HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/10/13
Tuesday, October 13, 1992
6:00 p.m.
',*, declare under penalty of perjury that t am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
OiHce of the City Clerk and that I posted
thIs AgenJa!Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the Public ,ernes Building an at Ci !;jail on Council Chambers
DATED, /~ Y 70' SIGNED - "Public Services Building
Regular Meetinst of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Horton _, Malcolm -' Moore _' Rindone -' and Mayor
Nader _
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIlE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINIITES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF TIlE DAY:
a. Arturo Barrios Invitational 10K Run - Tim Murphy, Elite Racing, will make a presentation
to Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 7)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent CaIentlar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Cowu:i1member, a member of the publU: or cay staff requests
t/ull the iJern be puIkd for discussion. If you wish to speak 011 one of these items, pkase fill out a "Request to
Speak Form" availl1h1e in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the mJ!eting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recornmendiUion; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation-) Items puIkd from the Consent CaIentlar will be discussed after Action Items and Boards and
Commission Recommendations. Items pulled by the publU: will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting !he City to donate $1,000.00 to help fund !he expense for !he students
who will be participating in !he Rose Parade in Pasadena on New Year's Day, 1993 - Del
Bangle, Band Director, Castle Park High School, 1395 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91911.
b. Claims Against the City: Claimant No.1 - Michael Garcia by Steve Garcia, his Guardian Ad
Litem, c/o Colon, Pineiro & Quinones, Attorneys at Law, 3114 W. Beverly Blvd., Montebello, .
CA 90640; Claimant No.2 - Tai Lashon Bennett, 8009 San Felipe St., San Diego, CA 92114.
It is the recommendation of the City's claims adjustors, Carl Warren & Company, and Risk
Management staff that the claims be denied.
c. Letter requesting !he Port Commission do a feasibility study on Floatport - Joseph E. Leary,
President, Float Inc., 850 State St., #113, San Diego, CA 92101. It is recommended that
the request be referred to staff to meet with any interested member of the Commission.
Agenda
-2-
October 13, 1992
6. ORDINANCE 2531 AMENDING SEcnON 2.30.060 OF THE CHlJLA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO STAGGER THE TERMS OF EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (second readinR: and adoDtion) - At the
meeting of 9/22/92, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary amendments to that section of the ordinance creating and
structuring the Economic Development Commission to provide that General
Ex-officio Members have staggered terms. Staff recommends Council place
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney)
7. RESOLUTION 16837 AMENDING COUNCIL POUCY NUMBER 840-02 RELATING TO SMOKING
IN NON-PUBUC AREAS OF CIlY BillLDINGS . In January 1986, Council
adopted Policy Number 840-02 concerning smoking in non-public
(employee) areas of City buildings. The policy was amended in October
1988 and is proposed to be further amended by this resolution.
CITYFOLKS is a model worksite tobacco education project sponsored by
ADAPT. Part of the project was an evaluation of the City's current worksite
smoking policy. Representatives from management, the CITYFOLKS
committee, and all employee associations met to re-evaluate the policy.
The amendments presented with the resolution are the result of those
meetings and are supported by all employee associations. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy Director of Public
Works/Operations - Management Chief Negotiator)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
1M foUowing items have bun advertised and/or posted as public hearin&" as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, please fill out the "&quest to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City C1erlc prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the stJJff reconrmendiltio complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the stJJff recommendation.) Comments ore limited to five minu1Ls per individual
8.
PUBUC HEARING
ORDINANCE 2532
CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN - At the
meetings of 1/14/92 and 2/4/92, Council directed staff to process and
return to Council for approval: a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal
(amendment), a General Plan amendment, and a Redevelopment Plan
amendment consistent with the Subcommittee Alternative and including
their modifications and informational items. The proposed Chula Vista LCP
Resubmittal is the document that has been prepared in response to the
Council directive. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment has been
prepared to make the General Plan consistent with the LCP. The
Redevelopment Plan Amendment will be prepared following approval of the
plans. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on first reading and
approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
ADOPTING, ON CONDITIONS, THE "CHlJLA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN- THEBAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN" AS
THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPUCABLE TO THE BAYFRONT, CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL
Agenda
-3-
October 13, 1992
COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITIAL NUMBER E1GHr AMENDMENT (EIR
89-08) AND ADDENDUM TIiERETO; AND MAKING PlNDINGS OF FACT,
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (first readim!:1 - Alternative cow"se of
action.
RESOLUTION 16838 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITIAL NUMBER
E1GHr AMENDMENT (EIR 89-08) AND ADDENDUM TIiERETO;
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, LAND USE
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM AND PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT, AND
BAYFRONT AREA PLAN; ADOPTING THE CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM RESUBMITIAL CONSISTING OF THE LAND USE PLAN AND
SPE(JFiC PLAN AND WITII THE CHANGES IDENTIFIED HEREIN; AND
MAKING PlNDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THEMlDBAYFRONTLOCALCOASTALPROGRAMRESUBMITIALNUMBER
E1GHr - Alternative course of action.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportuniJy fOl' the general publii: to address the City Council 011 any subject matter within the Council's
jurisdii:tion that is not an item 011 this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the CiJ.y Council from
U1king action 011 any issues not included 011 the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council 011 such a
subject, p/ulse complete the yeIlaw "&quest to Speak Under Oral Conununkations Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address
fOl' TeCOI'd purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMiSSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items whiLh have been fOl'Warded to them fOl' consideration by one
of the CiJ.y's Boards, Commissions andlOl' Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elii:it substantUd discussions and deliberalions by the
Cowu;i/, staff, 01' members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in cer/oin cases be presented in the a1Jemative. Those who wish to speak, p/ulse fill out
a "&quest to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Publii:
commenJs are limited to five minutes.
None submitted.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items whU:h have been removed from the Consent Co.Iendm. Agenda
items puIIed oJ the 1WfU"SC of the publii: will be considered prior to those puIIed by Counci/members. Publii:
commenJs are limited to five minutes per individuaL
Agenda
-4-
October 13, 1992
OTIiER BUSINESS
9. CI1Y MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
10. MAYOR'S REPORTCS)
a. Distribution of Port District reserves.
b. Policy direction to staff on relocation mobile home park.
11. COUNOL COMMENTS
Councilman Moore
a. Council consider for approval of local technical assistance item for SANDAG involving
Southern California Veterans home site within San Diego County.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Acquisition of Property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 - 100 Woodlawn Avenue
(Richard A. Hall Company, owners)
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Cervantes vs. City of Chula
Vista
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on October
20, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council
meeting.
October 8, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager())NI
l. /_'
City Council Meeting of October 13, 1992
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, October 13, 1992. Comments re9arding the Written
Communications are as follows:
Sa. This is a letter from Del Bangle, Band Director of Castle Park High
School, requesting a $1,000 donation to help fund the expense for the
students who will be participating in the Pasadena Rose Parade January 1,
1993. In the past, the City Council has disapproved most individual
requests for funding similar to this one, but has on occasion financially
supported organizations or other groups that have provided entertainment
or other services on a gratis basis at various City functions or events.
However, based on the City's current financial situation, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST FOR FUNDING BE DENIED, BUT THAT STAFF NOTIFY
THE NEWS MEDIA OF THIS REQUEST AND AIR A COMPUTER-GENERATED MESSAGE DURING
TELEVISED COUNCIL MEETINGS.
Sb. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY FILED BY MICHAEL GARCIA
AND TAl LASHON BENNETT BE DENIED.
Sc. This is a letter from Joseph E. Leary, President of Float, Inc.,
requesting that the Port Commission do a feasibility study on Floatport.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST BE REFERRED TO STAFF TO MEET WITH ANY
INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
SWM:mab
trans
ASSOCIATED STUDENT BODY OF
I
ensIle- Pnrk }{iflH SeHool
1395 Hilltop Drive
Chula VisIa, CA 92011
PHONI
(619) 420.14K1
September 28, 1992
OOT
Hon. Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Calif. 91910
Dear Mayor Nader:
Castle Park High School's marching band has been invited to
the Rose Parade in Pasadena on New Year's Day, 1993. Castle Park
High School has been selected to represent all of San Diego County
as well as the City of Chula vista in the Tournament of Roses
Parade.
The purpose of this letter is to ask for a donation from the
City of Chula vista in the amount of $1,000.00 to help fund the
expense for the students who will be participating in the parade.
While the students are actively fund raising to help pay their
expenses to travel to Pasadena, a donation such as this would help
defray some of the expense to the students and the band and would
ensure maximum participation. I am sure you can appreciate the
showing that Castle Park makes is also a showing for the City of
Chula vista.
Your consideration of this request with the City Council will
be greatly appreciated and I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
~B~~
Band Director
CASTLE PARK HIGH SCHOOL
DB/gc
I
\
WRITTEN COMMUN!CA"~B'~r\JS
'\ "
54.-/
it
,
'oJ
1.-..
,~
---'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
SI;
Meeting Date 10-11-Q7
ITEM TITLE:
Claims Against the City
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of personnelQP.8(
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No~)
REVIEWED BY:
city Managey
~ .
Claimant No.1:
Mr. Michael Garcia by
Mr. steve Garcia, his Guardian Ad Litem
c/o Colon, pineiro , Quinones
Attorneys at Law
3114 W. Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, CA 90640
On Auqust 6, 1992, a Claim against the city was filed on behalf of
the above claimant by the law firm of Colon, pineiro 'Quinones. An
amended claim was filed on september 3, 1992, seeking damages of
$25,000.00, in connection with an automobile collision with a bicycle on
Telegraph canyon Road. The claim alleged the City was responsible due to
poor maintenance of the bicycle lane in which Mr. Garcia was riding.
Due to questionable liability on the part of the City, it is the
recommendation of our claims administrators, Carl Warren ,company, and
Risk Management that this claim be denied.
Claimant No.2:
Ms. Tai Lashon Bennett
8009 San Felipe street
San Diego, CA 92114
On september 2, 1992, a Claim against the city was filed by Ms. Tai
Lashon Bennett for an amount within the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Court. Ms. Bennett alleged personal injuries and property damage from a
collision with a Chula vista Transit bus on Auqust 3, 1992.
city bus service was provided contractually by American Transit Cor-
poration at the time of this incident. The agreement between American
Transit and the South Coast organization operating Transit (SCOOT) con-
tained a hold harmless clause and provided for indemnification. Because
the city has neither jurisdiction nor control over transit complaints, it
is the recommendation of the city's claims adjustors, Carl Warren 'Com-
pany, and RiSk Management staff that this claim be denied.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the above two claims.
J
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
Sb-/
PACIFIC OcEAN WAVE ENERGY RESEARCH
850 State Street, #113, San Diego, California 92101
Voice: (619) 234-POWR (7697) Fax: (619) 237-0330
Chula Vista Citv Council
276 Four-th Ave
Chula Vista. CA. 91910
October- 2. 1992
OCT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We would aoor-eciate vour- assistance in br-inoino the Floatoor-t
Air-oor-t prooosal into the oublic ar-ena for consider-ation as an
alter-native to Twinoor-ts. We have r-ecentlv formed into Float Inc.
and our- new letter-head is not vet back from the printer-.
If vou r-ead the December 1991 SANDAG reoor-t car-efullv. vou will
see that we wer-e the onlv pr-oposal that successful Iv satisfied
all seven of the criter-ia - a test that Twinpor-ts would have
failed had it been included.
Althouoh it is not widelv r-ecoonized. it will not be financial Iv
possible to keep both Lindber-o and Twinoorts ooeratino at the
same time. So none of the airoort proposals under consideration
except Floatport will involve the Port Commission continuinq as
owner--ooer-ators of the air-oor-t. Thev dr-e not charoed with the
r-esponsibilitv of finding a new air-port site. but as owner--
ooerator-s of an air-oort. have access to FAA entitlement funds to
studv new airoor-t sites.
So we would like to have the Por-t Commission do a feasibility
studv on Floatpor-t. This would helD us out to rest the inaccurate
objections that have been r-aised to orevent our- beinG consider-ed
as an alter-native and would out us into the arena of oublic
consideration. Our acceptance rate in private presentations is
runnino at about 901..
Acting on a re~uest from one of its members is a wav for- The Por-t
Commission to or-oceed with this study and we would like vou to
make such a formal request. Please find enclosed some cODies of
our br-ochure and a dr-aft of the r-eouest we would like you to make
at your earliest convenience.
Thank you very much.
~~ ~~ l\\)
\~'\ ~
elY.~
Jo oh E.~
Pr-esident. Float Inc.
(619) 233-4443
MLflll~1. Ii "'!'J"'il" il;~ ~l'~
Vjf~ bJull U I\l L.. ~
~~/!lI.UNiCA i'!ON~j;;,.<
Description 3. The minimum configuration would reqt
340 modules.
0 As currently proposed, fillA TPORT would be 4. Modules could be added or subtracted p
located three miles off the tip of the Point Loma demand
Peninsula of San Diego. D Stabilization would be achieved two ways:
D It would be a 150 to 250 acre, double decked,
concrete platform supported on a honeycomb 1. Sheer size. The area of the platform wouk
of concrete cylinders closed at the top and open be so much greater than the wave length (
on the bottom Up to 30,000 convenient parking any ocean waves that they would not affe(
spaces would be available. it Witness Antarctic landing strips on large
D Its configuration could be of any shape that is floating ice fields.
required by the functions it has to fulfill. 2. FLOA TPORT would be supported by the
trapped compressed air in the cylinders.
D It would be connected to the land by a tunnel Each cylinder would become a shock ab-
from the west end of Interstate 8. sorber. Further, as the wave moved under
D The demands on ground linkage would be the platform, the higher pressure air cylin-
reduced and the convenience increased by use ders would be permitted to vent to the lower
of sea linkages to communities such as Chula pressure ones through turbines that convert
Vista, Coronado, downtown, Point Loma, the power to electridty thus absorbing the
Mission Beach, PadRc Beach, Oceanside, etc. wave completely.
D Note that this unique method would eliminate
Technical Considerations point loads thus drastically reducing the struc-
tural requirements and therefore the construc-
D The configuration would require: tion costs.
1. At least one, probably two 12,000 foot D Note also that it would convert the destructive
runways. wave energy into usable electridty and create a
2. Supporting taxiways. dead calm in its lee. Any storms or surf would
3. Aircraft maneuvering and loading aprons. increase the output of electricity.
4. Airfreight facilities. D Location stability would be achieved most
simply by mooring to the ocean floor. The
5. Airline terrninal facilities. platform's stability would reduce the demands
6. Control tower. on the mooring system However, the satellite
7. Ground vehicle parking. controlled positioning systems currently used on
8. Ground vehicle access. oil drilling platforms could be investigated for
feasibility.
9. Sea vehicle boarding facilities. D Interstate 8 is an existing and adequate access
D The configuration of the support platform would corridor. The tunnel would emerge well beyond
be modular. the surf line and in the passive strata of the
1. Each module would be one hundred and ocean. It would then connect to an "S" shaped
eighty feet square. floating tunnel that would curve south, travel
2. Each module would be composed of 81 until it curves west again, and then come up
open-bottom concrete cylinders 20 feet in through the turbulent strata in the lee of the
diameter and approximately 40 feet high. platform.
5c.3
Background
For forty years, San Diego, California has known
that it needed a new airport The search has acceler-
ated in the last twenty years. None of the conven-
tional methods used by other dties seems viable for
San Diego, so nothing has been done. Time is
running out
Lindbergh Field is loved for its convenient
location, but has the following problems:
1. The runways are too short Wide bodied jets
need 10,000 foot runways to land. So in spite
of San Diego's location and size, it has few
international flights.
2. Noise impact on the surrounding area is
above acceptable standards.
3. Takeoff and approach patterns are over
populated areas.
4. Existing facilities will not accommodate
projected air passenger increases into the
next century.
More than 30 studies of the problem over the
years have continued to conclude that the "lesser
evil" is the shared use of NAS Mirarnar. But the Navy
and the 000 have continually made it clear that it is
not an option.
In the last two years, SANDAG (SAN Diego
Assodation of Governments) and City Coundlman
Ron Roberts have resurrected the previously re-
jected idea to build an airport at Otay Mesa on the
Mexican border. It would join with Rodriguez field
in Tijuana to form Twinports - a shared international
airport with Mexico. Lindbergh field would be
retained.
The Twinports proposal has met with substantial
opposition. In September of 1991, SANDAG was
asked to review all the airport proposals. One of
those was Floatport.
Each proposal was evaluated against seven
criteria approved by the SANDAG board. Although
Floatport satisfied all seven, it was not dted in the
conclusion.
This staff report was issued in December 1991,
but the SANDAG board has yet to adopt it.
Floating The Airport
Donald Innis of Innis- Tennebaum Architects,
designer of the East Terminal at Lindbergh, pro-
posed twenty years ago that the airport be floated
offshore.
The idea was rejected as too costly and environ-
mentally dangerous by the Comprehensive Plan-
ning Organization which was the regional planning
body that became SANDAG. There was no founda-
tion for either conclusion nor were they true. Facts
regarding the basis of the rejection are not clear.
From comments made off the record, speculation is
that the real reason was and continues to be that it
has never been done before.
Since that time:
1. There have been numerous technological
advances.
2. Demands for the development of large
floating platforms have increased.
3. Don Innis has refmed his design. His ap-
proach is unique among large floating
platform proposals, but incorporates tech-
nologies that have been proven in other
contexts.
4. Rising real estate values have outstripped
increased building costs. That has rnade
FLOATPORTs cost position comparable to
most land based proposals.
5. Major changes in the world political situation
have rnade the military potential of a floating
airport significantly more relevant.
6. Political pressure has been building on San
Diego to do SOMETHING soon.
Sc-1
o This configuration would provide the natural
flexibility which would also reduce structural
complexity and therefore cost.
a Module construction:
1. Cylinders would be manufactured on land
and transported to a ship yard.
2. They would be assembled side by side to
form a module.
3. A topping slab would be poured over the
cylinder heads.
4. A second level deck would be constructed of
precast concrete.
5. The module would be launched, towed to
the site and joined to the other modules.
Advantages
a Safety.
1. Most air acddents occur during landing and
takeoff.
2. Most damage is done by contact with the
ground or surrounding structures.
3. Unauthorized intrusion of airplanes into
flight paths is less likely three miles at sea.
4. In the event of a crash, no population would
reside under the flight paths.
a Environment. The environmental impact of a
floating airport is minor compared to the impact
of one on land.
a Economics. Construction costs would be
higher. But when land acquisition costs are
. factored in, costs compare very favorably with
land based proposals. For the same reason,
future expansion would be cheaper.
a Convenience. As the travel time for the large
majority of users would be about the same as
Undbergh Field, it should enjoy the same repu-
tation for convenience that Undbergh now has.
Also, the land acquisition costs for a land based
airport of comparable convenience to Undbergh
would be prohibitive.
o Tourism. It is not unreasonable to anticipate
that the uniqueness of a floating airport would
have a positive impact on tourism.
a The miHtary factor. Recent developments in
the goo-political environment have produced
dramatic changes in the capability demands on
the u.s. military. The utility of a mobile floating
airport in this new environment is evident.
o DesaUnfzation. It lends itself naturally to the
inclusion of a desalinization plant contributing to
a water supply solution.
a Deep Water Port It would naturally create a
deep-water port with direct connection to air
cargo transport. It may also prove attractive to
cruise ships as an embarkation/disembarkation
point.
The concept has enjoyed an overwhelming
acceptance by those to whom it has been
adequately presented. The only but substantial
political stumbling block encountered seems to be
that it has never been done before.
Floatport Development
Donald Innis
(619) 234-0108
John Nichelson
(619) 669-0164
Joseph E. Leary
(619) 234-7697
s;; ~S
~~
~h
~.2
~!
-.3
8
IJ..
-<
/ I / / /
/ / / / I
/ / I /
/ I / I I
/ I / I /
1// /
I I I I I
/ I I I I I
/ I I I I I
/ I I I / I
/111,11
11,',11
/11111// I
/1,111"
1/1/1'111/
11/11/,1//
1/1//1/,1//
1/1////,// /
1111'",/// /
11/1/111/'// /
1///11//1,/1/ /
1/111111/1 1/ /
////1///111// / / /
111111/11//1 I / /
/flllll/I///I /1 1/ /
//11/1/1/1//1/1 I 1/ / /
/11/1111/111//1// " / / /
I //11111111/1111/1/1 I, 1/ /
II 111111111/1/111//1// / / / / /
II /1, 1111111//11/1/111 / I /
III /1//, ,11111//1/11/11 1// /
II II 1/1/ / II (I/ 111/ //11/ / I / / / / /
II II III I , ,1,1 71"'4./11/1 1/ I I / I I /
III I III/I I ',1I II '/~'II / I I / I I /
III II ," 1/ /1'1111t 1/1 l/l/ / / I / /
1I11'IIII/I/IIIIIIII/I/'Y// 1/ /
111111111///1,,111111//1 // / I I /
11111111//11111/1/1111//1 I I
Ii 111," //' , 1,1/ 1/ 1/ ////11 I I /
II "11 //", 11111 " II 1// /I / /
II "11 ,1/ /11,1111 II III /1/
II 11'1/1",1,1111 II III /1/ /
11111111/1//111/11/11////
"1'11// I I I', II II II 1// /1//
" "'Il I / 'I , / 1/ 1/ 11/ // /1// /
111"1111111/111111/1/1/111 ~
""'11 I / If 1111/ It 1/ 11/ II 1/ ,
11111/1//111/11/11//1/1/1// ) .
111111/111/1/11//1//1/1/1// ~ I
111111111 11'11/ 1//11//1/1 1/ W I
1111111111",1/1/1//1/111,,- I I
1111'111/'11/1111/111/111// I / /
'""11/11111111/11/1/11/// 'I. I I /
/lIIUII11/111I1/1I///lIII/ / 6 I / /
IIIIUII/I/'//II/II/1I1I1/// 1/ / I / /
/111"'1'/1/111/11///1//'" II I I / /
IIIIUII/'///III1I1///I//////I/ / / f I / /
11111/111/111/1/11/1/1////1111 I / I / / /
""11111/1/111/11/1/1///1///// / / / I / /
111111'/'///1111111111//// / I I I / I
1111111//11/1/11/1/1/1///////1/ / / I I / /
111111//11/11/11/1/1/1//// I I /
I
/
/
I
/
I
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
Ie /
I /
/
/ /.
/ I
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
I
I
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
c."'~
/
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
I~M h
MEET~~8\'bA'iE: ~ /f;r9-z
,r,J ,~
Ordinance ,c,J ~'Amending Section 2.30. OpO \>-bf the Chula Vista
~MuniCiPal COd.e to. Sta~~~he Terms of Ex-Officio
mbers of the Eco~~'Development Commission
city Attorney eO"''\)
,=,'yv
4/Sths Vote: Yes__No X
SUBMITTED BY:
At the City Council meeting of September 22, 1992, the City Council directed the
City Attorney to prepare the necessary amendments to that section of the
ordinance creating and structuring the Economic Development Commission to provide
that General Ex-officio Members have staggered terms.
The attached ordinance implements that direction in the same manner that terms
are staggered for full Voting Members. In that regard, the initial term for
General Ex-officio Members conclude, for one General Ex-officio Member on June
30, 1994; for two General Ex-officio Members on June 30, 1995; and for two
General Ex-officio Members on June 30, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: Place the attached ordinance on first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSION ACTION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
F:Ihm1l:\auom:y\2.3Oa113
&-j
;\"\.O~
OX
ORDINANCE NO. ,J5'.31 ..;;;
.;;..<::>
~
_,,0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHU~" VISTA
AMENDING SECTION 2.30.060 OF THE C~ VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO STAGGER THE TE~OF GENERAL
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE ECONO~~ DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION ~
SECTION I: That section 2.30.060 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.30.060. Term of Office.
1. Post-Initial Terms.
Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection A, the
term of office of all members includinq Ex-officio
Members, and all classes of members, of said commission
shall be for a nominal period of four (4) years, and
shall terminate on June 30th of the fourth year of their
term, unless they shall otherwise sooner resign, die,
become disqualified or incompetent to hold office.
2. Initial Terms of Voting and General Ex-Officio
Members.
Notwithstanding Subsection A.1., the Initial Terms of
votinq Members shall commence upon appointment and shall
conclude, for two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1991;
for two (2) voting Members on June 30, 1992; for two (2)
voting Members on June 30, 1993; and for three (3) voting
Members on June 30, 1994, unless they shall otherwise
sooner resign, die, become disqualified or incompetent to
hold office. Furthermore. the Initial Terms for General
Ex-Officio members shall commence upon appointment and
shall conclude. for one (1) General Ex-officio Member on
June 30. 1994: for two (2) General Ex-officio Members on
June 30. 1995: and for two (2) General Ex-officio Members
on June 30. 1996. unless thev shall otherwise sooner
resiqn. die. become disqualified or incompetent to hold
office.
a. Appointment to Initial Terms by Lot.
Appointment of the Initial Voting Members and General
Ex-officio Members as to the Initial Terms shall be
determined by lot, the fairness of which method shall be
approved by the Mayor in advance if agreement as to
method can not be reached among the Voting and General
Ex-officio Members.
I
" ....:J
SECTION II: All the rest and remainder of Section
2.30.060 except as herein amended shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
and Ap
A
B
F: \bome.....uomc:y\2 .30.060
2
&"'1
1l:>),~;,Z
~~o~~. \to
2S~.2-_
"\ (0
/\', \. /'
/\
J "
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
\
\
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
.
.
.
.
,
A ~
~ UfJD~ U'J~IDeeAfIOf.l
".....
,../'""
..
, \ "" (\ ~ /')v--' \
~.-/' .
----- ---::::.: ~ r.
/'~ ..
, ~
, ....
/
. ~ -~'\""
~PO~ .'
!.J~ LAtJ ) LOCATOR
NORTH (P.c..i"1 "l~ -09 ) M I D-!'A '(f'RoN
EXHIBIT C
CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-IMPLEMENTATION PLAN-
BAYFRONT SPECnnC PLAN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Adopted by the City of Chula Vista on
October 13, 1992 as Ordinance No. 2532
Certified by the California Coastal Commission on
,1992
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tim Nader, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
David Malcolm
Leonard Moore
Jerry Rindone
Shirley Horton
PLANNING COMMISSION
Joe Casillas, Chairperson
Laverne Decker, Vice Chairperson
Joanne Carson
Susan Fuller
Thomas Martin
John Ray
William C. Tuchscher II
CITY MANAGER
John Gross, City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City 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, Joe.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS)
Chula Vista Investors (CVI)
(10113/92)
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
Chula Vista Local Coastal Prm~:ram
PLANNERS
Cinti & Associates
Gary P. Cinti
Jay Kniep
Midbavfront Proiect
ARCHITECTS
Jerde Partnership, Inc.
Carl Worthington
Ralph Yanagawa
LEGAL COUNSEL
Peterson & Price
Paul A. Peterson, Esq.
Matthew A. Peterson, Esq.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Wimmer, Yamada & Associates
Joseph Y. Yamada
Pat Caughay
ENVIRONMENT AL CONSULT ANTS
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. Christine Keller
A.D. Hinshaw Associates Philip Hinshaw
David D. Smith and Associates David D. Smith
(10/13/92) ii
STATE and FEDERAL AGENCIES
California Coastal Commission
311 1 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92108-1725
Attention: Deborah Lee, 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
Carlsbad, 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
Attention: John A. Gill, Chief
(10/13/92)
iii
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN-
Table or Contents
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
A. Purpo,e
B. Scope
C. Authority
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Zoning
B. Conflict, Interpretation. and Applicability of Provisions
C. Plan Amendments
D. Incorporation by Reference
E. Issues Not Covered
III. COASTAL DEVELOPME!'iT PERMIT PROCEDURES
A. Purpo,e
B. Definitions
C. Development Permit Conditions
D. Applicability
E. De Minimus Development
F Exemptions
G. Emergency Development Permit
H. Notice of Appealable Developments. ....... .......
I. Public Hearing on Appealable Development'
J. Notice of Local Government Action Where Hearing Continued ........
K. Notice of Non-Appealable Developments that Require a Public Hearing:
Conditional Uses
L. Public Hearing on Non-Appealable Developments: Conditional Uses
M. Notice of Non-Appealable Developments that Do Not Require a Public Hearing:
Permitted Uses
N. Determination of Applicable Notice and Hearing Procedures ..
O. Finality of City Action . . . . . . .
P. Final City Action - Notice
Q. Failure to Act - Notice
R. Local Government Action - Effective Date
S. Exhaustion of Local Appeal . . . . . .
T. Appeal Fee
(10/13/92)
iv
I'm.
1-1
I-I
]-1
II-I
II-I
II-I
II-I
II-I
JII-I
111-1
JII-3
JII-4
111-4
JII-5
JII-6
JII-6
JII-7
lIP
JII-8
JII-8
111-8
111-9
111-9
JII-9
111-9
JII-JO
111-10
111-11
Table of Contents (cont'd)
IV. LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
~
A. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . .
B. Commercial Land Use Districts .......
C. Industrial Land Use Districts .........
D. Public and Open Space Districts
E. Residential District ....
F. Central Resort District ..
G. Circulation and Other District ........
IV-I
IV-I
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
IV-4
IV-4
V. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
A. Purpose and Scope
B. Permitted Uses
C. Development Intensity
D. Height Regulations
E. Sign Regulations
F. Form and Appearance
G. Infrastructure
H. Parking Requirements
I. Site Development Standards
J. Grading and Drainage
V-I
V-I
V-I
V-2
V-4
V-lO
V-14
V-18
V-20
V-21
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Purpose and Scope
B. Resource Elements
C. Environmental Management Requirements
D. Midbayfront Subarea Requirements
VIOl
VIol
VI-l
VI-I
VII. SUBAREA SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Purpose and Scope
B. Midbayfront Subarea
C. Industrial Subarea
D. Inland Parcel Subarea
E. Faivre Street Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. Palomar/Bay Blvd. Subarea
VII-I
VII-I
VII-18
VII-21
VII-21
VII-21
(10/13/92)
v
(10/13/92)
List of Exhibits
00
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Regional Location . . . . . . . .
Coastal Zone with Subareas .
Land Use Districts ..
Building Heights .
Midbayfront Gateway Monumentation
High Rise Building Wall Sign . . . . . .
Form and Appearance . . . . . . . .
Circulation Element
Utility Systems
Environmental Management Element
Buffer Zone Section
Conceptual "F&G" Street Marsh Restoration ...
Central Resort District Concept
Residential District Concept .
I-I
1-3
IV-6
V-3
V-8
V-9
V-II
V-16
V-l?
VI-5
VI-6
VI-II
VII-2
VII-II
vi
J. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
A. Purpose
The Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Implementation Program ("Bayfront Specific Plan") is
adopted to protect and promote the health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity
and general welfare. It is intended to implement the Chula Vista General Plan and the Chula Vista
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, which are also being implemented by the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan.
B. Scope
The Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Implementation Program shall govern and regulate all
development within the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program boundary as depicted on Exhibit #2,
entitled Coastal Zone with Subareas, herein.
C. Authority
The Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program Implementation Program is adopted pursuant to
Section 30500 (a) of the Public Resources Code, relating to the requirements of a City to implement
the provisions and policies of the California Coastal Act. This Implementation Program is further
adopted pursuant to Sections 65450 through 65507 of the Government Code of the state; and, Chula
Vista Municipal Code Title 19, Zoning, chapter 19.07, relating to Specific Plans.
(09/23/92)
I-I
~ Regional Location
~ Exhibit 1
m
w
IMPERIAL BEACH
STATE 117
I A '-: j' [' t A .>,,; .\' I r-; \
m
UNrrED STATES - - -
--
MEXICO I\--lULA V15fA
LOCal Coastal Program
FdTli! 1
cH,;t;(~~
",.\ ~ 11] F (i (1, C A I 11-0 R 1\] iI
rh,,,,,- (bI01~,'LL~I~ hn i6101~'jCI_4~1~
[][J Midbayfront Subama
~ IndJstrial Slbarea
~ Southern Parcel Slbarea
~ Irland Pa",.. &bare.
~ Faivre Street &barea
I @=:J Palomar/Bay _.rd &bare.
~ Sweetwa... Marsh National
~~ Wlldife Refuge
---- Coastal Zone Bouldary
Coastal
Zone
With Subareas
Exhibit 2
- - - - St.barea Boundary
--------- City Lmt line
(
/1
-1/
j
I'
_L.
7CCC~=C Y... -
h-n n A VISTA
lcd~ Program
i
\
I
I'
!~
I
II!
__IL___
)L__
---~-
L
,-
lr-
a.;w(~~l
,.......,.,"...'.L3....1
~-- ---i'~
lO/lJ/l1li!I i..II L--,1
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Zoning
The Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Implementation Program is adopted as a Specific Plan by
ordinance, in accordance with Chapter 19.07, Specific Plans, of Title 19 - Zoning, of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, and therefore serves as the zoning for all property within the scope of the
plan area.
B. Conflicts, Interpretation, and Applicability oC Provisions
Whenever the provisions of this Specific Plan conflict with the provisions of the Chula Vista Zoning
provisions or whenever the provisions reflect on internal conflict, the following rules shaH apply:
the Specific Plan provisions shall supersede those of the Zoning Ordinance and the subarea
provisions shall supersede area- wide provisions. In the event that a map specification or illustration
is found to be infeasible, then the nearest to the original that is deemed feasible and practical shall
apply. In all cases, whenever provisions require interpretation, the Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan shaH provide clarification and amplification.
C. Plan Amendment
Amendments to this Specific Plan shall require an amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
and shall be subject to the applicable sections of the California Coastal Act relating to amendments
to Local Coastal Programs.
D. Incorporation by Reference
Whenever this Specific Plan refers to another Article, Section, or Subsection of the Chula Vista
Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, such reference shall be deemed
incorporated herein by reference. Such reference shall be to the Article, Section, or Subsection of
the Chula Vista Zoning Code in force as of the date of the adoption of this Implementation Program.
Subsequent amendments to the Chula Vista Zoning Code shall also be applicable, but only to the
extent that such amendment are not in conflict with the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Land Use
Plan and Bayfront Specific Plan. A subsequent amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
which is in conflict with this Specific Plan shall not be applicable without an amendment to this Plan.
The applicability of provisions incorporated by reference may also be affected by Development
Agreements which may be entered into by the City and property owners within the plan area.
E. Issues Not Covered
In the event that an issue is not covered by any provisions or regulation provided for herein, then
the issue shall be governed by the applicable regulations of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance.
(08/31/92)
II-I
III. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES
A. Purposes
This part establishes the permit procedures for developments located in the coastal zone as dermed
in Section 30150 of the Public Resources Code. This anicle is based on the Local Coastal Program
Implementation Regulations adopted by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public
Resources Code Sections 30333 and 30501, and as such shall constitute the procedural requirements
for review of developments in the coastal zone pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 306oo(d).
B. Definitions
1. "Aggrieved Person" means any person who, in person or through a representative, appeared
at a public hearing of the City in connection with the decision or action appealed, or who,
by other appropriate means prior to a hearing, informed the City of the nature of his
concerns, or who for good cause was unable to do either.
2. "Allowable Use" means any use allowed by right which does not require a public hearing or
any discretionary or non-discretionary permit of the approving authority.
3. "Appealable Development" means, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
30603(a), any of the following:
a. Developments approved by the local government between the sea and the first public
road, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide
line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance.
b. Developments approved by the local government, not included within paragraph (a)
above, located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of
any wetland, estuary, stream or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any
coastal bluff.
c. Any development which constitutes a major energy facility. The phrase "major
public works project or a major energy facility" as used in Public Resources Code
Section 30603(a)(5) or energy facility as defined by Public Resources Code Section
30107, with a value exceeding $100,000, as adjusted from the 1982 base year per the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
4. "Appellant" means any person who may file an appeal and includes an applicant, any
aggrieved person, or any two members of the Coastal Commission.
5. "Applicant" means the person, partnership, corporation, or state or local government agency
applying for a coastal development permit.
6. "Approving Authority" means the City officer, planning commission or council approving
a coastal development permit.
(08/31/91)
Ill-I
7. "Categorically excluded development" means a development (upon request of the City, public
agency or other person) which the Coastal Commission has determined, pursuant to Section
3061O(e) of the Public Resources Code, to have no potential for significant adverse
environmental effects and therefore has been issued an exclusion from the coastal
development permit requirements in accordance with the applicable regulations.
8. "Coastal Commission" means the California Coastal Commission.
9. "Coastal Development Permit" means a letter or certificate issued by the City in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter, after the applicant has submitted all necessary
supplementary documentation required to satisfy the conditions precedent in the. notice to
issue a coastal development permit.
10. "Conditional Use" means any use which requires a public hearing.
11. "Development" means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid
material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid,
solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials;
change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government
Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is
brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public
recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction,
reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility
of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation
other than for agricultural purposes, and help harvesting.
12. "Structure", as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe,
flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and
distribution line.
13. "Development Permit Procedures" means access, open space, and conservation requirements.
14. "Emergency" means a sudden, unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent
or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services.
15. "Emergency Development" means work undertaken to resolve problems resulting from a
situation falling within the definition of "emergency."
16. "Local Coastal Program" means the City's land use plan, zoning ordinances, zoning maps,
and other implementing actions certified by the Coastal Commission as meeting the require-
ments of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
17. "Notice to Issue Coastal Development Permit" means a letter or certificate issued by the City
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, approving a development subject to
fulfillment of conditions prior to issuance of a coastal development permit, but if such
(08/31/92)
1I1-2
conditions are fulfilled, as being in conformance with and adequate to carry out the Local
Coastal Program.
18. "Permitted Use" means any allowed by right which does not require a public hearing, but
does require a discretionary or non-discretionary permit (e.g., building permit) to be issued
by the approving authority.
19. "Other Permits and Approvals" means permits and approvals, other than a coastal
development permit required to be issued by the approving authority before a development
may proceed.
C. Development Permit Conditions
Wherever reservation of an interest in land for public access, open space, or conservation is required
by the LCP, it shall be a condition of the coastal development permit.
1. Legal Instruments Required
Prior to issuance of a coastal development permit where a public accessway, or open space
or conservation restriction on land is required by this Local Coastal Program, each applicant
shall record one of the following legal documents as specified in the conditions of approval:
a. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication.
The applicant shall submit a preliminary title report and record an irrevocable offer
to dedicate the access, open space, or conservation easement or to convey such
interest in property in fee the accessway, as described in the permit conditions, free
of prior liens or encumbrances, except for tax liens. This offer can be accepted
within 21 years by a non-profit organization or governmental agency subject to
approval by the executive director of the Coastal Commission. Until this offer is
accepted or until the landowner allows, the public has no right to use the accessway,
provided that the landowner shall not interfere with established existing public use.
b. Outright Grant of Fee Interest or Easement.
If the project is important in and of itself for public access, open space, or
conservation needs, and the size and scope the proposed development is such that an
out-right conveyance interest is appropriate, or there is an accepting agency approved
by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission available to accept the easement
or fee interest, it can be required prior to issuance of the permit. Until such a grant
is accepted or until the land-owner allows, the public has no right to use the
accessway, provided that the landowner shall not interfere with established existing
public use.
(08/31/92)
1II-3
2. Required Information
As a condition of the of a permit, title information and all necessary subordination
agreements shall be required. Title insurance may also be required when extensive interests
inland are being granted.
D. Applicability
Except as provided in Sections E and F, any person wishing to undertake a development in the
coastal zone shall obtain a coastal development permit in accordance with the provisions of this
article, in addition to any other permit required by law. Development undertaken punuant to a
coastal development permit shall conform to the plans, specifications, terms and conditions approved
in granting the permit. The procedures prescribed herein may be used in conjunction with other
procedural requirements of the City. provided that the minimum requirements as specified herein are
assured.
E. De Minimus Development
The Director of Planning may issue a written waiver from the coastal development permit
requirements of this article for any development that is de minimis. A proposed development is de
minimis if the Director of Planning determines, based on a review of an application for a coastal
development permit, that the development involves no potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources and that it will be consistent with all applicable
objectives, policies, and standards of the cenified Local Coastal Program. The determination shall
be made in writing and based upon factual evidence.
1. De minimis waivers shall be permitted only in the non-appealable area of the City's coastal
development permitting jurisdiction when no local public hearing is required.
2. The Director of Planning will consider the following types of projects for possible permit
waivers:
a. Projects which would have been placed on the consent calendar without special
conditions;
b. Projects fully consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and for
which all applicable policies of the LCP are objective in nature, such that staff does
not have to exercise its judgment as to satisfaction of subjective criteria;
c. Projects located in areas where similar projects have been approved as a routine
matter without conditions or opposition.
3. The following projects will not be considered for possible waivers:
a.
Projects which involve questions as to conformity with the certified LCP, or which
may result in potential impacts on coastal resources and public access;
(08/31/92)
1Il-4
b. Projects with known opposition or probable public controversy;
c. Projects which involve divisions of land including condominiums.
4. If, upon review of the coastal development permit application, the Director of Planning
determines that the development is de minimis, the applicant, shall post public notice of the
de minimis waiver on the property for at least seven calendar days prior to the final decision
granting the waiver. Notice of intent to issue a de minimis waiver shall also be made to the
Coastal Commission and to persons known to be interested in the proposed development in
the following manner:
Within ten (10) calendar days of accepting an application for a de minimis waiver or at least
seven (7) calendar days prior to the decision on the application, the Director of Planning shall
provide notice, by first class mail, of pending waiver of permit requirements. This notice
shall be provided to all persons who have requested to be on the mailing list for that
development project or site or for coastal decisions within the local jurisdiction, to all
property owners and residents within 100 feet of the perimeters of the parcel on which the
development is proposed, and to the Coastal Commission.
5. The notice shall contain the following information:
a. A description of the proposed project and location;
b. A statement that the development is within the coastal zone;
c. The date of filing of the application and the name of the applicant;
d. The number assigned to the application;
e. The date of the hearing at which the waiver may become effective;
f. The general procedure concerning the submission of public comments either in
writing or orally prior to the decision;
g. A statement that a public comment period of sufficient time to allow for the
submission of comments by mail will be held prior to the decision.
The Director of Planning shall report to the City Council at its next available public meeting
those projects for which waivers are proposed, with sufficient description to give notice of
the proposed development to the City Council. A list of waivers issued by the Director of
Planning shaJl be available for public inspection at the public counter of the Community
Development Department and at the City Council meeting during which any waivers are
reported. A waiver shall not take effect until after the Planning Director makes his/her
report to the City Council. If one-third of the City Council (two members) so request, such
issuance shall not be effective and, instead, the application for a coastal development permit
shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this article.
(08/31/92)
III-5
F. Exemptions
1. The following shall be considered exemptions:
a. Repair and maintenance activities which do not result in an addition to or enlargement
or expansion of the object of such activities, except as otherwise specified by the
Coastal Commission in Subchapter 7, Title 14, California Administrative Code, and
any amendments thereafter adopted.
b. Activities of public utilities as specified in the Repair, Maintenance and Utility
Hook-Up Exclusion adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 5, .1978.
c. Occupancy permits.
d. Improvements to single-family residences, except as otherwise specified by the
Coastal Commission in Subchapter 6, Title 14, California Administrative Code, and
any amendments thereafter adopted.
e. Improvements to any structure other than a single-family residence or a public works
facility, except as otherwise specified by the Coastal Commission in Subchapter 7.5,
Title 14, California Administrative Code, and any amendments thereafter adopted.
2. Notice of Exempt Development shall be as follows:
A permit issued by the City for a development which is exempt from the coastal development
permit requirements shall be exempt from the notice and hearing requirements of this article.
The City shall maintain a record for all permits issued for exempt developments which shall
be made available to the Coastal Commission or any interested person upon request. This
record may be in the form of any record of permits issued currently maintained by the City
provided that such record includes the applicant's name, the location of the project, and a
brief description of the project.
G. Emergency Development Permit
Application for and issuance of an Emergency Development Permit shall comply with requirements
set forth in Article 2, Sections 13329, 13329,1, 13329,2, 13329.3, and 13329.4 of the California
Administrative Code. An application and permit form prepared in compliance with said Article shall
be adopted by the City of Chula Vista.
H. Notice of Appealable Developments
Within ten (10) calendar days of accepting an application for an appealable coastal development
permit or at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the first public hearing on a development proposal,
the City shall provide notice by first class mail of pending application for appealable development.
This notice shall be provided to each applicant, to all persons who have requested to be on the
mailing list for that development project or for coastal decisions within the City, to all property
(05/31/9'2)
1I1-6
owners and residents within 100 feet of the perimeter of the parcel on which the development is
proposed, and to the Coastal Commission. The notice shall contain the following information:
1. a statement that the development is within the coastal zone;
2. the date of filing of the application and the name of the applicant;
3. the number assigned to the application;
4. a description of the development and its proposed location;
5. the date, time, and place at which the application will be heard by the local governing body
or hearing officer;
6. a brief description of the general procedure of local government concerning the conduct of
hearing and local actions; and
7. the system for local and Coastal Commission appeals, including any local fees required.
Costs of notice which are not reimbursed to local governments through grants or SB90 reimburse-
ment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30353.
I. Public Hearing on Appealable Developments
At least one public hearing shall be held on application for an appealable development, thereby
affording any persons the opportunity to appear at the hearing and inform the City of the nature of
his or her concerns regarding the project. Such hearing shall occur no earlier than seven (7)
calendar days following the mailing of the notice required in Section H above and shall normally be
conducted by the Planning Director or hislher designee. The public hearing may be conducted in
accordance with existing local procedures or in any other manner reasonably calculated to give
interested persons, including the applicant, an opportunity to appear and present their viewpoints,
either orally or in "''fiting.
The hearing officer's decision may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days following the
hearing officer's decision. Said appeal shall be processed by the City Council in the same manner
as a public hearing on appealable development described herein. The fee for filing said appeal shall
be in accordance with Section T below.
J. Notice or Local Government Action Where Hearing Continued
If a decision on a coastal development permit is continued by the City to a time which is neither (a)
previously stated in the notice provided pursuant to Section H above, nor (b) announced at the
hearing as being continued to a time certain, the City shall provide notice of the further hearings (or
action on the proposed development) in the same manner, and within the same time limits, as
established in Section I above.
(0813Jl92)
1II-7
K. Notice of Noo-Appealable Developments that Require a Public Hearing: Conditional
Uses
Notice of such developments shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days before a hearing in the
following manner:
1. Notice in the manner prescribed in Section H above; or
2. Notice as prescribed herein:
a. If the matter is heard by the planning commission, notice shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation or (if there is none) posted in at least three public
places in the local jurisdiction;
b. Notice by first class mail to any person who has filed a written request therefor;
c. Notice by first class mail to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project:
d. Notice by first class mail to residents within 100 feet of the proposed project;
e. Notice by first class mail to the Coastal Commission; and
f. The notice shall contain a statement that the proposed development is within the
coastal zone.
L. Public Hearing on Non-Appealable Developments: Conditional Uses
At least one public hearing shall be held on each application for a non-appealable development
involving a conditional use, thereby affording any persons the opportunity to appear at the hearing
and inform the City of the nature of his or her concerns regarding the project. Such hearing shall
occur no earlier than ten (10) calendar days following the mailing of the notice required in Section
H above and shall be conducted in accordance with local procedures or in any other manner
reasonably calculated to give interested persons, including the applicant, an opportunity to appear
and present their vie\vpoints. either orally or in writing.
M. Notice of Non-Appealable Developments that Do Not Require a Public Hearing:
Permitted Uses
Notice of such developments shall be provided in the manner prescribed in Section F.2 above.
N. Determination of Applicable Notice and Hearing Procedures
The determination of whether a development is categorically excluded or appealable for purposes of
notice, hearing and appeals shall be made by the City at the time the application for development is
submitted. This determination shall be made with reference to the certified Local Coastal Program,
including maps, categorical exclusions, land use designations, and zoning ordinances adopted as a
(08/31/92)
11I-8
part of the certified Local Coastal Program. Where an applicant, interested person, or the City has
a question as to the appropriate procedures, the following procedures shall be followed.
1. The City shall make its determination as to what type of development is being proposed (i.e.,
exempt, categorically excluded, appealable, non-appealable) and shall inform the applicant
of the notice and hearing requirements for that particular development. The local
determination may be made by the designated approving authority.
2. If the determination of the City is challenged by the applicant or an interested person, or if
the City wishes to have a Coastal Commission determination as to the appropriate
designation, the City shall notify the Coastal Commission by telephone of the dispute/ques-
tion and shall request an Executive Director's opinion.
3. The Executive Director shall, within two (2) working days of the City's request (or upon
completion of a site inspection where such an inspection is warranted), transmit a determina.
tion as to whether the development is exempt, categorically excluded, non-appealable, or
appealable.
4. Where, after the Executive Director's investigation, the Executive Director's determination
is not in accordance with the City determination, the Coastal Commission shall hold a
hearing for the purpose of determining the appropriate designation for the next Coastal
Commission meeting in the appropriate geographic region following the City's request.
O. Finality of City Action
A local decision on an application for a development shall be deemed final when (1) the local
decision on the application has been made and all required fmdings have been adopted, including
specific factual findings supporting the legal conclusions that the proposed development is or is not
in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program, and that the required conditions of approval
adequate to carry out the certified Local Coastal Program as required in the implementing ordinances
have been imposed, and (2) all rights of appeal have been exhausted as defined in Section S below.
P. Final City Action. Notice
Within seven (7) calendar days of a final decision on an application for any development (except
categorically excluded or exempt developments). the City shall provide notice of its action by first
class mail to the Coastal Commission and to any persons who specifically requested notice of such
final action by submitting a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the City (or, where required, who
paid a reasonable fee to receive such notice). Such notice shall include conditions of approval,
""Tiuen findings, and the procedures for appeal to the Coastal Commission.
Q. Failure to Act - Notice
1. Notification by Applicant: If the City has failed to act on an application within the time
limits set forth in Government Code Sections 65950-65957.1, thereby approving the
development by operation of law, the person claiming a right to proceed pursuant to
Government Code Section 65950-65057.1 shall notify. in writing. the City and the Coastal
{08/31/921
IIl-9
Commission of his or her claim that the development has been approved by operation of law.
Such notice shall specify the application which is claimed to have been approved.
2. Notification by City: When the City detennines that the time limits established pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65950-65957.1 have expired, the City shall, within seven \I)
calendar days of such determination, notify any person entitled to receive notice pursuant to
Section P above that it has taken final action by operation of law pursuant to Government
Code Sections 65950-65957.1. The appeal period for projects approved by operation of law
shall begin to run only upon the receipt of the City's notice in the Coastal Commission
office. (This section shall apply equally to a City determination that the project has been
approved by operation of law and to a judicial determination that the project ~as been
approved by operation of law.)
R. Local Government Action - Effective Date
A final decision of the City on an application for an appealable development shall become effective
after the ten (IO)-working-day appeal period to the Coastal Commission has expired or after the
twenty-first (21st) calendar day following the final local action unless any of the following occur.
1. An appeal is tiled in accordance with the Coastal Commission's regulations; or
2. The notice of final local government action does not meet the requirements of Sections P and
Q above.
Where either of the circumstances above occur, the Commission shall, within five (5) calendar days
of receiving notice of that circumstance, notify the City and the applicant that the effective date of
the City action has been suspended.
S. Exhaustion oC Local Appeals
I. An appellant shall be deemed to have exhausted local appeals for purposes oC filing an appeal
under the Coastal Commission's regulations and be an aggrieved person where the appellant
has pursued his appeal to the local appellate body as required by the City's appeal
procedures, except that exhaustion of all local appeals shall not be required if any of the
following occur.
a.
The City requires an appellant to appeal to more local appellate bodies for permits
in the coastal zone in the implementation section of the Local Coastal Program;
b.
An appellant is denied the right of the initial local appeal by a local ordinance which
restricts the class of persons who may appeal a local decision;
c.
An appellant is denied the right of local appeal because local notice and hearing
procedures for the development did not comply with the provisions of this article; or
d.
The City charges an appeal Cee Cor the filing or processing of appeals.
(08/31/92)
111-10
Where the local government would ordinarily require an appeal fee for the processing of
appeals within the appealable areas of the coastal zone, the City may apply to the Coastal
Commission for a reimbursement of that fee through an SB90 claim or similar reimbursement
process.
2. Where a project is appealed by any two (2) members of the Coastal Commission, there shall
be no requirement of exhaustion of local appeals, provided, however, that notice of Coastal
Commission appeals shall be transmitted to the local appellate body (which considers appeals
from the local body that rendered the final decision), and the appeal to the Coastal
Commission shall be suspended pending a decision on the merits by that local appellate body.
If the decision of the local appellate body modifies or reverses the previous decision. the
Commissioners shall be required to file a new appeal from that decision.
T. Appeal Fee
The fee for filing and processing an appeal within the City of Chula Vista shall be that specified in
the current Master Fee Schedule.
(08/31/9:2)
III-II
IV. LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
A. Purpose and Scope
The Chula Vista Bayfrant Specific Plan provides for the classification of land use and the regulation
of development by Land Use District. These classifications, "Districts", are depicted on Exhibit #3,
herein. Each Land Use District contains a set of regulations setting forth the standards for
development within that District. This section provides the development standards relating to
permitted uses within each District. Additional specific use regulations are included in Chapter VII,
Subarea Specific Development Standards, herein.
B. Commercial Land Use Districts
1. Visitor - Commercial: This use is permitted only in the Midbayfront, Subarea 1.
Refer to Chapter VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1.
2. Thoroughfare Commercial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as
Thoroughfare Commercial shall be permitted to accommodate the following uses:
a. For Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea
Refer to Chapter VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards.
b. For Subarea 2 - Industrial Subarea
1) Food Sales Commercial
2) Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
3) Transient Habitation Commercial
4) Automotive Servicing Commercial
5) Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial
6) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
7) Group Assembly Commercial
8) Parking Services Civic
9) Community Assembly Civic
10) Administrative Civic
II) Utility and Vehicular Civic
12) Special Signs
13) Development Signs
14) Realty Signs
15) Civic Signs
16) Business Signs
2. Commercial. Professional and Administrative: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts,
designated on Professional and Administrative (including portions within the Central Resort
District), shall be permitted to accommodate the following uses:
OOfl3!92)
IV.I
a. For subarea 1 - Midbayfront subarea refer to Chapter
VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards.
b. For subarea 2 - Industrial subarea:
1) Administrative and executive offices;
2) Professional offices;
3) Research offices;
4) General business offices; and
5) Any other office use detennined to be of the
same general character of the above permitted
uses.
C. Industrial Land Use Districts
1. Research and Limited Industrial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated
as Research and Limited-Industrial shall be permitted to accommodate the following
permitted uses:
a. For Subarea 2 - Industrial Subarea:
1) Administrative Commercial
2) Food Service Commercial
3) Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
4) Business and Communication Service Commercial
5) Retail Business Supply Commercial
6) Research Development Commercial
7) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
8) Custom Industrial
9) Essential Service Civic
10) Parking Services Civic
11) Community Assembiy Civic
12) Special Signs
13) Development Signs
14) Realty Signs
15) Civic Signs
16) Business Signs
b. For other Subareas: Refer to Chapter VII Subarea Specific Development Standards,
herein.
