

CITY OF DUARTE
2014 APA LA MERIT AWARD,

ECONOMIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Page 245 of 1126 ends

PLAZA AT DALE

MODESTO, CALIFORNIA/USA

CHOPRA DEVELOPMENT
Use / Type: Urban Design
Site: 39 acres
Building: 684,000 sqft mixed-use,
170,000 sqft hotel
Units: 342
Beginning with an update to its specific
Plan, DAHLIN revisited the design of
Plaza at Dale, a high density, urban
mixed-use project located across from
Kaiser Permanente’s new, one-millionsquare-foot regional hospital campus.

Massing studies were developed
to establish the overall character
of eight buildings in the mixed-use
area. The project includes medical
office, regional and national retail,
dining and entertainment, a 10-screen
movie theater, hotel, high-end health
club, and specialty grocery store.

RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER

MEDICAL OFFICE
HOTEL

ENTERTAINMENT/THEATER

HEALTH CLUB
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Use / Type: Urban Design
Site: 39 acres
Building: 684,000 sqft mixed-use,
170,000 sqft hotel
Units: 342
Beginning with an update to its specific
Plan, DAHLIN revisited the design of
Plaza at Dale, a high density, urban
mixed-use project located across from
Kaiser Permanente’s new, one-millionsquare-foot regional hospital campus.

PLAZA AT DALE

MODESTO, CALIFORNIA / USA

CHOPRA DEVELOPMENT
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER

MEDICAL OFFICE
HOTEL

ENTERTAINMENT/THEATER

HEALTH CLUB

Page 246 of 1126 ends

SOHAY

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, USA

TAYLOR MORRISON

CITY OF HAYWARD
Use / Type: Community Planning;
Mixed-Use; Condominiums, Apartments
Site: 25 acres
Building: 22,418 sqft ground floor
retail
Density/FAR: 14 du/ac
Units: 352
Originally started as a project with
the City of Hayward, this mixeduse neighborhood development was subsequently contracted to Taylor
Morrison, who chose to continue
work with DAHLIN. SoHay is
comprised of approximately 25
acres of property owned by Caltrans,
HARD, BART, ACFC, and the City
of Hayward. The development is
part of the City’s long term vision of
transforming the underutilized Caltrans
parcels into vibrant and sustainable
neighborhoods. It will serve as a
catalyst in South Hayward to help
spur more development in the area,
which has historically been overlooked
by the development community.

The mixed-use, mixed-density plan
includes retail, cluster condominiums,
apartments and a new park, and
seamlessly connects disjointed
parcels into a series of connected
neighborhoods with a progressive,
holistic approach to walkability, open
space framework, neighborhood
character, sustainability and
contemporary architectural styles.

DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

OPEN SPACE

APARTMENTS / RETAIL
Use / Type: Community Planning;
Mixed-Use; Condominiums, Apartments
Site: 25 acres
Building: 22,418 sqft ground floor
retail
Density / FAR: 14 du/ac
Units: 352
Originally started as a project with
the City of Hayward, this mixeduse neighborhood development was subsequently contracted to Taylor
Morrison, who chose to continue
work with DAHLIN. SoHay is
comprised of approximately 25
acres of property owned by Caltrans,
HARD, BART, ACFC, and the City
of Hayward. The development is
part of the City’s long term vision of
transforming the underutilized Caltrans
parcels into vibrant and sustainable
neighborhoods. It will serve as a
catalyst in South Hayward to help
spur more development in the area,
which has historically been overlooked
by the development community.

SOHAY

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, USA

TAYLOR MORRISON

CITY OF HAYWARD
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

APARTMENTS / RETAIL

COMMUNITY PARK

PATHWAY

OPEN SPACE
CONDOS
CONDOS
CONDOS
CONDOS
CONDOS
CONDOS

OPEN SPACE

Page 247 of 1126 ends

COMMUNICATIONS HILL

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA / USA

KB HOMES
Use/Type: Community
Planning; Urban Design
Site: +/- 6 acres
Residential Units: 505
Density: 82.8 du/ac
Retail: +/- 25,000 sf.

