HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1986-12378 RESOLUTION NO. 12378
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING GPA-86-4 FOR THE
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 63 ACRES AS
"RESEARCH AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL"
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has
heretofore on February 18, 1986 held a public hearing to consider
an amendment to the General Plan and the prezoning of
approximately 63 acres of territory, generally located westerly
of Bay Boulevard, northerly of Palomar Street, and along the
easterly shoreline of San Diego Bay, in the City of San Diego, and
WHEREAS, having heard testimony at such public hearing
and receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission as
contained in their Resolution No. GPA-86-4, the City Council now
desires to amend the General Plan, and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Planning and prezoning
would enable the City of Chula Vista to coordinate the planning
of the subject territory with that of the Bayfront Community, and
to thereby better guide the orderly growth, environmental
projection, and economic development of its entire southerly
waterfront, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the project is exempt from environmental review
as a Class 19 exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the plan diagram of the
Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan by the
designation thereon of approximately 63 acres of territory,
generally located westerly of Bay Boulevard, northerly of Palomar
Street, and along the easterly shoreline of San Diego Bay, in the
City of San Diego, as "Research and Limited Industrial".
Presented by Approved as to form by
G e ctor of Ch 1, Assistant
Planning City Attorney
1253a
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 18th day of February
19 ~86 , by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Malcolm, Cox, Scott, Moore
NAYES: Councilmembers. None
ABSTAIN: Counci lmembers None
ABSENT: Counci lmembers McCandl iss
the City of Chula Vista
ATTEST_/./ City Cler~ - ~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
;aUNTY OF' SAN DIEGO ) ss.
;ITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California,
)O HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 12378
,and that the same has not been amended or repealed
)ATED
(seal) City Clerk
C-660
MARINA
PROJECT AREA.~
- 'RESEARCH AND, ~
. IN_USTRJAL
: ; MEAN HIGH
--" TIDE LINE
EXHIBIT A
GPA-86-4
0 I 2 :~ 4
NORTH FEET IN THOUSANDS
~LCP
(IND.)
_PROJECT AREA~
~ EXHIBIT B
'PCZ-86-B
0 400' 800°
~ECEIVED
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT wy ..............
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CHULA VISTA, OALIFORNIA
To The Honorable Mayor and City Council · City of San Diego
DATE ISSUED: January 27, 1986 REPORT NO. 86-028
ATTENTION: Rules Committee, Agenda of February 3, 1986.
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PALOMAR/BAY BOULEVARD REORGANIZATION
SUMMARY:
Issue - What position should the Council take with respect to
the proposed Palomar/Bay Boulevard Reorganization?
Man~er's and Planning Director's Recommendation - DO NOT
OBJECT to the proposed Palomar/Bay Boulevard Reorganization'.
Other Recommendations - None.
Fiscal Impact - Net annual loss estimated at $1670.
Environmental Impact - Categorical exemption from provisions
of CEQA claimed by Chula Vista per Section 15319 of CEQA
Guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
~n'November 5, 1985, the Chula Vista City Council authorized
initiation of the proposed "Palomar/Bay Boulevard
Reorganization". This reorganization would involve detachment
from the City of San Diego and annexation to Chula Vista of an
approximately 63-acre territory lying Dortherly of the extension
of Palomar Street and %~esterly of Bay Boulevard in the South San
Diego area (see Figures 1 and ?).
The proposed reorganization is tentatively scheduled to be
considered by the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) in April, 1986. If approved by LAFCO, it is likely that
Chula Vista will be designated as the conducting authoritv for
the proceedings that would shortly follow.
Under Government Code Section 56003.1, it is indicated that any
reorganization proceeding that involves the detachment of
territory from a city must be terminated if the city from which
the detachment is proposed objects thereto. However, it is
further indicated that if there is such objection, it must be
i
Page 2
registered prior to the conducting authority's ordering the
reorganization. Consequently, it is desirable that the Council
determine its position with respect to the subject reorganization
proposal fairly soon.
ANALYSIS:
The southerly 55 acres of the subject territory are owned by the
Western Salt Co., and are occupied mainly bv evaporation ponds.
The northerly eight acres are owned by SDG&k, and contain some
facilities appurtenant to that company's South Bay Power Plant.
Both ownerships have signified in writing their concurrence with
the proposed reorganization.
The subject territory is zoned M-2, but bears a General Plan
designation of "open space". The territory is uninhabited.
The City's Water Utilities Department reports that it has neither
existing nor proposed facilities within the subject area. The
Fire Department advises that it has no objection to the proposed
reorganization. The Financial Management Department states that
property tax revenue, in the amount of approximately $1,670 per
year, is the only significant revenue to the City from the
territory, and indicates that e~penditures for services are
negligible.
From the standpoint of effecting more logical jurisdictional
boundaries, the proposed reorganization appears to be a desirable
action. An inspection of Figure 2 indicates the subject
territory to be a relatively long and narrow finger-like
projection bounded on the westerlv side by National City and on
the northerly and easterly sides by Chula Vista. At present, the
.territory has no frontage on a dedicated street that is part of
the City of San Diego.
City staff recommends that the Council declare that it has no
objection to the proposed Palomar~Bay Boulevard Reorganization.
ALTERNATIVE:
Express objection to the proposed reorganization, and so advise
LAFCO and the City of Chula Vista.
~ich~l J,/Step.ner . ~ohn P. Fowler
Asststa~t Planning Director Deputy City Manager
SMITH: (236-5932) :kap
ATTACFMENTS: Figures 1 and 2.
z~
·
CITY OF
CITY
NATIONAL
CITY '
FEET
.. I !
0 400
~ PROPOSED PALOMAR / BAY
BOULEVARD REORGANIZATION /'z ~"7~