2. General - Industrial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as General -
Industrial shall be permitted to accommodate uses as follows:
{l0I13/921
IV-2
a. Permitted Uses:
I) Food Service Commercial
2) Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
3) Business and Communication Service Commercial
4) Retail Business Supply Commercial
5) Research and Development Commercial
6) General Wholesale Sales Commercial
7) Transportation and Warehousing Commercial
8) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
9) Custom Industrial
10) Light Industrial
11) General Industrial
12) Essential Service Civic
13) Special Signs
14) Development Signs
IS) Realty Signs
16) Civic Signs
17) Business Signs
b. Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1) Automotive Sales (New), Rental & Delivery and Accessory Commercial
Activities
2) Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities
3) Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities
4) Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities
5) Boat Servicing Commercial Activities
c. The following are conditionally permitted uses only within the Inland Parcel, Subarea
5:
I) Commercial - group assembly
2) Commercial ~ sport and recreational enterprise
3) Golf driving range
D. Public and Open Space Districts
I. Public and Quasi-Public: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Public
and Quasi-Public, shall be permitted to accommodate the following permitted uses:
a. For Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea: Refer to Chapter VII Subarea Specific
Development Standards, herein.
b. For all Subareas with a Landscaped Parking Overlay Designation:
I)
Parking Services Civic
(10113/92)
IV-3
2) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
3) Special Signs
4) Civic Signs
5) Utility Transmission Systems
2. Parks and Recreation: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Parks and
Recreation, shall be permitted to accommodate the following permitted uses:
a. For Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea: Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific
Development Standards, herein.
b. For all other Subareas:
I) Public parks and facilities to serve park users
2) Public parking.
3. Water: Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1 -
Midbayfront Subarea for permitted uses.
4. Open Space: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Open Space, shall
be permitted to accommodate the restoration or enhancement of wetlands and other existing
natural conditions, with development or construction limited to the existing Nature
Interpretive Center, within the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. All other use
or activities shall be to preserve natural resources and habitat value.
5. Circulation/Other: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Circula.
tion/Other is to be used for major circulation facilities, their adjacent right-of-ways, and
landscaped areas adjacent thereto.
E. Residential Districts
Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea
for permitted uses.
F. Central Resort District
Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea
for permitted uses.
G. Circulation and Other District
All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, indicated as Circulation and other are for those uses
associated with major circulation elements including; Interstate 5, State Route 54, SD&AE Railroad
line, Marina Parkway. Lagoon Drive. "H" Street, and the rights-of-ways/adjacent open space
associated with these circulation elements.
(10/13/92)
IV-4
Table IV-I
TABLE OF LAND USE STATISTICS
The following statistics are provided as a general reference for the overall Chula Vista LCP. The
acreages indicated are approximate gross acreages based on planimeter calculations from Exhibit #3,
Land Use Districts. These statistics are not intended to indicate an allowance nor a restriction of
permitted development.
Land Use
Approximate
Gross Acres
Residential - High
Commercial - Visitor
Commercial - Thoroughfare
Commercial - Professional & Administration
Industrial - Research & Limited
Industrial. General
Public & Quasi-Public
Parks & Recreation
Water
Open Space
Circulation/Other
Central Resort District
18 ac
II
12
12-
81
289
18
37
8
301
186
~
TOTAL
1,013 ac
* Use also included in Central Resort District
(10/13/92)
IV-5
r~. RESIDENTIAL
L':'H.J H;g,
~_~_, PUBLIC & OPEN SFl'CE
L_~ PLt>Ic & au..,,; PLt>Ic
L_~_J Parks & Recreation
jlo~~lWater
r -OS -1 Open Space
-J (Actiation/
__ Othef
[-':;-0-;;1 SPEClAl PlAN AREA
.~ Central Resort District
Land
Use
DISTRICTS
EXHIBIT 3
CDrvWERCIAl
~VlSitor
~Visitor/Hi~Y
r----cPI Professional &
~-1ActrWlistrative
OVERLAY OESIGNATlONS
rB: SWeetwater Marsh National
. _ Refuge
E3 Landscaped Parl<ilg
Pri'nary Buffer
1_--;;;< NJUSmIAl
~ Research & limed
~ General
-~-
//1
//i
I
J'! !
'. J.1
<I::t I
___JL-_.
. 7c=----,,-----
I
II
J
J
,I!
/I
"
......
-
n-n n A VISTA
LOCafcffist~1 Program
"
~Jl~~;'XU
10{1~' ~~]
V. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
A. Purpose and Scope
This Chapter of the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan provides development criteria for each Land
Use District with the plan area. Additional development criteria are included in Chapter VB,
Subarea Specific Development Standards, herein.
B. Permitted Uses
Permitted Uses for each Land Use District are listed in Chapter IV, Land Use Classification.
C. Development Intensity
The development intensity is established by using a Floor Area Ratio (FAR), a specific maximum
square footage allowance, or through setback and height controls, depending on the subarea.
Following are the applicable development intensities for each land use category listed by subarea:
1. Subarea 1 - Midbayfront: The development intensity for the Midbayfront subarea is
established by the specific square footage allowances described in Chapter VII herein.
2. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area:
a. Industrial - General: Maximum FAR 0.5
b. Industrial - Research & Limited: Maximum FAR 0.5
c. Commercial - Thoroughfare: Maximum FAR 0.25
d. Public-Quasi Public: Area designated for landscaped parking may be incorporated
into the adjacent land use area for FAR calculations.
e. Parks & Recreation: Development intensity limited by minimally permitted uses.
f. Open Space: none
g. Special conditions "C" and "F" on Exhibit 4, Building Heights: see special standards
in Chapter VII for Subarea 2.
3. Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General which
is limited to an FAR of 0.5.
4. Subarea 4 - Inland Parcel: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General. The
maximum development intensity is established by the Height Regulations Chapter V-D; and,
Site Development Standards. Chapter V-I and Chapter VII-E.
5. Subarea 5 - Faivre Street subarea: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial ~ General.
The maximum development intensity is established by the Height Regulations Chapter V-D;
and. Site Development Standards. Chapter V-I and Chapter VII-E.
6. Subarea 6 - Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea: The land use permitted in this subarea is
Industrial - Research & Limited. The maximum development intensity is established by the
(10/13/92)
V-I
6. Subarea 6 - Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea: The land use permitted in this subarea is
Industrial - Research & Limited. The maximum development intensity is established by the
Height Regulations Chapter V-D; and, Site Development Standards, Chapter V-I and Chapter
VII-E.
7. Subarea 7 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge: Development intensity is limited
to the existing Nature Interpretative Center facilities and other structures which are approved
by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.
D. Height Regulations
The maximum building heights are as shown on Exhibit #4, Building Heights, herein. This exhibit
also identifies certain specific locations for special height conditions for specific buildings. The
location of the symbol for the special height condition is intended to provide an approximate, but not
an exact location of the building regulated by the special height condition. Following are the height
regulations for these special height condition locations keyed to the Building Heights exhibit.
1. Special Condition "A": Three symbols are depicted. These three symbols represent hotel
sites, two of which permit hotel buildings up to 229 feet in height and the third permits a
hotel building up to 100 feet in height.
2. Special Condition "B": This symbol permits a Cultural Arts Facility up to 100 feet in height.
Site west of Marina Parkway is primary site; site in Central Resort District is alternative
site.)
3. Special Condition "C": This symbol permits an Commercial- Professional & Administrative
use in a building up to 96 feet in height, subject to special conditions listed in Chapter VII
for Subarea 2.
4. Special Condition "D"; This symbol permits a viewing tower in the Nature Interpretative
Center up to 45 feet in height.
5. Special Condition "E"; These two symbols permit two residential buildings up to 229 feet
each.
6. Special Condition "F": The two parcels identified by this symbol shall be subject to the
special conditions listed in Chapter VII for Subarea 2.
(10113/92)
V-2
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS
1-1-: 30 Feel
[~l-~J 35 Feet
IT] 44 Feel
[~=:J 60 Feet
[5] 75 Feet
SPECIAL f<"1GfT CCNJfflONS
@ 2 High-Rise and 1 Mtd-Rise Hotel Sites
@ 1 Mid-Rise CUlural Arls Fadily Site (up 10 69')
Q t Mid~Aise Office Site (lfJ 10 95')
Ql Viewing Tower Site/Nature ....terpretive Center
~ 2 Hi!Jl-Rise Residential Sites (~IO 229')
!8 Special ArdilecltraJ Fealure
NOTE: Aruas without heigh! regJations
are not planned for any buidings
\
\
,
---
-~-
--,
f"
""'"'-,"."',',
4 ''"'(",,,,.
:} '"
IJ ij/
J'! i!
j' "
5.,&" :',i
"
___ j _'------__ r___
=r~c-- ,---
3
;/
t
<I
,il
uti
2
,o.;~
~
---
I
I
,
,
'il
I
I
--~
--
~al~~~
Building
Heig,ts
Exhibit 4
SO'A<:~
" '\lit,r',
1!!I'I.r.1
~!t
3
'!i.JJ ...i
I" --
_~L~~i~]
'0i13R<" ~ '--__]
7. Wildlife Refuge Buffers - Midbayfront Subarea 1
Notwithstanding the height limits described above, the following height restrictions shall be
enforced according to proximity to the USF&WS property line west of the SDG&E ROW:
a. Primary Zone - within 100 feet of USF&WS property line: Limited public access
(paths and overlooks only, no structures)
b. Park Land/Open Space Zone - next 100 feet landward from Primary Zone: public
access and limited structures permitted (e.g., park pavilions, pedestrian and bicycle
paths); landscaping and structures over 6 feet (including signs, light standaJds, etc.)
must be screened from view of the wetland to the satisfaction of USF&WS and
California Department of Fish and Game; building height limit 30 feet.
c. Limited Development Zone "A" - next 100 feet landward from Parkland/Open Space
Zone: building height limit 3S feet, except the Cultural Arts Facility site where
structures to 100 feet in height are permitted as indicated in the Building Heights
Map, Exhibit #4.
d. Limited Development Zone "B" - next 100 feet landward from Limited Development
Zone "A": building height limit 44 feet, except that portion of the Central Core
Sector which may be within 300 feet of the USF&WS boundary where the height
limit shall be 75 feet and a single high.rise hotel site (up to 229 feet) as indicated in
the Building Heights Map, Exhibit #4.
e. 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.
f. 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).
E. Sign Regulations
The size, location and design of all signs in the Chula Vista Bayfront LCP shall be subject to the
following:
1. For all areas: no freestanding sign shall be greater than 10 feet in height and signs shall be
subject to the regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter
19.60, Signs, incorporated herein by reference, unless modified by the provisions of this
Specific Plan.
2. For the Midbayfront and Industrial Subareas, Subareas I and 2, the following regulations
shall also apply:
(10/13192)
VA
a. Public Signs.
1) Street Name Signs: Street name signs shall have special mountings and
frames to identify streets as being a part of the new Bayfront community.
The sign copy and construction shall reflect a unified style and colors.
2) Directional Signs: Directional signs at intersections will help establish
gateways to the redevelopment area, and may include such generic informa-
tion as Convention Center, Marina, Special-Use Park, Wildlife Refuge, etc.,
as necessary. Directional information for private developments may be
included also at the discretion of the Design Review Board. Information will
be clustered on one sign per intersection. Signs will have standardized
mountings and trip. Each sign location shall include specially designed
landscaped areas to create a setting.
3) Information Signs: Public information signs are designed for public facilities
and services such as parks, marshes, marinas, trim, and colored to be unified
with the basic public sign theme.
4) Traffic and Parking Control Signs: Traffic control and parking signs shall be
designed with standard copy faces, and shall be trimmed in a manner con-
sistent with Bayfront motif. Exact sizes and locations are required by state
regulation.
b. Private Signs
00/13/92)
I)
Commercial Uses Adjacent to Freeway: Commercial uses with freeway
exposure shall be allowed either wall or low-profile monument signs with
name and/or logo. If the business logo is well-established as an identity
mark, then use of logo alone is preferable. Each lot may have two wall signs
or one ground sign only. Only one wall sign shall be visible at a time.
Maximum total copy area shall be 100 square feet. Ground signs may be
doubled-faced or parallel to the roadway and are intended to be low-profile
monument signs.
2)
Automotive Service: Service stations with freeway exposure shall be allowed
freeway identification signs. Sizes shall be as small as possible and still have
freeway identity, in no case to exceed 50 square feet total sign area. Such
signs shall be subject to strict review by the Design Review Board.
3)
Corner Lots: The identification allowance for sign development on corner
lots may be divided to provide for a sign on each frontage; however, the total
allowance for both signs combined is not to exceed 50 square feet.
4)
Multi-Tenant Buildings or Complexes: Office, retail-commercial and
industrial uses which are multi-tenant shall be allowed additional tenant
identification signs: each tenant shall be allowed a maximum of three square
V-5
feet on or adjacent to the entry door. These tenant signs shall be visible from
on-site parking and/or pedestrian walkways, but not intended to be readable
from public streets.
5) Directional and Information Signs: These signs shall be allowed on a need
basis. They shall be directional in nature and not intended as identification
signs. Their maximum height shall be four feet with four square feet
maximum copy area per side.
6) Special Event Signs (Temporary): Special events such as grand openings
shall be allowed temporary signs. Such signs shall have a limited life as
determined by the Design Review Board.
7) Construction Signs (Temporary): Signs for owners, contractors and
subcontractors, architects, etc., for new projects under construction shall be
subject to Design Review Board approval.
c. Allowable Copy Area
1) Hotel/Motel, RV Parks, Restaurants, and Retail-Commercial: Total copy
area for all identification signs combined shall be limited to not more than 50
square feet per parcel (except additional signage for high- and mid-rise hotels
is permitted per Section E.3.b, below). Signs may be wall signs and/or
ground signs. Ground signs may be single- or double-faced but may not
exceed ten feet in height. An additional changeable copy area of 25 square
feet maximum shall be allowed for uses which include entertainment or
convention facilities. Changeable copy area shall be single-faced only.
2) Automotive Service: Service stations shall be allowed one identification sign
(non-freeway) per lot. Signs shall be ground signs or wall signs and shall
have no more than 40 square feet of copy area, six feet maximum height.
3) Industrial and Office Uses: Industrial or office uses shall be allowed one
identification sign per lot, visible from the internal street. Signs shall not
exceed 40 square feet in area or six feet maximum in height. Total sign area
may include a directory or tenant listing if the project is multi-tenant.
3. For the Midbayfrant Subarea only: In addition to the provisions above, the following shall
apply in Subarea I:
a.
Midbayfront Sign Program: In addition to the regulations provided by this Specific
Plan and the Chula Vista Zoning Code for signs, additional more specific and
restrictive regulations shall be required for the Midbayfront Subarea in the
Midbayfront Sign Program. This sign program shall be approved by the City of
Chula Vista prior to the issuance of the first building permit in this subarea. The
purpose of the Midbayfront Sign Program is to provide a sign plan for the
(10/13/92)
V-6
Midbayfront subarea consistent with the goals and policies of the Local Coastal
Program, and to meet these specific objectives:
1) To create a system of signs which serves as an important design element in
establishing an identifiable image for the area.
2) To provide identification for the special components which make up the
Midbayfront area.
3) To reduce visual competition between signs, balancing the needs for
identification and aesthetic harmony.
4) To integrate signage with architectural and landscape design themes, thereby
reducing the prominence of signs.
5) To provide standards of acceptability for signs in order to facilitate the review
and approval process by the City of Chula Vista.
b. Scale of Signs for the Midbayfront subarea: The two most prominent signs in the
Midbayfront will be the Midbayfront gateway monument and the high~ and mid~rise
hotel building wall signs. Because of the importance of these signs, the following
specific regulations are provided:
I)
Midbayfront Gateway Monument: The sign element containing copy shall not
exceed a maximum height of S'~6". The architectural element containing the
sign shall not exceed 12 feet in height. The maximum copy area per sign
face shall not exceed 50 square feet. Illustrations of a gateway monument
meeting these standards follow as a guideline.
2)
High-rise Hotel Building Wall Signs: Only allowed on hotel buildings greater
than eight stories in height. Two signs per building, 300 square feet maxi-
mum each sign. Individual letters or logo only; maximum sign height shall
be 7 feet. An illustration of this type of sign follows as a guideline. Sign
design and lettering shall not permit perching by avian predators of the
California least tern, light~footed clapper rail, or Belding's Savannah sparrow.
00/13/92)
v-?
Midbayfront Gateway
Monumentation
Exhibit 5
@
l
Plan View
~ ;':.
~('\ BAY FRO NT,: '
'~"'4.c I TY oJ [, fI U L A V I S,T A . \, ';~.',S?i-' JC"
> 6A YJ}}J Nl
I4sMA DA,
Naml?t
"'";i
< "V"
-Z:"'-f"L\. --.-
5rl'CIALTY Si<OI'6 'I'lES1AUIVlH"f5' CONF"F,,-ENC! .\ 5rDp.~~ CFJi.Te-I't~.,Y
Elevations
gjld~}~~~
C:vo-.;h,' ~
High Rise
Building Wall Sign
Exhibit 6
fjl!/{J/,iib /1PJ/VT!3D~ :ph#tM0
be m ttrLUAE6 8PItT~ tlr
mta<- ",..,r ~ k q !1AXIM/II{
~ ;%V SF!?/tCff ... f:t&ilJ6 fiyr/! /:e.
of ~/1.'6
~"1,,(~
teTTl:tz ~I! be
l'~AAx.
00 ill Db ntJ~ [l 00
~ q qq qq qq q~ ~ij4ij qn
~ ijijq q~qQ. qijtl~ ij~
ij y ij~q ~Q JJi' ~ll~~ Q ij
ij U U td ijIJ ij U ~IJ -q!d 11 If
Gc~ld~}P1~~
Fl(~f;
F, Form and Appearance
1. Form and Appearance Objectives
The following objectives shall serve as guidelines for use of land and water resources to
preserve a sound natural environment:
3. Preserve existing wetlands in a healthy state to ensure the aesthetic enjoyment of
marshes and the wildlife which inhabit them.
b. Change the existing industrial image of the Bayfront, and develop a new identity
consonant with its future prominent public and commercial recreational role.
c. Improve the visual quality of the shoreline by promoting public and private uses
which provide proper restoration, landscaping, and maintenance of shoreline areas.
d. Remove, or mitigate by landscaping, structures or conditions which have a blighting
influence on the area.
e. Develop a readily understandable and memorable relationship of the Bayfrant (and
the areas and elements which comprise it) to adjoining areas of Chula Vista and to
the freeway and arterial approaches to the Bayfront
2. Specific Provisions
To promote these policies, the Form and Appearance provisions of the Land Use Plan
acknowledges three major components which comprise the physical form of the area: natural
resources areas to be preserved; an open space system including walkways, bicycle ways,
and park areas; and 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, Exhibit #7, Form and Appearance, identifies: landscape
character and function; major gateways; architectural edges; and views.
a. Landscape Character and Function
Major landscape components shall adhere to Exhibit #7, Form and Appearance, to
establish strong visual continuity in response to varied functional needs.
(10/13/92)
V-I0
~------1 Firm ArchitectUfal Edge
~ Irregular ArchitectlJal Edge
E::~~ Formal Street Tree Planting
roooo00001lnformal Grove/Street Planting
~ Landscape Screening
~~.z{ Landscape Parking
L~;>> [ Distant VifJw to Protect
~ Gateway
:jJ
,II
!/
"
Ii
7==/}=-~~C
gj~W~
[~-1 Focal Point
t:-~::,/t:~;;.~~;1 Major Open Space and Protected Areas
Form &
Appearance
Exhibit 7
---
.-!*:.. ~--
'.11:---
HJil,
6O~J
,:1
L
I!
1 I
!
I
L_
___~___;_____IL_
"
I,
r--\j
d.i ;=r"'C
'..'''!''.'~'-'.I._J J
"5"-' "':;,~o:,
l(W131l1121..... il - /~
(10/13/92)
b. Landscape Screening
All areas designated for Landscape Screening on Exhibit #7 shall include dense
planting of trees and shrubs to serve three purposes: diminish the visual impact of
large existing industrial structures, such as those of Rohr Industries and SDG&E's
plant and transmission wwers. and extensive parking areas and outdoor swrage areas;
define major entry points to the Bayfront and frame views; and be used in masses as
visual stopping points to limit views and provide natural venical elements. Heights
of trees and shrubs may he limited by USF&WS requirements in areas near the
wildlife refuge. The following standards shall guide Landscape Screening design:
Characteristics
Representative
Location
40' to 60' height
upright form
evergreen
J;lay Boulevard
Existing pines and other trees shall be preserved to the maximum possible extent.
c. Parking Area Planting
All areas designated for Parking Area Planting Exhibit #7 shall include a planting
program coordinated with parking improvements beneath the power lines. The 150-
foot-wide right-of-way that bisects the Bayfront may include landscaped auto parking
to diminish the visual impact of the power lines and strengthen the ground plane
connection between both sides of the right-of-way. SDG&E criteria will permit
planting that can be kept not more than 15 feet high, thereby maintaining sufficient
clearance at the lowest point in the power line catenary. Planting in parking areas
should establish a dense ground plane massing of shrubs and short trees to create a
grove effect that screens cars from view and ties together in a strong horizontal line
an intersecting mass of foliage on either side of the right-of-way (see Section D in
Map 3, Circulation). The following standards shall guide Parking Area Planting
design:
Characteristics
Representative
Location
10' to 15' height
globular or multi-stern form
evergreen
SDG&E ROW
d. Informal Groves
All areas designated for Informal Groves in Exhibit #7. shall use a series of Informal
Groves to identify the major community or neighborhood parks interconnected by
continuous pedestrian circulation along the Bayfront's edge and into its interior.
V-12
00/13192)
These Groves shall be planted with the same species in informal drifts to provide
shade for recreational uses. The following standards shall guide Informal Grove
design:
Characteristics
Representative
Location
40' to 80' height
upright and open-branching
in contrast with dense,
vertical form.
mixed deciduous and
evergreen
Community Parks
e. Formal Street Tree Planting
All areas designated Formal Street Tree Planting in Exhibit #7 have been designated
for the major circulation spines of the Bayfront. The planting should be in regularly
spaced intervals using species with predictable form characteristics to achieve strong
linear avenues that guide views and establish perspective.
Characteristics
Representative
Location
40' to 60' height
Marina Parl<way,
Lagoon Drive
E Street and D
Street
Bay Blvd. &
Marina Edge on
D Street
Crown shaped form
Evergreen
f. Gateways
Special consideration shall be given at Gateways, Exhibit #7, to roadway design,
including signing and lighting, landscaping, and siting and design of adjoining
structures to allow for design treatment which conveys an entry character. Refer also
to Section D, Sign Regulation in this Chapter.
g. Architectural Edges
The development shall comply with the following conditions in the specified areas:
1)
Habitat Protection: Structures shall be sited a sufficient distance from natural
habitat areas to protect the natural setting and prevent interference with
wildlife.
V-I3
2)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access:
distance from the water's edge
pedestrian and bicycle access.
Structtlres shall be sited at a sufficient
or marsh edge to ensure unencumbered
3) Privacy: Structures shall be designed so 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. Reciprocal-
Iy, the public areas shall be designed and their use regulated in a manner
which does not diminish the intended use of adjoining developed lands.
4) Firm Edges: Firm Edges as shown in Exhibit #7, are required- where a
strong visual form, generally linear. is necessary to provide either for a
terminus of views in certain directions, or a sense of entry or arrival. These
edges should be formed by buildings, but also may be achieved by use of
earth berms or mass plantings.
5) Irregular building Edges: Irregular building edges are required where it is
visually desirable to soften or de-emphasize the distinction between open
space areas and adjoining development. This prevents harsh contrasts
between different areas, allows visual penetration between areas, and varia-
tion in the spatial experiences and qualities in these areas.
h. View Points
Development of the Bayfront shall ensure provision of three types of views:
1) Views from the Freeway and Major Entry: Ensure a pleasant view onto the
site and establish a visual relationship with the bay, marshes, and bay-related
development.
2) Views from Roadway Within the site: (particularly from Marina Parkway, to
the marshlands, bay, parks and other bay-related development). Locations
shall preserve a sense of proximity to the bay and marshlands.
3) Views from the Perimeters of the Bayfront Outward: Views which are
primarily pedestrian-oriented, stationary and more sustained should be
experienced from parts of the open space and pathway system and enable
viewers to renew visual contact at close range with the bay and marshlands.
G. Infrastructure
1. Circulation Standards
a.
Primary Vehicular Circulation: The primary vehicular routes are identified on the
Land Use Districts, Exhibit #3, as Circulation and other; and on Exhibit #8, Circula-
tion Element. These consist of Interstate 5, State Route 54, Marina Parkway,
Lagoon Drive, and "H" Street. The majority of these routes currently exist. Those
(10/13/92)
V-14
portions of Lagoon Drive and Marina Parkway, which will be constructed as a
component of the Midbayfront Subarea are planned as 4-1ane Major Arterials.
b. Internal Vehicular Circulation: Internal roadways shall be developed to the Design
and Construction Standards, published by the Department of Engineering, City of
Chula Vista.
C. Bike Routes:
1) Bike Lane: A bike lane is a lane on the paved area of a street for preferential
use by bicycles. These lanes are used for Regional Bicycle Routes. On
street parking, except for emergency stopping will not be permitted where
bike lanes are designed. These lanes shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width.
The filling of wetlands for bike paths is not permitted, including but not
limited to, any expansion of the toe of the CalTrans fill slope for the freeway
into the mitigation areas of the connector marsh.
2) Bike Path: A bike path is used for off street travel by bicycles. These paths
shall be a minimum of 8 feet in width.
d. Pedestrian Route: All pedestrian routes depicted on Exhibit #8, Circulation Element,
shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width. The filling of wetlands for bike paths is not
permined, including, but not limited to, any extension of the toe of the CalTrans fill
slope for the freeway into the mitigation areas of the connector marsh.
2. Utility Systems: Refer also to Exhibit #9.
a. General Policies:
I)
Provide adequate sizing of utility systems to assure sufficient capacity for
maximum build out potential of plan.
2)
Protect existing sensitive natural resources from significant adverse impacts
during construction.
(10/13/92)
V-15
RA'-
pOD~ Existing Trolley
[]I[] Existing Trolley Stop
l::::'=j SD & AE A ~
.. .. a",oad
t=_~__ <mER
c:i Regional Bicycle Route
E:_~~~~j Local Bicycle Route
r-.:.~:_~~~j Pedestrian Route
VEHICULAR
~ 1-5 Freeway
~ExistingArterialS
~~..~ Plamed Arterials
.
.-............
"'-:1[""
illD!
II
IJI.
11
"
--(,
~al'tJ~~
I
_.
arculation
Element
Exhibit 8
I'
1I
..
--~
rJ'..L.----.i
~f~.,~~.~'.~.~~
1(l/'3/!I;" ~ ,:-J
>.00
~E
~
:Ji
(j)
1~ :1,
,
Cl
-
:0
:.E
x
UJ
-.
I/-~"
!
\1
~.~.ji
-ii
, il
'I
~i
I'
I
-~ ____I~
.
!
I
~
1ii
US
~ ~
;; ;r
~ ~ i j
..J .J c.. Q.>
<i
~
&
...~....I'~"'.z..Cc';-.JI
Ii --'.-
~-- ';',
":;'""0.. II
"'s'~""o '\
Jo~~1
r--...
,i --
"'* ~ ~
. .
<f> <f>
rnrn~.
IHI'
:1"~~
~ ~}
:~:l
.",,,.
:~:JL
!
.
~r
t::
I'
~~
5r
:sl3
~
b. Sewer Service:
The Metropolitan Sewage System of San Diego (Metro System). of which Chula
Vista is a member, 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 Lorna Sewage
Treatment Plan.
The project area shall drain to an existing outlet north of Marina Parkway where
metering facilities would be constructed.
c. Water Service:
Water service is provided by the Sweetwater Authority which obtains water from
local reservoirs and purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA). The SDCWA is furnished water by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California via aqueduct including a 69-inch pipeline which Sweetwater
Authority taps near the Sweetwater Reservoir seven miles east of the project.
Basic water service for the area shall consist of water mains in "E" Street (Marina
Parkway), "F" Street (Lagoon Drive), and "G" Street. A waterline in "G" Street
shall 'connect the lines in Bay Boulevard and Marina Parkway. This pipeline is
necessary to maintain a looped system during development. An easement for pipeline
operation shall be maintained even though the area might be fenced for security
reasons by Rohr.
Phased development may require off-site pipeline construction, especially in industrial
areas, to maintain adequate pressure and fire flows. Water service which meets the
standards of the Water District and Fire Marshall shall be maintained.
H. Parking Requirements
1. General Requirements:
The provisions of Chapter 19.62 of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance. Title 19 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, shall be applicable to off-street parking and loading areas in the
Bayfront area. These provisions generally control construction and development and design
standards of off-street parking areas. The number of spaces required for designated uses
shall be that designated below. In the event that there is no precise correspondence in the
use classifications with the common names used in this section, the Planning Director shall
have the authority to designate the requirements and the common names for proposed uses
shall generally be deemed to control.
::!. Vehicle Parking Standards:
Business and Drofessional offices: 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area; minimum of 4
spaces:
110/13/921
V-18
Dance assembly or exhibition halls without fixed seats: 1 space per 50 square feet of floor
area used for dancing or assembly;
Dwellinl!s multirile: 1.5 spaces per studio or 1 bedroom unit; 2 spaces per two bedroom;
2.5 spaces per three bedroom or larger unit (includes 0.3 space per unit guest parking);
Hotels motels: 1 space for each living or sleeping unit, plus 1 space for every 25 rooms or
portion thereof;
Manufacturinl! olants research & testimz laboratories: 1 space per 1.5 persons employed at
anyone time in the normal operation of the plant or 1 space per 800 square feet of floor
area, whichever is greater;
Medical and dental offices clinics: 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area; minimum of
5 spaces;
Public nark/onen SDace: 1 parking place for every 10,000 square feet of park or accessible
open space;
Restaurants bars and ni2ht clubs: 1 space per 2.5 permanent seats, excluding and dance
floor or assembly area without fixed seats which shall be calculated separately at 1 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 seats, 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 centers: 1 space per 1.5
persons employed at anyone 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 Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
3 Bicycle Parking Standards
Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for developed uses according the following
schedule. Only those uses listed below are required to provide bicycle parking. Bicycle
parking facilities shall be fixed storage racks or devices designed to secure the frame and
wheel of the bicycle.
Business and orofessional offices (over 20,000 square feet of gross floor area): 5 spaces;
Shoooine: center (over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area): 1 space per 33 automobile
spaces required:
110:']3.'92)
V-19
Fast food restaurant coffee ShOD or delicatessen: 5 spaces;
Other eatine and drinkine establishments: 2 spaces;
Commercial recreation: 1 space per 33 automobile spaces required.
4. Shared Parking
Where uses have predictable time cycle parking demands and where supported by appropriate
traffic/parking studies, shared parking may be utilized as a means to reduce total parking lot
area. The criteria and standards provided in Shared Parking published by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) shoutd be utilized to assess parking needs and formulate shared parking
agreements. Any use which intends to meet its parking requirements using shared parking
shall be subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Chapter 19.14
of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Chuta Vista Municipal Code. The
approval of the Conditional Use Permit, may among other requirements, require a use,
business, or activity to only operate within restricted hours.
5. Concealed Parking
Within the Central Resort District and the Residential High District of the Midbayfront
Subarea 75 % of the required parking shall be provided in subterranean or concealed parking
structures. Concealed parking is when the parked vehicles can not be seen by the public
using public streets, bike lanes and paths, pedestrian walkways, public parks, and public
access open spaces.
6. Landscaped parking in SDG&E Right-of-way
Any landscaped parking in the SDG&E ROW north of Lagoon Drive shall be
available on weekends and evenings for use by coastal visitors. The parking needed
for visitor to the Nature Interpretive Center shall be managed as a priority for
parking in the SDG&E ROW.
J. Site Development SlJlndards
1. The site development standards for the following subareas are specified in Chapter VII -
Subarea Specific Development Standards:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Midbayfront Subarea
West Fairfield Subarea
Inland Parcel Subarea
Faivre Street Subarea
Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea
Special Conditions "e" and "F" on the Building Heights Exhibit
e.
f.
(10/13/92)
V-20
2. For all other areas the following site Development Standards apply to the Land Use District
specified:
3. Thoroughfare Commercial:
1) Minimum lot area: 5,000 square feet
2) Front yard setback: 10 feet
3) Exterior side yard setbacks: 0
b. Industrial - Research & Limited:
I) Minimum lot area: 10,000 square feet
2) Front yard setback: 30 feet
3) Exterior side yard setback: 15 feet
4) Side yard setback 20 feet
c. Industrial - General:
I) Minimum lot area: 20,000 square feet
2) Front yard setback: 20 feet
3) Exterior side yard setback: 15 feet
4) Side yard setback 20 feel
J. Grading and Drainage
1. Special care shall be taken in development proposals adjacent to wetland habitat to avoid or
minimize problems of silting and oil or chemical leakage. Some diversion of water is
necessary and one or more desilting/retention basins may be required in development projects
to protect and enhance the biological and water quality of the wetland habitat. A major
siltation basin shall be built in the Midbayfront to accept surface drainage and provide for
desilting during and after construction of development projects and for oil and chemical
entrapment.
2. All development for properties within the coastal zone shall comply with the following
requirements:
a.
A grading plan that incorporates runoff and erosion control procedures to be utilized
during all phases of project development shall be prepared and submitted concurrently
with subdivision improvement plans or planned unit development plans where such
development is proposed to occur on lands that will be graded or filled. Such a plan
shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall be designed to assure that
runoff rates will be controlled to minimize the potential for siltation in wetlands. The
erosion control measures and hydrology calculations shall be based on the six-hour,
ten.year design swrm, or on the storm intensity designated in the City of Chula
Vista's Subdivision Manual, in the event that the Subdivision Manual requirement is
more stringent. Runoff control shall be accomplished by establishing on-site or at
suitable nearby locations catchment basins, detention basins, and siltation traps along
(lQ/13!92)
V-21
with energy dissipating measures at the terminus of storm drains, or other similar
means of equal or greater effectiveness.
b. Sediment basins (debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed in
conjunction with the initial grading operations and maintained through the develop-
ment process as necessary to remove sediment from runoff waters draining from the
land undergoing development. Areas disturbed but not completed prior to November
I induding graded pads and stockpiles, shall be suitably prepared to prevent
excessive soil loss during the late fall and winter seasons. All graded areas shall be
stabilized prior to November I, by means of native vegetation. if feasible, or by other
suitable means approved by the City. The use of vegetation as a means to control
site erosion shall be accomplished pursuant to plans and specifications prepared by
a licensed landscape architect or other qualified professional. Erosion control
utilizing vegetation may include, but is not limited to, seeding, mulching, fertiliza-
tion, and irrigation within sufficient time prior to November 1 to provide landscape
coverage that is adequate to achieve the provisions of this policy. Temporary erosion
control measures, shall include the use of berms, interceptor ditches, filtered inlets,
debris basins, silt traps, or other similar means of equal or greater effectiveness.
From November 1 to March 31, grading may be permitted provided the applicant
conforms to the requirements of subsection C and submits monthly documentation
within two weeks following the end of the preceding month to the City Engineer of
the condition of the erosion control procedures for graded pads, slopes and stockpiles
whenever precipitation during the month exceeds two (2) inches.
c. From November 1 to March 31, grading may occur in phased increments as
determined by the City Engineer provided all of the following requirements have been
met. Grading from April I through October 31 shall be subject to standard practices.
(10113/92)
1)
The increments shall be limited to those areas that have been prepared to
control the effects of soil erosion. Control measures, such as sedimentation
basins, detention basins and other facilities, shall be scheduled and placed in
a sequence that shall minimize and control the off-site transportation of
sediments. Such erosion control measures shall be installed for such
increments prior to commencing any grading that would be performed during
the period between November 1 and March 31.
2)
The applicant shall post a deposit, for such areas to be graded, which shall
remain in force and effect for one year after final inspection approval of
grading by the City. The deposit shall be sufficient to cover the costs of any
remedial grading and replanting of vegetation, including any restoration of
wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive habitat areas adversely affected
by the failure of the erosion control measures required herein, as determined
by the City Engineer. The deposit will inure to the benefit of the City in case
of noncompliance as determined by the City Engineer.
3)
The applicant agrees to provide daily documentation to the City Engineer of
the condition of the erosion control procedures for any 24-hour period in
V-22
which precipitation exceeds 0.25 inches. Such documentation shall be
provided within five working days of said 24-hour period. Failure to provide
such documentation of the occurrence of any significant discharge of
sediments or silts in violation of this policy shall constitute automatic grounds
for suspension of the applicant's grading permit(s) during the period of
November I to March 31.
d. The following additional safeguards shall be required for grading within the Inland
Parcel - Subarea 5 between November I and March 31:
I) A lOO-foot buffer is required between wetlands and grading activities.
2) A silt fence (or equal) shall be installed between graded areas and wetiands.
A distance of 10 feet is required between the silt fence and the toe of any
manufactured slope.
3) The maximum slope permitted is 3: 1.
3. Erosion Control Monitoring Program for Chula Vista Coastal Zone Areas Draining Directly
Into Wetlands.
3. Overall field review of grading operations will be performed by the City Engineer
on each grading project in the Coastal Zone.
b. Field review of erosion control devices, sedimentation basins, detention basins, and
landscaping will be made by the City Engineer prior to the advent of the rainy
season, and throughout the rainy season as necessary to monitor grading operations
phased between November I and March 31. The City Engineer shall document
non-compliance of projects with the grading and erosion control requirements and
correct problems with funds from the deposit posted by the applicant.
c. The City Engineer will periodically review and prepare a report on the effectiveness
of the runoff and erosion control measures for areas within the Chula Vista Coastal
Zone. The initial report shall be completed within two years following February
1989 and thereafter six months prior to any scheduled review by the California
Coastal Commission of the Local Coastal Program for the City of Chula Vista. A
copy of the report shall be submitted to the Chula Vista City Council and to the
Executive Director of the Coastal Commission.
4. All areas disturbed by grading shall be planted within 60 days of the initial disturbance and
prior to November 1 with temporary or permanent (in the case of fmished slopes) erosion
control methods. Such planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed
landscape architect and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertilization and irrigation adequate
to provide 90% coverage within 90 days. Planting shall be repeated if the required level of
coverage is not established. This requirement shall apply to all distributed soils including
stockpiles.
(10,113/92)
V-23
5. Refer also to Chapter VI, Environmental Management Program for
additional requirements concerning grading.
(lO!13!92)
V-24
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Purpose and Scope
Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act provides for the protection of environmentally sensitive
habitat areas. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for such protection.
B. Resource Elements
The major wetlands and related sensitive habitat areas within the Chula Vista Bayfront area have
been acquired by the USF&WS and comprise the majority of the Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge. With the preservation of these areas assured through a transfer of ownership, the
focus of these regulations is reducing and mitigating impacts on the refuge from new development
within the Bayfront.
C. Environmental Management Requirements
1. Coordination:
a. Coordination with the San Diego Unified Port District in the development of plans
and programs for areas adjacent to the Chula Vista Bayfront shall be maintained to
assure that environmental management objectives in the Bayfroot Land Use Plan can
be successfully implemented.
b. Coordination with the USF&WS shall be maintained for the development of plans and
programs adjacent to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
D. Midbayfront Subarea Requirements
The various mitigation features and actions specified for the Midbayfront 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 actions focus on the interface areas between the
Midbayfront Subarea and the adjoining National Wildlife Refuge. Major mitigation features and
actions are summarized in Table VI-I.
To assist in the preparation and evaluation of the management plans, specified in Policies EM.I.e.
and EM.l.D. required herein, the following background documents are hereby referenced:
1.
Final EIR Volume I & II for Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal 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;
(l O!l 3/92)
VI-I
3. Chula Vista Investors' (CVI) Proposed Mitigation Measures for Final EIR - CVI
Midbayfront Development Plan, December 16, 1990. (Design Requirements
USFWS);
4. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Merjan (CVI), dated
January 15, 1991;
5. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated March 11, 1991;
6. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated March 22, 1991;
7. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated May 8, 1991;
8. Letter to Douglas D. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, dated May 23, 1991;
9. Letter to Diana Richardson. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks Harper, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, dated January 14, 1992; and;
10. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated February 6, 1992;
1. Habitat Restoration and Management Plan
To ensure an orderly and efficient implementation of the various restoration and enhancement
features and actions specified for the Midbayfront, a comprehensive Habitat Restoration and
Management Plan shall be prepared and approved prior to initiation of development within
the Midbayfront.
The Habitat Restoration and Management Plan 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:
a.
Engineering design, grading plan, and cost analysis.
b.
Vegetation design, including specifications for planting program, source of plants,
etc.
c.
Implementation schedule and phasing.
d.
Management program.
e.
Monitoring program.
(10/13/92)
VI-2
f. Maintenance program.
g. Funding arrangements: implementation, monitoring, and maintenance.
h. Contractual agreements.
i. Ownership transfer where appropriate.
Preparation of this plan will involve participation by the developer. the City, the California
Coastal Commission, the USF&WS, and other resource management agencies.
2. Biological Resources Management Plan
Additional protection of the biological resources in the Wildlife Refuge shall be provided by
the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive Biological Resources Managemem
Plan 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 Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management
h. Construction Monitoring and Management
i. CC&R's/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
J. CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Requirement
Preparation of this plan will involve panicipation by the Developer, the City, USF&WS, the
California Coastal Commission and other resource management agencies as appropriate.
3. Midbayfront Mitigation Program
The various mitigation features and actions specified for the Midbayfront 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 actions
focus on the interface areas between the Midbayfront Subarea and the adjoining National
Wildlife Refuge. These features and actions are summarized in Table VI-I.
(lO/13/92)
VI-3
a. 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 and 11)
Width: ]00 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.
b.
Midbayfront South Interface Area. Because of pre-existing physical constraints at
and adjoining the "F-G" Street Marsh area, a different mitigation approach shall be
employed for the South Interface Area. Specifically, along the north and west
margins of the "F.G" Street marsh area, the 94 foot ROW road areas of "F" Street
(Lagoon Drive) and Marina Parkway, together with dense vegetational screening,
shall serve as the buffer area.
(10/13/92)
VI-4
~ Wetlands Buffer Zone
~ Primary Buffer Zone
~ Pttlc Park and Open Space
~ Wetland Erilancement
~
[IJ Desiftation Basin
~ Nature Interpretive Center
-.m Sweetwater Marsh National
IM'I!ID _ Refuge
.
Potential Envronmentaly
Sensitive Areas.
p...."".......
* ''''
,;
III
#1 /1
i'J .....0
~ It <,J
~~ ...
L_"----~
--7
,
I
!
./
n-tL.JLA VISTA
LOCaI Coastal Program
~-~
--
~._~):
~-o;-_, .' 1
Ii
'I
Environmental
Management
Bement
Exhibit 10
-n
-c-!L_
']
1
1
niL______ _~___~ ____________.._
i '
..,( _.L.
~f~,',~.;.~t!O'~
, ]
\(1/13/11:2" _ .
Buffer Zone Section
Exhibit 11
First Row
of Residential
( Two Story Maximum)
lj(
'"'"
I~
~i~i
b1'~~
1:>-1'-
I
I
I
Public Park
(Active)
Width Varies
100 Feet MlT1imum
Primary Zone ~ Wetland Buffer
100 Feet 100 Feet Wetlands
Note:
Vertical Scale Exagerated
'" Loca1ion of Fence and Berm
within Primary Zone Varies
S~ld~,YJ~~
Vegetational screening of "P~G" Street marsh from Lagoon Drive and Marina
Parkway will employ native plants including coastal sage scrub and maritime
succulents. Chain~link fence will be incorporated in and largely concealed by the
vegetational 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 "P~G"
Street Marsh, the developer shall construct and maintain a desilting basin on the north
side of "P" Street. Control structures will include a low flow stage, three-chamber
trap for oil, grease, and paniculates.
Because the USP&WS anticipates use of the "F-G" Street Marsh for expanding the
potential nesting habitat for the endangered Light Footed Clapper Rail, there will be
no public access and only one or two pedestrian overlook areas for this unit of the
National Wildlife Refuge.
c. Midbayfront West Interface Area. Along the Bay shoreline between the "E" Street
Marsh and the western extension of the "P-G" Street Marsh, an upland are about 100
feet wide by approximately 1,400 feet long (totalling approximately 3 acres) will be
excavated and planted to create a corridor of salt marsh habitat immediately landward
of the present shoreline. This marsh corridor will be protected from wave erosion
by a rip-rap 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 mudflats and eel grass, storm drain outfalls to the Bay will have flow
energy dissipators and three-chamber type traps for oil, grease, and particulates. In
addition, irrigation and other water sources in the development area shall be managed
to achieve minimal to zero freshwater outflows to the Bay during the dry season.
A monitoring program shall be implemented to ensure that Bay mudflats and eel grass
are not adversely effected by storm drain outflow.
To protect the biologically-rich mudflat and eelgrass meadows in the areas of the Bay
bordering on the National Wildlife Refuge, no recreational boating facilities are
permitted in this pan of the Bay without specific approval of the USF&WS and the
Army Corps of Engineers.
d
Midbayfront Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Features. The following actions
involve habitat restoration and enhancement which shall be incorporated in the
development design in order to provide mitigation for development impacts by
improving the quality and biological values of wetlands and uplands generally within
the Wildlife Refuge.
(10/13/9:?)
VI-7
1) Restoration by Upland Conversion to Wetlands. At the "F-G" Street site,
upland conversion to wetland shall be provided at three locations as follows:
a) Upland conversion to provide 3.5 acres of year-round freshwater
marsh along the east and northeast margins of the site. This freshwa-
ter marsh replaces the roughly 3.0 acres of degraded seasonal wetland
that will be removed for construction of the desiltation basin.
b) 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.
c) 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 San 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.
2) Enhancement of Existing Habitat. At the "F-G" Street site, existing habitat
shall be enhanced at three locations as follows:
a) Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded high marsh along the east margin of
the "F-G" Street salt marsh.
b) Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub bordering the south
margin of the "F-G" Street Marsh.
c) Provide new coastal sage habitat (or upgrade eXlstmg severely
degraded coastal 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.
e. Enhancement of Water Quality. 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.
2)
Improve access of tidal waters to the "F-G" Street salt marsh by increasing
the number and size of culverts under the adjoining roadway (Le., Marina
Parkway) .
( 10/13/92)
VI-8
(10/13/92)
f. 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 plantings of coastal
sage scrub in association with the perimeter fencing.
2) 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 and Sweetwater marshes),
will constitute a major enhancement 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.
VI-9
TABLE VI-I
SUMMARY OF RESTORATIONIENHANCEMENT FEATURES
AND ACTIONS FOR MIDHA YFRONT AREA
Habitat Restoration (New\
Wetland
Aooroximate Area (Acresl
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Freehwater Marsh
Salt Marsh (expansion)
Salt Marsh (extension)
Salt Marsh at "0" Street Fill
Fresh Water Marsh on Gunpowder Point
Salt Marsh at Bay Margin
Uoland
7)
Coastal sage Scrub
a) Perimeter screening
b) Berm
Habitat Enhancement IUoaradel
Wetland
8)
Salt Marsh (high)
Uoland
9)
Coastal sage Scrub
Water Quality Enhancement
10) Cesilting Basin
11) Improved Tidal Flushing -
(3 @ 48 inch diameter culverts)
Other Enhancement
12)
13)
14)
15)
Access Control
Visual Screening
Bridge structure to provide underpass
New coastal sage scrub/succulent scrub
in primary buffer zone.
3.5
2.3
2.0
15.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
for Fauna
habitat
8.5
NOTE: F"T l<xation and supplemen181 information regarding "F-G" Street MaTllh restoralion see following exhibit.
(10/13/92)
VI-IO
//
i
j
__1-
, ,1''- I
I' ,
Ifll'
=Jlj2l
'l _.'u 1 ,
-.--, i .', I'll.'....
' I' . I.
['<~'.-i
I."" 0,
f '1\'1' ,c
o"-r- _~ '~l:~~,-'t;:_
----- -- ---' -~;~
-=~~-~
Ce-
, 0\ i l
L
)
rj
,~~
Exh1bit 12
F-G Street Marsh
Conceptual Plan For
Restoration and Enhancement
,'/;" ,:_:c..~"____
" ~'
:I';t
v
,
[,
"
F
,',
-~-
F,..hw.'.,Mo.r>"
=
=0
~
VI: -_, -'h. <'
II ,:~~:_~..-----*
-.~-,.",~B ~ /,::
, ~>ri~ _:1
-C---____::~ ~~.~
LEGEND
RESTORE
S"'MarsM
eo...talSogeScrub
ENHANCE
Sa~ lob""
Co.ulollSogoScrub
~
rDJ:l<Il
~,
li1~~~-'-
! . ~ \; : i. _" ,,;::A' -'--""i-E.
I],' . <<. ,- . -'-J,;ryn
I ,_ n, .'~ ' f\:,:
D...iIl...",a..in
o.:tw-g.ConltOl
""""'..., ro:laJ """'0..
..-"
.
..,
..~
SOlFlCE: Rick Erlgineemg and
David Smith & AsSOCiates
gjld~a'~~~
~'~IE>>BT[
....ufo ""'0"" 12
10/13/92 [-7' ~l;~'~ f5J
E. Environmental Manaaement of Undelineated Resources. Sensitive
habitats exist in areas not delineated, including but not limited to
the Faivre Street Subarea, the Inland Parcel Subarea, and the "J"
Street Marsh. It is required that all environmental resources are
analyzed by an environmental professional, and that an Environmental
Management Plan is adopted to protect any Bensitive habitats
discovered, prior to the commencement of any additional development.
(10/13/92)
VI-I2
VII. SUBAREA SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Purpose and Scope
This Chapter is intended to apply specific development standards to subarea. as identified on Exhibit
#2, Planning Boundaries. The development standards herein are in addition to the areawide
standards contained in other Chapters of this Specific Plan.
B. MidbayCront Subarea
1. Central Resort District
a. Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Central Resort District (CRD) is to provide an area within the
Midbayfront subarea for a mixture of uses intended to serve tourists, travelers, and
local residents. The regulations of this distfict are intended to encourage innovative
designs and combination of uses to create a high quality resort core for the
Midbayfront subarea.
A conceptual illustration of the Central Resort District is depicted on the following
page. [t graphicaBy portrays one of many "design solutions" that would be
consistent with the purpose and intent of this category. This conceptual illustration
is provided herein as an example of intent, but is not intended to indicate a specific
location, number, size, or configuration of buildings, parking, or other developed site
features.
(10/13/92)
VII-l
/
,
Residential
Access
PUBLIC PARK
-.--
\----i
Central Resort
District Concept
Exhibit 13
~ to NATURE
~J' IINTERPEATIVE CENTER
///)
}'IJ=li!ffi~m~~C--
Freeway
Off Ramp
-\
Interstate 5
'"
~
ii5
(u
Source: Design by Jerde Partnership
/
KEY
CD Mid-Rise Hotel (up to 100')
~ High Rise Hote/(up to 229')
CID Retail/Residential Above
@Retail/Residential Above
CID Conference Facilities
@Ice Rink (Park, or alt. Cult. Arts Fae. Site)
(!) Child Care
<ID Co-Generation Facility
<ID Sports Facility
@Tennis Club
@Office
mULA V15rA
L:<X:aI Coastal Program
(l0/13/92)
b. Master Plan Process
The Central Resort District is expected to be developed in phases. ln order to insure
that each phase is in compliance to an overall plan, intended to implement the LCP
and local standards, a Master Plan shall be required to be approved.
1) When Required: The Central Resort Master Plan must be approved by the
City Council prior to the issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit
within the Central Resort District.
2) Application and Fee: Application shall be made on a form prescribed for this
purpose by the City, and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the
City.
3) Contents of the Master Plan: The application shall be accompanied by ail
information necessary to convey the ultimate design and development
proposai of the Central Resort; including, but not limited to the following:
a) A written report describing how the proposed development is
consistent with all appiicabie policies of the Local Coastal Program _
Land Use Plan.
b) Dimensioned drawing(s) of the project on a scale of sufficient size so
as to readily indicate all dimensions of the various elements of the
development. The required elements are as follows:
(I)
Legal description, legend, scale, north arrow, vicinity map,
and identification of designer;
The boundary lines of subject property, fully dimensioned
together with the name and dimensions of adjoining streets;
Existing topography and proposed grading plan, showing
slope, retaining walls, pad elevations, and percent of slope on
streets, driveways and other graded areas;
Existing and proposed streets, utilities, and easements;
Access: pedestrian, vehicular and service; points of ingress
and egress; with driveway locations and dimensions;
Loading and trash areas, walls and/or fences (including
height);
Proposed location, height, and dimensions of buildings,
including color and materials on all elevations. The floor
area, number of stories, number units and bedrooms (when
applicable) shall be given. Proposed uses shall be indicated
including floor area devoted to each use. (the exact level of
detail required for subsequent phases of a phase project may
be deferred, subject to City approval, where the purpose and
intent of this district and LCP are better served)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
VII-3
(8) Parking Layout, including dimensions, number of stalls and
circulation flow;
(9) Location, height and size of signs proposed on the propeny;
(10) All landscaped areas: Such areas shall be defined with a
written proposal outlining the landscaping concept, as well as
the proposed method of irrigation. In addition, all existing
trees on the site shall be identified with a note as to proposed
disposition.
(11) Lighting, including the location, type and hooding devices to
shield adjoining properties;
(12) Location and design of recreation areas.
c) Supporting documents as may be required; including, but not limited
to: soils report, traffic report, air quality maintenance report, water
conservation report, public facility financing report, sign program,
environmental studies, phasing report, and reports indicating
consistency with other relevant City policies and regulations.
4) Procedures for plan review and approval: Shall be provided for Precise Plan
in the City Vista Municipal Code, Titie !9.
5) Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review: A coastal development
permit shall not be issued until site pIa:, and architectural approval has been
obtained for any use within the Central Resort District as provided for in
Section 19.14ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, except where the
level of detail provided in the Master Plan is of sufficient detail to satisfy the
requirement of Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review.
c. Land Use Categories
Several land use categories are permitted within the Central Resort district. A group
of uses and regulations are applicable to each category. These regulations are
outlined herein by land use category. Notwithstanding the permitted uses within each
category, the following limitations are indicted on Table Vll-! are applicabie within
the Central Resort District:
00/13/92)
Vll-4
Table VII-l
Central Resort District Building Allowance
Land Use Cateoorv
Minimum
Building
Sa.Ft. Read.
Target
Building
Sa. Ft.'"
