HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1991/07/22RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Agenda Items for July 22, 1991
Review of Local Coastal Program Alternative 8
A. BACKGROUND
Chula Vista Investors is the major landowner of property located
in the Chula Vista Bayfront north of "F" Street. Since
purchasing the property in August of 1988, Chula Vista Investors
has been working on a complete revision of the City's certified
Local Coastal Program (LCP) referred to as an LCP Resubmittal.
Pursuant to a request from the applicant, Alternative 8 (a
reduced density alternative concept plan proposed by the
applicant) is being considered by the Planning Commission, rather
than the original proposed project, which included the text and
graphics constituting a Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, as
well as a proposed concept plan. A letter from the applicant's
attorney making the request for consideration of Alternative 8 is
attached as Exhibit A.
The Alternative 8 concept plan for the Midbayfront proposes a
mixed use project totalling approximately 3.9 million square feet
of building area. The concept plan proposes 1,400 residential
units; 1,800 hotel units; 150,000 square feet of commercial
retail use; 640,000 square feet of professional office use
(approximately 560,000 square feet of the office space is within
the Rohr campus); and approximately 246,000 square feet, which
includes athletic facilities and a conference center.
Should the City Council choose to approve Alternative 8, the
applicant would be required to prepare a revised LCP Resubmittal
document, which would reflect the reduced density plan proposed
by Alternative 8. The revised LCP Resubmittal and associated
General Plan Amendment would require a Planning Commission
recommendation and City Council approval prior to being forwarded
to the California Coastal Commission for certification. Thus,
this staff analysis focuses on the major issues raised by the
Alternative 8 concept plan.
An EIR was prepared to address the potential environmental
impacts associated with the applicant's LCP Resubmittal and six
reduced density alternatives (Alternative 8 was one of those
alternatives). Any changes to the LCP would require
corresponding changes to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and
Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. Thus, the EIR also addressed
changes to those plans.
FEIR-89-08 is included in the members' packets and is available
for public review at the Community Development Department.
1
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Resource Conservation Committee adopt
a motion recommending that the Planning Commission make the
following recommendation to the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution:
a. Certifying that FEIR-89-08 has been prepared in
accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the
Planning Commission has reviewed these documents; and
b. Continue this item and direct staff to work with the
applicant and the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee to
resolve the key issues raised by the proposed project.
Resolution of those key issues would entail:
-Determination of appropriate land use intensity
-Location of buildings exceeding two stories away
from the perimeter of the site where they conflict with
public open space uses and uses of the adjacent
National Wildlife Refuge
-Preservation of public views to the bay from "E"
and "F" Streets and removal of buildings west of Marina
Parkway to ensure public views to the bay and wetlands
from Marina Parkway
-Evaluation of the potential for inclusion of a
cultural arts facility in the plan
-Exploration of alternative phasing and financing
programs to increase the financial feasibility of the
plan
-Resolution of unmitigated impacts in the areas of
traffic, land use, visual quality,
parks/recreation/open space and schools
C. DISCUSSION
Alternative 8 includes parks and part of a man-made lagoon at the
northern and western perimeter of the Midbayfront Planning Area.
The lagoon, which is a positive feature of the proposal, would be
salt water, and would extend east from the Bay into central
portion of the Midbayfront (Exhibit B). The parks and the lagoon
would be available for public use, as well as for resident and
visitor use.
2
The attractive visitor serving land uses proposed by Alternative
8, including hotels, retail shops, restaurants, a conference
center, and athletic facilities (a tennis complex, swimming
facility and an ice rink) are consistent with the visitor serving
focus outlined in the goals and objectives for Bayfront
development adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in 1988.
Further, the proposal to incorporate underground parking included
in Alternative 8 would improve the aesthetics of the project
because it would allow more productive uses of the limited
bayfront acreage, more flexibility in site planning (building
placement), and avoid an unappealing expanse of asphalt and
parked cars.
Although the number of potential employers resulting from
implementation of Alternative 8 is not yet known, it is
anticipated that the proposed project will result in substantial
employment opportunities. Those employment opportunities would
result in beneficial impacts to the City and the regional
economy. In addition, the residential component of the project
would add to the Citywide and regional supply of housing.
While Alternative 8 includes the appealing visitor serving land
uses and community benefits detailed above, the proposal raises
several key issues. Those issues include consistency with the
1988 goals and objectives for Midbayfront development approved by
the Redevelopment Agency; overall intensity; economic
feasibility; and unmitigated environmental impacts.
Consistency with 1988 Redevelopment Aaencv Approved Goals and
Objectives
An analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which the
proposed Alternative 8 is consistent with or implements the goals
and objectives for Midbayfront development approved by the
Redevelopment Agency in 1988. The highlights of that consistency
analysis follows. (Summarized objectives/criteria are
underlined; analysis/comments are presented without the
underline.)
The Midbayfront should include uses which balance the existing
development in other areas of the Bayfront. These could include
compatible office or residential; uses which do not detract from
the destination resort focus. Alternative 8 generally does
include uses which complement and balance uses in other areas of
the Bayfront and the benefits of a mixed use development could be
realized. However, it also has a substantial high density
residential component (approximately 1.4 million square feet) and
a 640,000 square office component (560,000 square feet is for the
Rohr campus). When combined, the office and residential elements
exceed the Visitor Commercial component, potentially detracting
from the "destination resort" focus specified in the goals and
objectives.