DAHLIN is working with KB Home
in developing the Communications
Hill Village Center in San Jose. The
Village Center is the core of the entire
Communications Hill neighborhood
and consists of four blocks adjacent
to a park and other civic uses. Two
of the blocks are mixed use and two
of them are purely residential.

Built on an extremely steep site, the
buildings take advantage of the grades
to submerge structured parking, while
providing active ground floor uses to
create an attractive and pedestrianfriendly public realm, and highly desirable units with great views. When
completed, the Village Center will have
approximately 505 residential units
(rental and for sale) and around 25,000
sf of neighborhood serving retail.

Using Type III construction, the
development maximizes the potential
of the site, and accommodates
the density necessary to create a
vibrant and active Village Center.

PHASE 3 VILLAGE CENTER
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
J Ce
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Use/Type: Community
Planning; Urban Design
Site: +/- 6 acres
Residential Units: 505
Density: 82.8 du/ac
Retail: +/- 25,000 sf.

Using Type III construction, the
development maximizes the potential
of the site, and accommodates
the density necessary to create a
vibrant and active Village Center.

COMMUNICATIONS HILL

SAN JOSE, CA LIFORNIA / USA

KB HOMES
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

CAD DWG FILE:

CHECKED BY:

NO DATE DESCRIPTION
DATE:

SCALE:

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT AMENDMENT
PDA14-035-05 COMMUNICATIONS HILL - VILLAGE CENTER
Land Use Entitlements
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
Stormwater Compliance
HMHca.com 408.487.2200
APRIL 10, 2017 1 08/09/19 PER CITY COMMENTS

PERSPECTIVE VIEW
PROJECT NO:

CAD DWG FILE:

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT AMENDMENT
HMHcacom 4084872200
16’ 32’ 6
N
PHASE 3

VILLAGE
CENTER PHASE 3 VILLAGE CENTER

Page 248 of 1126 ends

TAMIEN STATION

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, USA

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY
Use/ Type: Urban Residential TOD;
Infill / Redevelopment
Site: 6.9 acres
Building: 5-story wrap construction
with parking garage
Density/FAR: +/- 88 du/ac
Units: +/- 335 apartments/townhomes
Scope of Work: Feasibility Study,
Rezoning, Entitlement
Status: Completed
Tamien Station is a unique 6.9-acre
redevelopment opportunity of an
underutilized Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority parking lot.

The project envisions high density
housing on the site to better align with
the City of San Jose's Tamien Station
Area Specific Plan and VTA's long
term vision. The mixture of housing
types allows the design to respond and
respect the surrounding context while
also meeting the project's financial
and long-term planning goals. The
larger apartment building relates to the
existing mid-rise building to the south,
while the three-story townhomes front
onto the proposed city park and relate
more appropriately to the adjoining
neighborhood of single-family homes.

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DESIGN TO SUPPORT SAN

JOSE'S LONG-TERM GROWTH AND PLANNING
GOALS.

ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
fron
Use/Type: Urban Residential TOD;
Infill/ Redevelopment
Site: 6.9 acres
Building: 5-story wrap construction
with parking garage
Density/FAR: +/- 88 du/ac
Units: +/- 335 apartments/ townhomes
Scope of Work: Feasibility Study,
Rezoning, Entitlement
Status: Completed
Tamien Station is a unique 6.9-acre
redevelopment opportunity of an
underutilized Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority parking lot.

The project envisions high density
housing on the site to better align with
the City of San Jose’s Tamien Station
Area Specific Plan and VTA’s long
term vision. The mixture of housing
types allows the design to respond and
respect the surrounding context while
also meeting the project’s financial
and long-term planning goals. The
larger apartment building relates to the
existing mid-rise building to the south,
while the three-story townhomes front
onto the proposed city park and relate
more appropriately to the adjoining
neighborhood of single-family homes.

DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

TAMIEN STATION

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, USA

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DESIGN TO SUPPORT SAN
JOSE’S LONG-TERM GROWTH AND PLANNING
GOALS.
15’-2”
59’-8”
10’-3” 10’-3” 10’-3” 10’-3” 3’-6”
VIEW : D
VIEW : C
12’0”
15”-9”
62’-0”
12’-0” 3’-6”
15”-0”
61’-1”
11’-0” 10’-3” 10’-3” 3’-8” 10’-3”

ROOF PEAK ROOF PEAK
EAVE

ROOF PEAK
EAVE

ROOF PEAK
EAVE
ROOF PEAK12’-10”
69’-4”
10’-3” 10’-3” 10’-3” 10’-3” 3’-6”
3’-0”
10’-3” 10’-3” 10’-3”
Note: Building heights indicated are taken from the nearest finished grade. Due to the existing topography on the site, the building heights are different depending on their location and the surrounding finished grade Note: Building heights indicated are taken from the nearest finished grade. Due to the existing topography on the site, the building heights are different depending on their location and the surrounding finished grade 15’-2”
59’-8”
10’-3” 10’-3” 10’-3” 10’-3” 3’-6”

KEY MAP
VIEW : D
VIEW : C
12’0”
6”
15”-9”
62’-0”
12’-0” 3’-6”
15”-0”
61’-1”
11’-0” 10’-3” 10’-3” 3’-8” 10’-3”

ROOF PEAK ROOF PEAK
EAVE

ROOF PEAK
EAVE

Page 249 of 1126 ends

THE DUNES

SPECIFIC PLAN

MARINA, CALIFORNIA/USA

MARINA COMMUNITY PARTNERS
Site: 429 acres
Building: 1,400,000 sqft
commercial/office
Units: 1,237
Adopted: May 2005
On a brownfield redevelopment site
of former Fort Ord, the University
Villages Specific Plan will serve as the
gateway to the Monterey Peninsula. The
master plan embraces the principles
of smart growth, sustainability and
green building. Anchored by a main
street and town square, development is
clustered with key pedestrian corridors
and greenbelt pathways, connecting
retail, recreation and neighborhoods,
including a boardwalk destined for
the state beach. Community threads
are key to crafting this walkable
beach community. A regional transit
corridor is also integrated into the
plan, eventually servicing Marina
to the greater Bay Area. The plan
recognizes the proximity to the campus
creating pedestrian and vehicular
connections to and from the campus.

BASE REUSE

REUSE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND

BUILDINGS
16 MONTH SCHEDULE FROM INITIAL TO

ENTITLEMENT
2006 SAN JOSE BUSINESS JOURNAL

STRUCTURES AWARD, RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT OF THE YEAR
2010, CATALYST PROJECT FOR CALIFORNIA

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES, SILVER

CATALYST COMMUNITY
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

THE DUNES

SPECIFIC PLAN

MARINA, CALIFORNIA / USA

MARINA COMMUNITY PARTNERS
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Site: 429 acres
Building: 1,400,000 sqft
commercial/office
Units: 1,237
Adopted: May 2005
On a brownfield redevelopment site
of former Fort Ord, the University
Villages Specific Plan will serve as the
gateway to the Monterey Peninsula. The
master plan embraces the principles
of smart growth, sustainability and
green building. Anchored by a main
street and town square, development is
clustered with key pedestrian corridors
and greenbelt pathways, connecting
retail, recreation and neighborhoods,
including a boardwalk destined for
the state beach. Community threads
are key to crafting this walkable
beach community. A regional transit
corridor is also integrated into the
plan, eventually servicing Marina
to the greater Bay Area. The plan
recognizes the proximity to the campus
creating pedestrian and vehicular
connections to and from the campus.
2006 SAN JOSE BUSINESS JOURNAL

STRUCTURES AWARD, RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT OF THE YEAR
2010, CATALYST PROJECT FOR CALIFORNIA

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES, SILVER

CATALYST COMMUNITY

BASE REUSE

REUSE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND

BUILDINGS
16 MONTH SCHEDULE FROM INITIAL TO

ENTITLEMENT

Page 250 of 1126 ends

AMORUSO RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA/USA

BROOKFIELD SUNSET LLC
Site: 694 acres
Units: 3,027
27 acre mixed-use village
24 acre regional commercial
160 acres parks and open space
Status: Ongoing
Amoruso Ranch creates a livable
community where housing, recreation,
education, retail, and employment
opportunities are integrated into an
urban village. This village is envisioned
as a contemporary version of a small
walkable town. Key components
include pedestrian and bicycle friendly
streets, open space connections,
and vistas to important community
focal points, and an integration of
land uses that give the feeling of
“development over time”. Public spaces
such as plazas, urban parks, linear
parks, and pedestrian linkages are
the primary form giving features.

