HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1985/01/24 Item 6a,b,d COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item =St= 6A
Meeting Date / - a V
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Final EIR-85-1 , Bayfront Specific Plan
Resolution /7 9'ea2 Certifying Final EIR-85-1 , Bayfront
Specific Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
The subject of this EIR is the implementation of the Chula Vista Bayfront
Local Coastal Programming through the adoption of a general plan amendment and
specific plan. The Bayfront Land Use Plan was prepared to satisfy the Local
Coastal Program (LCP requirements of the California Coastal Act. No EIR was
prepared on the LCP because the adoption of the LCP was exempt from CEQA
provisions. Despite that exemption, the implementation of the LCP by the City
of Chula Vista is subject to CEQA provisions and, thus, requires the
preparation of an EIR.
This report is to serve as a master environmental assessment. This document
provides an environmental data base of the resources and constraints of the
project area and addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed project.
This master report will facilitate future environmental review of subsequent
development plans by providing a data base to determine the scope of the
additional environmental documentation required for each individual project.
This Draft EIR was prepared under a contract between the Redevelopment Agency
and RECON. This DEIR was issued for public review on November 2, 1984.
The EIR was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on
December 19, 1984. There were substantial written comments on the draft EIR
and verbal testimony regarding the biological mitigation measures built into
the project was given. All comments received have been responded to and
included in the Comments/Response section of the final EIR.
RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the Planning Commission recommendation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Certify that final EIR-85-1 has been
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the
information in the final EIR.
DISCUSSION:
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 790-acre Bayfront Planning Area is located west of Interstate 5, between C
and Palomar Streets. The area lies within the coastal plain and exhibits very
little topographic relief. The dominant land uses include nearly built-out
industrial operations generally south of G Street, agriculture (Vener Farms),
and vacant fill areas to the north. Several areas containing wetlands (e.g.,
Sweetwater Marsh) also dominate the landscape.
•
Page 2, Item 4a=16A
Meeting Date
1
Lhe existing 1 and use designations are i ndi Gated i n the Chul a Vista -22 85
-Land Use Plan, which has been approved by the California Coastal Comm s front and the Chula Vista City Council. These land uses will be implemented pon
approval by the Coastal Commission and City of Chula Vista of the pro osed
specific plan, which this report addresses. The specific plan will su ersed the provisions of the existing zoning. The City of Chula Vista pro oses o
adopt the Bayfront Land Use Plan as a general plan amendment, specific lan,and revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance, thus implementing the plan. P n'The specific plan proposes several types of new development for the Ba front predominantly within the agricultural and vacant a eas north of G Street.These uses include multi-family residential units at three locations highway-related commercial in four areas, commercial office park in three
ocations, marine-elated commercial use at the northern bounda 'ea of specialty retail industrial/business r'oo a hotel, nd
ublic open space, landsca ed Park, neighborhood parks and
ndustrial , and the preservat on of several etland a eas. Fora detailsgofethe roposed land uses see Figure 4 and Table 1 of the EIR. f the. ANALYSIS 1 . Geology/Soils Potential liquefaction impacts exist because of the characteristics of the
nd and silt deposits and high water table which occur over portions of the
ea. Prior to final project design, additional test borings are recommended
articularly in the D Street fill area). Adhe ence to appropriate buildin des will also reduce the potential hazard for ground shaking. g
2. Land Form/Visual Quality The proposed project will significantly alter the visual character of the
oject area and, because of the height of structures, the a will be some
ockage of distant views from I-5 to San Diego Bay. However, the proposed
velopment of the Bayfront would do much to enhance the degraded visual
ality associated with the existing land uses. Implementation of the plan
l result in numerous parks at points of visual access along the edge of
lands and San Diego Bay. The mitigation provided as design measures in the
n will educe the visual impact; however, the visual change will remain
nificant.3. Noise The major source of noise is from vehicular traffic associated with I-5.
ever, there is a rise in elevation adjacent to the freeway from D Street to
treet, which serves as a barrier to the traffic noise. Future development
the project will result in traffic volumes along Tidelands Avenue, E
et, and F Street that will be great enough to create noise in residential
s in excess of the City's standard. However, these impacts can be
gated through the construction of acoustical barriers along the roadways
cent to residential areas. The specific height and location will be
rmined during the subdivision phase of future development.