Jlaxiau.
du/Hotel
Rooms
Residential-Mixed Use
100,000
406,000
300 du
Commercial-Visitor
1,000,000
2,503,000
1,360 rm
Comm.-Prof. & Admin.
20,000
60,000
N/A
Public & Open Space
..
Maxiaua Building Are. Peraitted
2,969,000 .q. ft.
.
The target building sq. ft. in Iny category may be exceeded by up to 20% provided that the increne is off~t by a
corresponding reduction in other C1lelorie., and thlt the increate will not produce additional unmitigllible environmental
impaclll. The maximum building Iquare feci for the entire Central Reaon aIIall not be exceeded. Change. in building sq.
ft. from one category 10 another thallowen the level of lervicc for Irterialt ihaU not be permitted.
..
Limited by limited permitted use~.
d.
Land Use Regulations:
1) Residential - Mixed Use
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the residential - mixed use
category is to provide for non-transient residents within the Central
Resort. It is the intent that these residential dwellings will be
integrated into the design of the Central Resort as a whole, rather
than considered an independent segment.
b) Permitted Uses:
(1) Dwellings, multiple:
(2) Dwellings, within buildings of another land use category; and,
(3) Private, non.commercial recreational facilities or convenience
facilities intended to serve residents of the dwellings only.
c) Conditionally Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(1)
Residential:
(a) Residential units whose parking requirement will be
met by a shared parking agreement;
(b) Extended stay residential;
(c) Retail sales/leasing offices within a residential project;
(lO/13/92l
VII-5
110/13/92)
(d) Retail sales or personal service businesses intended to
primary serve the residents of the project;
(e) Day care facilities intended to primary serve the
residents of the project.
(I) Timeshare condominium units.
d) Site Development Standards: As indicated o~ the approved Master
Plan.
e) Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
I) Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4, and as specified in Chapter V-D, herein.
g) Floor Area Per Unit: The minimum floor area per dwelling unit in
the Residential - mixed use category shall be as follows:
(1) Four hundred square feet for each efficiency dwelling unit;
(2) Five hundred square feet for each dwelling unit having one
bedroom;
(3) Six hundred fifty square feet for each dwelling having two
bedrooms;
(4) Seven hundred fifty square feet for each dwelling unit having
three bedrooms; and an additional one hundred square feet is
required for each additional bedroom exceeding three.
h) Off-Street Parking: Off-site parking is required in the Residential _
mixed use category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
2) Commercial - Visitor
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Commercial - Visitor
category is to provide regulations of uses for the needs of tourists,
travelers, and local residents.
b) Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted within the
following sub-categories designated on an approved Master Plan.
(I) Hotel-High Rise: Buildings designated as Hotel-High Rise are
permitted to include:
(a)
(b)
Hotels; and
Incidental business within the hotel complex to serve
the patrons including restaurants, cocktail lounges,
meeting areas, recreation facilities, retail shops,
conferencing facilities, communication center, parking
VIl-6
structures, and other similar businesses or facilities
determined to be of the same general character of the
above primary permitted use.
(2) Hotel: Buildings designated as Hotel are permitted the sarne
uses as Hotel - High Rise.
(3) Retail: building areas designated as retail are permitted to
include:
(a) Restaurants with a cocktail lounge as an integral part;
(h) Theaters;
(c) Art Galleries;
(d) Retail shops;
(e) Parking garages;
(I) Bonafide antique shops;
(g) Markets;
(h) Restaurants and snack bars;
(i) Ticket sales;
U) Meeting halls;
(k) Service businesses; and
(I) Any other establishment serving visitors determined to
be of the same general character of the above permit-
ted uses.
(4) Commercial Recreation: Building areas designated as
commercial Recreation are permitted to include:
(a) Ice Rink;
(h) Tennis Clubs and facilities;
(c) Health clubs;
(d) Sports and health classes and clinics;
(e) Courts, arenas, and other sports facilities;
(f) Sports medicine facilities;
(gl Sports training facilities;
(h) Pool and swimming/diving facilities; and,
(I) Any other business or facility determined to be of the
same general character of the above permitted uses.
(5) Conference/Convention: Buildings designated as confer-
ence/convention are permitted to include:
(al
(h)
Conference and Convention facilities; and,
Incidental businesses within the conference and
convention facilities intended to serve the uses of the
facility.
00/13/92)
VII-7
(10/13/92)
(c) Conditionally Permitted Uses: The following Com-
mercial - Visitor uses are permitted subject to the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
(i) Any establishment whose parking requirement
will be met by a shared parking agreement;
(ii) Any business or activity that produces noise
beyond outside of the establishment and is
within 250 feet of a residential dwelling and is
open between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00
am;
(iii) Outdoor uses including amphitheaters, vending
carts, kiosks, and outdoor sales and displays;
(iv) Nightclubs, except within hotels;
(v) Video arcades; and,
(vi) Special events and tournaments that will
exceed the parking requirement of the primary
permitted use.
d) Site Development Standards: As indicated on the approved Master
Plan.
e) Sign Regulations: as provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
f) Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4 and Chapter
V-D. herein.
g) Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in the Commercial
- Visitor category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
3) Commercial - Professional & Administrative:
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Commercial - Professional
& Administrative category is to provide regulations for the devel-
opment of professional and administrative office uses.
b) Permitted Uses: Building designated as Commercial - Professional &
Administrative are permitted to include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Administrative and executive office;
Professional offices;
Financial offices, including banks, real estate, and other
general business offices;
Medical care facilities; and,
(4)
VII-8
(10/13/92)
(5) Any other office use determined to be of the same general
character of the above permitted use.
c) Site Development Standards: As indicated on the approved Master
Plan.
d) Sign Regulations; As provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
e) Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4 and Chapter V-D, herein.
f) Off-Street Parking: Off-site parking is required in the Commercial -
Professional & Administrative category for all uses as provided in
Chapter V-H, herein.
4) Public and Open Space:
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of the Public and Open
Space category is to provide regulations for the use and development
of areas designated as Public and Open Space.
b) Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in all areas
whether designated as public and open space or not.
(1) Public & Quasi-Public: In areas designated as Public Quasi-
Public the following uses are permitted:
(a) Parking garages, structures, and lots;
(b) Day nurseries;
(c) Schools for arts and crafts;
(d) Places of worship;
(e) Electrical substations and gas regulators;
(f) Transit and other public transportation facilities; and
(g) Any other use determined to be of the same general
character of the above permitted uses.
(2) Parks & Recreation: In areas designated as Parks & Recre-
ation the following uses are permitted:
(a)
(h)
Public parks & recreation;
Business and facilities intended to serve the users of
the parks and recreation facilities; and,
Cultural Arts facility, including associated accessary
commercial uses; and,
Any other use determined to be of the same general
character of the above permitted uses.
(c)
(d)
VII-9
(3) Water Feature: In areas designated as Water Feature the
following uses are permitted:
(a) Man-made lakes, ponds, and water features, which are
available for access by the general public on the same
terms and conditions as for access by customers and
patrons of other businesses within the Central Resort
District; and,
(b) Businesses intended to provide recreation opportunities
of the water feature such as, boating rental facilities
and boat storage facilities.
(4) Other Open Space: In areas designated as other Open Space
the following uses are permitted:
(a) Open Space; and,
(b) Trails, plazas, sculpture gardens, and other similar
uses.
c) Site Development Standards: As indicted on the approved Master
Plan.
d) Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
e} Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4, and as specified in Chapter V-D, herein.
f) Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in the Public and
Open Space category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
2. Residential - High District
a. Purpose and Intent
The regulations of this district are intended to encourage innovative designs to create
a high quality residential community for the Midbayfront subarea.
A conceptual illustration of the Residential - High District is depicted on the
following page. It graphically portrays one of many "design solutions" that would
be consistent with the purpose and intent of this category. This conceptual
illustration is provided herein as an example of intent, but is not intended to indicate
a specific location, number, size, or configuration of buildings, parking, or other
developed site features.
(10/13/92)
VII-lO
CENTRAL
RESORT
DISTRICT
to NATURE
INTERPERTlVE
CENTER
Residential
District Concept
Exhibit 14
PUBLIC PARK
;;
~
in
~
Source: Design by Jerde Parlnership
rHl V\ VISTA
lOCa{Coastal Program
b. Master Plan Process
The Residential ~ High District is expected to be developed in phases. In order to
insure that each phase is in compliance to an overall plan. intended to implement the
this Specific Plan and local standards, a Master Plan shall be required to be
approved.
1) When Required: The Residential Master Plan must be approved by the City
Council prior to the issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit within
the Residential High District.
2) Application and Fee: Application shall be made on a form prescribed for this
purpose by the City, and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the
City.
3) Contents of the Master Plan: The application shall be accompanied by all
information necessary to convey the ultimate design and development
proposal of the Residential Community including, but not limited to the
following:
a) A written report describing how the proposed development is
consistent with all applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program .
Land Use Plan.
b) Dimensioned drawing(s) of the project on a scale of sufficient size so
as to readily indicate all dimensions of the various elements of the
development. The required elements are as follows:
(10/13/92)
(I)
Legal description, legend, scale, north arrow, vicinity map,
and identification of designer;
The boundary lines of subject property, fully diminished
together with the name and dimensions of adjoining streets;
Existing topography and proposed grading plan, showing
slope, retaining walls, pad elevations, and percent of slope on
streets, driveways and other graded areas;
Existing and proposed streets, utilities, and easements;
Access: pedestrian, vehicular and services; points of ingress
and egress; with driveway locations and dimensions;
Loading and trash areas, walls and/or fences (including
height);
Proposed location, height, and dimensions of buildings,
including color and materials on all elevations. The floor
area, number of stories, number of units and bedroom (when
applicable) shall be given. Proposed uses shall be indicated
including floor area devoted to each use. (The level of detail
required for subsequent phases of a phased project may be
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
VII-12
limited, subject to City approval, where the purpose and intent
of this district and LCP are berter served.)
(8) Parking Layout, including dimensions, number of stalls, and
circulation flow;
(9) Location, height and size of signs proposed on the property;
(10) All landscaped areas: Such areas shall be defined with a
written proposal outlining the landscaping concept, as well as
the proposed method of irrigation. In addition, all existing
trees on the site shall be identified with a note as to proposed
disposition.
(II) Lighting, including the location, type and hooding devices to
shield adjoining properties;
(12) Location and design of recreation areas.
c) Supporting documents as may be required; including, but not limited
to: soils report, traffic report, air quality maintenance report, water
conservation report, public facility financing report, and reports
indicating consistency with other relevant City policies and regula-
tions.
4) Procedures for plan review and approval: Shall be as provided for a Precise
Plan in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19.
5) Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review: A coastal development
permit shall not be issued until site plan and architectural approval has been
obtained for any use within the Residential - High District as provided for in
Section 19.14 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, except where the
level of detail provided in the Master Plan is of sufficient detail to satisfy the
requirements of Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review.
c. Land Use Regulations:
1) Permitted Uses:
(lO/13/92)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Dwellings, duplexes;
Dwellings, town houses;
Dwellings, multiple;
Apartments;
Incidental Service, such as restaurants and retail sales to serve
residents;
Recreation facilities and amenities such as private clubhouse,
tennis courts, pools and uses of a similar nature;
Parking garages, structures, and lots;
Transit and other public transportation facilities;
Parks and recreation:
Open space, trails, plazas, sculprure gardens, and other
similar uses;
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
VII-13
k) Man-made lakes, ponds, and water features;
I) Electrical substations and gas regulations
m) Any other use determined by the City to be at the same
general character of the above permitted uses.
2) Conditionally Permitted Uses:
a) Restaurants and retail shops;
b) Any use whose parking requirement will be met by shared parking;
c) Day nurseries/child care facilities;
d) Places of worship; and,
e) Timeshare condominium units.
d. Site Development Standards: As indicated on the approved Master Plan.
e. Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be supplemented by the
approved Master Plan, except that, no building identification signing is permitted
above the second story, or thirty feet, whichever is less, of any building in this dis-
trict.
f. Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit #4, and as
specified in Chapter V.D, herein.
g. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking shall be as provided for in Chapter V-H,
herein.
h. Development Intensity: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in this
land use district is 700, totalling no more than 949,000 square feet of building area.
3. Commercial - Visitor:
a. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Commercial-Visitor Category is to provide
regulations of uses for the needs of tourists, travelers, and local residents.
b. Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted:
1) Hotels and Inns (within height limits specified on the Building Heights
Exhibit);
2) Retail: including:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(I)
Restaurants with a cocktail lounge as an integral part;
An Galleries;
Retail shops;
Parking garages;
Bonafide antique shops;
Markets;
(0/13/92)
VII-I4
(g) Restaurants and snack bars;
(h) service businesses; and,
(i) Any other establishment serving visitors determined to be of the same
general character of the above permitted uses.
3) Commercial Recreation; including:
(a) Tennis Clubs and facilities;
(b) Health clubs;
(c) Sports and health classes and clinics;
(d) Courts, arenas, and other sports facilities;
(e) Sports medicine facilities;
(I) Sports training facilities;
(g) Swimming and diving facilities; and,
(h) Any other business or facility determined to be of the same general
character of the above permitted uses.
4) Public-Quasi Public, including:
(a) Public parks, recreation, open space, trails, and other similar uses;
(b) Places of worship;
(c) Day nurseries and child care facilities;
(d) Transit and other public transportation facilities; and,
(e) Electrical substations and gas regulators
C. Conditionally Permitted Uses: Any use whose parking requirement will be met by
shared parking;
d. Prohibited Uses: Any business or activity that produces noise above 60 CNEL at the
exterior boundaries of this land use district.
e. Site Development Standards:
1) Minimum lot area: 20,000 square feet.
2) Setbacks:
(a) To Marina Parkway: 25 feet minimum
(b) To other exterior boundaries of this land use district: 20 feet
minimum
(c) To interior boundaries which do not abut another land use district:
none.
f.
Sign Reguiations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be supplemented by an
approved Sign Program.
g.
Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit #4, herein.
00/13/92)
VII-15
h. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in the Commercial - Visitor
category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
i. Development Intensity:
1) Maximum number of hotel rooms: 500 rooms
2) Maximum building square footage of all uses in this district: 403,000 square
feet.
4. Parks and Recreation
a. Purpose and Intent: These regulations are intended to provide for the regulation of
uses and activities designated as Park and Recreation on the Land Use District,
Exhibit #3, within the Midbayfront subarea.
b. Land Use Regulations:
1) Permitted Uses:
a) Public Parks and Recreation;
b) Open space trails, plazas, sculpture gardens, amphitheaters, and other
similar uses;
c) Man-made lakes, ponds, and water features;
d) Restaurants, snack bars, restroom facilities, and minor retail shops
primarily intended to serve the visitors of a public park;
e) Public parking lots; and,
f) Recreation facilities including, ball fields, courts, and playgrounds;
g) electrical substations, gas regulators.
2) Conditionally Permitted Uses:
a) Cultural Arts Facility, including integral meeting areas, art display
areas, restaurants, retail sales facilities relating to Cultural Arts
activities, and theaters.
b) Parking garages;
c) Any use whose parking requirement will be met by shared parking.
d) Retail uses intended to serve the users of park and recreation areas.
3) Prohibited Uses: Any use which is inconsistent with the Environmental
Management Program described in Chapter VI, herein.
c. Site Development Standards:
1)
Master Plan Requirements: Master Plans for the Parks and Recreation areas
abutting the San Diego Bay and the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Preserve as follows:
(10/13/92)
VII-16
a) For the Parks and Recre'ation area west of the Central Resort District
abutting San Diego Bay and south of the access road to the Nature
Interpretive Center: This Master Plan for Parks and Recreation uses
shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to. or concurrently
with. the Master Plan required for the Central Resort District.
b) For the Parks and Recreation area west and north of the Residential-
High land use district: this Master Plan shall be prepared and
approved by the City prior to, or concurrently with the Master Plan
required for the Residential-High District. The Master Plan for this
Parks and Recreation area may not be approved prior to the.approval
of the Master Plan for I) a) above.
c) Level of detail: The level of detail of the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan(s) shall be as described for the Master Plan requirement
for the Central Resort District.
2) Development Standards: All development within the Parks and Recreation
District shall be consistent with the standards adopted in the Master Plan.
d. Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be supplemented by an
approved Sign Program.
e. Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit #4 and Chapter
V-D, herein.
f Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking in the Parks and Recreation category for all
uses as provided for in Chapter V.H, herein.
5. Open Space: The regulation of uses and activities designated as Open Space on the Land Use
District Exhibit #3, within the Midbayfront shall be as described in Chapter VI, Environmen-
tal Management Program.
6. Public - Quasi-Public:
a. Purpose and Intent: These regulations are intended to provide for the regulation of
uses and activities designated as Public - Quasi-Public on the Land Use District,
Exhibit #3, within the Midbayfront subarea.
b. Land Use Regulations:
1) Permitted Uses:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Landscaped Parking;
Open Space & Trail facilities;
Tennis Courts;
Electric Transmission towers;
(10/13/92)
VII-I?
e) Parks and Recreation;
f) Entry Monumentation; and,
g) Transit and other public transportation facilities.
2) Conditionally Permitted Uses: Parking facilities to meet the off-street parking
requirements of uses other than those permitted in this land use district and
the Parks and Recreation land use district.
7. Water
a. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of these regulations is to provide for those uses and
activities designated on the Land Use Districts Exhibit #3, for the Midbayfront
subarea.
b. Permitted Uses:
1) Man-made lakes, ponds, swimming lagoon, and water features;
2) Public park and recreational uses as defined in this Chapter, Section B4.
3) Businesses to serve the public access and use of man-made water features
such as, docks, boat rental and maintenance facilities, and other similar uses.
C. Industrial Subarea
The following special conditions shall apply to the specified sites within Subarea 2 - Industrial
Subarea.
I. Special Condition "C"
Specific development plans for the development of property located south of Lagoon Drive
("F" Street) and west of the SDG&E ROW shall be subject to Design Review Conuninee
review and Redevelopment Agency approval based on the following guidelines:
a. Building setbacks shall be:
1) For buildings 44 feet or less in height: as specified in Chapter V.I
2) For buildings 44 to 95 feet in height:
a) from Lagoon Drive: 200 feet
b) from USF&WS property (F&G Street Marsh): 200 feet
c) from SDG&E ROW: 50 feet
(lO/B/92)
VII-18
b. Building FAR
A maximum FAR of 0.75 (including SDG&E landscaped parking area bonus) on the
subject site is allowed with one (1) new building permitted on such site to exceed the
44 foot height limit, provided that (I) a reduction in the total gross square footage of
structures presently located on the Rohr campus south of the subject site is effected
through the demolition or removal of such existing structures selected by Rohr
totalling 125,000 square feet (which is commensurate with the additional allowed
FAR on the subject site), (ii) such demolition or removal is completed within one (1)
year following occupancy of such new building, (iii) the footprint of such new
building does not exceed five percent (5 %) of the total area of the subject site
(excluding the area encompassed within that portion of the SDG&E right-of-way
adjacent to the subject site), and (iv) the setbacks on the subject site specified above
are met.
c. Development plans shall include a Comprehensive Landscaping Plan which indicates
enhanced iandscaping at the project edges and within the SDG&E landscaped parking
area.
d. Pedestrian or other off. street circulation connections to adjacent industrial and
business park uses shall be provided.
e. Project shall comply with all City-wide threshold standards for infrastructure
improvements and public services; specifically, associated traffic impacts will be
mitigated to a Level-of-Service "0" or better at the Bay Boulevard/"E" Street/I-5
interchange.
f. All buildings on-site shall reflect a common, high quality architectural design and
construction standard.
2. Special Condition "F"
Specific development plans for the development of property located at the northeast and
southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and "J" Street shall be subject to Design Review
Committee recommendation and Agency approval based on the following guidelines:
(lO/13/92)
VII-19
(10113/92)
a. Building setbacks shall be:
1) T Street (to maintain
view corridor)
Parcel 2 Parcels 3/4
(Northeast (Southeast
Corner) Corner)
50 ft. 30 ft..
30 ft. 30 ft.
50 ft. 25 ft.
2) Bay Boulevard
3) Adjacent to 1-5 Freeway
4) From intersection of
"J" Street and Bay
Boulevard (measured
perpendicular to an-
gular corner property
line)
60 ft.
60 ft.
* 50 ft. setback required for construction exceeding a building height of 28 feet.
b.
Maximum building height shall be 45 feet.
c.
Architectural features such as a tower, with floor areas not exceeding 10% of the
ground floor area, may exceed the 45 ft. height limit by 15 ft. (Note: For caJcula~
tion of the tower area, land over the drainage channel between Lots 3 and 4 and on
Lot 2 shall be included in ground floor calculations to the extent the second floor
spans the channel.) One architectural tower shall be allowed on Parcel 2 and one on
the combined Parcels 3/4.
d.
Landscaping of the site shall be 15 - 20% of the total lot area.
e.
Minimum landscaping depths along street frontages shall be 15 ft. in width.
f.
Elevations facing the freeway shall be articulated in massing or architectural
treatment.
g.
Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to connect both sides of "J" Street as well as
linking the projects to the Bayfront development.
h.
The maximum FAR for Lot 2 and the adjoining lot to the east ("the channel") when
combined shall be 0.55.
i.
The maximum FAR for Lots 3 and 4 (the southeast parcel) when combined with the
adjoining parcel ("the channel") shall be 0.50.
VII-20
j. Compact parking stalls shall be permitted with dimensions of 7.5 feet wide by 16 feet
in length. The number of these stalls may be authorized to a maximum of 20% of
the required parking.
D. Inland Parcel Subarea
Development in this Subarea is subject to the I - General Industrial Zone, Chapter 19.46 aCthe Chula
Vista Municipal Code, except as modified by the provisions of this Specific Plan.
E. Faivre Street Su barea
Development in this subarea is subject to the regulations of the San Diego County Zoning ordinance
for, General Impact Industrial use, zoned M-54 (FP), manufacturing industrial zone with flood plain
overlay zone, except as modified by this Specific Plan.
F. Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea
Development in this subarea is subject to he I-L-P, Limited Industrial Zone with Precise Plan
Modifying District, as described in Chapters 19.44 and 19.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
except as modified by this Specific Plan.
00/13/92)
VIl-21
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item2
Meeting Date 10/13/92
SUBMITTED BY:
/1,c;l3?
Resolution AMENDING COUNCIL POliCY NO. 840-02 RElATING
TO SMOKING IN NON-PUBliC AREAS OF CITY BUILDINGS.
Deputy Director Of Public Works/Operations(Mgt. Chief Negotiator~
City Manage~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No..lL)
",.
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
In January 1986, the City Council adopted Policy No. 840-02, concerning smoking in Non-
Public (Employee) areas of City Buildings. The policy was amended in October 1988 and is
proposed to be further amended by this Resolution. During the past year, various employees
and representatives from some of the employee associations had requested that
management review and propose changes to the existing policy. At the same time,
CITYFOIKS, a model worksite tobacco education project sponsored by ADAPT was begun
within City Staff. A part of the CITYFOIKS project was an evaluation (in conjunction with
employee associations) of the City's current worksite smoking policy. Representatives from
management, the CITYFOIKS committee, and all employee associations met (in meet and
confer sessions) to re-evaluate the policy. The amendments presented with this resolution
are the result of those meetings and are supported by all employee associations.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the proposed amendments dealing with
smoking in non-public areas of City buildings and that such amendments become effective
on October 19, 1992.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: As mentioned above, CITYFOIKS is a model worksite tobacco education project
sponsored by ADAPT. Volunteers from management and employee associations received
training in leadership and tobacco education. These volunteers then made presentations to
all City employees on tobacco education. In addition, a committee was formed to study
possible changes to the current employee area smoking policy. Subsequent to the education
sessions, a survey on the current policy was devised and distributed to all employees. After
the committee tabulated the results of the survey, proposed changes to the policy were
submitted by the employee association representatives to their members. Attachment A is a
marked up copy of the policy with new language underlined and deleted language struck
over. Attachment B is a clean copy of the proposed policy as amended.
The major changes in the policy are as listed below:
1. Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed spaces of all City buildings.
2. The policy makes it clear that the prohibition against smoking in all enclosed
spaces in City buildings, applies to employees, visitors, guests, or any other
individuals and is in force at all times, not iust durin!! normal workin!! hours.
3. Smoking is prohibited in the Public Services Building's patio (which is not an
enclosed space) from 12 to 12:30 p.m.
7-/
Page 2, Item ')
Meeting Date 10/13792
4. Smoking is prohibited at all times in all City vehicles.
To ensure that all employees are properly notified, it is recommended that these
amendments take effect the Monday after the Council meeting, October 19, 1992. In
addition, Building Services staff will purchase and post signs on all City buildings indicating
that they are "Smoke Free Buildings".
FISCAL IMPACT: Minor costs for signs which will be absorbed in the Building Services
Division's FY1992-93 budget.
7' ,;J..
RESOLUTION NO.
/~Y.37
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 840-02
RELATING TO SMOKING IN NON-PUBLIC AREAS OF
CITY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, in January 1986, the City Council adopted Policy
No. 840-02 concerning smoking in Non-Public (Employee) areas of
city buildings; and,
WHEREAS, the policy was amended in October 1988 and is
proposed to be further amended by this resolution; and,
WHEREAS, representatives from management, the CITYFOLKS
committee, and all employee associates met in meet and confer
sessions to re-evaluate the policy; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments are the result of those meetings
and are supported by all employee associations; and,
WHEREAS, the major changes in the policy are as follows:
1. Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed spaces of all
city buildings.
2. The policy makes it clear that the prohibition
against smoking in all enclosed spaces in City
buildings applies to employees, visitors, guests,
or any other individuals and is in force at all
times, not iust durinq normal workinq hours.
3.
Smoking is prohibited
Building'S patio (which
from 12 to 12:30 p.m.
in the Public Services
is not an enclosed space)
4. Smoking is prohibited at all times in all City
vehicles.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby amend Council Policy No. 840-02
relating to smoking in non-public areas of City buildings as set
forth in Attachment "B", a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Hr"!: ~~~
Attorney
David Byers, Deputy Director
of Public Works/Operations
?..:J /7-'1-
ATTACHMENT A
SMOKING IN NON-PUBliC AREAS OF CITY BUILDINGS
RESOLUTION lJ801 - DATED 10-13-9210 1788
PURPOSE
This policy complies with Ordinance No. 2086 effective January I, 1985.
BACKGROUND
Chapter 8.22 of the Chula Vista Municipal code requires that all employers develop policies on
"Smoking in the Workplace." Such policy should comply with the Ordinance and clearly delineate
where employees are permitted to smoke in non-public areas of City buildings. Public areas are
covered by Chapter 8.22. This nolicv was first adonted in 1985. It was amended in October 1988
and further amended in October 1992.
POliCY
Smokinl! by emolovees. visitors. wests. or any other individuals is orohibited at all times
(not iust normal workinl! hours) in all enclosed snaces of all buildinl!s owned or leased bv
the City. or otherwise used bv the City to house City emnlovees. and in all City owned
vehicles exceot as follows:
CITY HALL
k Smokinl! is not numitted in an. naIt of Cih Hall exeent as noted in B belo\..
&. Smokinl! AIeas
To Impllry t:C lounge
Onry in designated area, equipped with effecti.e air
clellnu p16.ided b} Cit}.
Not beft',et:n I1.JO 1I.m. lInd 1.00 n.m.
r.- AIry other enclosed, unoccupied, nOll public v,OIk lIrell ftPpIo.ed by the depllltnlent
helld. Such mells mll} include confuence rooms thllt hlt'".e windM.s accessible to
ou t8ide arells.
PUBliC SERVICES BUILDING
k Smokinl! is not numitted in an. DllTt of the Public ServicL~ Buildinl! exeent liS noted in B
belM~.
&. Smokinl! AI ellS
To Impllryee lounge
Only in designated aIea, equipped with efkcti.e air
dellnu. SlIid al ell is the southeast cornu of the IOllnl!c.
Not ben~een I1.JO 1I.m. and 1.00 n.m.
A. Smokinl! is permitted in the Patio area (which is not an enclosed snace) of the emolovee
lounl!e. excent between 12 and 12:30 n.m.
liBRARY
*' Smokinl! is not ncrmitted in an. nmt of thc LibrllI"l- eKeeDt as noted in B below.
&. Smokinl! AIeas
To Impllryce lounge
7-5'
ATIACHMENT A
a~ in dc.;lignatcd lIIea, cquippcd with effectivc air
dUeller pUh'idcd.
Not bct\iccn 11.30 a.In. and 1.00 n.m.
PUBLIC WORl6 YARD AND PARKS & RECREATION BUILDINGS
-k. Smokinl! is not nennitted in lIn. l)art of Cifi Fublk Works and FlIlk and Reclation buHdinl!s
exccnt as noted in nart B belm..
fr.- Smokinl! Arcas
t Impllryec Loungc
ani}; in dcsignatcd alca, equipped \(ith effcctivc air eleanu
POLICE STATION
-k. AlIIllClls cxccnt thosc snecificallv dcsil!natcd as smokinl! areas in Part B belmy.
fr.- Smokinl! Arcas
t Patio lIrea
r. Implo)cc loungcjkitchen
a~ in dcsignated lIrea, equippcd with effectivc air clcaner.
;r. Police Vchiclcs
Smok-us ekan up bcfolc ka.ing vehidc
':till attempt to ha~c non smokus follow non slllok-crs and smokus f-olIo,. smok-cls
fronl shift to shift
.ok ARJIS rOllm, a glasscd in officc ncxt to thc Communications Ccntel
This spacc is to bc cquippcd with ail dcanCIs and shltll bc a smoking arca m:!:b: fill
on dut) Cmmm:lrneation Ccnter pCIsllnnel, including thc Dcsk SClgcant
5-; Chief's Confercncc Room
Smllking is pumitted in this lIlca \~hcn it is nllt bcinl! uscd f-or a mcctinl!. This
spacc is tll be cquippcd with ltn effeetivc ail ckaner.
FIRE STATIONS
-k. No Smokinl! Arcas
t All III cas cxccpt apparatus flool
AB. Smokinl! Areas
1. Apparatus floor in all stations
CITY VDBCLIS (EXCLUDING POLICE '.EIBcr F.S AND fIRE APPARA11J5)
-k. Smok:in:l! Ar ca
t If anothu cmplll)cc prcscnt, no smoking cxccpt b) mu.tUM conSf.nt
r. SmokCIs dcan up bf.folc leaving vchidc
7-~
ATTACHMENT B
SMOKING IN NON-PUBLIC AREAS OF CITY BUILDINGS
RESOLUTION - DATED 10-13-92
PURPOSE
This policy complies with Ordinance No. 2086 effective January 1,
1985.
BACKGROUND
Chapter 8.22 of the Chula vista Municipal Code requires that all
employers develop policies on "Smoking in the Workplace". Such
policy should comply with the Ordinance and clearly delineate where
employees are permitted to smoke in non-public areas of City
buildings. Public areas are covered by Chapter 8.22. This policy
was first adopted n 1985. It was amended in October 1988 and
further amended in October 1992.
POLICY
ENCLOSED SPACE POLICY
Smoking by employees, visitors, guests, or any other individuals is
prohibited at all times (not just normal working hours) in all
enclosed spaces of all buildings owned or leased by the city, or
otherwise used by the city to house city employees, and in all city
owned vehicles except as follows:
A. Smoking Areas:
1. Apparatus floor in all fire stations.
2. Patio area in the Public Services Building from 12
to 12:30 p.m.
OPEN SPACE POLICY
Smoking by employees, visitors, guests, or any other individuals is
prohibited in the Patio Area (which is not an enclosed space) of
the employee lounge, between 12 and 12:30 p.m.
f:\HOME\A TfORNEY\SMOKING
7-7
~~~ t\.,. . /
l(o'?~)s:
.,r-
- )
SAN DIEGO BAY
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
'. ....;..-:..~;...-~
.........--......-......."""
~--.-.-- ---
.--...........-..
---....-....-
----
....--.
. - -
IL__
SWEETWATER MARSH
NATIONAL WilDLIFE
REFUGE
( ~rr
-~~[
C[
~
les
~H 51 Il[
"Ji
ChI/III I
8hoJ) ~iBtll
ce,,::::11
LEGEND
EXHIBIT" A"
IIBSIDEN17AL
l1li MedUIm ~11 du/ae
::::: VuitD,
INDlJS17UAL S7'BCIAL ruN AJUU
P77/I Ru...m. .. Umiu4 Man'lfGdurin. I:'".::"':Is_1IIu!h N_Ml
~ ~ Wi1d1jf, RifugI
PUBUC .. OI'BN SPACB
l1li Piub A btrudo.
llo,.. s,-
COMMERCLlL
bdl'rcifusiDMl" ~
~rul
r>OJECTrmE HJIID>JB3A 1fWnMj)~"1r
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM
OIY OF
PLANNING DEPARTMENT OiUlAVISfA
l' ...' - --.
~":~,j-
I"=':- ~
~ - -
~-::::
---
-...- ,.
">--.........-
" ~:=~..
'--
. "::-;;..
SWEET.WATER MARSH
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
. REF'JGE
;---...",
:::::.:-..
SAN DIEGO BAY
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
.................... ..
................... ...
................... '..
::::::"::::::::::::: ::
.................... ..
.......................
................... ...
................... ...
................... ...
.......................
.......................
................... ...
................... ...
................... ...
........................
.......................
m
t
............... ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
.................
............. ...
............. ...
............. ."
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
...-......... ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
............. ...
" .
r::.,..:
LEGEND
[
':;S':i' ~
l"nl__.
- '~<i1J~'
. ~'r
;.'
. .
::".
-"
-.
t:[~T[_
t.
EXHIBIT "B"
RESIDENTIAL
mHigh 18-27 dul..
COMMERCIAL
PUBUC ~ OPEN SPACE
. PIUb &: RunJ1liDn
DOpe. Spae,
SPl!L:lAL PIAN AREA
ms..- - NatiDlUI/ W'1IdIif, R(/UI'
~.::..l"~"
....:"_r
r:mrrl....r. ~___. . ~,_,_~
I.llllllJ~U'./''''''''_&~),'
J::::~Ruon
mnl rI
UI~l!J el
mJECTTTTLE IDarmI:>>]B3'&' 1fW~(Q)M'jl'
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
~'f?-
---
~-
~.-
\:~WOf
QUA VISTA
. ~.~'\-";:"
~r~~. -
!oJ loA . LOCATOR
110m (~M "'12-09) MID,~'(fR.ON
......
, ~ (\ ~ -'1V/ \
~--.
--- --- ~ :
--- ~ '
_.\~ ..'
, ....
/
,
,
~
"....
~.,,/...
I
I
,
,
,
\
\ AIZEA WJDez. c.oJ~IDeeAfIO~
,
,
,
,
\
,
,
,
,
.
.~
EXHIBIT C
CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-LAND USE PLAN-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Approved by tbe City of Chnla Vista on
October 13, 1992 as Ordinance No. 2532
Certified by the California Coastal Commission on
,1992
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tim Nader, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
David Malcolm
Leonard Moore
Jerry Rindone
Shirley Horton
PLANNING COMMISSION
Joe Casillas, Chairperson
Laverne Decker, Vice Chairperson
Joanne Carson
Susan Fuller
Thomas Martin
John Ray
William C. Tuchscher II
CITY MANAGER
John Gross. City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City 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)
(lO/13/92)
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
Chula Vista Local Coastal Pro2ram
PLANNERS
Cinti & Associates
Gary P. Cinti
Jay Kniep
ARCHITECTS
Midbavfront Proiect
Jerde Partnership. Inc.
Carl Worthington
Ralph Yanagawa
LEGAL COUNSEL
Peterson & Price
Paul A. Peterson. Esq.
Matthew A. Peterson, Esq.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Wimmer, Yamada & Associates
Joseph Y. Yamada
Pat Caughay
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. Christine Keller
AD. Hinshaw Associates Philip Hinshaw
David D. Smith and Associates David D. Smith
00/13/92) ii
STATE and FEDERAL AGENCIES
California Coastal Commission
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92108-1725
Attention: Deborah Lee, 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
Carlsbad, 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
Attention: John A. Gill, Chief
{l0/13/921
Hi
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-LAND USE PLAN-
Table of Content"
1m
I. INTRODUCfION/OVERVIEW
A.
Introduction
1. Purpose of Plan
2. Area Location and Description
3. Coastal Zone and Subareas
4. Related Projects
5. Application of Plan Provisions
Local Coastal Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Coastal Act Provisions
2. Organization and Format of LCP Re-submittal
3. History of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program
4. Coordinated Planning Efforts
Implementation . .
1-1
B.
. . . . .. 1-6
C.
1-9
II. PLANNING CONTEXT
A. Local Planning Programs
1. General Plan Bayfront Vision Statement
2. Goals for Development
B. California Coastal Act.
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
II-I
11-2
(10/13/92)
iv
Table of Contents (cont'd)
~
III. AREAWIDE DEVELOPMENT OBJECflVES AND POLICIES
A. Land Use and Development Intensity ........ . . . . . . . . . . Ill-I
I. Existing Land Uses and Development Intensity
2. Land Use Regulation Objectives/Policies
3. Development Intensity Objectives/Policies
B. Circulation, Public Access, and Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11I.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 . . . . . . . . . . .. ......... 1lI-28
1. Existing Conditions
2. General Form and Appearance Objectives/Policies
3. Bayfrant Gateway Objectives/Policies
4. Architectural Edges Objectives/Policies
5. Views Objectives/Policies
6. Landscape Character and Function Objectives/Policies
D. Utilities and Areawide Grading 1lI-36
1. Existing Conditions
2. Utility Service Objectives/Policies
3. Areawide Grading Objectives/Policies
4. Utility and Grading Design Objectives/Policies
E. Environmental Management . 111-41
I. Background/Existing Conditions
2. Environmental Management Objectives/Policies
IV. SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT OBJECfIVES AND POLICIES
A.
Subarea I - Midbayfront
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
IV-l
(10/13/92)
v
Table of Contents (conl'd)
IV. SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (cont'd)
~
B.
Subarea 2 - Industrial Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel ............
1. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
Subarea4-InlandParcel............................ ..IV-13
I. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
Subarea 5 - Faivre Street Parcel.
1. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
Subarea 6 - PalomarlBay Blvd. Reorganization Parcel
1. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
Subarea 7 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
I. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
.... . IV-12
C.
IV-12
D.
E.
IV-14
F.
IV-I4
G.
IV-16
(10/13/92)
vi
List or Exhibits
~
1. Regional Location .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
2. Coastal Zone with Subareas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
3. Land Use Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1I-3
4. Central Resort District Concept. ................... III-IO
5. Building Heights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-J3
6. Circulation Element ......................... I1I-19
7. Form & Appearance ................................ I1I-30
8. Utility Systems ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-38
9. Environmental Management .................... . . . . . . . I1I-45
10. Buffer Zone Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-46
11. Conceptual "F & G" Street Marsh Restoration. . . . . . . .. ...... III-52
00/13/92) vii
I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW
A. Introduction
This document is the 1992 Chula Vista Local Coastal Program CLep) Re-submittal which includes
a fe-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 viability 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 property available for development within the Chula Vista Bayfront, an opportunity for a compre-
hensive update of the Chula Vista LCP was created.
This Re-submittal focuses primarily on the undeveloped property within the Midbayfront. while the
regulations and standards for other areas are essentially unchanged, although re-stated and re-
formatted.
1. Purnose of Plan
The purpose of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) is to provide a detailed plan for
the orderly grovvth. 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
city 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 with 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 Bayfrom 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 Bayfrom 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 DescriDtion
The City ofChula Vista was incorporated in 1911 and became a chartered City in 1949. The
City currently has a population of approximately 140,{)(X) and covers an area of approximately
34 square miles. Geographically. the City is located adjacent to the east side of San Diego
(10/13/921
I-I
Bay, eight miles south of San Diego and seven miles north of the International Border (see
Exhibit 1). The 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. State Route 54 and its interchange with Interstate 5 in the Bayfront
enhances the site's locational advantages. The Bayfront area is located 10.8 miles south of the
San Diego International Airport.
3. Coastal Zone and Subareas
The boundary of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone is located immediately east of Interstate 5 (I-5),
except in the northerly portion of the City where it turns east (inland) 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 annexed 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 ROWand 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 116 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, liD" Street Fill, the entire
Paradise Creek area, and the Sweetwater Marsh Complex (including the "F-G" Street Marsh).
The Port 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 Port 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.
(10/13/92)
1-2
c:ffl17{~s
:;.-\1\' [ll.EC;O. CALIFORNIA
I'I."nCII1I'iJ2N_18i'i F,x(6NI239_47J;
Regional Location
<!\
);: Exhibit 1
~
w
IMPERIAL BEACH
STATE 117
'\ !'-: L' . r I A ,,"' N , N l;
rn
UNITED STATES _ _ _
--
MEXICO Cl--lULA VISTA
LOCaf Coastal Program
To the east, highway and visitor commercial uses have been developed along Bay Boulevard,
between Marina Parkway and Lagoon Drive. South of Lagoon Drive, the Rohr corporate
headquarters and industrial facility extend to south of RH" Street, with additional office
development extending to near "r Street. The SDG&E generating facility and smaller indus-
trial users are located south of"r Street to Palomar Street. In addition to these areas located
west of 1-5, two parcels east of the freeway are within the Bayfront: the Faiver Street inland
parcel is south of Main Street and currently used for storage, while the partially developed
northern inland parcel is located east of Broadway and north of "C" Street.
In order to facilitate the planning and development of the Bayfront, the overall planning area
has been divided into eight "sub.areas" to focus on the issues which are specific tQ various
local areas. These areas are indicated in Exhibit 2 and are described below:
Subarea 1 - The Midbayfront is the Bayfront 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 part 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.
Subarea 3 - 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
wetlands 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 Midbayfront (subarea I).
(lOIJ3/92l
1-4
[J[] M~tront SLlJaNla
I IndJstrial Subarea
[E Southern Pa<eel &bar..
[][] Inland Parcel &bare.
[U Faivre Street Slbarea
r- @ I Palomar/Bay BoUevard &bare.
~ s-twater Marsh Nat_'
L"o'-J \YUle Refuge
;II
Iii
II
J'
1
I
.)~=- ---'
~r/
h-n n A V15fA
l<dC~ Program
---- Coastal Zone Bou1dary
____ Slbarea Boundary
.~------- City Lirrit Line
Coastal
Zone
With Subareas
Exhibit 2
III CD'! "'1 (])
IJ ,.
,
I
'I
1
I
,~
I
II
i;
;11
'.
-~-,
, ~
II
..
-_.
ii,
r"-l-- __nnJ
a.;;;=""-"'l
:n..r'_~'__ILj
1W1M11~" -~[_-:'~
4. Related Proiects
There are two major projects adjacent to the LCP area which affect the Bayfront. They have
been combined in the Route 54/Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel Joint CaITrans/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 1-5, 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
Sayfront is provided from the 1-5/54 interchange via an off-ramp to ME 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 Sayfront and is one of the factors leading to the current LCP Re-submittal.
B. Local Coastal Program Overview
1. Coastal Act Provisions
As provided in Section 30500(a) of the Public Resources Code. "Each local government lying
in whole or in part, 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/lssue Identification; 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 Sayfront Specific Plan).
2. OrQ:anization 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.
(10113/92)
1-6
After this 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) Environmental
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 Bayfront and ensure both conformance 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
regulations and standards for the Bayfront. The implementing ordinance for the Chula Vista
Bayfrom 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 developmem and conservation of resources. It contains the implementation program
for the Bayfrom, 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. Historv of Chula Vista Local Coastal Prmnarn
This LCP Re-submittal 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
(10/]3/92)
1-7
preparation of the California Coastal Plan, which was issued 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 in some areas of the Bayfront, in
1974 the City established the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, which includes the
majority of property within the Bayfront planning 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 portions of the plan extended to March 1984, at which time the Chula Vista Bayfront Land
Use Plan was approved by the Coastal Commission. Subsequently 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 imbalance 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 property 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 Planning: 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: 1) 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 planning 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 public facilities (roads, water lines,
sewers, storm drainage provisions and pedestrian and bicyclist routes) is to be maintained,
{lOI)3/92)
1-8
where protection of economic and aesthetic values provided by water-oriented views are to be
protected, and where safeguards are necessary to prevent conflicts in land use and develop-
ment.
Specific aspects requiring coordinated. action include: 1) the routing and design of Marina
Parkway in the Midbayfront area; 2) maintenance of a protected habitat for the least tern and
other sensitive species within the National Wildlife Refuge; 3) integration of pedestrian
waterfront access; 4) protection of existing water-oriented views from inland areas; and, 5)
providing :t balanced mix of developed land uses within the coastal area of the City.
C. Implementation
As indicated previously, the Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Pian will be implemented as the
Bayfront Specific Plan per the California Government Code Sections 65450 et seq. The Specific
Plan will be adopted by Ordinance and meet the Implementing 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. plus 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 specific
projects; and, 4) administrative and permitting procedures.
(10/13/92)
1.9
II. PLANNING CONTEXT
A. Local Planning Programs
Adopted local plans and State law create the planning context for the Chula Vista Bayfront LCP.
The LCP must be consistent with both the City's General Plan and the provisions of the State Coastal
Act.
State law (Code Section 653(0) requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
for the physical development of the city. The State requires general plans based on the belief that
the future growth of the state is determined largely through local actions. By requiring 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 the State, as expressed in the Coastal Act, will be met within the Coastal Zone
while allowing local decision making.
1. General Plan Bavfront 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 create a water-orientedfocal pOint/or
the entire City. With an emphasis on public recrea/ion activities, tourism and
conservation, it will emerge as the premier waterfront experience in the South Bay. The
development standards and quality will equal those of similar redevelopment projects in
the nonhem secrion of San Diego Bay. The diversiry of uses will exceed that of many
similar projects and contribute to its vitality and use by all citizens.
2. Goals for Develooment
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.
Bavfront Develooment 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.
(10/13/92)
II-I
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 Bayfroot and create an identifiable image for the
Bayfroot.
Provide good regional access to encourage visitors to the Bayfroot.
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,
1. 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 outside the Bayfrant Plan area on the Port District's
property. A boat launch, marina, and park are located off the westerly extension of ")"
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 part, 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
(10/13/92)
B-2
00/13/92)
have resulted in very limited direct public access opportunities. Access is also limited
due to the environmental sensitivity of the shoreline within the planning area. Limited
or restricted access is necessary in some areas to preserve the habitat value of the
shoreline itself.
c. Plan 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 48 acres-of public
and quasi. public, and parks and recreation adjacent 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 into 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
future access.
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, shuttle bus operations from the Bayfront to the Nature
Interpretive 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
Interpretive Center along with streets to link the Interpretive 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-Servinll Facilities
a. Coastal Act Policies
Sections 30212.5, 30213 [part, 30220-30223, and 30250(e)] 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 1.5 along Bay Boulevard,
including a small motel and four restaurants. The Port District Marina and boat
launch facilities contain restaurants, boat slips, and a marina. Marina View Park
II-3
(10/13/92)
and the Pan 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 opponunities including a total of approxi-
mately 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.
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 visitorwserving
facilities within the Coastal Zone and includes 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, mudflats 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 wetland and biologically-valuable upland resources.
The long-term protection and enhancement of these resources are now the essential
objectives for environmental management.
Il-4
(10/13/92)
c. Plan Provisions
This LCP provides for wetland restoration and enhancement of degraded habitat in
several areas of the National Wildlife Refuge. This will include the formation of
new wetlands by converting uplands or fill to wetlands.
At "F-G" Street 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 located 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 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.
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 planning area. Establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge assures protection
of the sensitive specieslhabitat areas, while the polices of the LCP require
mitigation of impacts to wildlife areas from development on adjacent upland
parcels.
4. Dikim! DredQimz Fillin2 and Shoreline Structures
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, and construction
of shoreline structures may occur. Section 30411(b) provides additional provisions
for the filling of wetland provided it is accompanied by substantial restoration of
degraded wetland.
11-5
(}0/13/92)
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 total fill and amount of shoreline affected, 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 development
concept within this LCP. As noted. above, the Land Use Plan provides for the
major restoration and enhancement of wetlands, primarily areas of severely
degraded wetlands within the National Wildlife Refuge, specifically at the "F-G"
Street Marsh, Gunpowder Point, and the "D" Street Fill areas of the Wildlife
Refuge.
The preclusion of significant diking, dredging, or filling assures consistency with
these Coastal Act Policies.
5. Commercial Fishinl! and Recreational Boatin!!
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 property adjacent
to the Bayfront. Additional recreational boating berths were constructed on the
Port District property, 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
permitted.
Because of the environmental sensitivity of the planning area, increased major
recreational boating facilities are precluded. This general policy is consistent with
the provisions of the Coastal Act.
II-6
(10/13/92)
6 Environmentallv Sensitive Habitat Areas
a. Coastal Act Policies
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act provides for the protection of environmentally
sensitive habitat areas by restricting uses within or adjacent to such areas.
b. Existing Conditions
In addition to the marsh and mudflat areas discussed under the 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 nesting habitat for three Federal andlor State listed endangered species:
the California Least Tern; the Light-Footed Clapper Rail; and the Belding'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 lDO-foot wide (minimum) buffer adjoining the refuge boundary
which will be characterized by native vegetation, a berm and fence, and a nature
trail with interpretive signage.
Public 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 setbacks 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. A2riculture
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.
11-7
(10/13/92)
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 agricultural 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 between 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 flood hazards. The settlement hazards are
attributable to the presence of relatively shallow surficial deposits of soft
compressible bay mud throughout the historic marsh lands and tidal flats, as well
as in deeper water areas. 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.
Parts 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, settlement, and seismic hazards, the Bayfront Plan
contains provisions to require engineering investigations to minimize potential
hazards to development. Buildings will be designed to meet earthquake safety
II-8
(10/13/92)
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. Forestrv and Soil Resources
a. Coastal Act Policies
This category of Coastal Act policies is not applicable to the Bayfront area.
1 0 Locatin~ and Plannin~ New Develonment
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 scattered 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 north) 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/pedestrian
circulation system.
The Land Use Plan policies take into consideration the unique relationship between
new development and the sensitive environmental areas adjacent to the Midbay-
front. The Land Use Plan integrates the Nature Interpretive 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.
11-9
(10/13/92)
New development will be concentrated in an area of existing development with
adequate public services. The new development envisioned in this LCP includes,
as a part of the conceptual development plan, or will be required to provide support
facilities including recreation facilities and public transit.
11. Coastal Visual Resources and Snecial 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 destination
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 ).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
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 have been 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 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.
11-10
(10/13/92)
12 Public Works
a. Coastal Act Policies
Section 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
permitted by the Coastal Act.
b. Existing Conditions
Adequate water, sewage, and other utility services exist, but will need to be
extended onto the Midbayfront 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 Develooment and Enen:v Facilities
a. Coastal Act Policies
Sections 30255, 30260-30264, 30232 and 30250(b) of the Coastal Act provide
guidelines for the development of new or the expansion of existing coastal
dependent industrial facilities, tanker facilities, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil
and gas development, refineries, and electrical generating plants.
b. Existing Conditions
Rohr, Inc. facilities and the SDG&E Generating Plant and transmitter lines
represent the only two major industrial and energy facilities currently within the
Bayfront.
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.
II-ll
III. 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 Bayfront area. Associated with each basic objective,
specific policy provisions are defined to 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-serif typeface (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 filled areas above mean high tide and 265 are wetlands. Four major o\IITIerships 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 ROWand 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.
I. Existim! Land Uses and Develonment Intensitv
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 ("F" Street). The Swath
Boat Repair facility is located on Port District Property just south of the Midbayfront 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 nonhern 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
(10/13/92)
III-I
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 Rohe 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 generating plant which are 187 feet high.
Objective LV.!
2. Land Use Re2ulation Objectives/Policies
Policy LU.l.A
Objective LV.2
Policy LU.2.A
Objective LV. 3
(10113/9~)
New Bayfront development should encourage a mixed-use develop-
ment combining visitor serving commercial/recreational uses, public
parks, and residential. The mixed-use character of the Bayfrant will:
1) minimize the traffic impact of development on the sUffounding
roadway system by splitting the peak hour traffic between trip origins
and destinations; and, 2) significantly expand public access and use
of the Bayfront.
The Midbayfront shall 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 Bayfront. A special land use category I
Central Rason District, is designated within the Midbayfront
Subarea to accommodate mixed-use development.
Integrate new development with the existing National Wildlife Refuge
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.
Public parks and open space are designated on the Land Use Plan
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 e shuttle bus. Public
trails with interpretive signage shall be provided within the buffer
adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge to allow public enjoyment of the
refuge without disturbing its inhabitants.
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
Bayfrant 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 lJse. There are no overriding functional reasons
for using Bayfront land for general industrial use; the industrial
IlI-2
RE.<'iIDFNTIAl
[fi>iJHigl
COf.9ERCIAL
~V"'"'"
~ Visitor/l-lig,way
r-=--l _ &
~Mmstrative
NJUSTRJAl
~ Aesean;h & Lmtad
~ Ganeml
'I
Ii
:;
--~/~-
T---"-
(H R A VISTA
lOCaf~ Program
, PUlUC & OPEN SIW;E
L ~ PUE & Qua,; ~
[~_~~_J Par1<s & Recreation
r1i;~~ Water
Cas -) Open Space
L_J ~~ionl f "...---- .........__.._______..._....
\
'j:
II
SPEaAL PlAN AREA
[?D r Central Resort District
OVERLAY ~TK>NS
~ Sweetwater Marsh National
~ WlcIfe Refuge
L::l L__ Par1<ng
~~ Prmary Buffet'
Land
Use
EXHIBIT 3
------
..---...----...
',I
I"
I
'I
,.
-~
IG
-....-.:;;:-
if:!!;:::.\~
1CIr{13tW~"-""L-
Policy LU.3.A
Objective LUA
POlicy LU.4.A
Policy LU.4.B
Objective LU.S
Policy LU.5.A
(10/13/92)
growth of San Diego County is not likely to be impeded if the
Bayfrant 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 conununity.
General industrial uses are permitted and may expand in the
areas designated for Industrial use on the land Use Pian Map,
Exhibit 3. These areas correspond to those areas which are
already committed to industrial uses. New industrial develop-
ment in other areas shall not be permitted.
Preserve and enhance the existing saltwater marshes, ponds, and
mudflats to protect the many natural resource values of the habitat and
contribute to the visual quality of the Bayfrant.
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 Plan 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 implementation.
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
participate 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 wetlands, and passive recreational opportunities.
Policies are included in the Environmental Management section
to assure that such access will not disrupt the wildlife habitat.
IlI-4
Objective LU.6
Policy LU.6.A
POlicy LU.6.B
(10/13/92)
Permit a balanced and well defined mix of land uses which will be
responsive to the development and conservation goals of the Bayfront
LCP.
The Land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 3. indicates the location of the
various permitted uses. The permitted use categories include:
general industrial. research and limited industrial. high density
residential, four types of commercial. public and quasi-public
uses. the central resort district. and wildlife refuge. A more
detailed mapping of public open space is provided in the Environ.
mental Management Map, Exhibit 9. Table 3-' summerizes the
land use distribution within the Bayfront.