MIXED-USE INTENDED FOR FLEXIBILITY

WIDE RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL

OPPORTUNITIES

INTEGRATED OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Site: 694 acres
Units: 3,027
27 acre mixed-use village
24 acre regional commercial
160 acres parks and open space
Status: Ongoing
Amoruso Ranch creates a livable
community where housing, recreation,
education, retail, and employment
opportunities are integrated into an
urban village. This village is envisioned
as a contemporary version of a small
walkable town. Key components
include pedestrian and bicycle friendly
streets, open space connections,
and vistas to important community
focal points, and an integration of
land uses that give the feeling of
“development over time”. Public spaces
such as plazas, urban parks, linear
parks, and pedestrian linkages are
the primary form giving features.

AMORUSO RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA / USA

BROOKFIELD SUNSET LLC
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

MIXED-USE INTENDED FOR FLEXIBILITY

WIDE RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL

OPPORTUNITIES

INTEGRATED OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES

Page 251 of 1126 ends

EVERGREEN

SPECIFIC PLAN

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA/USA

CITY OF SAN JOSE
Site: 850 acres
Homes: 3,000
Adopted: July 1991
Under direct public contract to the
City of San Jose, DAHLIN was hired to
design and author the specific plan for
an 850 acre neighborhood infill plan
with 3,000 housing units and a small
village center. DAHLIN incorporated
multiple landowners into a single
specific plan vision. A historic winery
and vineyards were preserved and serve
as a neighborhood gateway. Rotaries
and radials focus on and give landmark
identity to the village center, park and
civic structures. Image “story boards”
and detailed design guidelines assure
a strong visual community identity.
17 PROPERTY OWNERS

MIX OF LAND USES

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

CITED AS AN EXAMPLE OF A GOOD SPECIFIC
PLAN IN THE PLANNER’S GUIDE TO SPECIFIC
PLANS
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Site: 850 acres
Homes: 3,000
Adopted: July 1991
Under direct public contract to the
City of San Jose, DAHLIN was hired to
design and author the specific plan for
an 850 acre neighborhood infill plan
with 3,000 housing units and a small
village center. DAHLIN incorporated
multiple landowners into a single
specific plan vision. A historic winery
and vineyards were preserved and serve
as a neighborhood gateway. Rotaries
and radials focus on and give landmark
identity to the village center, park and
civic structures. Image “story boards”
and detailed design guidelines assure
a strong visual community identity.

EVERGREEN

SPECIFIC PLAN

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA / USA

CITY OF SAN JOSE
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
17 PROPERTY OWNERS

MIX OF LAND USES

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

CITED AS AN EXAMPLE OF A GOOD SPECIFIC
PLAN IN THE PLANNER’S GUIDE TO SPECIFIC
PLANS
VISION: 1991
BUILT OUT 2016

Page 252 of 1126 ends

WATSON RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN

AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA/USA
McGRATH PROPERTIES
Site: 305 acres
Building: 200 room hotel + 150,000
sqft of commercial
Units: 1250
Status: ongoing
On a former cement factory site from
the early 1900s, the Watson Ranch
Specific Plan redevelops the massive
factory ‘ruins’ as part of a new
mixed-use center. The preservation
and architectural identity will create
a unique sense of place alongside
features including a boutique hotel,
wine tasting and events center,
and quarry lake park. Residential
neighborhoods will surround and
connect into town center activities.

The community considers the site as
their new town center and the focus
is on creating a lively, community
core around a beautiful set of historic,
though challenging, structures.

The plan balances the community's
needs by creating a comprehensive
set of design guidelines and
development standards that guide
future development of the Watson
Ranch Specific Plan Area, based
on an extensive, successful public
outreach process. The guidelines
are more form-based to allow for a
phased development over a period
of time, without compromising
the community quality.

