Report Date: April 22, 2001

Date: March 29, 2001

Time: 7:00 PM

Place: Scripps Ranch Information Pavilion

Peggy Shirey MRNPC 858-530-3833

Pat Wright MRNPC 858-549-7776

Steve Goyette MRNPC 858-271-6173

Tony Wyman KB Home 858-509-2022

Kurt Bausback KB Home 858-509-2024

Marty Ohmstede SB & O 858-560-1141

Jamison Nakaya KB Home 858-509-2004

Cecil Hernandez KB Home 909-802-2446

Bill Bernard MRNPC 858-549-0979

Claudia Unhold MRNPC 858-549-8386

Allan Bokser MRNPC 858-586-0050

Damon Lou KB Home 858-693-1890

Fred Walters Walters Development 619-206-4803

Neville Willsmore K.M.A. Architecture 619-276-7710

Projects Reviewed: Two projects reviewed, KB Homes – Highlands Phase II, and MedImpact

KB Homes – Highlands Phase II: This is the second review of the KB Homes project by the New Projects Subcommittee. Discussion focused on reviewing revisions made by KB Homes since the last meeting on February 6, 2001. The minutes of the February 6 meeting reflect ten preliminary NPSC comments. The discussion focused on the resolution of those ten comments. The ten numbered points listed below consist of the February 6 comments in italics, followed by the corresponding March 29 NPSC comments.

1. Fences should maintain consistency with surrounding, similar ridge-top developments of Shea’s Gateway and McMillin’s residential communities to the north and south respectively. There are currently three types of fencing along the ridge-top in this vicinity. Brookfield, Shea and KB Highlands I each have a different type of fence. KB Highlands II will have the same fencing as KB Highlands I.
2. Revised massing for the rear, second floor façade to minimize visual impact of ridge-top homes from freeway below. KB has added architectural enhancements to the rear elevations of the homes that will be visible from below in the form of arches and popouts. The MRNPC requested enhancements also be added to the side elevations of the homes on lots 1, 2, 27, 28, 29 and 39. KB agreed to do this and will add these prior to presentation to the full MRNPC.
3. Enhanced articulation on the rear elevations for visibility from freeway below. See #2, above.
4. Incorporate windows into the first floor front elevation to encourage use of front yards for and streets neighborhood gathering. KB Homes was not able to add windows to the front elevations due to structural difficulties (the windows would be too narrow to be useful).
5. Enhance and/or expand front porch and hard scape areas to provide area for parents/guardians to view children playing in the front yards and streets. The current designs have the front entry doors hidden to the side of the garage with no visibility to the street scene. KB will provide each home a patio option for the front yard to include a trellis for both aesthetics and shade. They will build a patio at one of their models so homebuyers will be aware of this option.
6. Trees to be planted in the rear yard as a requirement of home ownership. The CC&R’s will be written to require at least one tree to be placed in each rear yard.
7. Provide sidewalks for pedestrian access at all proposed streets. A sidewalk has been added to the upper street. It will be 4’ wide as opposed to the standard 5’.
8. Increase the depth of the driveways to allow for parking of larger vehicles without blocking either the sidewalks or the street itself. This is a major safety issue for the children of the neighborhood. KB Homes reported they are not able to increase the depth of the driveways of the homes along the upper street. The depth of the driveways is 18’ and the size of the garages is 20’x20’. This means that any vehicle longer than 18’ will extend into the sidewalk, if it is parked right up against the garage. Some vehicles are longer than 18’, for example the Tundra is 218". The NPSC still feels this is a major safety issue for the neighborhood.
9. Add vegetation, including trees, to the slopes to soften the view of the development from below. KB Homes has agreed to this.
10. Schedule a presentation for the MRNPC to review the project when all plans are modified and complete, so all know the status of what is planned. This will be scheduled prior to a hearing by the City.

Other items discussed include a commitment by KB Homes to post a NO OUTLET sign at the entrance to the project, and a street tree will be placed in every front yard, with the exception of a couple of lots where a utility box will preclude tree planting.

The NPSC would like to review the City’s assessment letter for this project prior to sending along a recommendation to the full MRNPC. KB Homes has not yet submitted the project to the City for their review, so no assessment letter is expected for several months.

MedImpact – Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a corporate headquarters facility to include five (5-6 story) buildings and two ancillary buildings for a combined total of 654,348 sq. ft. on a vacant 32.8-acre site located at the southeast corner of I-15 and Scripps Poway Parkway.