The description of the permitted uses is as follows:
RESIDENTIAL. Residential uses are 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 a transition
at the critical waterfront edges to higher, 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-
mitted in the Bayfront. Total Allocation: approximately 35
acres, not including uses located in the Central Resort District (4
percent of development area. not including major circulation)
Visitor Servina 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 necessary to
support the hotel function. This land use designation also
includes retail uses which support the hotel-conference facility.
adjacent office park uses, and 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 Vista down-
town. The intent of the uses permitted in this category is to
serve visitors and residents of the Bayfront. Permitted uses
include: 1) hotels and inns; 2) retail uses and shops serving
visitors and residents; 3) commercial recreation uses; 4) business
and personal services; and, 51 public and quasi-public uses such
as public transportation facilities, places of worship, and day care
facilities. Allocation: approximately 11 acres (1 percent of
development area. not including major circulation), [Note: These
III.5
uses are also provided with the Central Resort District where
allocations among uses may vary.)
Thorouahfare Visitor Hiahw8v. This land use designation
includes primarily motel and restaurant facilities similar to the
existing development that principally serve auto-oriented traffic
and require clear visibility from the 1-5 corridor. Additional
permitted uses would include gas stations and similar 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 connection
with the Central Reson District provided for elsewhere in the
Plan. These non-permitted uses inClude: convenience retail.
food and beverage retail sales, business and personal services.
and entertainment facilities. Allocation: approximately 12 acres
(1 percent of development area. not including major circulation).
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 Midbayfront 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 & Limited and General. These land
uses are confined to an area generally south of "G" Street. plus
the inland parcels east of 1-5. Existing uses will be permitted to
continue and expand. Allocation: approximately 370 acres (43
percent of development 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 as manufacturing and public
utility plants. The SDG&E powerplant and Rohr, Inc. facilities are
within this category. Allocation: approximately 289 acres (34
percent of development area. not including major circulation).
PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE. This category includes 8 variety of uses
ranging from landscaped parking in the SDG&E ROW to the Open
00/13/92)
IlI-6
Space of the National Wildlife Refuge. (Allocation: approximate-
ly 391 acres (44 percent of development area, not including
major circulation),
Public &. Quasi.Public/landsc8Ded Parkina Overlav. Portions of
the SDG&E power line right-of-way (ROW) within the Bay/ront
are to be physically improved at the ground level with landscaped
parking areas. In order to encourage landscape improvements to
this area, development bonuses are permitted for projects
adjacent to the ROW. These bonuses allow the development to
increase permitted densities and utilize the ROW for parking lot
expansion. Bonuses are calculated by applying the permitted
land use intensity of the adjacent parcel to the portion of the
ROW included In the project and transferring 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 parking 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.J
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 of the adjacent
wetland ecosystem. Permitted uses in the buffer zones include
provisions for controlled public access, minor grading and
landscaping (consistent with the grading and environmental
management policies of Section III-E. herein), and minor scientific
or educational uses. The Environmental Management Plan Map,
Exhibit 9, depicts the specific location of the open space uses.
This category also includes series of parks 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
and bicycle trail system. Development of a publicly 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 within
the Central Resort District. The lagoon shall be constructed
without disturbing the existing shoreline and shall extend from
the Central Resort District. under Marina Parkway and into the
(lO/13/92)
III-?
public park area (Park & Recreation designation) to the west.
Allocation: approximately 8 acres (1 percent of development
area, not including major circulation).
ODen SDacelWildlife Refuoe Overlav. This designation is applied
to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge which is
owned and operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Uses
will be limited to wildlife habitat preservation and enhancement.
scientific study and educational uses. Other areas with signifi-
cant habitat value which are not a part of the Federal ownership
are shown as Open Space without an overlay designation. In
addition to the areas designated by this overlay, Section III-E
Environmental Management. provides specifiC policies and
programs for responding to environmental resources within the
Inland and Favier 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 1-5) and railroad right-
of-ways within the planning area. Table 3-1 identifies a separate
category for the 1-5 acreage (approximately 159 acres), which is
not within any of the subareas. This acreage is not a part of the
"development area" within the coastal lone. Allocation:
approximately 27 acres, not including major circulation (3
percent of development area, not including 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, and 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 Midbayfront. In
order to evaluate the proposed development in this area. prior to
any development a Master Plan shall be prepared and approved
to allocate uses and describe the buildings and spatial relation-
ships within the buildings, and parking allocation. The prepara-
tion of a Master Plan for the Central Resort District is a require-
ment in addition to compliance with other development regula-
tions and policies of this Land Use Plan. The purpose of the
Master Plan is to insure that the intent and concept of a 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)
1II-8
$') to NATURE
--1J INTERPERTIVE CENTER
PUBLIC PARK
, \
"LAGOON)
PUBLIC PARK
,
-\
'::"'. ..
~ ~>::",.~j,.
o _,';'.>>::-:'.'
c . -t'.
g l:rJl:
j bltJ 5
r.t:
8
Residential
Access
LANDSCAPED
PARKING
]'!J=>~lifinmenr
lliW
~
Interstate 5
0;
~
iii
~
Source: DesigJ by Jerde Partnership
Central Resort
District Concept
Exhibit 4
KEY
CD Mid-Rise Hotel (up to 100')
@ High Rise Hotel<up to 229')
@ Retail/Residential Above
@ Retail/Residential Above
CID Conference Facilities
<ID Ice Rink (Park. or alt. Cult Arts Fac. Site)
(J) Child Care
<ID Co-Generation Facility
<ID Sports Facility
@) Tennis Club
@ Office
(HI V\ VISTA
LOCafcoastal Program
A conceptual illustration of the VISIon for the Central Resort
District is depicted on the following page, Exhibit 4. It graphical-
ly portrays one of many "design 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
intent, but not to indicate 8 specific location, number. size. or
configuration of buildings, parking. or other developed site
features.
There is an overall limitation of 1.969,000 sq.ft. maximum
building area permitted in the Central Resort District. Within this
square footage. there are maximums of 300 residentia,'dwelling
units and 1.360 hate' rooms within the CRD. Allocation:
approximately 40 acres (5 percent of development area. not
including major circulation).
00/13/92)
1II-9
"'''''''',~''m''m''','mmu'mm,''-_';'-' ;'''',''''''--''''~>m_ _~'""","'",m_=
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED LAND USES BY SUBAREA
(Approximate area. in acres)
SUBAREA
LAND USE TOTAL 1 ~ ;> .i a .. 1
Re8idential, high 18 18
COllllllereisl
- Visitor 11 11
- Thoroughfare 12 8 4
- Professional &
Administrative 12 * 12
Industrial
- Research & Limited 81 10 8 63
- General 289 155 98 36
Public . open space
- Public &
Quasi-Public 1B 6 12
- Parks & Recreation 37 34 3
- Water B B
- open Space 301 22 11 26B
- Circulation/other 27 14 B 3 2
Special Plan Area
- Central Resort
District 40 40
Major Circulation 15'
TOTALS 1013 161 215 101 36 . 63 270
--------
. Allocated within Centra] Resort District as a penniued use
NOTE: Acreages are indicated to the nearest acre based on planimeter readings aod available information. Minor refinements that ffilIY reBult
from the development pennit and suhdivision pnxeu shall not require an amendment to thiB LCP provided that the character of development and
arrroximale proportion of land uses is maintained
(10/13/92)
111-11
3. Develooment Intensitv Obiectives/Policies
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.l
Allow development intensity which provides for the economic
development of the Bayfront, within the capacity of public service and
infrastructure systems.
Policy 01. 1 .A
Heieht Limits. The permitted height of the development in the
Resort Core area ranges up to 229 feet for two high-rise hotel
structures (Special Condition" A" in Exhibit 5) and up to '00 feet
for a Mid-rise hotel structure. Also 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 limit
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 both reduced and increased height limits.
due to program requirements. environmental management
objectives, or physical form and appearance objectives. These
variances include the following:
Gatewavs. To achieve a "gateway." or sense of entry to the
Bayfront and relate it to the existing new development along Bay
Boulevard. the areas immediately adjacent to the "En Street and
.. J" Street bridges over 1-5 shall be between one and two stories.
Midbavfront DeveloDment. 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 '00 feet for the mid-rise hotel structure. Also in the
Midbayfront Subarea. a single mid~rise building (up to '00 feet)
for a Cultural Arts Facility is permitted west of Marina Parkway
(Special Condition "B",. Two high-rise residential buildings (up
to 229 feet) are designated for the area north of Marina Parkway
(Special Condition "E"), The taller buildings are intended to
create focal points and an identifiable skyline for the Midbayfront
project. Such buildings are permitted because of the increased
park and open space uses designated within the Midbayfront 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 wildlife
habitats. (See also Environmental Management section and Form
and Appearance section.)
110/13(92)
III-12
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS
[:::I] 30 -
LU 35 Feet
3 I 44 Feet
14160 Feet
o:=J 75 Feet
SPECtAI... I-E)(XfT CONJITONS
@ 2 High-Rise and 1 Mid-Rise Hotel Sites
@ 1 Mid-Rise Cultural Arts Faclity Site (up to 69')
rc 1 Mid-Rise Ottice Site (up to 95')
Ql Viewing Tower Site/Nature Interpretive Center
rtl 2 High-Rise Residential Sites (up to 229')
f) Special Ard:itectllal FeatLXe
Building
Heig,ts
Exhibit 5
NOTE: Areas without height rE9Jlatioos
are not pIann8d for any buMngs
c-
,
I
I
,
i!
.
II
..
)
----~
_ ~ L.________
I
(1-U n A VISTA
lOCaJ'cOOs~ Program
---f~
~[~,'~~_.!
,oll3<W1 ~ f J
Policy 01. 1.B
(10/13/92)
Research and Limited Manufacturina. A single building up ta 95
feet in height is permitted. subject to special review and dev-
elopment standards. to create 8 landmark building as a part of
the Rohr corporate facility. The standards shall include increased
building satbacks. a camprehensive landscaping plan and
pedestrian or other off-street circulation connections to adjacent
uses as described in the Subarea 2 Standards of the Bayfront
Specific Plan.
Permitted Intensitv. The allowed development intensity for the
Bayfront is shown in Table 3-2. Generally. the permitted building
heights, parking standards. and traffic capacity will determine the
permitted intensity. For the Central Resort District. a separate
table describing the flexible allocation of uses and intensity 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
substantially implemented.
IlI-14
TABLE 3-2
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
SUBAREA/LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Subarea 1 - Midbayfront
Central Resort District
(See Table 3-2A)
Residential - High
Residential:
949,000 sq. ft.j700 du
Visitor Commercial
Western Parcel:
Eastern Parcel:
204,000 eq. ft.j250 hotel rooms;
200,000 sq. ft.j250 hotel rooms
Public & Open Space Uses
Intensity limited by
except Cultural Arts
(2,000 seats)
minimal
Facility
permitted
75, aoo sq.
uses;
it.
Subarea 2 - Industrial
Industrial (IR & IG)
FAR 0.5 except Special Condition "e" (see notes)
Commercial - Visitor/Highway FAR 0.25 except Special Condition "Fit (see notes)
Commercial - Prof. & Admin.
Special Condition "e" (see notes)
Landscaped Parking
May be included
culation with
agreement.
in adjacent parcel for FAR cal-
required improvements and use
Parks & Recreation Intensity limited by minimal permitted uses
Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel
Industrial FAR 0.5
Subareas 4, 5, and 6
Industrial Existing Zoning
Subarea 7 - Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge
Open Space Determined by USF&WS
NOTES:
FAR "" Floor area I"IIlio or I"IItio of gro9ll buildin8 area to net developable land area
Special Condition "C": FAR of 0.75 permitted subjecllo special conditions_ See Special Condition "C' (BayfrontSpecific Plan
Sec. V .D) and Subarea 2 Standards of the Bayfront Specific Plan, provided that the com:spoooing demolition/removal of existing
structures elsewbere on the ROOr campus commel1&Ul"llte with the allowed bonus will OC~ur in a timely fashion and uaociated
Il"llfTic impa.ts will be miligaled to LOS "D' or better Sl the Bay BlvdJ"E" Streetll_5 inten;-hange
Special Condition 'F", In the event additional land area is gained for development of propertiea located al the northe..t and
southeut comer. of Bay Boulevard and "1" Slreel by covering adjacent dl'linage cbannela, the On-sile FAR and setbacka may
vary in accordance with Special Condition "F' (Bayfront Specific Plan Sec. V.D) and Subarea 2 Standard. of the Bayfroot
Specific Plan
(10/l3/92)
11I-15
TABLE 3-2A
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Subarea 1 - Midbayfront
Central Resort District Building Allowance
Land Uee Cateaorv
Minimum
Building
Sa. Ft. Read.
Target
Building
Sa.Ft.-
Maxiaum
Dll/Hotel
Rooms
Residential-Mixed Use
100,000
1,000,000
406,000
300 du
Commercial-Visitor
1,503,000
1,360 rm
Commercial-PrOf. & Admin.
20,000
60,000
N/A
Public & Open Space
..
Maximum Building Area Permitted
1,969,000 sq. ft.
The target building sq- ft. in any calegol'}' may he exce"ded by up 10 20% provided !balthe increase is offset by a com:sponding
reduction in other categorie., and thai the increase will not produce additional unmitigatible environmental impacta. The
maximum building square feel for the emire Central RClj,()n District shall not he ucecdcd, Chlnges in building I'JUlI''C footlg/:
from one category \0 another thaI decreases the level of service below the Traffic Service Threshold shall not be pennilled.
Limited hy limited permillcd uses.
(10/13/9~)
IlI-16
B. Circulation, Public Access, and Parking
The circulation improvements to serve the Bayfront result from a number of basic objectives, including
convenient vehicular and pedestrian access, natural habitat protection, traffic capacity constraints, parking, and
incorporating public transit via the trolley stations east of 1-5 at "E" Street and "H" Street.
1. Existing- Conditions
The regional entries to the Bayfront are limited by the off-ramp configurations of Interstate 5 and the
location of wetland resources. At the present time access is available at "E" Street, "H" Street, and "1"
Street. One additional bridge at lOP" Street provides for a local connection to the east side of I~5 but
no freeway on or off-ramps are provided. The southerly and inland portions of the Bayfront are ade-
quately served by existing local streets. Because of their location, the "H" Street ramps primarily serve
the Rohr, Inc. facilities, and the "1" Street ramps serve the marina and Port District lands westerly of
Rohr. "J" Street also serves as the southerly termination of Marina Parkway, which is constructed from
the "J" Street/Bay Boulevard intersection west and north to the Midbayfront within the Port District
jurisdiction. It has been constructed as a divided roadway with a landscaped median. It is proposed
to be extended north into the Midbayfront 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 Boulevard also has been improved as a frontage road serving the areas easterly of the railroad right~
of-way. The improved portions extend from "L" Street to "E" Street. "P" Street (Lagoon Drive) is
currently being improved in conjunction with the Rohr, Inc. expansion, from Bay Boulevard to the "F-
G" Street Marsh.
The San Diego Trolley operates on the railroad right-of-way on the east side of I~5. Both stations
adjacent to the Bayfront (at "H" Street and OlE" Street) are 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 Obiectives/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 are 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 CalTrans and the Port District will be required during the design and construction
phases of some roadway improvement projects.
Objective AC.]
Provide good regional access to the Bayfront from 1-5 and SR-54.
Policy AC.1.A
Completion of the CalTrans 1-5/SR-54 interchange project will provide
the required regional access to the Midbayfront. while existing
facilities provide access to other portions of the Bayfront. All facili.
ties within the jurisdiction of CalTrans shall be designed and operated
in a manner consistent with State standards.
(10/13/91)
IIl-17
Objective AC.2
Policy AC.2.A
Policy AC.2.B
Objective AC. 3
...
Policy AC.3.A
Policy AC.3.B
(10/13/92)
Provide for convenient access to the Bayfront for visitors and residents of
community areas east of 1-5.
Convenient access shall be maintained by assuring that traffic
congestion does not fall below the City's established threshold
standard: LOS "e" at all signalized intersections. except for 2 hours
per day when LOS "0" is permitted. The City's threshold standards
recognize that the management of the freeway system is under the
control of State and Federal agencies, end, therefore signalized
intersections at freeway ramps are not included in the City's
threshold standards. Any proposed development projel=t which has
the potential to adversely affect compliance with this threshold
standard shall be evaluated with a traffic study and approved 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).
Ill-I 8
RAP--
pacmq Existing TroRey
[Ji[J Existing Trolley Stop
E=:J S.D. & AE. Raifoad
OTl-fll
r.......1 Regional Bicycle Route
r:""-"1 Local Bicycle Route
roooooo~:r Pedestrian Route
arculation
Element
Exhibit 6
VEHICUlAR
~ 1-5 Freeway
~ Existing Arterials
~ Plamed Arterials
I
\
,
,
I g'\,o . 0"
(> <:>od'. ..~o
.... !if.........~,.~~oo
. _._....~....._. ~ooooo._.~oo..... ..~o
." !!W!!!!., 0 0-000 <1(;~.. .. 00
. ooo'j,g.ooo~oooo .00 In> o!I-g 'h.. ....~
. m&"Y .g ~.: "'"
. glr: :~
~'"
:rc~-;-
"'",/>D.
.;';~It.,
--- """";,
lti.~:s.:_-~;':'"
f-
! "-'''''-',,-, ;/
/IJ ~b~t::::l~C-:===-l=
/1 ,i -~-
f P
/) )}
Ii .,
/~---'--
----._---
.,~':'~je~~~.~~"
..
"''''''''''0''''''''0'''' ,~~~;..~,
;1
II
"IIDI
I
"
II
..
5
~r9~
:~ir
---'l~~-CC~="
-~
01'
Hm_J'
r--
(1-IUlA VISTA
LOCaI Coastal Program
c4r~r""'l
Fi"""'1~
101131921 ~ rn.A
Policy AC.3.C
Objective AC.4
Policy AC.4.A
Objective AC.S
Policy AC.5.A
Objective AC.6
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 designed and
constructed in accordance with the applicable Environmental
Management policies.
Create auto-free zones along the shoreline and other areas which have
unique environmental conditions or potential, and make provision for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Circulation Element Map designates pedestrian and bicycle routes
along the perimeter of the Midbayfront. saparate from the vehicle
access routes. These shall be implemented concurrent with adjacent
development. Public access to the Nature Interpretive Center within
the Wildlife Refuge shall ba limitad 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 "mini-transit" vehicles or
private jitneys.
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 and 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 arterials by maintaining
a mix of land uses where peak traffic generating periods are staggered
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 Midbayfront will balance traffic
demands of the employment oriented development throughout other
areas of the Bayfront. All development within the Bayfront shan be
consistent with the land 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 bridge over
1.5 shall be utilized to provide Midbayfront access for local residents.
Provision for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles,
shall be made within the bridge travelway.
Circulation routes and services which exist or are provided within the
urban core of Chula Vista shall be extended to and through the
III-20
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. Roadwav Imnrovement Objectives/Policies
The following objectives/policies relate to the construction/improvement of roadways within the
Bayfront.
Objective RI.l
Policy Rl.l.A
POlicy Rl.l.B
Objective RI.2
Policy RI.2.A
(10/13/92)
Marina Parkway and Tidelands Avenue are to be constructed to serve
development within the Midbayfront subarea.
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 Marina 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 parkway character for Marina Parkway, no curbside
parking should be permitted, since the off-street parking standards
herein will provide adequate parking for coastal visitors. Landscaped
parking in the SOG&E ROW north of Lagoon Drive shall be available
for overflow and special event parking demands.
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 will move westerly 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 westerly to the
first Midbayfront intersection. This will provide additional capacity
to maintain adequate traffic flow at the major project entry.
Improve Bayfront access through improvements to the "E" Street bridge
and on- and off-ramps to 1-5.
New on- and off-ramps. and re.striping of the "E" Street bridge traffic
lane. are being completed by CalTran. in conjunction with the I-S/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 be limited to
111-2l
Objective RI.3
Policy RI.3.A
Objective R 14
Policy RI.4.A
that which can be served by these improvements. within the traffic
threshold standard.
Extend ftF" Street westerly as Lagoon Drive to serve as secondary/local
access route into the Bayfront.
Lagoon Orive will function as an important internal circulation element
in the Bayfrant and provide a critical secondary outlet from the
Bayfront to the east side of the freeway. Extending it as a Class I
Collector Street (four lanes), to intersect with Marina Parkway. will
permit the maximum flexibility for providing area-servjng bus loop
routes through the Bayfront that connect to the regional serving
trolley system. It will also provide for necessary service loops for
underground utilities. 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 1-5 with the regional coastal bicycle trail.
Maintain public access to the Nature Interpretive Center on Gunpowder
point.
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 andlor shared with private development
in the Midbayfront. The parking needs of visitors to the Nature
Interpretive 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 stations and the adjacent community; and 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.l
Policy PT .1.A
(10/13/91)
Maximize use of the public transit services by visitors and residents of the
Bayfront.
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 are included in the
IIl-22
Policy PT.1.B
Objective PT.2
Policy PT.2.A
Plan. These opportunities, which shall be addressed in the Compre-
hensive Transit Service Plan for the Midbayfront. include:
Bus Imorovements. Provide for convenient bus stop locations on
convenient travel loops within the Bayfront and at areas of concen-
trated activity.
Pedestrian Access. Provide for convenient. direct pedestrian access
to the Midbayfront from the -EIO Street Trolley Station.
The Circulation Element provides for roadway right-qf-ways with
sufficient capacity and opportunities for bus stop locations to
facilitate convenient bus service into the Baytrant along Marina
Parkway, "E" Street, Lagoon Drive, and 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.
Encourage private transit services where feasible.
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 Bicvcle Circulation Objectives/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.l
Policy PB. 1 .A
Policy PB.1.B
(10/13/921
Provide pedestrian access to the shoreline.
Continuous shoreline access is provided adjacent to the 100 foot
Primary Buffer 85 designated in the Environmental Management
section. An improved public path shall be provided within the park
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 ItF.G It Street Marsh due to
the limited setback area.
In order to provide continuity with adjacent planning areas. pedestrian
shoreline access shall interconnect with other existing or proposed
I1I-23
circulation routes. Project level planning and coordination shall
provide for:
Connection South to Port District Lands. In the Marina Parkway area,
publiC access will be integrated with Port District development. This
will result in a continuous public access route with intermittent
exposure to the water edge within the Port lands.
Connection North to Sweetwater River Proiect. Pedestrian and
bicycle routes in the Bayfront shall have the potential to interconnect
with the recreational improvements included in the C~ltransl Army
Corps of Engineers project, and/or the Chula vista Greenbelt trail
system proposed in the Sweetwater River Valley. The filling of
wetlands for bike paths is not permitted. including. but not limited to.
any extension of the toe of the CalTrans fill slope for the freeway into
the mitigation areas of the connector marsh.
Connection with Chute Vista Neiahborhoods. 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. Parkin!:! Obiectives/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 Bayffont 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.l
Provide adequate parking for all developed uses in the Bayfroot.
Policy PK.l.A
Off-street parking spaces shall be provided for developed uses
according the following schedule:
Business and Drofessional offices: 1 space per 300 square feet of
floor area; minimum of 4 spaces:
Dance. assemblv. or exhibition halls without fixed seats: 1 space per
50 square feet of floor area used for dancing or assembly;
(10/13/92)
1II-24
Policy PK.1.B
(10/13/92)
Dwellinas. multiole: 1.5 spaces per studio or 1 bedroom unit; 2
spaces per two bedroom; 2.5 spacss per three bedroom or larger
unit (includes 0.3 space per unit guest parking);
Hotels. motels: 1 space for 8ach living or sleeping unit. plus 1 space
for every 25 rooms or portion thereof {Hotels and motels shall not be
used for long term residence};
Manufacturina manls. research & testina laboratories: 1 space per
1.5 persons employed at anyone time in the normal operation of the
plant or 1 space per 800 square feet of floor area. which~ever is great-
er;
Medical and dental offices. clinics: 1 space per 200 square feet of
floor area; minimum of 5 spaces;
Restaurants. bars. and niaht clubs: 1 space per 2.5 permanent seats,
excluding and dance floor or assembly area without fixed seats which
shall be calculated separately at 1 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 seats, whichever is greater;
Retail stores: 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area;
SOOfts arenas. auditoriums. theaters: 1 space per 3.5 seats of
maximum seating capacity;
Wholesale establishments. warehouses. service and maintenance
~: 1 space per 1.5 persons employed at anyone 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 Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance.
Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for developed uses according
the following schedule. Only those uses listed below are required to
provide bicycle parking. Bicycle parking facilities shall be fixed
storage racks or devices designed to secure the frame and wheel of
the bicycle.
Business and orofessional offices (over 20,000 square feet of gross
floor area): 5 spaces;
ShoDDina center (over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area):
space per 33 automobile spaces required;
Fast food restaurant. coffee shoo. or delicatessen: 5 spaces;
I1I-25
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
(10113/92)
Other eatina and drinkina establishments: 2 spaces;
Commercial recreation: 1 space per 33 automobile spaces required.
Provide adequate parking for all public park and open space uses in the
Baylront.
Public parking areas shall be provided at community parks. The
parking areas shall be integrated into the open space areas close to
the roadways and. where possible. screened from view. With the
exception of the National Wildlife Refuge. for which. no separate
parking is required. one parking place for every 10.000 square feet
of park or accessible open space shall be provided. Parking for public
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 overlap. The
method's and criteria set forth in Shared Parkina 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 shall 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.
Parking 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.
Screenina. Where feasible, parking will be screened from view from
the major arterials by the use of landscaped berms and tree planting.
II1-26
Objective PK.5
POlicy PK.5.A
(10/13/92)
!xQ.e.. Where possible, open, large scale parking will be avoided in
favor of underground or smaller disaggregated parking areas separat-
ed by buildings or landscaping. Structured parking shall be encour-
aged where additional open space or other public benefit can be
provided. A minimum of 75% of the required parking for the Resort
Core District and residential uses in the Midbayfront 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 Bayfront.
Where parking is incorporated into the SDG&E ROW through the use
of the bonus provisions of the plan, the parking areas shall be
landscaped with a continuous perimeter planting of trees and ground
covers. The tree planting will be tightly spaced to provide a 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.
1II-27
C. Physical Form and Appearance
The Bayfrant provides a unique opportunity to establish a harmonious relationship between the natural
setting and the manMmade environment. The area's natural resources and scenic quality provide a setting
which have a distinctive appearance and in turn, 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. Existimz Conditions
The Bayfrant, by virtue of its location on San Diego Bay. represents a visual resour-ce for the city
and the region. Given the visibility of the coastal zone from major highways and streets. the
Bayfrant has the potential to create a defining City image.
The Bayfroot is characterized, from north to south, by the National Wildlife Refuge with the Nature
Interpretive Center, a relatively flat upland area which is currently vacant (Midbayfront Subarea),
major industrial facilities associated with Rohr, Inc., the SDG&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 Interpretive 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 Anoearance 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 F A.I
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 the land
Use Plan 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 and Development
Intensity section. The majority of new development shall be visitor
serving commercial. park, recreation, and residential, with only a very
limited amount of additional industrial development permitted. The
scale of these new uses combined with improved landscaping and
(10/13/92)
11I-28
Objective FA.3
Policy FA.3.A
Objective F A.4
POlicy FA.4.A
Objective FA.S
Policy FA.5.A
screening of exiting industrial development will benefit the image of
the Bayfront as a whole.
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.
The land Use Plan designates improved public parkland and open
space along the shoreline area of the Midbayfront. landscape and
improvement standards for these areas will result in a major improve-
ment in the visual quality of the shoreline.
Remove, or mitigate by landscaping, structures or conditions which have
a blighting influence on the area.
New development within the Bayfrant shall be constructed according
to the high quality and aesthetic standards set forth in the Land Use
Plan. Continuing development and/or redevelopment will displace
abandoned or substandard structures which have a blighting
influence. Any areas disturbed by development shall be completely
landscaped. However, the landscaping shall be consistent with the
Environmental Management policies herein, and shall also give priority
to the use of drought~tolerant plant materials.
Develop a readily understandable and memorable relationship of the
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.
New development within the Midbayfront shall be controlled by
policies herein, including specific height, use, parking, and develop.
ment intensity restrictions. In addition, it shall be further controlled
by a nmaster 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.
110/13/92)
I11-29
C::::-l
c:::=:J
E3
Firm Architectural Edge
Irregular ArchileclLxal Edge
r....~ Formal Street Tree Planting
~_:~~ Informal Grove/Street Planting
~ Landscape Screening
fEo;;.g- Landscape Parking
r,;,,:~ Distant View to Prolecl
~,<
[!C~ Gafeway
J
/
J
1
~r-
-~(~---
-------'1'
(l-n n A VISTA
LOCafCOOst~1 Program
C~~ Focal Point
~ Major Open Space and Protected Areas
'-~-
-~if
"
w-
'-"loy,,,",
Form &
Appearance
Exhibit 7
~-
...::=....,i;;;..~.!"-..
')
,.
SD..::i'~
"
,~
I
I'
II
6'
__J;
____~ _J_ ___!~
-,,- ._--.~--
"T.__~
a.;;;;=r.~-
......!. ""'Oh,. 7
~""'=;;;r '
JO,I1J.W,I... IL ----::
3. Bavfront Gatewav Obiectives/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 siting and design of adjoining structures.
These special gateway locations are shown on the Form and Appearance Map, Exhibit 7.
Objective GT.!
Policy GT. 1 .A
Policy GT.1.8
POlicy GT. 1.C
(10/13/92)
Maximize the sense of arrival and invitation to the Bayfrant via the "E"
Street entry.
"E" Street Entry from east of 1-5. A dense canopy of trees on both
sides of Marina Parkway shall 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 shall be closely spaced and in a regular pattern to achieve this
objective. However. plant species and spaCing shall be selected and
designed to protect and enhance public views to the bay. Immediate-
ly west of the freeway future buildings on the north side should be
sited and designed to reinforce the sense of entry created by the
street trees and existing building mass of the restaurant on the south
side.
Southbound 1-5 off-rornD 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 Bayfront.
"E" Street (Marina ParkwavllBav Boulevard intersection. When
approaching and crossing Bay Boulevard. the continuation of street
trees and landscaping will create a view corridor 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
criteria will locate buildings to frame and not block the long range
view to the water.
Marina ParkwavlTidelands Avenue intersection. 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.
Marina Parkwav/GunDowder Point Drive intersection. To the west of
the Marina ParkwaylTidelands Avenue intersection, views will open
up to the bay. park and wetlands. The residential area on the north
III-31
Policy GT.l.D
side of Marina Parkway marks the urban edge of the bayfront and
helps direct views towards the open spaces. Street trees and
landscaping along the parkway will also direct and frame views.
Views to Vener Pond (wildlife refuael. The above described views
should be followed by panoramic views of across park and open
space areas to Vener Pond. Gunpowder Point and San Diego Bay.
Major massing of trees shall be avoided along this portion of the
shoreline to protect the view.
4. Architectural &files 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 attention.
Objective AE.l
Policy AE.l.A
Policy AE.l.B
Policy AE.l.C
Objective AE.2
Policy AE.2.A
Policy AE.2.B
00/13/92)
Design development to appropriately respond to functional requirements
(e.g., buffer, transition, etc.) created by its location within the Bayfront.
Structures shall be sited a sufficient distance from natural habitat
areas, as indicated in the Environmental Management section, to
protect the natural setting and prevent interference with wildlife.
Structures shall be sited at a sufficient distance from the marsh edge
or open space edge to ensure unencumbered pedestrian and bicycle
access.
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.
Utilize firm and irregular appearing development edges to enhance the
appearance and function of development in the Bayfront.
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 berms or mass
plantings.
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
III-32
distinction between open space areas and adjoining development.
This prevents harsh contrasts between different areas, allows visual
penetration between areas, and variation in the spatial experiences
and qualities in these areas.
5. Views Obiectives/Policies
Objective VW.l
Plan and develop the Bayfront to ensure provision of important views to,
from and within the project area.
Policy VW.1.A
Views from the Freewav and Maior Entrv. Development.shall provide
an attractive view onto the site and establish a visual relationship
with the Bay, marshes, and Bay-related development. High rise
structures shall be sited in the general location indicated on the
Building Heights exhibit to minimize view obstruction.
Views from Roadwavs Within the Site (particularly from Marina
Parkway, to the marshlands, Bay, parks and other Bay-related
development.) Development and activity sites shall preserve a sense
of proximity to the Bay and marshlands.
Views from the Perimeters of the Bavfront Outward. This view is
primarily a pedestrian-oriented stationary view and more sustained.
These views will be experienced from the various parts of the open
space and pathway system and enable persons to renew visual con-
tact at close range with the Bay and marshlands. Some close-range
pedestrian views may be blocked to protect sensitive species in the
Wildlife Refuge.
Hiah-rise DeveJooment 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. Landscaoe Character and Function Obiectives/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. I
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.
(10/13/91:)
1II-33
Policy LS.1.A
POlicy LS.l.B
Policy LS.l.C
Policy LS.l.D
(lO/13/92)
LandsC80e Screenina. Dense plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
used in certain locations throughout the Bayfront to serve three
purposes: 1) to diminish the visual impact of large existing industrial
structures. such as those of Rohr. Inc.. the SDG&E plant and
transmission towers. and extensive parking and outdoor storage
areas; 2) to help define major entry points to the Bayfront and to
frame views; and. 31 to be used in masses as visual stopping points
to limit views and provide natural vertical elements.
Parkin~ Area Plantina. Automobile parking has been recognized by
SOG&E as a compatible joint use of their 150.foot wideJight-of-way
that bisects the entire Bayfront. In order to diminish the visual
impact of the power lines and to strengthen the ground plane
connection between both sides of the right-of-way. an aggressive
planting program shall be implemented with parking improvements
beneath the power lines. SDG&E criteria will only permit planting
which can be maintained at no more than fifteen feet in height,
thereby maintaining sufficient clearance at the lowest point in the
power line catenary. Planting in the parking areas shall establish a
dense ground plane massing of shrubs and 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 Bayfront'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 Plantina. 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
predictable form characteristics to achieve strong linear avenues that
guide views and establish perspective.
/lJ-34
,"-,'='._"""''''''=<'''<''M''","""",==.""" ,'--_",""''''''''''m'''''''~X''YX''''~_".-..._~,=
FUNCTION
Landscape
Screening
Parking Area
Planting
Informal
Groves
Formal
Street Tree
TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE
TABLE 3-3
CHARACTERISTICSI
~ 40 to 60 ft. high
~ Upright form
~ Evergreen
~ 10 to 15 ft. high
~ Globular or multi-
stem form
~ Evergreen
~ 40 to 80 ft. high
~ Up-right and open
branching to con-
trast with dense
vertical form
~ 40 to 60 ft. high
~ Crown shaped form
REPRESENTATIVE
SPECIES
~ Melllleuca Sp.
~ Eucalyptus Sp.
~ Ligustrum Nerium
~ Oleander
~ Platanus acerfolia
(to match existing
park)
~ Pine sp.
Ficus nitida
~ Ficus rubiginosa
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATIONS
~ Bay Boulevard
~ SDG&E ROW
~ Parks
~ Tidelands Avenue
~ Marina Parkway
~ "E" Street
IHeight may be limited in areas adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge (see Environmental
Management) .
(lO/13/92)
IIl-35
D. Utilities and Areawide Grading
The utility improvements proposed to serve the Bayfrant are interrelated to provide the most cost-effective
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 but 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. Existine: Conditions
Soils and GeoloQ: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 settlement hazards are attributable to the presence of relatively shallow surficial deposits of soft
compressible bay mud throughout the historic marsh lands and the tidal flats, as well as in deeper
water areas. This mud, an organic silty 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 CanyonlSan Diego Bay/Tijuana fault. and the east-west Otay fault. Although the
exact trace of each is not known, the San Diego Bay/Tijuana fault alignment is probably situated
approximately in the center of the Bay, about one-half mile west of the Chula Vista waterfront.
The Gtay 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 ofrenewed activity along the San Diego
Bay/Tijuana or other nearby faults would be moderate to severe ground shaking, with surface
rupture on the Chula Vista site unlikely.
The planning implications of these soils and geologic conditions relate to public safety and the
economics of development. There is the possibility of soil liquefaction during a severe earthquake.
110/13/91)
11I-36
This is of special concern in tideland areas reclaimed 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 engineering 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 Roadwav Imnrovements
The northern portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront (north of "F" Street) is primarily vacant at this
time. Utilities have been stubbed to the boundaries of the site and a major sewer line passes along
the western edge of the property. Most of the utility lines are 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 1-5 westerly and northerly to the north end
of Rohr Industries (at the prolongation of "G" Street). The majority of that street, 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 (SDCW A). The SDCW A 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 Lorna Sewage Treatment Plant. Future
improvements to the regional system may include a pump station at the northeastern edge of the
Midbayfront.
2. Utility Service Obiectives/Policies
Ohjective US. I
Provide adequate sizing of utility lines to assure sufficient capacity for the
most intensive uses.
Policy US .1.A
The schematic water and sewer systems to serve the proposed
development are depicted in Exhibit 8. Utility Systems Map.
Policy US.l.B
The basic water service for the area shall be water mains in "e"
Street/Marina Parkway. "F" Street/lagoon Drive. "G" Street. and "H"
Street. Water main sizes will be determined through detailed
engineering studies for the proposed new development. Static water
pressure within the system shall be maintained to the
(10/13/92)
II1.3?
~(fJ
:1;;E
~
:Ji
(j)
co
H\
: I ~~
iii p~---
"-
lco
:1~
: :'
:"'il
,lj'll<-
'ij:jL-
.. ~
.
-
:0
:E
)(
LJ.J
,_-
-...,
-~'1
I,
'I
_i J
I'
i
I
"
h '
I)."!, /
~ ...1.."
'I
. ~.
~
~
-
~I
II
~~H__
I
!
I
i
I,
i
,
~
;;;
i5
5 ~
~ 0-
U) W
l1l ~ ~
~ :S 6:. ~
to CD t5 ~
~ ~ ~ &
rnrn~.
~~
5~
~
rn
<~.... j'.
_.:::::>.:..-,.::::.,,~~. I
-',;::
I'
~~"':<o:, "\
""<0; ~
\1 ----__
"
POlicy US.1.C
POlicy US.1.0
satisfaction of the Water District and Fire Marshall. A water main in
"GOO Street connects the lines in Bay Boulevard and Marina Parkway.
This pipeline is necessary to maintain a looped system for devel-
opment of the project. An easement for pipeline operation should be
maintained even though the area may be fenced by or conveyed to
Rohr. Inc.
Phased development may require off-site pipeline construction.
especially in industrial areas. to maintain adequate pressure and fire
flows. The major factor in sizing pipelines shall 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 metering facilities
would be constructed.
Objective GR.l
3. Areawide Gradinl! Objectives/Policies
Policy GR.1.A
Policy GR.1.B
POlicy GR.1.C
Protect existing natural resources from any significant adverse impacts
during construction.
Special care shall be taken in development proposals adjacent to
wetland habitat to avoid or minimize problems of silting and oil or
chemical leakage. A major siltation basin shall be built in the
Midbayfront to accept surface drainage and provide for desilting
during and after construction of development projects and for oil and
chemical entrapment.
All grading and stOCkpiling of earthen materials is prohibited between
November 1 and March 31, except where proposed land development
meets the requirements of Section V.J.2 of the Bayfront Specific
Plan. Grading from April 1 through October 31 shall be subject to
standard practice.
All grading shall comply with the environmental protection policies of
the Environmental Management section. Refer to the two back.
ground documents referenced in Section III.E. Environmental
Management, Background/Existing Conditions. herein. which provide
relevant information for the design and evaluation of grading in the
Midbayfront.
4. Utility and Gradinl! Desil!n Obiectives/Policies
Objective GD.1
00/13/92)
Provide for an adequate on. site storm drainage system to preclude storm
water run-off development from draining directly into wetland habitat
without adequate filtering of sediments or pollutants.
IlI-39
Policy GD.1.A
Policy GD.1.B
Policy GD.1.C
Objective GD.2
Policy GD.2.A
(10/13/92)
Design to accommodate drainage of storm flows shall consider the
elevation of higher high tide and require gravity pipe or street flow to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Special design criteria shall be required at the marshes to reduce
problems of silting and oil or chemicals entering wetlands in storm
water runoff.
Development within the Bayfrant shall comply with all applicable
regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge EliminQtion 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.
Excavation 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 design of
all subterranean building components and related features. Final
design shall ensure that no permanent de-watering systems are
required.
1II-40
Eo Environmental Management
1. Back2round/Existimz 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 the Bayfront. With the
1988 establishment of the 316 acre National Wildlife Refuge, a substantial portion of this objective
was achieved. Virtually all the wetlands and biologically-valuable upland resources identified in
the 1984 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. Acoordingly. the
primary environmental management objective of the Land Use Plan is the on-going, long-term
protection of critical natural habitat areas. In addition, 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.I.C. and EM.I.D. required herein, the following background documents are hereby
referenced:
1. Final EIR Volume I & II for Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal 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;
3. Chula Vista Investors' (CVI) Proposed Mitigation Measures for Final
EIR - CVI Midbayfront Development Plan, December 16, 1990.
(Design Requirements USFWS);
4. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Merjan
(CVI), dated January 15, 1991;
5. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated March 11, 1991;
6. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated March 22,1991;
(t0I13/92\ IIl-41
7. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated May 8, 1991;
8. Letter to Douglas D. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks Harper,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, dated May 23, 1991;
9. Letter to Diana Richardson. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks
Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, dated January 14, 1992; and;
10. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated February 6, 1992;
Objective EM. I
2. Environmental Mana2ement Obiectives/Policies
Policy EM.1.A
Policy EM.1.8
Policy EM.1.C
(10/13/92)
Provide for the long-term protection and enhancement of the critical
natural habitat areas by cooperating in a multi-jurisdictional planning and
implementation program with adequate safeguards and guarantees.
Coordination with the San Diego Unified Port District in the develop-
ment of plans and 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.
Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IUSF&WS) shall
be maintained for the development of plans and programs adjacent
to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
Habitat Restoration and Manaaement Plan. To ensure an orderly and
efficient implementation of the various restoration and enhancement
features and actions specified for the Midbayfront, a comprehensive
Habitat Restoration and Management Plan shall be prepared and ap_
proved prior to initiation of development within the Midbayfront.
The Habitat Restoration and Management Plan 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:
a. Engineering design, grading plan, and cost analysis.
b. Vegetation design, including specifications for planting program,
source of plants, etc.
c. Implementation schedule and phasing.
1II-42
Policy EM.1.0
Policy EM.1.E
(10/13/92)
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 participation by the developer, the
City, the California Coastal Commission. the USF&WS, and other re-
Source management agencies.
Biofaciesl Resources Manaaement Plan. Additional protection of the
biological reSOurces in the Wildlife Refuge shall be provided by the
preparation and implementation of a comprehensive Biological
Resources Management Plan 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 Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management
h. Construction Monitoring and Management
i. CC&R's/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
j. CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Requirement
Preparation of this plan will involve participation by the Developer,
the City, USF&WS, the California Coastal Commission and 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
1I1-43
Policy EM.l.F
Policy EM.l.G
(lOl13!9:2)
provide for specific protection and enhancement measures for the
wetland and upland resources with specific design provisions for the
critical wetland buffer conditions illustrated in a series of sections.
The various mitigation features and actions specified for the Mid-
bayfront 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 actions focus on the
interface areBS between the Midbayfront Subarea and the adjoining
National Wildlife Refuge. These features and actions BrB summarized
in Table 3-4.
Midbavfront 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:
IRefer to Exhibits 10 & 11)
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.
IlI-44
.
~ Wetlands Buffer Zone
~ Primary Buffer Zone
Ii:Wl Public Park and Open Space
~mmm:jj1~ Wetland Emancemenl
[IJ Desiltation Basin
~ Nature Interpretive Center
IIIIIIIIi1 Sweetwater Marsh National
- - Refuge
Environmental
Management
Bement
Exhibit 9
* Potential Envronmentaly
Sensitive Areas.
il
1
_~~______~IL
-lr--------lr-
-1t=j,.. "
~
II
jL___ ____~__'
,I
II
IlL"
~-~
Note: Refer also to Policy EM.1.L
11 ..
I .
01
lHl ILA VISTA
LOCafcoastaJ Program
__J__
.c.c. -_~ -r
~f:'::Y~9,1
~"._'':;-"
lO/lJ.11;2' _ "
Buffer Zone Section
Exhibit 10
First Row
of Residential
( Two Story Maximum )
* ea'M
-if' F$e ~
~c
~ji
'"
I~
ii~F
I~f.
I
I
I
Public Park
( Active)
Width Varies
100 Feet Minimum
Primary Zone ~ Wetland Buffer
100 Feet 100 Feet Wetlands
Note:
VerncaISca~Exa~ted
:to Location of Fence and Berm
withi1 Prinary Zone Varies
CHULA VISTA
Local CoastaJ Program
Policy EM.1.H
Policy EM.1.1
00/13/92)
Midbavfront South Interface ArBB. Because of pre--existing physical
constraints at and adjoining the "F~G'" Street Marsh area. a different
mitigation approach shall be employed for the South Intertace Area.
Specifically, along the north and wast margins of the "F-G" Street
marsh area, the road areas of "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) and Marina
Parkway, together with dense vegetational screening. shall serve as
the buffer area.
Vegetational screening of "F-G" Street marsh from Lagoon Drive and
Marina Parkway will employ native plants including coastal sage
scrub and maritime succulents. Chain-link fence will be incorporated
in and largely concealed by tha vegetational scraening'. 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
maintain a desUting basin on the north side of "F" Street. Control
structures will include a low flow stage. three-chamber trap for oil,
grease. and particulates.
Because the USF&WS anticipates use of the "F-G" Street Marsh for
expanding the potential nesting habitat for the endangered Light
Footed Clapper Rail, there will be no public access and 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 are about 1 00 feet wide by approximately 1.400
feet long (totalling approximately 3 acres I will be excavated and
planted to create a corridor of salt marsh habitat immediately
landward of the present shoreline. This marsh corridor will be
protected from wave erosion by a rip-rap barrier and will facilitate
movement of sensitive bird species (e.g., Clapper Raill 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 mudflats and eel grass. storm drain outfalls to the Bay
will have flow energy dissipators and three-chamber type traps for
oil. grease, and particulates. In addition, irrigation and other water
sources in the development area shall be managed to achieve minimal
to zero freshwater outflows to the Bay during the dry season.
11I-47
Policy EM.1.J
(lO/13/92)
A monitoring program shall be implemented to ensure that Bay
mudflats and eel grass are not adversely effected by storm drain
outflow.
To protect the biologically.rich mudflat and eelgrass meadows in the
areas of the Bay bordering on the National Wildlife Refuge, no
recreational boating facilities are permitted in this pan of the Bay
without specific approval of the USF&WS and the Army Corps of
Engineers. and the California Coastal Commission.
Midbavfront Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Features. The
following actions involve habitat restoration and enhancement which
shall be incorporated in the development design in order to provide
mitigation for development impacts by improving the quality and
biological values of wetlands and uplandS generally within the Wildlife
Refuge (Refer to Final E.I.R. Midbayfront Local Coastal Program
Resubmittall.
Restoration bv Uoland Conversion to Wetlands. At the "F-G" Street
site, upland conversion to wetland shall be provided at three locations
(see Exhibit 10, "F-G" Street Marsh Conceptual Restoration and
Enhancement Planl as follows:
i) Upland 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 San Diego Bay.
In addition. at the "0" 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 Existina Habitat. At the "F-G" Street site, existing
habitat shall be enhanced at three locations as follows:
iJ Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded high marsh along the east margin
of the "F-G" Street salt marsh (See Exhibit 10),
1II-48
Policy EM.1.K
(10/13/92)
iil Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub bordering the
south margin of the "F.G" Street Marsh.
iiil Provide new coastal sage habitat (or upgrade existing severely
degraded coastal 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 as shown in Exhibit 10.
Enhancement of Water Quality. In order to enhance the quality of
wetland habitat at the "F-G" Straet sita. the supply of water to the
site shall be enhanced by the following:
iI 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 streeNevel view (except at selected pedestrian viewpoints) by
massed plantings 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 1 DO-foot wida Primary Zone along the northern and
northwestern interface with the Wildlife Refuge (i.e., "E" Street.
Vener and Sweetwater marshesl. 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.
Phasina of Environmental Mitiaation Measuresllmorovements for the
Midbavfront Subarea. The preparation of management plans and 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 Plan. Exhibit 2. as CRD. RH. or PR in the
Midbay front Subarea, as follows:
1II-49
Policy EM.l.L
(10/13/92)
i) Except for the restoration and enhancement features specified
above for the "0" Street fill and Gunpowder Point. all 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 &
Wildlife Serivce in required for the "0. Street fill (15 acre salt marsh)
and the Gunpowder Point (2 acre freshwater marsh), which -are
located within tha Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The
implementation of these enhancement features shall be the
responsibility of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Environmental Manaaement of Undelineated Resources. Sensitive
habitats exist in areas not delineated. including but not limited to the
Faivre Street Subarea. the Inland Parcel Subarea. and the" J" Street
Marsh. It is required that all environmental resources are analyzed by
an environmental professional, and that an Environmental Manage-
ment Plan is adopted to protect any sensitive habitats discovered,
prior to the commencement of any additional development.
III-50
TABLE 3-4
SUMMARY OF RESTORATlONiENHANCEMENT FEATURES
AND ACTIONS FOR MIDBA YFRONT AREA
Habitat Restoration (New}
Aooroximate Area 'Acres\
Wetland
I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Freshwater Marsh
Salt Marsh (expansion)
Salt Marsh (extension)
Salt Marsh at RD" Street Fill
Fresh Water Karsh on Gunpowder Point
Salt Marsh at Bay Margin
3.5
2.3
2.0
15.0
2.0
3.0
Uoland
7)
Coastal Sage Scrub
a) Perimeter screening
b) Berm
2.0
Habitat Enhancement (UoGrade\
Wetland
8)
Salt Marsh (high)
0.5
Uoland
9)
Coastal sage Scrub
0.5
Water Oualitv Enhancement
10) Desilting Basin
11) Improved Tidal Flushing -
(3 @ 48 inch diameter 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
NOTE For localion and aupplcmental informalion reiarding "F-G" $Ireei Marsh resioralion, see ExhibillO.
(10/13/92)
III-51
I
~
/
c-,-=i'::-_~'
, ~~
~.,
I ~_,
II I o'~ '
~I 1t'li
~L:lu i!1
.~ I~
) I [I
rt', ~C\ .
, ):;J. ,1\,'
u 1.1 ','~.
--'---~ _..~~
:.- ~-~-:~
'/{} / . I
I" / '_ ',. . I,
L.::~ ,
Exhibit 11
F-G Street Marsh
Conceptual Plan For
Restoration and Enhancement
UGEND
RESTORE
F'osh..-OI.'lJ.ann
'=
==
==
S._~h
Co"'lalS~.Serub
ENfW.lCE
Sall~~
~Sag.Serub
~
"""""
-
.
.,
o..il&l""'a.,..,
~.ConItcI
m"""'odr.wAcoo...
..-
mULA Vl5rA
lOCaJ' Coastal Program
i
j
w~~=>-- -_ ~i
<.~'~-----.,r-
'i-'"j --~--~--~ ~- /'-11
' __) '-, "-. _.m ill 'I
--~--___J.L.. --:--<-
=0-. _.____
h~~\~
U~~~
SOJlCE: Rick Engheemg and
David Smith & AsSOCiates
c.;.;'~IEX><<3fT1
..~ b"f~. '^'''O'N.. 11
-........., ........uo.....
10/13/92 ~~
IV. SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT OBJECfIVES 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 I . 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
development 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
Resort 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 north 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 ROWand adjacent to 1-5.
1. Soecial Subarea Conditions
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/Intensitv Objectives/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 51.A.1
The. Conceptual Development Plan for the Midbayfront depicts
general land uses in the pattern indicated on the Land Use Plan
Map, Exhibit 3. In addition, it indicates a large public lagoon of
(IQ/13/921
IV-I
(lOIJ3192)
Policy S 1.A.2
approximately 7-10 acres associated with the resort core and
adjacent public use areas and a smaller private lagoon of about
3 acres associated with residential development. Three hotels,
major commercial recreation facilities. retail and residential uses
are also located within the Resort Core. A large area of public
parks and open space. inCluding buffers adjacent to the wildlife
refuge are indicated along the northern and western perimeter.
Residential uses. support commercial, and an inn are depicted in
the Residential Village/Park Sector. Development within the
Midbayfront shall be govern by a .. master plan" which is consis-
tent with the Conceptual Development Plan and must be
approved prior to any development within the MidbaYfront.
Although a certain amount of flexibility is required as more
detailed design occurs. consistency 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 sf
1.906.000 sf
60.000 sf
75.000 sf
approx. 34 acres
approx. 8 acres
approx. 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
Professional &
Administrative
Visitor (retail)
Visitor (non.retail)
Visitor (recreation)
Residential 1300 du)
1.968.000 If
60.000 sf
150.000 sf
1.360 rooms/l.146.000 sf
206.000 sf
406.000 sf
Residential Villaael
Park Sector
Visitor (non-retail)
Residential 1700 du)
1.153.000 If
250 rooms/204.000 sf
949.000 sf
IV-2
Policy S 1 .A.2
Policy S1 .A.3
Policy S 1 .A.4
Policy S1 .A.5
Objective Sl.B
Policy S1 .B. 1
(10/]3/92)
Park Sector
Cultural Arts Facility
ll.QQQ .If
up to 2.000 _../75,000 sf
City IHiahwav Parcel
Visitor (non-retail)
200.000 .If
250 rooms/200,000 sf
Addition. building ... I. pwmln.d within the MOtor. induding publlo park u...
for r.lItrooma. em.' m.nten..oe or IItor-ve buildings, etc.
The Midbayfront shall be 8 mixed-use project which combines
into one development the facets of numerous activities so that
the whole will be more active. more economically viable. be a
more desirable place to be. and ultimately use less energy than
if these activities were separate and discrete.
Active uses such as retail. commercial recreation, and entertain-
ment shall be located away from the edges of the Subarea and
focused toward the interior around the large water feature. Only
roadways, residential and minor support commercial uses. park
and cultural arts uses shan be located along the edge of develop-
ment near wetlands.
The Implementation Plan for the Midbayfront Subarea shall
require buffer uses, including public parks, 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. B8-267-RH).