3
buffering conflicting uses. Alternative 8 has incorporated a
significant buffer adjacent to the wildlife refuge. However, the
nature and scale of the project may create conflicts regardless
of buffer size or setbacks. The location of intense land uses
adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge boundary will result in
significant impacts on the biological resources within the
Refuge.
natural resources of the bay. Alternative 8 provides public park
and open spaces along the perimeter of the Midbayfront, adjacent
to the National Wildlife Refuge and bay. Pedestrian and bicycle
trails are proposed for this area, with connections to off-site
destinations. Alternative 8 integrates a luxury hotel within the
public open space west of Marina Parkway. This luxury hotel
would obstruct views to the Bay and wetlands from Marina Parkway.
In addition, the location of public open space immediately
adjacent to high density residential uses in the northern portion
of the Midbayfront also raises the concern that the public open
space would tend to function as a private amenity.
Alternative 8 would also result in significant visual access
impacts including: (1) obstruction of existing scenic bay views
from public use areas; and (2) creation of a visually dominant
landscape from the Nature Interpretive Center, where aesthetic
enjoyment of the natural environment is a significant part of the
visitor experience.
Overall Intensity
The total proposed development for Alternative 8 includes
approximately 3.9 million square feet (s.f.) of building space in
the Midbayfront subarea. In comparison, the certified LCP allows
1.9 to 2.5 million s.f. of building space in the Midbayfront
subarea (Exhibit C). Thus, the proposed Alternative 8 building
space is approximately 1.4 million square feet greater than the
maximum allowable density in the Midbayfront under the certified
LCP. Exhibit D provides a land use comparison between
Alternative 8, the certified LCP, and other alternatives
addressed in the EIR for the Midbayfront subarea.
Increased intensity is not necessarily negative. The
acceptability of increased intensity depends on factors such as
translation into building bulk and scale, the resultant
environmental impacts, economic viability, and character and
overall relationship with the rest of Chula Vista.
4
Building Heights
The height of many of the buildings exceed the maximum height
limitations allowed by the certified LCP. In general, the
prevalent building height within the Midbayfront subarea in the
certified LCP is 4 stories (or 44 feet). A small 5 story (55
feet) area, and a single 70-foot focal point are, however,
provided for under the certified LCP.
In addition, the General Plan defines the categories of
development in Chula Vista with respect to height as follows:
Lowrise 0-3 stories
Midrise 4-7 stories
Highrise 8-15 stories
Using a general guideline of 14 feet per story, those ranges
would translate to the following building heights.
Lowrise 0-42 feet
Midrise 43-98 feet
Highrise 99-210 feet
In comparison to these existing standards, Alternative 8
proposes: one 229 foot-high hotel which exceeds the parameters
established for highrise development in the General Plan; two
hotels and three apartment buildings in the highrise category;
and one hotel, approximately fifteen apartment buildings, eight
specialty retail buildings, two commercial buildings, one office
building, one conference / theater facility, one ice rink, and
one light industrial building in the midrise range. The balance
of the structures proposed under Alternative 8 are below 43 feet
in height ( within the lowrise category).
Acceptable building heights will vary with specific uses,
specific locations on the site, and the overall character of a
plan. Generally, taller buildings would be acceptable with
decreased bulk, increased open space, or other public or
aesthetic benefits. They should be located in the interior of
the site providing a low profile adjacent to open space and
existing low-rise development on the perimeter of the site.
Preservation of views, including on and off site view corridors,
views on "arrival", views to public areas, and views to the bay,
should be considered in the placement of buildings.
Although the Alternative 8 plan includes taller buildings, the
proposal would not result in decreased building bulk on the site.
Regarding the issue of increased open space, Alternative 8 would
actually provide slightly less ( approximately three acres) of
public parks than the certified LCP. Alternative 8 also proposes
to locate several tall buildings at the perimeter of the site
adjacent to the open space and the National Wildlife Refuge,
particularly in the northern portion of the Midbayfront where
three highrise residential buildings are proposed to be located
adjacent to the public open space, proximate to the National
Wildlife Refuge.
Residential Intensity
The certified Local Coastal Program allows 15 to 30 dwelling
units per acre in the residentially designated areas of the
Midbayfront. The General Plan outlines the Residential High
category as allowing 18 to 27+ dwelling units per gross acre and
specifies that any new project under this category must contain
substantial landscaped open space for use by residents of the
project. There is no maximum density for this category. The
density shown as maximum indicates only that projects in the City
have traditionally been constructed below this density.
Section 6.2 of the General Plan provides guidelines for
establishing residential densities within the range. It provides
the criteria used in determining the appropriate gross density
for project implementation within any given range. In the City's
evaluation to determine the appropriate density for a project,
the assumed density, in any residential range begins at the
"baseline density" (or lower end of the range) and may move
toward the upper end of the range.
Alternative 8 proposes residential densities in the northern area
of 63.1 dwelling units per acre. This density substantially
exceeds the low end of the Residential High category. The
analysis of General Plan criteria for determining the appropriate
density within the range does not support the density proposed
for the following reasons.
