The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 1992-16838RESOLUTION NO. 16838 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL NO. 8 AMENDMENT (EIR 89-08) AND ADDENDUM THERETO, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH REGARD THERETO; AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, LAND USE CIRCULATION DIAGRAM AND PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT, AND BAYFRONT AREA PLAN; ADOPTING, ON CONDITIONS, THE CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL CONSISTING OF THE LAND USE PLAN WITH THE CHANGES IDENTIFIED HEREIN; AND MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL NO. 8 WHEREAS, the Midbayfront Land, as the term is used herein, shall refer to the shaded area of land as shown on the attached Exhibit "C"; and, WHEREAS, the owner of the Midbayfront Land has applied to the City for various entitlements described herein; and, WHEREAS, on February 4, 1992, the Chula Vista City Council adopted Resolution No. 16467, which approved the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) with modifications made by the Council ("Council Alternative") which operated as direction to staff to process and return to Council for approval of an LCP Resubmittal for the territory of the Midbayfront, a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and a General Plan Amendment that provides a plan for the development of the Midbayfront consistent with the Midbayfront LCP Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative), with certain designated changes, conditions, information and additional processing direction contained therein and incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the implementation of Resolution No. 16467 and the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative), with modifications, will require, among other things, (1) General Plan Amendment. the approval of a General Plan Amendment amending the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use and Circulation Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element, Bayfront Area Plan, all of which is more particularly articulated herein in this resolution under the Section entitled "General Plan Amendment" ("Midbayfront GPA"); and, (2) Local Costal Program Resubmittal No. 8 the approval of Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 ("LCPR No. 8"), consisting of (A) a land use plan (considered a "specific plan" in the syntax of Resolution No. 16838 Page 2 the Chapter 19.07 of the Municipal code) which is more particularly articulated in that document accompanying the October 13, 1992 Council Agenda Bill entitled "Chula Vista Local Coastal Program-Land Use Plan-Draft-September 23, 1992 (Planning Commission Recommendation)" ("Midbayfront Land Use Plan" or alternatively ("Midbayfront LUP"); and, (B) a specific plan (Implementation Plan) (considered "plan effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual specific plan" or a "zoning" in the syntax of Section 19.07.030), which is more particularly articulated in that document accompanying the October 13, 1992 Council Agenda Bill entitled "Chula Vista Local Coastal Program- Implementation Plan-Bayfront Specific Plan-Draft-September 23, 1992 (Planning Commission Recommendation)" ("Midbayfront Specific Plan" or alternatively ("Midbayfront SP"); and, WHEREAS, the approval of the Midbayfront GPA, the Midbayfront LUP and the Midbayfront SP are, for the purposes of this resolution, considered the "CEQA Project"; and, WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment (EIR-89-08), dated July 1991, consisting of: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR-89-08) SCH# 89062807, dated July 1991, which contains: 1) Volume I - Comments and Responses of Draft and Recirculated EIR, Summary of new project information, and analysis of two new alternatives; 2) Volume II - text changes to the Draft and Recirculated EIR, and re-analysis incorporating new project information; and, 3) one Addendum; and, Appendices (A through H) to Environmental Impact Report dated April, 1991 was the FEIR for the Council Alternative, and is also the FEIR for the CEQA Project; and, WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution No. 16467, the Council declared that the FEIR was reviewed, analyzed, and considered by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista; that the FEIR reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista City Council; and by their adoption of Resolution No. 16466, adopted January 14, 1992, certified that the FEIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable guidelines; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 16467 describes the history of the preparation of the FEIR which is incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the FEIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the Council Alternative; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on February 4, 1992, the City Council adopted all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects; and Resolution No. 16838 Page 3 WHEREAS, at a public hearing on Febpuary4, 1992, the City Council declared that, despite the occurrence of certain significant and potentially significant effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that the City Council believes justify the occurrence of those impacts; and, WHEREAS, at their meeting of September 23, 1992 the Chula Vista Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council to certify the Final EIR (EIR 89-08) and Addendum thereto; to amend the General Plan and adopt the LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment, if it is presented to the City Council in conjunction with an economic feasibility analysis by Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc., or some other competent economist, evaluating the economic feasibility of the Project. WHEREAS, the CEQA Project is in all identical with, and do not substantially approved on February 4, 1992; and, respects and concerns substantially vary from, the Council Alternative NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: CEQA Certification SECTION 1. FEIR Adequately Addresses the CEQA Project. The City Council finds that the FEIR was written specifically to address the CEQA Project. SECTION 2. Certification: Compliance with CEQA and Final EIR Reviewed and Considered. The City Council, as the lead agency, again certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and has been presented to the City Council, and the City Council has reviewed, analyzed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to approving the Project. SECTION 3. Independent Judgement of City Council The City Council finds that the FEIR reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista City Council. SECTION 4. Conditions of Enti~ements Conditions of Entiflements; Effective Date. Upon the occurrence of, and not sooner than, all of the following conditions ("Conditions of Entitlements"), which shall be deemed to have been satisfied only at such time as the City Council certifies in writing to their compliance, reasonably determined: Resolution No. 16838 Page 4 A development agreement in a form satisfactory m the City has been irrevocably tendered to, and accepted by, the City by the owner or owners of the Midbayfront Land that provides, at a minimum, for the following: Commits the Developer and secures the City that the Midbayfront Land will be fully improved in the manner specified by the LCPR No. 8 and specifically containing the Visitor Commercial, Cultural Arts Facility, Park, Lagoon, and Tennis Courts all in the manner therein specified as amended by the conditions of this resolution. Commits the Developer and secures the City that all mitigation measures approved and adopted by the City for the CEQA Project have been or will be satisfied. Phasing of Residential Phasing of residential shall occur in compliance with the requirement of Chapter VII of the Bayfront SP, Section B.2.b.6. Phasing in relation to Cultural Facility No building permits may be applied for or issued as to any residential or commercial improvements within the Midbayfront Land until the City Council has approved an implementation plan assuring the City of the financing, design and construction of the Cultural Arts Facility. Phasing in relation to Nature Interpretative Center No building permits may be applied for or issued as to any residential or commercial improvements within the Midbayfront Land until the City Council has approved an implementation plan assuring the City of the financing of the maintenance, improvement and continued operations of the Nature Interpretative Center. Phasing for other Public Benefits Omi~ed. An indemnity agreement in a form satisfactory to the City has been irrevocably tendered to, and accepted by, the City by the owner of owners of the Midbayfront Land that provides for the complete indemnification and, at the City's option, legal defense or payment of legal fees incurred, resulting from any and all actions taken by the City in connection with providing environmental review and approving the Project; and, Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of land to the City for use as a park in the same or greater size and in the approximate configuration of the park shown on the Midbayfront LUP herein approve& Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of land to the City for use as a cultural facility in the same or greater size and in the approximate configuration of the "cultural arts facility" shown on the Midbayfront LUP herein approve& Resolution No. 16838 Page 5 All mitigation measures found by the City to be feasible shall be implemented, or assurances satisfactory to the City shall have been given that all such mitigation measures will be implemented prior to the issuance of building permits for any improvements on the project. The owner of the Midbayfront Land performs all acts necessary on said owners part to cause the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, artached hereto as Exhibit "F", to be instituted, maintained and implemented according to its terms. the Midbayfront GPA, LCPR No. 8 (including the Midbayfront Land Use Plan) and the Midbayfront Specific Plan herein approved and adopted shall be deemed to be effective; unless such conditions occur and are deemed by the City Council in writing to have occurred within 10 years from the date of this resolution, unless extended, this resolution may, at the option and full and unfettered discretion of the City Council, be revoked without compensation and be deemed to be of no force and effect ab initio, except as to those improvements which are constructed in a manner consistent with the provisions of this resolution, and the approved and certified LCPR No. 8, as same may, from time to time be amended by the Council. SECTION 5. Conditional gnti~ements Midbayfront General Plan Amendment A. General Plan Land Use Element Text Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlements, the General Plan Land Use Element Text, Section 4.2 (COMMERCIAL) of the General Plan shall be amended to add the following additional land use category: "Resort This category identifies large-scale destination-oriented resort facilities with a full range of resort-related services. Siting of resorts shall be in areas with significant attractions, such as bodies of water or other natural features, which provide ample recreational opportunities and scenic vistas. Resort facilities include, but are not necessarily limited to, hotels and motels, resort-oriented commercial services, restaurants, retail shops, a cultural arts center, recreational uses, time-share residences, conference centers, and permanent residences. Specific intensityof use for resorts within this category shall be determined at the project level, with consideration given to general plan consistency, environmental impacts, and other relevant factors." B. General Plan Land Use Diagram Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlements, the General Plan Land Use Diagram of the General Plan shall be amended from that diagram shown as Exhibit "A" to that diagram shown as Exhibit "B". This will result in the following approxi- mate acreage changes: Resolution No. 16838 Page 6 Land Use Category Existing Proposed (acres) (acres) Medium Residential 18 0 High Residential 0 Visitor Commercial 9 14 Prof & Adm Commercial 37 15 Resort 0 44 Research &Ltd Industrial 8 0 Parks &Recreation 21 40 Open Space 56 22 Circulation Element Streets 16 12 Parks and Recreation Element Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlements, the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, Table 7.2 of the General Plan shall be amended to change the park in the Midbayfront from a Planned Neighborhood Park to a Planned Special Purpose Park. D. Bayfront Area Plan Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlements, the General Plan shall be amended to incorporate by reference the Bayfront Specific Plan into the General Plan would indicate that revisions to the Plan occurred as part of this action. SECTION 6. Midbayfront Land Use Plan Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Enfifiements, and subject to Coastal Commission certification, the Midbayfront LUP of the City's Local Coastal Program shall be as set forth on the attached Exhibit "D". SECTION 7. Midbayffont Specific Plan Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlement, and subject to Coastal Commission certification, the City Council approves the Midbayfi'ont Specific Plan in the form enacted by Ordinance No. 2832, introduced on October 13, 1992, incorporated herein by reference, as the specific plan for the Midbayfront LUP. SECTION 8. Coastal Commission Policies Satisfied The City Council finds that the policies of the California Coastal Act are satisfied by the proposed Midbayfront LUP and the Midbayfront SP as follows: A. Shoreline Access The Coastal Act policy in favor of public access and recreational opportunities is substantially enhanced by the Plan in that public access to the shoreline, consistent with habitat preservation is one of the key provisions of this Plan. The Land Use Resolution No. 16838 Page 7 Plan designates 48 acres of public and quasi-public, and parks and recreation adjacent to the bay and nature preserve. Implementation of the Midbayfront hUP will assure that public access and recreational opportunities will be provided, that new development will not interfere with the publiCs right of access, and that new development will provide increased public access to the shoreline. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities The Coastal Act policy in favor of the provision of public and low-cost recreation and visitor-serving facilities, and commercial recreational and visitor-serving facilities is substantially enhanced by requiring that suitable land be reserved for such uses and that such uses be given priority over other uses. In addition m the existing recreation and visitor-serving facilities, the Land Use Plan provides a variety of recreational opportunities including a total of 37 acres of Parks and Recreation Use, the vast majority of which will be parkland open to the public without cost. The Land Use Plan also provides a total of approximately 18 acres of public and quasi-public, open space, and water, including an eight acre lagoon within the Midbayfront which will have public access for limited recreational use. The Central Resort District of the Midbayfront is designated for mixed-use, visitor-serving development. Uses with the Midbayfront include hotels, conference center, a cultural arts facility, restaurants, specialty retail, and commercial recreation uses. Water and Marine Resources The Coastal Act policy in favor of preserving, where feasible, the enhancement and restoration of water and marine resources, including special protection for areas and species of special biological or economic significance is substantially enhanced, under the Midbayfront LUP, by providing for wedand restoration and enhancement of degraded habitat in several areas of the National Wildlife Refuge. Wildlife populations (primarily birds) utilizing the Wildlife Refuge will be protected from physical and visual intrusion by implementing the arrangement of uses depicted in the Land Use Plan and through careful siting and design of buildings according to the design requirements of the LCP. Detailed criteria have been developed for the Midbayfront addressing placement, height, and design of future structures in consideration of the wildlife populations. In addition, along the entire length of the northern and northwestern boundary of the Midbayfront, adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge, the Land Use Plan provides a substantial parkland/open space buffer landward of the Wildlife Refuge. The Environmental Management policies of the LCP provide for preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the important water and marine resources within the planning area. Establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge assures protection of the sensitive species/habitat areas, while the polices of the LCP require mitigation of impacts to wildlife areas from development on adjacent upland parcels. Diking, Dredging, Filling and Shoreline Structures The Coastal Act policy of limiting conditions under which diking, dredging, filling of wetland, restoration of wetland, and construction of shoreline structures may occur is satisfied in the Midbayfront LUP by prohibiting any significant diking, Resolution No. 16838 Page 8 dredging, or filling of wetlands. Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating The Coastal Act policy of encouraging increased recreational boating, preserving boating facilities, and giving precedence to coastal dependent development, except in wetlands, is satisfied in the Midbayfront LUP to a limited extent by limited public recreational boating on the man-made lagoon, but not to a greater extent due to the sensitive environmental resources associated with the Bayfront shoreline. The Council finds that this is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Act because of the environmental sensitivity of the planning area. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas The Coastal Act policies of protecting environmentally sensitive habitat areas by restricting uses within or adjacent to such areas is fully satisfied in the Midbayfront LUP by the provisions of extensive setbacks and buffering land uses adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge. This open space shall include a 100-foot wide (minimum) buffer adjoining the refuge boundary which will be characterized by native vegetation, a berm and fence, and a nature trail with interpretlye signage. Public access to the Wildlife Refuge is limited to a shuttle bus which serves the Nature Interpretlye Center. Humans and domestic pets are prohibited access to the Wildlife Refuge through the use of fences and perimeter signage. In addition, Midbayfront developments will provide and enforce CC&R's to prohibit dogs and cats. Special setbacks are required adjacent to the "F-G" Street Marsh. Agriculture The Coastal Act policy of preserving prime agricultural land is not in conflict with the Midbayfront LUP because the agricultural land within the Bayfront is not high quality agricultural land and agricultural activities are not compatible with the enhancement of wetland resources and habitat areas. Hazard Areas The Coastal Act policy requiring new development to minimize risks in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard and to prevent structural damage to bluffs and cliffs is satisfied in the Midbayfront LUP by the establishment of provisions to require engineering investigations to minimize potential hazards to development. Buildings will be designed to meet earthquake safety requirements as required by code. Soil conditions will be routinely monitored and evaluated for geologic condi- tions related to possible liquefaction. Forestry and Soil Resources The Coastal Act policy of preserving forestry and soil resources is not applicable to the Bayfront area. Locating and Planning New Development The Coastal Act policy of encouraging new development to be concentrated in areas of existing development with adequate public services, adequate support facilities such as recreation facilities and public transit facilities, and preservation of Resolution No. 16838 Page 9 archaeological or paleontological resources is substantially satisfied by providing for a wide range of uses (including commercial recreation, residential, visitor-serving commercial, manufacturing, retail, office, public parks, and open space) concentrated in an area of existing development with adequate public services. Interconnection of existing and proposed public transit will integrate Bayfront circulation patterns into the San Diego Trolley, the Chula Vista Transit System and the regional bicycle/pedestrian circulation system. The Land Use Plan integrates the Nature Interpretlye Center with the developed portion of the Midbayfront via the shuttle bus which serves the center and through the provision of public parking for the Center within the Midbayfront. Coastal Visual Resources and Special Communities The Coastal Act policy requiring the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, and the preservation of unique visitor destination communities is satisfied by the Midbayfront LUP by providing for the removal of existing blight from the Bayfront and for increasing public access to allow the public to experience the views from the perimeter of the Bayfront outward. Views from the fleeway and roadways are to be preserved, framed, or uncluttered in order to ensure an attractive view of, and to establish a visual relationship with, the marshes and bay-related activities. Entrances to the Bayfront are designed to form visual gateways to the water's edge in order to support the feeling of proximity to the bay. Landscaping and architectural edges are used to form sequences of views throughout the Bayfront. Buildings are sited to create view corridors. Buildings are to be stepped back from the Bay to preserve views as set forth in the Land Use Plan. Public Works The Coastal Act policy limiting the construction or expansion of public works facilities to the capacity required to provide service to only those users permitted by the Coastal Act is satisfied in the Midbayfront LUP by the requirement of adequately sized utility lines to serve future development as permitted by this LCP. Industrial Development and Energy Facilities The Coastal Act policy to permit the development of new or the expansion of existing coastal dependent industrial facilities is partially satisfied in that the Midbayfront LUP allows for the expansion of existing industrial facilities but does not allow additional non-coastal dependent industrial development to occur beyond the areas currently shown as industrial use on the Land Use Plan. SECTION 9. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring P togram, and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Adoption of Findings The City Council does hereby approve and incorporate as if set forth full heroin, and make each and everyone of the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit "E" ("Findings"). B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted Resolution No. 16838 Page 10 Included in said Findings is the findings by the Council that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the mitigation measures described in the Findings are feasible and have or will become binding upon the appropriate entity such as the Applicant, the City, or other special districts, which has to implement these specific mitigation measures. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives As further set forth in the Findings, the City Council finds that the certain proposed mitigation measures identified therein as infeasible are in fact infeasible, and none of the proposed Project alternatives set forth in the Final EIR feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the potentially significant effects that will not be substantially lessened or avoided by adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program"), attached hereto as Exhibit "F", incorporated by reference as set forth in full. The City Council finds the Program is designed to ensure that, during the project implementation and operation, the Applicant and other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings and in the Program. Statement of Overriding Considerations Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, certain significant environmental effects caused by the project will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 as set forth, attached hereto within Exhibit "E", Findings, commencing at page 72 thereof, a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects still significant, but acceptable. SECTION 10. Submission to Commission A. The City Council hereby certifies, after a duly called and duly noticed public hearing, that the LCPR No. 8 is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The City Council finds that LCPR No. 8 complies with the guidelines established by the Coastal Commission, and contains materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review. After a duly called and noticed public hearing, the City does hereby submit the LCPR No. 8, consisting of both the Midbayfront LUP and the Midbayfront Specific Plan ("zoning") to the Coastal Commission in a single phase, and recommends that the Coastal Commission certify same. D. The City Manager, or his designee, is directed to submit this resolution and LCPR Resolution No. 16838 Page 11 No. 8 to the Coastal Commission at his earliest possible convenience. SECTION 11. Invalidity; Automatic revocation It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no force and effect ab initio. SECTION 12. Effective Date of Resolution. This resolution shall take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval pursuant to Coastal Commission Kegulation 135510>). Presented by Chris Salomone Community Development Di rector Appro , as to form by, /! , Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney Resolution No. 16838 Page 12 SAN DIEGO BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LEGEND EXHIBIT "A" Resolution No. 16838 Page 13 SAN DIEGO BAY LEGEND Ge'A ~OUNbA'RV ' EXHIBIT "B' PV/L/C & OPEN SPACE Resolution No. 16838 Page 14 '--[F'_r,.M '~-~} aNT NORTH ' ~ ' = EXHZBZT C Resolution No. 16838 Page 15 CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM -LAND USE PLAN- CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFO~ Approved by the City of Chula Vista on October 13, 1992 as Ordinance No. 2532 Certified by the California Coastal Commission on ,1992 EXHIBIT D Resolution No. 16838 Page 16 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tim Na~er, Mayor CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS David Malcolm Laonard Moore Jerry Rindone Shirley Honon PLANNING COMMISSION Joe Casillas, Chairperson Laveme Decker, Vice Chairperson Joanne Carson Susan Fuller Thomas Martin John Ray William C. Tuchscher ll CITY MANAGER John Gross. City Manager George Krempl, Deputy Cit) Manager COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Chris Salomone. Director CITY ATTORNEY Bruce M. Boogaard, Esq., City Attorney MAJOR OWNERSHIP INTERESTS Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Rohr, Inc U.S Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) Chula Vista Investors (CVI) (I0113/9'2-) j Resolution No. 16838 Page 17 PROJECT CONSULTANTS PLANNERS Cinti& Associa~s Chula Vista Local Coastal Proira Gar~ P. Cinti Jay Knlep ARCHITECTS Midbtyfront Project Jerde Partnership, Inc. LEGAL COUNSEL Carl Worthington Ralph Yanagawa Peterson & Price LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Paul A. Peterson, Esq. Matthew A. Peterson, Esq. Wimmer, Yamada & Associates ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Joseph Y. Yamada Pat Caughay Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. A.D. Hinshaw Associates David D. Smith and Associates Christine Keller Philip Hinshaw David D. Smith (10/13/!72) Resolution No. 16838 Page 18 STATE and FEDERAL AGENCIES California Coastal Commission 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suit~ 200 San Diego, California 92108-1725 Attention: Deborah I,~e, Assistant District Director California Department of Fish & Game P.O, Box 944209 Sacramento, California 94244-2090 Attention: Pete Bontadelli, Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West CaNsbad, California 92008 Attention: Martin Kenny. Fish & Wildlife Biologist U.S, Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch 300 N, Los Angeles Street P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Anention: John A, Gill. Chief iii Resolution No. 16838 Page 19 CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PRO(RAM -LAND USE PLAN- Table of Contents INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW A. Introduction ..................................... 1-1 1. Purpose of Plan 2. Area Location and Description 3. Coastal Zone and Subareas 4. Related Projects ~, Application of Plan Provisions B, Local Coastal Program Overview ........................ 1-6 1. Coastal Act Provisions 2. Organization and Format of LCP Re-submittal 3, History of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program 4, Coordinated Planning Efforts C. Implementation ................................... 1-9 11. PLANNING CONTEX'r A, Local Planning Programs ............................. 11-1 1. General Plan Bayfront Vision Statement 2. Goals for Development B. California Coastal Act ............................... 11-2 1. Shoreline Access 2. Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities 3. Water and Marine Resources 4. Diking, Dredging, Filling, and Shoreline Structures 5. Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating 6. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas 7. Agriculture 8. Hazard Areas 9. Forestry and Soil Resources 10. Locating and Planning New Development 11. Coastal Visual Resources and Special Communities 12 PUblic Works 13. Industrial Development and Energy Facilities (10/13/92) iv Resolution No. 16838 Page 20 Table of Contents (cont'd) I11. AREAWIDE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES A. Land Use and Development Intensity ..................... II1-1 1. Existing Land Uses and Development Intensity 2. Land Use Regulation Objectives/Policies 3. Development Intensity Objectives/Policies B. Circulation, Public Access, and Parking .................... 111-17 1. Existing Conditions 2. General Circulation and Public Access Objectives/Policies 3. Roadway Improvement Objectives/Policies 4. Parking Objectives/Policies 5. Public Transit Objectives/Policies 6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Objectives/Policies C. Physical Form and Appearance ......................... II1-28 1. Existing Conditions 2. General Form and Appearance Objectives/Policies 3. Bayfront Gateway Objectives/Policies 4. Architectural Edges Objectives/Policies 5. Views Objectives/Policies 6. Landscape Character and Function Objectives/Policies D Utilities and Areawide Grading ......................... Ili-36 1. Existing Conditions 2. Utility Service Objectives/Policies 3. Areawide Grading Objectives/Policies 4. Utility and Grading Design Objectives/Policies E. Environmental Management ........................... II1-41 1. Background/Existing Conditions 2. Environmental Management Objectives/Policies IV. SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Subarea 1 - Midbayfront ............................. IV-1 1. Special Subarea Conditions 2. Land Use/Intensity Objectives/Policies 3. Circulation/Public Access Objectives/Policies 4. Physical Form and Appearance Objectives/Polices 5. Utilities and Grading Objectives/Policies 6. Environmental Management Objectives/Policies (10/13/~2) V Resolution No. 16838 Page 21 IV. SUBAREA Table of Contents (cont'd) DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND FOLICIES (cont'd) B. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area ............................ IV-12 1. Special Subarea Conditions 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies C. Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel ........................... IV-12 1. Special Subarea Conditions 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies D. Subarea 4 - Inland Parcel .............................. IV-13 1. Special Subarea Conditions 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies E. Subarea 5 - Faivre Street Parcel ......................... IV-14 1. Special Subarea Conditions 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies F. Subarea 6 - Palomar/Bay Blvd. Reorganization Parcel ........... IV-I4 1, Special Subarea Conditions 2, Subarea Objectives/Policies G, Subarea 7 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge ......... IV-16 1. Special Subarea Conditions 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies (10/13/92) Vi Resolution No. 16838 Page 22 List of Exhibits 1. Regional Location ................................. I-3 2. Coastal Zone with Subareas ........................... I-5 3. Land Use Plan Map ................................ Ill-3 4. Central Resort District Concept ......................... Ill-10 5. Building Heights .................................. III-13 6, Circulation Element ................................ III-19 7. Form & Appearance ................................. II1-30 8. Utility Systems ................................... II1-38 9, Environmental Management ........................... III-45 10. Buffer Zone Section ................................ III-46 11. Conceptual "F & G" Street Marsh Restoration ................ III-52 vii Resolution No. 16838 Page 23 I. INTRODUCT1ON/OVERVIEW A. Introduction This document is the 1992 Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) Re-submittal which includes a re-formatted text and improved exhibits which are intended to make the document more readable and useful as a development regulation and planning tool. Although new in appearance, the substantial revisions in the LCP Re-submittal are associated with two major events which significantly diminished the viabi)ity of the previous Local Coastal Program. The first was the creation of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge within the planning area, incorporating properties which were previously designated for a significant amount of development. The second was the preparation of a new development concept for the Midbayfront, which is the major undeveloped sector within the planning area. Because these actions significantly affected most of the properly available for development within the Chula Vista Bayfrom, an opportunity for a cornpro- hensire update of the Chula Vista LCP was created. This Re-submittal focuses primarily on the undeveloped properly within the Midbayfront, while the regulations and standards for other areas are essentially unchanged, although re-stated and re- formatted. 1. Purpose of Plan The purpose of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) is to provide a detailed plan for the orderly grog. development. redevelopment and conservation of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Zone The LCP must be consistent with both local and state land use policies. First, every coastal civ?, and county is required to prepare a Local Coastal Program, pursuant to the California Coastal Act. to be approved by the California Coastal Commission. The LCP must be sufficiently detailed to indicate the kind, location, and intensity of land uses and the applicable resource protection policies for development within the local coastal zone. The Land Use Plan component of the LCP must provide land use and development policies which will ensure that development within the local coastal area will be consistent wiffi the provisions of the Coastal Act In addition, the LCP must contain implementing ordinances to carry out the policy provisions of the land use plan. These are provided in the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan, which serves as the implementation plan for the Chula Vista LCP. Second. this LCP must be consistent with and implement the City of Chula Vista General Plan which is the primary local land use and development policy document. The text and diagrams in this LCP depict the provisions of the General Plan for the Bayfront at a larger scale and in greater detail. The Bayfront Specific Plan is a component of the City's General Plan and represents a step toward systematic implementation of the General Plan in the Bayfront. 2 Area Location and Descrivtion The City of Chula Vista was incorporated in 1911 and became a chartered City in 1949. The City currently has a population of approximately 140,000 and covers an area of approximately 34 square miles Geographically. the City is iotated adjacent to the cast side of San Diego Resolution No. 16838 Page 24 Bay. eight miles south of San Diego and seven miles north of the International Border (see Exhibit 1). Ti~e Chula Vista Local Coastal Zone includes a large amount of industrial development and the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. It also contains one of the last remaining large blocks of undeveloped land on San Diego Bay. Regionally, the area is well served by Interstate 5, the major freeway connection between San Diego and Mexico. Suae Route 54 and its interdnnge with Interfate 5 in the Bayfront enhances the site's loca~:ional advantages. The Bayfrom area is located 10.8 miles south of the San Diego International Airport. 3. Coast~] Zone and Subareas The boundary of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone is located immediately east of Interstate 5 (1-5), except in the northerly portion of the City where it turns east (in]and) along the prolongation of 'C' Street to a point approximately midway between Broadway and Fifth Avenue and then north to the City boundary; and in the southerly portion of the City where it turns east at Main Street and then proceeds south to the City boundary. The boundary is shown on Exhibit 2. The Chula Vista Coastal Zone is comprised of the Bayfront Planning Area (Subareas 1, 2, 3, and 7), in which the City has permit jurisdiction, and the annexcel coastal areas, in which the California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction. The provisions contained in this Plan will only thus apply to the Bayfront Planning Area. The LCP planning area (local coastal zone) encompasses approximately 1,013 acres, of which 748 acres are uplands or filled areas above mean high tide and 265 are in marsh or wetlands. (Note: LCP acreages are provided to the nearest acre and are approximate values utilized for large scale planning purposes.) Four major ownerships dominate the planning area: 1) San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) at the south end with 92 acres; 2) Rohr, Inc. in the central area with 99 acres (and an additional 66 acres of San Diego Unified Port District-owned land plus SDG&E ROW and SD&AE/MTDB ROW which are leased by Rohr); 3) the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which owns 316 acres (some of which is outside the City of Chula Vista) in two parcels which comprise the National Wildlife Refuge; 4) Chula Vista Investors which owns I16 acres in the central portion of the Bayfront; and, 5) Chula Vista Redevelop- ment Agency which owns approximately 16 acres, also in the central portion of the Bayfront. The wildlife refuge includes the majority of Gunpowder Point, 'D" Street Fill, the entire Paradise Creek area, and the Sweetwater Marsh Complex (including the 'F-G' Street Marsh). The Poll District holds jurisdiction and ownership of all tidelands lying between mean high tide line and the City 's western boundary. Although the Port District area is within the City limits, it is included in the Poll District's Master Plan, rather than the LCP for the City. Except for The Chula Vista Investors (CVI) ownership, north of "F" Street and west of the SDG&E ROW. the majority of the Bayfront is either developed or is expected to remain as open space. To the north, west, and south of this vacant area is the National Wildlife Refuge. I-2 Resolution No. 16838 Page 25 R ,~ e iona Loca~t!~,n, CITY :PAC~IC OCEAN LOCAL COASTAL ZONE IVPER~L BEACH t~ITED STATES MEXICO Resolution No. 16838 Page 26 To me east, highway and visi~t commercial use~ Mve been aeveloped along B~ ~ulev~d, ~n M~ina P~ay ~d ~n Drive. ~ffi of ~n ~ve, ~ Rohr ~r~ be~qu~rs ~ ~dus~i~ f~ili~ ex~ ~ ~ffi of 'H" S~t, ~ffi ~ditio~ o~ develop~nt ex~ing ~ ~ 'J' Swat. ~e S~ ge~r~g f~ili~ ~ s~ler i~us- ~i~ u~rs ~e Io~ ~uffi of 'J' S~t ~ ~ S~t. ~ ~i~on ~ ~e~ ~ lo~d west of l-5, ~o p~ls ~t of ~e ~ay fie ~ffith ~e ~y~m: ~e F~ver S~t inl~d p~cel is souffi of M~n S~t ~d ~nemly u~ for s~e, ~ile ~e pmi~ly develo~d no~¢~ ~l~d p~l is 1o~ ~t of Bm~way ~ mffi of 'C" S~t. In order to facilitate the planning and development of rite Bayfrom, the overall planning area has been divided into eight "sub-areas* to focus on the issues which are specific to various local areas. These areas are indicated in Exhibit 2 and are described below: Subarea 1 - The Midbayfront is the Bayfrom area generally between "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) and "D" Street, including the largest currently vacant parcel (CVI ownership). This subarea is adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge and includes the "F-G" Street Marsh which is also a pan of the USF&WS ownership. Subarea 2 - This is the industrial area between "G" Street and "L" Street, most of which is developed with industrial or related uses. Sub~ea3 - This area is known as the southern parcel and is located south of "L" Street. This area is also primarily developed with light industrial and related commercial uses Subarea 4 - This subarea consists of the northern inland parcel located adjacent to the Sweetwater River. Subarea 5 - This subarea consists of the small southern inland parcel on Faivre Street recently annexed to the City from the County of San Diego. It is located adjacent to wedands associated with the Otay River. Subarea 6 - This is a parcel annexed from the City of San Diego in the Palomar/Bay Boulevard Reorganization. It is utilized primarily for salt evaporation ponds associated with the western salt operations to the south, but also includes a small portion of upland. Subarea 7 - This subarea consists of the majority of the National Wildlife Refuge which is located to the north and west of the Midbayfrom (subarea 1). Resolution No. 16838 Page 27 Resolution No. 16838 Page 28 4, Related Proiects There are two major projects adjacent to the LCP area which affect the Bayfrom. They have been combined in the Route 54/Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel Joint CalTrans/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project. The Route 54/Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel is a joint California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and United States Army Corps of Engineers project, with the Corps of Engineers acting as the lead agency. The project combines the construction of State Highway Route 54, from 1-805 to I-5, with the construction of a flood control channel from Bonita Mesa Road (immediately upstream of 1-805) to San Diego Bay. The flood control channel generally occupies the median between the eastbound and westbound lanes of SR-54. The configuration of lanes and ramps is incorporated into the base map for the Land Use Plan. The freeway interchange is located along the northeastern edge of the Bayfront. Access to the Bayfront is provided from the 1-5/54 interchange via an off-ramp to "E Street/Marina Parkway. Wildlife habitat protection issues associated with this project resulted in a lawsuit by the Sierra Club in 1986. The associated settlement agreement was entered into in 1988. It resulted in the conveyance of a large portion of the Bayfront to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and creation of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The upland areas were retained by the property owner for future development. This significantly changed the development potential of the Bayffonl and is one of the factors leading to the current LCP Re-submittal. B, Local Coastal Program Overview I Coastal Act Provisions As provided in Section 30500(a) of the Public Resources Code. "Each local government lying in whole or in pan. within the coastal zone shall prepare a local coastal program for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction." The Local Coastal Program is defined as "a local government's land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and implementing actions which, when together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the local level." The Coastal Act divides the LCP process into three documented phases: 1) Coastal Act Provisions/Issue ldentification; 2) Land Use Plan: and 3) Implementing Ordinances. Issue Identification was completed in conjunction with the previous LCP approval in 1986 and has not been included in this re- submittal. This LCP Re-submittal includes both of the other sections: 1) this Land Use Plan, and 2) Implementing Ordinances (the Bayfront Specific Plan). 2. Organization and Format of LCP Re-submittal The initial portion of this LCP text is the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan includes three major components: 1) Introduction, Planning Context and Coastal Act Policies Summary; 2) Areawide Development Objectives and Policies: and 3) Subarea Specific Development Objectives and Policies. The policies of the Land Use Plan will be reviewed by the State Coastal Commission to insure that it is consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act, Resolution No. 16838 Page 29 After ~is introductory chapter, the Land Use Plan presents a discussion of the Coastal Act Policies which are relevant to the Bayfront, identifies existing conditions which pertain to that policy category, and outlines the LCP provisions which implement the coastal policies. These policies are specifically identified to aid in supporting the findings of Coastal Act consistency. The second component of this Plan consists of the objectives and policies which are intended to be applied throughout the Bayfront are identified. These Areawide Objectives and Policies are organized into five elements: 1) Land Use and Intensity; 2) Circulation and Public Access; 3) Physical Form and Appearance; 4) Utilities and Areawide Grading; and 5) Envirom'nental Management. Each element contains a survey of existing conditions, objectives for development, and specific policies relative to that element. This section is intended to describe the composition of the overall Bayfrom and ensure both conformante with the Coastal Act Policies as well as consistency with the City's General Plan. Because of the importance of the 'mandatory and controlling' policies of the LCP, they are numbered separately and indicated with sans-serif bold type (policy typeface). The third component of the Land Use Plan contains an analysis of conditions, development objectives and policies which are responsive to the unique needs of each subarea. The Subarea Specific Development Objectives and Policies focus the areawide policies on the unique characteristics and needs of each planning subarea and provide a greater policy detail for site specific development issues. The second portion of the LCP Re-submittal is the Implementation Program. The Implementa- tion Program is intended to implement the policies of the Land Use Plan through development regutations and standards for the Bayfront. The implementing ordinance for the Chula Vista Bayfront is the Bayfront Specific Plan which is adopted pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). As provided in Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, or other implementing actions, shall be reviewed by the Coastal Commission to ensure they conform with, or are adequate to carry out the provisions of the Land Use Plan. The Bayfront Specific Plan specifies, in detail, the permitted land uses. and the standards and criteria for development and conservation of resources It contains the implementation program for the Bayfront. as well as. specific development standards unique to each subarea, where required The Specific Plan is consistent with and adequate to carry out the provisions of both the LCP Land Use Plan and the General Plan The Implementation Program (Specific Plan) includes seven major divisions: 1) Purpose and Scope; 2) General Provisions: 3) Coastal Development Permit Procedures; 4) Land Use Classifications; 5) Development Criteria: 6) Environmental Management Program; and, 7) Subarea Specific Development Standards. 3. History of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program This LCP Re-submiRal is the latest in a series of studies and plans which have been prepared for the Chula Vista Bayfront. These efforts began in 1972, when the City initiated a program to evaluate the options and prepare a master plan for the area. In 1972, Proposition :20, the Coastal Initiative. was passed by the voters of California. Proposition 20 mandated the Resolution No. 16838 Page 30 preparation of the California Coastal Plan, which was issu~ in 1975. The California Coastal Plan and subsequent legislation established stringent review requirements for projects in the Coastal Zone. In order to respond to blighting conditions ~ some areas of the Bayfront, in 1974 the City established the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, which includes the majority of property within the Bayfront plaa,.ning area. Many of the blighted conditions have been removed or redeveloped through the successful implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. The City began the Coastal Commission review process in 1976. A lengthy process which included additional environmental review and analysis, several lawsuits, and reconfiguration of poninns of the plan extended to March 1984, at which time the Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan was alpproved by the Coastal Commission. Subsequen~y the implementing ordinances (specific plan) was also approved in June 1985. This certification was challenged by lawsuits regarding the adequacy of endangered species habitat protection within the Bayfront, both to mitigate on-site and off-site impacts (see Related Projects above). The settlement agreement concluding the lawsuit resulted in the creation of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, which includes property which was designated for the principle visitor serving use in the Bayfront. The settlement agreement required that Gunpowder Point (designated resort hotel site), the *D' Street Fill (designated for marina, commercial, and residential development), and the entire Paradise Creek and Sweetwater Marsh complex be deeded to the U.S, Fish & Wildlife Service. Eliminating these uses from the Bayfront Plan resulted in an irabalance in the land use allocation for the remaining developable upland property. The City re-initiated a planning program to formulate a new plan for the Bayfront in 1988. This effort was curtailed when the major undeveloped portion of the properly was sold and the new land owner expressed an interest in working with the City to prepare a new plan emphasizing a mixed-use, visitor serving development. This LCP Re-submittal reflects the new development concept formulated by the City and Chula Vista Investors, and is the first comprehensive major amendment to the LCP which was certified in 1986. 