REUSE OF EXISTING RUINS

MIX OF USES, MIX OF HOUSING TYPES

LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS
2015 GOLD NUGGET MERIT AWARD,

BEST ON THE BOARDS SITE PLAN
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

WATSON RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN

AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA / USA
McGRATH PROPERTIES
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Site: 305 acres
Building: 200 room hotel + 150,000
sqft of commercial
Units: 1250
Status: ongoing
On a former cement factory site from
the early 1900s, the Watson Ranch
Specific Plan redevelops the massive
factory ‘ruins’ as part of a new
mixed-use center. The preservation
and architectural identity will create
a unique sense of place alongside
features including a boutique hotel,
wine tasting and events center,
and quarry lake park. Residential
neighborhoods will surround and
connect into town center activities.

The community considers the site as
their new town center and the focus
is on creating a lively, community
core around a beautiful set of historic,
though challenging, structures.

The plan balances the community’s
needs by creating a comprehensive
set of design guidelines and
development standards that guide
future development of the Watson
Ranch Specific Plan Area, based
on an extensive, successful public
outreach process. The guidelines
are more form-based to allow for a
phased development over a period
of time, without compromising
the community quality.

REUSE OF EXISTING RUINS

MIX OF USES, MIX OF HOUSING TYPES

LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS
2015 GOLD NUGGET MERIT AWARD,

BEST ON THE BOARDS SITE PLAN

Page 253 of 1126 ends

RIVERMARK

SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA/USA

CENTEX HOMES / LENNAR COMMUNITIES /

SHEA HOMES
Use/Type: Community Planning
Site: 225 acres
Building: 170,000 sqft commercial,
60,000 sqft office
Density: 20 du/ac
Units: 1,900
Status: Completed 2004
Rivermark is a thriving urban village on
the 225-acre former Agnews Hospital
site in the heart of Silicon Valley. This
award-winning community is noted for
its compact neighborhoods, multiple
uses and housing diversity, walkability,
and other smart growth planning
and design techniques. Leading the
planning effort and the design of
multiple building components, DAHLIN
collaborated closely with its project
team to produce a cohesive masterpiece
between planning, engineering,
architecture, and landscape.

BROWNFIELD SITE

MIX OF HOUSING TYPES

MIX OF LAND USE

ACCESS TO LIGHT RAIL
2004 GOLD NUGGET GRAND AWARD, BEST

MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY OF THE YEAR
2003 GOLD NUGGET GRAND AWARD, BEST

INFILL COMMUNITY DESIGN
2003 GOLD NUGGET GRAND AWARD, BEST

COMMUNITY SITE PLAN
2003 BALA PLATINUM AWARD, BEST SMART

GROWTH COMMUNITY
ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING
Use/Type: Community Planning
Site: 225 acres
Building: 170,000 sqft commercial,
60,000 sqft office
Density: 20 du/ac
Units: 1,900
Status: Completed 2004
Rivermark is a thriving urban village on
the 225-acre former Agnews Hospital
site in the heart of Silicon Valley. This
award-winning community is noted for
its compact neighborhoods, multiple
uses and housing diversity, walkability,
and other smart growth planning
and design techniques. Leading the
planning effort and the design of
multiple building components, DAHLIN
collaborated closely with its project
team to produce a cohesive masterpiece
between planning, engineering,
architecture, and landscape.

RIVERMARK

SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA / USA

CENTEX HOMES / LENNAR COMMUNITIES /

SHEA HOMES
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

BROWNFIELD SITE

MIX OF HOUSING TYPES

MIX OF LAND USE

ACCESS TO LIGHT RAIL
2004 GOLD NUGGET GRAND AWARD, BEST

MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY OF THE YEAR
2003 GOLD NUGGET GRAND AWARD, BEST

INFILL COMMUNITY DESIGN
2003 GOLD NUGGET GRAND AWARD, BEST

COMMUNITY SITE PLAN
2003 BALA PLATINUM AWARD, BEST SMART

GROWTH COMMUNITY

Page 254 of 1126 ends

La Mesa City CouncilMay 9, 2023

La Mesa City Council
May 9, 2023