1. The intensity of the proposed project is not compatible
with the intensity of existing and proposed surrounding
land use patterns. The intensity of the proposed
residential and hotel development is out of scale with
the surrounding area, particularly, the National
Wildlife Refuge and Chula Vista Greenbelt which are
located immediately west of the proposed project.
For residential development, the existing densities in
the .5 mile surrounding area range from an average of
15 dwelling units per acre to a high of approximately
35 to 40 dwelling units per acre in the older areas.
The newer residential developments have maximum
densities of 22 to 28 dwelling units per acre.
2. The proposed project does not appear to be sensitive to
the physical characteristics of the site because:
6
- The proposed building placement would result in shadow
/ shading impacts to park areas. Those impacts were
quantitatively determined in studies undertaken for the
EIR.
- Buildings are located in areas where they adversely
impact public views of the Bay and wetlands.
Economic Feasibility
Summary of Economic Analysis
Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. (WK&A) was retained by the
Redevelopment Agency to evaluate the financial feasibility of the
developer's original proposal and two reduced density
alternatives, and the fiscal impacts of each. (This summary does
not include the fiscal impact analysis.)
It is important to note that Alternative 8, the developer's
current proposal, is slightly less dense than the developer's
original proposal, and slightly more dense than the first reduced
density alternative included in the economic feasibility
analysis. The economic study conducted by WK&A analyzed the
Developer's proposal, Alternative 3 and Alternative 5 as
described in Exhibit D.
Two financial performance measures were used to evaluate the
financial feasibility of the proposed project to the developer:
internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV). The
proposed project and both the reduced density alternatives are
financially infeasible according to both measures used.
According to WK&A there are several potential modifications to
the proposed project that would improve its financial
performance. First, it may be appropriate to reevaluate the
heavy up-front costs of the project. Items such as public
improvements, subterranean parking, and sports facilities were
identified as resulting in heavy up-front costs. It is important
to determine which nonrevenue producing amenities the project
should provide so that non-essential elements with high costs can
be eliminated to reduce those heavy up-front costs. Second, the
project phasing could be adjusted to include some of the heavy
up-front costs in later phases to improve the project's economic
feasibility. In addition, it should be noted that alternative
financing options were not analyzed. Such options could also
positively impact the financial feasibility of the project for
the developer.
Unmitigated Environmental Impacts
Under Alternative 8, significant unmitigated impacts in the areas
of geology/soils/groundwater and hydrology/water quality would
7
remain due to lack of specific mitigation measures at the plan
level. Impacts in the areas of visual aesthetics/community
character, land use/general plan elements/zoning, and
parks/recreation/open space would be significant and unmitigable
under Alternative 8. Specific visual concerns include the
obstruction of existing public views to the Bay from "E" and "F"
Streets, and the blockage of future views of the bay and wetlands
from Marina Parkway because of the location of a hotel west of
Marina Parkway.
Seven impacts to biological resources would remain significant
and not mitigated at the plan level under Alternative 8. The
incremental loss of raptor foraging areas would also be
significant and unmitigable under Alternative 8. Any development
of the site would result in the loss of raptor foraging habitat.
Traffic impacts were assessed as significant and unmitigable at
the plan level under Alternative 8 because of uncertainty
regarding the feasibility of mitigation measures.
Finally, the issues of school transportation costs and school
sites would remain unresolved, and therefore, significant under
Alternative 8.
Conclusion
In summary, this report provides an analysis of the key issues
raised by Alternative 8 including: consistency with 1988 goals
and objectives for Midbayfront development approved by the
Redevelopment Agency; overall intensity; economic feasibility;
and unmitigated environmental impacts. A short synopsis of the
conclusion of each of those analyses follows.
-In general, Alternative 8 is consistent with the goals
and objectives calling for a visitor serving focus and a mixed
use development, although the proposed development does include
substantial residential and office elements which could interfere
with the visitor serving focus.
-The overall intensity of the proposed project exceeds
the intensity parameters established in the certified LCP and the
General Plan. Several other factors that should be considered in
determining the acceptability of increased intensity were also
explored including whether Alternative 8 would result in:
decreased bulk, increased open space, preservation of views, and
consolidation of tall buildings away from the perimeter of the
site. Alternative 8, as proposed does not incorporate any of
these factors that would help to make increased intensity more
attractive.
-Based on the two measures of financial feasibility
tested by the City's economic consultant, neither the proposed
8
project nor either of the reduced density alternatives tested
were financially feasible. The economic consultant did identify
several ways to increase the financial feasibility of the project
including re-evaluation of heavy up-front costs such as public
improvements, subterranean parking, and sports facilities.
Adjusting project phasing to include some of the high cost items
in later phases of the project was also identified as a way to
make the project more financially feasible. No alternative
financing options were evaluated in the financial feasibility
analysis. Such options could increase the financial feasibility
of the proposal.
-Alternative 8 would result in numerous unmitigated
environmental impacts. Impacts in the areas of land use and
visual aesthetics can only be mitigated by project redesign.
Traffic, schools, geology/soils/groundwater, hydrology/water
quality and several biological impacts will require resolution at
the project level of CEQA compliance. The significant
unmitigable biological impact, loss of raptor foraging habitat,
would occur with any development of the site.