In the Central Resort District. where uses shall 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 permitted building height zones shall be defined with respect
to the wetlands wast of the SDG&E ROW. Each zone shan
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)
IV-3
Park Land/Open Space Zone . next 100 feet landward from
Primary Zone: public access and limited structures permitted
le.g.. perk pavilions. pedestrien end bicycle paths); landscaping
and structures over 6 feet (Including signs. light standards. etc.)
must be screened from view of the wetland to the satisfaction
of USF&WS and California Department of Fish and Game; bu.
i1ding height limit 30 feet.
limited Development Zone -A- - next 100 feet landward from
Parkland/Open Space Zone: building height limit 35 feet. except
the Cultural Arts Facility site where structures to 109 feet in
height are permitted as indicated in the Building Heights Map,
Exhibit 4.
limited Development Zone -B- - next 100 feet landward from
Limited Development Zone . A.: building height limit 44 feet.
except that portion of tho Central Core Sector which may be
within 300 feet of the USF&WS boundary where the height limit
shall be 75 feet and a single high-rise hotel site (up to 229 feet)
as indicated in the Building Heights Map, Exhibit 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 S, .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 IArmy Corps Permit No. 88.267.RH).
3. Circulation/Public Access Objectives/Policies
Objective S 1. C
Provide adequate public circulation and access routes commensurate
with the publicly oriented uses within the Midbayfront, including both
vehicular routes and parking, and non-vehicular access.
POlicy S, .C.'
The following public streets shall be required for the development
planned within the Midbayfront:
Marina Parkwav shall be a dedicated 4-laoe Major Street for most
of its length within the Midbayfront (6-lane major between Bay
Boulevard and first intersection west). The width of Marina
Parkway shown on Exhibit 11 in the vicinity of F & G Street
Marsh shall not be widened beyond that indicated therein.
"F" Street (lagoon Drive) shall be provided between Bay
Boulevard and Marina Parkway as a 4..Jane Collector.
Gunoowder Point Drive shall be maintained between the Nature
Interpretive Center and Marina Parkway.
(10/13/92)
IV-4
Policy S1.C.2
POlicy S1.C.3
(l0I13/n)
Access to the City/Hiahwav Sector parcel shall be addressed in
the Midbayfront -master plan" process. 8S long as it is under
separate ownership.
The following types of pedestrian/bicycle paths shall be required
for the development planned within the Midbayfront:
mtl- Bicycle and pedestrian paths that traverse the buffering
parks and one within the SOG&E 88S8ment: minimum 8 foot
bikeway with adjacent 6 foot pedestrian way (may be combined
in a single 14 foot path).
~ - Bicycle and pedestrian paths along major vehicular
ways: minimum 5'Y.1 foot sidewalk contiguous to curb and 8 foot
bikelane in street.
.I:tQL.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:
Alona oark/ooen soace buffer perimeter with Type 1 path
(including overlooks and interpretive signagel adjacent to
National Wildlife Refuge.
Within SDG&E ROW with Type 1 path extending from "F" Street
(lagoon Drivel north to connect to perimeter path along northern
subarea boundary.
"E" Street Trollev Station to Marina Parkwav with Type 2 path
along south side of "e" Street and bridge over 1-5.
Alona Marina Parkway with Type 2 on both sides of the street.
Alana "F" Street from east of 1-5 with Type 2 path along the
north side of the bridge over 1-5 to SDG&E ROW.
Alana "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) with Type 2 paths on both sides
of the street from SDG&E ROW to Marina Parkway.
Alona oerimeter of laooon in Resort Core with Type 3 path. also
connecting to entryway at SDG&E ROWI"F"Street (Lagoon
Drivel and private lagoon in Residential Village/Park Sector.
These paths shall be integrated into the architecture/urban design
of adjacent development and shall accommodate a variety of
pedestrian activities - shopping. strolling. people-watching.
IV-5
Objective S1.D
Policy Sl.0.1
Policy S 1.0.2
Policy D.3
Policy 0.4
outdoor dining. entertainment. special events. etc. Street vendor
or outdoor retail/display areas are encouraged adjacent to the
pedestrian path.
Vehicle parking areas within Subarea 1 should be obscured to achieve
a pedestrian-oriented, village-scale atmosphere and open space area.
Subterranean parking shall be the preferred parking technique
and shall be required for the majority of parking within the Resort
Core and Residential Village/Park Sector. A minimum of 75
percent of the required parking tor the Central Resort Oi$trict and
Residential uses shall be provided in subterranean or concealed
parking structures. Some surface and structured. above-grade
parking is also allowed.
Subterranean parking shall be located at or below existing grade.
Structures at grade shall ba screened or partially screened by
earth barmed-up against the structure. Maximum slope for the
berm shall be 2: 1 or less. if required by City streetscape 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".
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 allowedl.
Shared parking shall be encouraged in the Midbayfront, as
provided in Areawide Policy PK.3.A.
Objective SI.E
4. Phvsical Form and ADDearance Objectives/Polices
(lO/13/92)
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
IV-6
POlicy S 1 .E. 1
Policy S1 .E.2
Policy S1 .E.3
Policy S 1 .E.4
Policy S1 .E.5
Policy S1 .E.6
(l0/13/9:!1
Landscaping shall be used to screen those elements of the
existing built environment which detract from the intended new
image of the Midbayfront 8S 8 destination resort. A Comprehen-
sive Landscaping Plan shall be required 8S a component of the
-master plan" for development of the Midbayfront.
The SDG&E ROW shall be fully landscaped in a manner consis-
tent with its use 8S a trail corridor and parking area.
Informal groves of trees shall be planted within the public parks
to provide shade and definition and identification for the,s parks,
subject to view considerations and impacts to the wildlife refuge.
Marina Parkway shall be identified with formal street planting
(regular, evenly spaced trees).
landscaping shall provide visual connections which relate the
surrounding environment to the Midbayfront development. At
the development perimeter. landscaping shall provide scteening
and natural open space areas 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 wetlands 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 plantings in containers or
terraced planters. limited use of turfgrass shall be permitted as
accents to the building forms and to create informal seating
areas. Plant material shall have a more ornamental character and
may have higher maintenance requirements due to its proximity
to high levels of pedestrian traffic.
"Park land/ODen SDace" Zone - The landscape character found
within the parkland zone shall establish the first transition area
from the project core to the marsh area. Planting design shall
focus on lower profile massing of selected species to develop a
broader sense of scale in relation to the wetlands. Plant material
IV-7
Objective S I. F
Policy Sl.F.l
Policy Sl.F.2
Policy Sl.F.3
Objective S I. G
Policy Sl.G.l
{lO/13/921
found in this area shall be selected for its indigenous characteris-
tics for compatibility to the marsh. environment. Careful atten-
tion shall be mada to the maintenance requirements for plant
species such 8S water use, fertilizer. and growth characteristics.
These considerations shall provide a framework for long range
maintenance requirements which limit adverse impacts to the
more sensitive marshland environment.
"Primarv Buffer Zone" - The Primary Buffer Zone will consist of
a 1 OO.foot wide buffer area contiguous with the Wildlife Refuge
boundary in the area of the "E" Street marsh. the Ven~r Marsh
and the Sweetwater Marsh as shown in Exhibit 9. Environmental
Management. The Primary Zone will contain 8 berm and a
chain~ink fence with underground apron. and will be vegetated
with Coastal Sage Scrub/Succulent Scrub. Height of the berm
and location of the berm and fence within the lone will vary.
With an overallleogth greater than 3.800 feet. the Primary Zone
will provide approximately 8 acres of new scrub habitat.
Provide clearly identifiable gateways to the Midbayfront at:
Bay Boulevard/'"E'" Street
Bay Boulevard/'"F" Street
Marina Parkway/"F-G" Street Marsh
The Bay Boulevard and "E" Street entry shall be the primary
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 1-5. 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 Marina Parkway shall include
special enhanced landscaping and signage to emphasize the
sense of arrival 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 various view
corridors along Marina Parkway and along the Resort Core lagoon
edge. Firm edges Bre identified by an abrupt and usually linear
change from building mass to open area. These edges will help
to define an urban environment.
IV-8
Policy 51 .G.2
Objective S1.H
Policy 51 .H. 1
Policy 51 .H.2
Policy 51 .H.3
Objective S 1.1
Policy 51.1.1
Policy 51.1.2
Policy S1 .1.3
00/]3/92)
Soft architectural edges shall be composed of smaller increments
of change from building mass to open area. Such edges
emphasize a transition instead of an abrupt change. Soft edges
shall be utilized where development meets public parks and open
space.
Preserve important existing views and create enhanced views with
development. The foHowing 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 axis sometimes with a focal element,
usually architectural and venically oriented.
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 shall be emphasized. This shall be
established between the start of Gunpowder Point Orive and 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 bay and the "F.G" Street Marsh shall be
established south of "F" Street (lagoon Drive), A framed view
to the bay should be created at the "F" Street (lagoon Drivel
gateway to the Midbayfront.
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 Plan. the Implementation Plan shall
establish building setbacks from publiC streets and lot boundaries
to assure appropriate building placement.
High.rise residential towers shall be oriented with their long sides
paralleling the major view corridors from "E" Street/Marina
Parkway to the wetlands.
That portion of a residential building facing the wetlands shall
have a 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
Objective S1.J
Policy S1 .J. 1
Policy S1 .J.2
(10/13/92)
plane of a building line facing the wetlands must break (minimum
5 foot offset) 8t least every 50 feet.
Have a unifying, high quality architectural character and design to the
buildings constructed within the Midbayfront.
The following basic guidelines shall be followed in the design of
buildings and structures within the Midbayfront:
.c..2!.2rI - Coloration oftha Midbayfront shall be perceived as a
single thematic impression made up of subtle variations of light
pastel tones of off-whites. creams. rose, peach a8 well as
"earth" tones. Bright accent colors shall be 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 Doeoinas - Window openings or patterns, especially in
the mid-rise 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, and railing types) shall
conform to the design requirements established in cooperation
with the USF&WS.
Roofs - Flat roofs without varied parapets are 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 and 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 be seen. Detailing
options include:
floor paving patterns
monuments
fountains
bollards
railings
IV-IO
window shape and window pane mullions
door treatments
light standards and lighting fixtures in general
public outdoor seating
trash/ash receptacles
textile amenities - banners, awnings, umbrellas
community sign boards
planting urns and areas
niches in walls and wall decorations in general
All the above-cited elements shall be chosen and placed 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.
Objective SI.K
5. Utilities and Gradim! Objectives/Policies
Policy 81 .K. 1
Policy 81 .K.2
Policy 81 .K.3
Poiicy 81 .K.4
Grading design should achieve: 1) all habitable spaces are situated
above the lOO-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.
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) are above the 1 OO~year flood line; 2) the major circulation
arteries coincide with these activity levels; 3) most parking is
hidden; and. 41 the soil excavated from the lagoon areas is used
on-site to establish the new finish grade.
No new development which requires excavations to a ground
level that would require permanent de-watering shall be permit-
ted.
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.
Cut and fill activity shall be consistent with the Army Corps of
Engineers Permit No. 88-267-RH.
Objective S 1. L
6. Environmental Manaeement Objectives/Policies
{lO/13/92)
Protect and preserve the sensitive wildlife resources within the
National Wildlife Refuge while allowing development of public and
private uses on the adjacent Midbayfront property.
IV-II
Policy 51.l.1
Activity along most sensitive areas adjoining wetlands shall be
restricted per land use designations. Intense development shall
be setback from sensitive edges and clustered toward the central
portion of the site.
Policy 51.l.2
The siting and orientation of major high~rise buildings shall
respect environmental issues. Such buildings shall be set back
from the marsh to preclude their shadows from falling on the
sensitive wetlands. In addition. they shall have non-reflective
surface materials and be of muted colors.
B. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area
1. Soecia] Subarea Conditions
The primary use in this subarea is the Rohr. Inc. industrial and manufacturing facility. This
was an existing use at the time the Chula Vista Bayfrant LCP was first adopted. When the
facilities were constructed, landscaping and building aesthetics were not an issue of concern.
This use is anticipated to remain and limited expansion is permitted under the provisions of the
Land Use Plan. However, landscaping and other 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 52.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 . Southeru Parcel
1. Soecial Subarea Conditions
The southern parcel is located south of "L" Street and west of 1-5. 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 part of the SDG&E generating plant. In
addition, there is a small area (4 acres) which is used as part of the salt works, and an area (21
acres) which is developed with light industrial uses.
(10/13/92)
IV-12
According to an existing agreement among the State, 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 permanent basis, while
the salt works will continue into the foreseeable future. The industrial land is located between
Bay Boulevard and 1-5 and does not have any direct Bay frontage.
2. Subarea Objectives/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 and the generating plant. In addition,
no uses shall be located on this property which would economi-
cally compete with the Bayfront.
D. Subarea 4 - Inland Parcel
1. Soecial 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-I (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 Obiectives/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 55.A.1
All development proposals shall demonstrate that proposed
improvements are located outside of the 100 year frequency
storm flood hazard zone.
(l0/13/92)
IY-I3
E. Subarea 5 - Faivre Street
1. Soecial Subarea Conditions
This site is located south of the western end of Faivre Street, adjacent to the MTDB Trolley
tracks. The Otay River is its southern boundary. The site was annexed to Chuta Vista in
December 1985 as a part of the Montgomery Annexation. It is approximately 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 are 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
floodway overlay. The project area is depicted in white (a part of the so-called "whitelands")
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 S6.A
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 structure.
Policy 56.A.1
The City shall endeavor to improve the screening and landscaping
of the site and shall require such improvements to current City
standards with any new use or development permit approved for
the site.
Policy 56.A.2
On an interim basis. the County zoning regulations in effect at
the time of annexation shall be utilized to regulate development.
Policy 56.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 - Palomar/Bay Boulevard Reorganization
1. SDecial Subarea Conditions
The site is approximately 63 acres in size, generally located west of Bay Boulevard, north of
Palomar 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
(10/13/92)
1V-14
the Western Salt Company property is "dry land." The dry area is located at the southern end
of the project site, adjacent to Bay Boulevard and the existing 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 Limited Industrial" while the site was pre-zoned is
"I-L-P" (Limited Industrial with Precise Plan) at the time of annexation. The existing uses are
consistent with these current designations. The General Plan Update appears to designate the
entire site Open Space.
Objective S7.A
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
Policy S7 .A. 1
Policy S7.A.2
Establish a land use plan and development regulations for this area to
integrate it into the City's land use planning and regulatory structure
in a manner which is consistent with its development capability and
environmental value.
Any development proposal within this subarea shall require a
comprehensive analysis of the entire subarea to determine the
appropriate long-term land use pattern and intensity for the
subarea.
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
I. Soecial Subarea Conditions
This area is owned by the Federal Government and is operated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service as the Sweerwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. It contains virrually 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.
Objective S8.A
2. Subarea Obiectives/Policies
Policy S8.A.1
00/13/92)
Maintain and enhance wildlife habitat within the National Wildlife
Refuge while allowing public enjoyment of coastal resources in a
manner consistent with habitat protection.
The environmental management policies established in this Land
Use Plan which protect and enhance the wetlands and 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.
IV-IS
ATIACHMENT 1
BEFORE TIlE CHULA VISTA
CITY COUNCIL
October 13, 1992
RE: Proposed Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment;
"Subcommittee Recommendation"
(Alternative 8, with minor modifications)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
INTRODUCTION
The original Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared on this project addressed the
potential environmental effects of a proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal,
including both text and graphics, for the Midbayfrom 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.' This new concept plan
was described as Alternative 8 in the recirculated DEIR. (July, 1991)
After recirculation of the DEIR and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
in accordance with the California Administrative Code section 15G88 and 15089, the project was
heard before the Chula Vista City Council and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
("decision makers") on August 20, 1991. After hearing public testimony, the Council closed the
public hearing, certified the EIR as adequate and complete under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and voted to neither approve nor deny the project. Rather the City Council
directed the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee' ("Subcommittee") to work with staff to create
a plan which would resolve the environmental and planning issues which were associated with
Alternative 8.
I In addition to a new project description, Chula Vista Investors also submitted new
geotechnical and hydrology 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 Sutter Sensible Plannine Inc.. v. Board of Suoervisors
(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 Subcommittee
of II voting members held 15 public meetings on the issue of formulating a Concept Plan for
the Midbayfront.
Page 1
The Subcommittee returned to the City Council with a project similar to Alternative 8. That
project is referred to as the "Subcommittee Alternative." After reviewing the EIR 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 Subcommittee Alternative. Consequently,
the Council determined that with the exception of the preparation of an addendum 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, certified 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 directed 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.
11.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is the LCP ResubmittaI 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 ElR for this Project examines the Project at a "plan level" of approval only. Prior to 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 ErR is defined
as a Program EIR and has been prepared with the understanding that the provisions of
Guidelines section ]5168 will be followed when subsequent activities such as redevelopment plan
amendments and site specific construction are contemplated.
The LCP Resubmittal and corresponding General Plan Amendment incorporates the concept plan
for Subcommittee Alternative, proposing 1000 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
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 lagoons-one 8 to 10 acres and
one 3 acres--are also part of the proposed plan.
The 8 to IO-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 aesthetic amenity.
The proposed Project includes a combination of high- to low-rise structures, 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 structures, while the northern area would consist mostly
of two and four-story structures, with two high-rise residential towers.
Specifically, the discretionary actions taken by the decision makers in approving this Project are:
1. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation
Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element and Bayfront Plan.
2. Approval of the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, inclusing Land Use Plan and
Specific Plan.
m.
ADMINlSTRATlVE 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:
I. The Draft (recirculated) and Final ErR for the Project;
2. All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the planning consultant, the environmental consultant, and the City;
3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in
connection with the EIR on proposed Project;
4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public
hearings held by the City and Redevelopment Agency;
5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and
public hearings; and
6. Matter of common knowledge to the City, which it considers, including but not
limited to, the following:
a. Chula Vista General Plan(update)-201O;
b. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan;
Page 3
c. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance;
d. Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance
e. Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Specific Plan;
f. Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan;
g. City of National City General Plan;
h. National City Local Coastal Program;
I. San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan;
j. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Interim Final Permit, No. 88-267-RH
IV.
TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS 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 .aYQiQ or substantially
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 another 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 declares 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-si2'nificant 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 "avoid[ed] QI 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
Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an ErR identifies as merely "ootentiallv significant," these findings
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency that a
project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact if it is
feasible to avoid or substantially 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.
V.
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded 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.
MlTlGATION 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 parties 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 review by the Bayfront
Planning Subcommittee do not necessitate any significant changes to Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan (MMP).
Page 5
VII.
SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identified a number of significant or potentially significant environmental effects
(or "impacts") that the implementation of the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal 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 geology, soils, hydrology and water quality, visual/aesthetics and the
community character, air quality, biological resources, land 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 nearby region that are of greater height or intensity than currently allowed.
In order to build or redevelop, these properties would be subject to CEQA, probably requiring
an EIR for review of proposed plans. Thus, a mechanism exists to check and limit cumulative
impacts; however, the potential exists for development and/or redevelopment at a greater scale
than is presently allowed.
The 15+ projects proposed or approved for the South Bay and 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 Enhancement Plan (not adopted to date)
addresses biological resources of the South Bay region and 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.
Potentiallv Sillnificant Effects
Page 6
The following environmental effects, which would be significant or potentially 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.
Detailed plans not available for on- and off-site water and sewer pipelines [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-9; Volume I, pA-6]
Ground settlement due to consolidation of compressible bay deposits and artificial fill
soils [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-10; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Flooding of low lying areas [FEIR, Volume II, 3-14 through 3-20; Volume I, p 4-6]
Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista design storm flow and gravity pipe requirements
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Adequate data regarding quantity 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 co-generation
plant impacts [FEIR , Volume II, p.3-52 through 3-54; Volume I p. 4-11]
Vehicular emissions would contribute incrementally to a regionally significant air quality
impact [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-51 through 3-55; Volume I, pA-12]
Construction dust and idling trucks could result in unacceptable air quality effects [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Construction noise could reach unacceptable levels [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-58 through
3-60; Volume I, p. 4-]2]
Proximity of child care center to 1-5 and the co-generation facility could result in
unacceptable noise levels [FEIR, Volume II, 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 wetland wildlife and vegetation [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-76
through 3-] 15; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Eelgrass habitats and mudflat 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 [FEIR, Volume II, 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 [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-88 through 3-
115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Page 7
Indirect effects on California Least Tern including water quality, degradation, nest site
predation, disruption from humans and pets, and altering of the predatory regime [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Placement of drainage pipes and resultant increased freshwater inputs and sedimentation
could severely affect eelgrass and mudflats marine resources [FEIR, Volume II, 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.4-13]
Site grading may result in impacts to paleontological resources [FEIR, 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 [FElR, Volume 11, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19]
The propcsed phasing plan would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks
[FElR, Volume 11, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18]
Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users [FElR, Volume 11, p. 3-149
through 3-152; Volume I, p. 4-19]
Concept plan would result in incrementaJ contribution to cumulative impacts to non-
renewable energy resources [FEIR, Volume 11, p. 3-158 through 3-163; Volume I, 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 I, p. 4-21]
Propcsed Project would result in increased fire inspection workload [FEIR, Volume II,
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 11, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Solid waste from propcsed Project would result in incremental contribution to limited and
declining landfill space [FEIR, Volume 11, 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 [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I,
p.4-22]
Page 8
Incremental contribution to regionally significant demand on water resources [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-165; Volume!, p. 4-23]
Adequacy of supply and infrastructure for lagoon water from wells [FEIR, Volume n,
p. 3-162; Volume !, p. 4-23]
Potentially inadequate funding for school transportation costs [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-162
through 3-167; Volume !, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
Shmificant 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 displacement, liquefaction,
tsunamis, and earthquake induced-flooding [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6 through 3-11;
Volume !, 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 !, p. 4-6]
On-site flooding from storm overflow [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3- through 3-22; Volume
!, p. 4-6]
Erosion from coastal or inland flooding [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14 through 3-22;
Volume !, p. 4-6]
Siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality from surface runoff
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume !, p. 4-6]
Change in character of the view from the Nature Interpretive Center [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-29 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and establishments along
Bay Boulevard [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-31 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Creation of visually dominant urban landscape from areas within Chula Vista and 1-5 are
incompatible with the waterfront image identity of Chula Vista [FEIR, Volume n, p.
3-34 through 3-42; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-10]
Construction and Project operations would create contaiminants that would degrade water
quality [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-79 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13]
Concept plan would result in shade/shadow impacts to park and open space areas [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-150 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]
Page 9
The alteration of predator/competition/prey regimes would adversely impact biological
resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-91 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Loss of rapter habitat [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
proximity of development to extensive wetland would result in vector impacts [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-101 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The development would create predator enhancement effects to the Light-footed Clapper
Rail and the Belding's Savannah Sparrow which are federal and state listed endangered
species respectively [FEIR, 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 through 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 [FEIR, Volume II, 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 [FEIR, Volume II, 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 Broadway/"E" 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 [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at 1-5 South bound Ramp/"E" 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 determined that the impacts
are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. The sub-
Page 10
sections below will define each of the above-described impact issues in detail, setting forth either
the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to
substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures proved to
be infeasible due to specific economic, social or other consideration.
A. GEOLOGY/SOIL.<;/GROUNDWATER
Significant effect: Seismic hazards/risk exists, including ground shaking, surface
displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-induce flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6
through 3-7; Volume I, 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 FEIR and restated below, additional
study is necessary 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 [FEIR, 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 oveniding 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]
I. 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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
Page II
support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills andlor
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 table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto eXistIng
compressible bay deposits andlor existing fill soils will require subgrade
modification pursuant to accepted engineering standards to improve the support
capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term post-<:onstruction settlement.
Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and recompaction,
dynamic compaction, andlor 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-construction differential settlements,
depending upon the type of improvements they are 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.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the lO-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 City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to Project approval.
7. 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 accelerations.
Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required
where appropriate as part of the Project design.
8. The embankment separating the lQ-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced
storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this EIR) or earthquake-
induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment
must be made prior to detailed project approval to evaluate stability of the
embankment during these conditions and the likelihood of these hazards. Design
Page 12
to be defined prior to detailed 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.
. . .
Significant Effect: Potential foundation design and construction difficulties associated
with the construction of foundations at or near the groundwater table could occur [FElR, Volume
II, p. 3-3; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: The FElR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the
FEIR and restated below, additional study is necessary at the Project level 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 [FElR,
Volume II, 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]
I. 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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
structural improvements. Soil improvement may include partial or total removal
and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to
precornpress 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 compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defIned at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto eXlsUng
compressible bay deposits and/or existing fIll soils 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-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are 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.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the lO-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 City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to Project approval.
7. Geotechnical studies prepared prior to detailed project approval and included in
the environmental analysis for the Project must also address the impact of
foundation location near or below the groundwater table, and recommendations
shall be made which mitigate both construction-period difficulties and uplift
pressures that may affect foundation elements and subterranean parking floor
slabs extending below the transient groundwater level. Construction-period
mitigation must require temporary 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 structural foundations to restrain slabs.
. . .
Page 14
Potentially Significant Effect: Ground settlement could occur due to the consolidation
of the compressible estuarinelfluvial (bay) deposits and artificial fill soils on site [FEIR, Volume
II, 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 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 through 3-10]
1. 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.
2. 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 pennits.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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 compaction, and/or the use of surcharge ftlls to
precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto eXlslIng
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-
Page 15
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-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to
support. Site-specific geotechnical studies to be completed at the Project level
must address post-construction settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the
specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cementlining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the lO-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 City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to detailed project approval.
7. 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 accelerations.
Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required
where appropriate as part of the detailed project design.
8. The embankment separating the IO-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced
storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this EIR) 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 likelihood 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 [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-4; Volume !, 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 E!R.
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. [FElR, p. 3-8 though 3-9]
Page 16
I. When detailed development plans for the Project 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.
2. 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 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.
B. HYDROLOGY/WATER OUALITY
Significant Effect: Flooding on-site from storm drain overflow [FElR, Volume n, p. 3-
14 through 3-15; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or aJterations 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 stonn 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 n, p. 3-22; Volume I p. 4-6]. As
described in the Statement of Oveniding 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]
1. 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.
2. 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 video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
Page 17
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion
must be completed prior to Project approval and included in the environmental
analysis for the Project.
4. The storm drain system will be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
. . .
Significant Effect: Erosion from coastal or inland flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14;
Volume !, p. 4-6]
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 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. [FElR, Volume
n, p. 3-22; Volume !, 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, 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. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
I. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 embankments, 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
outlets.
4. The embankment separating the IO-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
is to be constructed as a soil berm extending up to elevation + 11 feet. The
bayward slope may be subject to shoreline erosion, Likewise, the landward slope
may be subject to erosion from inland flooding, Mitigation measures which may
include a rock revetment to minimize erosion or other suitable design, mllst be
Page 18
analyzed during the environmental review on the Project and adopted as a
condition of Project approval.
. . .
Significant Effect: Siltation and chemical contamination! degradation of water quality
from surface runoff (pesticides, fertilizers, oil grease, etc.). [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through
3-16; Volume 1, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated 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 11 p. 3-22; Volume 1, 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 oveniding 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 II, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
I. 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 portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. 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 video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. 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.
4. The detention basin has been designed with a minimum 1-foot freeboard base on
a lOO-year/6-hour storm event. Additionally, a dip in "F" Street 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, pers 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 stonn water without encroaching on "F"
Street or causing damage to the downstream embankment to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
Page 19
5. The proposed design of the detention basin makes 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 constructed in accordance with the County Design and Procedure Manual
[rev. October 1985] which outlines spillway design for small dams (p. 11-13).
The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable County of San Diego
regulations. Compliance with these regulations will be verified by the City of
Chula Vista Engineer.
6. Traps for contaminant control must be approved by the City Engineering
Department 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 [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-14; Volume 1, 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]
I. 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 portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. 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 video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. 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 1, p. 4-6]
Page 20
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 ElR.
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 through 3-22]
I. 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 portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the storm drain pipes are continually or intennittently 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.
3. 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.
4. The storm drain system, must be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: Limited data regarding quantity and quality of groundwater
for the lagoons. [FEIR, Volume II, 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.
1. 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).).
[FElR, Volume II, p. 3-21]
C. VISUAL AESTHETICS/ COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Page 21
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 [FElR, Volume IT, p. 3-29, 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7
through 4-8]
Finding: The FElR described mlUgation measures that required a redesign of the
propcsed Project. No other mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the impacts
to a level below significant. Redesign would include lowering building heights to existing LCP
limitations, with low profUe apartments, high rise hotels not exceeding 12 stories, and scaled
down development east of the marsh. Redesign of Concept Plan Alternative 8 (beyond the
minor modifications propcsed by the Bayfront Planning Committee) is not propcsed, thus the
environmental effects remain significant. [FElR, Volume IT, 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,
socia] and other considerations.
. . .
Significant Effect: Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and
establishments along Bay Boulevard. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-31, 3-39; Volume I, p. 4-8]
Finding: The FEIR described measures that required a redesign of the propcsed 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 environmental effects remain significant. [FEIR, Volume II, 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. [FE'R, Volume II, p. 3-34 through 3-35; Volume I, p. 4-9
through 4-10].
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 incorpcrated into the Project level design and
analyzed in the environmental review for the Project. Even with incorpcration 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 propcsed, 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
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. 3-40 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7
through 4-10]
I. The design of the Project must establish landmarks on the site which would be
visible from "E" Street. The design of the Project must also establish a design
pattern or sequence north of the freeway and continue this design element on the
site. The Project must use compatible streetscapes along "E" Street on both sides
of the freeway to create a visual connection between the 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The applicant 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.
5. 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 patterns, and by building siting.
D. CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Less-than-Significant Effect: The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential
agricultural land. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-44; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Finding: The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse Project effects in the area of
conversion of agricultural lands. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-45; Volume I, p. 4-11]
E. AIR OUALITY
Potentially Significant Effect: Development of a co-generation 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
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: 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.
1. Mitigation is required by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) before Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is issued.
Mitigation may include concurrent reductions in NOx, RaG and CO to "offset"
Project (co-generation plant) emissions. [FEIR, Volume II, 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. [FElR,
Volume II p. 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 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.
Various transportation control measures (TCMs) 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 accepted engineering
methods.
The implementation of these various TCMs must be coordinated through a transportation
management agency (TMA) dealing specifically with bayfront traffic demand
Page 24
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.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54 through 3-55]
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction activities would create dust that contributes
to violations of inhalable dust (PM-IO) standards, and multiple construction-related trucks
blocking traffic or idling near occupied receptor sites could create unacceptable air quality
effects. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-50; Volume I, p. 4-11]
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. 3-54]
I. Dust control measures required by the APCD will be implemented during
construction. Such measures must include maintaining adequate soil moisture as
well as removing any soil spillage onto traveled roadways through site
housekeeping procedures.
2. 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. Construction will be limited to operations during daytime periods of better
dispersion that minimizes localized 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 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.
1. Construction noise intrusion will be limited by conditions on construction permits
to weekday 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
Page 25
existing residential, park, or other noise sensitive uses to comply with General
Plan noise standards and policies. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-58, 3-60]
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to 1-5
(800 feet) and to the co-generation plant exhaust stacks (500 feet) has the potential to result in
significant noise effects [FEIR, Volume n, 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 EIR.
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.
1. Child care center noise exposure must be minimized by establishing a noise
performance standard 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 eastern 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. 4-13]. 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. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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,
Page 26
. Landscape Design and Management Plan,
. Water Quality/RunofflDrainage Management Plan,
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
. Project Lighting Plan,
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
. CC&Rs/Ordinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. 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 discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. 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 wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. Long-term silt removal 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.
5. Further studies during the project level environmental analysis are required to
evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagoon. If these
studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution because of contaminants or
reduced 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 further defined and environmental review will
be completed at the Project level.
6. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
Page 27
mudflat 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.
7. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
Project shall 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 I.
8. All landscape chemical applications (e.g. pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
9. 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 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 parklands.
. . .
Significant Effect: Alteration of the Predator/Competition/ Prey balance as a result of
the proposed changes in land uses would significantly affect biological resources [FElR, 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. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
Page 28
I. 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 Wetland Monitoring Plan,
. Project Lighting Plan,
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
. CC&Rs/Ordinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2.
a.
No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of I 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 USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat
during the period 15 March and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game.
3. 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 Lirnonium 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.
4. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
Posting of all of the parklandslpublic access areas will be required in addition to
imposing fines based on the existing or new City municipal codes, 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.
Page 29
5. 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 must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. 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 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" Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Plans to achieve these goals, including detailed landscape and buffer design plans
are required to be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
7. 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 Connors [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.
8. 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 checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease 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.
9. 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.
and USFWS 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.
12. 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 f1lm glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
Project level CEQA analysis.
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors 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 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.
14. 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 wen 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.
15. 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.
16. 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" 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 marshland fringing the
"E" Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh 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
Significant Effect: Due to the limited extent of coastal habitats, and the high diversity
and numbers of raptors utilizing this area, the loss of habitat to development is considered an
incremental, but significant effect of the Project. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through 3-100;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that, although there are feasible 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 in 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]
I. 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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
5. 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 shall be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
Page 32
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). .
6. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall 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 USFWS 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.
7. 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.
8. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors 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 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.
9. 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 wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "FIG" Street Marsh,
2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "FIG" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
. . .
Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed development to the extensive
surrounding wetlands creates significant vector impacts. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-101 through
3-102; Volume I, p. 4-13]
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
vector control plan is available for the project level analysis, a determination of mitigation
effectiveness cannot be determined. Thus, this impact remains significant at this level of
analysis. [FEIR, Volume n, 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: 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 n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
I. 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 I.
2. All landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
3. 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.
4. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fmes.
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"P" StreetfMarina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
5. 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 Connors [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
6. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
Page 34
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 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.
7. 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.
8. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park wne 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
VeneT 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.
9. 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-
footed Clapper Rail and Belding's Savannah Sparrow, 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 specific 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 EIR 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 environmental analysis will be required for specific
construction Projects. [FEIR, Volume II, 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
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. [FElR, Volume n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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/RunofflDrainage Management Plan,
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
. Project Lighting Plan,
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
. CC&Rs/Ordinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. 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.
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
Page 36
achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. 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 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" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
7. 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 Connors [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
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 acres of Marsh and four acres of
Salt Marsh shall 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).
Page 37
11. No funher dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfronl. 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 post
a line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
12. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architecturallioes which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A f11m glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
project level CEQA analysis.
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which raptor
could perch or nesl. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the
wetlands 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.
14. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park wne 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 compliance.
15. 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.
16. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
17. 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
In addition to the wetland acreage noted above CYI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "FIG" Street Marsh,
2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "F/G" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: Vegetation and wildlife within wetlands could be
significantly altered by wide fluctuations in the salinity regimes of the marshlands due to
increased freshwater input from site drainage. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-76 through 3-79; Volume
J, p. 4-J3]
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. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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.
2. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
3. 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
Page 39
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, perfonning law enforcement responsibilities on the Refuge, and ensuring
mitigation requirements of the Midbayfront development are implemented in a
reasonable, effective, and a timely manner.
4. 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.
5. 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)
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: The substantial grading, excavating, and dewatering 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 mudflat 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
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. 3-110 through 3-115]
l. 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 Wetland Monitoring Plan
. Project Lighting Plan
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
Page 40
. CC&Rs/Ordinances/ Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. 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 discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. 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 wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. 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 suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced 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 stonn 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 further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
5. 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 Depanment of Public Works and the Planning
Depanment 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
6. 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 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.
Page 41
7. 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.
8. Public awareness signs explaining the resource concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction of the Project would generate considerable
noise and increased human activities for a 20-year period, could increase sediment erosion and
accretion patterns, further generate elevated turbidity in adjacent water, siltation in adjacent
wetlands, potentially release toxins into adjacent wetlands, and elevate predator/"i;lvenger
densities within the vicinity of the development area. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-84 through 3-85,
3-105 through 3-106; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
whlch 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. 3-110 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 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.
2.
a.
No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of I 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 USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
Page 42
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat 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.
3. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 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 significantly 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, set 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 II, p. 3-91] 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 43
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. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5. 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 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 "P" & "G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the"P" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
Page 44
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the city prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. 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 Connors [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.
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. 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)
10. 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,
and USFWS 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.
II. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are
Page 45
exposed to the wetlands 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.
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 shrub land 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 mudflats.
14. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
IS. 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 wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "FIG" Street Marsh,
2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "FIG" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: Effects from development on the California Least Tern
could occur including indirect effects of water quality degradation, nest site predation, disruption
from humans and pets, and altering of the predator regime. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-104;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Page 46
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 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. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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 QualityfRunofflDrainage Management Plan
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
. Project Lighting Plan
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
. CC&RsfOrdinancesf Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed fonn for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. 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 discharges. The trapltraps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. 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 wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. 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 suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced 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 further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
5.
a.
No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of I April
through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
Page 47
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 actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat 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.
6. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
7. 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 I.
8. All landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
9. 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.
10. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parklandslpublic 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
A plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the
issuance of building permits.
11. 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. A plan
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of
building permits.
12. 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 are along the fringes ofVener Pond, and the "E" Street
Marsh and Sweerwater 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 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.
13. 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 Connors [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 permits.
14. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
would fund rwo (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.
15. 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.
16. 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
Page 49
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 Re=ch 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).
17. 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,
and USFWS 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
18. 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.
19. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which raptor
could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the
wetlands 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.
20. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park wne 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
Yener 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.
21. 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.
22. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited
activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
Page 50
23. 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" 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 marshland fringing the
"E" Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh 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 the issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with
current plans/programs of the USFWS.
Potentially Significant Effect: Placement of site drainage pipes and resultant increased
freshwater inputs and sediments accretion and erosion could severely affect the eelgrass and
mudflats marine resources. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-106 through 3-107; Volume!, 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
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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/RunofflDrainage 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.
2.
a.
The "direct to bay" drains shall be designed and constructed with effective
energy dissipators and flow diffusers which eliminate erosion or accretion
of the mudflats and ensure the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds. 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 mudflats and eelgrass beds shaII be
monitored in accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands
Monitoring Plan (Measure 1) for a period of five years and any additional
Page 51
corrective measures required must be implemented an any additional
impacted areas resulting shall be replaced by the creation of a similar area
from the uplands of the "D" Street Fill or Gunpowder Point.
b. As an alternative, the two "direct to bay" drains must be extended to
subsurface discharge points located in the existing "}" Street Marina boat
channel. These discharge points must be located at a mirtimum depth of -
10 ft. MLL W and shall be buried in the mudflat to a point below the
existing eelgrass beds. Drain placement shall seek to impact the least
amount of eelgrass beds. Drain placement shall seek to impact the least
amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either combining the drains or
avoiding dense eelgrass beds. Surface contours must be restored and any
construction impacts to eelgrass must be mitigated by replanting over the
pipeline.
3. 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 suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced 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 further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
4.
a.
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 USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat 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.
5. 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
Page 52
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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
6. 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 checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (Le., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as the 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 must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
the issuance of building permits will be verified for consistency with current
programs of the USFWS.
7. 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.
8. 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,
and USFWS 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.
9. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
H. ARCHAEOWGYIHISTORY/PALEONTOWGY
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.
a. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to archaeological review at the
project level of environmental review. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-124; Volume I,
p.4-13].
Page 53
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: Impacts to 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.4-13].
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 bave 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. A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-construction meeting to consult with
the grading and excavation contractors.
b. 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. (The areal
distribution of these deposits is summarized on the geological map of Kennedy
and Tan, 1977.)
C. 10 the event that well-preserved fossils are 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.
d. Fossil remains collected during any salvage program will be cleaned, sorted, and
catalogued an then, with the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific
institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
I. LAND USE/GEI'.'ERAL 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 certified 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
has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social,
and other considerations.
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: The residential 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 parking, noise from traffic and visitors, and night-lighting
could create significant incompatihility impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14
through 4-15].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects 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. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14 through 4-15].
a. Insulation, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (DBC), shall be
required in all exterior and interior residential walls.
b. Units must be designed such that insulation between units occurs, in walls,
ceilings, and floors, to reduce potential noise impacts.
c. Residential window treatments shall be designed to reflect some light.
d. 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 between the National Wildlife Refuge and the proposed development site.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14].
Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign to lower building heights which
are close to the Refuge boundaries (to no greater than 30 feet along the perimeter of the site),
and decrease intensity (to a level similar to the intensity allowed under the certified LCP) would
mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138; Volume I, p.
4-14]. 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.
. . .
Page 55
Significant Effect: The proposed Subcommittee Alternative s embodied in the LCP
Resubmittal and GPA documents are not consistent with the certified LCP, General Plan (2010),
and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required 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 II, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p. 4-15].
1. 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. COMMUNITY SOCIAL FACTORS
The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse effects in the area of Community Social
Factors. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-142 through 3-143; Volume I, p. 4-15 through 4-16].
K. COMMlJ)l,'lTY TAX STRUCTURE
The FEIR does not cite any significant effects in the area of Community Tax Structure.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-144; Volume I, p. 4-16].
L. PARKS. RECREATION Al'.'J) OPEN SPACE
Potentially Significant Effect: Public access opportunities from 1-5 and areas to the east
may be constrained. [FEIR, Volume II, 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
which will substantially avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in
the EIR.
Mitigation Measure: 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.
a. The applicant shall submit an access plan, showing designated public parking
areas, access routes to public areas, and access routes and signage from the east
side of 1-5 across the "E" Street bridge at the project level of environmental
review. An access plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved
Page 56
by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-
151; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19].
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: Park development according to the proposed phasing plan
would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the anticipated high
public usage. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148; Volume I, p. 4-18].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 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.
a. The applicant must include all parks development and parking for parks within
the first phase of development. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-]51; Volume I, p. 4-]8].
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan includes a potentially
insufficient amount of parking for park users. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-]49 through 3 -]50;
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.
a. 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. [FElR, 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-]50 through
3-15]; 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-]2 stories would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-]51; Volume!, p. 4-19 through 4-20]. As described in the Statement
Page 57
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 resources (fossil fuels).
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-158; Volume I, p. 4-20].
Finding: The Final ErR concluded that, cumulative energy resource impacts can be
mitigated below a level of significance by the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth
below. [FElR, 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.
a. Include double-pane glass, provide increased wall and ceiling insulation,
incorporate solar energy opponunities, provide efficient sealing of doors and
windows, and include time controlled lighting systems throughout the
industrial/commercia] portions of the Project to minimize cumulative impacts to
non-renewable energy sources. [FElR, Volume II, 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 Depanment. [FElR, Volume
II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21].
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 ElR.
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.
a. 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. 3-164; 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 1 site inspections, routine fIre safety inspections, and
public education programs. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21].
Page 58
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 have been made binding on the applicant
through these findings.
a. An additional fire inspector will be necessary to handle the additional work load
created by this Project. The City's General Fund will pay for the additional
position. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-164; Volume!, p. 4-21]
. . .
Potentially Sign:ficant 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
safety 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 will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: 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.
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.
d. All apartments, three or more stories in height or containing more than IS
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/excavation system shall be provided for all
public assembly, and multi-residential occupancies.
f. All Title 1924 California Code of Regulations (State Fire Marshal's Rules and
Regulations) shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise occupancies.
g. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided
with the provision for the turning around of fire apparatus (either a 75 x 24 foot
hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
Page 59
h. 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 materials.
1. 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.
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: Solid waste generated from the proposed Project site
\\'culd result in an incremental contribution to the limited and declining landfill space in San
DIego County. [FEIR, Volume 11, p. 3-160; Volume I, 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.
a. In order to reduce the volume of trash, a recycling program shall be undertJlken
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]
b. Also to reduce the volume of trash, the development shall be required to
incorporate trash compactors into all building plans. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-164;
Volume I, 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. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Findings: 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.
Page 60
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.
a. The City Engineering Department must review the plans for consistency with the
City's Thresholds Standards and with the system which the Project will tie into.
Connections which exceed the threshold standards will not be allowed. [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-22]
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts
to water infrastructure. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 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
ElR.
Mitigation Measure: 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. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-
22]
The Sweetwater Authority analysis indicated specific areas where upgrading of water
mains must be completed. These include:
a. A 12 inch main in "F" Street from Broadway to approximately 830 feet west
must be installed.
b. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way
extension westerly must be installed. (This 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.
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: The Project would incrementally contribute to a regionally
significant demand on water resources. [FElR, Volume II, 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 environmental effect as identified in the Final
ElR below a level of significance.
Page 61
Mitigation Measure: 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.
a. The applicant must provide water conservation measures at the project level
design, including elements such as low flow showerheads, low flush toilets, timed
irrigation, drought-tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation (where appropriate) and
reclaimed water lines 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 demonstrates 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 are therefor considered significant and not
mitigated at the plan 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 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]
a. Further testing and verification of well supply must be completed for both lagoons
and included in an EIR at the Project level.
b. Information must be provided to show the proposed well locations and
engineering design of the circulation system.
c. 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 decrease 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 through 4-24]
Page 62
Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which could reduce to a less than significant level the school overcrowding 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 feasibility. 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.
Mitigation Measure: The following ntitigation measures may be feasible and shall be
required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on the applicant during the
Project level of CEQA compliance.
a. The applicant must form a new Mello Roos district to finance capital costs such
as permanent or relocatable classrooms and school buses. [FEffi, Volume IT, p.
3-165 through 3-166; Volume !, p. 4-23 through 4-25]
b. The location of new school sites or additional property adjacent to eXlStmg
schools for the construction of capital improvements will be resolved during
project level CEQA compliance. [FEIR, Volume IT, p. 3-165 through 3-166;
Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
. . .
Potentially Significant Effect: The location of 1-5 between the Project area and the
schools would prohibit the feasibility of students walking to existing schools, potentially resulting
in significant transportation cost. [FErR, Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-167; Volume!, p. 4-23
through 4-24J
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 has 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.
a. Annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers'
salaries must be funded by the applicant in a manner acceptable to the City.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-166; Volume !, p. 4-24]
. . .
N. TRAmC
Significant Effect: Development under Subcommittee Alternative would result 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
would operate at LOS f (lCU 1.04) which is an unacceptable level of service. [FElR, 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 Broadway/"E" Street
intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated into
the project level design. Additional mitigation measures shall be examined at the Project level
of review and shall be adopted if found to be feasible. The identified impacts 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 at the project level CEQA compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"E" Street intersection.
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn and an exclusive right-turn
onl y 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 (ICU 0.84) 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/"f" Street
intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated 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 measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"f" Street intersection.
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane.
Page 64
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-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 Subcommittee Alternative generated traffic added to the network, the
Broadwayl"H" Street intersection would operate at LOS E (lCU 0.95' which is an unacceptable
level of service. [FElR, 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 Broadwayl"H" Street
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 Project vicinity, therefore,
remain significant. 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 measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements 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 Alternative 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.
[FElR, 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) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency
(CalTrans) and not the City Council. Such changes must be approved by CalTrans.
Page 65
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.
a. The following improvements are required at the 1-5 Northbound and Southbound
RampI"E" Street intersections.
Northbound 1-5 Off-Ramp at "E" Street: Construction of an additional right-turn
only lane along "E" Street east of the ramp.
. . .
Widen the 1-5 northbound off-ramp at "E" Street to provide an exclusive left-turn lane,
shared left- and righHurn lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and two right-
turn lanes.
Widen eastbound Marina Parkway 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 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
Additional mitigation measures not considered in the E1R but required as a condition of
Project approval by the Chula Vista Planning Commission.
vrn.
INFEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN THE SUBCOMMITIEE
ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC RESOURCE.<; CODE
SECTION 21081ffi)
The approval of the proposed Project will cause significant unavoidable impacts as 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 decision makers have, in certain instances, rejected the proposed 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 financially feasible as possible, given the amount 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 proposed (Subcommittee Alternative) will
Page 66
increase the City's property tax base, the City's occupancy tax revenues and the City's sales tax
revenues which are necessary in order to economically enable the project to be developed.
In addition, the City Council has also considered whether any of the Project alternatives
discussed in the ElR could feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects.
(see, Citizens for Oualjtv Growth v City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 CaI.App.3d 433 [243
Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also, Public Resources Code section 21002.) As will be explained below
the decision makers conclude that none of the proposed 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 EIR. The
decisionmaker(s) further finds that each independent consideration, standing alone, would be
sufficient to make infeasible the Project alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated
into the project which were identified in the EIR.
Economic considerations that make the alternatives infeasible include a reduction in the level of
employment opportunities which would accompany the proposed Project.
The Redevelopment 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 tax 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 I, 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 Partnership before the Planning Commission
on December 18, 1991.) For the neighborhood to be well balanced between jobs, housing and
services, 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 trips 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 1-5,
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
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 8, as well as Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would result in the same level of visual
urban dominance, obstruction of bay views, land use, and shade/shadow impacts. The
Subcommittee Alternative lessens the visual impacts although not to a level below significance.
(See testimony of John Moot, Vice Chair, Bayfront Planning Subcommittee, before the Planning
Commission on December 18, 1991.) Only Alternatives 2, 7, 7a or 9 would mitigate these
impacts. However, Alternative 2 would result in significant, unmitigable traffic impacts and
Alternatives 7, 7a and 9 are infeasible due to economic, social, and other considerations as
previously stated.
Alternative 1. No Proiect - No Development
This alternative would retain the site in its current degraded condition and would not result in
attaining the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Redevelopment
Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan. The No Project alternative would not revitalize
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 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 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. Develonment Under Existine: 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 sufficient 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 reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible.
Page 68
Alternative 3. Reduced Density I
This alternative would result in the same level of biological, 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 attract
sufficient retail establishments needed to sustain the development. In addition, the hotel element
provides less economic return which would aid in offseting costs of public infrastructure
development.
Further, the Redevelopment 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 I A
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 attract retail
establishments needed to sustain the development. Likewise, the hotel element is inadequate in
providing a greater economic return to offset public infrnstructure 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 attract 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 alternative is determined
to be infeasible.
Alternative 6. Locational Alternatives
None of the alternative locations described in the EIR would accomplish the Project's major goal
of developing the Midbayfront area. This alternative would retain the site in its current
degraded condition and would not result in attaining the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan.
Page 69
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 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 be no managed opportunity for the public
to access the bayfront in this location.
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.
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 locational alternatives are determined to be infeasible.
Alternative 7. Reduced Density 3 Modified Desi.n
This alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract retail establishments
needed to sustain the development. In addition, this 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.
Alternative 8. ADDlican!'s Reduced Densitv ProDOsed LCPR #8
This alternative proposed a reduction in the original project including a decrease 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 residential use that was
proposed at the corner of Marina Parkway and "F" Street has been eliminated, thereby
increasing the public park acreage from 29.8 to 33.8 acres. Alternative 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 reduction also reduced the
traffic impacts associated with the original project.
This alternative would result in a somewhat reduced level of visual urban dominance, obstruction
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 Arts Facility.
This alternative is rejected because it results in the same impacts as the Subcomntittee
Alternative without the added social benefit of the Cultural Arts Facility.
Alternative 9. Alternative Develoned in Resnonse to Public Comment
Page 70
..
This alternative would create a long, narrow lagoon corridor along the northern and western
edges of the Midbayfront Project site adjacent to the National Wildlife Preserve. The technical
feasibility of this lagoon corridor is questionable for the following reasons:
I. A l400-foot long breakwater to protect against erosion by wave action would be required
to create a saltmarsh habitat along the exposed shoreline;
2. The breakwater would disrupt several acres of mudflat bayward of the lagoon corridor;
3. Installation of a breakwater would almost certainly result in increased wave erosion of
both ends of the breakwater;
4. 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
5. 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 needed to sustain 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 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.
Alternative 10. Local Coastal Pro.ram Resubmittal No 8 (Bavfront Subcommittee 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 compromise
could be reached between the differing positions of the developer, the Planning Department, and
the community groups. The Subcommittee Alternative proposes a further reduction from
Alternative 8 to encompass a total of 1610 hotel rooms and a total of 1000 dwellin. 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 relocating the towers just to the east of the
residential lagoon and in their place, substituting low-rise residential adjacent to the buffer areas.
In addition, there have been further reductions in the height of structures located within the core
so that the maximum height permitted would be 22 stories or 229 feet. The site of the proposed
luxury hotel, which was to be located on the west side of Marina Parkway, has now been
designated for the possible location of a Cultural Arts Facility and support retail. With this
modification, the total square footage of the project has been reduced from approximately 3.4
Page 71
million square feet down to approximately 3.3 million square feet (Rohr 560,000 square feet is
now considered a separate project). This reduction will also reduce the traffic impacts associate4
with the project, although not to a level of insignificance.
This alternative would result in a somewhat reduced level of visual urban dominance, obstruction
of bay views, land use, shade/shadow impacts as compared to the proposed Project, although
not to a level of insignificance.
The decisionmaker(s) finds that this alternative lessens the significant environmental effects as
identified in the final EIR (though not to a level of insignificance). The decisionmaker(s) have
also elected to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to California
Administrative Code Section 15093.
IX.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Chula Vista City Council in approving the
various permits that are the subject of the FEIR, having reviewed and considered the information
contained in the FEIR, and independently judged the information provided in the FEIR, and
having reviewed and considered the public testimony and record, makes the following statement
of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings and the action of the City Council
approving the Project.
The City Council finds and concludes that the public benefits of the Project outweigh the
identified significant unmitigated impacts set forth in the Findings (pages 1 to 72). The
decision makers find that the following factors support the approval of the Project despite the
FEIR identified significant environmental impacts and other alleged potential environmental
impacts. Therefore, the City Council sets forth and adopts the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations:
I. The Project will help fulfill attainment of various goals in the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan with a use and density that is appropriate for the site.
2. As set forth in the findings, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Project or made binding on the applicant through the adoption of the findings,
which to the extent feasible, reduce impacts below a level of significance.
3. Approval of the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal (Subcommittee Alternative) and
corresponding GP A will result in the following specific economic, social, and
other considerations which the City considers beneficial, including, but not
limited to:
A. Careful management of the senstuve: natural resources on site.
Additionally, the Project will allow for controlled public access to natural
areas and parks.
Page 72
B. Construction of needed circulation improvements.
C. Construction of necessary service and utility improvements in the
Midbayfront area.
D. Identification of Chula Vista as an important seaside hub on the southern
coastline of California. The destination resort will be equally accessible
to downtown San Diego and to the City of Tijuana.
E. Direct access for the public to public open space including but not limited
to an 8 to 10 acre lagoon, an Educational/Interpretive Park adjacent to the
wetlands, and a public beach along the lagoon.
F. Possible development of a Cultural Arts Facility that would provide space
for municipal festivals and events.
G. 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.
H. Construction job opportunities as well as permanent jobs in an economy
which is currently lacking job opportunities.
1. Generation of transient occupancy tax, increased sales taxes and tax
increment to the City of Chula Vista through the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency.
IC\\VP51 \BA YFRONT\FINDING I.TXT][] 0181921
Page 73
ATIACHMENT 2
MIDBA YFRONT LCP RESUBMI'ITAL NO.8 AMENDMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
Assembly Bill 3180 (AB 3180) was passed by the California State Assembly on August 22, 1988
and subsequently signed into law by the Governor of California. AB 3180 requires 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 "reportiog or monitoring
program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. "
This bill became effective January I, 1989 as Section 21081.6 to the Public Resources Code.