Neville Willsmore of KMA Architecture presented the project to the NPSC. He explained the site plan represents the "exploded egg" concept, which means the buildings and parking are designed to be facing the center of the site, around a core which includes a 2-story training facility/restaurant and separate day care facility. The same design theme will be used for all the buildings to create a corporate campus "feel".

A 20’ landscape buffer is planned along the I-15 freeway off-ramp bordering the site and a second layer of landscaping is proposed adjacent to the same western boundary. In total, approximately 17.7 acres of landscaping is proposed, including enhanced paving/hardscape. This represents over 50% of the site. A water feature will be constructed to include a waterfall and lake to be viewed from the restaurant. River rock hardscaping and enhanced paving will be incorporated as design features. A pedestrian connection is proposed from the top of the elevated pad along Scripps Poway Parkway to the sidewalk below. The applicant is "working on" a bicycle connection from the bike path which extends along the western side of the site to the interior of the site to connect with the interior driveway.

A total of 2550 parking spaces are proposed to include 2 parking structures as well as surface parking. The parking includes one space for each of 2500 anticipated employees and 50 extra spaces for visitors. The applicant hopes to begin grading in September of 2001, plans to construct the entire facility at one time, and anticipates occupancy by the last quarter of 2002.

An independent operator would operate the proposed day care. The applicant told the NPSC that both the day care and restaurant would be open to the community for their use as well as use by MedImpact.

Excerpts from the City of San Diego’s assessment letter were read by the Chair and discussed by the meeting participants. Preliminary NPSC comments are as follows:

1. Concern with appearance of the project. The project’s lack of conformance with the design guidelines of the MRN Community Plan was noted. As presented, the buildings are designed with shiny glass and granite, as opposed to the use of warm, earth tones and textured materials as described in the Community Plan. The buildings have the appearance of being flat and need more articulation and shadowing to break up their monotonous, sterile appearance.
2. The buildings appear to be too tall, particularly Building 6 which is proposed as a 6-story building atop a 40 foot elevated pad fronting on Scripps Poway Parkway. This is a very visible pad from a number of vantage points and concern was expressed with both the height and mass of this building.
3. A request was made for visual simulations, and it was noted that the City’s assessment letter included a requirement that an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to include a visual analysis. The NPSC requested the applicant include visual simulations as part of that analysis. The applicant noted that they are still waiting on the City for the final determination as to the environmental review process. The applicant was strongly encouraged to prepare the requested visual simulations for the benefit of the NPSC reviewers.
4. The applicant stated that one addendum to the EIR already exists and we could request a copy from Kevin Sullivan, the City’s Project Manager for this project.
5. Concern was expressed about the number of parking spaces provided, and the applicant was requested to reduce the total number of parking spaces. The City’s assessment letter also included a request to reduce the parking spaces from 2550 to a maximum of 2,181, which sounded reasonable to the NPSC members. The applicant explained that they did not agree with the request to reduce the parking spaces. They would like to use the maximum allowed parking ratio of 4.1 spaces per 1000 square feet of office space, while the City reviewer is requesting a reduced ratio of 3.3 spaces per 1000 square feet. The NPSC felt that fewer parking spaces may result in fewer cars, and would provide the added benefit of encouraging ridesharing and the future use of mass transit.

Following the departure of the MedImpact representatives, the NPSC discussed the proposed project further and expressed the following additional concerns:

• The applicant stated that MedImpact currently has a total of 450 employees and is rapidly growing. The concern is that it is rather remarkable to think that the company could grow to the 2500 employees they are anticipating by the end of 2002. Should they not have enough employees to occupy the entire facility by the time the buildings are constructed, will they lease the excess space and how would that be leased, especially in terms of traffic generation? It was recognized that traffic generation for a multi-tenant facility is considerably higher from that of a single-corporate campus occupied by one company.
• Questions arose as to how the traffic generation of the project can be controlled once the project is approved? What sort of controls can be put in place to guarantee the approved traffic generation for the project is not exceeded in the future? The EIR (1998) stated that the Industrial portion of the Gateway project should generate 6,240 trips/day. MedImpact is proposing substantially more square footage than that approved in the EIR. The EIR approved a multi-tenant project for 390,000 square feet. As a single corporate campus, MedImpact is proposing 654,000 square feet on the basis that the traffic generation will be the same as a smaller multi-tenant project. Should MedImpact sell the project at some future date, how would the traffic generation from another owner be controlled?