The Bayfront Planning Subcommittee was established by the City
Council in May 1991, in an effort by the Council to increase
public participation in the Bayfront Planning process. In
addition to a nine member appointed Subcommittee, Mayor Nader and
Councilwoman Grasser Horton serve on the Subcommittee. The
following list includes the name and the appointing
commission/councilmember for each member of the Bayfront Planning
Subcommittee. The two current vacancies resulted from the recent
appointment of Ms. Grasser Horton to the City Council.
Subcommittee Member
Pat Ables
John Ray
William Tuchscher
(to be appointed)
Larry Dumlao
Russ Bullen
John Moot
William Virchis
(to be appointed)
Apnointina Commission/Councilmember
Cultural Arts Commission
Resource Conservation Commission
Economic Development Commission
Planning Commission
Mayor Nader
Councilman Moore
Councilman Malcolm
Councilman Rindone
Councilwoman Grasser Horton
To date the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee has considered items
such as the history of the Bayfront, the Subcommittee's vision
for development of the Bayfront, the Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the applicant's proposal, and the potential for
inclusion of a cultural arts facility within the Bayfront
development. Thus, it would be appropriate to include the
Bayfront Planning Subcommittee in future planning efforts for the
Bayfront to ensure an expanded opportunity for community input
into the process.
9
F ) of y
,Si~~~
!!! R
:'l r3 P~; ~f~? jt ~ ~1
Lk
PETERSON f3 PRICE
RAUL A. REiERSOrv A
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JUN 2 4
GREGORY G M. GAR RATT
L1~WYF
RS
EDWARD E WHITTLER .
LYNNE L REIDEL SHO E STREET, SUITE 2300
REeECCA MicnAEL SAID DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 921074454
~
M AftSNAL A-SCARR "
-
MATTHEW A. PETERSON
LARRY N- MURNANE
June 21, 1991
Mr. Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
(Public Services Building)
Chula Vista, CA 92010
TELEPHONE
AREA CO DC 619
234-0361
Fnx
(619)234-4786
FILE NO.
3848.002
Re: Chula Vista Bayfront
Local Coastal Program Resubmittal
Dear Chris:
As a follow up to your letter dated June 14, 1991, please be
advised that we would like the Planning Commission and City Council
to consider Alternative 8 rather than the proposed LCP Resubmittal
dated June 28, 1990.
It is our understanding that Alternative 8 has already been
analyzed in terms of environmental impacts and has also been
analyzed by your staff in terms of density, traffic and other
considerations. We recognize that should the Planning Commission
and City Council approve Alternative 8, we would reed to prepare a
revised LCP Resubmittal document which would reflect the reduced
density project proposed by Alternative 8.
We believe that we could process such revisions in a very
short time period and would assume that the City could also docket
the Planning Commission and City Council hearings within a very
short time frame. We are assuming that should the Planning
Commission and Ci-ty Council approve Alternative 8, that staff would
not need to, once again, independently, analyze or do any further
work, with the exception of verifying that the modifications
Mr. Chris Salomone
June 21, 1991
Page 2
proposed in the LCP Resubmittal are consistent with the project as
contemplated in Alternative 8. If this is not the case, please
contact us at your earliest convenience so that we can clarify the
appropriate procedure.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Very truly yours,
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
~1 ~~~~ ~-~/,~
Matthew A. Peterson
cc: Chula Vista Investors
~~
-~
C
P
R
E
S
U
M
T
T
A
L
8
F Illp~lf!III E III 1111111E T
IIIfIII I I II IIII I IIII I~ _
O 500 '1000
I'I,~,
~,
'I ~h
• /eo`
c°
~o
\/
~~~
„~
.~
~ ~~
J
,
y
`
-~
~_ - ~ =
~m~m
GREENBELT
S7re
~i
~~J
'Since prcpantion of these graphics, Rehr has cubmittcd a profxxnl
diftcrcnt from the one sumbittcd by CVI for this location. TL< reader is
referred to Lcttcr U in the Comm<nss Votumc for the new Rohr Plan.
.,... t __,~~ ~,~,~,
AL'PERI\IA'1'IVE 2
~II~~~,~,~~~~~IIIIII,I~~'°~''~I~"'II~~~~~~~~~II~~~;"~~II"il~~~~~~~~~y,~~~I~~~,~~~,~~~,I~~~~~iu"..IIINIII°'llllllli";ilmu,lmnw
~ 7 y 7
p n n
3 ~
~ cao w ~
m y .. y
y
ny < ~
~ w o ~
A T` N w
v .- n
~ ~ v~ m
v0, Q. A y
c " ~ ~
~ O
~+ m by
O ~ D ..
~ ny !~`-Dff ~
C a y
o• w
() ~ y
w` ~' o
8~a
~ ~ o
y ~ d
p O
o a ~
ryO ~_ N
R W ~
w
O -~ -
~ y O
~ O O
-„
b w_ m
N~ 7 ~
(~ ^. O
^ O T
~J w ~
a :,
(4 y
a
?: ~°.
w
y O
"- O
W .m. a
A ry ."
~ O
~' °' ,ly
0. y 4
~ o
°O x ~
o• ~
'a ro
a o
O
~ w a
C ~y
~°y (D a
N ~
b W
r
X <
~ w
dp A
a `~
m
~ o
m o
<' ~
m .,
J y
a ~ da ao a ~a ~a ~a ~ ~_ o a ~e
m ~ m m
G _
it m t, m
~ a io n. m C. ~p K K. m m
" 0<
"O
^i
7 .f
kf O a n
O R C
~
~3 7 C ^~
n a C ^i
n 7 C ~
r, O y ti
~i ~ 7 ~ n
7 _
O
~ ~ ~
A o '
+
A m G i n C7 n C~ d r~o m
C" `
^ m y
~O ,.