4 Coordinated Plannine Efforts The LCP establishes the conservation and development requirements for coastal zone lands lying inland of the tideland grant line and exclude the San Diego Unified Port District lands which lie to the west (see Exhibit 2). In addition, now that the National Wildlife Refuge is a part of the planning area, coordination with appropriate Federal agencies is required. Close cooperation between the City, the Port District, and Federal agencies is necessary to ensure: l) coordination of road, water, sewer and storm drainage improvements; 2) effective management of coastal environmental resources; 3) harmonious land use and development which permits all portions of the Bayfront lands to benefit from the economic. visual and recreational values of the waterfront site; and 4) provision of public access to coastal resources. State law and good pining practice require that the Bayfront Land Use Plan address the relationship between the lands within the plan area boundaries and the adjoining Port District lands. This is done by indicating where the continuity of poblic facilities (roads, water lines, sewers, storm drainage provisions and pedestrian and bicyclist mutes) is to be maintained, Resolution No. 16838 Page 31 where protaction of economic and a~sthetic values provided by wa~-ofientad views are m be protected, and where safeguards are necessary to p~vem conflicts in land use and develop- ment. Specific aspects requiring coordinated a~'mon include: 1) file routing and design of Marina Parkway Ln the Midbayfront area; 2) maintenance of a protected habitat for the least taro and other sensitive species within the National Wildlife Refuge; 3) integration of pedestrian waterfront access; 4) protection of existing wa~r-orientad views from inland areas; and, ~i) providing ). balanced mix of developed land uses within the coastal area of file City. C. Implementation As indicaw..cl previously, the Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan will be implemented as the Bayfront Specific Plan per the California Governmere Code Sections 65450 et seq. The Specific Plan will be adopted by Ordinance and meet the lmpiememing Ordinance requirements of the Coastal Act. The implementation provisions will include: 1) land use and development regulations and standards ("zoning" including permitted uses, parking requirements, development and performance standards, signs, etc. pius provisions addressing: roadway standards, grading and drainage regulations to control impacts to wetlands, landscaping standards, and design review requirements); 2) environmental management regulations; 3) design regulations and standards controlling speciflc projects; and. 4) administrative and pertaining procedures. (10/13/92) 1-9 Resolution No. 16838 Page 32 I1. PLANNING CONTEXT A. Local Planning Programs Adopted local plans and State law create the planning context for eae Chula Vista Bayfrom LCP. The LCP must be consistent with both the City's General Plan and the provisions of the State Coastal Act. State law (Code Sectloft 65300) requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city. The State r~uires general plans based on the belief that the future growth of the state is determined largely through local actions. By requiting general plans, the state can be assured of a consistent framework for decisions while still allowing local control, In a similar manner, an approved Local Coastal Program provides assurance that the specific interests of me State, as expressed in the Coastal Act, will be m~t within the Coastal Zone while allowing local decision making. 1. General Plan Bayfront Vision Statement The Chula Vista General Plan includes a description of "The Vision" for the development of the City. The City considers the Bayfront an important development area due to its location and potential to create a unique image for Chula Vista. The following statement from the General Plan describes the vision for the Bayfront: The continuing redevelopment of the Bayfront will creme a water-oriented focal point for the entire Ci.ty. With an emphasis on public recreation activities, tourism and conservation, it will emerge as the premier waterfront experience in the South Bay. The development standards and quah'~ will equal those of similar redevelopment projects in the northern section of San Diego Bay. The diversi.ty of ases will exceed that of many similar projects and contribute to its vitality.' and use by all citizens. 2. Goals for Development The preceding vision statement can be expressed as a series of goals for Bayfront development. The following are the goals for Bayfront development. Some of these are specifically directed toward the Midbayfront Subarea. Because this subarea is the most important new development opportunity within the Bayfront planning area, substantial changes in aesthetics, character, or uses will generally be achieved through development of the Midbayfront, Bayfront Development Goals Create a water oriented focal point for the entire city of Chula Vista which includes uses which are attractive to visitors and residents alike. Provide for the extension of the downtown urban core into the Bayfront to emphasize a strong east-west connection. 11-1 Resolution No. 16838 Page 33 Provide a continuous open space network which links the Bayfront to the planned "Chula Vista Greenbelt" incorporating the Sweetwater River Valley to the north and the Otay River Valley to the south. Promote integrated land uses in the Bayfrom and create an identifiable image for the Bayfront. Provide good regional access to encourage visitors to the Bayfront. Provide for the long-term protection of important natural resources, including those within the National Wildlife Refuge. Promote opportunities for public coastal access, open space, park and recreational uses adjacent to the natural resources of the Bayfront. Retain Rohr, Inc. as a major employer and industrial business in Chula Vista, but limit the extent of any new general industrial and commercial uses to assure development of unique visitor oriented uses within the coastal zone. B, California Coastal Act This section is organized following the policy categories identified in the California Coastal Commission LCP Manual, This section provides three types of information for each category: 1) a summary of the applicable Coastal Act policies; 2) a discussion of the existing conditions which pertain to that policy category: and, 3) a summary of the LCP provisions which address the coastal issue. l. Shoreline Access a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30210-30212 of the Coastal Act require that public access and recreational opportunities be provided for all the people, that development not interfere with the public's right of access, and that new development provide public access to the shoreline. b. Existing Conditions There is currently limited physical, public access to Chula Vista's shoreline. The only direct public access to the bay is outaide the Bayfront Plan area on the Port District's property. A boat launch, marina, and park are located off the westerly extension of "J" Street. Public access is also provided via a shuttle bus which serves the Nature Interpretive Center, located on Gunpowder Point, which is within the boundaries of the National Wildlife Refuge. The lack of adequate public access is due, in pan, to the types of land uses which currently occur along the shoreline. Rohr's major industrial/manufacturing facility, boat yards, SDG&E property, the National Wildlife Refuge, and undeveloped property all 11-2 Resolution No. 16838 Page 34 have resulted in very limited direct public access opportunities. Access is also limited due to the environmemal sensilivilI of the abofeline withill ~e planning ar~. Limited or restricted access is necessar3t ~ some are, as to pr'e~erve the habitat value of the shoreline itself, c. Plao Provisions Public access to the shoreline, consistent with habitat preservation is one of the key provisions of this Plan. The Land Use Plan designates approximately 411 acres~of public and quasi- public, and parks and recreation ~djacent to the bay and nature preserve, thereby greatly enhancing public access to the coastal resources. Although environmental concerns preclude providing physical access to the shoreline, the western perimeter of the Midbayfront is designated for public open space and recreation uses, and a pedestrian trail will allow public access approaching the shoreline with visual access inW the bay and National Wildlife Refuge. The extension of the Marina Parkway (*E' Street) will provide direct vehicular access through the Midbayfront. All of the public park and open space lands will be permanently dedicated and maintained to assure The Land Use Plan provides for public accessibility through a series of public shoreline parks and open space adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge which offers both pedestri- an and bicycle paths. In addition, shunle bus operations from the Bayfront to the Nature Interpretire Center will continue to provide public access to a unique educational and wildlife resource. Public parking is provided in the Midbayfront to serve the Nature Interpretire Center along with streets to link the Interpretire Center and parking area- Implementation of these policies will assure that public access and recreational opportunities be provided, that new development will not interfere with the public's right of access, and that new development will provide increased public access to the shoreline. 2. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30212.5, 30213 {pan, 30220-30223, and 30250(c)] of the Coastal Act require the provision of public and low-cost recreation and visitor-serving facilities, and encourage the provision of commercial recreational and visitor-serving facilities by requiring that suitable land be reserved for such uses and that such uses be given priority over other uses. b. Existing Conditions Limited visitor-serving facilities are located adjacent to I-5 along Bay Boulevard, including a small motel and four restaurants. The Pun District Marina and boat launch facilities contain restaurants, boat slips, and a marina. Marina View Park (10113/92) 11-3 Resolution No. 16838 Page 35 and the Port District's fishing pier are adjacent to the bay and provide low cost public recreational facilities, A yacht club facility and excursion pier have been constructed to provide additional recreational opportunities. c. Plan Provisions In addition to the existing recreation and visitor-serving facilities, the Land Use Plan provides a variety of recreational opportunities including a total of approxi- mately 37 acres of Parks and Recl'e~tion Ug, the v~t majority of which will be parkland open to the public without cost. The Land Use Plan also provides a total of approximately 18 acres of public and quasi-public, opon apace, and water, including an eight acre lagoon within the Midbayfront which will have public access for limited recreational use. In addition, the Central Resort District of the Midbayfront is designated for mixed- use, visitor-serving development. Uses with the Midbayfront include hotels, conference center, a cultural arts facility, restaurants, specialty retail, and commercial recreation uses. As listed above, the policies of this LCPR provide for public and low-cost recreation The Midbayfront project is intended to maximize visitor-serving facilities within the Coastal Zone and incIudes major commercial recreational uses. 3. Water and Marine Resources a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30230, 30231 and 30236 of the Coastal Act require the preservation, where feasible, the enhancement and restoration of water and marine resources including coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. b. Existing Conditions The Bayfront contains marshes, mudfiats and uplands, and includes one of the last remaining major wetlands in the San Diego Bay. These wetland areas provide habitat and nesting sites for a wide range of avian species which are of special concern due to diminishing habitat areas throughout their range. Virtually all of the important wetlands are located within the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge which adjoins the Rohr facilities and the Midbayfront Subarea. Establishment of this refuge has assured, to a certain extent, the preservation of the important w~tland and biologically-valuable upland resources. The long-term protection and enhancement of these resources are now the essential objectives for environmental management. (10q3192) II~4 Resolution No. 16838 Page 36 c, Plan Pwvisiom This LCP provides for wetland reswration and enhancement of degraded habitat in several areas of the National Wildlife Refuge, This will include the formation of new wetlands by convening uplands or fill Io weftands. At "F-G" Sweet Marsh, the Land Use Plan provides for the restoration of new wetlands and the enhancement of degraded wetlands. The Land Use Plan also provides for restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat, and for the construction of a desiltation basin adjacent to the marsh. Except for the desiltation basin, all the restoration acreage will be loc_~_L~_ within the Wildlife Refuge. Wildlife populations (primarily birds) utilizing the Wildlife Refuge will be protected from physical and visual intrusion by implementing the arrangement of uses depicted in the Land Use Plan and through careful siting and design of buildings according to the design requirements of the LCP. Detailed criteria have been developed for the Midbayfront addressing placement, height, and design of future structures in consideration of the wildlife populations. In addition, along the entire length of the nonhero and northwestern boundary of the Midbayfrnnt, adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge, the Land Use Plan provides a substantial parkland/ open space buffer landward of the Wildlife Refuge. In the 'D" Street Fill area, within the Wildlife Refuge, the Environmental Management Element provides for restoration of approximately 15 acres of salt marsh. On the Gunpowder Point uplands, also within the Wildlife Refuge, the Land Use Plan provides for creation of approximately two acres of freshwater marsh. The Environmental Management policies of the LCP provide for preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the important water and marine resources within the pining area. Establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge assures protection of the sensitive species/habitat areas, while the polices of the LCP require mitigation of impacts to wildlife areas from development on adjacent upland parcels. 4 DikinL Dred~in£. Filling and Shoreline Strncrures a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act establish the limited conditions under which diking, dredging, filling of wetland, restoration of wetland, am:l construction of shoreline structures may occur. Section 3041 l(b) provides additional provisions for the filling of wetland provided it is accompanied by substantial restoration of degraded wetland. (10/13/92,) lI-5 Resolution No. 16838 Page 37 b. Existing Conditions In the past, there has been considerable alteration of the Bayfront. Filling to some degree has occurred along much of the shoreline. By far the most significant, in terms of Wtal fill and amount of shoreline affeaed, is the *D* Street Fill. A railroad has also been constructed across the Sweetwater Marsh using fill material. c. Plan Provisions No significant diking, dredging, or filling of wetlands is associated the developmere concept within this LCP. As rioled above, the Land Use Plan provides for the major resWration and enhancement of weftands, primarily areas of severely degraded wetlands within the National Wildlife Refuge, specifically at the Street Marsh, Gunpowder Point, and the 'D' Street Fill areas of the Wildlife Refuge. The preclusion of significant diking, dredging, or filling assures consistency wiin these Coastal Act Policies. 5. Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30224, 30234 and 30255 of the Coastal Act encourage increased recreational boating, require the preservation of boating facilities, and give precedence to coastal dependent development, except in wetlands. b. Existing Conditions Boat launch and marina facilities are located on the Port District propony adjacent to the Bayfront. Additional recreational boating berths were constructed on the Port District propony, along with a yacht club facility and excursion pier to expand the initial marina facilities. c. Plan Provisions Due to the sensitive environmental resources associated with the Bayfront shoreline, access for fishing or boating is not currently permitted or proposed. Limited public recreational boating on the man-made lagoon in the Midbayfront area may be permirled, Because of the environmental sensitivity of the pining area, increased major recreational boating facilities are precluded. This general policy is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Act. Resolution No. 16838 Page 38 6. EnvironmentalIv S~sitive l-l~ilat Ames a. Coastal Act Policies Section 30240 of the Coastal Act provides for ~e protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas by res~icting uses within or adjacent to such areas. b. Existing Conditions In addition to the marsh and mudfiat areas discussed under ~e Water and Marine Resources category, some upland areas have been identified as environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The marsh environment within the Bayfront is critical feeding and nestrig habitat for three Federal and/or State listod endangered species: the California Least Tern; the Ligfu-Footecl Clapper Rail; and the Balding's Savannah Sparrow. Virtually all of the environmentally sensitive habitat areas are located in the National Wildlife Refuge, though other sensitive habitat areas are scattered throughout the LCP area. c. Plan Provisions In response to the need to protect these environmentally sensitive areas from the potential impact of adjacent development, the Land Use Plan provides for extensive setbacks and buffering land uses adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge. This open space shall include a 100-foot wide (minimum) buffer adjoining the refuge boundary which will be chaxacterized by native vegetation, a berm and fence, and a nature trail with interpretive signage. Pubiic access to the Wildlife Refuge is limited to a shuttle bus which serves the Nature Interpretive Center. Humans and domestic pets are prohibited access to the Wildlife Refuge through the use of fences and perimeter signage. In addition, Midbayfront developments will provide and enforce CC&R's to prohibit dogs and cats. Special sethacks are required adjacent to the ~F-G" Street Marsh. The design and use of both the "F-G" Street Marsh setback and the park/open space area adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge are consistent with the Army Corps Permit No. 88-267-RH. As summarized above, the LCP policies protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas by restricting uses within or adjacent to such areas. 7. A~riculture a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act provide for the preservation of prime agricultural land in order to assure the protection of an area's agricultural economy. (10,13/921 IF7 Resolution No. 16838 Page 39 The policies establish criteria for the conversion of lands to non-agricultural uses. The criteria minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. b. Existing Conditions A major portion of the Midbayfront was at one time used for agriculture production. However, none of this land is considered prime agricultural land and agricultural operations were discontinued years ago. c. Plan Provisions The Land Use Plan does not provide for the preservation of the agricolmral land within the Bayfront because it is not considered high quality agricultural land. In addition, agricultural activities would not be compatible with the type and scale of development proposed, nor with the enhancement of wetland resources and habitat areas. The absence of prime agricultural lands precludes any conflict be~een the designation of lands for development and the agricultural preservation provisions of the Coastal Act. 8. Hazard Areas a. Coastal Act Policies Section 30253(1)(2) of the Coastal Act requires new development to minimize risks in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard and to prevent structural damage to bluffs and cliffs. b. Existing Conditions There are three potential sources of hazards within the Bayfront. They are land settlement hazards, seismic hazards and flooa hazards. The settlement hazards are anributable to the presence of relatively shallow surficial deposits of soft compressible bay mud throughout the historic marsh lands and tidal fiats, as well as in deeper water areas. Two major faults have been mapped near ~he Chula Vista waterfront area: the north-nonhwest trending Rose Canyon/San Diego Bayrrijuana fault, and the east-west CRay fault. Pans of the Bayfront area were within the standard project flood area of the Army Corps Sweetwater River Flood Control Project. However, with the completion of this project, these flood hazards have been eliminated. c, Plan Provisions In order to address flooding, seulemem, and seismic hazards, the Bayfront Plan contains provisions to require engineering investigations to minimize potential hazards tu development. Buildings will be designed to meet earthquake safety Resolution No. 16838 Page 40 {10/13/~) requirements as required by code. Soil conditions will be routinely monitored and evaluated for geologic conditions related to possible liquefaction. The LCP policies will minimize risks from the known geologic and flood hazards associated with the planning area. 9. Forestry and Soil Resources a. Coastal Act Policies This category of Coastal Act policies is not applicable to the Bayfrom area. 10, Locatin2 and Plannin2 New Development a. Coastal Act Policies Section 30244, 30250(a), 30252, and 30253(3)(4) of the Coastal Act provide criteria for the location of new development. Generally, new development should be concentrated in areas of existing development with adequate public services. New development should provide adequate support facilities including provisions for recreation facilities and for public transit, and should preserve archaeological or paleontological resources. b. Existing Conditions The Chula Vista Bayfront is essentially developed except for the area north of "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) and scanered smaller parcels. The large vacant parcel north of "F" Street is adjacent to urban development to the south and east, with the National Wildlife Refuge to the north (the heavily industrialized National City waterfront is immediately further to the nor~) and San Diego Bay to the west. A minor archaeological site within the planning area has been identified and salvaged. c. Plan Provisions The Land Use Plan provides specific locations for a wide range of uses including commercial recreation, residential, visitor-serving commercial, manufacturing, retail, office, public parks, and open space. An overall grading concept and performance standards to assure provision of adequate public services are established in the policies of the Land Use Plan. Interconnection of existing and proposed public transit will integrate Bayfront circulation patterns into the San Diego Trolley, the Chula Vista Transit System and the regional bicycle/peAestrian circulation system. The Land Use Plan policies take into consideration the unique relationship between new development and the sensitive environmental areas ndjacent to the Midbay- front. The Land Use Plan integrates the Nature Interpretive Center with the developed portion of the Midbayfrnnt via the shuttle bus v~ich serves the center and through the provision of public parking for the Center within the Midbayfrom. 11-9 Resolution No. 16838 Page 41 New development will be concenU'a~d in an area of existing development with adequate public services. The new development envisioned in this LCP includes, as a pan of the conceptual development plan, or will be required to provide support facilities including recreation facilities and public wansit. 11. Coastal Visual Resources and Special Communities a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30251 and 30253(5) of the Coastal Act require the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, and the preservation of unique visitor d~stination communities. b. Existing Conditions The potential visual and scenic qualities of the Bayfront are currently not being fully realized. The views of the area from adjacent 1-5 are impaired by the lower elevation of 1-5. and, in some locations, marred by visual blight, including abandoned buildings, open storage, overgrowth and un-landscaped transmission line corridors. c. Plan Provisions The Land Use Plan provides for the removal of existing blight from the Bayfront and for increasing public access to allow the public to experience the views from the perimeter of the Bayfront outward. In addition, the Land Use Plan requires that views from the freeway and roadways are to be preserved, framed, or unclunered in order to ensure an attractive view of, and to establish a visual relationship with, the marshes and bay-related activities. Entrances to the Bayfront have been designed to form visual gateways to the water's edge in order to suppen the feeling of proximity to the bay. Landscaping and architectural edges have been used to form sequences of views throughout the Bayfront. Buildings have been sited to create view corridors. Buildings are to be stepped back from the Bay to preserve views as set forth in the Land Use Plan. The policies of this LCP will enhance the existing scenic and visual qualities of the local coastal zone, and includes development of a unique visitor destination community. (10t13/92) II-10 Resolution No. 16838 Page 42 12. P~blic Works a, Coastal Act Policies Seaion 30254 of the Coastal Act limits the construction or expansion of public works facilities to the capacity required to provide service to only those users permimed by the Coastal Act. b. Existing Conditions Adequate water, sewage, and other utility services exist, but will need to be extended onto the Midbayffont development site. c. Plan Provisions The Land Use Plan requires adequately sized utility lines to serve development of the Bayfront within the capacity of the utility services. These lines will be constructed to serve future development as permitted by this LCP. 13 Industrial Develovment and Energy Facilities a. Coastal Act Policies Sections 30255. 30260-30264, 30232 and 30250C0) of the Coastal Act provide guidelines for the development of new or the expansion of existing coastal dependent industrial facilities, tanker facilities, liquefied natoral gas terminals, oil and gas development, refineries, and electrical generating plants. b. Existing Conditions RohL Inc. facilities and the SDG&E Generating Plant and transmitter lines represent the only two major industrial and energy facilities Currently within the Bay front. c. Plan Provisions The Land Use Plan allows for the expansion of existing industrial facilities but does not allow additional non-coastal dependent industrial development to occur beyond the areas currently shown as industrial use on the Land Use Plan. Expansion of the existing Rohr facility is permitted, including industrial and office uses, R&D and light manufacturing in the Midbayfront. These provisions are consistent with the Coastal Act requirements. Resolution No. 16838 Page 43 !I1. AREAWIDE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES This chapter is organized into five separate sections: Land Use, Circulation and Public Access, Physical Form and Appearance. Utilities and Areawide Grading, and Environmental Management. Each of these sections includes a brief description of existing conditions and then provides basic objectives for development in the Chula Vista Bayfrom area. Associated with each basic objective, specific policy provisions are defined lo guide development and resource enhancement in the Bayfront for each topical area of concern. These policies, which are key to the consistency between this Land Use Plan and the Coastal Act, are numbered and identified by a sans-serlftypeface (policy typeface) to aid in making reference to and application of the policies The areawide plan provisions are supplemented with policy diagrams and exhibits keyed to the text to clarify the intent of the specific provisions. A. Land Use and Development Intensity The Bayfront planning area encompasses approximately 1,013 acres, of which 748 acres are uplands or lilled areas above mean high tide and 265 are wetlands. Four major ownerships dominate the planning area: 1) San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) at the south end with 92 acres; 2) Rohr, lnc in the central area with 99 acres (and an additional 66 acres of San Diego Unified Port District-owned land plus SDG&E ROW and SD&AE/MTDB ROW which are leased by Rohr); 3) the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service which owns 316 acres in two parcels which comprise the National Wildlife Refuge (some of which is outside the City); and 4) Chula Vista Investors which owns 116 acres in the central portion of the Bayfront. The City Redevelopment Agency has holdings in various properties which total approximately 16 acres 1. Existing Land Uses and Development Intensity The majority of the upland areas within the planning area is currently developed with urban uses The major land-user is Rohr Inc., with manufacturing activities ranging from research and development to assembly. Rohr's operations straddle the Chula Vista LCP area and the adjacent San Diego Unified Port District lands. A small group of buildings. including an unoccupied restaurant and convention facility now used for boat building. are located at the west end of Lagoon Drive CF" Street), The Swath Boat Repair facility is located on Port District Property just south of the Midbayfrnnt subarea. In the eastern portion of the Midbayfront subarea, between the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad tracks and the freeway. smaller property holdings include three highway-related restaurant facilities and a 118 unit motel. The remainder of the planning area is either vacant or used for smaller industrial, storage, and commercial purposes. The intensity of development is essentially suburban with low-rise buildings and open parking areas. The northern end of the Rohr, Inc. facility, adjacent to the Midbayfront subarea, is becoming more urban in character with structured parking. mid-rise office buildings and a building floor area to site area ratio {FAR) approaching 0.75. Existing building heights vary (1013921 Ill-1 Resolution No. 16838 Page 44 throughout the Bayfront but are primarily 1 to 2 stories tall. The tallest existing building is Rohr Bldg, 61 which is 74 feet high and Rohr is preparing to construct a building approximate- ly 94 feet high on a site adjacent to the Midbayfront. The tallest structures within the Bayfront are the stacks of the SDG&E generaling plant which are 187 feet high. 2. Land Use Regulation Obiectives/Policies Objective LU, 1 New Bayfront development should encourage a mixed-use develop- ment combiinng visitor serving commercial/recreational uses, public parks, and residential. The mixed-use character of the Bayfront will: 1) minimize the Iraffic impact of development on the surrounding roadway system by splitting the peak hour traffic between ~rip origins and destinations; and, 2) significantly expand public access and use of the Bayfront. Policy LU.1 .A The Midbayfront shell be developed as a mixed-use project with primarily visitor serving commercial and recreation uses, and residential uses, to balance the existing industrial development in the remainder of the Beyfront. A special land use category, Central Resort District, is designated within the Midbayfront Subarea to accommodate mixed-use development. Objective LU.2 Integrate new development with the existing National Wildlife Re~age in a manner which permits public enjoyment/access to the resources while protecting sensitive habitat areas from intrusion or adverse impacts due to development and/or human activities. Poticy LU.2.A Public parks and open space are designated on the Land Use Ran Map, Exhibit 3. to buffer the wetlands from development and to provide visual access to the coastal resources. Public access to the Nature Interpretive Center, located within the National Wildlife Refuge, shall be provided only via a shuttle bus. Public trails with interpretlye signage shall be provided within the buffer adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge to allow public enjoyment of the refuge without disturbing its inhabitants. Ob3ective LU.3 General industrial uses should be specifically excluded from the Midbayfront area but permitted in the existing industrial areas adjacent to Rohr, Inc., the SDG&E facilities, and the inland parcel. The reasons for this objective include the following: Water Related Lands. The water-related lands of the Chula Vista Bayfront are a unique resource and should be reserved for public and private uses which can benefit from, as well as protect the location. General Industrial Use. There are no overriding f~nctional reasons for using Bayfront land for general industrial use; the industrial III-2 Resolution No. 16838 Page 45 Resolution No. 16838 Page 46 Policy LU.3,A Objective LU.4 Policy LU.4.A Policy LU.4.B Objective LU.5 Policy LU.5,A growffi of San Diego County is not likely to be impeded if the Bayfrom lands are not developed for this use. Economic Base. The overall economic welfare of Chula Vista would be better served by uses of this land which broaden the economic base of the community. General industrial ms am permitted end may expend in the areas designated for Industrial use on the Land Use Ran Map, Exhibit 3. Them areas coffeepond to those areas which are already committed to Industrial uses. New induetdsi develop- ment in other areas shall not be permitted. Preserve and enhance the existing saltwater marshes, ponds, and mud~a~s to protect the many natoral resource values of the habitat and contribute to the visual quality of the Bayfront. Most sensitive habitat areas have been placed within the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, though other sensitive areas exist in the LCP area adjacent to the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers. The land use designations and locations indicated on the Land Use Ran Map have been selected to allow for development while buffering sensitive environmental areas. In addition, the Environmental Management section of this plan sets forth numerous policies which shall ensure the preservation and enhancement of these resources and areas discovered during plan implementatjon. Permitted uses in the wetlands, wetland buffers and upland areas of the National Wildlife refuge shall be under the primary jurisdiction of the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service which owns and operates the refuge, The California Coastal Commission will partjcipate in the review of improvements in these areas through the 'consistency" process for Federal activities. Provide ample opportunities for public open space and adjacent to the natural resources of the Bayfront to increase public access to the waterfront. Public parks and open space totaling approximately 34 acres shall be provided along the perimeter of the Midbayfront develop- ment area, as depicted on Exhibit 3. These areas will contain pedestrian and bicycle trails, opportunities for visual access to the adjacent wedands, and passive recreational opportunities. Policies are included in the Environmental Management section to assure that such access will not disrupt the wildlife habitat. I11-4 Resolution No. 16838 Page 47 Objective LU.6 Policy LU.6.A Policy LU.6.B Permit a balanced and well defmexl mix of la~d uses which will be responsive to lhe development and conservation goals of the Bayfront LCP. The Land Use Ran Map, Exhibit 3. indicates the location of the various permitted uses. The permitted m categories include: general industrial, reSearch and limited industrial, high density residential, four types of commatrial, public end qnesi-puhiic uses, the central reset district, and wildlife refuge. A more detailed mapping of public open space Is prodded in the Environ- mental Management Map, Exhibit 9. Table 3-1 summarizes the land use distribution within the Bayfront. The description of the permitted uses is as follows: RESIDENTIAL. Residential uses ere limited to high density multiple-family dwellings in Clusters of varying size and configu- ration to provide a range of housing types. Lower scaled townhouse-type construction can generally provide s transition at the critical waterfrom edges to bigher, more dense structures further inland. This configuration will afford maximum views and vertically integrate the proposed new uSes into their natural setting. Allocation: approximately 18 acres 12 percent of development area, not including major circulation). COMMERCIAL. A number of specific commercial uses are per- misted in the Beyfront. Total Allocation: approximately 35 acres, not including uses located in the Central Resort Diatdct (4 percent of development area, not including major circulation) Visitor Serving Commercial. This land use designation refers to resort hotel uses and accessory conference facilities. This use is primarily located in proximity to the freeway. Included in the permitted land uses are recreational facilities neceseaty to support the hotel function. This land use designation also includes retail uses which support the hotel-conference facility, adjacent office park uses, end adjacent residential uses. Additional uses may include those that would provide a regional attraction for visitors, but not compete with the general, community-serving commercial services of the Chula Vim dow n- town, The intern of the uses permitted in this category is to serve visitors end residents of the Bayfront. Permitted uses include: I} hotels and inns; 2} retail uses and shops senring visitors end residents; 3) commercial recreation uses; 4} business and personal services; and, 5) public and quasi-public uses such as public transportation facilities, places of worship, end day care facilities. Allocation: approximately 11 acres (1 percent of development area, not including major circulation). [Note: These 111-5 Resolution No. 16838 Page 48 uses are also provided with the Central Resort Distdct where allocations among ulem my vsry.] Thoroughfare Visitor Hiahwsv. This land u~e designation includes primarily motel end restaurant facilities similar to the existing development that principally sorve euto*oriented traffic and req,~re cJear visibility from the I-S corridor. AgkJtional permitted umem would include gee stations and sirnilar traveler directed goods and services. Land uses not permitted within this designation are those which would principally serve pedestrian traffic or those that would be more appropriate in c.o.nnection with the Central Resort District provided for elsewhere in the Nan. These non-permitted me include: convenience retail, food end beverage retail sales, bushes/and personal services. and entertainment facilities. Nlocetion: approximately 12 acres ll percent of development are, not includinll major circulatlonl. Professional and Administrative Commercial. Two areas for Professional and Administrative Commercial are provided. The first is indicated on Land Use Map, Exhibit 3, within the Industrial subarea. This area is approximately 12 acres. The permitted uses include administrative office and support uses for the adjacent industrial uses. The second area is a permitted use within the Central Resort District of the Midbeyfront subarea, which permits 60,000 sq.ft. of Professional and Administrative, including; administrative and executive office, financial offices and services and medical offices. INDUSTRIAL. Two types of industrial uses are designated on the Land Use Map: Research & Umited end General. These land uses are confined to an area generally south of "G ' Street, plus the inland parcels east of I-5. Existing uses will be permitted to continue and expend. Allocation: approximately 3?0 acres (43 percent of devciopment area, not including major circulation). Research & Limited Industrial. This category includes research and development, light manufacturing. warehousing, and flexible use buildings which combine these uses with office space. Allocation: approximately 81 acres {9 percent of development area, not including major circulation). General Industrial. This category provides for large scale and more intensive industrial uses such am manufacturing and public utility plants. The SDG&E powerplant and Rchr, Inc. facilities ere within this cetagory. Allocation: approximately 289 acres [34 percent of development area, not including major circulation). PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE. This category includes s variety of uses ranglnll from landscaped parking in the SDG&E ROW to the Open Ili-6 Resolution No. 16838 Page 49 Space of the National W*dcllife Refuge. {Allocation: approximeta- ly 391 acres (44 percent of development area, not including major circulation). Public & Quasi*Public/Land~canod Perkgnu Ovaday. Portions of the SDG&E power gno Hght-of-way (ROW) within the Bayfront are to be phyically improved at the ground level with landscaped perking ereas. In order to encourage lands:ape improvements to this area, development bonuses ere permitted for projects adjacent to the ROW. These bonuses allow the development to increase permitted denlties end utilize the ROW for I)~rking lot expansion, Bonuses are calculated by applying the permitted land use intensity of the adjacent percci to the portion of the ROW included in the project and t~anlfefflng this added develop- ment of the ROW onto the project site. In order to Qualify for the development bonuses, a long-term lease agreement for parking on the ROW between the project proponents and SDG&E is required. Any landscaped pertdrip in the SDG&E ROW north of Lagoon Drive shall be available on weekends and evenings for use by coastal visitors. Allocation: approximately 18 acres (2 percent of development area, not including major circulation). [Note: approximately 12 acres are presently used for parking by Rohr, Inc.] Parks & Recreation. This designation refers to all physically and/or visually accessible open lands intended for local public ownership. This land use designation includes the Primary Buffer zone adjacent to the wetland areas required for habitat protection and preservation of the health and vitality cf the adjacent wetland ecosystem. Permitted uses in lhe buffer zones include provisions for controlled public access, minor grading and landscaping {consistent with the grading and environmental management policies of Section lIFE, barsin), and minor scientific or educational uses. The Environmental Management Ran Map, Exhibit 9, depicts the specific location Of the open space uses. This category also includes aries of perks to be developed for public recreation which are to be constructed throughout the Bayfront. These are intended for passive recreational activities and will be linked via a continuous, publicly accessible pedestrian end bicycle trail system. Development of · pobiicly owned Cultural Arts Facility is also permitted within this land use designation. Allocation: approximately 37 acres (4 percent of development area, not including major circulation). Water. This designation identifies a major water feature which is to be constructed as the focal point of the development witbin the Central Resort District. The lagoon shall be constructed without disturbing the existing shoreline end shall extend from the Central Resort District, under Marina Parkway and into the 111-7 Resolution No. 16838 Page 50 public park am (Pmk& Recreation Ilelgnltion) to the west. Allocation: approximatdy 8 acres (1 percent of development area, nat Including mlJor circulstjon). OPen Soace/Wliclife Refuge Ovaday. This designation is applied to the Sweetwetar Marsh National Wildlife Refuge which is owned end operated by the U.S. Fish and Wgdllfe Seevice. Uses wi~ be limited to wildlife habitat preservation end enhancement, scientific study end educational uses. Other ereas with signifi- cent habitat value which are not 8 pert of the Federal ownership ere shown 8s Open Space without en ovaday designation. in addition to The ares designated by this ovaday, Se~ljon III-E Environmental Management, provides specific policies end programs for responding to environmental resources within the Inland and Fevier Street subareas, and the "J' Street Marsh. Determination and administration of permitted uses within the Wildlife Refuge shall be the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service with Coastal Commission Review. Total Open Space Allocation: approximately 301 acres (35 percent of development area, not including major circulation). Circulation/Other. This category includes acreage within the major public street right*of-ways (including I-5) and railroad right- of-ways within the planning area. Table 3-1 identifies a separate category for the I-5 acreage {approximately 159 acres), which is not within any of the subareas. This acreage is not 8 part of the "development area" within the coastal zone. Allocation: approximately 27 acres, nat including major circ,dation {3 percent of development area, not inaiudin9 major circulation). SPECIAL PLAN AREA. This designation includes the Central Resort District which provides an area within the Midbayfront for a mixture of uses intended to serve tourists, travelers, end local residents. Special use and development regulations shall be provided to encourage innovative designs and combinations of uses to create a high quality resort core for the Mtdbeyfront. In order to evaluate the proposed development in tbll area, prior to any development a Master Fian shall be prepared and approved to allocate uses and describe the buildings and spadci relation- ships within the buildings, end parking allocation. The prepara- tion of a Master Fien for the Central Resort District is a require- ment in addition to compliance with other development regula- tions and policies of this Land Use Finn. The purpose of the Master Plan is to insure that the intent and concept of 8 visitor serving Central Resort is implemented in a manner consistent with this LCP. as well as, other policies and standards of the City. (10/13/92) 111-8 Resolution No. 16838 Page 51 A conceptual illuetretjon of the vision for the Central Resort District is depicted on the following page, Exhibit 4. It graphical- ly partrays one of many 'allsign solutions" that would be consistent with the purpose and intent of This land use category. This conceptual illustration is provided herein as an example of iraact, but not to indicate I specific location, number, size, or configuration of bu~dinge, parking, or other developed site features. There is an overall liffdtation of 1,969,000 sq.ft. maximum building area permitted in the Central Resort District. VV~i~tbin this square footage, there are maximums of 300 residential dwelling units and 1,360 hotel rooms within the CRD. Allocation: approximately 40 acres {5 percent of development area, not including major circulation). (10'13'92~ Ill-9 Resolution ~o- 16838 page 52 Resolution No. 16838 Page 53 T~I.~ 3-1 SUMMARY OF PER/VIii ltsD LAND USES BY SUBAREA (Approximate area - in acres) LAND USE TOTAL Residential, high 18 18 - Thoroughfare 12 8 4 - Professional & Administrative 12 * 12 - Research & Limited 81 - General 289 Quasi-Public 18 6 - Parks & Recreation 37 34 - Water 8 8 - Open Space 301 22 - circulation/other 27 14 Special Plan Area - Cemtral Resort District 40 40 Major Circulmtion 159 SUBAREA 10 8 63 155 3 11 268 8 3 2 * Aria&ted w~thin Cents( Re~ Dlst~t ms a ~rmill~d ug (10/13/92) 111-I 1 Resolution No. 16838 Page 54 3. Dcvclonment Intensity Objeclive. s/Polic~cs The intensity of development is determined by height limitations, parking requirements, on-site open space or landscape provisions, traffic capacity, and economic feasibility. The intensity of development consequently varies by land use type. Objective DI. 1 Allow development int, nsity which provides for the economic development of the Bayfront, within the capacity of public service and infrastructure systems. Policy DI.1 .A Height Limits. The permitted height of the development in the Resort Core area ranges up to 229 feet for two high-dis hotel structures (Special Condition "A' in Exhibit 5) end up to 100 feet for a Mid-rise hotd structure. A/so in The Midbayfront Subarea is a site for a Cultural Arts Facility up to 69 feet in height west of Marina Parkway and an alternative site within the Central Resort District (Special Condition *B" in Exhibit 5), This gait allows for extensive open space and landscape provisions without exceeding the traffic capacity of the circulation system. There are areas in which the height limit varies from prevailing provisions, calling for beth reduced and increased height limits, due to program requirements, environmental management objectives, or physical form and appearance objectives. These variances include the following: Gateways. To achieve e "gateway," or sense of entry to the Bayfront and relate it to the existing new development along Bey Boulevard, the areas immediately adjacent to the "E" Street and "J" Street bridges over I-5 shall be between one and two stories. Midbavfront Devel0Dment. The permitted height of the devel- opment in the Resort Core Area ranges up to 229 feet for two high-rise hotel structures (Special Condition 'A" in Exhibit 4) and up To 100 feet for the mid-rise hotel structure. Also in the MidbayfroN Subarea. a single mid-rise building (up to 100 feet) for a Cultural Arts Facility is permitted west of Marina Parkway (Special Condition 'B"L Two high-rise residential buildings (up to 229 feet) are designated for the area north of Marina Parkway (Special Condition "E'). The taller buildinga are intended to create focal points and an identifiable skyline for the Midbayfront project. Such buildings ore permitted because of the increased park and open ~pace uses designated within the Mldbeyfront and the utilization of subterranean parking. All structures will be subject to detailed review and approval to ensure that open space is provided. view corridors are maintained, and that the buildings are designed to minimize impacts to nearby wildllfe habitats. (See also Environmental ManagemeN section and Form and Appearance section.) t10/13/92) 111-12 Resolution No. 16838 Page 55 Resolution No. 16838 Page 56 Policy DI.1 .B Research and Limited Menufactudno. A single building up to 95 feet in height is permitted, subject to special review end dev- slopmerit standard·, to create a landmark b4Jilding as · pert of the Rohr corporate f·cillty. The stand·rib shall include increased building setbacks, · comprehendve lendscaplng plan end pedestrian or other off-street circulation connections to ·diecent uses sc deacdhed in the Sub·re· 2 Standards of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Permitted IntensitY. The ·flowed development intensity for the Bayfront is Ihown in TBble 3-2. (3an·rally. the permltted~ building heights, perking standards. end traffic cap·city will determine the permitted intensity, For the Central Resort District, · separate table describing the flexible allocation of ms end intenxity is provided as Table 3-2A. The construction of housing in the Residential-High category shall be limited to 25% of the maxi- mum permitted until the Central Resort District has been subst·ntlally implemented. (10/]3/92) 111-14 Resolution No. 16838 Page 57 TABLE PERMI l ~ hO DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY Subarea 1 - Mi~bayfront Public & Open Space Uses Subarea 2 - Xndustrial Industrial (IR & IG) commercial - visitor/Highway Commercial - Prof. & Admin. Landscaped Parking Parks & Recreation Subares 3 - Southern Parcel Industrial Subareas 4, 5, and 6 Industrial Subarea 7 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY (see Table 3-2A) Residential: 949,O00 sq. ft./700 du Western Parcel: 204,000 sq. ft./250 hotel ro(x~s~ Eastern Parcel| 200,000 sq. ft./250 hotel ro(~s Intensity limited by minimal permitted uses; except Cultural Arts Pscility 75,000 sg. ft. (2,000 seats) FAR 0.5 except Special condition "C" (see notes) FA) 0.25 except Special Condition "F" (see notes) Special Condition "C" (see notes) May be included in adjacent parcel for FAR cal- culation with required improvements and use agreement. Intensity limited by minimal permitted uses 0.5 Existing Zoning Determined by USF&WS lII-15 Resolution No. 1683B Page 58 Land Use Cateqorv Residential-Mixed Use Commercial-visitor Commercial-Prof. & Admin. Public & Open Space TABLE 3-2A PERMll nED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Central Resort District Building Allowance Minimum Targst Building Building DU/Hotel Sa. Ft. Re~d. Sa. Ft. * Rooms 100,000 406,000 300 du 1,000,O00 1,503,000 1,360 rm 20,000 60,000 N/A Maxim~ul Buildiug Area permitted 1,9S9,000 110'13/92~ 111-16 Resolution No. 16838 Page 59 B. Circulation, Public Access, and Parking The circulation improvements to serve the Bayfront resuh from a number of basic objectives, including convenient vehicular and pedestrian ecces~, natural habitat prot~tion, traffic capacity constraints, parking, and incorporating public transit via the trolley stations east of 1-5 at 'E' Strut and 'H* Street. 