,�oa-
Page 3, Item =4
Meeting Date= a 1 -2 2-8 5
4. Biology/Land Use
A major portion of the project includes valuable wetland habitat (about
200 acres). An extensive mitigation program has been incorporated into the
project to reduce impacts to biological resources.
In response to comments received during the public review period (Jo Anne
Sorenson and Chula Vista Development Company) , the biological impacts and
mitigation sections of the EIR have been revised to clarify each of the
impacts identified and the corresponding mitigation prescribed for that impact
in the Bayfront Specific Plan. As a result, the biological section of the EIR
concludes that the specific plan substantially reduces the impacts identified.
5. Water Quality/Hydrology
Development of the site would alter both the existing hydrologic
conditions and the water quality associated with the marsh and upland areas.
Mitigation proposed as part of the project includes a storm-drain system which
would preclude drainage directly into the wetland habitat without adequate
filtering of sediments or trapping of pollutants. As a result, these
water-quality impacts are not considered significant.
D. CONCLUSION
It is the conclusion of this final EIR that with the exception of visual
quality all significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of
insignificance through the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in
the EIR. During the consideration of the project and "Candidate CEQA
Findings" it will be determined which mitigation measures are feasible, which
are under the jurisdiction of another agency and which have been incorporated
into the project.
The landform and visual quality issue is perhaps the most subjective issue of
the EIR, since opinion varies widely as to whether the existing open space is
more or less visually appealing as compared to the ultimate development
proposed for the project site. However, the introduction of the proposed
development, including an eight-story hotel on Gunpowder Point and buildings
ranging in height from five (55 feet) to two (22 feet) stories, will obstruct
existing views in many locations of the open area associated with the
agriculture operations, Sweetwater Marsh complex, and San Diego Bay. This
impact, which remains after consideration of the specific plan design,
physical form and appearance and landscape specifications, is the basis for
the significance determination.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 1626; -e,c
Chula b"s 3, C 'ifot nia x
Dated /"a �' - �5 r . .� �.. �._ ,• -
natal
. 4
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 4 6b
Meeting Date i-d v es
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of the final draft of the Chula
Vista Bayfront Specific Plan
a) Resolution ,// , ° Adopting the final draft of the Chula
Vista Bayfront Specific Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
Director of Planning (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
On November 1 , 1984, a joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting was
held for purposes of a public hearing to consider the Bayfront Specific Plan
and authorizing submission of the draft to the California Coastal Commission
for review prior to final approval. Now, the final version of the plan is
before you for a public hearing and for action to be taken to adopt the plan
as the City's Implementation Plan for Bayfront development. Attached to this
document (Exhibit A) is an Errata listing of corrections to be made to the
plan to bring it in conformance with the certified and approved City's
Bayfront Land Use Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution:
a. making the Bayfront Specific Plan an official document of the City;
and
b. authorizing submittal of the amendments to the draft document to the
California Coastal Commission.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The City Council, in a workshop held on
October 25, 1984, considered the subject plan. The Planning Commission
approved the Land Use Plan that is reflected in the document before you on
January 9 and recommended approval of the plan.
DISCUSSION:
The State Planning and Zoning Law enables local governments to adopt specific
plans which provide for the methodical implementation of their General Plans.
The final draft of the Bayfront Specific Plan substantially conforms to the
text and plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan
as amended by the Omnibus Agreement of 1979, and would promote the
implementation of its policies and standards. The final draft of the Bayfront
Specific Plan is also consistent with the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal
Program, Phase II, certified by the Coastal Commission in 1984, and its Land
Use Plan.
. h...