`^ Oo V ~ O~ 7 V~ N A N W ro N F+
v •• •
~ ~ ~
N i-+
a F-'
w ^ O O qq
~ ~ to w~ w~ A Y ~ O
3 m. O~ ~ C. ~
ro0 C. p N ~~ ~~ w~ 0 0
^ C O .y. ,y .. yy ,y C to G O C O O N i C O
in y y~ y ~' y
(U .: ~ lD y y y
N -
a~ ~-- a~ bb ~ o~ ~~ ~~ ~; N~
-~
~ ~ o o '~ 0 0 0- ao
~
'
O '
w
~ ~° o w a'o ~o ~o
o N tro
o
^ n o
C S ,
' yo
.. P. „ o p
~ y o O
.O^- y O
~ y o0
y ~ p
.O- y
N O O ~ N O O C :"+ GC :" ~ "' '~' ~ "'
to C ;,~ to ~. .-
.y.. .... .~ .~
a~ ~ y~, bb ~, ~, G G ~ G
~ o
O !!~~
ap'
~ O
~ y
ti O
O o
O O
O °O
N O
O
.
. mq
< O <~ O O y y y ~ y
~ ~
a
p, a~ bb
~
p
ry C. ~ y ~. q
'
C.
P ~
O O O O ~ p
w ~ o w ~ .,
~+
° p o o " o
~ p ~ p p p p
O
< O C O ,
O O O O A O
(D y (D y y ~
N w w N A I
~^~,
^ w
oo a~,
tl bb ~
O ~
J ~ ~ N
A ..
oo
m
C ~
C O
.~ i
.
w °` .
~ w
w ~i O w
^
oo
in
in
o t
0
~~ O^
O
~- O^ (D
P. C
o
O
O
ON
O
U U
bb
N w
~ ~ ~
to cn .
i
O ~ ~ ~ N
~
b b
w N w _
~~.~ ~ w N N .-
N w N .
~ O A ~D A N ~ o0
a N O\ ^ ~y n o0 00 ~] Ol ~D
LL O W
<~ ' ~ r
a
A
^1
7
A
A
T
n
C°
n ^: 3
S ~ 1
'~ n
w
~ 3
A
v ~
a ~,
ve yy
1 O
p: ~
G• ~
~~y
m
~i' C
~ ~
^y~.c
~,p~'n'
`.-' ~ Pi
7
~• a
ro
1 b n
ffi
C"
n
b
C
O'
ao
~ '
~a
A
a3
~ ~
G~ ~
0
w
O
,~ a
y
n
0
3
b
n
7
O
7
RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEMS for MEETING of JULY 22, 1991
REVIEW OF FINAL EIR-89-08
MIDBAYFRONT LCP RESUBMITTAL NO. 8 AMENDMENT
A. BACKGROUND
The original Draft EIR prepared on this proposal addressed the potential environmental
effects of a proposed Local Coastal Program Resubmittal including both text and graphics.
At the end of the public review period (Planning Commission hearing on September 26,
1990) Chula Vista Investors (the applicant) introduced a new revised concept plan. This
new proposed project is termed Alternative 8. Should the City Council choose to approve
the Alternative 8 concept plan, then the applicant would be required to prepare a revised
LCP Resubmittal document to reflect the reduced density plan proposed by Alternative 8.
Two major changes to the certified LCP would occur if Alternative 8 were approved. The
first would involve the redesignation to "open space" on all City plans of 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 would be to modify
the arrangement of land uses, building height controls, and development intensity in the
Midbayfront planning subarea.
The Alternative 8 concept plan for the Midbayfront proposes a mixed use project totalling
approximately 3.9 million square feet of building area. The concept plan proposes 1,400
residential units, 1,800 hotel units, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail, 640,000 square
feet of professional office, and approximately 246,000 square feet which includes athletic
facilities and a conference center.
Alternative 8 includes parks and part of a man-made lagoon at the northern and western
perimeter of the Midbayfront planning area. The lagoon is a salt water feature that would
extend east from the Bay to the central portion of the Midbayfront. The parks and lagoon
would be available for public use as well as for resident and visitor use.
Alternative 8 proposes:
• One 229 foot-high hotel which exceeds the parameters established for highrise
development in the Chula Vista General Plan;
• Two hotels and three apartment buildings in the highrise category (99-210
feet);
• One hotel, approximately fifteen apartment buildings, eight specialty retail
buildings, two commercial buildings, one office building, one
conference/theater facility, one ice rink, and one light industrial building in
the midrise range (43-98 feet); and
-1-
• The remainder of the structures are below 43 feet in height (within the
lowrise category).
Wetland setbacks are proposed along the perimeter of the Midbayfront which is adjacent
to both San Diego Bay and Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
The environmental analysis included in the Final EIR addresses the following issues:
geology/ soils/groundwater, hydrology/water quality, visual aesthetics/community character,
conversion of agricultural lands, air quality, noise, biology, archaeology/history/paleontology,
and land use/general plan elements/zoning, community social factors, community tax
structure, parks/recreation/and open space, utility service, and transportation/access. The
Final EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, cumulative
impacts, and other environmental summaries required by CEQA. The environmental
consultant that prepared this Final EIR is Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. of San
Diego, California.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Certify that Final EIR-89-08 has been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures for the City of Chula Vista, and
further that the Resource Conservation Commission has reviewed and considered the
information in the Final EIR as it reviews the Alternative 8 concept plan.