1. Existin~ Conditions The regional entries to the BayfTont are limited by the off-ramp configurations of Interstate 5 and the location of w~tiand resources. At the present time access is available at *E' Strut, "H" Street, and Street. One additional bridge at "F" Sireel provides for a local connection to the east side of I-5 but no freeway on or off-ramps ere provided. The southerly and inland portions of the Ba~front are ads- quately serv~l by existing local streets. Becanse of their location, the 'H" Street ramps primarily serve the Rohr, Inc. facilities, and the "J" Street ramps serve the marina and Port District lands westerly of Rohr. '.1' Street also serves as the southerly termination of Marina Perkway, which is constructe~l from the "1" Street/Bay Bouleverd intersection west and north to the Midbayfront within the Port District jurisdiction. It has been constructed as a divided roadway with a landscaped median. h is proposed to be extended north into the Midbayfrom and curve east to connect to the "E" Street/Bay Boulevard intersection. The proposed new development is concentrated in the Midbayfront which will take access from 1-5 and SR-54 via the "E" Street ramps. Bay Bouleverd also has been improved as a frontage road serving the ereas easterly of the railroad right- of-way. The improved portions extend from "L" Street to 'E" Street. "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) is currently being improved in conjunction with the Rohr, lnc. expansion, from Bay Bouleverd to the G" Street Mersh. The San Diego Trolley operates on the railroad right.of-way on the east side of 1-5. Both stations adjacent to the Bayfront (at "H" Street and "E" Street) ere developed with park and ride lots. The trolley schedule creates frequent gate closures which result in traffic interruptions at these major street/freeway on- and off-ramps. 2. General Circulation and Public Access Objectives/Policies The following objectives and policies relate to the general issues of circulation and public access. Following sections provide specific policy language for roadway improvements, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian circulation, and parking. More detailed applications of these general objectives are graphically shown in Exhibit 5, the Circulation Map. and ere described below in the discussion of specific circulation components. Recognition must be given to the fact that the proposed improvements along with diagrams are schematic and typical. Additional engineering analysis, environmental review. and coordination with CaITrans and the Port District will be required during the design and construction phases of some roadway improvement projects Objective AC. 1 Provide good regional access to the Bayfront from 1-5 and SR-54. Policy AC.1 .A Completion of the CalTrans I-5/SR-54 interchange project wilt provide the required regional accet. s to the Midbayfront, while existing facilities provide access to other portions of the Bayfront. All facili- ties within the jurisdiction of CalTrana shall be deigned and operated in 8 manner consistent with State standards. (10/13/921 Ill-17 Resolution No. 16838 Page 60 Objective AC.2 Policy AC.2.A Policy AC.2.B Objective AC3 Policy AC.3.A Policy AC.3.B Provide for convenient access to ~e Bayfront for visitors and residents of community areas east of I-5. Convenient access shall be maintained by assuring that traffic congestion does not fall below ~e City's established threshold standard: LOS 'C" at eli signalized intersections, except for 2 hours per day when LOS "D' is permitted. The City's threshold standards recognize that the management of the freeway system is under the control of State end Federal agencies, and, therefore elgnelized intersections at freeway ramps ore not Included in the City's threshold standards. Any proposed development project which has the potential to 8dyersely effect compliance with this threshold standard shell be evaluated with 8 traffic study and oPlxoved only if the standard is maintained. All traffic facility improvements assumed or proposed as mitigation for project impacts shall be provided concurrent with project development. Circulation facilities shall be designed, constructed, and maintained according to state and local standards to ensure that safe and efficient circulation systems are provided. The protection of sensitive habitats may require roadways to be built to lesser standards in order to reduce environmental impacts, providing such reduced standards do not threaten public safety. Route and design roadways in a manner which minimizes adverse affects on valuable marshlands, protects lands with high recreation value, and avoids fragmentation of developable lands into inadequately sized or located parcels. Major roadways shall follow the alignments depicted on Exhibit 5 Circulation Element which have been carefully determined with regard to the objective. Minor roadways, to serve local development areas, shall be evaluated in this regard with submittal of project development plans. Such roadways shall not be permitted outside of areas designated for development on the Land Use Plan Map (Exhibit 3). 111-18 Resolution No. 16838 Page 61 /i U! rll Resolution No. 16838 Page 62 Policy AC.3.C Ob.~ective AC.4 Policy AC.4.A Objective AC.5 Policy AC.S.A Objective AC6 Policy AC.6.A Objective AC.7 Policy AC.7.A Policy AC.7.B (10/13/92) All road construction or improvements shall be deigned and constructed in accordance with The applicable Environmental Management policies, Create auto-fre~ zones along the shoreline and other areas which have unique environmental conditions or potential, and make provision for pedestrians and bicycliste. The Circulation Bement Map dealgrates ladestHan and bicycle routes along the perimeter of the Mldllyfront, separate from the vehicle access routes. These shall be implemented concurrent with adjacent development. Public access to the Nature luterpretive Center within the Wildlife Refuge shall he limited to shuttle bus transport to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing for comple- mentary public transit service, including smaller "ministransit" vehicles or private jimeye. A comprehensive Transit Service Plan shall be prepared and approved for the Midbayfront development as a part of the "master plan.' The plan shall address the use of private intra-project transit, as well as connection/coordination with public bus end trolley transit services. The plan shall demonstrate that public/private transit services provide a viable alternative to private vehicles for access and travel within the Midbayfront. Avoid congestion of the freeways and connection afterlees by maintaining a mix of land uses where peak traffic generating periods are s~aggered throughout the day. The land use mix identified in this Land Use Plan has been selected to meet this objective. The emphasis on visitor serving, recreational, and residential uses within the Midheyfront will balance traffic demands of the employment oriented development throughout other areas of the Bayfront. All development within the Bayfrom shall be conSistent with the lend use policies of this Plan. Provide for convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access to the Bayfront from community areas east of Interstate 5. Local access to the Bayfront shall be provided along the same routes which provide regional access. In addition, the 'F~ Street Ixldge over I-5 shall be utilized to provide Midlayfront access for local residents. Provision for ladeatHens and hicydiste, 8e well as motor vehicles, shall he made within the bridge travelway. Circulation routes and services which exist or are provided within the urban core of Chula Vista shell be extended to and through the III-20 Resolution No. 16838 Page 63 Bayfront in order to integrate the coastal area with the overall community. Development projects within the Bayfront shall incor- porate, extend, and/or utilize these transportation facilities as a part of the development concept. 3. Roadway Improvement Objectives/Policies The following objectives/policies relate to the construction/improvement of roadways within the Bayfront. Objective RI. 1 Marina Parkway and Tidelands Avenue are to be constructed to serve development within the Midbayfront subarea. Policy Rl.1 .A Marina Parkway will be extended as a Four-Lane Major Street (except for the eastern most segment described below) from its improved terminus at the north edge of the Chula Vista Madna on Port District property to provide a continuous Bayfront parkway to the 'E" Street gateway. Tidelands Avenue or equivalent access shall extend from Marina Parkway north to serve the small development parcel located east of the SDG&E ROW. To maintain traffic capacity and safety, and create a perkway character for Marina Parkway, no curbsida parking should be permitted, since the off-street parking standards herein will provide adequate parking for coastal visitorS. Landscaped parking in the SDG&E ROW north of Lagoon Drive shall be available for overflow and special event parking demands. Policy RI.1 ,B Specific segments of Marina Parkway will be designed and con- structed to respond to significant environmental issues "F-G" Street Marsh Area. The alignment of Marina Parkway at the Port District property wlii move weatedy to by-pass the edge of the existing "F-G · Street Marsh. This alignment will: completely by-pass the "F-G" Marsh and introduce major views of the waterfront from roadway. Eastern End. The eastern portion of Marina Parkway will be devel- oped as a Six-Lane Major Street from Bay Boulevard westedy to the first Midbeyfront intersection. This will provide additional capacity to maintain adequate traffic flow at the major project entry. Objective RI,2 Improve Bayfront access through improvements to the "E" Su'eet bridge and on- and off-ramps to 1-5, Policy RI.2.A New on- and off-ramps, and re-striping of the 'E" Street bridge traffic lanes are being completed by CalTrana in conjunction with the I-5/SR- 54 interchange project. When complete, these improvements shall represent the ultimate improvements to these facilities. Land uses and intensity of development within the Bayfront shall he limited to 110'13;921 Ill-21 Resolution No. 16838 Page 64 thatwhich canbe served by these improvements, within the traffic threshold standard. Objective RI.3 Extend "F" Sweet westerly as Lagoon Drive to serve as secondasy/lo~a] access route into ~he Bayfront. Policy RI.3.A Lagoon Drive will function as 8n important intemxi circulation element in the Bayfront end provide 8 critical secondary outJet from the Bayfront to the east side of the freeway. Extending it sa a Class I Collector Street (four lanes), to intersect with Marine Parkway, will permit the maximum Rexlbility for providing area-sen(ing bus loop routes through the Bayfront that connect to the regional serving trolley system. It will also provide for necessary service loops for underground udiities. The road will also function as a major pedestri- an route to the city and provide a direct bicycle connection from the residential areas east of I-5 with the regional coastal bicycle trail. Objective RI.4 Maintain public access to the Nature Interpretive Center on Gunpowder point. Policy RI.4.A Public access to the Nature Interpretive Center shall be restricted to shuttle bus operations in order to minimize disturbance to the sensitive resources of the refuge. The access route shall be a controlled access 20 foot roadway on the existing southern levee. This existing route has been integrated into the levee without undue impact on the adjacent marshes. A small public parking lot and bus shelter shall be provided in the Midbayfront at the entry to the National Wildlife Refuge. Supplemental parking will be provided in the landscaped SDG&E ROW and/or shared with private development in the Midbayfront. The parking needs of visitors to the Nature Interpretjve Center shall be made a priority use for parking in the landscaped SDG&E ROW. 4 Public TranSit Objectives/Policies There are three major transit objectives for the Bayfront. They are 1) maximizing use of the two trolley stops adjacent to the Bayfront area; 2) the provision of future bus service to interconnect the Bayfront with the trolley s~ations and the adjacent community; ~d 3) the development of privately supported jitneys serving concentrated employment centers such as Rohr, Inc. and the proposed destination resort hotel/conference facilities within the Midbayfront. Objective PT.1 Maximize use of the public transit services by visitors and residents of the Bay front. Policy PT.1 .A The Bayfront Plan recognizes that connections to the trolley system are significant benefits to the feasibility of development in the Bayfront. Opportunities for interconnecting the Bayfront, especially the Midbayfront, with the existing trolley stations ere included in the III-22 Resolution No. 16838 Page 65 Nan. Them opportuniUes, which shah he addressed in the Compre- hensive Transit Service Ran for the Midbayfront, include: Bus Imnrovementa. Provide for convenient bus stop locations on convenient trovd loops within the Bayfront and at areas of concen- trated activity. Pedestrian Access. Provide for convenient, direct pedestrian access to the Midbayfront from the "E' Street Trolley Station. Policy PT.1 .B The Circulation FJement provides for roadway right~f-ways with sufficient capacity and opportunities for bus stop locations to facilitate convenient bus ~ervice into the Bayfront along Madna Parkway, "E" Street. Lagoon Drive, end Bay Boulevard. This capacity shall be maintained to provide the greatest flexibility in the routing of future bus service into the Bayfront and to achieve an effective connection to the trolley system. Objective PT2 Encourage private transit services where feasible. Policy PT.2.A The concentrations of land use intensity provide opportunities for private jitney service to supplement public transit service. Where it is determined that private service will not compete with public services, the evaluation of jitney-type services provided by the private sector shall be evaluated as a part of all development proposals associated with Rohr, Inc. facilities or within the Midbayfront. 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Obiectives/Policies The major pedestrian circulation routes and a regional bicycle route are included in the Circulation Plan Map, Exhibit 5. The provision of these routes will guarantee significant public access to the waterfront and within the Bayfront development. Implementation of these routes will result in a substantial increase in both the quantity and quality of available public access. Objective PB. 1 Policy PB.1 .A Policy PB.1 .B Provide pedestrian access to the shoreline. Continuous shoreline access is provided adjacent to the 100 foot Primary Buffer as designated in the Environmental Management section. An improved public path shall be provided within the pork and open space improvements in the area. The combination of landscape screening and out-looks adjacent to the wetlands will provide major recreational opportunities without undue impact on wildlife resources. No pedestrian or bicycle paths are to be located on the southern or eastern edges of the 'F-G" Street Marsh due to the limited setback area. In order to provide continuity with adjacent planning areas, pedestrian shoreline aceeel shag interconnect with other existing or proposed <10'13'92~ 111-23 Resolution No. 16838 Page 66 circulation routes. Project level pianning and coordination shall provide for: Connection South to Port Dictdct Lends. In The Marina Parkway area, public access wig be integrated with Port I:~strict development, This will result in a conUmjous public access route with intermitte, nt exposure to the water edge within the Port lands. Connection North tc Sweetwater River Project, Pedestrian and bicycle routes in the Sayfront shall have the potential to interconnect with the recreational improvements included in the C~altrans/Army Corps of Engiceorl project, end/or the Chula vista Greenbelt trail system proposed in the Sweetwater River Valley. The filling of wetsands for hike paths is not permitted, including, but not limited to, any extension of the toe of the CalTrans fill slops for the freeway into the mitigation areas of the connector marsh. Connection with Chula Vista Neighborhoods. Pedestrian routes will interconnect major open spaces in the Bayfront to adjacent city neighborhoods via "E" Street and "F" Street. Objective PB.2 Provide bicycle routes for alternative access and circulation in the Bayfront. Policy PB.2.A The Circulation Element Map indicates extensive bicycle routes incorporated with the pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. In indicated locations, the bicycle route will consist of an on-street bike lane while along the perimeter of the Midbayfront it will be a part of the pedestrian/bicycle trail system. 6- Parkine Objectives/Policies Parking will generally be incorporated into the private development in the Bayfront with some public parking to serve the community parks and other open space resources. While providing adequate parking for all uses in the Bayfront is an important issue, undergrounding or providing landscaping/screening to improve the appearance of large parking areas is also of concern. Utilizing "shared parking" among uses which have predictable and opposite peak parking demands is encouraged. Objective PK. 1 Provide adequate parking for all developed uses in the Bayfront. Policy PK. 1 .A Off-street parking spaces shall be provided for developed uses according the following schedule: Business and orofessionsl offices: I space per 300 square feet of floor area; minimum of 4 spaces; Dance, assembly, or exhibition halls without fixed seats: I space per 50 square feet of floor area used for dancing or assembly; 111-24 Resolution No. 16838 Page 67 Policy PK.1.B Dwellings, multide: 1.5 spaces per studio or I bedroom unit; 2 spaces per two bedroom; 2.5 spaces per three bedroom or larger unit (includes 0.3 space per unit guest perking); Hotels, motels: I ace for each living or deeping unit, pits I lace for every 25 rooms or pertton thereof (Hotels end motale shall net be used for long term residence); Manufaotudno dents, research & testIns leberetodes: I space per 1,5 persons employed at any one time in the normal operation of the ;dent or 1 space per 800 Kitsre feet of floor area, whic,hpver is great- er; Medical and dental offices. clinics: I apace per 200 square feet of floor area; minimum of 5 spaces; Restaurants. bars. and niaht dubs: 1 apace per 2.5 permanent seats, excluding and dance floor or assembly area without fixed seats which shall be calculated separately at I space per 50 square feet of floor area; Restaurants - drive-in, snack stands or fast food: 15 spaces minimum, or 1 space per 2.5 permanent Mats, whichever is greater; Retail stores: I space per 200 square feet of floor area; Soorts arenas, auditoriums, theaters: 1 space per 3.5 seats of maximum seating capacity; Wholesale establishments. warehouses, service and maintenance canters: I space per 1,5 persons em;doyed ST any one time in the normal operation of the plant or 1 space per 1000 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater; Uses not listed: as required by Chuia Vista Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle perking spaces shell be provided for developed uses according the following schedule. Only those uses listed below are required to provide bicycle perking. Bicycle perking facilities shall be fixed storage racks or devices designed to secure the frame and wheel of the hicyde. Business and professional offices (over 20,000 square feet of gross floor area): 5 spaces; ShoDDine center (over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area): 1 space per 33 automobile spaces required; Fast food restaurant, coffee shoo, or delicatessen: 5 spaces; 110113/92) lli-25 Resolution No. 16838 Page 68 Objective PK.2 Policy PK.2.A Objective PK,3 Policy PK.3.A Objective PK.4 Policy PK.4.A Policy PK.4,B C~h~r ea'~no and ,Mnkina establishments: 2 spaces; Commercial recreation: 1 space per 33 automobile spaces required. Provide adequate parking for all public park and opcn space uses in the Bayfront. Public parking areas shall be provided st community perks. The perking areas shall be integrated into the open space areas close to the roadways and, where possible, Icreened from view. With the exception of the National Wildlife Refuge, for which.no leperate perking is required, one perking place for every 10,000 quare feet of perk or accessible open space shall be provided. Parking for pubiin uses may be 'shared" with that for private development as provided for below. Provide parking in an efficient manner, sharing spaces among uses when practical. Implementation of the 'shared parking" concept shall be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposed mix of uses have predictable parking demands that do not significantly ovedap. The methods end criteria set forth in Shared Parkinc published by the Urban Land Institute, shall be used to calculate the parking reduction permitted within a mixed-use project. No reduction shall be permitted without specific justification and no reduction in residential parking shall be permitted. Any parking which is shared among uses shah be available for use during normal operating hours and shall not be reserved or otherwise restricted. Control of uses intending to use shared parking shall be by Conditional Use Permit. Parking should be provided in a manner which does not intrude on the scenic qualities of the Bayfront. In order to maintain views from the major roadways to the shoreline and major development sites, street side parking will not be permitted along any of the major roadways identified in the Circulation Plan including Marina Parkway, Tidelands Avenue, 'E" Street, Lagoon Drive, or Bay Boulevard. Perking included as part of private development shall provide for the following: Location. Parking shall be located in areas away from the shoreline and public open space corridors. Screenins. Where feasible, parking will be screened from view from the major afteriSis by the use of landscaped berms and tree planting. 111-26 Resolution No. 16838 Page 69 Objective PK.5 Policy PK.5.A TYPe. Where possible, open, large scale paring will be avoided in favor of underground or smaller disaggregated paring areas separat- ed by buildings or landscaping. Structured parking shall be encour- aged where additional open space or other public benefit can be prodded. A minimum of 75% of the require parking for the Resort Core DIstrict end resldentiel uses in the Mldbeyfront shall be provided in subterranean or concealed parking structures. Utilize the SDG&E ROW to meet parking requirements, if it is landscaped to improve the appearance of the Bayfrom. Where parking Is incorporated into the SDG&E ROW th/ough the use of the bonus provilions of the plan, the parking Ireas shall be landscaped with a continuous perimeter planting of trees end ground covers. The tree planting will be tightly spaced to provide · dense canopy at eye level. Tree species will be limited to those that will not interfere with the overhead power lines and trimmed as necessary to meet standards of SDG&E. {10'13/92) 111-27 Resolution No. 16838 Page 70 C. Paysiod Form and Appearam~e The Bayfront provides a unique ~pporcunity ~o e.~ablish a harmonious relationship between the natural setting and the man-made envh'onmcnt. The ~ea's natural resources and scenic quality provide a setting which have a distinctive appearance and in ram, can promote economic success for activities locating in proximity to it. Moreover, development which is properly sited and designed can support these natural areas in permanent reserve and provide for controlled access and enjoyment of them by the public. 1. Existina Conditions The Bayfront, by virtue of its location on San Diego Bay, represents a visual resource for the city and the region. Given the visibility of the coastal zone from major highways and streets, the Bayfront has the potential to ereate a defining City image. The Bayfront is characterized, from north to south, by the National Wildlife Refuge with the Nature Intarpretive Center, a relatively flat upland area which is currently vacant (Midbayfrom Subarea), major industrial facilities associated with Rohr, Inc., the SI)G&E power plant, salt ponds, and a variety of smaller commercial and industrial uses to the south. Existing landmarks in the Bayfront are the Nature Interpretlye Center, the Rohr facilities, and the SDG&E plant with tall stacks. Electrical transmission towers extend northward from the SDG&E plant, through the Bayfront and across the Sweetwater River, to National City and beyond. 2. General Form and Appearance Obiectives/Policies The basic objectives to integrate man's use of the land and water resources into a sensitive natural environment are listed with implementing policies below. Following sections provide specific policy language for gateways, architectural edges~ views, and landscape. Objective FA. 1 Preserve existing wetlands in a healthy state to ensure the aesthetic enjoyment of marshes and the wildlife which inhabit them. Policy FA.1 .A The provisions of the Environmental Management section of tha Land Use Ran shall be implemented to assure that existing wetlands, most of which are located within the National Wildlife refuge. are protected and maintained in a healthy state while construction and development occurs in adjacent areas. Objective FA.2 Change the existing substandard industrial image of the Bayfront, and develop a new identity consonant with its future public and commercial recreational role. Policy FA.2.A New development within the Bayfront shall be consistent with the land use designations permitted in the Land Use end Development Intensity section. The majo~t~ of new development shell be visitor sewing commercial, park, recreation, and residential, wlffi only a very fimited amount of additional industrial development permiRed. The scale of these new uses combined with improved landscaping and (10/13/92) Ili-28 Resolution No. 16838 Page 71 screening of exiting industrial devdopment will benefit the image of the Bayfront ee a whole. Objective FA.3 Improve the visual quality of the shoreline by promoting both public and private uses which will provide for proper restoration, landscaping, and maintenance of shoreline areas. Policy FA.3,A The Land Use Ran designates improved public parkland and open apace along ~e shoreline area of the Midbeyfront. Landscape and improvement standards for them areas will result in · major improve* ment in the visual quality of the shoreline. Objective FA.4 Remove, or mitigate by landscaping, structures or conditions which have a blightlng influence on the area, Policy FA.4.A New development within the Bayfront shall be constructed according to the high quality and aesthetic standards act forth in the Land Use Plan. Continuing development end/or redevelopment will displace abandoned or substandard structures which have e hiighting influence. Any areas disturbed by development ahall be completely landscaped. However, the landscaping ehall be consistent with the Environmental Management policies herein, and ahall also give priority to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials. Objective FA.5 Develop a readily understandable and memorable relationship of ~e Bayfront (and the areas and elements which comprise it) to adjoining areas of Chula Vista and to the freeway and arterial approaches to the Bayfront. Policy FA.5.A New development within the Midbayftont shall be controlled by policies herein, including specific height, use, parking, and develop- ment intensity restrictions. In addition, it ahall be further controlled by a "master plan" which will fully integrate the project with adjacent areas, thereby creating a project which is unified in appearance and function. To promote these objectives and policies, the Form and Appearance provisions of the Land Use Plan acknowledge three major components which comprise the physical form of the area: 1) natural resource areas to be preserved; 2) an accessible open space system including walkways, bicycle ways, and park areas: and, 3) development units having common usage and/or qualities, which should be treated as distinctive, but closely interrelated, visual entities. To reinforce the physical quality of these three components the Form and Appearance Map, Exhibit 7, identifies: 1) major gateways; 2) architectural edges; 3) views, and 4) landscape character and function. I11-29 Resolution No. 16838 Page 72 Resolution No. 16838 Page 73 3, Bayfront Gateway Objectives/Policies Certain points of access to the Bayfront will, by use, become major entrances to the different parts of the area. A significant portion of the visitors' and users' visual impressions are influenced by conditions at these locations. Hence, it is imperative that special consideration be given to roadway design, including signing and lighting, landscaping, and sitin~ and design of adjoining structures. These special gateway locations are shown on the Form and Appearance Map, Exhibit 7. Objective GT. 1 Maximize the sense of arrival and invitation to the Bayfront via the 'E" Street entry. Policy GT.1.A 'E' Street Entry from east of I-5. A dense canopy of trees on both ides of Madna Parkway shell be provided to obscure views of the SDG&E power lines and focus views on the immediate landscape of the street and down the street towards the water's edge. The street trees shear be closely spaced and in · regular pattern to achieve this objective, However, plant species and spacing shell be selected end deigned to protect end enhance public views to the bay. Immediate- ry west of the freeway future buildings on The north side should be sited and deigned to reinforce the sense of entry created by the street trees and existing building mass of the restaurant on the south side. Southbound I-5 off-ramo to "E" Street/Bay Boulevard. A similar sense of entry shall be created at this entry. A canopy of trees shall be provided along both sides of Bay Boulevard to screen the power lines and transmission towers from view and direct motorists to the "E' Street/Marina Parkway intersection. The intersection should be enhanced with landscaping, signage, lighting, paving and other fea- tures which will identify it as a pedestrian and vehicular gateway to the Beyfront. "E" Street (Marina Parkwav)/Bav Boulevard intersection. When approaching and crossing Bay Boulevard, the continuation of street trees and landscaping will create a view corddor to the Bay, framed by buildings on either side of Marina Parkway. Special attention will be required to ensure that adequate building setbacks and siting criteda will locate buildings to frame and not block the long range view to the water. Policy GT.1 .B Marina Parkwav/Tidelanda Avenue interseotion, Views shall be locally focused within this area to enhance the sense of arrival at the center of urban activity. Special attention should be given to plazas, planting and other landscape features to reinforce the area as a focal point. Policy GT.1 .C Marina ParkwavlGunDowder Point Ddve intersection. To the weet of the Marina Parkway/Tidelends Avenue intersection, views will open up to the bey, park and wetsands, The residential area on the north 110!13/921 III-31 Resolution No. 16838 Page 74 *;de of MariM Parkway marks the utoan edge of the beyfront and hips direct views towards the open spaces. Street ~'ees and landscaping along the parkway wgl also direct and flame views. Policy GT.1 ,D Views to Vener Pond (wildlife refuse). The above described views ~hould be followed by panoramic views of across perk and open apace areas to Vener Pond, Gunpowder Point and Sen Diego Bay. Major mauing of trees shall be avoided along this portion of the shoreline to protect the view. 4, Architectural Edaes Objectives/Policies The interface of open spaces, such as parks and natural habitats, with developed areas, constitute functionally and visually critical areas deserving special design aention. Objective AE. 1 Design development to appropriately respond to functional requirements (e.g., buffer. transition, etc.) created by its location within the Bayfront. Policy AE.1 .A Structures shall be *;ted a sufficient distance from natural habitat areas, as indicated in the Environmental Management section, to protect the natural setting and prevent interference with wildlife. Policy AE.1 .B Structures shall be *;ted at a sufficient distance from the marsh edge or open space edge to ensure unencumbered pedestrian and bicycle aCCeSS. Policy AE.1 .C Structures shall be designed to ensure that the uses which take place in a structure or private space adjoining the structure do not detract from, or prevent appropriate public use of, adjoining public open spaces. in turn, the public areas shall be designed and uses regulated in a manner which does not diminish the intended private use of adjoining developed lands. Objective AE.2 Utilize firm and irregular appearing development edges to enhance the appearance and function of development in the Bayfront. Policy AE.2.A Firm edges shall be implemented where there is a readily distinguish- able and abrupt change from open space to building mass. Firm edges are shown in the Form and Appearance Map, Exhibit 7. These are areas where a strong visual form, generally linear, is necessary to provide either for a terminus of views, visual distinctions between areas, channeled or controlled views in certain directions, or a sense of entry or arrival. These edges generally would be formed by build- ings but also may be achieved by use of earth betas or mass plantjogs. Policy AE,2.B Irregular edges shall be used where open spaces and buildings are more intricately intertwined at a small scale. Irregular edges are shown where it is visually desirable to soften or de-emphasize the ( 10/I 3/92) 111-32 Resolution No. 16838 Page 75 distinction between open space areas and adjoining development. This prevents harsh contrasts between different areas, allows visual penetration between areas, end variation in the spatial experiences and qualities in them areas, 5. Views Obiectives/Policies Objective VW. 1 Plan and develop the Bayfront to ensure provision of important views to, from and within the project area. Policy VIN,1 .A Views from the Freeway and Major Entry. DevelopmentJhajl provide an etlractive view onto the ajte and establish · visual relationship with the Bay, marshes, and Bay-rdated development. High rise structures shall be sited in the general location indicated on the Building Heights exhibit to minimize view obstruction, Views from Roadways Within the Site (particularly from Marine Parkway, to the marshlands, Bay, parks and other Bay-related development.) Development and activity sites shall preserve 8 sense of proximity to the Bay and marshlands. Views from the Perimeters of the BaYfront OttoNard, This view is primarily a pedestrian-oriented stationary view and more sustained. These views will be experienced from the various parts of the open apace and pathway system and enable persons to renew visual con- tact at close range with the Bay end marshlands. Some close-range pedestrian views may be blocked to protect sensitive species in the Wildlife Refuge, Hioh-rise Development Vistas. The limited high-rise development within the Midbayfront shall maximize the panoramic view opportuni- ties created with increased height. High rise structure shall be sited in the general location indicated on the Building Heights exhibit to minimize view obstruction. 6. Landscape Character and FunCtion Objectives/Policies Four major landscape components are utilized to establish strong visual continuity in response to various functional needs. These are Landscape Screening, Parking Area Planting beneath the SDG&E power lines. lnformal Groves in public parkland, and Formal Street Tree Planting on major circulation spines. The characteristics and representative species for the various landscape functions are shown in Table 3-3. Conceptual locations for each type of landscape treatment are indicated on the Form and Appearance Map, Exhibit 7. Objective LS.1 Utilize various landscape design treatments to improve the aesthetics of the Bayfront, help define land use and circulation patterns, and transition from the urbanized environment to natural open space areas. (10'I3/92) 111-33 Resolution No. 1683B ,, Page 76 Policy LS.I.A Policy LS.1 ,B Policy LS.1 ,C Policy LS. 1 .D LandscaN Screening. Dense plantlnge of bees and shrubs shall be used in certain locations 'tivougho~ the Bayf~ord: TO serve three purposes: 1 ) to diminish the visual Impact of large existing Industrial atTucturee, such as thole of Rohr, Inc,, the SDG&E p/am end transmission towers, and extensive paring and outdoor Itorage areas; 21 to help define major em~/points to the Beyfront and to frame views; end, 3) to be used in easels at visual stopping points to limit views and provide neturld verfjcbi elements. Parking Area Planting, Automobile paredna hem been recognized by SDG&E as · comdetjbie joint use of their 150-foot wlbe. dOht-of-way that bisects the entire Beyfront. In order TO diminish the visual impact Of the power lines and to strengthen the ground plane connection patwean beth aim of the right-of-way, an aggressive planting program shall he implemented with parking improvements beneath the power lines, SDG&E cdteria will only permit planting which can be maintained at no more then fifteen feet in height, thereby maintaining sufficient clearance at the lowest point in the power line catangry. Ranting in the parking areas shad establish a dense ground plane masslng of shrubs end short trees to create a grove effect that screens cars from view. Informal GroveS. A series of informal groves have been identified in the Form and Appearance Map, Exhibit 7, which identify the major public parks interconnected by continuous pedestrian circulation along the Bsyfront's edge and into its interior, These groves shall be planted with the same species in informal drifts to provide shade for recreational uses. The groves shall be sited to avoid blocking panoramic views to the wetlands and bay. Formal Street Tree Plantinq. Formal street tree planting has been designated for the major circulation spines of the Bayfront. The planting should be in regularly spaced intervals using species with predictabTe form characteristics to achieve strong linear avenues That guide views and establish perspective. 110/13/~) IH-34 Resolution No. Z6838 Page 77 TABLE 3-3 TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE FUNCTION CHARACTERISTICS~ Landscape * 40 to 60 ft. high Screening * Upright form · Evergreen Parking Area * 10 to 15 ft. high Planting * Globular or multi- stem form · Evergreen Informal * 40 to 80 ft. high Groves * Up-right and open branching to con- trast with dense vertical form Formal * 40 to 60 ft. high Street Tree * Crown shaped form REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES * Melaleuca * Eucalyptus Sp. * Ligustrum Nerium · Oleander REPRESENTATIVE LOCATIONS * Bay Boulevard * SDG&E ROW * Platanus acerfolia · Parks (to match existing park) * Pine sp. · FiCUS nitida ·Picus rubiginosa * Tidelands Avenue * Marina Parkway , "E" Street ~Height may be limited In areas adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge (see Environmental Management). (10/13/92) II1-35 Resolution No. 16838 Page 78 D. Utilities and Areawide Grading The utility improvements proposed to serve the Bayfront are interrelated to provide the most costseffective means for servicing the developable areas. Extension of existing utilities and upgrading in mainline sizes is required for water and sewer. Additionally, electrical service, telephone, and gas services will be provided hut are not included on the schematic Utilities System Map, Exhibit 8. Grading and drainage concepts are incorporated into the street plans to utilize the streets in the storm water collection system. Building pad grades and generalized design grades for streets are designated to ensure protection from concurrent storm and high tide events and to provide sufficient cover over underground utilities. 1. Existing Conditions Soils and Geolog,v Surface and sub-surface conditions vary throughout the Bayfront. Portions of the site consist of original dry uplands Within these areas, no difficult or unusual land development problems are anticipated for standard building construction. However, in the balance of the area. settlement hazards exist. The senlemem hazards are attributable to the presence of relatively shallow sur~cial deposits of soft compressible ha3, mud throughout the historic marsh lands and the tidal flats. as well as in deeper water areas. This mud. an organic silly clay, has an almost liquid consistency and makes a poor foundation material It tends to ooze out from beneath heavy loads or. when confined, to compress over a period of years under the weight of fill or structures. Within the study area the thickness of this mud layer is typically between 5 and 10 feet, but it can be found in thicknesses up to 20 feet There appears little correlation between mud thickness and distance from shoreline. Mud thicknesses of 8 feet are common one mile from shore, while deposits up to 17 feet thick were found in the filled Chula Vista Marina area Mud thickness tends to be highly variable near the shoreline This fact makes near-shore land development particularly difficult since the irregular settlement associated with such deposits is detrimental to structures and utilities. Two major faults have been mapped near the Chula Vista waterfront area: the north-northwest trending Rose Canyon/San Diego Bay/Tijuana fault, and the east-west Otay fault. Although the exacl trace of each is not known. the San Diego Bayf'rijuana fault alignment is probably situated approximately in the center of the Bay, about one-half mile west of the Chula Vista waterfront. The Otay fault is thought to underlie alluvial fill in the Otay River valley approximately three miles south of the Chula Vista waterfront There is no evidence that indicates the San Diego Bay/Tijuana fault system is presently active, although it has apparently undergone repeated movement within the last 100,000 years While there is little reason to expect additional movements along this fault within the usual economic life of most engineering projects (50 to 100 years), the possibility of renewed activity cannot be disregarded in evaluating the safety of critical structures such as power plants, public assembly buildings, etc. The probable effect of renewed activity along the San Diego Bay/Tijuana or other nearby faults would be moderate to severe ground shaking, with surface rupture on the Chu]a Vista site unlikely. The planning implications of these soils and geologic conditions relate to public safety and the ecooomics of developmem. There is the possibility of soil liquefaction during a severe earthquake IlO 13'921 I11-36 Resolution No. 16838 Page 79 This is of special concern in tideland areas reclaime~ by hydraulically-placed fills. Extensive evaluations of the soil conditions have been made. However a detailed evaluation of liquefaction should be routinely made for any future major Bayfront engineer'rag project. With the exception of original Upland areas, geotechnical conditions will have a major effect on site and building construction costs due to foundation and seismic problems. Utility and Roadway Improvements The northern portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront (north of 'F" SWeet) is primarily vacant at this time. Utilities have been stubbed t~ the boundaries of the site and a major sewer line passes along the western edge of the property. Most of the utility lines arc at the edge of a utility district and lack a complete network to provide sewer and water service to initial projects without looping utilities or building off-site improvements. Marina Parkway has been constructed from "J" Street at I-5 westerly and northerly to the north end of Rohr Industries (at the prolongation of "G" Sweet). The majority of that sweet, together with the recently completed Chula Vista Marina and RV Park, are on Unified Port District property. Existing streets and utility systems provide service to the southern portions and inland parcels of the Bayfront. The project is served water by the Sweetwater Authority which obtains Water from local reservoirs and purchases from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). The SDCWA is furnished water by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California via aqueducts including a 69-inch pipeline which Sweetwater Authority taps near the Sweetwater Reservoir seven miles east of the project The Metropolitan Sewerage System of San Diego (Metro System), of which Chula Vista is a member agency, serves the City via a 78-inch diameter trunk sewer which lies easterly of the on- site railroad line and drains northerly to the Point Loma Sewage Treatment Plant. Future improvements to the regional system may include a pump station at the northeastern edge of the Midbay front 2. Utility Service Obiectives/Policies Objective US 1 Provide adequate sizing of utility lines to assure sufficient capacity for the most intensive uses. Polioy US. 1 .A The schematic water and sewer systems to serve the proposed development are depicted in Exhibit 8, Utility Systems Map. Policy US.1.B The basic water service for the area shall be water mains in 'E" Street/Marina Parkway, 'F' Street/Lagoon Ddve, 'G' Street, end 'H" Street. Water main sizes will be determined Through detailed engineering studies for the proposed new development. Static water pressure within the syatem shall be maintained to the III-37 (10'13/92) Resolution No. 16838 Page 80 ! ? Resolution No. 16838 Page 81 Policy US.1.C Policy US.1 .D sstlafaction of the Water District end Fire Marshall. A water main in 'G' Street connects the lines in Say Boulevard and Marina Parkway. TIle pipellne is necenary to maintain 8 looped system for devel- opment of the project. An easement for pipdine operation should he maintained even though the eras may he fanned by or conveyed to Rohr, Inc. Phased development may require off-site pipeline construction, eapeoiagy in industrial areas, to maintain adequate pressure end fire flows. The major factor in sizing pipelines shelf be fire flows, especially commercial or industrial buildings. Sewers in the Midbayfront development area shall drain to an existing manhole north of Marina Parkway where sewage metaddn0 faoi~ties would be constructed. 3, Areawide Gradinl Objectives/Policies Objective GR l Protect existing natural resources from any significant adverse impacts during construction. Policy GR. 1 .A Special care shall be taken in development proposals adjacent to wetland habitat to avoid or minimize prollama of silting and oil or chemical leakage. A major siltarSon basin shell be built in the Midbayfront to accept surface drainage and provide for desSiting during and after construction of development projects and for oil end chemical entrapment. Policy GR.1 .B All grading and stockpiling of earthen mateddais is prohibited between November 1 and March 31, except w here proposed land development meets the requirements of Section V.J.2 of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Grading from April 1 through October 31 ahall be subject to standard practice. Policy GR.1 .C All grading shall comply with the environmental protection policies of the Environmental Management section. Refer to the two beck* ground documents referenced in Section Ill-E, Environmental Management, Background/ExiSting Conditions, herein, which provide relevant information for the deign and evaluation of grading in the Midbayfront. 4. Utili~' and Gradinl~ Design Obiectives/Policies Objective GD. 1 Provide for an adequate on-site storm drainage system to preclude storm water nan-off development from draining directly into wet]and habitat without adequate filtering of sediments or poilutants. d013/92) III-39 Resolution No. 16838 Page 82 Policy GD.1 .A Policy GD.1 .B Policy GD.1 .C Objective GD.2 Policy GD.2.A Deign to accommodate drainage of storm flows shall consider ~e elevation of higher high tide and require gravity pipe or street flow to the ntisfaction of the City Engineer. Special design criteeis shall be required at the marshes to reduce problems of -;Iting and oil or chemicals antedrig wetlands in storm water ranoff. Development within the Bayfront shaft comply with all applicable regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set forth in the National Pcilutant Discharge Bimination System (NPDES} permit requirements for storm water discharges, as required by the City. Minimize the import of soil to that necessary for the protection of developable areas from flooding during the 100 year design storm. Habitable areas shall be located above the 100-year flood level (approximately elevation 10) and above higher high tide level. Sufficient cover to prevent flooding of underground utility systems during concurrent storm and high-tide events shall also be provided. Excavatjon of underground parking or other subterranean structures will provide fill material for other components of the project. Any additional fill shall be minimized. Water table elevations shall be carefully considered in the deign of all subterranean building components and related features. Final design shall ensure that no permanent de-watering systems are required. IIl-40 Resolution No. 16838 Page 83 E, Environmental Management 1. Background/Existing Conditions A continuing major objective of the Chula Vista LCP has been the preservation, protection and enhancement of sensitive wetlands and upland wildlife habitat resources in file Bayfront. With the 1988 establishment of the 316 acre National Wildlife Refuge, a substantial portion of this objective was achieved. Vimally all the wetlands and binlogically-valuable upland resources identified in the 1994 LCP are now incorporated in the National Wildlife Refuge under Federal ownership and management. Now that preservation of these resources is assured, it is appropriate that the environ- mental management focus emphasize long-term protection and enhancement. Accordingly, the primary environmental management objective of the Land Use Plan is the on-going, Iong-lerm protection of critical natural habitat areas. In ~ditinn, a major secondary objective is the enhancement of natural resources in the Chula Vista Bayfront, with. particular emphasis on the resources in the National Wildlife Refuge. Thus, the Environmental Management Objectives and Policies focus primarily on protection of natural resources by ensuring that development of the Midbayfront (Subarea 1) is planned and implemented in a manner that is compatible with the resources of the Wildlife Refuge. Toward this end, the majority of the Environmental Management Policies speak to mitigation of impacts of anticipated development in the Midbayfront. To assist in the preparation and evaluation of the management plans, specified in Policies EM.1C. and EM.1.D. required herein, the following background documents are hereby referenced: Final EIR Volume I & 11 for Midbayfront LCP Resubmiual No. 8 Amendment, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council as Resolution No. 16467~ including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit B; 2. Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit No. 88-267 RH, including thirteen special conditions; Chula Vista Investors' (CVI) Proposed Mitigation Measures for Final EIR - CVI Mldbayfront Development Plan, December 16, 1990. (Design Requirements USFWS); 4. Lener to Brooks Hatper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Merjan (CVI), dated January 15, 1991; 5. Letter to Brooks Hatper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors, dated March 11, 1991; 6 Letter to Brooks Hatper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista investors, dated March 22, 1991; 111-41 Resolution No. 16838 Page 84 7. LetXar to Brooks Hatper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors, dated May 8, 1991; 9, 10. IEer to Douglas D. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks Harpcr, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, data May 23, 1991; Letter W Diana Richardson, Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, dated January 14, 1992; and; Letter W Brooks Herper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chum Vista Investors, dated February 6, 1992; 2. Environmental Management Objectives/Policies Objective EM. 1 Provide for the long-tom pwtection and enhancement of the critical natural habitat areas by cooperating in a multi-jurisdictional pining and implementation program with adequate safeguards and guarantees. Policy EM.1.A Coordination with the San Diego Unified Port Dietdct in the develop- ment of plans end programs for areas adjacent to the Chula Vista Bayfront shall be maintained to assure that environmental manage- ment objectives in the Bayfront Land Use Plan can be successfully implemented. Policy EM,1 ,B Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W$) shall be maintained for the development of plans and programs adjacent to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Policy EM,1 .C Habitat Restoration and Manecement Ran. To ensure an ordedy and efficient implementation of the various restoration and enhancement features and actions specified for the Midbayfront, s comprehensive Habitat Restoration and Management Ran shall be prepared end ap- proved prior to initiation of development within the Midbeyfront. The Habitat Restoration and Management Ran shall address in detail the following considerations associated with implementing the specified restoration and enhancement work as well as the long term management of the areas restored or enhanced: s. Engineering deign, grading plan, end cost analysis. b. Vegetation deign, including specifications for planting program, source of plants, etc. c. Implementation schedule and phasing. (10/13/9'2) 111-42 Resolution No. 16838 Page 85 Policy EM.1 .D Policy EM. 1 .E {1GI13/92) d. Management program. e. Monitoring program. f. Maintenance program. g, Funding arrangements: implementation, monitoring, and main- tenance. h. Contractual agreements. i. Ownership transfer where appropriate. Preparation of this plan will involve perlicipation by the developer, the City, the California Coastal Commission, the USF&WS, and other re- source management agencies. Biological Resources Management Plan, Additjonal protection of the biological resources in the Wildlife Refuge shall be provided by the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive Biological Resources Management Ran for the Midbayfront development which will address the following matters: a. Architectural Design Requirements b. Project Lighting Design Requirements c. Landscape Design and Management d. Predator Management e. Human Activities Management f. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring g. Water QualitylRunofflDrainage Management h. Construction Monitoring and Management i. CC&R's/Ordinances/Applicabie Policies j. CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Requirement Preparation of this plan will involve partjcipation by the Developer, the City, USF&WS, the California Coastal Commission end other resource management agencies as appropriate. The management provisions of the Land Use Plan are indicated graphically on the Environmental Management Map, Exhibit 9. They Ill-43 Resolution No. 16838 Page 86 Policy EM.1 .F Policy EM.1 .G provide for specific protection and enhancement measures for the wedand and upland resources with specific dedgn provisions for the cdtical wetland buffer colons illust~ated in a series of sections. The various mitigation features and actions specified for the Mid- beyfront shall be incorporated in the development design in order to reduce the adverse impacts of development on the adjacent natural resources. Generally, the specified features and octions focus on the interface areas between the Midbeyfront Suberas and the adjoining National Wildlife Refuge. Them features and actions are summarized in Table 3-4. MidbaYfront North/Northwest Interface Area. The following design elements shall be employed in this interface area in order to protect the resources in the adjoining portions of the wildlife refuge. Primary Buffer Zone elements: (Refer to Exhibits 10 & 1 I} Width: 100 feet (minimum) Form: Variable height berm to prevent visual disturbance of wildlife in refuge. Vegetation: Maximum use of coastal sage scrub Drainage: Away from wildlife refuge Access Control: Chain Link fence screened by vegetation Lighting: Directed away from refuge Controls on: Pets. children, picnic & food service areas, trash and garbage, etc. Resolution No. 16838 Page 87 m~ Resolution No. 16838 Page 88 Resolution No. 16838 Page 8g Policy EM.1 .H Policy EM.1 .I Midbavfront South Interface Area. Becalms of pre4xistjng physical constraints at and adjoining the 'F-G' Street Marsh area, a cifferant mitigation apfxoach shall be employed for the South Interface Area. Specifically, along the north and west margins of the 'F-G' Sttest marsh area, the road areas of 'F' Street (Lagoon Drive) and Marina Parkway, together with dense vegarational screening, shall serve as the buffer area. Vegetational screening of 'F-G' Street marsh from Lagnon Drive end Marina Parkway will employ native plants including coastal sage scrub and madtime succulents. Chdin-link fence will be !ncorporatad in and largely concealed by the vegarational screening. Vegetation shall be sufficiently dense to prevent direct illumination of the marsh by headlights of passing vehicles. To control quality of storm water and other fresh water runoff entering the 'F-G" Street Marsh, the developer shall construct and malesin a alesilting basin on the north side of "F' Street. Control structures will include a low flow stage, three-chamber trap for oil, grease, and pardculates. Because the USF&WS anticipates use of the "F-G' Street Marsh for expanding the potential nesting habitat for the endangered Light Fooled Clapper Rail, there will be no public access end only one or two pedestrian overlook areas for this unit of the National Wildlife Refuge. Midbavfront West Interface Area. Along the Bay shoreline between the "E" Street Marsh and the western extension of the "F-G" Street Marsh, an upland ere about 100 feet wide by approximately 1,400 feet long (totalling approximately 3 acres} will be excavated and planted to create e corridor of salt marsh habitat immediately landward of the present shoreline. This marsh corridor will be protected from wave erosion by 8 ~ip-rep barrier and will facilitate movement of sensitive bird species (e.g., Clapper Rail) between the two marsh areas. Landward of this marsh corridor, the interface area shall have an elevated walk with screened viewpoints to provide views of the Bay and mudflats, The area farther landward will consist of passive use public parks that will enhance public access to the Bay margins. To protect the mucHtats and eel grass, storm drain outfalls to the Bay will have flow energy dissibetors end three-chamber type traps for oil, grease, end partic'dates. In addition, irrigation and other water sources in the development area shall be managed to echleve minimal to zero freshwater outflows to the Bay during the dr~ season. ( 1 o/13!~_1 1H-47 Resolution No. 16838 Page 90 Policy EM.1 .J A monitoring program $hell be implemented to eMure that Bey muo'flat~ and eel grel~ ere not adversely eftacted by storm drain outfiow. To protect the blologiCelly-riCh mudflat end eelgraM meadows in the areas of the Bay herdedrig on the National Wildlife Refuge, no recreational boating fadtides ere permitted in this pert of the Bay without SpedtiC approves of the USF&WS end the Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Coastal Commission. Midbevfront Habitat Restoration and Enhancement F~tures. The following actions Involve habitat restoration and enhancement which shall be inooq)oreted in the clevbiopment deign in order to provide mitigation for development impacts by improving The quality end biological values of weUands end uplands generally within the W'ddlife Refuge (Refer to Final E,I,R. Midbayfront LoCal Coastal Program Resubmittal). Restoration bY UDland Conversion to Wetlands. At the ~F*G · Street site, upland conversion to wetlend shall be provided at three locations (see Exhibit 10, "F-G' Street Marsh Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan} as follows: i) Ul~and conversion to provide 3.5 acres of year-round freshwater marsh along the east and northeast margins of the site. This freshwater marsh replaces the roughly 3.0 acres of degraded seasonal wetland that will be removed for construction of the desiltation basin. ii) Upland conversion to provide at least 2.3 acres of salt marsh, primarily along the west and north*central margins of the existing salt marsh, thus expanding the "F-G" Street salt marsh. iii) Upland conversion to provide 2.0 acres of salt marsh immediately west of Marina Parkway, thus extending the "F-G · Street salt marsh to connect directly with Sen Diego Bay. In addition, at the "D· Street Fill, approximately 15 acres of new salt marsh will be constructed by removal of fill, and at Gunpowder Point, about 2 acres of freshwater marsh will be constructed by excavation of upland. Enhancement of Existins Habitat. At the "F-G" Street site, existing habitat shell be enhanced at three locations as follows: i) Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded high marsh along the east margin of the "F-G" Street salt marsh (See Exhibit 10). i 1 o'13/9:/ 111-48 Resolution No. 16838 Page 91 Policy EM.1 .K ii) Upgrede 0.5 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub bordering the ~outh margin of the 'F-G' Street Marsh. iii} Provide new coastal sage habitat (or upgrede existing severely degraded coast/sage scrub habitat) totaling at 2.0 acres along selected upland margin of the 'F-G' Street site and the extension west of Marina Parkway es shown in Exhibit 10. Enhancement of Water n,ud~W. In order to enhance the quality of wetland habitat at the 'F-G' Street site, the supply of water to the site shall be enhanced by the following: i) Improve quality of upland storm water runoff by construction and operation of a desilting basin of approximately 9.5 acre feet capacity ,located on north side of Lagoon Drive. ii) Improve access of tidal waters to the "F-G" Street salt marsh by increasing the number and size of culverts under the adjoining roadway {i.e., Marina Parkway). Other Enhancement Features/Actions, Other enhancement features and actions that shall be provided at or adjoining the "F-G" Street site are: i) Enhancement of habitat quality and wildlife value by providing perimeter fencing to control human access and screening the marsh from street-level view (except at selected pedestrian viewpoints) by massed plantinge of coastal sage scrub in association with the perimeter fencing. ii) Facilitating movement of Clapper Rails and other marsh fauna by construction of a passage under Marina Parkway. Additionally, the 100-foot wide Primary Zone along the northern and northwestern interface with the Wildlife Refuge {i.e., 'E" Street, Vener end Sweetwater marshes), will constitute a major enhance- ment feature. This buffer will have a length greater than 3500 feet and will provide approximately 8.5 acres of new coastal sage scrub/succulent scrub habitat. Phasing of Environmental Mitication Measures/ImDrovementa for the Midbavfront Subarea. The preparation of management plans end the implementation of mitigation measures/improvements shall be required prior to the issuance of the first building permit in any area designated on the Land Use Ran, Exhibit 2, as CRD, RH, or PR in the Midbay front Subarea, as follows: 110/13/92) 111-49 Resolution No. 16838 Page 92 Policy EM.1 .L i) Except for the re,oration and enhancement features specified above for the 'D" Street fi and Gunpowder Point. ag restoration and enhancement features called out in Policy EM.1 .J. are required. ii) A funding agreement between the developer and the U.S. Fish & IArddljfe Sedvca In required for ~e 'D" Street fill (15 acre nIT marsh) and the Gunpowder Point {2 acre freshwater marsh), which are located within the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The implementation of these enhancement features shall be ~e responsibility of the U.S. Fish & Wil'elfe Sen, ice. Environmental Marmoement of Unddlnaated ResourceS. Sendfive hahitata exist in areas nat delineated, including but not limited to the Feivre Street Subarea, the Inland Parcel Subarea, and the *J' Street Marsh. it is required that a~ environmental resources are analyzed by an environmental professional, and that an Environmental Manage- ment Ran is adopted to protect any sensitive habitats discovered, prior to the commencement of any addidonel development. 111-50 Resolution No. 16838 Page 93 TABLE 3-4 SUMMARY OF RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT FEATURES AND ACTIONS FOR MIDBAYFRONT AREA Wetland 1) Freshwater Marsh 3.5 2) Salt Marsh (expansion) 2.3 3} Salt Marsh (extension) 2.0 4) Salt Marsh at "D' Street Fill 15.0 5) Fresh Water Marsh On Gunpowder Point 2.0 6) Salt Marsh at Bay Margin 3.0 Upland 7) Coastal Sage Scrub a} Perimeter screening b} Berm 2.0 8) Salt Marsh (high) 0.5 UPland 9) Coastal Sage Scrub 0.5 Water Quality Enhancement 10) Desilting Basin 11) Improved Tidal Flushing - (3 @ 48 inch di~eter culverts) other Enhancement 12) Access Control 13) Visual Screening 14) Bridge structure to provide underpass for Fauna 15) New Coastal sage scrub/succulent scrub habitat in primary buffer zone. 8.5 (10'13'921 Ill-51 Resolution No. 16838 Page 94 Exhibit 11 F-C) Street i'vlaFsh ConceptuaJ Plan FOF Restoration and Enhancen~ent Resolution No. 16838 Page 95 IV. SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES In addition to the areawide objectives and plan provisions, the Land Use Plan provides site specific development and design provisions which are unique to each of the eight individual subareas within the Local Coastal Zone. A. Subarea 1 - Midbayfront In this section, objectives and policies are arranged under the same five issue categories: Land Use and Intensity, Circulation and Public Access, Physical Form and Appearance, Utilities and Areawide Grading, and Environmental Management, discussed in the Areawide Chapter of the Land Use Plan. To further focus on the unique requirements of various portions of the Subarea, four sectors or deveJopment areas are identified: - Resort Core - Residential Village/Park Sector - Park Sector - City/Highway Sector These sectors are logical subareas of Subarea 1 and have as boundaries the major plan streets. The Resor~ Core is bounded by SDG&E ROW on the east, "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) on the south, and Marina Parkway on the west and north. The Residential Village/Park Sector is nor~ of Marina Parkway, between Gunpowder Point Drive and the SDG&E ROW, while the Park Sector is located south of Gunpowder Point Drive and west of Marina Parkway. The City/Highway Sector is located north of Marina Parkway, east of the SDG&E ROW and adjacent to 1-5. 1 Special Subarea Conditkons The Midbayfront includes approximately 116 acres which is the largest vacant parcel in the Bayfront available for new development. A major mixed-use, visitor oriented development is programmed for the site. Completion of this project will balance the current industrial focus of bayfront development. As the single largest new development area, the goals of improving the aesthetics of the Bayfront and creating an identifiable, attractive image for the coastal area and the City must be achieved through the Midbayfront project. Due to its important role and the unique character of development to be constructed, a comprehensive set of policies and implementation measures are required for the Midbayfront Subarea. 2. Land Use/Intensity Obiectives/Policies Objective SI.A Provide a well planned and designed, amenitized, mixed-use, visitor oriented development within the Midbayfront which is consistent with the Conceptual Development Plan approved by the City. Policy S1.A.1 The Conceptual Development Plan for the Midbuyfront depicts general lend uses in the pattern indicated on the Land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 3. In addition, it indicates a large public lagoon of {10/13/92/ IV-1 Resolution No. 1683B ,_ Page 96 Policy S1.A.2 approximately 7-10 acres associated with the re~ort core anti adjacent public use areas and a mailer private lagoon of about 3 acres aMocteted with residential development, Three hotels, major commercial r~reation facilecoo retail and residential ms are ales located within the Roeart Core. A large area of public parkl anti open space, Including buffers adjacent to the wffdiife refuge are indicated along the northern and western perimeter. Residential uses, aspport commercial, and an inn are depicted in the Residential Village/Park Sector. Development win the Midbayfront shall be govern by a 'meter p/an' which is consis- tent with the Conceptual Development Ran anti ,must be epproved prior to any development within the Midbeyfront. Although a canaan amount of flexibility is required as more detailed design occurs, conietency shall require provision of the land uses indicated in the general proportions allocated, in the general locations indicated, and compliance with the develop- ment intensity policies for the Subarea and the Bayfront Specific Plan. The following shall be the allocation of maximum permitted land uses/major development intensity for the Midbayfront Subarea: MIDBAYFRONT PROGRAM Residential Visitor Commercial Professional/ Administrative Cultural Arts Facility Parks and Recreation Water Open Space 1,355,000 af 1,906,000 sf 60,000 sf 75,000 sf spprox. 34 acres approx. 8 acres 8pprox. 22 acres The following is the proposed allocation of permitted land uses among the five sectors, {the maximums and minimums for the Central Resort District and defined in Table 3-2A). Central Resort District 1.968.000 i.~ Professional & Administrative 60,000 If Visitor (retail} 150,000 sf Visitor (non-retail) 1.360 rooms/I,146,000 sf Visitor Irecreation) 206,000 sf Residential (300 du) 406.000 sf Residential Village/ Park Sector 1.153.000 ~f Visitor (non-retail} 250 rooms/204.000 sf Residential {700 du) 949,000 If 1V-2 Resolution No. 16838 Page 97 Policy S1 .A.2 Policy S1 .A.3 Policy S1 .A.4 Policy S1 .A.5 Objective S1 .B Policy S1 .B.1 Park Sector Cultural Arts Facility 75.000 !:[ mm t= 2,ooo creel75,000 If CitvlHjohwev Parcel Visitor (non-retail) 250 rooms/200,000 sf The Midbayfront shell be I mixed-use project which combines into one development the facets of numerous activltiel se that the whale will be more active, more economically viahie, be a more desireble place to be, and ultimately u~e less energy than if these activities were separate and discrete. Active uses such as retail, commerelal recreation, and entertain- ment shall be located away from the edges of the Subarea and focused toward the antedot around the large water feature. Only roadways, residential and minor support commercial uses. park and cultural arts uses shall be located along the edge of develop- ment near wetlands. The Implementation Ran for the Midbayfront Subarea shall require buffer uses, including public perks, along the subarea perimeter which is adjacent to wetlands and the Bay. Where there are no buffer parks (e.g., "F-G' Street Marsh), standards to assure a buffer/separation shall be established consistent with the approved 404 permit (Army Corps Permit No. 88-267-RH). In the Central ReSort District, where uses Ihell be integrated vertically as well as horizontally. specific locations for specific uses shall not be required. The implementation Plan shall provide for appropriate three-dimensional integration of permitted uses in this area. Allow limited high-rise development in areas which will have minimal impacts to the National Wildlife Refuge and which is consistent with the Conceptual Development Plan. The permitled building height zones shall be defined with respect to the wetlands west of the SDG&E ROW. Each zone shall reflect increasing sensitivity approaching the wetlands. The zones shall be defined as follows: Primary Zone - within 100 feet of USF&WS property line: Limited public access (paths and overlooks only, no structures) (10/13/92) IV-3 Resolution No. 16838 Page 98 Park Land/Open Space Zone - next 100 feet landward from Pdmery Zone: public access and imlted structures permitted (e.g., park pavilions, pedestrian end blcyde pethi); limping and structures over 6 feet (including signs, ight sanclirds, etc.) must be screened from view of the wedand to the set((faction of USF&WS and California Department of Fish end Game; bu- lirnng height limit 30 feet. Limited Development Zone "A" - next 100 feet lindward from Parklind/Open Space Zone: building height limit 35 feet, except the Cultoral Arts Facility site where stnacturea to 10~) feet in height are permitted ee indicated in the Building Heights Map, Exblblt 4. Limited Development Zone "B* - next 100 feet landward from Limited Development Zone 'A': building height ~mit 44 feet, except that portion of the Central Core Sentor which may be within 300 feet of the USF&WS boar/where the height limit shall be 75 feet and s single high*dee hotel site (up to 229 feet) as indicated in the Building Hellihts Map, Exblblt 4. Development Zone - Property more than 400 feet from the National Wildlife Refuge property line shall be subject to the heights limits depicted on the Building Heights Map, Exhibit 4. Policy S1 .B.2 Notwithstanding the policy above, the horizontal zones for the "F-G" Street Marsh shall be controlled by the provisions of the approved 404 Permit (Army Corps Permit No. 88-267-RH). 3. Circulation/Public Access Objectives/Policies Objective Sl.C Provide adequate public circulation and access routes commensurate with the publicly oriented uses wiffijn the Midbayfront, including both vehicular routes and parking, and non-vehicular access. Policy S 1 .C. 1 The following public streets shall be required for the development planned within the Midbayfront: Madna Parkway shall be a dedicated 44one Major Street for most of its length within the Midbeyfront (64one major between Bay Boulevard end first intersection west). The width of Madrio Parkway shown on Exblblt 11 in the vicinity of F & G Street Marsh shall not be widened beyond that indicated therein. "F" Street (Lagoon Ddve) shall be provided between Bay Boulivard and Madrio Parkway as a ,I-line Cogentor. Gunoowder Point Ddye shall be maintained between the Nature Interpretire Center end Marina Parkway. (10/13/~) IV-4 Resolution No. 16838 Page 99 Policy S1,C.2 Policy S1 .C.3 Acceu to the CiwlHiohwav Sector parcel shall be addressed in the Midbay/Tom 'master plan' proceu, el long ms it is under I~parate ownership. The following types of pedestrian/bicycle paths shall he required for the development llenned within the Mldbayfront: TyPe I - Bicycle end ladestHen laths that traverse the buffering perks and one within the SDGE easement: minimum 8 foot blkeway with adjacent 6 foot ladestHen way {may be combined in 8 single 14 foot lath). Tvoa 2 - Bicycle end ladestHan laths along major vehicular ways: minimum 5½ foot sidewalk contiguous to curb and 8 foot bikelane in street. Tvoe 3 - Pedestrian walkways that connect through privately developed areas: minimum 25 foot promenade (building on one side with lagoon or open space on the other) or 30 foot walkway (buildings on both sides). Pedestrian and bicycle routes shall be provided in the following locations: Alone Dark/eDen space buffer perimeter with Type I path (including overlooks and interpreters signage) adjacent to National Wildlife Refuge. Within SDG&E ROW with Type 1 path extending from "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) north to connect to perimeter path along northern subarea boundary. "E" Street Trolley Station to Marina Parkway with Type 2 path along south side of 'E' Street and bridge over I-5. Alone Marina Parkway with Type 2 on beth sides of the street, Alone "F" Street from east of I-5 with Type 2 path along the north side of the bridge over I-5 to SDG&E ROW. Along "F" Street (Lagoon Drive} with Type 2 paths on beth sides of the street from SDG&E ROW to Madrig Parkway. Along oerimeter of lagoon in Resort Core with Type 3 path, else connecting to entryway at SDG&E ROW/'F"Street (Lagoon Drive} and private lagoon in Residendel Village/Perk Sector. These paths shall be integrated into the architecture/urban design of adjacent development and shall accommodate · variety of pedestrian activities - shopping, strolling, lagpie-watching, IV-5 Resolution No. 16838 Page 100 outdoor dining, entertainment, s;actal events, etc. Street vendor or outdoor retail/display areel ere encouraged adjacent to the ladestHan lath. Objective S1.D Vehicle parking areas wiffiin Subarea 1 should be obscured W achieve a pedestrian-oriented, village-scale aunosphere and open space aria. Policy S1.D.1 Subterranean parking shall be the preferred parking technique and shell be required for The majority of parking within the Resort Core end Residential Vglage/Perk Sector. A minimum of 75 percent of the required parking for the Central Resort DtltHct end Residential uses shall be provided in subterranean or concealed parking structures. Same surface end structured, above-grade parking is also allowed, Policy S1 .D.2 Subterranean parking shall be located st or below existing grade. Structures at grade shell be screened or laffially screened by earth barmad-up against the structure. Maximum dope for the bore shall be 2:1 or less, if required by City streetscala stan- dards. To the extent that all or a portion of the structure is below the new finish grade, that portion of the structure shall be considered "subterranean". Policy D.3 Any portion of a parking structure four feet or more above finish grade, shall be considered a building for setback purposes. Such structures shall be given special architectural/landscaping treatment to reduce visual impacts, Above-grade parking shall be constructed of permanent materials (demountable steel struc- tures are not allowed). Policy D.4 Shared parking shall be encouraged in the Midbayfront, as provided in Areawide Policy PK.3.A. 4. Physical Form and Appearance Objectives/Polices Objective S1 E Encourage high quality and well integrated mixed-use development with a harmonious relationship between sensitive wetlands and the built environment. The factors which are important to achieve this objective are: Landscape Character Bayfront Gateways Architectural Edges Views Building Placement Built From Relationships Architectural Character (10/13'92) IV-6 Resolution No. 16838 Page 101 Policy S1 .E.1 Policy SI .E.2 Policy S1.E,3 Policy S1.E.4 Policy S1 .E,5 Policy S1.E.6 Landscaping shall be used to screen those elements of the existing built environment which detract from the intended new image of the MldlayfronT as m destjnaUon resort. A Comprehen- live Landscaping Ran shell be required ms · component of the 'master plan' for development of the Mtdbayfront, The SDG&E ROW shall be fully landscaped in a manner consis- tent with its use as a trail corridor end perking area. Informal groves of trees shall be planted within the public perks to provide shade and definition end identjtication for the~e perks, subject to view condderationa and impacts to the wildlife refuge. Marina Parkway shell be identified with formal street planting (regular. evenly spaced trees). Landscaping shall provide visual connections which relate the surrounding environment to the Midbeyfront development. AT the development perimeter, landscaping shall provide screening and natural open space Ireas with a combination of man-made and natural barriers to control access into sensitive wetland areas. The transition of landscape from the perimeter areas into the core of the project shall involve several landscape "zones" comprised of different plant communities. These plant communi- ties shall consist of species selected according to irrigation and maintenance requirements, color, form and texture, to create compatible themes, These themes shall focus on the transition from the native we'dands environment to the formal character of streetscapes and urban plazas. The following shall be the definition of the plant communities by "zone". moving from development to the National Wildlife Refuge: 'Active Area' Zone - The landscape character found within the project core shall focus on the higher density and activities afforded by the proposed architectural theme. Many of the landscape areas shall consist of the plantinge in containers or terraced planters. Limited use of turfgrass shall be permitted as accents to the building forms and to create informal seating areas. Rant material shall have a more ornamental character and may have higher maintenance requirements due to its proximity to high levels of pedestrian traffic. 'Park Lend/OPen Soac. e' Zone - The landscape character found within the pealand zone shall establish the first transition area from the project core to the marSh area. Ranting design shall focus on lower profile mauing of sdected species to develop a brooder sense of scale in relation to the wetlands. Plant material IV-7 Resolution No. 16838 Page 102 Objective S1 .F Policy S1 .F.1 Policy S1 .F.2 Policy S1 ,F.3 Objective SI.G Policy S1 .G.1 found in this area shall be Idected for its indigenous charecteds- ~ics for compaebity to the marsh environment. Careful etten- ~on shall be made to the maintenance requirements for plant species each as water use, farliter, and grewtit cberectedstica. These condderedons ~ Ixovlde a framework for long range maintenance requirements which limit adverse Impacts to the more sendtire marshland environment. 'Pdmerv Buffer Zone' - The Primary Buffer Zone wfil consist of a 100-fnot wide buffer area contiguous with the Wildlife Refuge boundary in the area of the 'E' Street marsh, the Vener Marsh end the Sweetwater Marsh so shown in Exldhit 9, Environmental Management. The Pdmary Zone wail contain a berm and a chein41nk fence with underground apron, and will be vegetated with Coastal Sage Scrub/Suocuient Scrub. Height of the berm and location of the berm and fence within the Zone will vary. With an overall length greeter than 3,800 feet, the Pdmary Zone will provide approximately 8 acres of new scrub habitat. Provide clearly identifiable gateways to the Midbayfront at: Bay BoulevardrE" Street Bay Bou]evard/"F" Street Marina Parkway/"F-G" Street Marsh The Bay Boulevard and 'E" Street entry shall be the pdmary entry into the Midbayfront. This gateway shall provide a memorable image of the project, Landscape framing and architectural elements flanking the entry must reflect the importance of this entrance. The gateway at Bay Boulevard and "F* Street shall be the major entrance into the project from areas east of I-5. This entry shall emphasize the view down 'F' Street to the bay as this shall be a major access point to the parks along the bay and marshes. The entry point from the south on Madne Parkway shall include special enhenoed landscaping end signage to emphasize the sense of ardvei at a high quality destination. Use architectural edges to define views and reinforce elements of the land use plan. Firm architectural edges shall be used to emphasize vadous view corddora along Madne Parkway and along the Resort Core lagoon edge. Firm edges are identified by an abrupt and usually linear change from bui ding mass to open area, These edges will help to define an urban environment. (10/13/92) Resolution No. 16838 Page 103 Policy S1 .G.2 Objective S1.H Soft architectural edges Ihall be composed of smaller increments of change from building mess to open area. Such edges emphasize e transition inltead of an $bmpt change. Soft edges shall be utilized where development meets public perks and open Preserve important existing views and create enhanced views with development. The following view types have be identified: Panoramic Views - Typically views into the far distance (bay views). - Framed Views - Views between landscape elements, natural forms, or architectural elements; usually characterized as view corridors, - Axial Views - Views on uis sometimes with a focal ¢:lement, usually architectural and vertically oriented. Policy S1 .H.1 Policy S1 ,H.2 Policy S1 ,H.3 Objective S1 ,I Policy 81 .I.1 Policy S1 .I.2 Policy S1 .I.3 At the 'E' Street gateway, a termination view to a vertical focal point shall be established. Past the first major intersection, the panoramic view of the bay shell be emphasized. This shall be established between the start of Gunpowder Point Drive end the development north of the lagoon. A panoramic view of the bay shall be established from the Marina Parkway bridge over the public lagoon to the west. Panoramic views of the bey end the "F-G' Street Marsh shall be established south of "F" Street (Lagoon Ddve), A framed view to the bay should be created et the "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) gateway to the Midbeyfront. Locate buildings in a manner which enhances views and minimizes impacts to adjacent wildlife habitat area. In addition to the wetlands setback policy and building height policy of this Land Use Ran, the Implementation ;qen shall establish building setbacks from public streets and lot boundaries to assure appropriate building placement. High-rise residential towers shell be oriented with their long ides paralleling the major view corridors from "E" Street/Marina Parkway To the wetlands, That portion of a residential building facing the wetlands shall have e total length of no more than 150 feet without a separa- tion of at least the same distance as the building width. The IV-9 Resolution No. 16838 Page 104 plane of a building fine facing the weeands must break (minimum 5 foot offset) at least every 50 feet. Objective Si.J Policy S1.J.1 Policy S1 .J.2 Have a unifying, high quality architacmraI character and design to ~e buildings consmac'tad within the Midbayfront. The following basic guidelines shall he followed in the deign of buildings and structures within the Midbayfront: C:olors - Coloration of The Midbayfront shall he perceiyed as a single Themetic impression made up of subUe variations of light pastel tones of off-whites, creams, rose, peach as wall as 'earth" tones. Bright accent colors shall he reserved for trim and limited surface areas. Materials - Reflective materials shall not be used. The use of reflective glass is prohibited. Sheet metal finish surfaces shall be discouraged. The use of stucco. wood, and concrete shall be encouraged. Window Ooeninas - Window openings or patterns, especially in the mid-riM and high-rise buildings, shall avoid monotonous patterning. Smaller units of glazing and openings shall be favored over larger, single-paned openings. Window treatments (such as balconies, window boxes, end railing types) shall conform to the deign requirements established in cooperation with the USF&WS. Roofs - Flat roofs without varied parapets ere discouraged. Variation in roof forms and parapet treatment shall be encour- aged. To discourage avian predators, roof designs shall incorpo- rate anti-perching elements as stipulated in the design require- ments developed in cooperation with the USF&WS end to be incorporated in the Biological Resources Management Plan. The following basic guidelines shall be followed in regard to streetscape and pedestrian features: Architectural and street furniture detailing shall contribute to the ambience of the Midbayfront. This is most effective at the pedestrian level where such details can readily he seen, Detailing options include: - floor paving patterns - monuments - fountains - bollerda - railings Resolution No. 16838 Page 105 window shape end window pane mugions door treatments fight standards and lighting fixtures in general public outdoor Mating trash/ash receptacles textile amenhies - banners, awnings, umbrellas community sign boards Idendng umS and areas niches in walls and wall decorations in general All the above-cited elements shall be chosen and ~a~ced in a coherent manner to "compose' an overall theme or character reflecting the goal of a vibrant, destination resort which is open to the public. 5. Utilities and Grading Objectives/Policies Objective S1.K Grading design should achieve: l) all habitable spaces are situated above the 100-year flood level; 2) most parking spaces are hidden from view; 3) adequate slope exists for surface drainage; and, 4) the project balance with on-site grading. Policy S1 .K.1 The Midbayfront project design shall locate most first level parking slabs on or near existing grades. Earth shall be grad- ed/bermed at the structure perimeter to reach the first habitable level. This will ensure that: 1) all activity levels (vs. parking levels) ere above the lO0-year flood line; 2) the major circulation artedes coincide with these activity levels; 3) most parking is hidden; end, 4} the soil excavated from the lagoon areas is used on-site to establish the new finish grade. Policy S1 .K.2 No new development which requires excavations to · ground level that would require permanent de-watering shall he permit- ted. Policy S1 .K.3 No import or export of soil which would have significant environ- mental impacts is permitted to balance grading quantities, without environmental analysis and a mitigation program. Policy S1 .K.4 Cut and fill activity shell he consistent with the Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 88-267-RH. 6. Environmental Mana=cment Objectives/Policies Objective S1.L Protect and preserve the sensitive wildlife resources within the National Wildlife Refuge while allowing development of public and private uses on the adjacent Midbayfront propert~j. (10/13/92) IV-11 Resolution No. 16838 Page 106 Policy S1 .L.1 Policy S1 .L.2 Activity along most sensitive areas adjoining wetlends shall be restricted per land use designations. Intense development shall be setback from sensitive edges and clustered toward the central portion of the site. The siting and orientation of major hlgh-dle Ixildingl shell respect environmental iliaas. Such halclings shall be set beck from the marsh to preclude their shadows horn falling on the sensitive wetlands. In addition, they shall have non-reflective surface materials and he of muted colore. B. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area 1. Snecial Subarea Conditions The primary use in this subarea is the Rohr, Inc. indusu'ial and manufacturing facility. This war an existing use at the time the Chula Viat~ Bayfront LCP war first adopted. When the facilities were constructed, landscaping and building aesthetics were not an issue of concern. This use is ~nticipated to tensin and limited expansion js permiaed under the provisions of the Land Use Plan However, landscaping and od~er aesthetic improvements for the existing, as well as new development, is desirable. 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies Objective S2.A Provide aesthetic improvements to existing and new industrial development. Policy S2.A.1 New development within this subarea shall be accompanied by a landscape master plan and implementation schedule. The City may require the landscape plans to extend beyond the boundaries of the new development where appropriate to upgrade existing areas. C. Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel 1. Svecial Subarea Conditions The southern parcel is located south of "L" Street and west of I~5. This area is within the Coastal Zone but is not covered by the Bayfront Plan. The entire area contains approximately 90 acres. The majority of this area (65 acres) is pan of the SDG&E generating plant. In addition, there is a small area (4 acres) which is used ar pan of the salt works, and an area (21 acres) which is developed with light industrial uses. 110'13/92) IV-12 Resolution No. 16838 Page 107 According to an existing agreement among the Sta~, National City, and the salt marsh operator, the salt works will be incorporated into a State wildlife preserve over a twenty year period. The remaining area is designated for industrial use on the General Plan and is zoned I (Industrial), consistent with its use. It is anticipated that the SDG&E facility will remain in operation on a pemmnent basis, while the salt works will cominue into the foreseeable future. The indushial land is located between Bay Boulevard and 1-5 and does not have any direct Bay frontage. 2, Subarea Obiectives/Policies Objective S3.A Provide for maintenance of appropriate existing development and long term conversion of potential habitat areas to protected open space. Policy S3.A.1 Preclude any visitor-serving facilities here because of the proximity of the freeway end the generating plant. In addition, no uses shall be located on this propemly which would economi- cally compete with the Bayfront. D. Subarea 4 - Inland Parcel 1. Special Subarea Conditions The inland parcel is located north of "C" Street and west of Broadway. This area contains approximately 80 acres. A major portion of this area has been used for SR-54 and the Sweetwater River Channel. The property is designated for research and limited industrial uses in the General Plan and is zoned F-1 (Flooding) and I-L (Light Industrial). This area is not coastal-related, however, changes in the existing designations are planned. It is anticipated that the property will be developed, as an interim use, with a commercial recreational complex that will include a golf driving range, batting cages, and accessory uses such as a club house, pro shop, and delicatessen. 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies Objective S5.A Allow. as a conditional use, commercial "group assembly" develop- ment and accessory uses with assurance that improvements are adequately protected from flood hazards. Policy S5.A.1 All development proposals shall demonstrate that proposed improvements are located outaide of the 100 year frequency storm flood hazard zone. (t0/13/92) IV-13 Resolution No. 16838 Page 108 E. Subarea 5 - Faivre SWeet 1. SPecial Subarea Conditions This site is located south of the western end of Falvre Street, adjacent to the MTDB Trolley tracks. The Otay River is its southern boundary. The site was annexed to Chula Vista in December 1985 as a part of the Montgomery Annexation. It is approxima~ly 10 acres in size and is currently used for a truck terminal and open storage. These current uses are unsightly and are especially visible from the trolley tracks which ane elevated along the western edge of the parcel. The site was previously included in the County of San Diego's LCP. It was designated for General Impact Industrial Use and zoned M-54 (FP), a manufacturing industrial zone with ~oo~way overlay. The project area is depicted in white (a part of lhe so-called 'whimlands') by the Montgomery Specific Plan (a community plan within the City's General Plan). The City-wide General Plan land use map appears to designate the site as Open Space. 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies Objective S6A Improve the appearance of the current uses and establish a land use designation and development regulations which are consistent with the City's land use planning and regulatory smacture. Policy S6.A.1 The City shall endeavor to improve the screening and landacal~ing of the site and shall regiuire such improvements to current City standards with any new use or development permit approved for the site. Policy S6.A,2 On an interim basis, the County toning regulations in effect at the time of annexation shall be utilized to regulate development. Policy S6.A.1 All development proposals shall demonstrate that proposed improvements are located outside of the 100 year frequency storm flood hazard zone. F. Subarea 6 - Palemar/Bay Boulevard Reorganization I, Special Subarea Conditions The site is approximately 63 acres in size, generally located west of Bay Boulevard, north of Palemar Street, and along the eastern shoreline of San Diego Bay. The City of Chula Vista initiated a reorganization of the area on behalf of the property owners and the area was annexed from the City of San Diego in early 1986. The property is currently used for salt evaporation ponds (Western Salt Co.) and a site for large steel tanks associated with an adjacent power plant (SDG&E). Only a small portion of IV-14 Resolution No. 16838 Page log the Western Salt Company property is 'dr), land.' The dry area is loc4Ued at the southern end of the project site, adjacent to Bay Boulevard and the exisdng industrial park. The area was designated Open Space on the City of San Diego's General Plan and was zoned M-2 (Heavy Industrial) in San Diego's LCP. The current City of Chula Vista General Plan designation for the site is *Research and Limil~l Industrial* while the site was pre-zoned is "l-L-P" (Limited Industrial with Precise Plan) at the time of annexarion. The existing uses are consistent with these current designations. The General Plan Update appears to designate the entire site Open Space. 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies Objective S7.A Establish a land use plan and development regulations for this area to integrate it into the City's land use pining and regulator)' structure in a manner which is consistent with its development capabilit), and environmental value. Policy S7.A.1 Any development proposal within this subarea Ihall require a comprehensive analysis of the entire subarea to determine the appropriate long-term land use pattern and intensity for the subarea. Policy S7.A.2 On an interim basis, the City's I-L-P zoning designation shall be utilized to regulate development. G, Subarea 7 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 1. SPecial Subarea Conditions This area is owned by the Federal Government and is operated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. It contains virtually all of the important wildlife habitat and wetlands within the Bayfront Planning Area, Government ownership assures that any development within the subarea will be consistent with federal environmental protection laws. The primary issue for adjacent development sites is avoiding or minimizing impacts to the wildlife habitat. 2. Subarea Objectives/Policies Objective S8.A Maintain and enhance wildlife habitat within the National Wildlife Refuge while allowing public enjoyment of coastal resources in a manner consistent with habitat protection. Policy S8.A.1 The environmental management policies established in this Land Use Ran which protect end enhance the wedands end habitat areas shall be implemented to assure that any development permitted on adjacent parcels will be consistent with the needs of the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. (10/13/92) IV-15 Resolution No. 16838 Page 110 AITACI-IMENT 1 BEFORE THE CHI3LA VISTA CITY COUNCIL October 13, 1992 Proposed Midba)'front Local Coas~ Pregram Reiubmittal No. 8 Amendment; "Subcommiuee Recommendlion' (Alternative 8, with mtra~ modificatim~) FINDINGS OF FACT INTRODUCTION The original Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared on this project addressed the potential environmental effects of a proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) ResubmittaI, including both text and graphics, for the Midbayfront area. However, at the end of the public review period (Planning Commission hearing, September 26, 1990), the applicant, Chula Vista Investors (CVI) introduced a new revised concept plan for the project.1 This new concept plan was described as Ahernative 8 in the recireulated DEIR. (July, 1991) After recirculation of the DE1R and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in accordance with the California Administrative Code section 15088 and 15089, the project was heard before the Chula Vista City Council and the Chula Vista Redevelopmerit Agency ("decisionmakers") on August 20, 1991. After hearing public testimony, the Council dosed the public hearing, certified the EIR as adequate and complete under the California Environmental Qualit>' Act (CEQA) and voted to neither approve nor deny the project. Rather the City Council directed the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee2 ("Subcommittee') to work with staff to create a plan which would resolve the environmenta] and planning issues which were associated with Alternative 8. t in addition to a new project description, Chula Vista Investors also submitted new geotechnical and hydro]ogy baseline information and design details, new biological mitigation measures and new traffic mitigation measures. As a result of this information, a decision was made that the DEIR should be recirculated in compliance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and Surfer Sensible Planning. Inc.. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 813 [176 Cal. Rptr. 342]. 