The City of Chula Vista is acting as the lead agency for the Midbayfront 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 ElRs are general in nature and are
followed by more detailed, project-specific EIRs which are part of the program.
In August 1991 the City Council certified the Final ElR, 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 environmental 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 Overriding 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, and development intensity in the Midbayfront
planning subarea.
Page 1
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The Subcommittee's Concept Plan for the Midbayfront proposed a mixed use project totalling
approximately 3.3 million square feet of building area. The concept proposes 1000 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. The parks and lagoon in 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 RESPONSffiILITIES
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the proposed project will be in place througb
all phases of the project, including design, pre-grading, construction, and operation. The City
of Chula Vista will 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 MONITORING PROCEDURES
The MMP consists of a Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary, filing requirements, and
reporting and compliance verification. These procedures are outlined below.
I\1iti1!ation I\1onitorine Proeram Summarv
The Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary provides a comprehensive list of the required
mitigation measures that are 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 Monitoring Program Summary for the Midbayfront LCP
Resubmittal No.8 Amendment is provided as Table 1.
!\1itieation Monitorine Pr05!1"3m Files
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.
Page 2
September 3D, 1992
r..Udbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PROGRAM OPERA nONS
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Summary. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the
refinement or addition of mitigation measures, particularly in this case where project
construction requires a multi-year phasing program. The Planning Director of the City of Chula
Vista, with advise from staff or another City Department, is responsible 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 carrying forward the measures to the
project-level of CEQA compliance for finalization and implementation.
A. GEOLOGY ISOILS/GROUNDW A TER
Adoption of the LCP Resubmittal 8 and construction of the Subcommittee Alternative would
result in four potentially significant impacts: (I) ground settlement due to consolidation of the
compressible estuarinelfluvial (bay) deposits and the artificial fiU soils on-site; (2) grading
impacts for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines; (3) seismic hazards, including ground
shaking, surface displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-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
I. When detailed development plans for the project area are proposed, 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 Department prior to
any grading work.
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
2. 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. Each investigation shall contain adequate subsurface 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 compaction,
and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-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 geotechnical impact due to compressible soil.
5. 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-construction settlement.
Soil improvement could include partial or total removal, 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 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 post-construction total and differential
settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) currently planned for the IO-acre salt
water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits) is a relatively brittle
material which may require relatively stringent subgrade improvement to ensure acceptable
long-term performance. Subsequent design shall consider other options for this liner,
including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners.
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking, geotechnical
studies must specifically address seismic analysis based on site-specific subsurface data.
Page 4
September 3D, 1992
i\tidbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
As a ffilIDmum, seismic analysis should address seismically-induced slope failure,
liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. Appropriate measures to reduce seismic
risk must be implemented into project design.
8. The embankment separating the lD-acre salt waler lagoon from San Diego Bay has
tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + II 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.
9. Geotechnical studies must also address the impact of foundation location near or below the
groundwater table, and suitable recommendations should be provided to mitigate both
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 temporary 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
andlor structural 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 geology/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 geotechnical studies must be submitted for review with all other project level plans
so that the environmental analysis will include these studies. Approval of the studies will occur
prior to the issuance of grading permits. The choice of pond liner for the IO-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 satisfaction of the Engineering,
Building, and Housing Departments prior to issuance of building permits.
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
B. HYDROWGY/WATER QUALITY
Approval of LCP Resubmittal 8 and eventual construction of the Subcommittee Alternative
would result in five potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts. These include: (I)
flooding of (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs, compounded by runup from wind-<lriven waves
(coastal flood hazards); (b) flooding from the Sweetwater River; (c) flooding associated with
exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain facilities on-site; (2) erosion from inland or
coastal flooding; (3) siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality from
surface runoff-pesticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.; (4) inconsistency with City of Chula Vista
standards, specifically related to the design storm flow, and gravity pipe requirements; and (5)
issues regarding quantity and quality of water for both the IO-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.
II. A site-specific hydrology study must be performed for the Midbayfront site, addressing
such issues as flooding of low-lying areas during high tide 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 outlet protection at the
on-site storm drains discharging directly into San Diego Bay. The existing bay deposits,
located bayward of the two proposed discharge points, are highly susceptible to erosion 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 sediment and chemical pollutants 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 approved by the City Engineering Department
before they may be installed. The City Engineering Department must verify that all EPA,
Page 6
September 30. 1992
!\tidbayfront LCP RembmiuaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
and any Regional Water Quality Control Board Standards and all other applicable
regulations are met. Grading may not proceed until the standard are met. Proof of
effectiveness of the traps must be demonstrated.
15. The proposed on-site stonn drain system must be designed in accordance with City of
Chula Vista Standards and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Any deviation
from these standards must be approved by the City Engineer. In addition, ealculations
should be made for the l()()..year design stonn, 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 amount,
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
Engineering Department and Planning Department will be responsible for reviewing and
approving the drainage plan for the development area, including stonn drains; the hydrology
study; the erosion control recommendations, including discharge aprons; the traps 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 the oil and sediment traps, the
desilting basins, storm-drain outlets in the bay, and the detention basin upstream of the F and
G Street Marsh.
Monitoring Schedule
The drainage and hydrology studies must be received with all other project level plans so that
environmental analysis will include those studies. Approval will occur prior to grading for
installation of drainage structures. All standards and regulations of the EP A 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 are graded.
The MCC will be responsible for periodic evaluation of the desilting basins, oil and sediment
traps and erosion control structures at the stonn-drain outlets in the bay. This evaluation should
occur at least twice a year, in the spring and fall, for three years to detennine the before and
after conditions with winter storms.
C. AIR QUALITY
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
l Continued]
:MitigatioD Monitoring Program
Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur from development of the proposed c0-
generation plant. An incremental contribution to regional air quality problems would also occur
from vehicular sources. Vehicular emissions added to cogeneration plant entissions would result
in cumulative impacts. Construction activities also result in short-term air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures
17. Mitigation for air quality impacts associated with the co-generation plant required by the
APCD before an Authority to Construct 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 (rCMs) must be incorporated into the project.
Such measures would be aimed primarily at employees on the project site, but might also
include site residents and visitors in certain instances. Measures that should be included
are:
. Airport shuttle services for destination resort visitors
. Ridesharing
. Vanpoollncentives
. Alternate Transportation Methods
. Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel
. Transit Utilization
. Program Coordination
. Traffic Signal Coordination
. Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of "0" or Better
The effective implementation of these various TCMs will be significantly enhanced if they
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 construction.
Such measures 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 should
be incorporated into any project construction permits. Trucks must turn off engines while
waiting, or not be allowed to enter the site again. The permits should limit operations to
daytime periods of better dispersion that minimizes localized pollution accumulation.
Page 8
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[ Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department must receive notification from the APCD that an
Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate have been issued before they issue the building
permit for the cogeneration facility.
All dust control measures required by the AQMD must be implemented and verified by the
MCC and/or Engineering Department. Periodic checks 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 biweekly,
unannounced during construction and grading. Monitoring will cease upon completion of
grading activities and approval of final grading.
D. ]';O!SE
Two potentially significant impacts were cited:
1. Construction noise could reach 75 to 100 dB at 50 feet from the source; and
2. The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to 1-5 (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 construction 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 silencers; a performance
standard of 45 dB at night and 50 dB by day at 400 feet from the exhaust stack is required
Mjdbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued)
ltfitigatioD Monitoring Program
to prevent excessive exhaust noise intrusion. A noise barrier along the eastern play area
boundary to screen out traffic noise must also be incorporated into the project-level design.
Monitoring Agent
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department, via the MCC, is responsible for ensuring that
these measures are implemented. The monitor will check that construction permits, and c0-
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 contaminants 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-footed 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 September 3D, 1992
I\fidbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
. Landscape Design and Management Plan
. Water Quality/RunofflDrainage Management Plan
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
. Project Lighting Plan
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
. CC&RslOrdinances/ Applicable Policies
23. A "biologically aware" construction monitor shall be required for all phases of grading and
installation of drainage systems. The monitor should be employed through the City and
should report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning or
Community Development Department or the mitigation compliance coordinator (MCC).
The monitor will remain on-site and available for consultation should construction 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 discharges. The
trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must be triple-charnbered.
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 effective energy
dissipators and flow diffusers which eliminates erosion or accretion of the mudflats and
ensures the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds. An expected loss of mudflat totaling no
fewer than I. 7 acres must be replaced within the NWR in a location away from the
proposed development area. The drains and the surrounding mudflats and eelgrass beds
must be monitored in accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands 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 replaced 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. MLLWand should be buried in the mudflat 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. Surface contours must be restored and any construction impacts to eelgrass
must be mitigated by replanting over the pipeline.
.Mjdbayfront LCP Reo;:ubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued}
Mitigation Monitoring Program
27. Studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the proposed
lagoons. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution for reasons of
groundwater contaminants or induced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay should be
placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and should 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 rather than directly to the bay.
28. 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 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 mudflat 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.
29. 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 to leave the
construction site. In addition, construction dewatering should be directed into a basin with
a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an
alternative, dewatering water should be pumped across the mudflat into the boat channel
and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid re-suspending bottom silts, but at a
depth of at least 8 feet.
30. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the project
should be of the rapidly biodegradable variety, and registered by the Environmental
Protection Agency for use near wetlands. Further plans required for water quality
management, landscape management, and 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
September 30, 1992
Midhayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
:Mitigation Monitoring Program
32. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to the City
Landscape Architect for review. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt
and brackish marshes (Limonium or CarpobrotuJ species), or those which are known to be
attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators, (Washingtonia or Conaderia),
must be restricted from use. Landscape plans required to be reviewed at the project level.
33. 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 requirements (Le., silt/grease 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 control and
should possess the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem
predators. Detailed plans are required to be submitted for review at the project level.
34. The proposed bay front development and parks shall 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. Plans addressing how pets will
be prohibited will be required to be reviewed at the project level.
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 wetlands or
bay mudflats.
Human access to marshlands and buffer areas 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 feeder channel and southeast of the F StreetlMarina Parkway
intersection. Detailed landscape and buffer design plans will be required at the project
level.
35. 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. Garbage must
be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open garbage containers must be issued
to any entity not complying. Restaurants and park areas are of special concern. Plans
addressing how garbage will be contained will be required and reviewed at the project
level.
Midba}'front LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
36. Annual funding shall 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.
37. Not less than 3.5 acres of Brackish 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, tidal flushing
must 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. 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.
38. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall 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 USFWS 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.
39. 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 raptors 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 perching 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.
40. 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 shrub land 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 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
Page 14
SepreIDber30, 1992
Midbayfronl LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendmenl
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
and the marshlands. Both the needs for habitat protection and recreation would be met by
this design approach. Buffer area landscape plans require project-level review.
41. 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 Point, ideally with marsh
linkage to both the E Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh to aid in off-serting 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 3,84O-foot
length of the marshland fringing the E Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh
that would be impacted by predator/competitor 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 Connors (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 tool 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 areas. 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
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the City Engineering Department, and
City landscape Architect.
Mitigation Schedule
The complete schedule of mitigation measure 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 resolved
during subsequent environmental review. No grading or other construction permits may be
issued until these issues are resolved.
The contamination traps must be cleaned in the fall as specified and throughout the winter as
needed. The drainage facilities must be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to
grading for installation.
J\1idhayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
All revegetation must be initiated as soon as possible after the area to be revegetated is available.
In areas where the revegetation is to occur on a site not to be disturbed by future grading, then
the revegetation should be started prior to site grading. Otherwise, revegetation should begin
as soon as feasible after grading is completed.
F. ARCHAEOWGYIHISTORY/PALEONTOWGY
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 archaeological 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 Point 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 areal distribution of these deposits is summarized 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
September 30, 1992
rilidba}<front LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
I Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that mItIgation
measures for paleontological resources are incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance
process and mitigation monitoring plans. That plan will include the following measures. The
MCC shall coordinate at least one pre-conslruction 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. LAND USE
Development of the Midbayfront, as proposed, would result in incompatibility between the
project and surrounding land uses, specifically the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
and the Nature Interpretive 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,
certified LCP and the General Plan.
J\.litigation Measures
45. Incorporation of buffering design measures -- including maximum insulation in all exterior
and interior walls, insulation between floors, window treatments 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.
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
H. PARKS/RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
As currently proposed, the project would result in several impacts to parks and recreation and
open space. Park development according to the proposed phasing plan would not provide
adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the anticipated high public usage. In
addition, there is a potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users in the overall plan.
Information regarding public access from on-site areas to parks, and from areas east of 1-5, 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 parking must be provided within Phase I. To mitigate
the public access inadequacies, the applicant must submit an access plan, showing
designated public parking areas, access routes to public areas, and access routes and
signage from the east side of ]-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 five 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
park/recreation/open space mitigation measures are incorporated at the project-level of CEQA
compliance and mitigation monitoring program. The City of Chula Vista Planning Department
must determine the adequate number of parking spaces and verify that they are provided in
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
Adequate 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
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continuedl
Mitigation Monitoring Program
I. UTILITY SERVICE
The Midbayfront development project would require modifications to the existing SDG&E
service system, as well as an increase in the amount of energy to the site. The project would
also impact the City Fire Department'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 1-5
between the project area and the schools would prohibit the feasibility of students walking to and
from school, resulting in potentially significant transponation costs.
Mitigation 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 undenaken 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.
l\.fidbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
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 Title 1924 CCR shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise occupancies.
g. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided with
the provision for the turning around of fire apparatus (either a 75 X 24 foot
hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
h. 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
materials.
l. 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 Metro system (which the project will
tie into).
Page 20
September 30, 1992
.Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
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.
b. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way extension
westerly must be installed. {This 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 conservation measures at the project-design level, including such elements as low-
/low shower heads, low-/lush 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 any fee program the City has in place to implement this requirement.
Schools
55. To mitigate school overcrowding and transponation cost impacts the applicant must:
a. Form new Mello-Roos districts to finance capital costs such as permanent or
relocatable classrooms and school buses.
b. 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.
c. 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 transponation costs.
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[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
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations (formerly titled the California Administrative
Code), which requires energy saving devices in new buildings.
The City Fire Department must approve all building plans for inclusion of fire 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 approved 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.
Transponation funding, school CFDs, and school site issues must be resolved during subsequent
environmental review. No funber development entitlements 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 impacts 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 service (LOS D or worse -
Arterial Intersections, LOS E or worse - Freeway Ramp Intersections). Those intersections are:
Page 22
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Broadway at E Street, F Street, and H Street and the northbound and southbound ramp
intersections of E Street and 1-5.
Mitieation Measures
56. To improve these levels-of-service, the following mitigation measures are required:
a. Widen westbound E Street to provide an exclusive right-turn lane from westbound E
Street to the 1-5 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-turn lane.
c. Restripe the E Street overpass to provide two through lanes per direction, and two
left-turn lanes from eastbound E Street to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
d. Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and two right-
turn lanes.
e. Broadway/E Street
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn
only lane
Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn
only lane
f. Broadway/F Street
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane
g. 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.
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued)
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the mitigation
measures for Traffic and Access are carried forward to the project-level of CEQA review, and
are incorporated, to the degree feasible, into the project-level mitigation monitoring plans. The
feasibility of the above stated planned roadway improvements must be determined by the City
of Chula Vista, Engineering Department and Caltrans. The City Engineering and Planning
Departments shall condition project approval on alllnlffic improvements determined to be the
responsibility of the applicant.
Monitoring Schedule
The schedule for monitoring will be based on the time-table for planned roadway improvements
negotiated between the City 1 Caltrans, and the applicant. Circulation improvements shall be
triggered by construction of a pre-determined amount of square-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.
IC:\\oVP5\ IBA YFRONT\1'-.fMP,TXT]
Page 24
September 30, 1992
Table 1
MIDBAYFRONT LCP RESUBMITTAL NO.8 AMENDMENT
Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
A. Geology/Soils/Groundwater
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are The review and approval of The grading and City Planning and
proposed. a detailed grading and drainage plan must be the grading and drainage drainage plans should be Engineering Departments
prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code, plans will occur during prepared in conjunction
Subdivision Manual, and all City ordinances and adopted project-level analysis. and with subsequent project-
standards. This plan must include not only grading for prior to grading and specific environmental
structures and roads. but also grading for on-site and off- construction activities. The review. That
site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be City Planning and Engineering environmental review
approved and permits issued by the Engineering Departments will verify that process must be
Department prior to any grading work. the detailed grading and completed prior to
drainage plans include issuance of a grading
recommendations and permit.
detailed design incorporating
all measures contained in this
EIR. Monitoring activities
associated with this pre-
construction design and
permining measure cease
upon issuance of the last
Grading Permit.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, Each geotechnical Completion and approval City Planning and
including soils study and seismic study, must be investigation wilt be reviewed of plans must occur Engineering Departments
performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan, and and approved by the City of prior to issuance of
for each proposed structure. Each investigation shall Chula Vista Engineering grading permits,
contain adequate subsurface exploration and analyses to Department.
determine short- and lon.g-term settlement magnitudes,
expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and
characteristics, and potential and mitigation for seismic
ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation
shall contain detailed foundation recommendations, and
will be subject to review by the City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department.
1 of 27
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
3. All high rise structures must have adequate foundation The Building and Housing Approval of foundations City Planning, Building
support. This may involve deep foundations or some type Department will review all must be received prior and Housings
of mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking. proposed foundations for to issuance of the Departments
adequacy. building permit.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing All soil improvement Techniques to address City Planning and
soils. alluvial soils, or bay deposits will require some form techniques must be reviewed compressible soil under Engineering Departments
of subgrade modification to improve the support capacity by the City Engineering all structures must be
of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills Department for adequacv. approved prior issuance
and/or structural improvements. Soil improvement could of grading permits.
include partial or total removal and recompaction,
dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to
pre-compress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits
which exist below the groundwater table. Other
conventional engineering techniques may also be used to
mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to
compressible soil. These additional techniques may
include designs such as deep foundations or mat
foundations.
5. Roadways. embankments, and engineered fills See numbers 2 and 4 above See numbers 2 and 4 City Planning and
encroaching onto existing compressible bay deposits above Engineering Departments
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-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-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of
improvements they are to support. Site-specific
geotechnical studies 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.
, 27
Oc
'r 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
6. The currently planned soil-cement lining {covering a clay The choice and design of the Approval prior to City Planning and
soillayerl for the 10-acre salt water lagoon (which liner must be approved by the initiation of grading for Engineering Departments
encroaches onto compressible bay deposits) is a relatively City Engineering Department. the pond.
brittle material which may require stringent subgrade
improvements to ensure acceptable long-term
performance. Subsequent design must consider other
options for this type of liner, including clay soillloefs and
flexible pond liners.
7, To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused The City will review the Approval prior to City Planning and
by seismic shaking, geotechnical studies must specifically geotechnical report for issuance of the grading Engineering Departments
address seismic analysis based on site-specific subsurface accuracy and approve any permits.
data. At a minimum, seismic analysis must address measures recommended to
seismically.induced slope failure, liquefaction, and ground reduce seismic risk.
surface accelerations. Appropriate measures to reduce
seismic risk must be implemented into project design.
8, The embankment separating the 10.acre salt water The City will review the The determination will City Engineering
lagoon from San Diego Bay has tentatively been designed required assessment and be made prior to Department
with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind induced storm determine the most issuance of the grading
waves or earthquake-induced flooding could exceed the appropriate stabilizing permits.
height of the embankment. An assessment must be measure.
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.
9, Geotechnical studies must also address the impact of The City will review the Measures must be City Planning and
foundation location near or below the groundwater table, geotechnical report for approved prior to Engineering Departments
and suitable recommendations should be provided to accuracy and approve any issuance of the grading
mitigate both construction-period difficulties and uplift measure recommended to permits.
pressures that may affect both foundation elements and reduce high groundwater
subterranean parking floor slabs extending below the impact.
transient groundwater level. Construction-period
mitigation may require temporary dewatering andlor
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 structural foundations to restrain slabs.
3 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING I MONITORING AGENT
B. Hydrology
10. A detailed drainage plan must be prepared in The City Engineering The plan approval must City Planning and
accordance with the Chula Vista Code Subdivision Department will review and occur prior to issuance Engineering Departments
Manual and applicable ordinances and adopted approve the drainage plan. of grading permits.
standards (including Thresholds Standard Policy).
11. A site.specific hydrology study must be performed for The City will review the The study approval and City Planning and
the Midbayfront site, addressing such issues as hydrology study, and incorporation of Engineering Departments
flooding of low-lying areas during high tide conditions incorporate appropriate recommendations must
and the effect of wind-driven waves generated from recommendations onto occur prior to issuance
within San Diego Bay; flooding from the Sweetwater grading and construction of grading permits.
River; and erosion from inland or coastal flooding. plans.
12. Recommendations shall be provided for erosion The City will evaluate the All erosion control The City Planning and
control to mitigate both coastal erosion and erosion erosion control measures measures will be Engineering Departments
from inland flooding. Additionally, monitoring shall be recommended to address reviewed and approved
performed for a minimum period of three years to coastal and inland flooding prior to issuance of the
evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed outlet and erosion. Periodically grading permit.
protection at the on-site storm drains discharging during the three year period,
directly into San Diego Bay. The existing bay a monitor will evaluate the Monitoring at the open
deposits, located bayward of the two proposed amount of erosion, occurring discharge points will
discharge points, are highly susceptible to erosion. at the storm-drain discharge occur at least twice a
The resulting scour is likely to impact sensitive marine points in the bay. If erosion year, in the fall and
habitat west of the Midbayfront site, if the force of is impacting marine habitat spring, for three years,
the water being discharged is not properly mitigated then redesign or improvement to evaluate the
by the proposed discharge aprons. of the discharge aprons will effectiveness during
be necessary. winter storms.
The MCC will be
responsible for
coordinating the
personnel and time
schedule for monitoring
of the open discharge.
-,f 27
0'
er 13.1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
13. The effectiveness of proposed oil and sediment traps, Prior to any development. the Monitoring shall be The City Planning and
as well as that of the de silting basin in removing both water Quality of the "F" & initiated prior to any Engineering Departments
sediment and chemical pollutants from the "F" & "G" "G" Street Marsh shall be grading to determine
Street Marsh, shall be monitored for a minimum measured for sediment toad baseline criteria. !twill
period of three years. as well as chemicals. These continue with
will serve as the baseline inspections at least
criteria. At least quarterly Quarterly until
during and after construction. construction activities
the marsh will be retested at cease.
the same locations. If
pollutant levels increase The MCC will be
substantially. then measures responsible for
to locate and remove the coordinating the
source must be undertaken. personnel and time
schedule for monitoring
water quality impacts.
14. Traps for contaminant control must be approved by The City Engineering Grading permits will not City Planning and
the City Engineering Department before they may be Department must verify that be issued until the Engineering Departments
installed. all EPA. and any Regional standards are met.
Water Quality Control Board
Standards and all other
applicable regulations are
met.
15. The proposed on-site storm drain system shall be The City Engineering The storm drain system City Planning and
designed in accordance with City of Chula Vista Department will review and must be approved prior Engineering Departments
Standards and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision approve the storm drain to issuance of grading
Manual. Any deviation from these standards must be system. permits.
approved by the City Engineer. In addition,
calculations should be made for the 1 OO-year design
storm, as required by FEMA and prudent engineering
practice.
16. The applicant must prepare a groundwater quality and The City will review all The groundwater City Planning and
quantity analysis for replacement water required for groundwater evaluations to evaluation must be Engineering Departments
the lagoons. If groundwater supplies are not determine if groundwater is completed and a source
adequate and if they are contaminated, then an an adequate water source. of water identified and
alternative source must be approved by the City. Any possible alternative approved prior to
source must be approved by issuance of grading
the City. permits.
5 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
c. Air Quality
'7. Mitigation for air quality impacts associated with the The APeD reviews plans and The necessary APeD APeD, City Planning
co-generation plant is required by the APeD before an issues permits after CECA permits must be Department
Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is review is completed, thus received by the City
issued. Mitigation would include concurrent once the project-level ErR is prior to issuance of a
reductions in NO.. ROG, and CO to "off-set" project certified. which will include building permit for the
lco-generation plantl emissions. information on the co- co-generation plant.
generation plant, the APeD
will review project plans, and
establish requirements. They
will also verify completion of
requirements to issuance of
permits.
18. Various transportation central measures (TCMs) must The establishment of TCMs must be included City Planning
be incorporated to reduce vehicular emissions that minimum participation goals in aU project-level plans, Department
may affect air Quality. Measures include: and the formation of a for all phases, as
. Airport shunle services for destination resort visitors Midbayfront TMA will be appropriate, and will be
. Ridesharing implemented by the Findings a condition of each
. Vanpoollncentives of Fact for the proposed building permit approval.
. Alternate Transportation Methods project, and will be included Establishment of a TMA
. Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel in project-level plans. The may take place after
. Transit Utilization MCC will facilitate formation construction is
. Program Coordination of a TMA. with participation completed when site
. Traffic Signal Coordination from site users and. if tenants are in place.
. Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of appropriate, other bayfront
-D- or Better users.
The effective implementation of these various TCMs will
be significantly enhanced if they 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.
~ '127
0(" C!r 13.1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
19. Dust control measures required by the AOMD will be The MCC will monitor The MCC will verify that City Planning and
implemented during construction, Such measures construction traffic. The grading and construction Engineering Departments
include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as construction contractor will permits include these
removing any soil spillage onto traveled roadways inform construction related measures and will make
through site housekeeping procedures. Reducing traffic of these requirements. periodic, unannounced
interference with existing traffic and preventing truck Grading and construction visits (at least monthly)
queuing around local receptors should be incorporated permits will include these during the period of
into any project construction permits. Trucks must requirements. construction. Monitoring
turn off engines while waiting, or not be allowed to ceases upon the
enter the site again. The permits should limit completion of grading
operations to daytime periods of better dispersion and construction
that minimizes localized pollution accumulation. activities.
7 of 27
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
D. Noise
20. Construction noise intrusion will be limited by The City will ensure that this The condition must be City Planning and
conditions on construction permits to weekday hours measure is included on the placed on all grading Engineering Departments
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those same construction plans. and building plans
permits will also specify construction access routing before their approval;
to minimize construction truck traffic past existing monitoring will occur
park, residential, Of other noise sensitive uses to through the course of
comply with General Plan standards and policies. construction.
21. Child care noise exposure must be minimized by The City will ensure that the Compliance must occur City Planning and
establishing a noise performance standard on co- co-generation operating prior to issuance of Engineering Departments
generation exhaust stack noise met through the use permit includes this condition, operating permit (co.
of silencers: a performance standard of 45 dB at and that the noise barrier is generation plantl and
night and 50 dB by day at 400 feet from the exhaust included on building plans. prior to issuance of
stack is required to prevent excessive exhaust noise grading permit for this
intrusion. A noise barrier along the eastern play area area.
boundary to screen out traffic noise must also be
incorporated into the project.level design.
.f 27
0<
"13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
E. Biology
22. The applicant must prepare a Biological Resource This Plan will be reviewed by This document must be City Planning
Management Plan to determine project-specific the City, the U.S. Fish and available in a completed Department
mitigation measures. The Plan must include the Wildlife Service, the form for review during
following sections: California Department of Fish the project-level
. Predator Management Plan and Game, and environmental environmental process.
. Human Activities Management Plan experts to verify its accuracy The plan must be
. Landscape Design and Management Plan and the feasibility of adopted by the City
. Water OualitylRunoff/Drainage Management Plan suggested mitigation Council and enforced
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan measures. throughout the life of
. Project Lighting Plan the project.
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
. CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
23. A -biologically aware- construction monitor shall be The biological monitor will be The monitor will remain City Planning
required for all phases of grading and installation of present on the site during on-site and available for Department
drainage systems. The monitor should be employed construction to provide consultation. at least
through the City and should report directly to a verification of numerous 25% time during
specific person in the Engineering Planning or measures during grading and grading. This monitor
Community Development Department or the construction. shall be present on a
Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC). reduced basis during
actual building
construction.
24. All post-construction collector drains must be directed The City Field Inspector will Prior to issuance of City Planning and
through large volume silt and grease traps prior to verify that the type of grease occupancy permits the Engineering Departments
being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or traps placed on the site are drains and traps must be
the bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines those approved by the City. inspected and approved.
entering the detention basin must be triple-
chambered.
9 of 27
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
25. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly As part of the drainage Cleaning must be City Planning
with thorough cleaning. Maintenance should be done system and water quality initiated in late Department
by removal of wastes rather than flushing. monitoring provisions set by September or early
the RWQCS. the MeC will October Ino later than
coordinate with the applicant October 15) and as
to inspect and report that silt needed through the
and grease traps are cleaned winter and spring
at teast as often as the times months for the life of
specified. Cleaning will be the project.
noted in the reports
submitted to the RWaCS and
copies will he furnished to
the City within 30 days of
inspection.
of 27
0,
er 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES
26.
The "direct to bay" drains could be designed and
constructed with effective energy dissipators and
flow diffusers which eliminates erosion or accretion
of the mudflats and ensures the protection of
adjacent eelgrass beds. An expected loss of mudflat
totaling no fewer than 1.7 acres should be replaced
within the NWR in a location away from the proposed
development area. These drains and the surrounding
mudflats and eelgrass beds should be monitored in
accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands
Monitoring Plan for a period of 5 years and any
additional corrective measures required should be
implemented and any additional impacted areas
resulting should be replaced by the creation of a
similar area from the uplands of "0- Street Fill or
Gunpowder Point. As an alternative. the two -direct
to bay- drains shall be extended to subsurface
discharge points located in the existing deep water
boat channel. These discharge points shall be located
at a minimum depth of -10 ft. MLLW and shall be
buried in the mudflat to a point below the existing
eelgrass beds. Drain placement must impact the least
amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either
combining the drains or avoiding dense eelgrass beds.
Surface contours shall be restored and any
construction impacts to eelgrass shall be mitigated by
replanting over the pipeline.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
Drain placement must be
approved by the Engineering
Department, Planning
Department and biological
monitor to ensure that it
satisfies listed criteria.
11 of 27
TIMING
The pipe placement
must be approved prior
to extension of the
drains. The Mudflat
Wetlands Monitoring
Plan will be approved
with subsequent project-
specific CEOA review
and will detail timing of
the 1.7 acre mudflat
replacement.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning
Department
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES
27.
Studies are required to evaluate the effects of
groundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagoons. If
these studies indicate that this is not a suitable
solution for reasons of groundwater contaminants or
induced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
should be placed in a drain alignment (5.3.) or along a
similar low impact corridor and should 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 rather than directly to
the bay.
28.
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 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, shaH 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 mudflat 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.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
The City will review the
groundwater report and
approve the final water
source for the lagoons. They
will also ensure that
restoration is completed and
the proper drainage installed.
The biological monitor must
verify that no construction
occurs during the restricted
time period.
1f 27
TIMING
The groundwater
evaluation must be
completed and all
drainage issues resolved
prior to grading permit
issuance.
On-going throughout the
term of construction.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning and
Engineering Department
City Planning and
Engineering Departments
Dc
'r 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
29. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large The City Field Inspector must On-going throughout the City Planning and
enough to handle storm water runoff must be verify that desiltation basins term of construction Engineering Departments
maintained during the construction phase so that no are adequate to prevent silts
sitts are allowed to leave the construction site. In from leaving the site. The
addition. construction dewatering should be directed biological monitor will ensure
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system other criteria are followed.
so that clear water is released into a basin. As an
alternative. dewatering water should be pumped
across the mudflat into the boat channel and
discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid re-
suspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8
feet.
30. Fertilizers. pesticides and herbicides utilized within The City Landscape Architect Approval prior to City Planning
landscaping areas of the project must be of the must verify the suitability of initiation of landscaping Department
biodegradable variety and registered bv the all fertilizers, pesticides and and throughout life of
Environmental Protection Agency for use near herbicides. the project.
wetlands. Further plans required for water Quality
management should be developed in accordance with
the Biological Resource Management Plan (number
191
31. All landscape chemical applications should be done by The City must verify the state Approval prior to City Planning
a state-certified landscape contractor. certification of any landscape initiation of landscaping. Department
contractor retained.
13 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES
32.
Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project
area shall be submitted to the City Landscape
Architect for review. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes
lLimonium or Carpobrotus species}. or those which
are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or
roosting sites for predators I Washingtonia or
Cortaderia). shall be restricted from use.
33.
A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers
must 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
requirements Ii.e., silt/grease 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
control and should possess the necessary skills,
permits and authority to trap and remove problem
predators.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
The City Landscape Architect
must approve the landscape
plant list. The City's
Landscape Architect will
inspect landscaping of the
project to verify that the
species planted are
consistent with the
Landscape Plan. 1f species
substitutions are desired, the
applicant shall submit
proposed changes to the
City's Landscape Architect
who will consult with the
biological monitor to ensure
that appropriate species are
being used. Monitoring
activities associated with this
mitigation measure will be
conducted at intervals to be
established by the City's
Environmental Review
Coordinator and Landscape
Architect's Office.
Detailed plans for funding and
employment of the two
enforcement staff must be
reviewed and approved by
the City.
'f 27
TIMING
The plant list must be
approved prior to
initiation of landscaping
Plans and funding
review will occur during
subsequent project
specific CEQA review.
Funding must be
finalized and
enforcement staff hired,
prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning
Department
City Planning
Department
Oc
'r 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES
34.
The proposed bayfront development area, including all
parks. shall 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.
Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns
and prohibited activities must be prominently posted
through the affected parklands.
Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due
to the kites being perceived as predatory birds and thus
should be prohibited from parkland ares adjacent to
wetlands or bay mudflats.
Human access to marshlands and buffer areas should be
restricted through fencing and signs. This restriction
should 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 should be restricted
through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the
"F" & "G" Street feeder channel and southeast of the "F-
Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
35.
Open garbage containers shall be restricted and all
dumpsters shall be totally enclosed to avoid attracting
avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to
the area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as
possible. Citations for open garbage containers shall
be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants
and park areas are of special concern.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
All plans for use restrictions
must be reviewed by the City
Planning Department at the
project level of CEOA
analysis.
Plans for garbage control
must be reviewed by the City
Planning Department at the
project level of CEOA
analysis.
15 of 27
TIMING
All plans must be
approved prior to the
issuance of grading
permits and signs must
be posted prior to
issuance of occupancy
permits.
Plan review would occur
during subsequent
project-specific CeOA
review. Approval of
plans must occur prior
to issuance of grading
permits. Garbage
control would continue
for the life of the
project.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning
Department
City Planning
Department
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
36. Annual funding should be designated for the purpose Plans for long term funding Funding must be City Planning
of garbage control. repair and maintenance of will be reviewed by the City negotiated and approved Department
drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control Planning Department. during subsequent
program, and mitigation programs for the project. project-specific CEOA
review.
37. Not less than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4.0 Establishment of new From planting to City Planning
acres of salt marsh must be created within the .. F~ & wetland habitat must be establishment, Department
"G" Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. In addition, initiated prior to grading and monitoring at least
tidal flushing should be enhanced as identified in the monitored annually, by the annually for 5 years.
Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans biological monitor, until Revegetation should be
11987). Further, if marshlands are to be created, as established to the satisfaction initiated as soon as
proposed, on both sides of Marina Parkway, of the appropriate wildlife possible upon project
undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide agencies. The City Field approval.
would be required. It is suggested that large half~ Inspector must verify that
round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more radius proper culverts are installed.
be considered for this purpose.
38. Further dredging, structural changes, or proposed The biological monitor will Monitoring will occur City Planning
uses must not occur along the mudflat or marshland verify that no changes to during grading and Department
areas of the bayfront under the jurisdiction of the City these areas occur during construction, and should
of Chula Vista. This includes such activities as grading and construction, be checked at least four
marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the The MCC will facilitate times a year until
developer, City, and USFWS should jointly seek to agreements to post buoys. construction is
have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line of completed. The buoys
buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas. should be in place
indefinitely.
39. Buildings should utilize non~reflective glass and heavy All building plans must be Verification of the City Planning, Building
architectural lines. A film glass manufactured by 3M reviewed during project~level incorporation of these and Housing
is recommended. CEOA review for adherence measures on the Departments
to these requirements. The building plans will occur
Buildings facing marshlands should not include extraneous MCC will facilitate prior to issuance of
ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest. preparation of an agreement building permits.
Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to whereby the developer
the wetlands should be covered with an anti-perch commits to correcting
material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any perching problem areas to the
additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy best of his/her ability,
incidence of perching be observed or should nest building
by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping
materials.
f 27
Oc'
r 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
40. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8 acre park The park buffer area Review will occur during City Planning
zone at the "F" & ~G" Street Marsh feeder channel landscape plans must be project-level CEOA Department
should be limited to passive use and should include reviewed and approved by review. and approval
such features as abundant native shrubland the City Landscape Architect, prior to issuance of
restoration, which would preclude active recreation in City Park and Recreation grading permits
this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Department, City Planning
Marsh and Vener Pond should be designed to include Department, and biological
a visual and human encroachment barrier between monitor.
active recreation areas and the marshlands. This
could be best accomplished using a vegetated berm
separated from a lowered recreation area (-pits~l by a
fence. Passive overlooks could 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. Both needs would be met
by this design approach.
41. New marshland, pond fringe and salt pond habitats Habitat restoration must be From planting to City Planning
totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be created on initiated upon project establishment. at least Department
the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder approval, and must be annually for five years.
Point. ideally with marsh linkage to both the -E- monitored annually until
Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh to aid in off. established to the satisfaction
setting impacts associated with encroachment. of the appropriate wildlife
predation. and loss of habitat use by avian species. agencies.
17 of 27
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES
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 Connors 119871 plan as a basis. but should
be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed
development. This plan should include the use of
fines as an enforcement tool 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 areas.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
It is anticipated that a loog-
term Predator Management
Program lPMPI for the NWR
and adjoining areas of the
Midbayfront Uplands will be
established. The project
applicant will be required to
participate in the PMP on a
pro rata (fair share) basis.
Until the PMP is
implemented, the project
applicant shall conduct a
project-specific predator
management program, which
would operate for the late
March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-
specific program will focus
primarily on the "F" & "G"
Street Marsh unit of the
NWR. Predator Management
actions will include regular
censusing, trapping and
removal of mammalian
predators as appropriate
{including domestic, feral.
and wild mammalsl. as well
as removal of selected avian
predators when necessary.
The MCC/biofogical monitor
will verify that the project
specification program occurs
as approved.
If 27
TIMING
Review of the PMP will
occur during the project-
level CEQA review.
Approval of the PMP
will occur prior to
issuance of grading
permits.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning
Department
Oc
'r 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
F. Archaeology IHistory IPaleontology
43. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to Archaeological review will be Prior to issuance of City Planning
archaeological review at the project level of conducted at the project-revel permits for off.site Department
environmental review. of CEQA compliance. work.
44. A qualified paleontologist should be at any pre- The City's Field Inspector and During cuning of any City Planning
construction meeting to consult with the grading and MCC will coordinate with a undisturbed Bay Point Department
excavation contractors. paleontologist to ensure that Formation, and half time
Qualified personnel are throughout entire
A paleontological monitor should be on-site on a half-time present as required. grading period.
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 should
proceed; if they turn out to be barren colluvial deposits,
then monitoring should not be continued.
In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered,
the paleontologist shall 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
should be cleaned. sorted. and cataloged and then with
the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific
institution with paleontologic collections such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum.
19 of 27
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
G. land Use
45. Incorporation of buffering design measuresnincluding The Planning Department will During project-level City Planning
maximum insulation in all exterior and interior walls, review building plans fOf review. with approval Department
insulation between floors; window treatments to verification of incorporation prior to issuance of
reduce light and intrusion. and designated parking of these measures during the building permit.
spaces for residents within a separated and locked design review process.
area of parking
f 27
Oc
r 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY I TIMING MONITORING AGENT
H. Parks and Recreation
46. All park development and associated parking must be a) All parks must be a) Prior to Occupancy in al City Planning and
provided in Phase 1 as well as an access plan, constructed to the Phase L Parks and Recreation
showing designated public parking areas, access satisfaction of the Parks bl Prior to issuance of Department
routes to public areas and access routes and signage Department prior to the subsequent project bl City Planning
from the east side of 1.5 across "E" Street. issuance of occupancy permit approvals. Department
for Phase I.
bl The access plan must be
provided during project-revel
environmental review.
47. Additional public parking may be required by the City. A determination regarding the During project*level of City Planning
number of spaces and the CEOA review, with Department
location of those spaces will approval prior to
be made prior to issuance of issuance of grading
grading permits. permit.
48. The City's Parks and Recreation Department has The City will hire the Following acceptance of City Parks Department
stated the need to hire one gardener for ever five additional gardeners and title to the parks by the
acres of parkland (a total of six), as well as to acquire landscaping equipment. City.
additional landscaping equipment such as mowers.
21 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
I. Utility Service
Gas & Electric
49. Energy resources shall be conserved by such Energy conservation Approval of measures City Planning
generally accepted methods as sealing doors and measures must be evaluated prior to iss.uance of Department
windows. double-pane glass. increases in wall and and approved by the Planning building permits and
ceiling insulation, and the incorporation of solar Department. final approval with
benefits. Time-controlled lighting systems throughout inspection prior to
the industrial/commercial portions of the project issuance of occupancy
would also conserve energy. permits.
Solid Waste
50. A recycling program must be undertaken by the The recycling program must Recycling plan approval City Planning
developer in conjunction with a local recycling be reviewed and approved by prior to occupancy Department and
company. This would include bins on-site for the the City and Planning permits. Enforcement Resource Conservation
collection of recyclable materials such as glass. Department and Resource throughout life of Coordinator
plastic. metal and paper products. Additionally. the Conservation Coordinator. project.
development must incorporate trash compactors to Trash compactors must be
reduce volume. clearly provided in project
plans and verified by the City.
)f 27
Dc
~r 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
Fire
51. The following measures are required by the City Fire The City must review all All standards must be City Fire and Planning
Department to reduce the significant impacts to future development plans for met and approved. and Departments
below a level of significance: conformance with standards all funding provided.
01 Maximum fire flow shall be 5.000 gpm. determined by the Fire prior to issuance of
bl Fire department roadway access shall be provided to Department. The applicant occupancy permits.
within 150 feet of all portions of any building. shall enter into an agreement
cl All roadway widths shall be a minimum of 20 feet to guarantee contribution of
wide. funds for a ladder truck based
dl All apartments three or more stories in height or on the City Fire Department
containing more than 15 dwelling units and every estimate.
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.
II All Title 1924 CCR shall apply relative to public
assembly and high rise occupancies.
gl Fire department access roadways greater in length
than 150 feet shall be provided with the provision for
the turning around of fire apparatus leither a 75 x 24
foot hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac}.
hI 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 materials,
iI 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.
jI Address signs - Easily readable signs which can be
seen from the street are required, using large,
contrasting block letters and numbers.
kl Additional fire inspector would be necessary to
handle additional work load created by this project.
23 of 27
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
Additionally, the applicant is responsible for payment of
the additional ladder truck through the Development
Impact Fees. and the City's general fund would pay for
the increase in annual salary for the four-person crew and
fire inspector.
Sewer
52. The developer must submit detailed drawings to the The City Engineering Plan approval prior to City Planning and
City showing sewer line locations and capacities. Department must review the construction. Engineering Departments
plans for consistency with
the thresholds policy and
with the Metro System. Any
off.site improvements will
undergo environmental
review.
Water
53. Specific water mains must be completed or upgraded. The City Engineering Plan approval prior to City Planning and
these include: Department and Sweetwater construction Engineering
. A 12 inch main in -F- Street from Broadway to Authority will review all Departments;
approximately 830 feet west must be installed. water main plans to ensure Sweetwater Authority
. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to that they provide the
about Sierra Way extension westerly must be necessary flow, Any off-site
installed. (This will connect the project with supplies improvements will undergo
of water from the southern portion of Chula Vista, environmental review.
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
. All on-site mains must be sized 12 inches
7 '127
Oct
r 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
54. To mitigate the incremental impact to regional water Such designs will be During subsequent City Planning and
supply, the applicant must provide water reviewed and approved by project-specific CEQA Engineering Departments
conservation measures at the project.design level, the City. review and prior to any
including such elements as low-flow showerheads, construction
low-flush toilets. timed irrigation, landscaping with
drought-tolerant species. drip irrigation where
appropriate. development of reclaimed water lines for
future use, and participation in any fee program the
City has in place for no net increase in water
consumption.
25 of 27
October 13. 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
Schools
55. To mitigate impacts to school overcrowding and City Planning will ensure the To be resolved during City Planning
school transportation the applicant must: form new provision of transportation subsequent project- Department
Mello-RoDs Districts to finance capital costs such as funding and new schools specific CEQA review
permanent or relocatabte classrooms and school sites prior to approval of and prior to issuance of
buses; resolve the issue of new school sites or development entitlements. development
additional property adjacent to existing schools for entitlements
the construction of capital improvements; and provide
annual costs for student transportation costs
including bus maintenance and drivers' salaries.
'f 27
OC' 'r 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
G. Transportationl Access
56. To improve these levels-ot-service, the following The applicant shall be Developer contribution City Engineering and
mitigation measures are required: required to contribute funds prior to issuance of a Planning Department
a. Widen westbound E Street to provide an exclusive towards future improvements certificate of
right-turn lane from westbound E Street to the 1-5 based on the City Engineer's occupancy.
northbound on ramp. This lane must be a minimum estimate of his/her fair share.
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 lelt- and
right-turn lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
c. Restripe the E Street overpass to provide two through
lanes per direction, and two left-turn lanes from
eastbound E Street to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
d. Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an
exclusive left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes.
e. Broadway/E Street
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn
lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane
Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn
lane and an exclusive righHurn only lane
f. Broadway/F Street
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-
turn only lane
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-
turn only lane
g. BroadwaylH Street
Westbound: Construction to provide an additional
through lane
Eastbound: Construction to provide an additional
through lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane
(C:\WP51 \BA YFRONT\MITtG-1 .TBll
(For City Council 1/141921
27 of 27
October 13. 1992
ITEM TITLE:
All....,.. ..!JJEllN..........fAj. '.,. "ili1iVB" .....
.... ... .. ,---
. . .. . . .-. .
. ...-.. ..... .
. - .. .. .. .....
' ... - ." ..... .. '.
..... ... .........
G.lvlsi[b.",'i!""""'"
..,.............--...............,.
......................-...'..................,............-.
).t'"GJl''''' ...!li..ll..\Y....
.., . .
.. n__ ..
..... . ..
>:...:::..:,:::.':::...::,..:,-:::.,::.,,:;
,.......-....................-,..--........
..". . . ..
... ..'
Alil.'."'. .... ","1!E' .... 'RJil' .' . !;it.. "77MB' ,.......,
.. ... ,..... .'
'. .,., . - .....
. .., .......
- .. ...
:'..c....,._......-.-...-....,...............,.....,_......:-....:.,...:.....,.....
ea.tlRs~a.lr .
.,....,'.-....-....'.-,....-..........,......-_.-.-.........-.-,'.
.'ii.......... .
t\i4r{(;?~
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item B'"
Meeting Date 10/13/92
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND
BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, AND CORRESPONDING AMEND-
MENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
J53~
ORDINANCE <\DOPTING, ON CONDITIONS, THE "CHULA
VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN--
THE BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN" AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE
APPLICABLE TO THE BAYFRONT, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MIDBAYFRONT LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL NO.8 AMENDMENT (EIR
89-08) AND ADDENDUM THERETO; AND MAKING FINDINGS OF
FACT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RESOLUTION l~lI3 t Certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8
Amendment (EIR 89-08) and Addendum thereto; amending the General
Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation Diagram and Parks and
Recreation Element, and Bayfront Area Plan; adopting the Chula Vista
Local Coastal Program Resubmittal consisting of the Land Use Plan and
Specific Plan and with 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
[ S.
Community Development Director -
City M_~r
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No.XJ
In August 1988 the Midbayfront, the principal remaining undeveloped portion ofthe Chula Vista
Bayfront, was sold to Chula Vista Investors (CVI). The new property owner began preparing
~I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
t'
a plan to propose modifications to the certified LCP to allow a mixed-use development. CVI's
plan included a resubmittal of the LCP, along with a conceptual development plan consistent
with the proposed changes to the LCP. The City required that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) be prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plan
resubmittal.
The EIR process began in June 1989 with a Notice of Preparation. The Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (July 1991) was
certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991, and again on January 14, 1992. The FEIR
contains the CEQA compliance record for the proposed plan-level action that had been processed
beginning with the Notice of Preparation in June 1989 to the completion of the FEIR in July
1992.
The FEIR analyzed the applicant's original project, his revised (Alternative 8) project, seven
other alternatives developed by staff and/or required by CEQA, and the Bayfront Planning
Subcommittee's alternative. The Subcommittee Alternative was similar to the applicant's
original proposed project in types of land uses proposed. It differed from the original proposal
by reducing the density of the project from 4.18 million square feet to the revised project of 3.3
million square feet. Other revisions included replacement of the Luxury Motel with a Cultural
Arts Facility, and reduction in number of dwelling units to 1,000. No modifications to the
originally proposed LCP Resubmittal document were made at that time.
The Subcommittee Alternative was heard by the City Planning Commission on December 18,
continued to January 8, and by the City Council January 14, 1992. Both approved the
Subcommittee Alternative, certified the Final EIR, and made Findings, adopted a Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
At their January 14, 1992 meeting and February 4, 1992 meeting, the City Council directed staff
to process and return to Council for approval of: a local Coastal Program Resubmittal
(amendment), a General Plan amendment, and a Redevelopment Plan amendment consistent with
the Subcommittee Alternative and including their modifications and informational items.
The proposed Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Resubmittal is the document that has been
prepared in response to this Council directive. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment has
been prepared to make the General Plan consistent with the LCP. The Redevelopment Plan
Amendment will be prepared following approval of these plans.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
[1] Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal
No.8 Amendment (EIR 89-08), and Addendum thereto, have been prepared pursuant to
CEQA, its Guidelines, and all local ordinances;
E'~ J..
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
i
[2] Recommend that adoption of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Resubmittal, consisting of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Specific Plan (SP), including the
changes shown in the resolution be continued until economic feasibility of the project as
approved by the City Council is reconciled;
[3] Continue Amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation
Diagram, and Parks and Recreation Element, and Bayfront Plan as shown in Attachment A
until Item [2] above is reconciled; and
[4] Not Make Findings of Fact, adopt the Midbayfront LCP No.8 Amendment Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations until project economic
feasibility is reconciled.
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL:
[1] Adopt the resolution; and
[2] Introduce the Ordinance (first reading).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting of September 23, 1992
the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (EIR 89-08) and
Addendum thereto; and recommended amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element, Land
Use Circulation Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element, Bayfront Area Plan, and adoption of
the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal with staff recommended changes as
shown in the resolution. This recommendation is subject to submission and Council review of
the Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates Economic Feasibility Report Executive Summary which
addresses the financial feasibility of the project.
DISCUSSION:
I. Final Environmental Imoact Reoort
The Final EIR, Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment, and Addendum thereto,
addressed impacts of changes to the LCP from development of the Midbayfront and the northern
portion of Rohr's property. The proposed LCP Resubmittal includes the project as analyzed in
the Final EIR and Addendum, and remains appropriate and adequate for this proposal with
inclusion of staff s recommendation regarding Cultural Arts Facility height and total project
square footage. Certification that it has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), its Guidelines, and local ordinances is necessary in order to take action
on the proposed LCP Resubmittal and General Plan Amendment (GPA).
~'J
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
~
The Final EIR identified impacts associated with the LCP Resubmittal and associated GPA; it
identified mitigation measures, and the level of significance after implementation of mitigation.
The summary impact table from the Final EIR is included as Attachment B.
The CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring
Program are documents that are necessary to adopt if the Council approves the GP A and LCP
Resubmitta1. The Findings of Fact summarize the significant and potentially significant effects
of the project, the feasibility of mitigation measures and their ability to avoid or reduce impacts,
and the feasibility of project alternatives. The Mitigation Monitoring Program details the
implementation methodology and monitoring and reporting program for mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations contains the project
benefits that the Chula Vista City Council believes outweigh or justify the existence of
significant and unmitigated environmental impacts which would occur if the project were
implemented. These documents (in particular, the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations) make conclusions about the economic feasibility of the proposed project. The
City Council, as the decision-making authority of the City, is responsible for identifying the
City's willingness to approve the proposed project in light of the City's substantial economic
commitment which will be necessary in order for the project to proceed.
II. General Plan Amendment
A. Land Use Element Text
The current General Plan and LCP designate the Midbayfront core area (between Lagoon
Drive and Marina Parkway) for Professional Office and Residential Land Use. The City
Council has provided specific direction that the Midbayfront land uses should develop with
an emphasis on destination resort facilities coupled with a high degree of public park and
open space acreage. The proposed GPA and LCP Resubmitta1 are consistent with the City
Council direction on this matter. Irrespective of any potential issues raised by development
intensity levels proposed in the LCP Resubmittal, the underlying land use designations
proposed in the General Plan are recommended for approval.
The Midbayfront Conceptual Plan Subcommittee Alternative proposes a resort use of
approximately 44 acres as the project centerpiece, between Bay Blvd., Marina Parkway
(westerly extension of E Street), and Lagoon Drive (westerly extension of F Street). The
current General Plan Land Use Element does not contain a land use category which
adequately describes such a land use.
Therefore, staff proposes that a new commercial land use category, entitled "Resort", be
added to Section 4.2 of the Land Use Element. The proposed language is as follows:
"RESORT: This category identifies large-scale resort facilities proposed to serve
as "destination" -oriented, with a full range of resort-related services. Signing
rr-y
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
i""
ofresons shall be in areas with significant attractions, such as bodies of water
or other natural features, which provide ample recreational opportunities and
scenic vistas. Resortfacilities 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 intensity of 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. .
This language adequately describes the proposed Midbayfront resort facility. It may be
applied in other areas of the City upon approval of a general plan amendment based on a
proposed project, but will clearly be limited in scope.
B. Land Use and Circulation Diagram
Exhibit A shows the existing land use and circulation diagram for the Midbayfront area,
while Exhibit B shows the proposed land use and circulation diagram. The major changes
to the diagram can be summarized in the following table:
AREA OLD LAND USE NEW LAND USE
North of Marina Parkway Professional & Administrative High-Density Residential
Commercial (18-27 du/ac.) and
Parks and Recreation
North of Marina Parkway Open Space (SDG&E transmission Visitor-Serving Commercial
line)
North of Marina Parkway Circulation Element Class I Deleted
Collector
South of Marina Parkway, Medium Residential, Professional Resort
north of Lagoon Drive & Administrative Commercial,
Parks & Recreation, Open Space
South of Lagoon Drive Research & Limited Industrial Professional & Administrative
Commercial
In addition, the alignments of Marina Parkway and Lagoon Drive have been slightly altered
on the Land Use and Circulation Diagram, which has the effect of increasing the amount
of area designated Parks & Recreation located between Marina Parkway and San Diego
Bay.