C. ANALYSIS
In addition, the Final EIR includes expanded and refined impact definitions to clearly
distinguish between those significant impacts that may be mitigable at a later stage of
planning and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance and those impacts
that may only be mitigated through a major redesign of the project or selection of another
alternative. In preparing the August 1990 Draft E[R, the category "Significant and Not
Mitigable" was used to categorize a broad range of impacts -- including those that were not
considered to be mitigable except through project redesign, as well as those considered to
be significant and not mitigated at the present time, based upon the information provided
by the applicant at the plan-level of CEQA compliance. In various instances, impacts
classified in the DEIR as "Significant, Unmitigable" at the plan level, maybe mitigable once
more detailed studies and planning are completed by the applicant and the City.
Consequently, in order to clearly distinguish between these two major impact categories, the
project team refined the impact definitions and re-evaluated all environmental impacts of
the proposed project and alternatives based upon the following criteria and definitions:
• "Significant and Not Mitigable" -This category pertains only to those
significant impacts that would not be mitigated below a level of significance
at any stage of project planning and environmental compliance.
Consequently, this impact category pertains to those effects that can only be
avoided through project redesign or selection of another alternative.
-2-
• "Significant and Not Mitigated at the Plan-Level of CEQA Compliance" -This
category of impacts applies to those environmental effects that are not
presently mitigated by identifiable measures or the applicant's commitments.
These impacts may or may not be mitigated at later stages of planning and
environmental compliance. In most instances, additional baseline studies or
project details are needed prior to determining whether mitigation would be
feasible or not.
• "Significant, Mitigable" -Impacts that exceeded the threshold of significance
are categorized as "Significant, Mitigable" in those instances where mitigation
measures are readily available or where the applicant has already provided
sufficient information and mitigation commitments. In this instance,
additional studies and/or design information are not necessary to establish
appropriate measures and their effectiveness in reducing impacts below the
significant threshold.
• "Adverse, Not Significant" -Impacts considered to be adverse, but below a
level of significance are listed under this impact level.
• "No or Limited Impact" -Impacts that are considered to be very minor or
undiscernible are classified in this category.
• "Beneficial Impacts" -Impacts that will have a beneficial effect on the City of
Chula Vista, its residents, and/or its environmental resources are so noted
under this category.
An analysis of the significant adverse environmental impacts which would result from
implementation of Alternative 8 follows.
1. Geology/Soils/Groundwater
Development of the proposed project and alternatives would result in the following
four potentially significant impacts. The impacts are described in the right column
and level of each impact is identified in the left column.
Impact Level Impact Description
Significant Mitigable 1. Ground settlement due to consolidation of the
compressible estuarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and the
artificial fill soils on site;
Significant Mitigable 2. Grading impacts for onsite and offsite water and
sewer pipelines;
Significant, not mitigated at 3. Seismic hazards, including ground shaking, surface
plan level displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and
earthquake-induced flooding; and
-3-
Significant, not mitigated at 4. Potential foundation design and construction
plan level difficulties associated with the construction of
foundations and subterranean parking structures at
or near the groundwater table.
2. Hvdrology/Water Ouality
Five potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts were cited as a result of
development of the project and the alternatives. These include:
Impact Level Impact Description
a. and b. Significant , 1. Flooding of: (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs,
Mitigable compounded by run-up from wind-driven waves
(coastal flood hazards); (b) flooding from the
c. Significant , not Sweetwater River; (c) flooding associated with
mitigated at plan level exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain
facilities on site;
Significant, not mitigated at 2. Erosion from inland or coastal flooding;
plan level
Significant, not mitigated at 3. Siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of
plan level water quality from surface runoff-pesticides,
fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.;
Significant, mitigable 4. Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards,
specifically related to the design storm flow, and
gravity pipe requirements; and
Significant, mitigable 5. Issues regarding quantity and quality of water for
both the 10-acre public lagoon and the semi-public
residential lagoon in the northern portion of the site.
3. Visual Aesthetics/Community Character
Significant visual and aesthetic impacts would occur from development of
Alternative 8 and three reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4 and 5). No
significant aesthetic/visual impacts would occur from development allowed under the
existing LCP. The significant impacts and the level of significance of each impact are
summarized below.
-4-
Impact Level
Impact Description
Significant, not mitigable 1. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape
from the Nature Interpretive Center, where aesthetic
enjoyment of the natural environment is a significant
part of the visitor experience, would be permanently
lost.
Significant, not mitigable 2. Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public
use areas and establishments along Bay Boulevard.
Significant, not mitigable 3. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape
from areas within the City of Chula Vista and from
I-5, that would be incompatible with the waterfront
image community identity of Chula Vista.
4. Conversion of Agricultural Lands
5.
The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential agricultural land to urban uses
is not considered significant at the plan level. The loss of any potential agricultural
land represents an incremental contribution to a regionally significant loss of
agricultural land to development.