2 The Subcommittee was established in May, 1991 by the Chula Vista City Council to increase public participation in the Chula Vista Bayfront planning process. The Subcommitlee of 11 voting members held 15 public meetings on the issue of formulating a Con~pt Plan for the Midbayfront. Page 1 EXHIBIT E Resolution No. 16838 Page 111 The Subcomntittee returned to the City Council with a project similar to Alternative 8. That project is referred to as the 'SubcommiRee Alternative.' Afiex reviewing the FIR prepared for Alternative 8, the Chula Vista City Council was of the opinion that the impacts identified for Alternative 8 were substantially the same as those for Subcomminee Alternative. Consequenfiy, the Council determined that with the exception of the preparation of an addendure pursuant to California Administrative Code section 15164, no further environmental review (including recirculation of the previously recirculated document) was required under CEQA for the approval of the Subcommittee Alternative. The City Council approved the Subcommittee Alternative on February 4, 1992, tea'rifled the Final EIR, made Findings of Fact, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations on this project. The City Council dimct~l staff to prepare a revised LCP Resubmittal and General Plan documents to reflect the concept plan contained in the Subcommittee Alternative. The concept plan defines the land uses that are contained in the Subcommittee Alternative. There were minor changes between Alternative 8 (as discussed in the EIR) and the Subcommittee Alternative. First is that the previously proposed luxury hotel was replaced by a Cultural Arts Facility and Amphitheater. There is a corresponding reduction of 190 hotel rooms. Secondly, there is was reduction of residential units from 1400 to 1000, though the total residential square footage remains the same. There were also minor design modifications in the northern residential area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project is the LCP Resubmittal and corresponding General Plan Amendment. The changes in these documents allow a mixed use project in the Midbayfront area totalling approximately 3.3 million square feet of building area. The LCP Resubmittal, including the Land Use Plan and Specific Plan, and the corresponding General Plan Amendment, were prepared in order to provide the City planning documents that were consistent with the Subcommittee Alternative. The only changes to the existing LCP and the General Plan were those changes analyzed for Alternative 8, and subsequently, the Subcommittee Alternative. No other substantive changes occur in these documents, making the analysis in the Final EIR adequate for the proposed Project. The EIR for this Project examines the Project at a 'plan level" of approval only. Prior m any construction on the site further environmental analysis will be required to further refine and define the impacts associated with each phase of the Project. Consequently, this EIR is defined as a Program EIR and has been prepared with the understanding that the provisions of Guidelines section 15168 wiIl be followe~ when subsequent activities such a~ redevelopmeat plan amendments and site specific construction are contemplated. The LCP Resubmittal and corresponding General Plan Amendment incorporates the concept plan for Subcommittee Alternative, proposing 101210 residential units, 1610 hotel units, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail, 140,000 square feet of professional office, and approximately 246,000 Page 2 Resolution No. 16838 Page 112 square feet which includes athletic facilities and a conference center. A cultural arts facility on approximately 3 acres, approximately 34 acres of parks, and two lagcons--one 8 to 10 acres and one 3 acres-are also pan of the proposed plan. The 8 to 10-acre lagoon is a salt water feature that would extend east from the Bay to the central portion of the Midbayfront. The parks and the larger lagoon would be available for public use as well as for resident and visitor use. The 3-acre lagoon would be located amidst a private residential area and is considered a private aesthelic amenity. The proposed Project includes a combination of high- to low-rise slimelures, which vary in height from 229 feet to one- and two-story structures. The core area of the development would include most of the high- and mid-rise smactures, while the nonhem area would consist mostly of two and four-story structures, with two high-rise residential towers. Specifically, the discretionary actions tuken by the decisionmakers in approving this Project are: Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element and Bayfront Plan. Approval of the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, inclusing Land Use Plan and Specific Plan. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the following: 1. The Draft (recirculated) and Final EIR for the Project; All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the planning consultant, the environmental consultant, and the City; All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in connection with the EIR on proposed Project; Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public hearings held by the City and Redevelopment Agency; Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and public hearings; and Matter of common knowledge to the City, which it considers, including but not limited to, the following: Chula Vista General Pla.n(up<late)-2010; Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan; Page 3 Resolution No. 16838 Page 113 g. h. i. j. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance; Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Specific Plan; Chnia Vista Bayfront Redevelopmerit Project Plan; City of National City Genera] Plan; National City Local Coastal Program; San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Interim Final Permit, No. 88-267-Pd-I TERMINOLOGYFFHE PURPOSE OF F/ND/NGS UNDER CEOA Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that '[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or ~ lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that '[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a.nother public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.' The third permissible conclusion is that [s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR. As regards to the first of the three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely 'substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms therefore must be gleaned from other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate' rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with 'substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21001, which deelases the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects. For purposes of these findings, the term 'avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term 'substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measures or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15019 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoidled] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). Page 4 Resolution No. 16838 Page 114 Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not m:luire findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely ':o~fi~lv significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identifi~l in the Final F_JR. It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevniopment Agency that a project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact if it is feasible to avoid or subs2ntlally lessen such impact to a level below significance. Only when there are specific economic, social or other considerations will the City of Chula Vista or the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Chula Vista approve a project with significant environmental impacts. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are fusible and have not been modified, superse<ted or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts a resolution amending the General Plan and approving the Local Coastal Program. Many of the adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Subcommittee Alternative as expressed in the LCP Resubmittal and GPA. VI. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. The program is designed to ensure that, during Project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible pardes comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. That program is described in the document entitled, Local Coastal Program Alternative 8A Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Chula Vista. The minor modifications made to the Project as a result of the r=view by lhe llayfrnnt Planning Subcommittee ~[q not necessitate any significant changes to Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP). Page 5 Resolution No. 16838 Page 115 SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MYFIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR identified a number of significant or pOtentially significant environmental effects (or "impacts') that the implementation of the Local Coastal Program Re.submittal No. 8, Subcommittee Alternative will cause, of which some could be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others could not be avoided. The proposed Project will generate a number of environmental effects that when considered collectively, result in a significant cumulative effect to the environment. The impacts anticipated to genlogy, soils, hydrology and water quality, visual/aesthetics and the community character, air quality, biological resources, lend use, transportation/access and from conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses are considered cumulatively significant to the Bayfront and/or contribute significantly to the impact of a resource in the region. With the approval of this Project, pOtential cumulative impacts would result not only from two or more Project area impacts but also from the combination of the Project impacts with other properties in the South Bay region. In addition, the proposed Project could encourage developments in the neazby region that are of greater height or intensity than curren~y allowed. In order to build or redevelop, these properties would be subject to CEQA, probably requiring an EIR for review of proposed plens. Thus, a mechanism exists to check and limit cumulative impacts; hov. ever, the potential exists for development and/or redevelopment at a greater scale than is presently allowed. The 15+ projects proposes or approved for the South Bay end discussed in the Cumulative Impacts section of the Final EIR, will collectively result in significant impacts to the bayfront environment. Although individual projects may reduce impacts to levels that are considered less than significant, cumulative impacts cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided. An attempt to address impacts on a cumulative, regional scale has been initiated by the San Diego Unified Port District. The South San Diego Bay Enhencement Plan (not adopted to date) addresses biological resources of the South Bay region end identifies areas that should be reserved and enhanced, as well as potential mitigation areas for cumulative impacts. Due to the increased urbanization of the South Bay region, and the limited possibilities (e.g., locations) for mitigation of habitat and species, any large project propOsed in this region should be considered to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts. When combined with numerous impacts of a similar type, the incremental contributions of the proposed Project become cumulatively significant for selected environmental resources as detailed below. Potentially Significant Effects Page 6 Resolution No. 16838 Page 116 The following environmental effects, which would be significant or potenfial/y significant in the absence of mitigation measures, can be avoided because of the adoption of such measures. Page numbers of the Final EIR where the impacts are discussed follow each impact. Derailed plans not available for on- and off-site water and sewer pipelines [FE!R, Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-9; Volume I, p.4-6] Ground settlement due to consolidation of compressible bay deposits and artificial fill soils FFE1R, Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-10; Volume I, p. 4-6] Flooding of iow lying areas [FEIR, Volume II, 3-14 thwugh 3-20; Volume I, p 4-6] Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista design storm flow and gravity pipe requirements UFEIR, Volume/I, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6] Adequate data regarding quantily and quality of groundwater for lagoons [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-16 through 3-21; Volume I, p. 4-6] The co-generation plant could create emissions that exceed new source limits and cumulative impacts could occur from vehicular emissions combined with c.o-generation p/ant impacts I, rFEIR , Volume II, p.3-52 through 3-54; Volume I p. 4-11] Vehicular emissions would contribute incrementally to a regionally significant air quali~y impact [FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-51 through 3-55; Volume I, p.4-12] Construction dust and idling trucks could result in unacceptable air quality effects [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-54; Volume l, p. 4-11] Conslruction noise could reach unacceptable levels [FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-58 through 3-60; Volume I, p. 4-12] Proximity of child care center to 1-5 and the co-generation facility could result in unacceptable noise levels FFEIR, Volume If, p. 3-59 through 3-60; Volume I, p. 4-12] Fluctuations in salinity regimes of the marshlands due to increased freshwater input from site drainage could impact weftand wildlife and vegetation [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-76 through 3-115; Volume l, p. 4-13] Eelgrass habitats and mudfiat habitat may be damaged from near shore sedimentation/turbidity [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-82 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] Project construction would generate considerable noise and increased human activities for a 20-year period FFEIR, Volume It, p. 3-84 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] Human and pet presence will decrease the use of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge by nesting and foraging avifauna ['FE/R, Volume 11, p. 3--88 through 3- 115; Volume 1, p. 4-13] Page Resolution No. 16838 Page 117 Indirect effects on California ~t Tern including water quality, degradation, nest site predation, disruption from humans and pets, and altering of the predatory regime [FEIR, Volume ll, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] Placement of drainage pipes and resultant increase~ct freshwater inputs and sedimentation could severely affect eelgrass and mudflats marine resources FFEIR, Volume TI, p. 3-306 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] Development outside the Project boundaries (e.g., for utility extension to serve the site) could impact archaeological sites [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-120 through 3-124; Volume I, p. 4-i3] Site grading may result in impacts to paleontologieal resources tFEIR, Volume II, p. 3- 122 through 3-123; Volume I, p. 4-13] Traffic congestion, competition for parking, noise from traffic and visitors, and night lighting would create significant incompatibility impacts with the residential component of the Project FFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19] The proposed phasing plan would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks [FE1R, Volume It, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18] Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-149 through 3-152; Volume I, p. 4-19] Concept plan would result in incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to non- renewable energy resources IFFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-158 through 3-163; Volume 1, p. 4- 20] Proposed high rise buildings would result in the need for an additional ladder truck and four-person fire crew [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume 1, p. 4-21] Proposed Project would result in increased fire inspection workload [FEIR, Volume 1I, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21] Potential to result in fire service impacts if Project is not properly designed [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21] Solid waste from proposed Project would result in incremental contribution to limited and declining landfill space [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21] Impacts to sewer infrastructure [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21 through 4-22] Impacts to water infrastructure [FE1R, Volume I1, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-22] Page 8 Resolution No. 16838 Page 118 Incremental contribution w regionally significant demand on water resources [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-162 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4.23] Adequacy of supply and infrastructure for lagoon water from wells [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23] Potentially inadequate funding for school Iransponation costs [FEIR, Volume H, p. 3-162 tlIrough 3-167; Volume I, p. 4.23 through 4-24] Significant Effects The Project will result in the following irreversible environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to pages from the Final EIR. Seismic hazardS/risk including ground shaking, surface dis'placement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake induced-flooding [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6 through 3-11; Volume I, p. 4.6] Foundation design difficulties associated with construction of foundations at or near the groundwater table [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6 through 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6] On-site flooding from storm overflow [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3- through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6] Erosion from coastal or inland flooding [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6] Siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality from surface runoff [FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6] Change in character of the view from the Nature Interpretive Center [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-29 through 341; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8] Obstraction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and establishments along Bay Boulevard [FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-31 through 3.41; Volume I, p. 4.7 through 4-8] Creation of visually dominant urban landaeape from areas within Chula Vista and I-5 are incompatible with the waterfront image identity of Chula Vista [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-34 through 3.42; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-10] Construction and Project operations would create contalminants that would degrade water quality FFEIR, Volume If, p. 3-79 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13] Concept plan would result in shadedshadlow impacts to park and open space areas ['FF. JR, Volume II, p. 3-150 Omough 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20] Page 9 Resolution No. 16838 Page 119 The alteration of predator/compefifion/prey regimes would adversely impact biological resources ['FEIR, Volume 11, p. 3-91 though 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] Loss of raptor habitat [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-98 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] Proximity of development to extensive weftand would result in vector impacts [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-101 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] The development would create predator enhanczment effect5 to the Light-footed Clapper Rail and the Bclding's Savannah Sparrow which are federal and state listed endangered species respectively [HEIR, Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13] The development would increase human and pet presence, significantly affecting the quality of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuse, and decreasing the use of the area by nesting and foraging avifauna ['FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-88 though 3- 91; Volume I, p. 4-13] The intensity of the proposed Project will result in a significant conflict due to incompatibility with the land use intensity in the surrounding area [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-131 through 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-13 through 4-15] Proximity of the proposed development coupled with its intensity creates significant land use compatibility impacts with the National Wildlife Refuge FFEIR, Volume 1'I, p. 3-133 through 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14] Proposed concept plan not consistent with certified LCP, General Plan (2010), and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan FFEIR, Volume ll, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p. 4-15] Inability of schools to serve needs of students produced from the site [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p. 4-15] Significant traffic impacts at BroadwayrE' Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27] Significant traffic impacts at Broadway'F" Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27] Significant traffic impacts at Broadway/'H' Street intersection [FF_AR, Volume I, p. 4-27] Significant traffic impacts at I-5 Northbound Rampl'E" Street freeway ramp intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27] Significant traffic impacts at I-5 South bound RamprE" Street freeway ramp intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27] These impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided at the plan level; but, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has detennin~ that the impacts are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. The sub- Page 10 Resolution No. 16838 Page 120 sections below will define each of the above-described impact issues in detail, setting forth either the reasons why they am significant and unavoidable, the mitigation m~asures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why propose~ mitigation measures proved to be infeasible due to slx:cific economic, social or other consideration. A. GF.,OLOGY/SOI~ .~/GROUNDWATER Significant effect: Seismic hazardit~sk exists, including ground shaking, surface displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-induce flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6 through 3-7; Volume 1, p. 4-6] Finding: Standard required design criteria and conventional engineering techniques can be implemented to reduce the risk. However, the FEIR concludes that even with the adoption of these criteria and techniques, as set forth in the FEFR and restated below, additional study is necessar~j at the project level to determine impact significance for the detailed development plans. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this plan level of analysis FFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-7, 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described in The Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-8 through 3-10] When detailed development plans for the Project area are proposed, detailed grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work. A site-specific geoteehnical engineering investigation, including soils study and seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan and for each proposed structure in the Project prior to issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate subsurface exploration and analysis to determine short-and long-term settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendations, and will be subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department pursuant to adopted standards. All high-rise structures will require deep foundations, or some type of mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate foundation supyon for the structure. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial sobs, or bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the Page 11 Resolution No. 16838 Page 121 , support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or structural improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater tablc. Other convenfonal engineering techniques may also be used to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soft. These additional t~hniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods a¢_~_table to the Department of Public Works. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill so'as will require subgrade modification pursuant to accepted engineering standards to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-ten post-consumction setllement. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the gwundwater ~able. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other engineered f~ls may be judged capable of accommodating some post-construction differential set~ements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to support. Site-specific gcotechnical studies to be completed at the Project level must address post- construction set~ement potential as well as ways to mitigate post-construction tolal and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the specific types of improvements proposed. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) for the 10-acre salt water lagcon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits), will require subgrade improvements to ensure acceptable long-term performance. Alternatives to this type of liner, including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners may be considered. The applicant must determine which liner would be used, any subgrade improvements necessary, and the choice and design must be approved by the City in accordance with approved engineering standards, prior to Project approval. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking, geotechnical studies shall specifically address seismic analysis based on site- specific subsurface data. At a minimum, seismic analysis shall address seismically-induced slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface ar. celerations. Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required where appropriate as part of the Project design. The embankment separating the 10-acre salt water lagcon from San Diego Bay has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induce~t storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this EIR) or ea.nhquake- induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment must be made prior to detailed project appwval to evaluate stability of the embankment during these conditions and the likelihood of these hazards. Design Page 12 Resolution No. 16838 Page 122 to be defined prior to detailed project approval may include either elevating the height of the embankment or reinforcing the cwwn of the embankment and must be approved by the City. Significant Effect: Potential foundation design and constxuction difficulties associated with the constraction of foundations at or near the groundwater table could occur [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-3; Volume I, p. 4-6] Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the FEIR and restated below, additional study is nece.ssasy at the Project level when detailed development plus are available to determine impact significance and mitigation feasibility. impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level of analysis [FEIR, Volume lI, p. 3-7 through 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described in The Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. {FEIR, p. 3-8 through 3-10] When detailed development plans for the Project area are proposed, detailed grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work. A site-specific gentechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan and for each proposed structure in the Project prior to the issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate subsurface exploration and analysis to determine short- and long-term settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendations, and will be subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department 'pursuant to adopted standards. All high-rise structures will require deep foundations, or some type of mat foundation integrated into subterranean pa~king, to provide adequate foundation suppon for the su'ucturc. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils or bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or Page 13 Resolution No. 16838 Page 123 su'uctural improvements. Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recornpaction, dynamic compaction, und/or the use of surcharge fills to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used to mitigate the potential geotechnical impacts due to compre~sible soil. These additional techniques to be define~t at the Project level may include designs such as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods ~_cc_-ptable to the Department of Public Works. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaeh.ing onto existing comprcssiblc bay deposits and/or existing ftll sods will require subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long- term post-construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other engineered fills may be judged capable of accommodating some post-consu'uction differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they axe to support. Site-specific geotechnical studies to be completed at the Project level must address post-construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate post-construction total and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the specific types of improvements proposed. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay so~l layer) for the 10-acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits), will require subgrade improvements to ensure acceptable long-term performance. Alternatives to this type of liner, including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners may be considered. The applicant must determine which liner would be used, any subgrade improvements necessary, and the choice and design must be approved by the Cit~ in accordance with approved engineering standards, prior to Project approval. Geetechnical studies prepaxed prior to detailed project approval and included in the environment~ analysis for the Project must also address the impact of foundation location neat or below the ground~ter table, and recommendations shall be made which mitigate both consU'ucfion-period difficulties and uplift pressures that may affect foundation elements and subWaranean parking floor slabs extending below the transient groundwater level. Construction-porio~ mitigation must require temporary alewatering and/or ulilization of a gravel mat to provide a working surface upon which to operate construction equipment, Design techniques to accommodate U-ansient groundwattr highs may include thicker concrete slabs to provide sufficient dead weight to rosist uplift pressures, deep foundations and/or su'uetural foundations to resu'aln slabs. Page 14 Resolution No. 16838 Page 124 Potentially Significant Effect: Ground settlement could occur due to the consolidation of the compressible esmarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and artificial fill so'~s on site [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-4; Volume I, p. 4-6] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final FiR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, p. 3-8 through 3-10] When detailed development plans for the Project area are proposed, detailed grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading on the site. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan and for each proposed structure on the Project prior to issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate subsurface exploration and analysis to determine short- and long-term settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendation, and will be subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department pursuant to adopted standards. All high-rise structures will require deep foundations, or some type of mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate foundation support for the structure. , Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils, or bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or structural improvements. Soil improvement could include pardal or total removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table. Other conventional onginenring techniques may also be used to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible so'ft. These additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such as deep foundations or raat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the Department of Public Works. Roadways, embankraents, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils are likely to require subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing sods and reduce long- Page 15 Resolution No. 16838 Page 125 term pest-construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other engineer~l fills may be judged capable Of accommodating some pest.-consmaction differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to support. Site-specific gente~hniual studies to be completfl at the Project level must address pest-construction settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the specific types of improvements propose. The use of the currently planned soil-ctment lining (covering a clay soil layer) for the lO-acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay depesits), will r~uire subgrade improvements to ensure acceptable long-term performance. Alternatives to this type of liner, including clay soft liners and flexible pond liners may be consider~l. The applicant must determine which liner would be used, any subgrade improvements necessary, and the choice and design must be approved by the City in accordance with approved engineering standards, prior to detailed project approval. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking, geotechnical studies shall specifically address seismic analysis based on site- specific subsurface data. At a minimum, seismic analysis shall address seismicajly-induced slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required where appropriate as pan of the detailed project design. The embankment separating the 10-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay has tenUatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this ErR) or earthquake- induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment must be made prior to Project approval to evaluate stability of the embankment during these conditions and the likelihoo~ of these hazards. Design to be defined prior to Project approval may include either elevating the height of the embankment or reinforcing the crown of the embankment and must be approved by the City. Potentially Significant Effect: No grading plans are available for on-site water and sewer pipelines ['FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3--4; Volume I, p. Finding: Changes or alterations have been rcquirnd in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the petentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, p. 3-8 though 3-9] Page 16 Resolution No. 16838 Page 126 When detailed development plans for the Project are proposed, detailed grading and drainage plans must be prepared in )__~_~ce with the Chula Vista Co<le, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These plans must include not only grading for Structures and roads, but also grading for en- site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading on the site. A site-specific geotechnicel ~gineering investigation. including sotIs study and seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan and for each propose~ structure in the Project prior to issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate subsurface exploration and analysis to determine short- and long-term settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and pot~'ntial mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendations, and will be subject to review and approva/by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department pursuant to adopted standards. B. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Significant Effect: Flooding on-site from storm drain overflow [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3- 14 through 3-15; Volume 1, p. ~,-6] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant unmitigable environmental effects regarding storm drain flooding. These measures shall be incorporated into the Project level design. Additional information is necessary to determine project level impact significance and mitigation feasibility [FEIR Volume II, p. 3-22; Volume I p. 4-6]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-20] Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering standards, must be approved by the Engineering Department before construction. To achieve required standards, it may be necessary to raise proposed pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system, Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, end/or where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermitlentiy under water as at bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned priOr to the following rainy season. Page 17 Resolution No. 16838 Page 127 Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion must be completed prior to Project approval and included in the environmenud analysis for the Project. The storm drain system will be designed in accordance with adopted City standards. Significant Effect: Erosion from coastal or inland flooding. [FEIR, Volume H, p. 3-14; Volume I, p. 4-6] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incoxporated into, the Project which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant unmitigable environmental effects related to coastal or inland flooding. These measures shall be incorporated into the Project level design. Additional information is necessary when detailed development plans are available to determine impact significance and mitigation feasibility. [FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-22; Volume I, p.4-6] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant effect is acceptable because of overriding economic, sociaj and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicants through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-20 through 3-21] Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering standards, must be approved by the Engineering Department before construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion must be completed prior to detailedproject approval and included in the environmental analysis for the Project. Erosion control recommendations developed during site-specific hydrological studies must be adopted as pan of the Project approval. These erosion control recommendations must include coastal erosion of embanbnents, erosion from inland flooding (including exceeding capacity of site storm drain system), erosion from flooding of the Sweetwater River, and erosion of the mudflats at storm drain ou~ets. The embankment separating the 10-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay is to be constructed as a soil berm extending up to elevation +11 feet. The baywaxd slope may be subject to shoreline erosion. Iikewise, the landward slope may be subject to erosion from inland flooding. Mitigation measures which may include a reck revetment to minimize erosion or other suitable design, must be Page 18 Resolution No. 16838 Page 128 analyzed during the environmental ~view on the Project and adopted as a condition of Project approval. Signiticant Effect: Sillation and chemical conmmiaatiooY degradation of water quality from surface runoff (pesticidas, fertilizers, oil grease, etc.). [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-15 through 3-16; Volume I, p. 4-6] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpora~d into, the Project which will lessen the significant, unmitigable impacts. However, the FEIR concluded that even with adoption of these measures, set forth in the FEIR and restated below, additional study is necessary when detailed development plans are available to determine impact significance and mitigation feasibility. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level of analysis [FEIR, Volume IIp. 3~22; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described in The Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicants through these findings. {FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-20 through 3-21] The applicant must prepare a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering standards, which must be appruved by the Engineering Department before construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system. Where stoma drain pipes are installed with slopes flatlet than 0.5 percent, and/or where the storm drain pipes are continually or interminen~y under water as at bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy season. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding and erosion must be completed prior to Project approval and must be included in the environmental analysis for the Project. The detention basin has been designed with a minimum 1-foot freeboard base on a 100-yeaz/6-hour storm event. Additionally, a dip in 'F' Stnet creates a spillway for excess waters, which would then encroach on 'F' Street as the water travels over the embankment and into the 'F' and 'G' Street Marsh [John Goddard, pen comm.] Conventional engineering practice requires consideration of inclusion of an emergency spillway in the design of the basin. This spillway must be designed to discharge excess storm water without encroaching on Street or causing damage to the downstream embankment to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Page 19 Resolution No. 16838 Page 129 The proposal design of the de~ntion basin mak~ use of the adjacent *F' Street embankment on the southerly edge of the basin as a small dam. A dam of this size is required to comply with the requirements of the County of San Diego and shall be consU'ucted in accordance with the County Design and Proc~iurc Manual [rev. October 1985] which outlines ~illway design for small dams LD. 11-13). The applicant will be requirea to comply with all applicable County of San Diego regulations. Compliance with thes~ regulations will be v,'ri~ed by the City of Chula Vista Engineer. Traps for contaminant conre31 must be approved by the City Engineering Deparlment before they may be installed. Potentially Significant Effect: Flooding of (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs, compounded by runup from wind-driven waves (coastal flood hazards); (d) flooding from the Sweetwater River FFEIR, Volume If, p. 3-14; Volume I, p. 4-6]. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-20] The applicant must prepare a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department before construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed pad elevations at the easterly potdon of the site in order to provide no less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by viden camera) ahall be provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy SeaSOn. Prior to approval of the detailed project plans, the applicant must prepare a site- specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion. Potentially Significant Effect: Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards, specifically related to the design storm flow and gravity pipe requirements. [ FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15; Volume I, p. 4-6] Page 20 Resolution No. 16838 Page 130 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, ~e Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmemal effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures; The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. FFEIR, Volume If, p. 3-20 through 3-22] The applicant must prepare a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering stantiards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department before conslruction. To achieve requirecl m.ndar~ it may be ne~.ssary to raise proposed pad elevations at the easterly portion of rite site in onle~ to provide no less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes fiatter than 0.5 percent, and/or where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermiUen~y under water as at bay discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video earnera) shall be provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy Soa, sofi. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding and erosion must be completed prior to detailed project approval and must be included in the environmental analysis for the project. The storm d~n system, must be designed in accordance with adopted City standards. Potentially Significant Effect: Limited data regarding quantity and quality ofgroundwater for the lagoons. [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-16 through 3-17; Volume I, p. 4-6] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. The adequacy of groundwater quantity and quality for a lagoon on the site must be addressed by the applicant by a thorough analysis conducted pursuant to a scope of work approved by the City. This analysis must be completed prior to Project approval and included as part of the environmental analysis for the Project. If quantity and/or quality are not adequate, a different source of water to be approved by the City (or other supply must be used (i.e., San Diego Bay).). FFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-21] C. VISUAL AESTHETICS/COMMUNITY CHARACTER Page 21 Resolution No. 16838 Page 131 Significant Effect: Change of the overall character of the view to the east and south from the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center, from a predominantly natural and scenic wetlands setting to one of intense urban development [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3~29, 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8] Finding: The FEIR described mitigation measures that requir~ a redesign of the proposed Project. No other mitigation measures were identified that would mauce the impacts to a level below .significant. Redesign would include lowering building heights to existing LCP limitations, with low profile apartments, high rise hotels not ex__~2ed_Ang 12 stories, and scaled down development east of the marsh. P,~design of Conoept Plan Altea'nafive 8 (beyond the minor modifications proposed by the Bayfront Planning Commitle~) is not proposed, thus the environmental effects remain significant. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-39, 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Significant Effect: Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and esl~blishments along Bay Boulevard. FFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-31, 3-39; Volume I, p. 4-8] Finding: The FEIR described measures that required a redesign of the proposed Project in such a way as to permit intermittent views to the bay in order to reduce the significant impacts to a level below significant. No other measures were found that reduced the impacts to a level below significant. Redesign (of the Concept Plan, Alternative 8 with modifications) was not proposed thus the cnvironmema] effects remain significant. ['FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-39 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Significant Effect: Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape from areas within the City of Chula Vista and from 1-5 that would be incompatible with the waterfront image community identity of Chula Vista. [FFR, Volume II, p. 3-34 through 3-35; Volume I, p. 4-9 through Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant, unmitigable environmental effects. These measures must be incorporatecl into the Project level design and analyzed in the environmental review for the Project. Even with incorporation of these measures, as set forth in the FEIR and restated below, mitigation to a level of less than significant would require Project redesign. Redesign is not proposed, thus the environmental effects remain significant [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-39 through 3-42; Volume I, p. 4-7,4-9 through 4-10]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Page 22 Resolution No. 16838 Page 132 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigalion measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of appwval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-40 through 341; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-10] The design of ~e Project must establish landmarks on the site which would be visible from "E" Street. The design of the Pwject must also astablish a design patlem or sequence north of the freeway and continue this design element on ~e site. The Project must use compatible streetscapes a~ong 'E' Sueet on both sides of the freeway to create a visual connection between ~e Project site and portions of Chula Vista east of the freeway. The streetscape must consist of a combination of street trees, street lights, or paving. The applicant must install plants which eventually would frame but not block views. The applicant must use plants with seasonal or structural interest to emphasize view corridors. The landscape plans for the Project must emphasize on-site view corridors by flanking views with plant and buildings. The applicant must prepare and implement lighting plans which accentuate entrances to the site and landmarks. The lighting plan must keep overhead lighting to a minimum and hood lights in order to prevent light spill. Low lighting is required along the shoreline. The applic~t must use colors and materials which would blend into the site. Appropriate colors could include lighter tones and pastels. Reflective glass or reflective roof materials will not be allowed. That applicant must provide visual orientation .soon after entering the site in order to direct visitors to each major site area. Such orientation could be provided by street design and amenities, such as recognizable panems, and by building siting. D. CONWERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS Less-than-Significant Effect: The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential agricultural land. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 344; Volume I, p. 4-11] Finding: The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse Project effects in the area of conversion of agricuhural lands. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 345; Volume I, p. 4-11] E. AIR OUALITY Potentlally Significant Effect: Development of a co-gnnerafion plant could create emissions that exceed new source review limits, and cumulative impacts could occur from vehicular emissions added to the co-generation plant impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-52 through 3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11] Page 23 Resolution No. 16838 Page 133 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid [.he potentially significant effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has beam found to be feasible and has been required as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through these findings. Mitigation is required by the San Diego Count7 Air Pollution Control District (APCD) before Authority to Construct and a Permit to Opexate is issued. Mitigation may include concurrent reductions in NOx, ROG and CO to 'offset' Project (co-generation plant) emissions. [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-54] Specific mitigation measures are not available at the plan level but will be analyzed during the Project level environmental review when specific plans for the co-generation plant are available. Potentially Significant Effect: An incremental contribution to a regionally significant air quality impact in the San Diego Air Basin would occur from vehicular emissions. [FEIR, Volume ]Ip. 3-51; Volume I, p. 4-12] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significam environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. Various transportation control measures CfCMs) have been incorporated into the Project. Such measures must include provisions for employees, residents, and visitors. Measures that could be included are: Airport shuttle services for destination resort visitors Ridesharing Vanpool Incentives Alternate Transportation Methods Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel Transit Utilization Program Coordination Traffic Signal Coordination Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of 'D' or better based on the impact of this Project on the existing roadway. The *share* of impact by this Project on the existing roadway shall be calculated by ae/.L'pted engineering methods. The implementation of these various TCMs must be coordinatt:d through a transportation management agency CFMA) dealing specifically with bayfront Waffic demand Page 24 Resolution No. 16838 Page 134 management. The applicant will be required to form such a TMA, including funding of a TMA coordinator and mandatory tenant participation, to the satisfaction of the City. UFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54 through 3-55] Potentially Significant Effect: ConsU'ucfion activities would create dust that contributes to violations of inhalable dust (PM-10) s~andards, and multiple constnicfion-related trucks blocking traffic or idling near occupied receptor sites could create unacceptable air quality effects. FFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-50; Volume I, p. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmenm.1 effect as identified in the Final Era. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54] Dust control measures required by the APCD will be implemented during constraction. Such measures must include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as removing any soil spillage onto traveled roadways through site housekeeping procedures. Reducing interference with existing traffic and preventing truck queuing around local receptors must be incorporated into any Project construction permits. Trucks must turn off engines while waiting, or not be allowed to enter the site again. Constractionwillbelimitedtooperationsduringdaytimeperiodsofbetter dispersion that minimizes localizetl pollution accumulation. F. NOISE Potentially Significant Effect: Construction noise could reach 75 to 100 dB at 50 feet from the source. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-58; Volume I, p. 4-12] Noise impacts related to Biological Resources are discussed in the following section. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identlfg:d in the Final ErR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. Construction noise intrusion will be limited by eonctitions on construction permits to weekday hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.. Those same permits will also speci~ construction access routing to minimize construction U'uck traffic past Page 25 Resolution No. Z6838 Page 135 existing residential, park, or other noise sensitive uses to comply with General Plan noise standards and policies. [FEIR, Volume H, p. 3-58, 3-60] Potentially Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to I-5 (800 feet) and to the co-generation plant exhaust stacks (500 feet) has the poteatial to result in significant noise effects [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-59; Volume I, p. 4-12]. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final FIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through these findings. Child ca.re center noise exposure must be minimized by establishing a noise performance stand~d on co-generation exhaust stack noise met through the use of silencers; a performance standard of 45 dB at night and 50 dB by day at 400 feet from the exhaust stack is required to prevent excessive exhaust noise intrusion. A noise barrier along the eastere play area boundary to screen out traffic noise must also be incorporated into the Project level design. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-60] G. BIOLOGY Significant Effect: Construction and ongoing use of the proposed development would generate contaminants that would degrade water quality [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-79 through 3-82; Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13], Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the FEIR and restated below, additional study is necessary when detailed development plans are available at the detailed project level to determine impact significance ['FEIR, Volume II, p. 3- 82;; Volume I, p. 4-131. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level of analysis. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. FFEIR, Volume If, p. 34 10 through 3-115] The Project must include the pre1~.ration of a program which incorporates the following biological resource management plans as individual sections: Predator Management Plan, Human Activities Management Plan, Page 26 Resolution No. 16838 Page 136 Landscape Design and Management Plan, Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan, Mudflat and Weftand Monitoring Plan, Project Lighting Plan, Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and CC&Rs/Ordina.nces/Applicable Policies. This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process. All post-consmaction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must be triple chambered. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removai of wastes rather than flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required. Long-term silt removai maintenance of the detention basin will be minimized following the initial construction phases of the proposed Project. This maintenance cleaning may not be required since the traps, if properly constructed and maintained, will capture the vast majority of the silts which would be deposited in this basin. Further studies during the project level environmental analysis are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagcon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution because of conruminants or reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and shail be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows through a triple baffle trap intended to control conruminants, rather than direc~y to the bay. ~e specific drainage discharge system will be further defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained during the constyuction phase so that silt discharge to a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department is achieved. In addition, constzu,.cdon alewatering will be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an aiteroailve, alewatering water must be pumped anwss the Page 27 Resolution No. 16838 Page 137 mudfiat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet. Fertilizers, pesm~cidcs and herbicides utilized within the landsraping areas of the Project shall be of the rapidly biodeg~m~mhle variety and approved for use near weftands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for water quality management, landscape management, and nanoff management shall be .developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 22 of Table 1. All landscape chemical applications (e.g. pesticides and herbicides) must be done by a state-certified landscape contracwr. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels, residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront would fund two (2) full-time staff p~?e r?-r::, '!'~ hv the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh Natic~:;~' "':~.,Sirg of these two staff positions would be in perp<.~...L ,: :::, ....2~_;: ~., .::. specifically be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. 10. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and mitigation programs for the Project. 11. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected p~rklands. Significant Effect: Alteration of the Predator/Competition/Prey balance as a result of the proposed changes in land uses would significantly affect biological resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-91 through 3-97; Volume I, p. 4-13] The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the FEIR and restated below, additional study will be necessary to determine impact significance when detailed development plans are available at the project level. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level of analysis. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEll, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115] Page 28 Resolution No. 16838 Page 138 The Project must include the p/~paration of a program which incorporates the following biological resource management plans as individual sections: Predalor Management Plan, Human Activities M~nagement Plan, ~oj~t ~gh~ng ~, Cons~e~on Mo~m~g ~d M~em~t P~, ~d CC&R~din~A~li~le Po~es. This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern. Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor, and concurred with by the USFWS, as having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in consultation with the USF'WS shall have the ability to modify this period to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction. No constrnction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur within 200 feet of any ~alt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudfiat habitat during the period 15 March and 31 August without prior approvai by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Landscape plant materials to be utilizext in the Project area must be submitted to the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be restricted from use. Landscape plans, to achieve these goals, must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area. Posting of all of the parklands/public access areas wiU bc requ'tred in addition to imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, including this restriction in all leases and enfo~ing these reslrictinns. Plans w achieve these goals must be reviewed and aFysu~'ed by the City prior to the issuance of buildhig Page 29 Resolution No. 16838 Page 139 10. 11. Open garbage containers must be restricUxt and all dumpstns must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Gai'bage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing and signs. Tiffs restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines. Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the 'E' Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the 'F' & 'G' Street feeder channel and southeast of the'F' StreetYMarina Parkway intersection. Plans to achieve these goals, including detailed landscape and buffer design plans are required to be approved by the City prior te the issuance of building permits. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the Project level environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connora [1987] plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine chech to ensure maintenance of other mitigation requirements (i.e., siIt/gresse trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators. Plans to achieve these goals shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with current programs of the USFWS. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and mitigation programs for the Project. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibit~l activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City Page 30 Resolution No, 16838 Page 140 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port Disuict post a line of buoys to limit access in the mudfiat and massh areas. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis. Buildings faring marshlands shall not include exu'aneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the weftands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching is observed or should a nest by raptors is initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the 'F' & Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited tu passive use and must include such features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the 'E' Street Marsh and Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ('pits') by a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the recreational "pits'. This would provide both a visual screen between the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the Project level of CEQA compliance. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parkiand areas adjacent to weftands or bay mudflats. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2 acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Points, ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Su'eet Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and loss of habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would rophce the loss of some of the values associated with the 3,840 foot length of marshland fringing the "E" Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Ma.r~h that would be impacted by predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures. Detailed plans to achieve these goals are required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with current plans/programs of the USFWS. Page 31 _ Resolution No. 16838 Page 141 Significant Effect: Due to the limited extent of coastal habitats, and the high diversity and numbers of rapton utilizing this area, the loss of habitat to development is considered an incremental, but significant effect of the Project. [FEJR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through 3-100; Volume I, p. 4-13] Finding: The FEIR concluded that, although thcre are fea~iblc measures available to reduce this impact, the loss of the resource cannot be substantially compensated for and the impact remains significant. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-100; Volume I, p. 4-13] The feasible measures, as set forth hi the FEIR, are restated below. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible, and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115] , Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approvexl by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels, residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predator~ of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring mitigation requirements of the Midbayfrom development are implemented in a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. , , Annuai funding must be designated for the purpose of trash oontrol, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator oontrol program, and mitigation programs for the Project. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected paxkiands. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater det,'ntion basin would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values shall be reclaimexl through the creation of additional lalt and bracldsh marsh within the *F* & "G" SUeel Marsh area and the area between the 'F* & *G* Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four acres of Salt Marsh shall be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall Page 32 Resolution No. 16838 Page 142 be enhan¢~ a~ identified in the Wetlands Ib.~.~fr.h Ass~,'~ restration p~s [198~. Fu~er, if ~s~ ~e m ~ ~, ~ p,o~, ~ ~ ~d~ of M~na P~ay, ~dercross~g ~ which ~ d~ dung ~gh fide would ~ r~uir~. (e.g. ~ge h~f-round ~ga~ culv~ of a 10 f~t or more ~dius). No further dr~ging, ~ changes, o~ propos~ u~ shall be ~ow~ w :ur ~ong ~ m~t ~ ~d ~ of ~e ~y~t. ~s ~du~ ~h ac~6es ~ ~, ~ ~ ~u~, ew. Addi~o~y, ~e d~r, ~ ~d USeS sh~l jo~y ~ W ~ve ~e S~ Diego U~fi~ Port Di~ct ~st a ~ne of buoys w ~mit as h ~e mudfiat ~d ~ ~, Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which arc readily observable by birds. These futures will be reviewed by the PIning Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which axe exposed to the weftands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be observed or should a nest by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis. New saltmarsh habitat totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be created at locations in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge acceptable to the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The location, size, mix of habitat types, and detailed design of this replacement wetland habitat will be worked out in cooperation with and subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Enhancement and Refuge offices. In addition to the wedand acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to 'F/G" Stxeet Marsh, 2.0 acres of weftand habitat immediately west of "FIG' Strict Marsh, and 3.8 acres of weftand habitat within Swcetv,'ater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project. Significant Effect: The pwximity of the proposed development to the extensive surrounding weftands creates significant vector impacts. [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-101 through 3-102; Volume I, p. 443] Finding: The FEIR concluded that, with adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR and restated below, the significant impact would be minimized, but that until a Page 33 Resolution No. 16838 Page 143 vector control plan is available for the project level analysis, a deU:nnination of mitigation effectiveness cannot be determinod. Thus, this impact remains significant at this level of analysis. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-101 through 3-102; Volume I, p. 4-13] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: 'r~e following mitigation measures ~ave beea found to be feasible, and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115] Fertilizers, pesticicles, and herbicicles utilized within the landscaping areas of the Project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and appruved for use near weftands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 22 of Table 1. All landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done by a state-certified landscape contractor. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Garbage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible, Citations for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to achieve these goals shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and frees, Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Venes Pond, and the "E' Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F' & "G' Street feeder channel and southeast of the'F' Street]Manina Park-way intersection. Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the Project level environmental review process. This program shall ~li!iT.t. the Connon [19871 plan as a basis, but must be tailoral to fit the needs of the p,u~ose~ development. This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool W control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include management of pre~ators within the mtjacent w~dlife refuge as well as the propose~l development areas. The plan sl~ll be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels, residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront Page 34 Resolution No. 16838 Page 144 would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (P, ef~ge). Funding of these two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically be responsible for controlling avian and ~m~llan predators of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring mitigation requirement~ of the Midbayfront development axe implemented in a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of tnsh conlzol, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control pwgrarn, and mitigation programs for the Project. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F' & "G" Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such futures as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude aclive recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the wE" Street Marsh and Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This wili be accomplished by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits") by a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the recreational "pits". This would provide both a visual green between the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the Project level of CEQA compliance. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands. Significant Effect: Development would create predator enhancement effects to the Light- foot~ Clapper Rail and Belding's Savannah Spanow, which are listed by the California Department of Fish and Game as endangered, and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered - Clapper Rail, and as Category II - Belding's Savannah Sparrow. Finding: The FEIR has found that not enough spe(t~c Project-level detail has been provided to determine whether or not these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures, set forth in the FIR and restated below, would minimize the impacts, but not to a level of less than significant, therefore, these impacts remain significant at this level of analysis and further enviwnmental analysis will be required for specific construction Projects. FFEIR, Volume If, p. 3-104 through 3-105; Volume I, p. 4-13] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Page 35 Resolution No. 16838 Page 145 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible, and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. ['FEER, Volume H, p. 3--110 through 3-115] The Project must include the p~.parafico of a progntm which incorporates the following biological resource management plans as individual .sections: Predator Management Plan, Human Activities Management Plan, Landscape Design and Mamagement Plan, Water QuaLity/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan, Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan, Project Lighting Plan, Consu'uc~on Monitoring and Management Plan, and CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies. This document must be available in a completed form for rev:cv, during the project level environmental process. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the PrL~jC,'L ~.:'eZ must be submjtte~ ~o the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. A qualified monitor (as determined by the City Planning Department) shall be required for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems. The monitor shall be employed through the City and shall report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning, or Community Development departments should construction activities fail to meet the ~-~r./,i,inn~ outlined or should unforseen problems arise which require imm: c;r stopping of the construction activities. This monitor will also be r,~::cd to monitor on a reduced basis during actual building construction. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a 'no pets" area. Posting of all of the parklands/public access areas will be required in addition to imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions. Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Open gm'bage containers must be resu'icted and all dumpsten must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Gaxbage must be consistently haul~l away as oft~ as possible. Citations for open gaxbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to Page 36 Resolution No. 16838 Page 146 , 10. achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Human access to marshlands and buffer area~ shall be restricted through fencing and s~gns. This restriction shall be enforced with Imppass cilations and fines. Specific areas of c.~cem are along the fringes of V~er Pond, and the 'E* Street Marsh a~ S'a,~'~' Man,b. ..u'l~i6mal lmma~l~ 1ff,.~6~chn~:m ~ be res~ct~d thx~ugh fcacing ana visual buffexsat the mouth ofth~*F" & 'G' Street fe~:ler channel and southeast of the'F' SU'eettMarlna Parkway inte. ra~on. Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed to control domestic as well as wild animal pre~ators as part of the Project level environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Cormors [1987] plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan shall include the use of frees as an enforcement tool to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits Revenues generatexl from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels, residences, and commercial properties assocftated with the proposed Midbayfront would fund tq~o (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predators of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and mitigation programs for the Project. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional .salt and brackish marsh within 'F" & 'G" Street Marsh area and the area between the 'F' & 'G' Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 antes of Marsh and four acres of Salt Marsh shall be oreatod in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans [1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be c?ea~d, as prol~sed, on both sides of Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would be required. (e.g. large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more radius). Page 37 Resolution No. 16838 Page 147 ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to occur along the mudfiat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District pest a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectoral lines which are readily observable by birds. These featores will be reviewed by the Planning Department during the design review process. A fiJm glass manufactured by 3M or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upen which aptor could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crest~ which are expesed to the weftands must be covered with an anti-perch material such a NixMite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will be reviewed during the Project level CEQA analysis. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F" & ~'G" Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E' Street Marsh and Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished by using a vegeutted berm separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits") by a fence. Passive ove~ooks will be incorporated on the development side of the recreational "pits". This would provide both a visual green between the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required al the project level of CEQA compliance. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parkland areas adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently pested throughout the affected parklands. New saltmarsh habitat totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be created at locations in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The location, size, mix of habitat types, and detailed design of this replacement wetland habitat will be worked out in cooperation with and subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Enhancement and Refuge offices. Page 38 Resolution No. 16838 Page 148 I~ addition to the wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for speci~ca/ly creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to 'F/G" Street Marsh, 2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "F/G" Street Marsh, and 3.8 acres of wedand habitat within Sweetwater Marsh Natirma1 Wildlife Refuge or within the boundarie~ of MidbayfTont Project. PotentiaLly Significant Effect: Vegetafon and wildlife within wellands could be signi~cam]y altered by wide fluctuations in the salinity regimes of the marshla~ds due to increasett freshwater input from site drainage. [FF. XR, Volume H, p. 3-76 through 3-79; Volume l, p. 4-13] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporatad into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. FFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115] The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the following biological resources management plans as individual sections: Predator Management Plan, Human Activities Management Plan, Landscape Design and Management Plan, Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan, Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan, Project Lighting Plan, Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies. This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department is achieved. In addition, construction alewatering will be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an alternative, alewatering water must be pumped across the mudflat into the boat channel and dischargad at a point above the bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet. Revenues generated from the sealing, leasing, or operation of the hotels, residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Page 39 ' Resolution No. 16838 Page 149 Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically bc responsible for controlling avian and rpanlmalian predators of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring mitigation requirements of the Midba.'drent development are implemented in a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of Wash control, repair, and maintenance of drainage facffities, fencing, the predator contwl program, and mitigation programs for the Project. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh tu a freshwater detention basin would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh within the "F' & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the 'F" & "G" Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four acres of Salt Marsh must be crated in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall be enhanced as identified in the Weftands Research Associates restoration plans [1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be cre~ted. as proposed, on both sides of Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would be required. (e.g. large half-round corragated culverts of a 10 foot or more radius) Potentially Significant Effect: The substantial grading, excavating, and dewatefing have the potential for creating considerable erosion within the uplands, and sedimentation/turbidity in the wetland and nearshore marine systems -- eelgrass habitat may be lost, and mudfiat habitats may be modified. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-82 through 3-84; Volume I, p. 4-13] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project ~hich will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made bthding on the applicam through these findings. ['FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115] The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the following biological resource management plans as individual sections. Predator Management Plan Human Activities Management Ban Landscape Design and Management Plan Water Quality/Runoff/Drajnage Management Plan Mudfiat and Weftand Monitoring Plan Project Lighting Plan Construction Monitoring and Management Plan Page 40 Resolution No. 16838 Page 150 CC&Rs/Ordinanc, es/Applicable Policies This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process. AIJ post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt an~ grea.g traps prior to being shunted inw the freshwater detention bas'm or the bay ¢fuchasges. The i,~,;B'al~ plae~d ¢m ~ enacting the d~te-tion basin must be triple chambexed. The silt and grease trips must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be conducted in late September or ea.rly October and as-n~cl~l through ~e winter and spring months. Maintenance must be don~ by removal of wastes rather than flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects ofgroundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution because of contaminants or reduced nlinities, a saltwater intake from the bay must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and shaJl be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Impacts associhted with the placement Of this system must be mitigated by the rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than direc~y to the bay. Ti~e specific drainage discharge system will be further defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to a level acceptable to the Depa~ment of Public Works and the Planning Department is achieved. In addition, construction alewatering will be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an alternative, alewatering water must be pump~ across the mudflat into the boat channel and dischaxged at a point above the boRom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight fe~t. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels, residences, and commercial proparties associated with the proposed/vtidbayfront would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh Nafiona~ Wildfife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically be responsible for controlling avinn and mammalian predatora of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. Page 41 Resolution No. 16838 Page 161 Annual funding must be designat~l for the purpose of Wash control, npalx, and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the preator comxol program, and mitigation programs for the Project. Public awaxeness signs explaining the resource concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands. Potentially Significant Effect: Consreaction of the Project would generate considerable noise and increased human activities for a 20-year period, could increase ~diment erosion and accretion patterns, further generate elevated turbidiVy in adjacent water, siltatlon in adjacent wetlands, potentially release toxins inw adjacent wetlands, and elevate predator/sc~.venger densities within the vicinity of the development area. [FF_XR, Volume If, p. 3-84 through 3-85, 3-105 thwugh 3-106; Volume I, p. 4-13] Finding: Changes or alterations have been requiree i'- ;,,' incorporated into, the Project v, hich will avoid the potentially significant environment.:.C c! i!:l a:; :der. ufied m the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been requirexl either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-110 through 3-115] The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the following biologicai resource management plans as individual sections. Predator Management Plan, Human Activities Management Plan, Landscape Design and Management Plan, Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan, Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan, Project Lighting Plan, Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies. This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating mrbidity in the nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern. Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor, and concurred with by the USFWS as having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period to reflect the presence of terns during the actua/year(s) of consh"uction. Page 42 Resolution No. 16838 Page 152 No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activit~ will occur within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudfiat habitat during the period 15 Marsh and 31 August without prior approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Several desiltation basins and b~ck-up has'ms large enoch Io handle storm water Panoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that silt discharge to a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department is achieved. In addition, conslruction dewaterlng will be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is releas~ into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the mudfiat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid resuspending bosom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are known to be ins'asive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cormderia, shall be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. A qualified monitor (as determined by the City Planning Department) shall be required for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems. The monitor shall be employed through the City and shall report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning, or Community Development departments should construction activities fall to meat the conditions outlined or should unforseen problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of the construction activities. This monitor will also be required to monitor on a reduced basis during actual building construction. Significant Effect: increased human and pet presence would signi~cantiy affect the quality of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, and decrease the use of the area by nesting and foraging avifauna. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-88 through 3-91; Volume I, p. 4.-13] Finding: The FEIR found that the mitigation measures, sot forth in the FEIR and restated below, are feasible to reduce this impact to a level less than significant at the Project level, but that for the plan level, impacts are not mitigated. At the project level analysis will be required to analyze the extent of the impacts and to confirm and/or supplement the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified below. [FEIR, Volume 1I, p. 3-91] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this signi fieant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations. Page 43 Resolution No. 16838 Page 153 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigalion measures have been found to be feasible and have been recluir~l either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume H, p. 3-110 thl'ough 3-115] The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the following biological resource management plans as individual sections. Predator Management Plan, Human Activities Management Plan, Landscape Design and Management Plan, Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan, Mudflat and Weftand Monitoring Plan, Project Lighting Plan, Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies. This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process, Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets' area. Posting all of the parklands/public access areas will be required in addition to imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions. A plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsten must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Garbage must be consistently hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and appwved prior to the issuance of building permits. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespan cilations and fines. Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be resta'icted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the *F* & *G' Street feeder channel and southea.st of the*F* Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans Page 44 Resolution No. 16838 Page 154 1o. 1i. to achieve these goals must be reviewed and appreved by the city prior to the issuance of building potmils. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfnnm will be developed to conu'ol domestic In well as wild animal predators as pazt of the Project level environmental review process. This program shall uti!i,~. the Cormors [1987] plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the nmls of the pmpos~ development. This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to conu'ol human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the homls, residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and WUdlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge ('Refuge). Funding of these two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predaton of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, end ensuring mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented hi a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. Annuaj funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair, and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and mitigation programs for the Project. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh within the "F" & 'G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "F" & "G" Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four acres of Salt Marsh must be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans [1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would be required. (e.g.large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more radius) No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to occur along the mudfiat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities as marinas, water spoils courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and USFWS shall joinfly seek 'to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line of buoys to limit access in the mud~aI and marsh areas. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include exwaneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are Page 45 Resolution No. 16838 Page 155 exposed to the wedands must be covered with an anti-porch rnatorial such a Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will be reviewed during ~e Project level CEQA analysis. 12. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the 'F" & 'G' Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the 'E* Street Marsh and Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area (*pits") by a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the recreational *pits". This would provide both a visual screen between the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between passive observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the project level of CEQA. 13. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parkland areas adjacent to wetlands or bay mudfiats. 14. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands. 15. New saltmarsh habitat totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be created at locations in the Sweetwater Marsh National Wild~i~l? Refuge acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The location, s~zc n:.:x of habitat types, and detailed design of this replacement weftand ,~,atUtat will be worked out in cooperation with and subject to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Enhancement and Refuge offices. In addition to the wedand acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to 'F/G" Street Marsh, 2.0 acres of wedand habitat immediately west of *F/G' Street Marsh, anti 3.8 acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National WildFire Refuge or within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project. Potentially Significant Effect: Effects from development on the California Lea~t Tern could occur including indirect effects of water quali~ degradation, nest si~ predation, disruption from humans and pets, and altering of the predator regime. [FBR, Volume II, p. 3-104; Volume I, p. 4-13] Page 46 Resolution No. 16838 Page 156 Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final E1R. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [YEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115] The Project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the following biological resource management plans as individual sections. Predator Management Plan Human Activities Management Plan Landscape Design and Management Plan Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan Mudflat and Weftand Monitoring Plan Project Lighting Plan Construction Monitoring and Management Plan CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process. All post-construction coIlector drains must be directed through large volume silt and grease ~.ps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must be triple chambered. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wa.stes rather than flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects ofgroundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagcon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution because of contaminants or reduced salinitias, a saltwater intake from the bay must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain'system, which flows through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than direc~y to the bay, The specific drainage discharge system will be further defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level. No 'in-water" consu'uction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating torbidity in the Page 47 Resolution No. 16838 Page 157 10. nearshore foraging and chick Inining areas of the California Least Tern. Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor, and concurred with by the USFWS as having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demons~at~l that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of conslTuction. No constxuction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudfiat habitat during the period 15 Marsh and 31 August without prior appwval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Seven] desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained during the consl2'uction phase so that silt discharge to a level acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewatering will be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an alternative, alewatering water must be pumped across the mudfiat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least eight feet. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the Project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and approved for use near wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 22 of Table 1. All landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done by a state-certified landscape contractor. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the Project area must be submitted to the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be atWactive a~ denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be restricted from use. Landscape plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a *no pets' area. This means posting all of the parklands'public access areas and imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and posting the development areas and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions. Page 48 Resolution No. 16838 Page 158 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. A plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsten must be totally enclosed W avoid am'acting avian and marnmalian predators and scavengers to the area, Garbage m~ be cnsds~nfiy hauled sway as often as possible. Citations for open gs~age amm~ners will be issued to any entity not complying. A plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building pennin. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines. Specific areas of concern arc along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the 'E* Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pot encroachment shall be restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the 'F' & 'G ' Street feeder channel and southeast ofthe"F' Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as pan of the Project level environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connon [1987] plan as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet activities. The plan will include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the proposed development areas. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permit. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels, residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront would fund two (2) full-time staff people employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Funding of these two staff positions would be in perpetuity. These employees would specifically be responsible for controlling avian and mammalian predaton of endangered species, performing law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a reasonable, effective, and a timely manner. Annual funding must be designat~t for the purpose of Ixa~h control, t=pair, and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and mitigation programs for the Project. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detenlioo basin would reduce, but not eliminate, ~e resource values of this pond. These values shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh Page 49 Resolution No. 16838 Page 159 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. within the "F' & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the *F" & *G* Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Marsh and four acres of Salt Marsh must be creat~l in this area. In addition, tidal flushing be enhanc~ as identified in the Wetlands Resareh Assoc~tes zestoration plans [1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be cr~-'~, as proposed. on both sides of Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which r~anain dry during high tide would be required (e.g.large half-round corrogat~l culverts of u 10 font or more radius). No further dredging, sU'uctural changes, or ~upos~l uses will be allowed to occur along the mudfiat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities as marinas, water spore courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District pest a line of buoys tu limit access in the mudflat and mm'sh areas Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning Department during the design review process. A f~rn glass manufactured by 3M or its equivalent is required. These design features will be zeviewed during the project level CEQA analysis. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upen which raptor could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the weftands must be covered with an anti-perch material such a Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained from the applicant in the event that a heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the 'F" & "G" Street Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the 'E' Street Marsh and Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This will be accomplished by using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits') by a fence. Passive overlooks will be incorporated on the development side of the recreational "pits". This would provide both a visual screen bet'wenn the marsh and the high human activity as well as a dislance separation between passive observation areas and the marshlands. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the project level of CEQA compliance. Kite flying activities result in high avian distueoance due to the kites being perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited for parEand areas adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited activities must be prominen~y pested throughout the affected parklands. Page 50 Resolution No. 16838 Page 160 23. New marshland, pond fringe, and sah pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2 acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Points, ideally, with marah linkage to both the "E" Strict Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh to aid in off*~rdng impacts associated with ancroachmant, predation, and los5 of habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would r~lace the loss of some of the values associated with the 3,840 foot length of marshland fringing the 'E" $m~et Marah, Ven~ Pond, and Sw~mr~' Manh 1hat would be impacted by predator/competitor threats and encroachment pr~ur~. Detailed plans to achieve these goals are requii'ed to be reviewed and ~gproved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with current plana/programs of the USFWS. Potentially Significant Effect: Placement of site drainage pipes and resultant incre,ued freshwater inputs and ~.*diments accretion and erosion could $everely affect the eelgrass and mudflats marine resources. [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-106 through 3-107; Volume I, p. 4-13] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the apphcant through these findings. [FE1R, Volume If, p. 3-110 through 3-115] , The Project must include the prepantion of a program which incorporates the foilowing biological resource management plans as individual sections. Predator Management Plan, Human Activities Management Plan, Landscape Design and Management Plan, Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan, Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan, Project Lighting Plan, Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies. This document must be available in a completed form for review during the project level environmental process. The "direct to bay" drains shail be designed and constructed with effective energy dis5ipators and flow cliffusers which eliminate erosion or accretion of the mudflats and ensure the protection of adjacent eelgrass bais. An expected loss of mudflat totaling not less than 1.7 acres must be replaced within the NWR in a location away from the proposed development area. The drains and the surrounding mudfiats and eelgra~s beds shall be monitored in accordance with an altoproved Mudflat and Wetlands Monitoring Plan (Measure 1) for a period of five years and any additional Page 51 Resolution No. 16838 Page 161 corrective measures required must be implemented an any additional impacted areas resulting shall be replac~ by the creation of a similar area from the uplands of the *D' Street Fill or Gunpowder Point. As an alternative, the two *direct to bay" drains must be extend~l to subsurface discharge points located in the existing *J* Stnet Marina boat channel. These discharge points must be located at a minimum depth of - 10 ~. lvlLLW and shall be buritxl in the mudfiat to a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Drain placement shall seek to impact the least amount of eelgrass beds. Drain pla~ment shall le.k to impact the least amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either combining the drains or avoiding dense enlgrass beds. Surface contours must be restored and any construction impaets to eelgrass must be mitigated by replanting over the l~xpeline. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a soitable solution because of contaminants or reducext salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than directly to the bay. The specific drainage discharge system will be hrther defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern. Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological moniWr, and concurred with by the USFWS as having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonshated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudfiat habitat during the period 15 Marsh and 31 August without prior approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained during the consauction phase so that silt discharge to Page 52 Resolution No. 16838 Page 162 a level acceplable to the D~partment of Public Works and the Planning Department is achieved. In addition, construction dewarring will be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, grovel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped across the mudfiat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above ~e bottom to avoid resuspending bonom si}ts, but at a depth of at least eight feet. A full-dine enforcement staff of two or more officen sha.U be funded by the applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure mainttmlmce of other mitigation requirements (i.e., siltIgrease trap maintenance, e%c.). Such officers will work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as the relat~ to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers must have mtining in predator control and shall possess the necessary skills, permits and authority to tntp and remove problem predators. Plans to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits will be verified for consistency with current programs of thn USFWS. Annua] funding must be designated for the purpose of lrash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and mitigation programs for the Project. No further dredging, structura] changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and USF'WS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands. H. ARCHAEOLOGY/HISTORY/PALEONTOLOGY Potentially Significant Effect: Development outside of the Project boundaries (e.g., for the extension of utilities to serve the site) could impact adjacent archaeological sites. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-120 through 3-122; Volume I, p. 4-13]. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through these findings. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to archaeological r~.'iew at the project level of environmental review. [FE/R, Volume l], p. 3-124; Volume I, p. 4-13]. Page 53 Resolution No. 16838 Page 163 Potentially Significant Effect: Impacts m paleontological resources (fossils) may occur when the site is graded as earth moving activities cut into the potentially fossil-bearing layers [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-122; Volume I, p.4-131. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-123; Volume I, p. 4-13]. A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. A paleontological monitor shall be site on half time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the deposits mapped as Bay Point Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. If the deposits are discovered to be fossiliferous then monitoring will proceed; if on the other hand they turn out to be barren colluvial deposits then monitoring will not be continued. C'rhe axcal distribution of these deposits is summarized on the geological map of Kennedy and Tan, 1977.) In the event that well-preserved fossils aye discovered, the paleontologist will be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. Fossil remains collected during any salvage program will be cleaned, sorted, and catalogued an then, with the owner's permission, deposite~l in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. 1. LAND USE/GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS/ZONING Significant Effect: The intensity of the proposed land uses will result in a significant conflict because of incompatibility with the land use intensity in the surrounding area. ['FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-131 through 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-13 through 4-15]. Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign to reduce intensity in accordance with the building heights and square footage allowed by the ces'fifi~l LCP would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-15]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council Page 54 Resolution No. 16838 Page 164 has determined Lhat this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, sodal, and other considerations. Potentially Significant Effect: The nsicien~al units above the commercial retail and the nearby commercial visitor uses in the central core area would be exposed to much commercial activity. Traffic congestion, competition for pafidng, noise from tnfftc and visitors, and night-Lighting could create significant incompatibility impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14 through 445]. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identi~ext in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicanl through these findings. [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14 through 4-15]. Insulation, in accordance with the Uniform Building Cede CuIC), shall be required in all exterior and interior residential walls. Units must be designed such that insulation between units occurs, in walls, eei)ings, and floors, to reduce pOtential noise impacts. c Residential window treatments shall be designed to reflect some light. Designated parking spaces within a separate locked and secure area shall be provided for residents. Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed development site (even with the buffers) coupled with the intensity of the proposed Project, creates significant land use compatibility conflicts be~'een the National Wildlife Refuge and the pn~posed development site. [FE1R, Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14]. Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign Io lower building heights which are close to the Refuge boundaries (to no gre~ter flm. n 30 feet along the perimeter of the site), and decrease intensity (to a level similar W the intensity allowed under the certified LCP) would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FF_,IR, Volume H, p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, bowever, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, so~flal, or other considerations. Page 55 Resolution No. 16838 Page 165 Significant Effect: The proposed Subcommittee Alternative s embodied in the L,CP Resubmittal and GPA documents are not consistent with the certified LCP, General Plan (2010), and Bayfront Redevelopmerit Plan. Finding: Changes or alterations have t'~:~-. ~a:red in, or incorporated into, the proposal which can reduce to a less than significant level the impact identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is found to be feasible and has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p. 4-15]. The certified LCP, General Plan, and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan must be amended to be consistent with the proposed concept plan. Approval of the proposed Project would accomplish this measure. J. CO~A3,fUN'ITY SOCIAL FACTORS The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse effects in the area of c~'' -:'.~niLv Social Factors. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-142 through 3-143; Volume I, p. 4-15 through K. CONSIL~ITY TAX STRUCTURE The FEIR does not cite any significant effects in the axea of Community Tax Structure. [FE1R, Volume ll, p. 3-144; Volume I, p. 4-16]. L. PARKS. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Potentially Significant Effect: Public access opportunities from I-5 and areas to the east ma> be constrained. UFEIR, Volume If, p. 3-148 through 3-150; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4- 19]. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into, the Project v, hich will substantially avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation M~sure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through these findings. The applicant shall submit an access plan, showing designated public parking areas, access routes to public areas, and access mutes and signage from the east side of I-5 across the 'E' Street bridge at the project level of environmental review. An access plan to achieve these goals must be r~-viewed and approved Page 56 Resolution No. 16838 Page 166 by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3- 151; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19]. Potentia/ly Significant Effect: Park development according to the proposed phasing plan would not provide adequat~ IVyfir Ima or lmrking for 1Nmrh, to accommodate the anticipated high public usage. [FEIR, Volume 11, p. 3-148; Volurr, e 1, p. 4-181. Finding: Changes or alterations have been requin~ in, or incotponted into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the FAR. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through these findings. The applicant must include all parks development and parking for parks within the first phase of development. UFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18]. Potential)y Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan includes a potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users. [FEIR, VOlume II, p. 3-149 through 3 -150; Volume I, p. 4-18]. Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project proposal at the project level of CEQA compliance. Additional public parking spaces may be required by the City. The number of spaces and the location of those spaces will be determined during project level CEQA review. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-152; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19] Significant Effect: Implementation of proposed concept plan would result in shade/shadow impacts to park and public open space areas. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-150 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]. Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign to reduce the heights of the hotels to a range of 6-12 stories would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]. As described in the Statement Page 57 Resolution No. 16838 Page 167 of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations. M. UTILITY SERVICE Potentially Significant Effect: Implementation of the concept plan would result in an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to non-renewable energy resource~ (fossil fuels). FFEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-158; Volume I, p. 4-20]. Finding: The Final EIR concluded that, cumulative energy resource impacts ctn be mitigated below a level of significance by the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-163; VOlume I, p. 4-20].] Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. Include double-pane glass, provide increased wall and ceiling insulation, incorporate solar energy opportunities, provide efficient Paling of doors and windows, and include time controlled lighting systems throughout the industrial/commercial portions of the Project to minimize cumulative impacts to non-renewable energy sources. [FEIR, Volume It, p. 3-162 through 3-163; Volume I, p. 4-20]. Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed high rise buildings would result in the need for an additional ladder truck and four-person crew by the Fire Department. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21]. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which ',,,'ill avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. An additional ladder truck will be funded by the applicant in a manner acceptable to the City and the applicant. The annual salaries of the four-person crew will be funded by the City. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-16l; Volume I, p. 4-21]. Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project will result in an increased work load for the Fire Department due to plan review, site inspections, routine fire safety inspections, and public education programs. [FED>., Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21]. Page 58 Resolution No. 16838 Page 168 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporaled into, the Project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Midgation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and has been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. An additional fire inspector will be necessary to handle the addilional work load created by this Project. The City's General Fund will pay for the additional position. UFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21] Potentially Sign:~cant Effect: The proposed concept plan has the potential to result in significant impacts on fire service if the subsequent Project is not properly designed from a fire safer) standpoint. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which ',,,'ill avoid the potentially significant environmenUd effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Mensure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4- 21] a. Maximum fire flow shall be 5000 gpm. Fire department roadway access shall be provided to within 150 feet of all portions of an), building. c. All roadway widths shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. All apartments, three or more stories in height or containing more than 15 dwelling units and every hotel three or more stories in height or containing 20 or more guest rooms shall be provided with a fully automatic fire sprinkler system. A fire alarm/excavation system shall be provided for all public assembly, and multi-residential occupancies. All Title 1924 California Code of Regulations (State Fire Marshal's Rules and Regulations) shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise occupancies. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided with the provision for the turning around of f~'e apparasus (either a 75 x 24 foot hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cubde-sac). Page 59 Resolution No. 16838 Page 169 Private fire hydrants will be requ~d to satisfy the requirement that any part of the ground floor of any building shall be within 150 fea~ of a water supply. These hydrants shall be in place and operable prior to the delivery of combustible building materials. Public fire hydrants will be required every 300 feet on public s[xeets. However, if the location of major buildings is unknown, hydrants may be located specific W the buildings. This would result in more effective coverage, and could possibly result in fewer fire hydrants. For design interest, there are hydrants manufactured which have a lower profile than the traditional barrel type. Address signs - Easily readable signs which can be seen from the sb-eet ~re require~. Large, contrasting block letters and numbers must be uti~zed. Potentially Significant Effect: Solid waste generated from the proposed Project site would result in an incremenh~l contribution to the limited and declining landfill space in San Diego County. [FEIR, Volume I1, p. 3-160; Vniume l, p. 4-21] Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. In order to reduce the volume of trash, a recycling program shall be undertaken by the applicant in conjunction with a local recycling company. The recycling program shall include bins on site for the collection of recyclable materials such as glass, plastic, metal, and paper products for residents, businesses, and visitors. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21] Also to reduce the volume of trash, the development shall be required to incorporate trash compactors into all building plans. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume l, p. 4-21] Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project may result in significant impacts to sewer infrastructure. The magnitude of this impact will not be known until detailed plans for the infrastructure are prepared. [FEIR, Volume 11, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21] Findings: Changes or alterations can be incorporate~l into the Project at the project level of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final FIR. Page 60 Resolution No. 16838 Page 170 Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible and shall be required to be incorporated inW the Project proposal at the project level of CEQA compliance. The City Engineering Department must review the plans for consistency with the City's Thresholds Standards and with the system which the Project wiJJ tle into. Connections which e~c'-~__ the ~reshohi standards will not be allowed. Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p, 4-22] Potentially Significant Effect: The pwposed Project would result in significant impacts to water infrastructure. [FEIR, Volume 1~, p. 3-164 thwugh 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-22] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the proposed Project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been require~d either as conditions of approval or have been made binding on the applicanl through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-16~ through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4- 22] The Sweetwater Authority analysis indicated specific areas where upgrading of water mares must be completed. These include: A 12 inch main in "F" Street from Broadway to approximately 830 feet west must be installed. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Siena Way extension westerly must be insta/led. Cf'his will connect the Project with supplies of water from the southern portion of Chula Vista, thus providing the Project site with two sources of water instead of one.) The existing 8 inch main along 'F" Street from Bay Boulevard running west must be upgraded to a 12 inch main. d. All on-site mains must be sized 12 inches. Potentially Significant Effect: The Project would incrementally enntfibute to a regionally significant demand on water resources. [FEIR, Volume If, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the proposed Project which will lessen the potentially significant anviwnmantal effect as identified in the Final EIR below a level of significance. Page 61 Resolution No. 16838 Page 171 Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and have been required either as conditions of appwvai or have been made binding on the applicant through these findings. The applicant must provide water conservation measures at the project level design, including elements such as low flow showerheads, low flush toilets, timed imgation, drought-tolerant lan~,.c_n4ing, drip irrigation (where appropriate) and reclaimed water fines for future use (if determined by the city's Department of Public Works to be appropriate for this area). The development must result in no net increase in water consumption, and will be subject to any fee program the City has in place to implement this requirement. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-23] Potentially Significant Effect: Until the applicant demonstntes that there is an adequate supply of well water for both lagoons and an engineering design for the circulation system is provided a potentially significant effect on water supply is assumed. Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with the measures set forth in the EIR and restated below, additional study is necessary when development plans are available at the Project level to determine impact significance. Impacts arc therefor considered significant and not mitigated at the plan level of analysis. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City CounciI has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project proposal at the project level of CEQA compliance. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23] Further testing and verification of well supply must be completed for both lagoons and included in an EIR at the Project level. Information must be provided to show the proposed well locations and engineering design of the circulation system. If quantity and/or quality are not adequate, a different source of water to be approved by the City must be used. A possible, feasible source is the adjacent San Diego Bay. The impacts of such a water source would be reviewed during Project level environmental review. Significant Effect: The proposed Project has the potential to produce 300 elementary school students and 290 junior high and high school students which would decreas~ the ability of both districts to adequately serve the needs of the students. Additionally, the City's Threshold Standards would not be met. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23 thzough 4-24] Page 62 Resolution No. 16838 Page 172 Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the Project which could rexlace to a less than significant level the school ovrauuwding impacts. These measures shall be incorporated into the proposed Project at the pProject level of CEQA compliance. Additional information is, however, necessary to determine Project level impact significance and mitigation f~.n~ibility. As descril~i in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Cramell ~ dead'mined that exis significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, m' other consi~rasinns. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures may be feasible and shall be required either as conditions of appwval or been made binding on the applicant during the Project level of CEQA compliance. The applicant must form a new Mello Roos district to finance capital costs such as permanent or relocatable classrooms and school buses. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-165 through 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-25] The location of new school sites or additional property adjacent to existing schools for the construction of capital improvements will be resolved during project level CEQA compliance. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-165 through 3-166; Volume l. p. 4-23 through 4-24] Potentially Significant Effect: The location of I-5 between the Project area and the school s would prohibit the feasibilit3, of students walking to existing schools, potentially resulting in significant transportation cost. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-167; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24] Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure h~ been found to be feasible and shall be required either as a condition of approval or has been made binding on the applicant through these findings. Annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers' salaries must be funded by the applicant in a manner acceptable to the City. FFEIR, Volume II, p. 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-24] N. TRAFFIC Significant Effect: Development under Subcommittee Alternative would rosult in significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the Project generated traffic added to the network, the Broadway/'E' Street intersection Page 63 Resolution No. 16838 Page 173 would operate at LOS F (ICU 1.04) wkich is an unacceptable level of service. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporatod into, the Project which will reduce to a less than ~ignificant level the impacts at the Broadway/'E' Stxeet intersection. These measures shall be ailo,-a,~ on a faix share basis and be incttrporated into the project level design. Additional mitigation m~.sures shall be examined at the Project level of review and shall be adopted if found to be feasible. The identified impa~.s to intersection capacities, therefore, remain significant. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because or overriding economic, social, or other considerations. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project 2.~ th~ ~:'~:t.~" level CEQA compliance. a. The following improvements are require~. Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn anti an exclusive right*turn only lane. Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right- turn only lane. Significant Effect: Development under Subcommittee Alternative would contribute to significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the Subcommittee Alternative generated traffic added to the network, the Broadway/'F" Street intersection would operate at LOS D 0CU 0.84) which is an unacceptable level of service. [FE1R, Volume I, p. 4-27] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/'F' SWeet intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporate~ into the project level design. The identified impacts to intersection capacities, therefore, remains significant. Additional information is, however, necessary to determine project level impact significance, fair share allocation, and mitigation feasibility. AS described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that the significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations, Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measu~s have been found to be feasible and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CF_,QA compliance, a. The following improvements are n~uired at the Bmadway/'F' Slxeet intersection. Westbound: Restxiping W provide an exclusive right-tom only lane. Page Resolution No. 16838 Page 174 Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive fight-turn only lane. Significant Effect: Development under the Subcommittee Alternative would contribute to significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the Subcommitlee Alternative generated U'affic added to the network, the Broadway/'H' Sweet intersection would operate at LOS E (ICU 0.95) which is an unacceptable level of service. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/'H' Street intersecuon. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated into the project level design. Impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity, therefore, remain significant. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerntions, however, the City Council has determined that the significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CEQA compliance. The following impro;'ements are required at the Broadway/"H*' Street intersection. Westbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane. Eastbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane. Significant Effect; Development under Subcommittee Ahemative will contribute to significant impacts to intersection capacities in the Project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the Subcommittee Alternative generated traffic added to the network, the 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27] Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the 1-5 Northbound Ramp/'E' Street freeway ramp intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated into the project level design. Impacts to intersection capacities in the vicinity, therefore, remain significant. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other considerations. Furthermore, some of the changes (e.g., those to eastbound 'E' Street) axe within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency (CalTrans) and not the City Council. Such changes must be approved by Ca.ITrans. Page 65 Resolution No, 16838 Page 175 Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CEQA compliance. The following improvements arc required at the I-5 Northbound end Southbound RamprE" Street intersections. Northbound 1-5 Off-Ramp at 'E' Street: Conslxuction of an additional right-turn only lene along "E" Su'eet east of the ramp. Widen the 1-5 northbound off-rnmp at 'E" Street to provide an exclusive left-turn lane, shared left- and right-turn lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane. Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane end two right- turn lanes. Widen eastbound Marina Parlo.~.'ay to provide three through lanes and a right-turn only lane. Restripe the "E" Street overpass to provide two through lanes per direction, and two left- turn lanes from eastbound "E" Street to the I-5 northbound on-ramp. Additional mitigation measures not considered in the EIR bm required as a condition of Project approval by the Chula Vista Planning Commission. VIII. INTEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE SUBCOMMH'iI~E ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 fll) The approval of the proposed Project will cause significant unavoidable impact~ u discussed above. The impacts which cannot be substantially lessened or avoided with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures are listed on pages 8 to 12 of this document. The decisionmakers have, in certain ~sta.nces, rejected the propo.~xl mitigation measure of redesigning the Project as currently proposed. This mitigation measure has been specifically rejected by the City as infeasible because the densities proposed for the Project are necessary in order to make the Project as finencially feasible as possible, given the mount of public infrastructure that is necessary for development of the midbayfront. In addition, the City Council has specifically found that construction of the Project as proposed will generate significant construction jobs and significant permanent jobs. Finally, the City rejects the mitigation measure of redesign because the Project as pwposed (Subcommittee Alternative) will Page 66 Resolution No. 1683~ Page 17-~ increase the City's property tax base, the City's occupancy tax revenues and the City's sales tax revenues which arc necessary in order to economically enable the pwject m be developed. In addition, the City Counc~ has also considered whether any of the Project alternatives discussed in the EIR could feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. (see, Citizens for Ouality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal. App.3d 433 [243 Cal. Rptx. 727']; see also, PubHe Resources Code section 21002.) As wil/be explained below the decisionmakers conclude that none of the proposul alternatives could both meet the objectives of the Project applicant and lessen or avoid the identified significant environmental effects. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(c), the decisionmaker(s), finds that the following independent economic, social and other considerations made infeasible project alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated into the Project identified in the FaR. The decisionmaker(s) further finds that each independent consideration, standing alone, would be sufficient to make infeasible the Project alternatives and mitigation measures not incoxporated into the project which were identified in the FIR. Economic considerations that make the alternatives infeasible include a reduction in the level of empioyment opportunities which would accompany the proposed Project. The Re. development Agency's goal of generating revenue from the Transient Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of the infeasible alternatives which reduce the number of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area. The infeasible alternatives would also reduce the levels of property mx increment income and sales tax revenue, which are necessary to aid in funding the public infrastructure which would accompany the proposed project. There are Social considerations that make alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 infeasible, including their inability to create a viable 'community' in the Midbayfront area. The Subcommittee Alternative presents the City with the opportunity to create a balanced pedestrian- oriented neighborhood that is a 24-hour, safe, vital self-sustaining mixed-use neighborhood. (See for example testimony by Carl Worthington, Jerde Parmership before the Planning Commission on December 18, 1991 .) For the neighborhood to be well balanced between jobs, housing and senices. both visitor lodging and permanent residential uses must be a major element of the mix to provide an adequate market for the services needed. Permanent residential and visitor lodging facilities would keep the district active and vital in the evening hours, and would also augment all the day time activities which would help reduce overall per capita auto nips in and out of the neighborhood. Finally, permanent 24-hour neighborhood population helps discourage crime. The Midbayfront population of 5000 to 7000 people would occupy an area of less than 135 acres surrounded by a 350+ acre park and open space area (including National Wildlife Reserve). This contrasts with a typical distribution, such as would be found within Chula Vista east of I-5, of 5000 to 10,000 people occupying a full square mile (640 acres). Other considerations that make infeasible the project alternatives includes the similarity of impacts that would result from implementation of any of the alternatives. The Wildlife Page 67 Resolution No. 16838 Page 177 Resources (Incremental Loss of Raptor Foraging Area) impact would occur regardless of the alternative adopted and would not be mitigated by any of the alternatives. EIR Alternative g, as well as Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would result in th~ same level of visual urban dominance, obstruction of bay views, land use, and shade/shadow impacts. The SubcommiU~e A/tea'native lessens the visual impacts although not to a level be. low algni~eance. (See testimony of John Moot, Vice Chair, Bayfront Planning Subcommittee, be. fore the Planning Commission on Decemhnr 18, 1991.) Only Alternatives 2, 7, 7a or 9 would mitigate these impacts. However, Alternative 2 would result in significant, unmifigable traffic impacts and Ahematives 7, 7a and 9 are infeasible due to economic, social, and other considerations as previously stated. Ahemative 1. No PrOject - No Development This alternative would retain the site in its curr~nt degraded condition and would not result in attaining the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Redevelopmerit Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan. The No Project alternative would not revits/ize or rehabilitate this portion of the community and would also present untenable economic impacts as a result of the loss of currently expended funds. This alternative would allow the existing uses of the site to continue, which include people and pets walking through the area and intruding into the sensitive buffera of the National Wildlife Refuge and illegal dumping. Thus, the sensitive weftand habitats and species would continue to be impacted by human disturbance. There would be no managed opportunity for the public to access the bayfront in this location. Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible. Alternative 2. Development Under Existing Certified LCP Because this alternative is primarily office uses, this alternative would result in significant, unmitigated traffic impacts that could be avoided by the proposed Project and all of the other alternatives. The alternative would also result in a significant and unmitigable impact to raptor habitat. As noted above, because this alternative does not contain a substantial residential component, this alternative would not create a 'viable' community that would attract suffieient retail establishments needed to sustain the development. Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which r~duoes the number of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront ar~. Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible. Page 68 Resolution No. 16838 Page 178 Alternative 3. Reduce~ Density I This alternalive would result in the same level of biologieai, visual urban dominance, obstruction of bay views, land use and shadedshadow impacts as the proposed Project. As noted above, this ahernatlve woul~ not creat~ a *viable* community that would a~t sufficient retail establishment_s needed to ~ the developmeg. In addilion, the hotel element provides less economic return which would aid in offseling costs of public infrastructure development. Further, the Redevelopmerit Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient Occupancy Tax would be impeded by this reduction in the number of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area. Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible. Alternative 4. Reduced Density 1A This alternative would result in the same level of visual urban dominance, obstruction of bay views, land use and s. bade/shadow impacts as the proposed Project. As noted above, this alternative would not create a "viable' community that would attract retail establishments needed to sustain the development. Likewise, the hotel element is inadequate in providing a greater economic return to offset public infrastrncture costs. Alternative 5. Reduced Density 2 This alternative would result in the same level of visual urban dominance, obstruction of bay views, land use, and shade/shadow impacts as the proposed Project. As noted above, this alternative would not create a 'viable' community that would atWact retail establishments needed to sustain the development, and, the residential element is inadequate in providing economic return to offset public infrastructure costs. Likewise, the residential element is inadequate in providing a greater economic return to offset public infrastructure costs. Based upon these and other factors, this aiternative is detenined to be infeasible. Alternative 6. L~:w. ationa] Alternatives None of the alternative locations described in the EIR would accomplish the Pwject's major goal of developing the Midbayfwnt area. This alternative would retain the site in its current degraded condition and would not result in aUaining the goals and objectives of the Chub Vista Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan. Page 69 ~ Resolution No. 16838 Page 179 This alternative would allow the existing uses of the site to continue, which include people and pots walking through the area and inla'uding into the sensitive buffers of the National Wildlife Refuge and illegal dumping. Thus, the sensitive wetland ,habitats and species would continue to be impacted by human disturbance. There would b~ no managed opportunity for the public to access the bayfront in this location. Further, the Redeveiopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area. Finally, Chula Vista Investors owns the Project site and has no other land holdings of a sufficient size to contain the proposed Project or any of the alternatives. Based upon these and other factors, the locafional alternatives are determined to be infeasiblc. Alternative 7. Reduced Densil~, 3. Modified Design This alternative would not create a "viable" :: - ,y that would ateact retail establishments needed to sustain the development. In ad~:~,,., tn~s alternative does not contain a sufficient number of residential units to aid in offseting the public infrastructure costs. Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goal of generating revenue for the Transient Occupancy Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area. Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible. Ahemalive I~. Applicant's Reduced Density Proposed LCPR #8 This alternative proposed a reduction in the original project including a decrea.~ in the hotel count by 228 rooms, reduction in the apartment unit count by 150 units, reduction in the height of the residential towers, reduction in the luxury hotel in height, reduction in the resort hotel in height, and reduction in the atrium hotel in height. In addition the residealia/use that was proposed at the comer of Marina Parkway and 'F" Sleet has be~n eliminat~l, thereby increasing the public park acreage from 29.8 to 33.8 acres. Alt~ma~ve 8 resulted in a development whereby the square footage has been reduced from approximately 4.:2 million square feet down to approximately 3.9 million square feet. This r~tuclion also reduced the traffic impacts associated with the original project. This alternative would result in a minewhat reduced level of visual urban dominance, obsU'uclion of bay views, land use and shade/shadow impacts as the originally proposed project. However, these impacts remain significant. Alternative 8 does not contain a Cultural Am Facility. This alternative is rejected because it results in the same impacu as the Subcommit~e Alternative without the added social benefit of the Cultural Arts Facility. Alternative 9. Alternative Developed in Response to Public Comment Page 70 Resolution No. 16838 Page 180 This aJternative would create a long, narrow lagoon corridor along the northern and western ~ges of the Midbayfront Project site adjacent to the National Wildlife Preserve. The te~hnieal feasibility of this lagoon corridor is questionable for the following reasons: A l~i00-foot long breakwater to protect against erosjon by wave action would be requh-~d to create a saltmanh habita~ along the expo~d shoreline; 2. The breakwater would disra~ several ~ of mad/hi bayward of the lagoon corridor; Installation of a breakwater would almost certainly result in increased wave erosion of both ends of the breakwater; The geometric relationship of the corridor and two adjoining marshes and the long, narrow channel-like shape of the corridor would result in tidal water velocities that would cause progressive erosion and/or sediment buildup at various locations; and The establishment and maintenance of a viable low marsh vegetation is doubtful because of erosion and/or sediment buildup. As noted above, this alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract retail establishments need~ to sm~in the development. Additionally, the residential element is inadequate in providing a greater economic return needed to aid in offseting the public infrastructure costs. Further, the Redevelopment Agency's major goa/of generating revenue for the Transient Occupancy, Tax would be impeded by the approval of this alternative which reduces the number of hotel rooras within the Midbayfront area. Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible. Alternative 10. Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No, 8 (Bayfront Subcommitte~ Alternative) This alternative is a result of the referral by the City Council to the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee. The Project was referred to the Subcommittee by the City Council to study land use aspects of the Midbayfront Plan and to determine whether or not a suitable compwmise could be reached between the differing positions of the developer, the Planning Department, and the community gwups. The Subcommittee Alternative proposes a further reduction from Alternative 8 to encompass a total of 1610 hotel rooms and awtal of 1000 dwelling units. In addition, plan designation and/or zoning of the City-owned parcel adjacent to 1-5 would be modified to allow flexibility as to its ultimate use. This alternative has also redesigned the northern residential portion of the Project by re. locating the towers just to the east of the residential lagoon and in their place, substituting low-rise tesideotial adjacent to the buffer areas. In addition, there have been further reductions in the height of sa'uctures loc~_J~ within the core so that the maximum height pertained would be 22 stories or 229 feet. The site of the pwposed luxury hotel, which was to be located on the west .side of Ivlarina Parkway, ~ now been designated for the possible location of a Cultural Ax~ Facility and support retail. With this modification, the tom/square footage of the In'~ject has been reduced from approximately 3.4 Page 71 Resolution No. 16838 Page 181 million square feel do~n to approximately 3.3 million square feet (Rohr 560,000 square feet is nnx,. cnn:,idcred a sep:tra:c project) 'Dn~s reduction will also reduce the traffic impacts associate4 of hal, wcws, land use, shade/shado;~. impads as compared to the proposed Project, ahhough The declslonmakerF,~ finds thal this altemati,,e lessens the significant environmental effects as identified in the fina! .~ZIR (though not to a ]eve] of insignificance/, The decisionmakerts) ha,,c a:',c, elected to adc,p~ a Statemen o! O,,erndthg Consideranons pursuanl to California IX. S'IATEME";T QF~_3,'_ERRID!XG~C_O~N_'_SIDERAT1ONS t'ur~,u;~!:t to ('ht,l.\ GuK!ellncs section !50'~.3, the Chu]a Vis:a City Council in appro,.ing the c/,! L/~ncd In Hoe 11 11'~ and lndc~ndcn!~> judged ~hc thform,nion provided in the FEIR, and !'Rx in,c rex Icv~ L'd and c.c/nQdercd the public tc~,::mony and record. makes the feller. log s'atcment ot O,,crrld!ng Considerations in suprx,rt of the Findings and the action of the City Council Ihe f'r/L,e,~'. v, lll hc:p l,ll~!] a't.::nmcr,: of ',a,';:3u'l g,:,als in the City of Chula Vist~ R¢'dc',c:opmcnI Plat! v. ith a u~c and den',l:> tha: 1:. appropriate for the site, ,\{, so! funh in the find!ngs, mitigation measures have been inco,Tk3rated into the Prolecl clr made binding on the apphcant through the adoption of the findings, v,h~ch to the extent feasible, reduce impacts belov, a lesel of significance. A. ppru,a! of the MId!,z~,,front hCP Requbmitta* (SubcomrnHtee Ahemalive) and corrcsi,nnd;ng GPA v,,.]i rc',:?.t in the follow rag specific economic, social, and other considerations ~hlch the Clt? considers beneficial, including, but not hmned Careful managemenl of the senslti,,'e~ natural resources on site, Additionally, the Pro!oct will allow for controlled public access to natural are-as and parks. Page 72 Resolution No. 16838 Page 182 B. Construction of ne~xled circulation improvements. Construction of necessa.2, service and utility improvements in the Midbayffont area. Identification of Chula Vista as an impormn~ seaside hub on the southern consdine of Ca/ifornia. The destination resort will be equally accessible to downtown San Diego and to the City of Tijuana. Direct access for the public to public open space including but not limited to an 8 to 10 acre lagoon, an Ea'~cational/Interpretive Park adjacent to the wedands, and a public beach along the lagoon. Possible development of a Cultural Arks Facility that would provide space for municipal festivals and events. Development of a housing product currently not available in the City of Chula Vista. For example, the Project will include high-rise and mid-rise towers with bay and ocean views and residential units over commercial uses in the core of the Project. Construction job opportunities as well as permanent jobs in an economy which is currently lacking job opportunities. Generation of transient occupancy tax, increased sales taxes and tax increment to the City o~' Chula Vista through the City of Chula Vista Redevelopmerit Agency. Resolution No. 16838 Page 183 ATFACHMENT 2 MIDBAYFRONT LCP RESUBMHTAL NO. 8 AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE Assembly Bill 3180 (AB 3180) was passe~ by the California State Assembly on August 22, 1988 and subsequently signed into law by the Governor of California. AB 3180 requixes a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a 'reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." This bill became effective January 1, 1989 as Section 21081.6 to the Public Resources Cede. The City of Chula Vista is acting as the lead agency for the Midbayffont LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment project. A Draft, Recirculated Draft and Final EIR was prepared to address the potential environmental effects of text and graphics which constituted a proposed Conceptual Development Plan. The Final EIR contained analysis for nine alternative plans for that concept plan area, Two of those alternatives were "no-project" alternatives. Seven alternative concept plans were evaluated in the same level of detail as the applicant's original concept plan. These documents were program-level EIRs in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. Program-level EIRs ase genera] in nature and are followed by more detailed, project-specific EIRs which are parl of the program. In August 1991 the City Council certified the Final EIR, but neither approved nor denied the project. The Council directed City staff to work with the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee to create a concept plan which would resolve environmend and planning issues found in the applicant's proposed project. On December 18, 1991 the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council the Subcommittee's Concept Plan for the Midbayfront. This plan is very similar to the previous proposed project, with the exception of minor modifications. On January 14, 1992, and again on February 4, 1992, the City Council approved the Subcommittee alternative, certified the Final EIR, made Findings of Fact, and approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overnding Considerations. The City Council directed that the LCP Resubmittal and General Plan Amendment be prepared to provide the City planning documents embodying the Subcommittee Alternative. The proposed Project consists of these documents. Two major changes to the certified LCP and General Plan occur with the inclusion of the Subcommittee Alternative, The first involves the redesignation to 'open space' for the D Street Fill and Gunpowder Point, consistent with the establishment of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge which includes those areas. The second major change is modifying the arrangement of land uses, building height controls, ~d development intensity in the Midbayffont planning subarea. Page t September 30, 1992 EXHIBIT F Resolution No. 16838 Page 184 MidbaZ, fronI LCP Re~ubmittal No. 8 Amendment [Continuedi Mitigation Monitoring Program The Subcommittee's Concept Plan for the Midbayfront proposal a mixed use project totalling approximately 3.3 million square feet of building area. The concept proposes 100O residential units, 1610 hotel units, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail, 140,000 square feet of professional office, a cultural arts facility, and approximately 246,000 square feet which includes athletic facilities and a conference center. The Subcommittee's Concept Plan includes parks and two man-made lagoons at the northern and western portions of the Midbayfront planning area. I'he parks and lagoon th the western portion would be available for public use; the lagoon in the northern portion would be considered a private aesthetic amenity for adjacent residents. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including design, pre-grading, construction, and operation. The City of Chula Vista wilt have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures which are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista to implement. This MMP includes mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR. The Planning Director of the City of Chula Vista may delegate individual enforcement tasks to various city departments. MITIGATION P, IONITORING PROCEDURES The MMP consists of a Mitigation Monitc:ing Program Summary, filing requirements, and reporting and compliance verification. These procedures are outlined below. Mitigation Monitorinv Program Summary The Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures that a~e the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista to implement. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Summary includes: the monitoring activity, the timing for monitoring activity, and the party or City agency responsible for monitoring mitigation compliance. The Mitigation Monitorrig Proglarn Sammary for the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment is provided as Table 1. ]~l itigation Monitoring Procram HIes Files shall be established to document and retain the records of the MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Chula Vista, Planning Department. Resolution No. 16838 Page 185 Midbayfront LCP Resubmitud No. 8 Amendm~at |Continued] MiUgmtlon Monitoring Program PROGRAM OPERATIONS Mitigation measures shall be implemented as speci~cl by the Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise rnquiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures, particularly in this case wh~rn project construction requires a multi-yesa' phasing program. The Planning Director of the City of Chula Vista, with advise from staff or another City Department, is rnsponsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the change will be documented by the Planning Director and the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel shall be notified of the refined requirements. MEASURES TO BE MONITORED The following text includes a summary of significant impacts, required mitigation measures, and the monitoring efforts needed to ensure that the measures are adequately implemented. Because of the conceptual plan-level nature of the project, many of the mitigation measures involve the requirement for further study. Final determination of the measures necessary to mitigate construction impacts can only be made when an applicant submits the detailed plans associated with a development project. Consequently, for those mitigation measures that would occur during project construction and/or operations, this plan-level monitoring plan consists of car~ing forward the measures to the project-level of CEQA compliance for finalization and implementation. A. GEOLOGY/SOILS/GROUNDWATER Adoption of the LCP Resubmittal 8 and construction of the Subcommittee Alternative would result in four potentially significant impacts: (1) ground settlement due to consolidation of the compressible estuarine/~uvial (bay) deposits and the artificial fill soils on-site; (2) grading impacts for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines; (3) seismic I,.--rds, including ground shaking, surface displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and eerthquake-induced flooding; and (4) potential foundation design and construction difficulties associated with the construction of foundations and subterranean parking structures at or hear the groundwater table. Mitigation Measures When detailed development plans for the project area are pwposed, grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chub Vista Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and permits issued by the Engineering Department prior to any grading work. Resolution No. 16838 Page 186 Midbayfront LCP Resub~titlal No. 8 A~nendmmt Mitlgallma Mo~itori~ Program , A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including sobs study and seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan, and for each proposed structure. Each investigation shall contain adequate sobsurface exploration and analyses to determine short- and long-term settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Every investigation shall also provide detailed foundation recommendations, and will be subject to review by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department. To provide adequate foundation support for the structure, all high-rise structures will require deep foundations, or some type of mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils, or bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or structural improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and recompaction, dynamic rompaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pro-compress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table. Deep foundations or mat foundation design may also be used to mitigate potential geotechnieal impact due to compressible soil. Roadways. embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils are likely to require subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term post-c. onstructj6n settlement. Soil improvement could include pax~.ial or total removal, recompaction, dynamic compaction and/or the use of surcharged fills, to precompreas saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fill, embankments. and other engineered fills may be judged capable of accommodating some post-construction differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to support. Site specific geotechnical studies should address post-construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate postconstnaction total and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the specific types of improvements proposed. The soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) currently planned for the loam salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits) is a relatively brittle material which may require relatively stringent subgrade improvement to ensure aneeptable long-term performance. Subsequent design shall consider other options for this liner, including clay soil liners and flexible pond linen. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking, gcoteclmical studies must specifically address seismic analysis based on site-specific subsurface data. hge4 September 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 187 Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment [C. cnti~u~d] Mitigation Monitoring Program As a minimum, seismic analysis should address seismically-induced slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. Appropriate measures to reduce seismic risk must be implement~ into project design. The embankanent separating the 10-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of +11 feet. Wind-induced storm waves or earthquake-induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment must be made to evaluate the stability of the embankment during these conditions and the likelihood of these hazards. Mitigation may include either elevating the height of the embankment or reinforcing the crown of the embankment, Geotechnical studies must also address the impact of foundation location near or below the groundwater table, and suitable recommendations should be pwvidad to mitigate beth construction-period difficulties and uplift pressures that may affect both foundation elements and subterranean parking floor slabs extending below the transient groundwater level. Construction period mitigation may require temperdry dewatering and/or utilization of a gravel mat to provide a working surface upon which to operate construction equipment. Design techniques to accommodate transient groundwater highs may include thicker concrete slabs to provide sufficient dead weight to resist uplift pressures, deep foundations and/or stniclural foundations to restrain slabs. Monitoring Agent The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring, via the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC), that mitigation measures for genlogy/soils/groundwater impacts are mitigated. The City of Chula Vista Engineering Department is responsible for verifying the completion of the required technical studies and the incorporation of the recommended measures into future project design. Monitoring Schedule The soils and gcotechnical studies must be submined for review with all other project level plans so that the environmental analysis will include these svadies. Approval of the studies will occur prior to the issuance of grading permits. The choice of pond liner for the 10-acre salt water lagoon, and the associated subgrade improvements, must be approved by the Engineering Department prior to the initiation of grading for the lagoon. Design modifications to ensure structural integrity of all buildings must be incorporated to the satisfaclion of the Engineering, Building, and Housing Departments prior to issuance of building permits. Resolution No. 16838 Page 188 Mjdbayfronl LCP Resubmifial No. 8 A~nend~neflt [ComizsuedI Mitigation MonRoring Program B. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Approval of LCP Resubmittal 8 and eventual consU'uction of the Subcommittee Alternative would result in five potentially significant hydrology/water quality impa~.a. These include: (1) flooding of (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs, compounded by runup from wind-driven waves (coastal flood ba:,ards); Co) flooding from the Sweetwater River; (c) flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain facilities oo-site; ('2) erosion from inland or coasud flooding; (3) siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality from surface runoff-posticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.; (4) inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards, specifically related to the design storm flow, and gravity pipe requirementre; and (5) issues regarding quantity and quality of water for both the 10-acre lagoon and the semi-pubLic residential lagoon in the northern portion of the site. Mitigation Measures 10. A detailed drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code Subdivision Manual and applicable ordinances and adopted standards (including Thresholds Standard Policy). The plan must be approved and a permit issued by the Engineering Department prior to installation of any drainage structures. 11. A site-specific hydrology study must be performed for the Midbayfront site, addressing such issues as flooding of low-lying areas during high fide conditions and the effect of wind-driven waves generated from within San Diego Bay; flooding from the Sweetwater River; and erosion from inland or coastal flooding. 12. Recommendations shall be provided for erosion control to mitigate both coastal erosion and erosion from inland flooding. Additionally, monitoring shall be performed for a minimum period of three years to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed ouUet pwtention at the on-site storm drains discharging direc~y into San Diego Bay. The existing bay deposits, located bayward of the two pwposed discharge points, are highly susceptible to eweion and the resulting scour is likely to impact sensitive marine habitat west of the Midbayfront site, if the force of the storm water being discharged is not properly mitigated by the proposed discharge aprons. 13. The effectiveness of proposed oil and sediment traps, as well as that of the desilting basin in removing both se~liment and chemical pollurania from the F and G Street Marsh shall be monitored for a minimum period of three years. All recommendations must be implemented before or during project construction. 14. Traps for contaminant control must be approv~ by the City Engineering IX'~partment before they may be installed, The City Engineenng Department must verify that all EPA, Page 6 ~pt~nigr 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 189 Mjdbayfront LCP Resubmittal N0. 8 Amendment [Continued] Mitigation Monitoring Program and any Regional Water Quality Control Board Standazds and all other applicable regulations arc met. G~ding may not p_rocc~___ until the standard are met. Proof of effectiveness of the traps must be demonstxlted. 15. The proposed on-site storm drain system must be designed in accordance with City of Chula Vista Standayds and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Any deviation from these stand,vds must be approved by the City Engineer. In addition, calculations should be made for the 100-year design storm, as required by FEMA and prudent engineering practice. 16. The applicant must prepare a groundwater quality and quantity analysis for replacement water required for the lagoons. If groundwater is not available in the required mount, and/or if it is contaminated, then an alternative source must be approved by the City Planning and Engineering Departments. Monitoring Agent The City of Chula Vista Planning Department, via the MCC, is responsible for ensuring that the hydrology/water quality mitigation measures are implemented. The City of Chula Vista Engineenng Department and Planning Department will be responsible for reviewing and approving the drainage plan for the development area, including storm drains; the hydrology study; the erosion control recommendations, including discharge aprons; the U'aps for contaminant control; and the groundwater study for the lagoons. A monitor under the direction of the MCC will be responsible for periodic inspection of th.. ~i! and ~di;:!enl naps, the desihing basins, storm-drain outlets in the bay, and the detention basin upstream of the F and G Street Marsh. Monitoring Schedule The drajnage and hydrology studies must be received with all other project level p]ans so that environmental analysis will include those studies. Approval will occur prior to grading for installation of drainage sductures. All standards and regulations of the EPA and RWQCB must be met prior to initiation of grading. All contamination traps must be approved by the Engineering Department before they may be installed. The groundwater evaluation and source determination of water for the lagoons must be approved before the lagoons axe graded. The MCC will be responsible for periodic evaluation of the desilting basins, oil and sediment traps and erosion conU'ol structures at the storm-drain outlets in the bey. This evaluation should occur at least twice a year, in the spring and fall, for three years to determine the before and after conditions with winter storms. C. AIR QUALITY Resolution No. 16838 Page 190 MidDayfront LCP Resubmit'cM No. 8 Amendment {Contranquil Mitigation Monitoring Program potentially significant air quality impacts wottld occur from development of the proposed co- generation plant. An incremental contribution to regional ah' quality problems would also occur from vehicular sources. Vehicular emissions added to cogeneafion plant emissions would result in cumulative impacts. Construction activities also result in short-term air quality impacts. Mitigation Mares 17. Mitigation for air quality impacts associated with the co-generation plant requixed by the APCD before an Authority to Constract and a Permit to Operate is issued. Mitigation would include concurrent reductions in NO,, ROG, and CO to 'off-set' project (co- generation plant) emissions. 18. Various transportation control measures (TCMs) must be incorporated into the project. Such measures would be a~metl primarily at employees on the project site, but might also include site residents and visitors in certain instances. Measures that should be included · Airport shuttle services for destination resort visitors · Ridesharing · Vanpool Incentives · Alternate Transpox'~tion Methods · Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel · Transit Utilization · Program Coordination · Traffic Signal Coordination · Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of 'D" or Better The effective implementation of these various TCMs will be significantly enhanced if ~ey are coordinated through a transportation management agency (TMA) dealing specifically with bayfront traffic demand management. Formation of such a TMA, including funding of a TMA coordinator and mandatory tenant participation through CCR covenants in tenant leases, will maximize the potential for emissions reduction. 19. Dust control measures required by the AQMD will be implemented during const~ction. Such measures include maintaining adequate soll moisture as well as remoVIng any soil spillage onto traveled roadways through site housekeeping procedures. Reducing interference with existing traffic and preventing Wuck queuing around local receptors should be incorporated into any project construction permits. Trucks must turn off engines while waiting, or not be allowed to enter ~e site again. The ponTtits should limit operations to daytime periods of better dispersion that minimizes localized pollution accumulation. Page 8 September 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 191 Midbayfront LCP Resubmittni No. 8 Ammmdmmt IConritual] Mitigation Monitoring Program Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department must m:eive notification from the APCD that an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate have been issued before they issue the building permit for the cogenerafion facility. All dust control measures required by the AQiVID must be implemented and verified by the MCC and/or Engineering Department. Periodic cheeks of the construction sites must be performed to verify that these measures are being implemented. The establishment of minimum participation goals and the formation of a Midbayfront TMA shall be made a Condition of Approval by the City Council in the LCPR No. 8. The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the TCMs are incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance process and mitigation monitoring plan. Monitoring Schedule Monitoring to verify that dust control measures are being implemented should occur biweeldy, unannounced during construction and grading. Monitoring will cease upon completion of grading activities and approval of final grading. D. NOISE Tv.o potentially significant impacts were cited: 1. Construction noise could reach 75 to 112)0 dB at 50 feet from the source; and 2. The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to I-5 (800 feet) and the co- generation plant exhaust stacks (500 feet) could create significant noise effects. Mitigation Measures 20. Construction noise intrusion will be limited by conditions on constraction permits to week day hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those same permits will also specify construction access routing to minimize construction truck traffic past existing park, residential, or other noise sensitive uses to comply with General Plan standards and policies. 21. Child care noise exposure must be minimized by establishing a noise performance standard on co-generation exhaust stack noise met through the use of silencen; a performance standard of 45 dB at night and 50 dB by day at 400 feet from the exhaust stack is required Resolution No. 16838 Page 192 Midhayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment ICon~ue~] Mitigation Monitoring Progr~xn to prevent excessive exhaust noise intrusion. A noise barflea' along the eastern play area boundary to screen out traffic noise must also be incorporated into the projent-leval design. Monitoring Agent The City of Chula Vista Planrang Department, via the MCC, is responsible for ensuring that these measures are implemented. The monitor will check that construction permits, and co- generation operating permits are conditioned with these measures, and will check that conditions are being met. Monitoring Schedule Construction monitoring will occur throughout the course of construction. An annual sound level check of the co-generation plant will verify its compliance. The noise barrier must be included on project-level plans. E. BIOLOGY Numerous biological resource impacts were cited, including: · generation of conruminants affecting water quality · alteration of the predator/competitor/prey balance · incremental, yet significant, loss of raptor foraging habitat · incompatibilities between insects and humans · predator enhancement impacts on the Light-foot~ Clapper Rail and Belding's Savannah Sparrow · increased freshwater input from site drainage · sediment accretion and erosion · construction effects · increased human and pet presence · habitat alteration effects on California Least Tern · effects from drainage on eelgrass and mudflats Mitigation Measures 22. The applicant must prepare a Biological Resource Management Plan to determine project- specific mitigation measures. The Plan must include the following biological resource management plans as individual sections: · Predator Management Plan · Human Activities Management Plan Page 10 ,S~:fl~llll~r 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 193 Midba)Tnm LCP ResuhmR1aiNo.$Am~dm~t [C,~linu~l Mitigation Mon~tor~ Program · Landscape Design and Management Plan · Water QualityFRunoff/Drainage Management Plan · Mudfiat and Weftand Monitoring Plan · Project Lighting Plan · Construction Monitoring and Management Plan · CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies 23, A "biologically aware' construction monitor shah be required for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems. The monitor should be employed through the City and should report direc~y to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning or Community Development Department or the mitigation compliance coordinator 0ACC). The monitor will remain on-site and available for consultation should consInaction activities fail to meet the conditions outlined or should unforseen problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of construction activities. This monitor should continue monitoring on a reduced basis during actual building construction. 24. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the bay titscharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must be triple-chambered. 25. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning to be conducted in late September or early October and as needed through the winter and spring months. Maintenance should be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing. City inspections of these traps must occur to ensure that maintenance is proceeding as required. 26. The "direct to bay" drains should be designed and constructed with dfective energy dissipators and flow cliffusers which eliminates ewsion or accretion of the mudfiats and ensures the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds. An expected loss of mudfiat totaling no fewer than 1.7 acres must be replaced within the NWR in a location away from the proposed development area. The drains and the surrounding mudfiats and eelgrass beds must be monitored in accordance with an approved Mudflat and Weftands Monitoring Plan for a period of 5 years and any additional corrective measures required must be implemented and any additional impacted areas resulting must be riplaced by the creation of a similar area from the uplands of the D Street Fill or Gunpowder Point. As an alternative, the two 'direct to bay' drains must be extended to subsurface discharge points located in the existing J Street Marina boat channel. These discharge points should be located at a minimum depth of -10 ft. IvILLW and should be buffed in the mudfiat to a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Drain placement must seek to impact the least amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either combining the drains or avoiding dense eelgrass beds. Su~ace contours must be restored and any consWaction impacts to eelgrass must be mitigated by replanting over the pipeline. Resolution No. 16838 Page 194 Midbayfront LCP Resuhnittal No. 8 Amendment [Continued] Mitigation Monimrlng Program 27. 28. 29. 30. Studies are required to evaluate tk ~ffects of groundwatt: pumping to fill the proposed lagoons. If these studies ~d',e~,,- that this is not a suitable solution for reasons of groundwater contaminants m' induced salinities, ~ saltwater i~$r~, fi'om the bay should be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact conidor end should be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgross beds. Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the rapid restoration of itnpacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system rather than directly to the bay. No "in water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidivy in the nearshore foraging end chick training areas of the California least tern. Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor as having this effect should be precluded from occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction. No construction activity, earthmoving or high intensity activity will occur within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudfiat habitat during the period 15 March to 31 August without prior approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed W leave the construction site. In addition, construction alewatering should be directed into abasin with a fiher-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water should be pumped across the mudfiat inW the boat chennel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid g-suspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the project should be of the rapidly biodegradable variety, end registered by the Environment~J Protection Agency for use near weftands. Further plans requital for water quality management, landscape management, end runoff management should be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure Number 19 identified in this document. 31. All landscape chemical applications must be done by a state-certified landscape contractor. Page 12 $e~t 30, 1992 - Resolution No. 16838 Page 195 Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No. 8 Amendment [Continued] Mitigation Monitoring Program 32. 33. 34. 35. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitrod to the City Landscape Architect for review. Plant mamrials which are known to be lavasire in salt and brackish marshes (Limoni~n or Carpobroms species), or those which are known to be attractive as denaing, nesting or roosting sites for predators, (Wa~Aington~a or Conadtr/a), must be restricted from use. Landscape plans required to be reviewed at the project level. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues generated within the bayfront or by other funding mechanisms to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation requixements (i.e., silt/gre_~ trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers should have training in predator cont~rol and should possess the necessary skills, permits and authority to hap and remove problem predators. Detailed plans are required to be submitted for review at the project level. The proposed bayfront development and parks shall be designated as a "no pets" axea. This means posting all of the park/ands/public access areas and imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipa] codes, and posting the development areas and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions~ Plans addressing how pets will be prohibited will be required to be reviewed at the project leveI. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being perceived as predatory birds and thus must be prohibited from parkland areas adjacent to weftands or bay mudflats. Human access to marshlands and buffer axeas must be restricted through fencing and signs. This restriction will be enforced with trespass citations and fines. Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, E Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment must be restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the F and G Street f~:ler channel and southeast of the F StRut/Marina Parkway intersection. Detailed landscape and buffer design plans will be required at the project level. Open garbage containers shall be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Gafoage must be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open garbage containers must be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants and park m ale of special concelll. Plans addressing how garbage will be contained will be required and reviewed at the project level. Resolution No. 16838 Page 196 ~fidhayrront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendraft [Continued] Mitlga6on Monitoring Prog~un 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Annual funding shall be designa~ for the purpose of lnsh control, re~ and malnW, nance of drainage facilities, fenc'mg, the pr~lator control program, and mitigation programs for the project. Not less than 3.5 acres of Braeirish Marsh and 4 acres of Salt Marsh must be created in the area between the F and G Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. In addition, t~dal flushing must be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans (1987). Further, if marsh. lands are to be created, as proposcxl, on both sides of Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide would be required. It is suggested that large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or larger radius be considered for this purpose. This restoration will also assist in mitigating a portion of the human encroachment impacts identified by expanding the area and value of the existing marshlands, No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall be allowed to occur along the mudfiat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and USF'vVS should jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line of buoys to limit access to the mudflat and marsh areas. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and heavy architectural lines. A film glass manufactured by 3M is recommended. Plans addressing glass type and architecture will be required and they will be reviewed at the project level. Buildings facing marshlands must not include extraneous ledges upon which rapmrs could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas must be obtained should heavy incidence of porching be observed or should nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. Plans addressing specific mitigation to prevent raptor perching require review at the project level. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8 acre park zone at the F and G Street Marsh feeder channel must be limited to passive use and should include such features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the E Street Marsh and Vener Pond must be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This could be best accomplished using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ('pits') by a fence. Passive overlooks could be incorporaUxl on the development side of the recreational 'pits.' This would provide both a visual screen betwee~ the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance sepaxation between passive observation areas Page 14 S~t~mber 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 197 Midbayfronl LCP Resubmitla3 No. 8 Amendmet [Cont~ued] Mitigation Monitoring Prx~-am and the maxshlands. Both the needs for habitat protection and recreation would be met by this design approach. Buffer area landscape plans require pwject-level review. 41. New maxshland, pond fringe and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2 acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Po'mt, ideally with marsh linkage to both the E Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and loss of habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of some of the values associated with the 3,840-foot length of the marshland hinging the E Su'eet Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted by predator/compe~tor threats. 42. A predator management program for the Chula Vista Bayfront must be developed to control domestic as well as wild animal predators. This program should utilize the Cormors (1987) plan as a basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan must include the use of fines as an enforcement toni to control human and pet activities, The plan should be comprehensive and should include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the proposed development axeas. Detailed landscape and buffer design plans will be required at the project level. Monitoring Agent The City Planning Department will be ultimately responsible for the implementation of all measures, via the MCC, Biological Monitor, and with input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen'ice, the California Department of Fish and Game, the City Engineering Department, and City Landscape Architect. Mitigation Schedule The complete schedule of mitigation me.a.sure implementation is contained in the Summary Table and summarized below. The Biological Resource Management Plan must be completed and available for review during the CEQA process for any subsequent project-specific development plans. Other impacts that are currently unresolved such as fertilizer treatment and groundwater quality must also be re~olved during subsequent environmental review. No grading or other construction permits may be issued until these issues are resolved. The conlamination traps must be cleaned in the fall as ~p~ci~ed and throughout the winter as needed. The drainage facilities must be approvex] by the City Engineering Department prior to grading for installation. Resolution No. 16838 Page 198 Midbayf~ntLCP R~uhnitlalNo. S A~nmdment [Contmu~] Mitigation Monitoring Program All revegetation mmlt be initiated as soon as possible af~ the area to be revegetated is available, In areas where the rwegelatiz is to ~_tfi:o_~ ou s site not t~ he disturbed by future grading, then the revegetafion should be mtrled psior to tire grading. Otherwise, revegetatiou should begin as soon as feasible after grading is c~nplel~. F. ARCHAEOLOGY/HISTORY/PALEONTOLOGY Development outside of the project boundaries (e,g., for the extension of utilities to serve the site) could impact adjacent archaeological sites. The site is underlain by soils and geologic formations that may contain paleontological resources (fossils). Grading for site preparation has the potential to disturb or destroy these resources. Mitigation Measures 43. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to archaeologica] review at the project level of environmental review. 44. A qualified paleontologist must be at any pre--construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. A paleontological monitor must be on-site on a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the deposits mapped as Bay Poin. t Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. If the deposits are discovered to be fossiliferous then monitoring shall proceed; if they turn out to be barren colluvial deposits, then monitoring should not be continued. (The area] distribution of these deposits is summarize~ on the geological map of Kennedy and Tan 1977.) In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontologist must be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. Fossil remains collected during any salvage program shall be cleaned, sorted, and cataloged and then with the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Page 16 S~ptcmbet 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 199 Midbayfront LCP R¢submittal No. 8 Amendment [Continued] Midstion Monitoring Monitoring Agency The city of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures for pa.leontological resources are incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance process and mitigation monitoring plans. That plan will include the following measures. The MCC shall coordinat~ at least one prc-constxuction meeting with a qualified paleontologist and the grading and excavation contractors for any area to be developed, It is the responsibility of the MCC to coordinate with the City Field Inspector and ensure that the paleontological monitor is informed of any cutting.of previously undisturbed Bay Point Formation deposits. Monitoring Schedule The pre-construction meeting must occur prior to any grading on the site. Monitoring ceases upon the completion of grading activities and approval of final grading. G. LAN~D USE Development of the Midbayfront, as proposed, would result in incompatibility between the project and surrounding land uses, speci~c..ally the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and the Nature Interpretire Center. There is also the potential for incompatibility between residences located above and nearby the commercial retail and commercial visitor uses in the central core area. The building heights and intensities are inconsistent with the existing, cerxi~ed LCP and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures 45. Incorporation of buffering design measures -- including maximum insulation in all exterior and interior walls, insulation between floors, window U'eatments to reduce light and intrusion, and designated parking spaces for residents within a separated and locked area of parking. Mitigation Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department Shall review all development plans to verify that buffering design measures have been incorporated to the extent feasible. Mitigation Schedule Review of the buffering design measures would occur prior to the issuance of building permits. Resolution No. 16838 Page 200 Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment [Contiaue~] Mitigation Moalmring Progr.m H. PARKS/RECREATION/OPEN SPACE As currently proposed, the project would result in several impacts to parks and rec~ation and open space. Paxk development according to the proposed phasing plan would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the an~cipal~l high public usage. In addition, there is a potentially insufficient mount of parking for park users in the overall plan. Information regarding public access from on-site areas to parks, and from areas east of I-5, is considered inadequate. Several parks and public areas would be adversely affected by shade from tall structures. Mitigation Measures 46. All park development and associated parldng must be provided within Phase I. To mitigate the public access inadequacies, the applicant must submit an access plan, showing designated public panking areas, access routes to public areas, and access routes and signage from the east side of I-5 across E Street. The access plan must be approved by the City Planning and Community Development Departments. 47, Additional public parking spaces may be required by the City. The number of spaces and the location of those spaces will be determined during project-level CEQA compliance, 48, The City's Parks and Recreation Department has stated the need to hire one gardener for every ~s'e acres of parkland (a total of six), as well as to acquire additional landscaping equipment such as mowers. Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the parE/recreation/open space mitigation measures are incorporated at the project-level of CEQA compliance and mitigation monitoring program. The City of Chula Vista Planning Departmere must determine the adequate number of parking spaces and verify that they axe provided th future development plans. A public access plan must be approved by the Planning and Community Development Departments of the City. The City Parks and Recreation Department must hire the gardeners necessary to maintain the park. Monitoring Schedule Ad~uate park acreage and public parking must be provided prior to issuance of the occupancy permits in Phase I. Issues of public access must be resolved prior to approval of project-specific development plans. Page 18 September 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 201 Midbayf~ntLCPR~mit~ No. S Aramdmmt [Con~ued] Mitigation Monitoring Program 1. UTILITY SERVICE The Midbayffont development project would require modifications to the existing SDG&E service system, as well as an increase in the mount of energy to the site. The project would also impact the City Fire Departmcnt's services and would require acquisition of a ladder truck and employment of four new personnel. There would be no impacts to the provision of police protection. The project would result in an incremental contribution to regionally significant concerns regarding landfill space. The existing sewer infrastructure would be inadequate to accommodate disposal from the site at build-out. Water infrastructure both on-site and off-site would be inadequate to provide service. Development of the project would result in generation of 1,986 school-age children that would impact surrounding schools. The location of between the project area and the schOols would prohibit the feasibility of students walking to and from school, resulting in potentially significant transportation costs. Mitigalion Measures Enerey 49. Energy resources shall be conserved by such generally accepted methods as sealing doors and windows, double-pane glass, increases in wall and ceiling insulation, and the incorporation of solar benefits. Time-controlled lighting systems throughout the industrial/commercial portions of the project will also be required to conserve energy. Solid Waste 50. A recycling program must be undertaken by the developer in conjunction with a local recycling company. This would include bins on site for the collection of recyclable materials such as glass, plastic, metal and paper products. Additionally, the development must incorporate trash compactors to reduce volume. Fire 51. The following measures are required by the City Fire Department to reduce the significant impacts to below a level of significance: a. Maximum fire flow shall be 5,000 gpm. b. Fire department roadway access shall be provided to within 150 feet of all portions of any building. c. All roadway widths shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Resolution No. 16838 Page 202 Mjdbayfron! LCP ResubmiRsl No. 8 An~imdment [Continued] Mitigation Monitoring PrOram d, All apartments three stories or more in height or containing more than 15 dwelling units and every hotel three or more stories in height or containing 20 or more guest rooms shall be provided with a fully automatic fire sprinkler system. e. A fire alarm/evacuation system shall be provided for all public assembly and multi- residential occupancies. f. All Ti~e 1924 CCR shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise occupancies. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall he provided with the provision for the mroing around of fire apparatus (either a 75 X 24 foot hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul.-de-sac). Private fire hydrants will be required to satisfy the requirement that any part of the ground floor of any building shall be within 150 feet of a water supply. These hydrants shall be in place and operable prior to the delivery of combustible building malefiats. Public fire hydrants will be required every 300 feet on public streets. However, if the location of major buildings is unknown, hydrants may be located specific to the buildings. This would result in more effective coverage, and could possibly result in fewer fire hydrants. For design interest, there are hydrants manufactured which have a lower profile than the traditional barrel type. j. Address signs - Easily readable signs which can be seen from the street are required. Large, contrasting block letters and numbers must be utilized. k. An additional fire inspector would be necessary to handle additional work load created by this project. Additionally, the applicant is responsible for payment for the additional ladder truck through the Development Impact Fees, and the City's general fund would pay for the annual salaries for the four-person crew and fire inspector. Sewer 52. The developer must submit detailed drawings to the City showing sewer line locations and capacities. The City Engineering Department must review and approve the plans for consistency with the thresholds policy and with the Metto system (which the project will fie into). Page 20 $eptembe~ 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 203 Midbayfront LCP Resubmit~ No. 8 Amendment [Continua] Water 53. Specific water mains must be completed or upgraded. These include: a. A 12 inch main in F Street from Broadway to approximately 830 feet west must be installed. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way extension westerly must be installed. Cl'his will connect the project with supplies of water from the southern portion of Chula Vista, thus providing the project site with two sources of water instead of one.) c. The existing 8 inch main along F Street from Bay Boulevard running west must be upgraded to a 12 inch main. d. All on-site mains must be sized 12 inches. 54. To mitigate the incremental impact to regional water supply, the applicant must provide water consem'ation measures at the project-design level, including such elements as low- ~o~, shower heads, low-flush toilets, timed irrigation, landscaping with drought-tolerant species, drip irrigation where appropriate and development of reclaimed water lines for future use. The development must result in no net increase in water consumption, and will be subject to an)' fee program the City has in place to implement this requirement. SChoolS 55. To mitigate school overcrowding and transportation cost impacts the applicant must: a. Form new Mello-Roos districts to finance capital costs such as permanent or relocatable classrooms and school buses. Resolve the issue of new school sites or additional property adjacent to existing schools for the construction of capital improvements at the project-level of CEQA compliance, Provide annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers' salaries either by a cash contribution or a long-term binding agreement with the school district to finance the annual student transpormtien costs. Resolution No. 16838 Page 204 Midbayfrom LCP ResubmRtal No. 8 Amencbm~t [Continued] Mitigation Monitoring Program Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the energy, fire, sewer and water measures are incorporated at the project-level of CEQA compliance and mitigation monitoring program. The City of Chula Vista Engineering and Planning Departments would be responsible for verifying that any future development would be in conformance with Ti~e 20 of the California Code of Regulations (formerly ti~ed the California Administxative Code), which requires energy saving devices in new buildings. The City Fire Department must approve all building plans for inclusion of lure suppression requirements prior to approval of the building permit. The developer must install recycling bins. The MCC would be responsible for ensuring their availability. They must also evaluate the recycling bins for compliance with the mitigation measures designed to reduce pests, The City Engineering Department must approve all sewer and infrastructure plans. The City of Chula Vista Planning Department will be responsible for verifying a resolution of the school issues to the satisfaction of the local school districts and applicant. Monitoring Schedule The energy saving, fire prevention and recycling measures must be inspected and approval prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Recycling efforts would continue over the life of the project. Sewer and water improvements must be approved prior to grading for installation. More detailed water conservation measures will be determined during future CEQA review of project- specific development plans. Transportation funding, school CFDs, and school site issues must be resolved during subsequent environmental review. No further development entiflements will be granted until the applicant has met the requirements to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. J. TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS Development of the proposed project would result in significant impam to street and intersection capacities on the local street network. In the Year 2000, with project development, all study area intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour. In the p.m. peak hours, five intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of sea'vice (LOS D or worse - Arterial Intersections, LOS E or worse - Freeway Ramp Intersections). Those intersections are: Page 22 September 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 205 M~dbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendmint IContinned] Mitigation Monitoring Program Broadway at E Street, F Street, and H Street and the northbound and southbound ramp intersections of E Street and Miti2ation Mares 56. To improve these levels-of-service, the following mitigation measures are required: Widen westbound E Street to provide an exclusive right-turn lane from westbound E Street to the I-5 northbound on ramp. This lane must be a minimum of 250 feet in length. b. Widen the 1-5 northbound off-ramp at E Street to provide an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared left- and right-turn lane, and an exclusive right-tare lane. c. Restripe the E Street overpass to provide two through lanes per direction, and two left-tam lanes from eastbound E Street to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp. d. Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-tam lane and two right- tam lanes. Broadway/E Street Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-tarn lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane Broadway/F Street Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane Broadway/H Street Westbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane Eastbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane and an exclusive right- turn only lane Monitoring Agency The Summary Table attached to this document provides information on the agency or persons responsible for monitoring each individual mitigation measure recommended above; only the general responsibilities are described in this section. Resolution No. 16838 Page 206 Midbsyfront LCP Resubmittal No, 8 Amenthnent [Continual] Mitigation Monitoa~ng Program The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is rt~ponsible for ansu~ng that the mitigation measures for Traffic and Access are canie~l forward to the project-level of CEQA/evie:w, and are incorporat~:l, to the degree feasible, into the project-level mitigation monitoring plans. The feasibility of the above stated plannfl roadway improvem~uts must be detn'mined by the City of Chula Vista, Engineering Department and Caltrans. The City Enginee. ring and Planning Departments shall condition project approval on all traffic improvements determin~l to be the responsibility of the applicant. Monitoring Schedule The schedule for monitoring will be basexl on the time-table for planned roadway improvements negotiated between the City, Caltrans, and the applicant. Circulation improvements shall be triggered by construction of a pre-determinexl amount of ~uare-footage, construction of specific facilities, or threshold traffic volume as required by the City. It will be the responsibility of the City, in coordination with the MCC, to verify these improvements are made when required. Page 24 September 30, 1992 Resolution No. 16838 Page 207 ~-.~ o Resolution No. 16838 Page 208 Resolution No. 16838 Page 209 Resolution No. 16838 Page 210 6 Resolution No. 16838 Page 211 Resolution No. 16838 Page 212 Resolution No. 16838 Page 213 Resolution No. 16838 Page 214 Resolution No. 16838 Page 215 Z Z Resolution No. 16838 Page 216 Resolution No. 16838 Page 217 ). n~=_::r~ Z Resolution No. 16838 Page 218 Resolution No. 16838 Page 219 Resolution No. 16838 Page 220 z Resolution No. 16838 Page 221 Resolution No. 16838 Page 222 o Resolution No. 16838 Page 223 Resolution No. 16838 Page 224 Resolution No. 16838 Page 225 Resolution No. 16838 Page 226 Resolution No. 16838 Page 227 O. z Resolution No. 16838 Page 228 Resolution No. 16838 Page 229 Resolution No. 16838 Page 230 Resolution No. 16838 Page 231 Resolution No. 16838 Page 232 Resolution No. 16838 Page 233 Resolution No. 16838 Page 234 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council Vista, California, YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: this 13th day of October, 1992, Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: of the City of Chula by the following vote: Malcolm, Moore, Nader Rindone Hotton None Tim Nader, Mayor ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Ch~la Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16838 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on the 13th day of October, 1992. Executed this 13th day of October, 1992. ~Authelet, City Clerk