•
Page 2, Item 44o= 6b
Meeting Date-MUM
The Specific Plan, according to Section 19.07.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, may be implemented by standard zoning, por
planned implementation standards incorporated planned community thh xzoning, the
individual specific plan. In the case of the final draft of the Bayfront
Specific Plan, the standards are built into the Specific Plan's text. As a
self-contained, self-implementing mechanism, the final draft of the Bayfront
Specific Plan embodies land use intensity, building mass, building height
residential density, building intensity, and off-street parking standards. It
circulatory,contains townscape planning, landscape, recreational, '
signage criteria and guidelines. 1y, and
The plan, furthermore, places major emphasis on the environmental management
program for specific protection enhancement measures for the wetland and
upland resources and design provisions for creating wetland buffers. A Chula
Vista Bayfront conservancy trust is proposed to implement the habitat
preservation and coordinate mitigation measures. Emphasis is also placed in
the role of state and federal wildlife agencies in advising the trust
conservation issues and on the design and upkeep of the wetlands and uplands.
Finally, coastal development permit procedures are defined.
The final draft of the Bayfront Specific Plan is harmonious with the San Diego
Unified Port District's Local Coastal Program for adjacent lands and waters,
and is complementary to the said program's goals, objectives, policies,use proposals. p yes, and
In summary, the Bayfront Specific Plan would be consistent with the Chula
Vista General Plan, the certified Local Coastal Program, Phase II and its Land
Use Plan, and the goals and objectives of the City's redevelopment
for the Bayfront. The said Specific Plan would promote the orderly and
economic growth, development, and conservation of the Bayfront p policies
foster the improvement of those lands as an amenity to the it community and
During the review of the document by the State Coastal Commission staf ,
certain changes were requested and are reflected in the errata sheets found
stapled to the front cover. One change of note concerns the ownership of the
Sweetwater Marsh. The Specific Plan calls for ownership in the name of the
Bayfront Conservancy Trust. It is now proposed to include the State of
California Department of Fish and Game as a co-owner with the Trust. In this
manner, protection-in-perpetuity of the marsh is assured while local
involvement in the operation and management is maintained. In addition with
recognition of the State, then, our Plan is consistent with the Corps/CalTrans
consistency determination. The other changes are not substantive but are
technical in nature and are therefore acceptable. The resolution before you
incorporates the changes into the final document for submission to the Coastal
Commission.
/- a -1?-,
1379H -- ,d�.c, elk,.ae..�. , • ,I
�y the Cit ,°°k ° �f .G, •' ~
huAa Vesta, C� lifo - ` ar ,' r
/ �P�� it 1 `�;e r "3
d ! —02 �S ,Z y/,i�S {
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 46 6SSd
Meeting Date if 5
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of "Candidate CEQA findings" and Statement of
Overriding Considerations - Bayfront Specific Plan
Resolution // ' P '
dopting findings relative to 21081 of
CE
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
REVIEWED BY: City Manage ' 1
v
The Final EIR for the Bayfront Specific Plan identifies several potentially
significant impacts. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt "CEQA findings" to
describe how the project, in its final form, mitigates those impacts or why it
is not feasible to mitigate those impacts (see Attachment #1).
RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the Planning Commission recommendation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached "Candidate CEQA
findings" and statement of overriding considerations on the Bayfront Specific
Plan.
DISCUSSION:
ANALYSIS
It is the conclusion of these findings that:
1. Changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid
the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR with
the exception of Water Supply and Visual Quality,
2. Any changes or alterations necessary to avoid or substantially reduce
impacts relevant to the supply of water are under the jurisdiction of the
Sweetwater Authority and not the City of Chula Vista, and that
3. The avoidance of significant Visual impacts can only be achieved through
the implementation of the "no project" alternative which is not feasible
to carry out because it would not be consistent with the Land Use Element
of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program nor would it provide the
necessary tax base to support the Bayfront redevelopment district.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 1625P
C: •-:,,ll of by the CE y C i +rB . i of
Chula Vista, i o is Chula Vista, t teli ornia
Dated
Dated /' /S 'dS �' v -
Z a _�S
. ,
. .
by 1:h0- Off
Chula, VisL,:i, Calktinizi
li
'-^(-1
,,..-;__