Air Ouality
Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur from development of the
proposed co-generation plant. An incremental contribution to regional air quality
problems would also occur from vehicular sources. In addition, cumulative impacts
would occur from vehicular emissions added to the co-generation plant emissions.
Mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce these impacts to a level below
significant, including compliance with the Air Pollution Control District's
requirements for co-generation emissions, dust control (during construction),
construction traffic monitoring, and implementation of Transportation Control
Measures coordinated through a transportation management agency.
Further, once the proposed parking garages have been designed, an additional
air quality analysis must be conducted to assess potential air quality impacts
to the garage users.
6.
Noise
Potentially significant noise impacts could occur from construction activities, and land
use incompatibility. Specifically the location of the child care center close to the
noise from I-5 and the co-generation facility raise noise concerns. These impacts can
be mitigated to a level below significant by limiting construction activities to certain
times, limiting construction access routes, establishing a noise performance standard
5-
for the co-generation facility, and by requiring a noise barrier along the eastern end
of the child care facility.
7. Bioloev
Numerous impacts are cited to biological resources including wildlife resources,
threatened and endangered species, and marine resources. Twenty-six mitigation
measures are detailed for biological impacts in the FEIR. These mitigation measures
would help to minimize the impacts of the project on biological resources, but one
significant unmitigable impact would remain. There are not foreseeable mitigation
measures available to compensate for the loss of raptor foraging habitat associated
with the alteration of land uses in the Midbayfront. Thus, this impact is considered
significant and unmitigable.
The project description, environmental safeguards, and the mitigation measures
detailed in the Final EIR provide adequate assurance that impacts associated with
degradation of water quality alterations of predator/competition/prey regimes,
human and pet presence, endangered species concerns, and vector control issue can
be mitigated at the project level by the development and implementation of precise
plans which address these concerns. Currently, there is not enough project-level
detail available to adequately evaluate significance on these issues. A biological
resources management plan will be developed in a completed form during the project
level environmental review process. So, the impacts identified above remain
significant and not mitigated at the plan level.
8. Archaeology/History
The impacts to archaeological and historical resources were found to be significant
but mitigable by subjecting off-site improvements (e.g., for utility extension) to
archaeological review.
9. Paleontoloev
Significant impacts to paleontological resources could occur during project grading.
The standard on-site monitoring requirements are included in the Final EIR as
mitigation for these impacts.
10. Land Use/General Plan Elements/Zoning
The significant land use impacts associated with the proposed project and the level
of significance of each impact are summarized below.
Impact Level Impact Description
Significant, not mitigable 1. Incompatibility of the intense nature of the
development with the land uses of the surrounding
Chula Vista area;
-6-
Significant, not mitigabee 2. Incompatibility ofthe intense nature of development
with the adjacent unique open space uses of the
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and
Nature Interpretive Center;
Significant, mitigable 3. The potential incompatibility of the residences
located above and nearby the commercial retail and
commercial visitor uses in the central core area.
Such potential impacts include noise from traffic and
people, traffic congestion, night-lighting and
competition for parking spaces, all of these largely
occurring on weekends and evenings when most
people are home; and
Significant, not mitigated at 4. Inconsistency with the certified LCP, General Plan
the plan level (2010), and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan.
The only mitigation measure possible to reduce the impacts from land use intensity
incompatibility (number 1 above) and incompatibility with the adjacent NWR
(number 2 above) to below a level of significance would be to redesign the proposed
project. Otherwise, these impacts would remain significant. Mitigation for impact
number 3 above would involve building design techniques such as maximum
insulation in exterior and interior walls, floor separation design, and window
treatment. Mitigation for number 4 above would also necessitate either project
redesign, or approval of an LCP Resubmittal, a General Plan Amendment, and a
Redevelopment Plan Amendment; otherwise, this land use impact would also remain
significant.
11. Community Social Factors
A significant increase in housing and a resulting population increase would occur on
the project site over what was planned for the site, and a substantial increase in
employment opportunities would occur. Both the increase in housing and
employment opportunities are considered beneficial impacts.
12. Community Tax Structure
No significant adverse impacts would occur in the area of community tax structure.
A positive impact to the City's Redevelopment Agency would occur under all of the
alternatives.
13. Parks. Recreation. and Open Space
The EIR cites the following inadequacies in the proposed project in the area of
parks, recreation, and open space.
-7-
• Park development according to the proposed phasing plan would not provide
adequate park area or parking for parks within Phase 1 to accommodate the
anticipated high public usage;
• Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users;
• Inadequate information regarding public access from on-site parking areas to
parks, and from areas across I-5 to the east to the parks.;
• Shade impacts to parks and public open space areas.
Mitigation is possible to reduce the first three impacts to below a level of
significance. These measures are:
• Revise the Phasing Plan to include the parks and adequate public park
parking (as approved by the City) within Phase I.
• Creation of additional public parking spaces per City requirements to be
determined at the project level.
• Provision of access plan, showing designated public parking areas, access
routes to public areas, and access routes and signage from the east side of I-5
across the "E" Street bridge. The access plan must be approved by City
Planning and Community Development Departments.
The fourth impact can only be reduced by project redesign, thus, it remains
significant and unmitigable.