The proposed amendments to the diagram will result in the following changes in acreages
for each affected land use category:
Z'>f
Page 6, Item t'
Meeting Date 10/13/92
Land Use Cateaorv
Existing Plan Proposed Plan
(acres) (acres)
Medium Residential
High Residential
Visitor Commercial
Professional & Administrative Commercial
Resort
Research & Limited Industrial
Parks & Recreation
Open Space
Circulation Element Streets
18 0
o 18
9 14
37 15
o 44
8 0
21 40
56 22
16 12
The proposed changes to the Land Use and Circulation Diagram are appropriate in order
to allow the Midbayfront Conceptual Plan to proceed, and will have no adverse effects on
the remainder of the General Plan.
C. Parks and Recreation Element
An amendment to Table 7-2 of the Parks & Recreation Element is also proposed as part
of this General Plan Amendment. The proposed change would remove Park 2.23, the
proposed Bayfront Park, from the list of Planned Neighborhood Parks, and would instead
designate it in the list of Planned Special Purpose Parks. The amendment would allow the
Bayfront Park to be developed as the specialized park facility with amenities such as water-
related recreation and cultural arts facilities that are proposed in the Midbayfront
Conceptual Plan.
D. Bayfront Area Plan
A minor textual amendment to the sentence incorporating by reference the Bayfront Specific
Plan into the General Plan would indicate that revisions to the Plan occurred as part of this
action.
ill. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL
The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal, changes the existing certified LCP in
the Midbayfront area (Subarea I), the northern portion of Subarea 2(Rohr), and changes the land
use designations to reflect the existence of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
Otherwise, information in the LCP has not changed, but has been re-arranged for organizational
reasons. The changes in the LCP are consistent with the Planning Commission and City Council
approved Subcommittee Alternative.
The informational items that the Council directed staff to include are discussed below.
Z'"..t,
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
"
1. Economic Feasibility - Council required an Economic Feasibility Analysis which
would be approved prior to, or concurrently with, the LCP Resubmittal and General
Plan Amendment. The criteria for approval of this report was that it demonstrated
clearly that the proposed project/phasing is economically feasible. Initial information
submitted by the developer indicates that the project will nQ! be economically feasible
without public assistance. To date, the Council has indicated that public subsidies
would not be available for this project.
Staff has reviewed an economic feasibility analysis from the developer's consultant,
Price Waterhouse. Based upon the conclusions of their analysis which was predicated
upon the developer's phasing plan, the project, as approved by the City Council on
January 14, 1992 including school and low/moderate income housing mitigation but
excluding the Cultural Arts Center and ice skating rink (discussed below), would
require public assistance estimated at $30.6 million. This public assistance includes
$5 million public financing assistance (Mello Roos). The developer would receive a
fair return on his investment (13%). The Redevelopment Agency has retained
William Kuebelbeck to review the developer's analysis and verify the conclusions.
However, this information is not available as of the writing of this report. A
Summary Report will be submitted to the Council with the Agenda package.
Based upon previous analysis done by Williams Kuebelbeck and a cursory review of
the developer's analysis, the general consensus is that the project, as approved by the
Council, will require substantial public assistance to be economically feasible. The
extent of such assistance will be confirmed by Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates.
2. Minimal Residential Density to Permit Economic Feasibility - Council requested that
the minimum number of residential units be identified that would permit the project
to remain economically feasible. The developer's analysis (and the Williams
Kuebelbeck analysis) has assumed a minimum of 1,000 dwelling units. Since the
project's economic feasibility is in question and the residential component is
potentially the most profitable, a reduction in the number of units would negatively
impact economic feasibility and necessitate greater public assistance or a further
reduction in public improvements.
3. Shipbuilding Jobs - Council requested the retention of shipbuilding jobs, through the
relocation of the shipyard facility to a site within the same general area. The lessee
of the shipbuilding business has not, to date, indicated an intent to vacate the premises
prior to the termination of the lease (expires August 1993).
4. Coordination with Coastal Commission Processing - Council directed staff to review
mass transit options with Coastal Commission staff, and to work with the Coastal
Commission staff as to the acceptability of the proposed building heights and other
project features.
~... ?
Page 8, Item t
Meeting Date 10/13/92
Coastal Commission staff are interested in all transportation demand management
programs that achieve reduction in numbers of trips. They are more concerned
though, that land use densities are exceeding projected/planned densities and resulting
in more vehicle trips. The Commission staff views the trolley as a benefit to
transportation options at the Midbayfront area. Also, they indicated that the railroad
tracks were retained in the existing certified LCP and could be another possible
solution in proposed LCP for future mass transit. These tracks are also shown on the
land use map in the proposed LCP Resubmittal.
Regarding building heights and other project features, Coastal Commission staff said
in their review letter dated July 28, 1992 that, "as we have stated on numerous
occasions in the past, we remain concerned about the scale and intensity of
development proposed for the Midbayfront." Their concerns regarding traffic and
visual quality of the Midbayfront area stem from their concern over the intensity.
Recent verbal communication with staff confirms this concern. Staff point to the 44-
foot height limit in much of this area which was certified by the Commission to be
consistent with Coastal Act policies, and to the absence of project specifics regarding
building heights and building placement. In particular, the Cultural Arts Facility
height and location potentially affects views, aesthetics, and biological resources.
Coastal staff may provide a formal response to the City prior to the Council hearing.
The City Council also directed that certain conditions are proposed in the LCP Resubmittal and
General Plan Amendment documents. Each of these is discussed below.
5. Cultural Arts Facility - Council stated that upon determination by them that a cultural
arts facility is most appropriately placed within the territory of the Midbayfront area,
that the developer shall dedicate the land for this facility including parking, and
develop and present to the Council for approval a feasible financing plan that will
permit the design and construction of a multi-functional cultural arts center with a
minimum goal of 2,000 seat capacity. Also, they stated that the developer should
contribute significant financing for this facility, while also allowing for Port
participation.
As described in number I under the Economic Feasibility Analysis discussion, the
project would require substantial public assistance without the cultural arts facility.
The cultural arts facility analysis completed by AMS Planning & Research
Corporation in March 1992 found that a multi-form facility of 1,500 seats would be
most appropriate for this market area, and that such a facility would cost between $30-
37.3 million to construct (excluding land and parking costs). Assuming dedication of
land by the developer and parking structure costs of $6.8 million, the total cost could
range from $36.8 to $44.1 million. The City Council did not conduct a workshop to
discuss the Cultural Arts Facility project and associated cost.
'8'''8'''
Page 9, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/13/92
The LCP Resubmittal document reserves space for such a facility in one of two
locations - either at the west end of the site, west of Marina Parkway, or at the
southeast side of the Midbayfront development, west of the SDG&E right-of-way (see
Exhibit 4 and pg. III-7, LCP Resubmittal Land Use Plan). The LCP Resubmittal calls
for this facility to be 100 feet high. However, due to environmental considerations,
the building height cannot exceed 69 feet above grade if located west of Marina
Parkway. Staffs recommendation includes a change of this height to 69 feet to
address this. Otherwise, new environmental analysis must occur, and recirculation of
the EIR.
6. Ice Rink/Park - Council required developer dedication and construction of/or funding
construction of a 62,000 square foot, 5,000 seat capacity ice rink, or, alternatively,
a park.
The ice rink with parking has been estimated to cost $18.2 million by the developer
($4 million without parking). Joint parking with other facilities is being investigated
to reduce costs.
As discussed earlier regarding economic feasibility, the project would require
substantial public assistance without this facility. Therefore, any additional capital
costs added to the project by including an ice rink would add to the required public
assistance.
Space has been reserved for an ice rink in the LCP Resubmittal (see Central Resort
District Concept, Exhibit 4, LCP Resubmittal Land Use Plan).
7. Limited Number of High Rises - Council stated that the LCP Resubmittal and General
Plan Amendment should provide no more than four (4) high rise structures ("high
rise" meaning more than ten (10) stories tall).
The LCP Resubmittal provides for this condition.
8. Parking - Council directed that a minimum of 75 % of the required parking for the
resort and residential uses be provided in subterranean or "concealed" parking
structures.
The LCP Resubmittal provides for this on pg. III-27.
9. Bike/Hiking Trails - Council required an integrated trail system to maximize trail and
visual access to the Bayfront, providing linkage to the Chula Vista Greenbelt.
The LCP Resubmittal provides for this on pgs. III-23 to III-24.
8'...9
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
~
10. Water Access - Council mandated that a location be identified that would provide for
future direct access to the bay (pending federal, state and Port District approvals).
The LCP Resubmittal provides an area of passive park uses that would not preclude
such access (see Policy EM.l.I, pgs. III-47 to III-48 LCP Resubmittal Land Use
Plan), however, the mudflats and eelgrass westward of this are extremely rich and
sensitive ecosystems. The federal and state regulatory agencies have indicated that
such access would be prohibited due to these resources.
II. Traffic - Council stated that the project shall not cause traffic in the project vicinity
to exceed City Threshold Standards, and that a traffic monitoring program be
established as an implementation and phasing requirement.
A traffic monitoring program has yet to be established; traffic impacts and mitigation
would be determined at a project level. Impacts were considered significant and not
mitigated at the Plan level, however, potentially feasible mitigation measures identified
in the Final EIR maintained City Threshold Standards in the project vicinity.
12. ComDliance with the City's Affordable Housing Policy
Compliance with this Policy will be included in the LCP Resubmittal on page VII-13
of the Specific Plan.
13. Agreement between the Developer. School Districts and City to Assure Adequate
Student Facilities
This agreement will be included in the LCP Resubmittal on page VII-13 of the
Specific Plan.
The Council's condition for a detailed Phasing Plan is appropriate for the Owner Participation
Agreement or Disposition and Development Agreement, yet, the LCP Resubmitta1 should include
general Midbayfront phasing. Staffs recommendations include this general phasing to
incorporate development of biological mitigation measures, and the Central Resort District first,
while allowing no more than 25 % of northern residential development to also be included in this
first phase. This condition was also important to Coastal Commission staff.
Also, the Council's conditions to prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water
Conservation Plan would be prepared at the project level.
8"'- J II
Page 11, Item 8'"
Meeting Date 10/13/92
IV. CEOA FINDINGS. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
If the City Council approves the proposed project, then the Council must concurrently make
Findings of Fact, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt the
Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Findings of Fact identify the potentially significant
and significant environmental impacts, the ability of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
to substantially lessen or avoid significant impacts, and the feasibility of alternatives. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies the implementation program for project
mitigation measures. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies the benefits that the
project would bring that would override the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
V. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN REOUIREMENTS
Some conditions required by the Council were determined by staff to be appropriate items for
the Redevelopment Plan Amendment rather than be included in an LCP or GP A. The
Redevelopment Plan Amendment shall be accomplished only through an Owner Participation
Agreement or Disposition and Development Agreement which contains the following
requirements for the Midbayfront area only:
. Prohibition of hotel conversions to residential use
. Participation in a yet-to-be-established Nature Interpretive Center Benefit or
Assessment District
. Agreement to allow lagoon in northern residential area to be private
. Detailed Phasing Plan
FISCAL IMPACT:
Council required an Economic Feasibility Analysis which would be approved prior to or
concurrently with the LCP Resubmittal. The report was to demonstrate the economic feasibility
of the proposed project and phasing plan. To date, staff has received a feasibility analysis from
the developer's consultant, Price Waterhouse, which indicates that the project will require
substantial public assistance in order to be financially feasible. This analysis is being reviewed
by the Agency' economic consultant, Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates. An Executive
Summary of the Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates findings will be provided to the Agency
under separate cover.
The Price Waterhouse study concluded that the project, as approved by the CounciU Agency
earlier this year, has a negative net present value of $30,594,563. This figure includes school
and low/moderate income housing mitigation costs and a 13 percent return on investment to the
~~I/
Page 12, Item ~
Meeting Date 10/13/92
developer. It does not include funding for the Nature Interpretive Center, Cultural Arts Center,
or Ice Skating Rink. Inclusion of these items would increase the negative Net Present Value
(NPV) as follows:
In Millions
Net Present Value without Extras
Nature Interpretive Center Operations
(capitalized at)
($30.6)
5.01
Skating Rink (without Parking)
4.0)
Cultural Arts Center (with Parking)
( 40.0)
Cultural Arts Center Operating Subsidy Capitalized
~)
($84.61
Total N PV of the Project
Price Waterhouse estimates total tax increments accruing to the City/ Agency over the fIrst 25
years at $73.8 million, and an additional $31 million in reversionary value based upon future
income to be derived beyond the 25 year.
Financial feasibility of the base project, without NIC, Skating Rink, and Cultural Arts Center,
would require public assistance estimated by Price Waterhouse as follows:
In Millions
Tax Revenue Sharing
Mello Roos Subsidy
$25.3
~
$30.3
($ .3)
Total Public Assistance
Project NPV
The City Council has indicated that the project would have to "stand on its own" fInancially.
The Council has not held a workshop to review this information which is currently being
reviewed by Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates.
It should be noted that the Price Waterhouse fIgures are based upon a land development and
parcel sales scenario and not project buildout which may further impact project fInancing. Price
Waterhouse also predicated project revenue estimates upon the Developer's Phasing Plan in
which all of the hotels are built at the same time.
By way of comparison, the Williams Kuebelbeck & Associates analysis that the Council
reviewed in January was predicated on the assumption that the Developer would build out the
project based upon staff's Phasing Plan which staggered hotel development. The Williams
8'''' /.2.
Page 13, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/92
.(
Kuebelbeek & Associates analysis indicated that the projeet was financially feasible if the
Developer accepted a 9 percent to 10 percent return of investment.
The Developer indicated, in January, that an 8% to 10% return was acceptable. The higher
return (13 percent) in the recent Price Waterhouse analysis has substantial impact upon the NVP
for the proj eet.
The Williams Kuebelbeek & Associates analysis did not consider financing of the Skating Rink
or Cultural Arts Center.
In order to determine financial feasibility, the Agency must consider the conclusions of the
Williams Kuebelbeek & Associates analysis, determine whether public assistance will be
provided and, if so, to what extent.
[C:\WP51 \CQUNClLII13S\BA Y-J.!l3]
tr~/J /f-I'I
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
LAND USE ELEMENT
SECTION 4.2 -- COMMERCIAL
Retail commercial
This category includes neighborhood, community,and regional
shopping centers; retail establishments typical of traditional
downtowns, such as the shops on Third Avenue between E and G
Streets; and service commercial. This category may include limited
thoroughfare retail and automobile-oriented services if~ they
constitute a small part of a planned commercial development.
Thoroughfare Commercial
This category includes all uses identified for Retail Commercial
plus thoroughfare retail and automobile-oriented services.
visitor commercial
This category includes
motels, restaurants,
establishments.
transient lodging, such
commercial recreation,
as hotels and
and retail
Professional and Administrative
This category is intended for professional and administrative
office uses. Limited retail uses, which serve the nearby office
employees, are also permitted. Retail uses which predominately
serve residential neighborhoods or shoppers from outside the
immediate area are excluded from this category.
Resort
This cateqorv identifies larqe-scale resort facilities orooosed to
serve as "destination"-oriented. with a full ranqe of resort-
related services. sitinq of resorts shall be in areas with
siqnificant attractions. such as bodies of water or other natural
features. which orovide ample recreational opportunities and scenic
vistas. Resort facilities include. but are not necessarilv limited
to. hotels and motels. resort-oriented commercial services.
cultural arts centers. recreational uses. time-share residences.
conference centers. and oermanent residences. soecific intensitv
of use for resorts within this cateqorv shall be determined at the
pro;ect level. with consideration qiven to qeneral olan
consistencv. environmental impacts. and other relevant factors."
~/~
LAND USE & CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
See Figure ___ for the existing land use & circulation diagram for
the Mid-Bayfront area and Figure ___ for the proposed land use &
circulation diagram for the Mid-Bayfront area.
PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT
Table 7.2
EXISTING AND FUTURE CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Existing community Parks
1.1 Eucalyptus Park
1.2 Greg Rogers
1.3 Rohr-Sweetwater
1.4 J Street Marina and Bayside
Planned community Parks
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
Bonita Miguel
El Rancho Del Rey
Eastlake High School
Salt Creek
Rutgers
Telegraph South
Montgomery
Otay Valley
University West
University East
Existing Neighborhood Parks
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
Marina view
city Hall & Friendship Park
Memorial Park
Norman Park
Hilltop Park
Lauderbach Park
Palomar
Orange Ave. & Rienstra Field
Loma Verde Park
SDG&E Park
Existing Neighborhood Parks
(continued)
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
otay Park
Los JUnos Park
valle Lindo Park
Halecrest Park
Terra Nova Park
Independence Park
Tiffany Park
Paseo Del Rey
Woodlawn C.C. Park
"
Planned Neighborhood Parks
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.33
Bonita Long Canyon Park
Sunridge Park
Sunbow Park
Bayfront
F Street & Woodlawn
Orange & Hermosa
EI Rancho Del Rey 1
EI Rancho Del Rey 2
Otay V. Rd. & Brandywine
Paseo Ranchero & Wolf Cyn
Rancho Drive Park
Eastlake Greens
Eastlake Trails
Salt Creek
Planned Special Purpose Parks
2.34
2.23
~//b
Rancho San Miguel
Bavfront
~-
--
l IL__
v::=
.. - .
". ." ", ... ~,
''', .... ''''..''''
.
.
I
.......... ""
't. '" ......
::: :.. _..~:, ..~. ...
... """ .'...
- - .
SAN DIEGO BAY
SWEETWATER MARSH
NATIONAL WilDLIFE
REFUGE
-
-
C SI
CJ.
.
.
I
r
,
,~
I~s
IH SI
.JJ..j
~[
.
-0
III
"'"
"
III
ChtJl. (
ShO~ !f;8fa
Cfln!:::g
LEGEND
n
EXHIBIT" A"
RBSIDBNTlAL
l1li Mulium 6-11 du/ae
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIAL PUN ARM
~ R.s.arch '" Umiled Manrifacturing DSw..,.,at.r M~ NalW1U1l
, WIld/if. R(/ul'
COMMERCIAL
PUBUC'" OPEN SPACE
. 1'tub '" R.crwaIW"
D Op." Spae.
b d I'rolmw1U1l '" Adminl.rtrati..
"
[!]
!
..
'AOJECTTlnE l~mr:D!~jp\ )f)ir:r~cQ)~I:W ' ({~ ) ? ~V1::.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM ',-~"~~
01Y Of \
P I. ANN , N r. n 11. PAil T U 1l' ~ T r~' II 4. VKTA
- -
-
~ -. _.
..........---
- -:;:---
...--.-
_.:....-
_.~:~~~:;:..:i~
"'...... ...... -_.--
..........- -.--.....,.
...;-:...... ~ ........._,-.......-.......
~_.-- ~..-
.................
.. .-.... .M'"
...... .-'
_"':-....... .
."'.............
:::~:z}:'~::
.... .... ~~
. ""..
tl
..I
I
L
-~"-- {-
. '__w -.. i .
~ ..--... ,.
-~-r . .
SWEETWATER MARSH
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFlJGE
... I
.. .... .-
.. .... .-
.......- . 1
.i.......
.- .....- i
.: :.:..:
-. .... -. .
~.... ,
.~~.... .- .,
-. .. :.:. .- 'I
..~ ..... .
.:.:.l.:~b:. ;111
:.:.: :.~l;li:.: I
.......- .... ,
.. ....Z.. . .... I
...... .-.!to -.-
~ .-
a -~. :::."
. ... ...
.. . ~-... --
.. - . ..
-- -= .--
-lUST!"....
- .~t~[500~::
, ~:r
t: :>
...........................
............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
..............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.. ..;
"
.U8LlC ,
,.
_OF!I<S i
C(...T('"
L
I' ..; l I
, u~...J
I
I
:....---~-
. ~
.............................
.............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
SAN DIEGO BAY
':11I11I11I1111:11
il!!!!!!!!!!,' ii'
GPA BOUNDARY
fIn
\.,
,t,
L \ I
.' .
..... .
L__.,_"
i
i'
>
LEGEND'
EXHIBIT "B"
RESIDENTIAL
m High 18-27 du/ac
COMMERCIAL
PUBUC.r. OPEN SPACE
. Parks & RecnatWn
D Open Space
bd Professional & Administrative
F.::;d ResDd
SPECIAL PUN ARBA
F ~ ::l Sw<<twater Marsh NatWnal Wildlife Rifuge
1'1
",zI,
PROJECTTlTLE JRillITID)JEA WW~@~'F 1'''1 ~V~
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM ~~
"
~
1> T. ... I'll I'll , I'll r.
n~p"'VTMWNT
\~'..'( OF
CHI II A vt<;rA
Table 1.1.A, cant.
IHPACT LEVEL
...........................................................................................................................
, SIGNIFICANT, NOT
1 SIGNIFICANT, HITIGATED AT SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO OR LIMITED BENEFICIAL I
I NOT MITIGABLE PLAN LEVEL HITIGABLE NOT SIGNIFICANT IHPACT IHPACT I
I................. ..... .. ... . .. ... . . . . . . ... .. . . .. " . .. .... ............. ...... ..... ... ....... . .. .. .... . . . . .. ....... .. .. . . .
1 I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE' ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE I
ISSUE SUB' ISSUE IHPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 23 4 5 789 IPROJ 23 4 5 78 9 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 7 B 9 IPROJ 234 5 789 IPROJ 234 5 789 IPROJ 234578 9 I
. . .. . .. . ... ..... ......... . . .... .... .'............... .,. ...... .......... "I' ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. ,..... .......... .. . . ... .......... . . ... . ........ .. .. . . . ...... .. . . . . . . .
I I I...................... ................................................... ........ ............ ..... ............................ ...............
I 1 1 Groundwater 1 I 1 I , I I
I I I Extractlon'Lagoon I 1 I X X X X X 1 I X X X 1 I
I I 1 Contamination 1 I I I I 1 I
I I I............,..... ........ ........... .......... . . ... . .. . . . . . . . ..... . . . .. ...... ........ ..... .. .. .. ., . . . . .... ... .. ....... ... . . ........... . .. . . .
I 1 City of Chula I Inconsistency , 1 1 I 1 1 I
1 'Vista Standards 1 with Standards 1 1 I X Not Appllcablel 1 I 1
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. "" .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 00 ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Visual
Aesthetlcsl
Community
Character
~
\
"-----
'-.D
~ ........
1 Chula Vlste 11. Vlsuel Urben I I I
Ilnterpretetlve' Oomlnenee of I 1 I
I Center (KOP1) 'I I",,"rtant Neturell X X X X X 1 X X X I
I 1 Setting I I I I I I I
I I................ .......... ........ ... .. .. ..... . . .. . . . " . .. . . . . ...... . . . ... ...... .... ........ . .... ..... ..... .... ... ... ... ... . ... ....... . .. . . . .
I F Street et 11. Obstruction of , I I I 1 1 I
I Bey Bouleverd I Bey Views I 1 I I X X X X X X X X 1 I I
I (XOP 2) I..................................................................... .........:..............................................................
I 12. Impects to Urben , I I . 'I 1 I I
I , Form & lmege , I X X X X X I "1"' . I X X X I I
I I........................ .. . . ...; ..... .. .... .. .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . ....... . . .. .. .... . . . .. . .. ....... . .. . . . . .... ....... . . . ........ . . . . . ..
I 13. Elfmetlon of 1 I I 'I' I I I
I I Vlsuel Bf Ight I I I I 1 I X X X X X X X X I
I I............. ............... ............. ............. ........ .... ..... ... .............. .............. ..... .... ...... ........ ........ ........
I Bay Bouleverd 11. Obstruction of 1 I I I 1 I I'
I Cemmerclel 1 Bey Views 1 X X X X X I I I X X X 1 I I
I Establl shments I............................................................................................................................. . ....... .. . . . . . .
, I (XOP 3) 12. Impects to Urben I I I 1 I I I
I , Form & lmege , 'X X X X X I I , X X XI, I
I I.................................. .. ........ ..... . . . ... .. . . . . . ... .... . . . ...... .. . . ... .... . .... ... .... . . .... ... . .... .. .. .... . . .......... . .. . . .
I 13. elimInation of 1 1 I I , , I
Page 2 of 9
- -
- --
- -
-
-
- --
- ~
- -
~
..~
m______
.
.
.
.
.
.
PiNfl.
....
.
Table 1-1:A, cont.
IMPACT LEVEL
.........................................................................................................................
1 SIGNI FICANT. NOT I
, SIGNIFICANT, MITIGATED AT SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO OR LIMITED BENEFICIAL I.
1 NOT MtTlGABLE PLAN LEVEL MITIGABLE NOT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT I
,.....................................,..,............................................ ....................................
1 I AL TERNA T I VE I AL TERNA T IVE I AL TERNAT IVE I ALTERNATIVE I AL TERNA TIVE I
ISSUE SUB, ISSUE IMPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 2.3 4 5 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 IPROJ 2345789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 IPROJ 2345789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 I
. . ...; .. ......................................... . . '1' ....... . ......... '1'" .... . . . . .. . .. . , . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .... .. . . .. .. .. .. .... .. ... ........ ... .. ... .. .. .......... ........ .....
I I I VIsusl Blfght 1 1 I I I I x x x x x x x x I
1 I F Street at I................... ............. ...... ................,.............................. .......... ..... ...... .......... .................. .......
1 I ll00dlawn I'. ObstructIon of I I I 1 1 I I
1 1 (KOP 4) I Bay Views 1 I I I I X X X X X X X X I I
1 1 \...... ....... ................................................................................................................................
I IE Street st 1'511. ObstructIon of 1 I I I I I ) I
1 I (KOP #5) I Boy VIews I I I 1 X X X X X X X X .1 I \
I I I........... ....... . ... ............ . ... . .. ... .. ..... .. . . . .. ... ... .. . . . . . . .,. . . .. . .. ., .. .... ................ ..... .... .... .. .......... ... .. . .....
I . I \2. l"l'8cts to Urban I I I 1 1 I I
I 1 1 Fol'lll & Image I I X X X X X I I I X X X 1 I
, I.................................... ........... . . .. . . . , . . . . . ..... . . . . . . ... . . . . . ........ ........ ......... . ..... .... .... .......... . .. ... ........
I 13. ELImInatIon of I I I I I I 1
I I visual BLight 1 1 I I I I X X X X X X X X I
I I............................. ........ . . ..... .... .. . . . . .. ... .. .... . . . . . . ... . . .... ........ ...... .. ......... .. ..... ..... ......... ........ ........
I 1.5 (KOP 16) 11. Obstruction of 1 .. I I \ 1 I I I
1 I Boy VIews I I I I' X X X X X X X X I 1 I
I I'" .... ....................................................................... .,......................................................,.......
I 12. l"l'8cts to Urban I I I I I 1 I
I I Fol'lll & Image I I X X X X X I I I X X X I I
1 1.... .................. .......................................................................................................................
I MarIno I', Creation of . I I 1 1 I 1 I
I Parkway I Scenic Bay Views I I I I 1 I X X X X X X X X 1
I (KOP 117) I................................................. . ............ . .... ........ ....................................... ...........................
I 12. Elmlnotlon of I 1 I 1 I I 1
1 I VIsual Blight I I I 1 1 I X xxxxxxx I
I I......................................................................................................:............................ ...........
I Elevated VIew I'. CreatIon of I I I I 1 I I
I From Motel I ScenIc Bay Views I I I 1 I . X ......!. .~....~.~.~.~.~.~.!
I (KOP NB) I' ....................... ......................................................... ................................. .
~
~
~
Table 1.1.A, cont.
IMPACT lEVEL
..a......................................................................................................................
SIGNIFICANf, NOT
, SIGNIFICANT, MITIGATED AT SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO OR LIMITED BENEFICIAL ,
, NOT HITIGABlE PlAillEVEl MITlGABLE NOT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ,IMPACT r
I........................................................................................................................
I I ALTERNATIVE I, ALTERNATIVE' ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE' ALTERNATIVE I
ISSUE ,SUB' ISSUE IMPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 234 5 7 8 9 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 7 a 9 IPROJ 23 4 5 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 78 9 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 7 a 9 I
................................................... .,.................. .,........................................................................................ .'...........
1 1 11. Creat I on of I I I 1 1 I I
1 IMarlna Parkway 1 ScenIc Say View. 1 I I I 1 I X X X X X X X X I
I 1 South & I........ .................. ............ ................................................ .................................;.....................
, ICOlIlTUnlty Park 12. Elmlnatlon of 'I 1 I 1 , I I
I I (XOP #9) I Visual BlIght 1 I I 1 I I X X X X X X X X I
... . .... ... ... .1.............. .1................ .... .... . . ...... .. .. . . ........ . .. . . .. . .. . ... . . . .. . .. .. ......... . ... ........... . . . .. .... . .. .. . . ...... .. . .... .... .. ... ... ..... .
, Conver.lon of I Agrlcul tural 1 loss of Potenthl 1 , I 1 1 , I
I Agrlcul tural I lands 1 AgrIcultural land. 1 1 I 1 X X X X X X X XII 1
I Lands 1 I I I I 1(lncremental contributIon). 1 I
Blotogy
...............................................................................................................................................................................
~
\
~
---
flncreased Freshwaterl 1 I
1 Drainage & .I Input I 1 1 X X X X X X X X 1 I 1 1
I ~ater Qu.t Ity I.......~................................................................................................................................ ..~"
I 1 Contaminant 1 I 1 I' 1 1
I 1 0 I scharge 1 I ' X X X X X X X X I ' I I I
I I........................................................................................,'............................,......................
1 1 Sediment Accretion 1 I I 1 I' 1
I 1 and ErosIon I I 1 X X X X X X X 'X I' 1 I'
1 ~
I ....................... .......... -,-' . . . '" ..... . ... . ... . .. .. . . . ~ ... .. . ..... .... .o.. .~.... . . .. .... . . . . ..o.. .. .. .. . . ......... .. . .. ....... . .... .....
I I Con.tructlon I I I 1 , 1
I 1 J~cts' I I X X X X X X X X:I t 1
I.............. .1............................................................................................................................. ...............
1 1 Avhn Fl I gM , I I 1 I 1
1 ~Ildllfe 1 Patterns t I I I X X X X X X X X 1 X X X X X X I
I Resources ,.............. . . .... .. ... .......... .. . . ... ... . . . . . . .. ... . . . .. . .. . . . . ... . ... .... . . . ...... .. .. .. .. . . . ...... . .. .... . .... . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. .... .
I 'Hunan/pet 1 I I 1 I ' 1 ,
I 1 Presence I , I X X X X X X X X I 1 I I 1
1 I....... ~.............. ............. . . ................ ....... ...,'. ....... ... ....... ............. .. . . ... ..... ......... .... ......... ...... ..... .
I IAlteratlon of Pred/ I ,. I I , I I I
Page 4 of 9.
-----
--------
------
Table l-l-A, cont.
IMPACT LEVEL
, SIGNIFICANT, NOT
I SIGNIFICANT, MITIGATED AT SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO OR LIMITED BENEFICIAL
I NOT HITIGABLE PLAN LEVEL MITIGABLE NOT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT I
I........................................................................................................................
I I AL TERNA T IVE 1 ALTERNAT IVE' AL TERNA T lYE I AL TERNATlYE I AL TERNAT I VE 1
ISSUE SUB' ISSUE IHPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 IPROJ 234 5 789 'PROJ 234 5 789 IPROJ 2345 789 IPROJ 23 4 5 789 ,
.................................................. ..I......:........... .1...................................'.................................................................
, , C""l'/Prey RegIme. I I 1 , I I ,
I , I 1 , I 'I ,
1 fl. Change. In Land I I X X X X X X X X , I , , I
I 1 U.e I I , I 1 , I
I 12. Predator I I X X X X X X X XI' I 1 1
, la. on'alte Reqnts. , I 1 , 1 X X X X X X X X , 1
, I.... -................. ............. . . ...... .... .... ... . . .. .... ......... . . ..... ..... . . . ... .. .. .... . . ...... . '" ...... ... ..... . ... ..... .. ... . ...
I 1 Alteration 01 I I 1 1 I 1 1
I 1 Habl tat U.a Area. I I 1 1 , 1 I
I 1 I I , 1 I 1 ,
I 11. Incremental Loss I , 1 , I I 1
I , Raptor Foraging 1 X X X X X X X X , , , 1 I 1
I I Are.. I , I , I , ,
I 12.Creatfon Sheltered' , I I 1 1 1
, I Pond HabItat , I , I 1 X 1 X X X X X X X 1
I I' ....... .......... ...........................................................................................................................
I I LIghtIng Il1'pllcts I 1 , I X X X X X X X XII' ,
I ,.............................. .............................................. .\.;'.............................................................
I I Vector Control I , X X X X X X X X , . " I 1 X X X X X X X 1
I.............. .,.......................... ................................................... .:::.............................................................
I Threatened & I Eileen 01 I , , I 1 I I
I Endangered I HabItat Shading I 1 I I I X X X X X X X X , ,
~ I SpecIe. I: ';:;;'~:~:~';;~~;:'j""""""""'" i................... i................... j...................j................... i................... i
\ I I Beat I. I , I I X X X X X X X X I I
~ I I........ ..................................................................,. ..................... .....:............ ..........................
~ I I' Call1ornla I I I . I , I 1
I I Brown Pelican I I I , X X X X X X X X I I I
I I....................................................................................................................................... ......
~............. . .. .... .. .. .. .... ....... . ... . ... . .. .. . ... . . ......... ....... ...... . ............... . ........................ .......... .... .... . . ....
Page 5 of 9
Table 1.1.. ~ cont.
IMPACT LEVEL
........................................................................................................................
I SIGNIFICANT, NOT .1
1 SIGNIFICANT, MITIGATED AT . SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO OR liMITED BENEFICIAL I
1 NOT MITIGABLE PLAN LEVEL MITIGABLE NOT SIGNI FICANT IMPACT IMPACT I
I'" .... ...... ..... ....:.... ..............:........ ......................... ........... ............................. .,...
1 I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 1
ISSUE SUB' ISSUE IMPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 234 5 789 IPROJ 23 4 5 7 B 9 IPROJ 23 4 5 7 B 9 IPROJ 234 5 7 B 9 IPROJ 2345 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 I
.. ....... .. .. .... .... ... . .... ..... ........ ..... ... . '1' .... .... .. .... . . . '1' .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ..... . .. ....... . .. ........ .... '" .... .... . ~. ...... .
I I' California I I II I I I
1 I Least Tern 1 I I X X X X X X X X I I I 1
I I........... ......... .......... ......... ....................................... .................................... .....:..... ...... ..........
1 I' L1ghHooted I I I . I I 1 1
I 1 Clapper Rail I I X X X X X X X X I 1 I I I
1 I...........:..........................:...................... ...........................................................................;......
I I' Per01lrlne Faleon I I I I X X X X X X X XII I
I I ~ . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .,' . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I I' BeldIng's 1 I I 1 1 1 I
I I Savannah Sparrow 1 1 X X X X X X X X I I I I I
I I.......................................;......................................................................................................
I .Iconstruetlon "'paetsl I I X X X X X X X Xliii
1...............1................,.............................................................................................................................................
1 I 1 Eelgrasi I 1 I X X X X X X X X I "
I I Harlne I......... .................. .................................................................. .................. ................................
I , Resourees I Hudflats 1 1 . I X X X X X X X xliii
I I I.... ........ ................................................................................................ .................................
I I IConstructlon Irrpaeul . 1 I X X X X X X X X', I I I
. . ,
.................................................................................................................i!,.............................................................
All' Quality 1 Co'Ceneratlon I I I' I '1
I Plant I NOx, ROG, CO I X X X X X ,I I X X X 1
I EmllSlons I EmIssIons 1 I I I I 1 . I
ex:) I............. ..I.......................... ...................................................................................................................
~ \ I Vehleular I Ineremental 1 I I I I I I
I N I' EmissIons I ContrIbutIon to I 1 1 I X X X X X X X I X I I
I W 1 I All' Basin lrrpaets 1 1 I 1<lncremental eontrlbutlon). I 1
I............. ..1.............. .1.... ................................................................................................................................... ......
I Arehaeology/ 1 Arehaeology/ Ilrrpaets to Hlstorle/1 1 I I I , I
I HIstory/ I' History IPrehlstorle ~Jeeu I I I . X X X X X X X X I 1 I I
Page 6 of 9
.....----.---------
Table 1-1.A, cant.
, SIGNIFICANT, NOT
, SIGNIFICANT, MITIGATED AT SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO OR LIMITED BENEFICIAL
I NOT HITIGABLE PLAN LEVEL MITlGABLE NOT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT I
I....................................................................................................................... .
1 I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I
ISSUE SUB. ISSUE IHPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 2 3 4 5 7 B 9 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 7 B 9 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 78 9 'P~OJ 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 IPROJ 23 4 5 78 9 'PROJ 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 I
.......... ................ ........................ ..I.... .............. .,...... .. .... . . ... . ... " ..... ..... .... ... ... ..... ...... ...................... ....... . . ........ .......
1 Peleontology , I 1 I I I , 1 I
' ,...............,..........................;..,................................................................................................................
I I Pel.ontology' Il'"eet. to I " I I , , I
' 1 I Fossfl. I I I x x x x x x x x 1 I , I
,.. ... .... .... ..I......... . .... .,. ....................... . .. .... .... ...... ...... .. . .... . " .. . ... .. . .... ..... .. ..... .. . .... .... ......... '" .... ............ . .... .. ...... .. ... "
I L.nd US./ , I C~tlbfllty wIth/I I I I 1 ,
I Cenerel Plen I Lend US. I SurroundIng I X X,X X X 1 I 1 I X X X I I
I Elements/ I / Ar.e L.nd U.e. I , I 1 I 1 I
I 20nlng, /............ .................................................................................................................................
' I I C~tlbfllty I , , I , , ,
I , , B.tween Int.rn.l I , , I I I ,
I I I' Lend Use. I , , I I I ,
/ , 'e. (wIth r.fug.) / X X X X X , I I , X X X, ,
I ./ I , I , 1 1 I ,
I , lb. (on..lte / I 'X X X X X , 1 X X X I 1
I , I r..ldenu), 1 I I I I I
I ,.............. ./.............................................................................. \;.............................................................
/ , Ie. Gener.l Plen I " 'I' I I I
/ / Cen.rel Plen , Upd.t., B.yfront I I X X X X X X, X ,I . I X / ,
I ~ /Element./Zonlngl LCP, B.y/ront I I I I I , ,
. , \I \.. " , Red.v.lopnent Plen , I I I I I ,
I r--, , / I , / I I I
I --S:::.. f lb. UPO, N.tlon.l I / I / I I I
/ I I City Plen., I , I. / X X X X X X X X I 1
,...............1...............1...................................................................................................................................;.........
I COlIIlUllty I Ie. Incr.... OV.r I I I I I . I ,
I Socl.l .1 Populetlon! , Expected Popul.. I I I / , X X X I X X X X X I
/ Feetor. I Mou.lng, I tlon!Kouslng 1 I , I , I I
I , E""loyment ,........................................................,.................................................................... .................
..........................................................................................................................
IHPACT LEVEL
-_._...~_.-....--
PaC" 7 of 9
Table 1-1-' ~ont.
IKPACT LEVEL
.........................................................................................................................
I SIGNI FICANT. NOT
, SIGNIFICANT" KITIGATED AT SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO OR LIKITED BENEFICIAL I
, NOT KITIGABLE, PLAN LEVEL KITICABLE NOT SIGNIFICANT IKPACT IMPACT I
,................. .. .. ... .. .. ... . ... . . . . . . .:... ... . ... .... . .. ... .... ........ .. ........ . . ........ ... .... ... .....:.. ........
I I ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE I' ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I
ISSUE sua. ISSUE IKPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 2 345 7 a 9 IPROJ 234 5 789 IPROJ 234 5 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 ,
.. . .. . . .. ................. .. ......... .... . ...... .. . .1.............. ... "1:" ... .. ....... . . . . . . . .. . .... . .. .. .... . ...... .. .. .. . ..... . . :...... . ... ......... . .. . ......... " ........
1 lb. Incr.... Ov.r 1 I I 1 I I. I
I 1 Expected I I I I I I x x x x x x x x I
I 1 EfI'!lloyment I I I I I I I
. . . ............................. . .. . ................. .. ........ ~. ........... . .. .. . .. .. . ........ .. . ... .. . ... . . ... . . . . .. .. ............ .. . . ................. .. . . . . . .............. ....
CO<!lT!JT\lty I, I
Tax Structura I 1 I I , 1 1 I X X X X X X X X I
............. ..1.............. .1................ ...:................... .... ... ...........,. ..... ..... .......... ......... ............. ........ ............. ... ........ .... ....
Parks, . I Parkland and 1 Inadequacy PhasIng 1 I , , , 1 I
RecreatIon, 1 Recr.atlon, I Plan re: Parks, 1 I , X Not Appllcable' I 1 I
Open Space 1 Open Spac. 1 Parking I 1 , ' I I I I
I I" ........ .. ... .. ........ ........... . . .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .... ... .... . . . . . . .. . .... ....... .... . ... . . . . ........ . . ............. .. .. ...... .. .... .....
I l Adequacy of Park, I 1 I I , I 1
, I land Provided I I I I I I I
1 1 , I , I I 1 I
I 10. On'slte ReqnU. 1 I , I , X X X X X X X X I I
I I............ ............. .,......................................................................................... .,.:.......................
I lb. Regional Demand 1 1 I I X xxxxxxx I I I
1 I I 1 I'" . OncrenientaJ contribution) 1 I
I I" . . ......................... .....:.... . .. . .. . . '" ... .. " . . . ,... . . .. . . . .... .. . .. .... .... ..... .. " ............. ...................... ...... ...
I Publlc Acc.ss 1 PublIc Ace... , I I ;t . 1 1 I
I I Information 1 I I x. X X X X X X X I . 1 1 1
1 ,.................................................................................,................................................ ...........
I Shade/Shadow I Park Sh,dows I I I 1 I I I
I I from BuIldIngs I X X X X X I I I I X X X 1 I
.. . . .. ....... . '1""" ........ '1" ................ . ................ . .... ...... .......... .. . . . . .. . .... . .... . . . .. . . .. ...... .. .. . ... .. .. .... .. ................ ........ .. ... .. ...
IG.. & ElectrIc I Non.renewable I I I 1 I . 1 I
Utility I. I Resourcelmpacto II 1 ,X XXXXXXX I I I I
S.rvlce I.......... .... .1..................................................................................................................................... ........
I FIre & Pollee lAbilIty to Provld., I . I I , , . 1 I
~
-~
\f'\
. Page 8 of 9
I.JI . II .a . . . . . . . " . . . . . .-
Table l.l.A, cont.
I' SIGNIFICANT, NOT
1 SleNIFICANT, MITIGATED AT SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE, NO DR LIMITED BENEFICIAL 1
I NOT MITleABlE PLAN lEVEL MITlCABLE NOT SleNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT I
I...........................................................................................................................
1 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALT.ERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 1
ISSUE SUB, ISSUE IMPACT DESCRIPTION IPROJ 2345789 IPROJ 2345789 /PROJ 2 345 789 IPROJ 234.5789 IPROJ 2345789 IPROJ 2 3 4 5 789 1
. .. 00 00.00 .. 00.... 00' ..... 00. .. 00... 00 ... . 00.: 00.. . '1' ............ 00 .. 001" .. 00.. .. ... . .. . : .. . .. . .. . 00.. . . . . 00 .. .. 00 . . .. . ... 00 . . . .. 00 00............ 00....... 00 00 . . . . . ..... ...
, la. FIre Protection I . 1 1 X X X X X X X X 1 I I I
I I........................... .,.................................................................................................................
1 lb. Pollee Protect!onl . 1 1 I 1 X X X X X X X X I 1
1...............1...............................................................................................................................................
1 Solid Uaste 1 Impaets on I 1 I I I 1 1
1 I Landfilleapselty I I I X XXXXXXX I 1 1 1
I'" ...... . . . . . .,... . . ........ '" .. . . ... ... .. . ........ . . ... ... ... . . . . . . . . .. .. . '" . . ..... . . . .. ...... .... . . . . .... . .. '" ........ .. ... 00 . ... 00.... . ... . . . . '" .... .
I Sewer I Ability to 1 1 I 1 I', 1
I I Proylde Serylce I I 1 X X X X X X X X I 1 I I
I" 00 .... . .. . .. .,..... 00.. 00 ... . . .. 00' 00 . .. 00.. 00.. . .. 00... ... ... . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. ... . . 00. . . . ..... . .... 00 . . ....... .. .... .... .. 00. ......... 00 ... .. .. . . . ........
1 Uater I Abll !ty to I I I ' I 1 , I
I I Proylde Serylce 1 I 1 X X X X X X X X 1 I I 1
, ,...........00..... .. 00.. .. . ....... ... . . ...... .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . .... .... . . . . ...... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... ..... ...... ..... . . ........ ... . . . '" .... ..
1 1 Uater Supply for , I I X X X X X X X X I I , I
I I Project 1 I 1 (Incrementa I contributIon) 1 I I
I I........... ..... .. .. .... . ... " ..... .... .. ...... . . .. . . . . . . '.' . ...... . ..... . . . . .. ... . ..... . . . " . . .. ......... ..... . .. ........ ... .... '" . .. ..... .
J I Uater Supply for I I 1 '~I I I I
1 1 lagoon. 1 I 1 X XXXXXX~<'-"', I I 1
I' ... 00........ .,.......... 00. ..... 00 .... .. . .. .....00.. . ...... .... . . . . . . . .. . . . " ......... . .. ........ ... . ... . . . . . . . '" . ... ......... . " . .. ... .. '" ...... . ... .....
I Schools 1 AbilIty to 1 1 1 I I I' I
I IAccomodste Students I 1 X X X X X X X X I 1 1 I 1
........ ..... ..I.............. .1.... ........ 00..:..................00 00......................................................................................................
Transportatfon/ICfreulstfon at' lovel of Seryfee 1 I I, I 1 I I
Acce.. I lntersectlens I , X I X i X X X X X XI, I , ,
J & Street 1 , 1 I 1 , I 1
ICapaclty 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I
.............. .,.............. .,........ 00.............................................................,................ 00....... 00..........................................
Nohe 'land Use 1 Chlldcare 1 I I , ' I I I
1 Coopatfbll fty , Center 1 I 1 X 'X X X , X # 1 I 1 1
...............................-........................................................................................
IMPACT lEVEL
~
~
~
· Contn'butes io re~onally significantcumulatlve impacts
# Not Applicable
Page 9 n, 9
ClIULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-LAND USE PLAN-
DRAFT
September 23, 1992
(Planning Commission Recommendation)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Approved by the City of Chula Vista on
, 1992 as Resolution No. _
Certified by the California Coastal Commission on
,1992
2(r~ 7
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
David Malcolm
Leonard Moore
Jerry Rindone
Shirley Horton
PLANNING COMMISSION
Joe Casillas, Chairperson
Laverne Decker, Vice Chairperson
Joanne Carson
Susan Fuller
Thomas Martin
John Ray
William C. Tuchscher II
CITY MANAGER
John Gross, City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tim Nader, Mayor
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)
(09/23/92)
?)/ J-f(
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
Chula Vista Local Coastal Program
PLANNERS
Cinti & Associates
Gary P. Cinti
Jay Kniep
Midbayfront Proiect
ARCHITECTS
Jerde Partnership, Inc.
Carl Worthington
Ralph Yanagawa
LEGAL COUNSEL
Peterson & Price
Paul A. Peterson, Esq.
Matthew A. Peterson, Esq.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Wimmer, Yamada & Associates
Joseph Y. Yamada
Pat Caughay
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
Christine Keller
A.D. Hinshaw Associates
Philip Hinshaw
David D. Smith and Associates
David D. Smith
(00/23/92)
ii
?5rdJ
STATE and FEDERAL AGENCIES
California Coastal Commission
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92108-1725
Attention: Deborah Lee, Assistant District Director
California Departtnent of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, California 94244-2090
Attention: Pete Bontadelli, Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, 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
Attention: John A. Gill, Chief
(09/23/92)
iii
t)/ ] !}
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-LAND USE PLAN-
Table of Contents
Page
I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW
A. Introduction..................................... 1-1
1. Purpose of Plan
2. Area Location and Description
3. Coastal Zone and Subareas
4. Related Projects
5. 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
II. PLANNING CONTEXT
. A. Local Planning Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-I
1. General Plan Bayfront Vision Statement
2. Goals for Development
B. California Coastal Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-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
(00/23/92)
iv
3"/3)
Table of Contents (cont'd)
III. AREA WIDE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
~
A. Land Use and Development Intensity ..................... III-I
1. Existing Land Uses and Development Intensity
2. Land Use Regulation Objectives/Policies
3. Development Intensity Objectives/Policies
B. Circulation, Public Access, and Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-I?
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 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1II-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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1II-36
1. Existing Conditions
2. Utility Service Objectives/Policies
3. Areawide Grading Objectives/Policies
4. Utility and Grading Design Objectives/Policies
E. Environmental Management ........................... 1II-4I
I. BackgroundlExisting Conditions
2. Environmental Management Objectives/Policies
IV. SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT OBJECfIVES AND POLICIES
A. Subarea I - Midbayfront ............................. IV-I
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
(rE/23192)
v
~ ' J.)
Table of Contents (cont'd)
~
IV. SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT OBJECfIVES AND POLICIES (cont'd)
B. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12
I. 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 - West Fairfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14
1. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
G. Subarea 7 - Palomar/Bay Blvd. Reorganization Parcel .. . . . . . . . . . IV-IS
1. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
H. Subarea 8 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge ......... IV-16
I. Special Subarea Conditions
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
~-JJ
(W/23/92)
vi
(~123/92)
List of Exhibits
Page
1. Regional Location ................................. 1-3
2. Coastal Zone with Subareas ........................... 1-5
3. Land Use Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5
4. Central Resort District Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 10
5. Building Heights .................................. III-13
6. Circulation Element ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-19
7. Form & Appearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-30
8. Utility Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-38
9. Environmental Management ........................... III-45
10. Buffer Zone Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-46
11. Conceptual "F & G" Street Marsh Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-52
vii
o,3Y
I. INTRODUCTION/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 viability 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 property available for development within the Chula Vista Bayfront, an opportunity for a compre-
hensive update of the Chula Vista LCP was created.
This Re-submittal focuses primarily on the undeveloped property within the Midbayfront, while the
regulations and standards for other areas are essentially unchanged, although re-stated and re-
formatted.
1. Puroose of Plan
The purpose of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) is to provide a detailed plan for
the orderly growth, 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
city 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 with 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 Descriotion
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
'i{- ])
1-1
(fY}/23/92)
~..p.,~"., .,
34 square miles. Geographically, the City is located adjacent to the east side of San Diego
Bay, eight miles south of San Diego and seven miles north of the International Border (see
Exhibit 1). The 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. State Route 54 and its interchange with Interstate 5 in the Bayfront
enhances the site's locational advantages. The Bayfront area is located 10.8 miles south of the
San Diego International Airport.
3. Coastal Zone and Subareas
The boundary of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone is located immediately east of Interstate 5 (I-5),
except in the northerly portion of the City where it turns east (inland) 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 8), in which the City has permit jurisdiction, and the annexed 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 1,040 acres, of which
775 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 mllior 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 ROWand 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 116 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 mlliority of Gunpowder Point, "D" Street Fill, the entire
Paradise Creek area, and the Sweetwater Marsh Complex (including the "F-G" Street Marsh).
The Port 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 Port 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.
(09/23/92)
1-2
'i)>3b
Regional Location
~
.~ Exhibit 1
en
'"
:::
/!!
"
(/)
a:
w
I-
;;::
..... . ... ~
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
............
.... ....
CP
NATIONAL ~
CITY
..................... l..;OCAL .......... ...............................
:;:;:;:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::;:;:::: .... ..... ;..... "<:::::::::::;:;:::::::;:;:;:;:::;::::"':.:.:.
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;. ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.......:.:.:.:
-:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: Q'^ST^L ZONE ..:.:.:.......:.:.:.:.:.:.:
tt::t:t:::tttt C H ."';::::=??::::tt.
.................................. ................. .....
IMPERIAL BEACH
LAND.PlANNING
~/ '37
Cffl;/j(~5
m
UNITED STATES
--
MEXICO CHl JI A VISTA
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Ph""", (';10\;-1.0 TOle r I,...,,\....~~ ,_~_
STATE 117
---
To the east, highway and visitor commercial uses have been developed along Bay Boulevard,
between Marina Parkway and Lagoon Drive. South of Lagoon Drive, the Rohr COrporate
headquarters and industrial facility extend to south of "H" Street, with additional office
development extending to near "J" Street. The SDG&E generating facility and smaller indus-
trial users are located south of "J" Street to Palomar Street. Continuing south, a generally
older mixture of residential, industrial and commercial uses is located between Palomar Street
and Main Street in an area which was recently annexed from the County of San Diego. In
addition to these areas located west of 1-5, two parcels east of the freeway are within the
Bayfront: the Faiver Street inland parcel is south of Main Street and currently used for
storage, while the partially developed northern inland parcel is located east of Broadway and
north of "C" Street.
In order to facilitate the planning and development of the Bayfront, 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 Bayfront 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 part 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.
Subarea 3 - 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 is located west of 1-5 and was also recently annexed to the City
from the County of San Diego. It is known as the West Fairfield neighborhood and is
a mixture of developed and vacant parcels, many of which are used for storage.
Subarea 5 - This subarea consists of the northern inland parcel located adjacent to the
Sweetwater River. .
Subarea 6 - 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
wetlands associated with the Otay River.
Subarea 7 - This is a parcel annexed from the City of San Diego in the PalomarlBay
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 8 - This subarea consists of the majority of the National Wildlife Refuge which
is located to the north and west of the Midbayfront (subarea 1).
(09/23/92)
1-4
~<3~
] G) I Midbayfront Subarea
I @ [Industrial Subarea
I @ [ Southern Parcel Subarea
I @ West Fairfield Subarea
I <ID Inland Parcel Subarea
l @ I Faivre Street Subarea
I (j) I Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea
l @ I Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge
---- Coastal Zone Boundary
Coastal
Zone
With Subareas
Exhibit 2
- - - - Subarea Boundary
.-------- City Limit Line
~---
!
'-----.
--......
--.....--
-...--....
---.._-
...--.......--......
~
-.......
-"''''-..
~
\
\V'J
-4)
....c;..~...",... L
"';'''''''''' .....
I'&v'''~ .....
j'"/i' Z'
I!i y1
if! I
~/~ 1
"it I
~r
i
!
''-..-")
f-,.. Q i' I \ b .......c.
