Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1975/04/15 Item 12AGENDA ITEM N0. [ 12 ] CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: April 15, 1975 Report on conflicts between the Preliminary Coastal Plan and the Chula Vista Bayfront Plan ITEM TITLE: Resolution - Endorsing the Preliminary Coastal Plan with certain exceptions INTTIATED BY: RACKf,R Ol IND Director of Planning For the past two years the California Coastal Commission and the six regional commissions have been working under very tight deadlines to prepare a plan for the coast. The plan is to be presented to the State Legislature in December of 1975. Because of the tight deadlines, input into the various elements of the plan has been at the staff level with review of the overall plan by the various legislative bodies scheduled for the month of April, 1975. PLAN DESCRIPTION 1. Findings and Policies. The Findings and Policies Section of the plan contains 183 policies to protect the following coastal resources: a. Marine environment b. Coastal land environment c. Manmade resources d. Appearance and design e. Public access to the coast 2. Carrying out the Coastal Plan. f. Recreation g. Transportation h. Energy i. Development j. Restoration k. Subregional planning Various alternative governmental structures for implementation of the Coastal Plan are analyzed in this portion of the plan. No specific recommendation is made because the Commission's evaluation of the options is still under way. The three ATTACHEDS discussResoluthon X~tion a0 rdinance (continued on supplemental a e) [ [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat ~ ]g See EXHIBITS [X] No. 1,2 Financial Statement: N.A. Commission-Board Recommendation: N.A. Department Head Recommendation: Adopt d resolution supporting the Preliminary Coastal Plan in general but opposing the portions which would: (1) Require permanent retention of agricultural uses in the Chula Vista Bayfront (2) Assign a low priority to residential development in the Chula Vista Bayfront. City Manager Recommendation: Adopt resolution ~'/]I~~ AGENDA ITEM N0. 12 Supplemental Page No. 2 a. What form of governmental structure is needed? b. What governmental power is needed? c. What will it cost to carry out the plan? 3. Mapping the Preliminary Plan. There are two sets of maps in the plan; the first is of the coastal resources and the second relates the policies to specific geographical areas. This section also contains a summary of the critical resources, major plan proposals and policies as they apply to each region and subregion. Attached as exhibits are copies of the maps of the Chula Vista area and the regional/subregional text. 4. Areas of Possible Conflict. a. The proposed retention of agricultural uses in the bayfront is in conflict with the uses shown on the Chula Vista Bayfront Plan. The proposed retention of this particular agricultural use is also in conflict with Policy 63 of the Coastal Plan which calls for improved public access to the coastline. b. The Coastal Plan gives priority to land uses which are water dependent, while residential uses are assigned a lower priority. There is a potential for a conflict between this policy and the proposed residential uses in the Bayfront Plan. c. This preliminary plan contains no specific recommendation as to type of agency and type of powers required to implement the Coastal Plan. Some of the proposed alternatives do include a permanent statewide and/or regional organiza- tion to continue after the Plan is adopted. This proposal has some value as a means of overall protection of the coast. Proposition 20 was passed, of course, because of doubts about the ability of local jurisdictions to act in the best interests of the State in coastal management.. On the other hand, continued authority at the State level over coastal areas may render development of the Chula Vista Bayfront in accordance with the Bayfront Plan difficult. 5. Additional Planning Work. The San Diego Coast Regional Commission is undertaking the preparation of a Regional Supplement to the Coastal Plan. The purpose of this document will be to illus- trate how the Coastal Policies might be applied in this region. The supplement will not be ready for public review until late May. EVALUATION _ 1. On an overall basis the Preliminary Coastal Plan does a good job of proposing policies which will insure the protection of the coastal resource while providing maximum public access to and utilization of the coast for recreational purposes. However, there are technical conflicts within the plan between various policies; an example of which is the preservation of agricultural lands (Policy 30) while promoting public access to the coast line (Policy 63). The Coastal Commission staff is aware of these problems and has indicated that they are working toward the resolution of these conflicts. 2. The South Bay subregional proposal contains some policy proposals which are in conflict with the Chula Bayfront Plan. These conflicts are: a. The proposed retention of agricultural uses. b. The low priority given to residential uses. It is hoped that through the preparation of a more detailed regional supplement over the next few months these problems can be resolved; however, it would be advantageous for Council to make the Coastal Commission aware of its position at this time. 3. The Preliminary Plan contains no specific recommendation as to how the plan is to be implemented. The Statewide Coastal Commission will be holding hearings on this element on April 9 and 10; if further information is available it will be presented at the Council meeting.