14. Utility Service
In the area of schools, the creation of new Mello-Roos districts would provide for the
collection of funds to finance items such as buses, relocatable classrooms, permanent
classrooms, and property on which those facilities could be located. Annual costs for
student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers' salaries are not,
however, eligible for Mello-Roos funding. These costs need to be funded by either
a cash contribution from the applicant or a long-term binding agreement with the
applicant to finance annual school transportation costs. The issue of new school sites
or additional property adjacent to existing schools for the construction of capital
improvements must be resolved during the project level of CEQA compliance and
the impact remains significant at the plan level.
15. Transportation/Access
Development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to street and
intersection capacities at streets in the project vicinity.
The Year 2000 condition was analyzed with the traffic generated by the Proposed
Project added to the No-Project condition. This analysis revealed that under this
-8-
condition, like the No-Project condition, all study area intersections will operate at
LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, with the
proposed project generated traffic added to the network, the following intersections
will operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS D or worse -Arterial
Intersections, LOS E or worse -Freeway Ramp Intersections).
• I-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.05)
• I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.30)
• Broadway/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.04)
• Broadway/"F" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.84)
• Broadway/"H" Street (LOS E, ICU 0.95)
Measures have been suggested and analyzed that would result in the following levels
of service.
• I-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.87)
• I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.74)
• Broadway/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.76)
• Broadway/"F" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.79)
• Broadway/"H" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.75)
The feasibility of several of the measures including restriping of the "E" Street
overcrossing, and widening Bay Boulevard to provide three northbound lanes has not
as yet, been demonstrated. The feasibility of these measures must, however, be
confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans prior to accepting the measures
as appropriate mitigation at the project level. Thus, many of the traffic impacts
associated with the proposed project remain significant and not mitigated at the plan
level. In addition, at the project level, a determination of the applicant's fair share
of the improvements required at the off-site intersections will be analyzed.
D. ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project," and
to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives "shall
focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects
or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to
some degree the attainment of project alternatives, or would be more costly."
The alternatives analysis in the Recirculated DEIR includes nine alternatives, five of which
were development plans which were analyzed at the same level of detail as the proposed
project. The alternatives are listed below; numbers 2 through 5, and 8, are those that are
analyzed in the same level of detail as the proposed project.
(I) No Project
(2) Development Under Existing Certified LCP
(3) Reduced Density 1 (26 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal)
-9-
(4) Reduced Density lA (26 percent intensity decrease from developer's
proposal)
(5) Reduced Density 2 (47 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal)
(6) Possible Locational Alternatives
(7) Reduced Density/Modified Design Alternative (47 percent intensity decrease
from developer's proposal)
(8) Applicant's Revised Development Plan
(9) Alternative Developed in Response to Public Comments
Locational Alternatives
Eight locational alternatives were analyzed in the DEIR. The alternative site locations are
included in response to the recent Goleta case, in which the Court ruled that EIRs must
evaluate alternative locations for a project, in addition to project alternatives on the same
site. Alternative sites aze examined in the EIR not as a viable option to the proposed
project, but rather to assess whether environmental impacts from the same or a similar
project might be reduced or eliminated at a different site than the proposed location.
The Midbayfront development plan would create reduced impacts in a different location,
possibly in such areas as shown by possible locational alternatives 2 and 6. It was also
concluded that the elements of the development plan that resulted in the significant,
unmitigable impacts were the high density, building bulk, and building heights. Thus,
Alternatives 7 and 9, additional on-site alternatives, were designed by the City's
environmental and planning consultants in an effort to reduce project impacts and to
respond to public comments regarding the project density, bulk, and height. The impacts
associated with Alternatives 7 and 9 are summarized below.
Alternative 7
Alternative 7 was developed by reviewing the potentially significant impacts of the
proposed project, and designing a development which maintained the land uses
proposed by the project while avoiding or significantly reducing the cited impacts.
The design reduced the overall intensity to a level allowed by the existing LCP (this
alternative assumes a maximum of approximately 2.5 million square feet of building).
The design also reduced the heights of buildings throughout the project area.
Under Alternative 7, the significant unmitigated impacts in the areas of
geology/soils/ groundwater and hydrology/water quality would remain due to lack
of specific mitigation measures at the plan level. It is, however, likely that these
impacts could be mitigated to below significant at the project level. With the
mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR, impacts in the areas of visual
aesthetics/community character, land use/general plan elements/zoning, and
parks/recreation/and open space could be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Five impacts to biological resources would remain significant and not mitigated at
the plan level under Alternative 7. The incremental loss of raptor foraging areas
-10-
would be significant and unmitigable under Alternative 7. In addition, traffic impacts
were also assessed as significant and not mitigated at the plan level because of the
uncertainty regarding the feasibility of the mitigation measures. Finally, the issues
of school transportation costs and school sites would remain unresolved, and
therefore, significant under Alternative 7.
In summary, although significant unmitigable impacts would result from
implementation of Alternative 7, the number of unmitigable impacts would be
substantially reduced from the number identified for the proposed project.
Alternatives 7 and 9 have fewer significant adverse environmental impacts than any
of the other alternatives analyzed except the No Project alternative.
Alternative 9
Alternative 9 was developed in response to comments received on the original Draft
EIR. The impacts associated with Alternative 9 would be very similar to the impacts
identified for Alternative 7.
(C:\ W P51\6AYFRONI'\89-8-EIRT'XTJ
11-