It ~7"~~c,i" -;;:::- ) i
"'" <if \U "',,;,...L, '(' i
~~"'c~ ~~! .......... "...~ /' I_:::.>________~--- ,
~;;..~.........~@t,~o.. - "--C .."'..". :-_--,., ..- . CCC~~ ~~ -~... @.,:
).. ........~ ..",,~@ I f?n ..-.............:..-.. .-..t-....... L.J'li G))I,' ..~
"j.~~.... ~ I I6J i _..~ .I~ I,' I
;f ~~" ;;?'-.-!I~ r. _I I ~ '.'~D"&'A:E"~
I "'. ..:~":~-:~..f-~~~.~:.".?r --:-~-=-- .~..-...--.r:~ F';'-~
! Sat101eg0~ I I ~ -.: __ San~~ ..1 /, /
I;" ;--,) )..J~
l I" I i ^ ~ ~...
}'_____________.1_ '~____} __ ~! I'! H:f,
~-------;,---- -- -------" II --~--.--------.---.---.,---- ,r----
/
'"'-"'"
S~ld~a,\t}~~
~[i.~~.~ti'~j!
-= ~r'",
9/23/92 -='-/j
4. Related Proiects
There are two major projects adjacent to the LCP area which affect the Bayfront. They have
been combined in the Route 54/Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel Joint CaITrans/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 1-5, 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 Bayfront 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 part, within the coastal rone 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, roning 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: I) Coastal Act Provisions/Issue Identification; 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.
(00/23192)
1-6
?;~yo
After this introductory chapter, the. Land. Use Plan presents a discussion of the Coastal Act
Policies which are relevant to the Baytront, 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: I) Land Use and Intensity; 2) Circulation and Public Access;
3) Physical Form and Appearance; 4) Utilities and Areawide Grading; and 5) Environmental
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 Bayfront and ensure both conformance 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
regulations 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-submittal 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
25/1/
1-7
(09/23/92)
Coastal Initiative, was passed by the voters of California. Proposition 20 mandated the
preparation of the California Coastal Plan, which was issued 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 in some areas of the Bayfront, in
1974 the City established the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, which includes the
majority of property within the Bayfront planning 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 portions of the plan extended to March 1984, at which time the Chula Vista Bayfront Land
Use Plan was approved by the Coastal. Commission. Subsequently 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 imbalance 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 property 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: 1) 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 planning practice require that the Bayfront Land Use Plan address the
relationship between the lands within the plan area boundaries and the adjoining Port District
(09123/92)
1-8
g/Lj2
lands. This is done by indicating wq~re. theq;mtinuity of public facilities (roads, water lines,
sewers, storm drainage provisions arid' pedestrian and bicyclist routes) is to be maintained,
where protection of economic and aesthetic values provided by water-oriented views are to be
protected, and where safeguards are necessary to prevent conflicts in land use and develop-
ment.
Specific aspects requiring coordinated action include: 1) the routing and design of Marina
Parkway in the Midbayfront area; 2) maintenance of a protected habitat for the least tern and
other sensitive species within the National Wildlife Refuge; 3) integration of pedestrian
waterfront access; 4) protection of existing water-oriented views from inland areas; and, 5)
providing a balanced mix of developed land uses within the coastal area of the City.
C. Implementation
As indicated previously, the Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan will be implemented as the
Bayfront Specific Plan per the California Government Code Sections 65450 et seq. The Specific
Plan will be adopted by Ordinance and meet the Implementing 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. plus 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 specific
projects; and, 4) administrative and permitting procedures.
~~1')
(09/23/92)
1-9
II. PLANNING CONTEXT
A. Local Planning Programs
Adopted local plans and State law create the planning context for the Chula Vista Bayfront LCP.
The LCP must be consistent with both the City's General Plan and the provisions of the State Coastal
Act.
State law (Code Section 65300) requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
for the physical development of the city. The State requires general plans based on the belief that
the future growth of the state is determined largely through local actions. By requiring 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 the State, as expressed in the Coastal Act, will be met 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 create a water-orientedfocal pointfor
the entire City. 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 quality will equal those of similar redevelopment projects in
the nonhern section of San Diego Bay. The diversity of uses will exceed that of many
similar projects and contribute to its vitality and use by all citizens.
2. Goals for DeveloDment
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 DeveloDment 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.
75/ t/ i
(09/23/92)
II-I
Provide a continuous open space network which links the Bayfront to the planned "Chula
Vista Greenbelt" incorporating the'SWel:tWitter River Valley to the north and the Otay
River Valley to the south,
Promote integrated land uses in the Bayfront and create an identifiabte image for the
BayfronL
Provide good regional access to encourage visitors to the BayfronL
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.
1. 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 outside 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.
(09123/92)
The lack of adequate public access is due, in part, to the types of land uses which
currently occur along the shoreline. Rohr's major industrial! manufacturing facility, boat
/"'
(5"/ L-J;;
II-2
(00/23/92)
yards, SDG&E property, the National Wildlife Refuge, and undeveloped property all
have resulted in very limited direct public access opportunities. Access is also limited
due to the environmental sensitivity of the shoreline within the planning area. Limited
or restricted access is necessary in some areas to preserve the habitat value of the
shoreline itself.
c. Plan Provisions
Public access to the shoreline, consistent with habitat preservation is one of the key
provisions of this Plan. The Land Use Plan designates 48 acres of public and quasi-
public, and parks and recreation adjacent 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 into 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
future access.
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, shuttle bus operations from the Bayfront to the Nature
Interpretive 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
Interpretive Center along with streets to link the Interpretive 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-Servin!! Facilities
a. Coastal Act Policies
Sections 30212.5, 30213 [part, 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 1-5 along Bay Boulevard,
including a small motel and four restaurants. The Port District Marina and boat
launch facilities contain restaurants, boat slips, and a marina. Marina View Park
II-3
~>Ljb
(00/23/92)
and the Port District's fishing pier are adjacent to the bay and provide low cost
public recreational facilities,tt 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 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 recreation-
al 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 includes 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, mudflats 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 wetland and biologically-valuable upland resources.
The long-term protection and enhancement of these resources are now the essential
objectives for environmental management.
'3/Lj ?
II-4
(00123/92)
c. Plan Provisions
This LCP provides for wetland restoration and enhancement of degraded habitat in
several areas of the National Wildlife Refuge. This will include the formation of
new wetlands by converting uplands or fill to wetlands.
At "F-G" Street 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 located 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 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.
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 planning area. Establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge assures protection
of the sensitive specieslhabitat areas, while the polices of the LCP require
mitigation of impacts to wildlife areas from development on adjacent upland
parcels.
4. Dikinl!. Dredl!inl!. Fillinl! and Shoreline Structures
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, and construction
of shoreline structures may occur. Section 30411 (b) provides additional provisions
for the filling of wetland provided it is accompanied by substantial restoration of
degraded wetland.
11-5
g> L/;r
(09/23/92)
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 total fill and amount of shoreline affected, 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 development
concept within this LCP. As noted above, the Land Use Plan provides for the
major restoration and enhancement of wetlands, primarily areas of severely
degraded wetlands within the National Wildlife Refuge, specifically at the "F-G"
Street Marsh, Gunpowder Point, and the "D" Street Fill areas of the Wildlife
Refuge.
The preclusion of significant diking, dredging, or filling assures consistency with
these Coastal Act Policies.
5. Commercial Fishin~ 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 property adjacent
to the Bayfront. Additional recreational boating berths were constructed on the
Port District property, 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
permitted.
Because of the environmental sensitivity of the planning area, increased major
recreational boating facilities are precluded. This general policy is consistent with
the provisions of the Coastal Act.
II-6
g/Jji.
(09123/92)
6. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
a. Coastal Act Policies
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act provides for the protection of environmentally
sensitive habitat areas by restricting uses within or adjacent to such areas.
b. Existing Conditions
In addition to the marsh and mudflat areas discussed under the 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 nesting habitat for three Federal and/or State listed endangered species:
the California Least Tern; the Light-Footed Clapper Rail; and the Belding'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 lOO-foot wide (minimum) buffer adjoining the refuge boundary
which will be characterized by native vegetation, a berm and fence, and a nature
trail with interpretive signage.
Public 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 setbacks are required adjacent to the "F_Goo Street Marsh. The design and
use of both the "F-Goo 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. Agriculture
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.
II-7
o~ S-tJ
(CYiI/23/92)
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 agricultural 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 between 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 flood hazards. The settlement hazards are
attributable to the presence of relatively shallow surficial deposits of soft
compressible bay mud throughout the historic marsh lands and tidal flats, as well
as in deeper water areas. 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.
Parts 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, settlement, and seismic hazards, the Bayfront Plan
contains provisions to require engineering investigations to minimize potential
?r -:~ I
1I-8
(09/23/92)
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 conditions related to possible liquefaction.
The LCP policies will minimize risks from the known geologic and flood hazards
associated with the planning area.
9. Forestrv and Soil Resources
a. Coastal Act Policies
This category of Coastal Act policies is not applicable to the Bayfront area.
10. Locating and Planning New DeveloDment
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 scattered 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 north) 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/pedestrian
circulation system.
The Land Use Plan policies take into consideration the unique relationship between
new development and the sensitive environmental areas adjacent to the Midbay-
front. The Land Use Plan integrates the Nature Interpretive Center with the
1I-9
15>502
(09/23/92)
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.
New development will be concentrated in an area of existing development with
adequate public services. The new development envisioned in this LCP includes,
as a part of the conceptual development plan, or will be required to provide support
facilities including recreation facilities and public transit.
11. Coastal Visual Resources and SDecial 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 destination
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
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 have been 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 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 .
II-IO
~ ,_S'J
(09/23/92)
12. Public Works
a. Coastal Act Policies
Section 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
permitted by the Coastal Act.
b. Existing Conditions
Adequate water, sewage, and other utility services exist, but will need to be
extended onto the Midbayfront 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 Development and Energy Facilities
a. Coastal Act Policies
Sections 30255, 30260-30264, 30232 and 30250(b) of the Coastal Act provide
guidelines for the development of new or the expansion of existing coastal
dependent industrial facilities, tanker facilities, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil
and gas development, refineries, and electrical generating plants.
b. Existing Conditions
Rohr, Inc. facilities and the SDG&E Generating Plant and transmitter lines
represent the only two major industrial and energy facilities currently within the
Bayfront.
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.
II-ll
g>5r
III. AREA WIDE 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 Bayfront area. Associated with each basic objective,
specific policy provisions are defined to 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-serif typeface (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 1,040 acres, of which 775 acres are uplands
or filled 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, Inc. in the central area with 99 acres (and an additional 66 acres of San Diego Unified Port
District-owned land plus SDG&E ROWand 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. Existinl': Land Uses and Development Intensity
The majority of the upland areas within the planning area is currently developed with urban
uses. The ml\ior 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 ("F" Street). The Swath
Boat Repair facility is located on Port District Property just south of the Midbayfront subarea.
In the eastern portion of the Midbayfront subarea, between the San Diego and Ariwna 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. A few residential units are located in the predominately industrial West
Fairfield neighborhood, Subarea 4.
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
~/5;-
(09/23/92)
III-I
building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) approaching 0.75. Existing building heights vary
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 generating plant which are 187 feet high.
2. Land Use Regulation Obiectives/Policies
Objective LU.l
Policy lU.1.A
Objective LU.2
Policy LU.2.A
Objective LU.3
(09/23/92)
New Bayfront development should encourage a mixed-use develop-
ment combining visitor serving commercial/recreational uses, public
parks, and residential. The mixed-use character of the Bayfront will:
1) minimize the traffic impact of development on the surrounding
roadway system by splitting the peak hour traffic between trip origins
and destinations; and, 2) significantly expand public access and use
of the Bayfront.
The Midbayfront shall 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 Bayfront. A special land use category,
Central Resort District, is designated within the Midbayfront
Subarea to accommodate mixed-use development.
Integrate new development with the existing National Wildlife Refuge
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.
Public parks and open space are designated on the land Use Plan
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 interpretive signage shall be provided within the buffer
adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge to allow public enjoyment of the
refuge without disturbing its inhabitants.
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 functional reasons
for using Bayfront land for general industrial use; the industrial
III-2
8'''' ~?
RESIDENTIAL
RH 1 High
COMMERCIAL
I Visitor
[ Visitor/Highway
CP [ Professional &
Administrative
CV
CV-H
INDUSTRIAL
I Research & Limited
I General
IR
IG
~
\y-,
\
"-.J ........f3... '.""... /
.."'".... ....
, IR ! ...."....
.I/'V 11 ......................
;/1 Ll
Ii!
'i'
,~____ L__==~
:_.--------------,~
--, '
- .
/
~~~~al\J~~
PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE SPECIAL PLAN AREA
I PQ I Public & Quasi Public I CRD [ Central Resort District
I PR I Parks & Recreation OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS
I'i:'h,;-;!,,,j Sweetwater Marsh National
I ,,[ Water -;","!'>:,'1 Wildlife Refuge
I OS [ Open Space f,.c.,..,.:.:: '{ Landscaped Parking
I I Circulatlon/ r........... 1/ / / / / / /f Primary Buffer
Other I ...................................
Land
Use
Exhibit 3
.......
-----...
...--...-
-.....--..--
..-...-.........-..
................7
i
Sar1DiegoBaj'
) !
H.._..~~i
SD, J, IR 0\"........0:':
-i.r 1/ . ~ ....",.. ',_
"'''.'''0.<1 .~ ~,
.._...,.................j IR"~. o. ..~~.""".
IG
.~;..-iG.-..
IG
PO
!/
. '/,." .
Ii
It
1/"
II
- -r
. "srn.-A.E"~
IG
~G
'tl'
1
II
<
IR
",~~:I..... .. --
---',-~ <
._n-.
~..'
--,--- 'L'
i a -.'C;~- '-,--u,__
H ___ Ij
b b , , I! I
___8 <i.______i:.L~.___
'Ii \, ..~i:j'-.:J._
u' ;,' _.~.~...;
_~~_J:.::____ -_.J:...:..!.......]
----.--.-.-- r....\l
I
!iI
11"
1
SanOlegoTi'oley
CV.H
CV.H
I.
Iltj
'.
I
'.
,.
~.J
.,
,
-.-- -,'--
di~I-1
.."",[,.....,...., 3
.....,-".~, ~,-,.,'''~l
~ ,--=I-~
9/23/92!...Ii ,~--~
Policy lU.3.A
Objective LV.4
Policy lU.4.A
Policy lU.4.B
Objective LV.5
Policy lU.5.A
(00/23/92)
growth of San Diego County is not likely to be impeded if the
Bayfront 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 uses are permitted and may expand in the
areas designated for Industrial use on the land Use Plan Map,
Exhibit 3. These areas correspond to those areas which are
already committed to industrial uses. New industrial develop-
ment in other areas shall not be permitted.
Preserve and enhance the existing saltwater marshes, ponds, and
mudflats to protect the many natural 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 Plan 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 implementation.
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
participate 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 wetlands. and passive recreational opportunities.
Policies are included in the Environmental Management section
to assure that such access will not disrupt the wildlife habitat.
0'/5)(
III -4
Objective LU.6
Policy LU.6.A
Policy LU.6.B
(00123/92)
Permit a balanced and well defined mix of land uses which will be
responsive to the developtnent and conservation goals of the Bayfront
LCP.
The Land Use Plan Map. Exhibit 3. indicates the location of the
various permitted uses. The permitted use categories include:
general industrial. research and limited industrial. high density
residential. four types of commercial. public and quasi-public
uses, the central resort district, and wildlife refuge. A more
detailed mapping of public open space is provided 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 are 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 a transition
at the critical waterfront edges to higher. 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 (2 percent of
development area, not including major circulation).
COMMERCIAL. A number of specific commercial uses are per-
mitted in the Bayfront. Total Allocation: approximately 23
acres, not including uses located in the Central Resort District (3
percent of development area, not including major circulation)
Visitor ServinQ 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 necessary to
support the hotel function. This land use designation also
includes retail uses which support the hotel-conference facility,
adjacent office park uses. and 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 Vista down-
town. The intent of the uses permitted in this category is to
serve visitors and residents of the Bayfront. Permitted uses
include: 1 ) hotels and inns; 2) retail uses and shops serving
visitors and 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. and day care
facilities. Allocation: approximately 11 acres (1 percent of
development area. not including major circulation). [Note: These
III-S
'f) /57
uses are also provided with the Central Resort District where
allocations among uses may vary.]
Thorouahfare Visitor Hiahwav. This land use designation
includes primarily motel and restaurant facilities similar to the
existing development that principally serve auto-oriented traffic
and require clear visibility from the 1-5 corridor. Additional
permitted uses would include gas stations and similar 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 connection
with the Central Resort District provided for elsewhere in the
Plan. These non-permitted uses include: convenience retail.
food and beverage retail sales. business and personal services.
and entertainment facilities. Allocation: approximately 12 acres
(1 percent of development area. not including major circulation).
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 Midbayfront 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 & limited and General. These land
uses are confined to an area generally south of . G. Street. plus
the inland parcels east of 1-5. Existing uses will be permitted to
continue and expand. Allocation: approximately 409 acres (46
percent of development 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 120 acres (14 percent of development
area. not including major circulation).
General Industrial. This category provides for large scale and
more intensive industrial uses such as manufacturing and public
utility plants. The SDG&E powerplant and Rohr. Inc. facilities are
within this category. Allocation: approximately 289 acres (33
percent of development area. not including major circulation).
PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE. This category includes a variety of uses
ranging from landscaped parking in the SDG&E ROW to the Open
(00123/92)
III-6
?: /& 0
Objective LU.6
Policy LU.6.A
Policy LU.6.B
(ry:}/23/92)
Permit a balanced and well defined mix of land uses which will be
responsive tCi the deveIdprnent and conservation goals of the Bayfront
LCP.
The Land Use Plan Map, Exhibit 3, indicates the location of the
various permitted uses. The permitted use categories include:
general industrial, research and limited industrial, high density
residential, four types of commercial, public and quasi-public
uses, the central resort district, and wildlife refuge. A more
detailed mapping of public open space is provided 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 are 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 a transition
at the critical waterfront edges to higher, 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 (2 percent of
development area, not including major circulation).
COMMERCIAL. A number of specific commercial uses are per-
mitted in the Bayfront. Total Allocation: approximately 23
acres, not including uses located in the Central Resort District (3
percent of development area, not including major circulation)
Visitor ServinQ 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 necessary to
support the hotel function. This land use designation also
includes retail uses which support the hotel-conference facility,
adjacent office park uses, and 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 Vista down-
town. The intent of the uses permitted in this category is to
serve visitors and residents of the Baytront. Permitted uses
include: .1) hotels and inns; 2) retail uses and shops serving
visitors and 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, and day care
facilities. Allocation: approximately 11 acres (1 percent of
development area, not including major circulation). [Note: These
III-5
~~ ;; /
Space of the National Wildlife Refuge. (Allocation: approximate-
ly 391 acres (44 percent of development area. not including
major circulation).
Public & Quasi-Public/LandscaDed Parkina Overlav. Portions of
the SDG&E power line right-of-way (ROW) within the Bayfront
are to be physically improved at the ground level with landscaped
parking areas. In order to encourage landscape improvements to
this area. development bonuses are permitted for projects
adjacent to the ROW. These bonuses allow the development to
increase permitted densities and utilize the ROW for parking lot
expansion. Bonuses are calculated by applying the permitted
land use intensity of the adjacent parcel to the portion of the
ROW included in the project and transferring 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 parking 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
andlor 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 of the adjacent
wetland ecosystem. Permitted uses in the buffer zones include
provisions for controlled public access. minor grading and
landscaping (consistent with the grading and environmental
management policies of Section III-E. herein). and minor scientific
or educational uses. The Environmental Management Plan Map.
Exhibit 9. depicts the specific location of the open space uses.
This category also includes series of parks 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
and bicycle trail system. Development of a publicly 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 within
the Central Resort District. The lagoon shall be constructed
without disturbing the existing shoreline and shall extend from
the Central Resort District. under Marina Parkway and into the
(09/23/92)
III-?
?:~kd--
public park area (Park & Recreation designation) to the west.
Allocation: approximately 8 acres (1 percent of development
area, not including major circulation).
Open Space/Wildlife Refuoe Overlav. This designation is applied
to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge which is
owned and operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Uses
will be limited to wildlife habitat preservation and enhancement,
scientific study and educational uses. Other areas with signifi-
cant habitat value which are not a part of the Federal ownership
are shown as Open Space without an overlay designation. In
addition to the areas designated by this overlay, Section III-E
Environmental Management. provides specific policies and
programs for responding to environmental resources within the
Inland and Favier 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 (34 percent of development
area. not including major circulation).
Circulation/Other. This category includes acreage within the
major public street right-of-ways (including 1-5) and railroad right-
of-ways within the planning area. Table 3-1 identifies a separate
category for the 1-5 acreage (approximately 159 acres). which is
not within any of the subareas. This acreage is not a part of the
"development area" within the coastal zone. Allocation:
approximately 27 acres. not including major circulation (3
percent of development area. not including 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. and 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 Midbayfront. In
order to evaluate the proposed development in this area. prior to
any development a Master Plan shall be prepared and approved
to allocate uses and describe the buildings and spatial relation-
ships within the buildings. and parking allocation. The prepara-
tion of a Master Plan for the Central Resort District is a require-
ment in addition to compliance with other development regula-
tions and policies of this land Use Plan. The purpose of the
Master Plan is to insure that the intent and concept of a visitor
serving Central Resort is implemented in a manner consistent
with this lCP. as well as. other policies and standards of the
City.
(09/23/92)
1II-8
<j5/~J
A conceptulll,iIIustrlltion of the vision for the Central Resort
District is depicted on the following page. Exhibit 4. It graphical-
ly portrays one of many "design 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
intent. but not to indicate a specific location. number. size. or
configuration of buildings. parking. or other developed site
features.
There is an overall limitation of 1.969.000 sq.ft. maximum
building area permitted in the Central Resort District. Within 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).
~---k L{
(C>>/23/92)
III-9
/. !
~
\
~
'\
PUBLIC PARK
Central Resort
District Concept
Exhibit 4
to NATURE
INTERPERTIVE CENTER
a
Interstate 5
Source: Design by Jerde Partnership
KEY
CD Mid-Rise Hotel (up to 100')
@High Rise Hote/(up to 229')
@ Retail/Residential Above
@ Retail/Residential Above
@ Conference Facilities
@Ice Rink (Park. or alt. Cult. Arts Fac. Site)
(!) Child Care
<ID Co-Generation Facility
@ Sports Facility
@ Tennis Club
@ Office
(HULA VISTA
LOCal Coastal Program
->>^"^~.^<.^_"^-;>:.^'N:-;>^<<~<<<<<"X'..x-x<<<<~.,-..-_/.-i<~_X-:::
-,,,,<<--%",,,.
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF PERMITIED LAND USES BY SUBAREA
(Approximate area - in acres)
LAND USE
TOTAL
18
SUBAREA
1 l
18
1
i
~
.2.
I
!!
Residential, high
Commercial
- Visitor
- Thoroughfare
- Professional &
Administrative
11
12
11
8
4
.
Industrial
- Research & Limited
- General
120
289
~
155
27
8
63
98
36
Public & Open Space
- Public &
Quasi-Public
- Parks & Recreation
- Water
- Open Space
- Circulation/Other
18
37
8
301
27
6
34
8
22
14
11
8
3
268
2
12
3
Special Plan Area
- Central Resort
District
40
40
Major Circulation
159
TOTALS
1040
161
215
101
27
36
8
63
270
. Allocated wilhin Central Resort District as a pennitted use
NOTE: Acreages are indicated to the nearest acre based on planimeler readings and available information. Minor refinements that may result
from the development pennit and subdivision process shall not require an amendment to this LCP provided that the character of development and
approximate proportion of land uses is maintained.
~--Ic;;
(09/23/92)
III-l1
3. Develooment Intensity Obiectives/Policies
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 Dr.l
Policy 01. 1 .A
(CE/23/92)
Allow development intensity which provides for the economic
development of the Bayfront, within the capacity of public service and
infrastructure systems.
Heioht limits. The permitted height of the development in the
Resort Core area ranges up to 229 feet for two high-rise hotel
structures (Special Condition" A" in Exhibit 5) and up to 100 feet
for a Mid-rise hotel structure. Also 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 limit
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 both reduced and increased height limits.
due to program requirements. environmental management
objectives. or physical form and appearance objectives. These
variances include the following:
Gatewavs. To achieve a "gateway." or sense of entry to the
Bayfront and relate it to the existing new development along Bay
Boulevard. the areas immediately adjacent to the "E" Street and
"J" Street bridges over 1-5 shall be between one and two stories.
Midbavfront Develooment. 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
Midbayfront Subarea, a single mid-rise building (up to 100 feet)
for a Cultural Arts Facility is permitted west of Marina Parkway
(Special Condition "B"). Two high-rise residential buildings (up
to 229 feet) are designated for the area north of Marina Parkway
(Special Condition "E"). The taller buildings are intended to
create focal points and an identifiable skyline for the Midbayfront
project. Such buildings are permitted because of the increased
park and open space uses designated within the Midbayfront 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 wildlife
habitats. (See also Environmental Management section and Form
and Appearance section.)
III-l2
'8>& ?
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS
I 1 [ 30 Feet .
I 2 [ 35 Feet
I 3 [ 44 Feet
I 4 [60 Feet
] 5 r 75 Feet
NOTE: Areas without height regulations
are not planned for any buildings.
~
\
~
~
.......r:4..'.'~1'''''''''
I.^, .......
r'; h
81.:' (j
f; i/
.r;
&::,1
I L-_"
___~.--:~lr----
i
i
/
l
J
''''''''''/,l'
,
'/
Ii/
III
I,
Ji.
gjld~a'~~~
SPECIAL HEIGHT CONDITIONS
@ 2 High-Rise and 1 Mid-Rise Hotel Sites
~ 1 Potential Cultural Arts Facility Site (up to 69')
~ 1 Mid-Rise Office Site (up to 95')
@ Viewing Tower Site/Nature Interpretive Center
lEi 2 High-Rise Residential Sites(up to 229')
18 Special Architectural Feature
r-o...._____
..._-...
...._-....
\,i
'i
'""-".
I;I--._..~~" :
i; -~';:;..:;J
~ ~ ,
,J: """..'"
3 "-,;;,-
- --..,
"-"-"---'3"'
3
-,
S<lnDieo;pTroloy
I
I
Building
Heights
Exhibit 5
-----...
...--....
...........1
,J-_
II.~.-
~
/:;>'
r" ~---~/.
/-
.---0"
3
'I
<
:"
I
"I,
n ....1.
"'3"]-"1
I ,~..'" I""
.~ _ 0 ../ r"u\rL~'_!.."..j
~[~,~;,:~~,~:E~
9/23/92 _ ---.:.4
""-
Research and limited Manufacturina. A single building up to 95
feet in height is permitted, subject to special review and dev-
elopment standards, to create a landmark building as a part of
the Rohr corporate facility. The standards shall include increased
building setbacks, a comprehensive landscaping plan and
pedestrian or other off-street circulation connections to adjacent
uses as described in the Subarea 2 Standards of the Bayfront
Specific Plan.
Policy DI.1.B
Permitted Intensitv. The allowed development intensity for the
Bayfront is shown in Table 3-2. Generally, the permitted building
heights, parking standards, and traffic capacity will determine the
permitted intensity. For the Central Resort District, a separate
table describing the flexible allocation of uses and intensity 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
substantially implemented.
(09/23/92)
III-14
g-/tf, I
.,;...;.;-;<",*"",",<_...;-;---<<<<<<<~-_<:-...",-,:
TABLE 3-2
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
SUBAREA/LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Subarea 1 - Midbayfront
Central Resort District
Residential - High
(See Table 3-2A)
Residential: 949,000 sq. ft.j700 du
Visitor Commercial
Western Parcel:
Eastern Parcel:
204,000 sq. ft.j250 hotel rooms;
200,000 sq. ft.j250 hotel rooms
Public & Open Space Uses
Intensity limited by
except Cultural Arts
(2,000 seats)
minimal
Facility
permitted uses;
75, 000 sq. ft.
Subarea 2 - Industrial
Industrial (IR & IG)
FAR 0.5 except Special Condition "C" (see notes)
Commercial - Visitor/Highway FAR 0.25 except Special Condition "F" (see notes)
Landscaped Parking
May be included
culation with
agreement.
in adjacent parcel for FAR cal-
required improvements and use
Parks & Recreation Intensity limited by minimal permitted uses
Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel
Industrial FAR 0.5
Subareas 4, 5, 6, and 7
Industrial Existing Zoning
Subarea 8 - Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge
Open Space Determined by USF&WS
NOTES :
FAR = Floor area ratio or ratio of gross building area to net developable land area.
Special Condition -CN: FAR of 0.75 pennitted subject to special conditions - See Special Condition -e- (Bayfront Specific Plan
Sec. V.O) and Subarea 2 Standards of the Bayfront Specific Plan, provided that the corresponding demolition/removal of existing
structures elsewhere on the Rohr campus commensurate with the allowed bonus will occur in a timely fashion and aasociated
traffic impacts will be mitigated to WS -0- or better at the Bay Blvd.rE- StreetlI-5 interchange.
Special Condition -F-: In the event additional land area is gained for development of properties located at the northeast and
southeast comers of Bay Boulevard and -r Street by covering adjacent drainage channels, the on-site FAR and sethaco may
vary in accordance with Special Condition -F- (Bayfront Specific Plan Sec. V.O) and Subarea 2 Standards of the Bayfront
Specific Plan.
(09/23/92)
III- 15
<;(-?D
'==<<-,-x<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-x<<<<=<=_<<<<<_<<<<<-x<<-x<-x<<<-x<<_ '"
::><<<<<<<-
I: <<<<<-w.<-
TABLE 3-2A
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Subarea 1 - Midbayfront
Central Resort District Building Allowance
Land Use Cateaorv
Minimum
Building
Sq. Ft. Reqd.
Target
Building
Sq.Ft.*
Maximum
DU/Hotel
Rooms
Residential-Mixed Use
100,000
406,000
300 du
Commercial-Visitor
1,000,000
1,503,000
1,360 rm
Commercial-Prof. & Admin.
20,000
60,000
N/A
Public & Open Space
**
Maximum Building Area Permitted
1,969,000 sq. ft.
.
The target building sq. ft. in any category may be exceeded by up to 20% provided that the increase is offset by a corresponding
reduction in other categories. and that the increase will not produce additional unmitigatible envirorunental impacts. The
maximum building square' feet for the entire Central Resort District shall not be exceeded. Changes in building square footage
from one category to another that decreases the level of service below the Traffic Service Threshold shall not be permitted.
..
Limited by limited permitted uses.
-~~<<--__WOO'
~__X<<<WO<
-"",,_v___
(00/23/92)
I1I-16
f)/jl
B. Circulation, Public Access, and Parking
The circulation improvements to serve the Bayfront result from a number of basic objectives, including
convenient vehicular and pedestrian access, natural habitat protection, traffic capacity constraints, parking, and
incorporating public transit via the trolley stations east of 1-5 at "E" Street and "H" Street.
1. Existing Conditions
The regional entries to the Bayfront are limited by the off-ramp configurations of Interstate 5 and the
location of wetland resources. At the present time access is available at "E" Street, "H" Street, and "J"
Street. One additional bridge at "F" Street provides for a local connection to the east side of 1-5 but
no freeway on or off-ramps are provided. The southerly and inland portions of the Bayfront are ade-
quately served by existing local streets. Because 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. "J" Street also serves as the southerly termination of Marina Parkway, which is constructed from
the "J" StreetlBay Boulevard intersection west and north to the Midbayfront within the Port District
jurisdiction. It has been constructed as a divided roadway with a landscaped median. It is proposed
to be extended north into the Midbayfront and curve east to connect to the "E" StreetlBay 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 Boulevard also has been improved as a frontage road serving the areas 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, Inc. expansion, from Bay Boulevard to the "F-
G" Street Marsh.
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) are 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 Obiectives/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 are 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 CalTrans and the Port District will be required during the design and construction
phases of some roadway improvement projects.
Objective AC.I
Provide good regional access to the Bayfront from 1-5 and SR-54.
Policy AC.1.A
Completion of the CalTrans 1-5/SR-54 interchange project will provide
the required regional access to the Midbayfront. while existing
facilities provide access to other portions of the Bayfront. All facili-
ties within the jurisdiction of CalTrans shall be designed and operated
in a manner consistent with State standards.
(09/23/92)
1II-17
(( /' /d---
Objective AC.2
Policy AC.2.A
Policy AC.2.B
Objective AC.3
Policy AC.3.A
Policy AC.3.B
(09/23/92)
Provide for convenient access to the Bayfront for visitors and residents of
community areas east of 1-5.
Convenient access shall be maintained by assuring that traffic
congestion does not fall below the City's established threshold
standard: LOS "C" at all signalized intersections, except for 2 hours
per day when LOS "0" is permitted. The City's threshold standards
recognize that the management of the freeway system is under the
control of State and Federal agencies, and, therefore signalized
intersections at freeway ramps are not included in the City's
threshold standards. Any proposed development project which has
the potential to adversely affect compliance with this threshold
standard shall be evaluated with a traffic study and approved 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 31.
I1I-18
t)" 7 )
RAIL
pDCJD~ Existing Trolley
I [Ii] [ Existing Trolley Stop
S.D. & AE Railroad
OTHER
r.......1: Regional Bicycle Route
r,"I"t:,","'l"M," Local Bicycle Route
roooooooo{ Pedestrian Route
Circulation
Element
Exhibit 6
VEHICULAR
~ 1-5 Freeway
] [ Existing Arterials
~...~ Planned Arterials
r-.---.......---.....
--.....---....
-.....--..
'\
f
\
!I.;...._..~ i " 88"
/' Or) 01 ~~%.i. " g %00 ~~~oo
<ifl '~...."'-L . _ ~ ..',
'/ "<>7" .~,. .... iI.~.......)~ooo
if. '. ...........................ooooo~..O()oo,..... oe~oo
I, S ~".. .....~oo 00 00 o~. eOo
.."," D of """"'_" . ooo~oooo'l>ooooooo.oooooo? cs.g 'b.. ee~
..~~~llll~s: 11. . 00 allnll kwy ."",..../ g.: 0
-.."111 ~q,oa . "_ .-......
_."'11 CI . 0 .._.._ .
In-- ..~I.II!I', . 0 . ~
lerstiiies-- -...~"!III' . ~............... ................
~:)'~.:~~ ''''H''''''''''''''''''''II''''''.'' II""',.,."".,.,."..,.,.,.,,, """"""""""",,""","
.... ... 0 IL
.c~~~:~~~:~.:~-~~~2~ :~~ 1?--- ~-- -~--, ----------
:, .:~" ',0
II ..:.r !l'~
,10
__L_ _.JL._~
--~--'I------------l-------------
....._-..
..............--...---
........-............--....--...
.....-.........-..
.......
--..
.................,
i
I
..
~1.~",,'1
. ...~III'!
-. ...~'~I.!
~...l...._..~..
I ~', ". ......... ...
"-Jl/ ' -
~ 7Y~~~
!i''''' l;~ - ~q=tof
I _1_--~-- l~__
~/'------ ------~-~--;r
i
/
oy.
-
-
-
,
i
i
I
i
,
oo,.,g,bo~!
"O~: IUi
!:t~
I"
iiw
---,.
I
is
H
I;
~I
, ,
.," .. ~' "7']
I' ' 'i
" :....-..~" i ::21
=~_""" ~ ,~..-_",.~)~:.r...j
I I
CHULA VISTA
Locaf Coastal Program
~r~::,::iiI6]
r-=.... '-".:~
6/5/921~' ;~
Policy AC.3.C
Objective AC.4
Policy AC.4.A
Objective AC.5
Policy AC.5.A
Objective AC.6
Policy AC.6.A
Objective AC.7
Policy AC.7.A
Policy AC.7.B
(09/23/92)
All road construction or improvements shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the applicable Environmental
Management policies.
Create auto-free zones along the shoreline and other areas which have
unique environmental conditions or potential, and make provision for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Circulation Element Map designates pedestrian and bicycle routes
along the perimeter of the Midbayfront. separate from the vehicle
access routes. These shall be implemented concurrent with adjacent
development. Public access to the Nature Interpretive Center within
the Wildlife Refuge shall be 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 "mini-transit" vehicles or
private jitneys.
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 and 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 arterials by maintaining
a mix of land uses where peak traffic generating periods are staggered
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 Midbayfront will balance traffic
demands of the employment oriented development throughout other
areas of the Bayfront. All development within the Bayfront shall be
consistent with the land 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 bridge over
1-5 shall be utilized to provide Midbaytront access for local residents.
Provision for pedestrians and bicyclists. as well as motor vehicles.
shall be made within the bridge travelway.
Circulation routes and services which exist or are provided within the
urban core of Chula Vista shall be extended to and through the
III-20
~~?3
Bayfront in order to integrate the coastal area with the overall
community. D~v!llopi'nent projects within the Bayfront shall incor-
porate, extend, and/or utilize these transportation facilities as a part
of the development concept.
3. Roadway Imorovement Obiectives/Policies
The following objectives/policies relate to the construction/improvement of roadways within the
Bayfront.
Objective RLl
Marina Parkway and Tidelands Avenue are to be constructed to serve
development within the Midbayfront subarea.
Policy RI. 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 Marina 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 parkway character for Marina Parkway, no curbside
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 will move westerly 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 westerly to the
first Midbayfront 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 nE n Street 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 CalTrans in conjunction with the 1-5/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 be limited to
(rE/23/92)
III-21
g -?"
Objective RI.3
Policy RI.3.A
Objective RIA
Policy RI.4.A
that which can be served by these improvements, within the traffic
threshold standard.
Extend "F" Street westerly as Lagoon Drive to serve as secondary flocal
access route into the Bayfront.
Lagoon Drive will function as an important internal circulation element
in the Bayfront and provide a critical secondary outlet from the
Bayfront to the east side of the freeway. Extending it as a Class I
Collector Street lfour lanes), to intersect with Marina Parkway, will
permit the maximum flexibility for providing area-serving bus loop
routes through the Bayfront that connect to the regional serving
trolley system. It will also provide for necessary service loops for
underground utilities. 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 1-5 with the regional coastal bicycle trail.
Maintain public access to the Nature Interpretive Center on Gunpowder
point.
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
Interpretive Center shall be made a priority use for parking in the
landscaped SDG&E ROW.
4. Public Transit Obiectives/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 stations and the adjacent community; and 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.l
Policy PT.1.A
(cYiiI23/92)
Maximize use of the public transit services by visitors and residents of the
Bayfront.
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 are included in the
111-22
g-~ ? )
Policy PT.1.B
Objective PT.2
Policy PT.2.A
Plan. These opportunities. which shall be addressed in the Compre-
hensive TransltServlrie Plan for the Midbayfront. include:
Bus Imorovements. Provide for convenient bus stop locations on
convenient travel 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.
The Circulation Element provides for roadway right-of-ways with
sufficient capacity and opportunities for bus stop locations to
facilitate convenient bus service into the Bayfront along Marina
Parkway. "E" Street. lagoon Drive. and 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.
Encourage private transit services where feasible.
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.l
Policy PB.1.A
Policy PB.1.B
(09/23/92)
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 park
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 access shall interconnect with other existing or proposed
1f~ ? ~
III-23
circulation routes. Project level planning and coordination shall
provide for:
Connection South to Port District Lands. In the Marina Parkway area.
public access will be integrated with Port District development. This
will result in a continuous public access route with intermittent
exposure to the water edge within the Port lands.
Connection North to Sweetwater River Proiect. Pedestrian and
bicycle routes in the Bayfront shall have the potential to interconnect
with the recreational improvements included in the Caltrans/Army
Corps of Engineers project. and/or the Chula vista Greenbelt trail
system proposed in the Sweetwater River Valley. The filling of
wetlands for bike paths is not permitted. including. but not limited to.
any extension of the toe of the CalTrans fill slope for the freeway into
the mitigation areas of the connector marsh.
Connection with Chula Vista Neiohborhoods. 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. Parkin!! Obiectives/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.l
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 orofessional offices: 1 space per 300 square feet of
floor area; minimum of 4 spaces;
Dance. assemblv. or exhibition halls without fixed seats: 1 space per
50 square feet of floor area used for dancing or assembly;
(09/23/92)
1II-24
2)'? I
Dwellinas. multiole: 1.5 spaces per studio or 1 bedroom unit; 2
spaces per two bl!droom ; 2.5 spaces per three bedroom or larger
unit (includes 0.3 space per unit guest parking);
Hotels, motels: 1 space for each living or sleeping unit, plus 1 space
for every 25 rooms or portion thereof (Hotels and motels shall not be
used for long term residence);
Manufacturina olants. research & testina laboratories: 1 space per
1.5 persons employed at anyone time in the normal operation of the
plant or 1 space per 800 square feet of floor area, whichever is great-
er;
Medical and dental offices, clinics: 1 space per 200 square feet of
floor area; minimum of 5 spaces;
Restaurants, bars, and niaht clubs: 1 space per 2.5 permanent seats,
excluding and dance floor or assembly area without fixed seats which
shall be calculated separately at 1 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 seats, whichever is greater;
Retail stores: 1 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
centers: 1 space per 1.5 persons employed at anyone 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 Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance.
Policy PK.1.B
Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for developed uses according
the following schedule. Only those uses listed below are required to
provide bicycle parking. Bicycle parking facilities shall be fixed
storage racks or devices designed to secure the frame and wheel of
the bicycle.
Business and orofessional offices (over 20,000 square feet of gross
floor area): 5 spaces;
Shoooina center (over 50,000 square feet of gross floor areal: 1
space per 33 automobile spaces required;
Fast food restaurant, coffee shoo, or delicatessen: 5 spaces;
((J}I23/92)
III-25
'ir~ gO
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
(09/23/92)
Other eatina and drinkina establishments: 2 spaces;
Commercial recreation: 1 space per 33 automobile spaces required.
Provide adequate parking for all public park and open space uses in the
Bayfront.
Public parking areas shall be provided at community parks. The
parking areas shall be integrated into the open space areas close to
the roadways and. where possible. screened from view. With the
exception of the National Wildlife Refuge. for which no separate
parking is required. one parking place for every 10.000 square feet
of park or accessible open space shall be provided. Parking for public
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 overlap. The
methods and criteria set forth in Shared Parkina 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 shall 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.
Parking 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.
Screenino. Where feasible. parking will be screened from view from
the major arterials by the use of landscaped berms and tree planting.
III-26
']>15/
Objective PK.5
Policy PK.5.A
(W/23I92)
IYlli!. Where possible. open. large scale parking will be avoided in
favor of underground or smaller disaggregated parking areas separat-
ed by buildings or landscaping. Structured parking shall be encour-
aged where additional open space or other public benefit can be
provided. A minimum of 75% of the required parking for the Resort
Core District and residential uses in the Midbayfront 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 Bayfront.
Where parking is incorporated into the SDG&E ROW through the use
of the bonus provisions of the plan. the parking areas shall be
landscaped with a continuous perimeter planting of trees and ground
covers. The tree planting will be tightly spaced to provide a 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.
I1I-27
cr-~ ~
C. Physical Form and Appearance
The Bayfront provides a unique opportunity to establish a harmonious relationship between the natural
setting and the man-made environment. The area's natural resources and scenic quality provide a setting
which have a distinctive appearance and in turn, 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. Existing 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 create a defining City image.
The Bayfront is characterized, from north to south, by the National Wildlife Refuge with the Nature
Interpretive Center, a relatively flat upland area which is currently vacant (Midbayfront Subarea),
major industrial facilities associated with Rohr, Inc., the SDG&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 Interpretive 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 ADpearance Objectives/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.l
Policy FA.1.A
Objective FA.2
Policy FA.2.A
(00/23/92)
Preserve existing wetlands in a healthy state to ensure the aesthetic
enjoyment of marshes and the wildlife which inhabit them.
The provisions of the Environmental Management section of the land
Use Plan 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.
Change the existing substandard industrial image of the Bayfront, and
develop a new identity consonant with its future public and commercial
recreational role.
New development within the Bayfront shall be consistent with the
land use designations permitted in the land Use and Development
Intensity section. The majority of new development shall be visitor
serving commercial. park. recreation. and residential. with only a very
limited amount of additional industrial development permitted. The
scale of these new uses combined with improved landscaping and
IIl-28
g-~~}
Objective FA.3
Policy FA.3.A
Objective FAA
Policy FA.4.A
Objective FA.5
Policy FA.5.A
screening of exiting industrial development will benefit the image of
the Bayfrontas a whole.
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.
The land Use Plan designates improved publiC parkland and open
space along the shoreline area of the Midbayfront. landscape and
improvement standards for these areas will result in a major improve-
ment in the visual quality of the shoreline.
Remove, or mitigate by landscaping, structures or conditions which have
a blighting influence on the area.
New development within the Bayfront shall be constructed according
to the high quality and aesthetic standards set forth in the land Use
Plan. Continuing development and/or redevelopment will displace
abandoned or substandard structures which have a blighting
influence. Any areas disturbed by development shall be completely
landscaped. However. the landscaping shall be consistent with the
Environmental Management policies herein. and shall also give priority
to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials.
Develop a readily understandable and memorable relationship of the
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.
New development within the Midbayfront shall be controlled by
policies herein. including specific height. use. parking. and develop-
ment intensity restrictions. In addition. it shall 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.
(00123192)
III-29
%' fr L!
~o
. "'''''~ ~;,f:':!.'I'O.O'
..-.."... ,.....~
, ........'" '-~..
Jr"'_
----i\., ---.:::
"Ii 'c-
~------1 Firm Architectural Edge
I [ Irregular Architectural Edge
r......../ Formal Street Tree Planting
roooooooo{ Informal Grove/Street Planting
~ Landscape Screening
~...."""..,.,[ Landscape Parking
I ,:~?J:, I Distant View to Protect
I !?~ I Gateway
C>0
\
~
"\Jlii"" I
/;1""'/".........
t 1//
II! 11
.Ii! L!,
'i, 1/
1ff ~ ~-
--:- 7r
I
!
;;
r
['
---'11-
gjld~a'~~~
I ~ l Focal Point
I.: ,.j.:. .r Major Open Space and Protected Areas
Form &
Appearance
Exhibit 7
r.................--...................__
i
...-..
........
------....
-...........
........-....-.............-
.............................
................................,
I
I
\
J-',-,,~ Ii
<1/ o,;.'~,,>I'
#/ ""~"
'/ ....~
<1,. '.
'-""
"'-'"
" ''-c~'' ~~__.___._.
'...:: "!.!!.. .... -~~,,,-,'" ....
- "-,-'.'- -----;;.c::.-:.,:.~'~....::.- -.
III"~" .. :!~
Jl Ii
----.~- "_ __Jl.
.-lr-~----II----._--------~;------
"
JL
-~
'"'--
III
I.
I
"
ill
'w
-1
.~
"J[]
" ii: ,,:
II I ,_..-l, ':::>1
u.v .!:-. i
__F!'!' ~--.J;-----_..__.L! _~,L..h.l
----,r-- r"'\1
~.~.-
.",..[."",0....'"'9"7'1
....._,..... ~._,.,,,.LLJ
;~ r-=~
6/5/92 '-= ~iJ
3. Bayfront Gatewav 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 siting and design of adjoining structures.
These special gateway locations are shown on the Form and Appearance Map, Exhibit 7.
Objective GT.1
Policy GT.1.A
Policy GT. 1.B
Policy GT.1.C
(09/23/92)
Maximize the sense of arrival and invitation to the Bayfront via the "E"
Street entry.
"E" Street Entrv from east of 1-5. A dense canopy of trees on both
sides of Marina Parkway shall 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 shall be closely spaced and in a regular pattern to achieve this
objective. However. plant species and spacing shall be selected and
designed to protect and enhance public views to the bay. Immediate-
ly west of the freeway future buildings on the north side should be
sited and designed to reinforce the sense of entry created by the
street trees and existing building mass of the restaurant on the south
side.
Southbound 1-5 off-ramo to "E" Street/Bav 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 Bayfront.
"E" Street (Marina Parkwavl/Bav Boulevard intersection. When
approaching and crossing Bay Boulevard. the continuation of street
trees and landscaping will create a view corridor 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
criteria will locate buildings to frame and not block the long range
view to the water.
Marina Parkwav/Tidelands Avenue intersection. 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.
Marina Parkwav/Gunoowder Point Drive intersection. To the west of
the Marina Parkway/Tidelands Avenue intersection. views will open
up to the bay. park and wetlands. The residential area on the north
y- g?
III-31
Policy GT.1 .D
side of Marina Parkway marks the urban edge of the bayfront and
helps direct views towards the open spaces. Street trees and
landscaping along the parkway will also direct and frame views.
Views to Vener Pond /wildlife refuael. The above described views
should be followed by panoramic views of across park and open
space areas to Vener Pond, Gunpowder Point and San Diego Bay.
Major massing of trees shall be avoided along this portion of the
shoreline to protect the view.
4. Architectural Ed!!es Obiectives/Policies
The interface of open spaces, such as parks and natural habitats, with developed areas, constitute
functionally and visually critical areas deserving special design attention.
Objective AE.l
Policy AE.1 .A
Policy AE.1.B
Policy AE.1.C
Objective AE.2
Policy AE.2.A
Policy AE.2.B
(09/23/92)
Design development to appropriately respond to functional requirements
(e.g., buffer, transition, etc.) created by its location within the Bayfront.
Structures shall be sited a sufficient distance from natural habitat
areas, as indicated in the Environmental Management section, to
protect the natural setting and prevent interference with wildlife.
Structures shall be sited at a sufficient distance from the marsh edge
or open space edge to ensure unencumbered pedestrian and biCYCle
access.
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.
Utilize firm and irregular appearing development edges to enhance the
appearance and function of development in the Bayfront.
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 berms or mass
plantings.
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
I1I-32
g-'f7
distinction betwee'1 open space areas and adjoining development.
This prevents harsh contrasts between different areas. allows visual
penetration between areas, and variation in the spatial experiences
and qualities in these areas.
5. Views Objectives/Policies
Objective VW.I
Plan and develop the Bayfront to ensure provision of important views to,
from and within the project area.
Policy VW.1.A
Views from the Freewav and Maior Entrv. Development shall provide
an attractive view onto the site and establish a visual relationship
with the Bay, marshes. and Bay-related development. High rise
structures shall be sited in the general location indicated on the
Building Heights exhibit to minimize view obstruction.
Views from Roadwavs Within the Site (particularly from Marina
Parkway, to the marshlands, Bay, parks and other Bay-related
development.) Development and activity sites shall preserve a sense
of proximity to the Bay and marshlands.
Views from the Perimeters of the Bavfront Outward. This view is
primarily a pedestrian-oriented stationary view and more sustained.
These views will be experienced from the various parts of the open
space and pathway system and enable persons to renew visual con-
tact at close range with the Bay and marshlands. Some close-range
pedestrian views may be blocked to protect sensitive species in the
Wildlife Refuge.
Hiah-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 Obiectives/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, Informal Groves in public parkland, and Formal Street Tree Planting on
mlUor 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.I
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.
~-:>rg
(fS/23/92)
III-33
Policy LS.1.A
Policy LS.1.B
Policy LS.1.C
Policy LS.1.D
(OO/23m)
LandscaDe Screenina. Dense plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
used in certain locations throughout the Bayfront to serve three
purposes: 11 to diminish the visual impact of large existing industrial
structures, such as those of Rohr, Inc., the SDG&E plant and
transmission towers, and extensive parking and outdoor storage
areas; 2) to help define major entry points to the Bayfront and to
frame views; and, 31 to be used in masses as visual stopping points
to limit views and provide natural vertical elements.
Parkina Area Plantina. Automobile parking has been recognized by
SDG&E as a compatible joint use of their 150-foot wide right-of-way
that bisects the entire Bayfront. In order to diminish the visual
impact of the power lines and to strengthen the ground plane
connection between both sides of the right-of-way, an aggressive
planting program shall be implemented with parking improvements
beneath the power lines. SDG&E criteria will only permit planting
which can be maintained at no more than fifteen feet in height,
thereby maintaining sufficient clearance at the lowest point in the
power line catenary. Planting in the parking areas shall establish a
dense ground plane massing of shrubs and 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 Bayfront'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 Plantina. 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
predictable form characteristics to achieve strong linear avenues that
guide views and establish perspective.
fr/5/i
1II-34
FUNCTION
Landscape
Screening
Parking Area
Planting
Informal
Groves
Formal
Street Tree
~""N
TABLE 3-3
TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE
CHARACTERISTICS'
. 40 to 60 ft. high
* Upright form
* Evergreen
* 10 to 15 ft. high
* Globular or multi-
stem form
* Evergreen
. 40 to 80 ft. high
* Up-right and open
branching to con-
trast with dense
vertical form
* 40 to 60 ft. high
* Crown shaped form
REPRESENTATIVE
SPECIES
* Melaleuca Sp.
* Eucalyptus Sp.
* Ligustrum Nerium
* Oleander
. Platanus acerfolia
(to match existing
park)
* Pine Bp.
* Ficus nitida
* Ficus rubiginosa
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATIONS
* Bay Boulevard
* SDG&E ROW
* Parks
* Tidelands Avenue
* Marina Parkway
* "E" street
'Height may be limited in areas adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge (see Environmental
Management).
.=:<'''<<<'''--<~''''''*'''''<<<<~*'"''*'''''''~
(09123/92)
II1-35
;t.-'/o
D. Utilities and Areawide Grading
The utility improvements proposed to serve the Bayfront are interrelated to provide the most cost-effective
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 but 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 Geology
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 settlement hazards are attributable to the presence of relatively shallow surficial deposits of soft
compressible bay mud throughout the historic marsh lands and the tidal flats, as well as in deeper
water areas. This mud, an organic silty 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
exact trace of each is not known, the San Diego Bay/Tijuana 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 Chula Vista site unlikely.
The planning implications of these soils and geologic conditions relate to public safety and the
economics of development. There is the possibility of soil liquefaction during a severe earthquake.
(09/23/92)
1II-36
<{5--C; I
This is of special concern in tideland areas reclaimed by hydraulically-placed fills. Extensive
evaluations of the soil conditions have been imide. However a detailed evaluation of liquefaction
should be routinely made for any future major Bayfront engineering 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 Roadwav Imorovements
The northern portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront (north of "F" Street) is primarily vacant at this
time. Utilities have been stubbed to the boundaries of the site and a major sewer line passes along
the western edge of the property. Most of the utility lines are 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 1-5 westerly and northerly to the north end
of Rohr Industries (at the prolongation of "G" Street). The majority of that street, 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 Lorna Sewage Treatment Plant. Future
improvements to the regional system may include a pump station at the northeastern edge of the
Midbayfront.
2. Utility Service Obiectives/Policies
Objective US.l
Provide adequate sizing of utility lines to assure sufficient capacity for the
most intensive uses.
Policy 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 Drive. "G" Street. and "W
Street. Water main sizes will be determined through detailed
engineering studies for the proposed new development. Static water
pressure within the system shall be maintained to the
'6~/c2
(09123/92)
III-37
>.(J}<Xl
:f-' E ~
+=i :e
=>*Jj
(J)
c
.Q @-
<<i d:
U5 .....c:
a. c>>.Q
Q) Q) E ~~
C c: :J 000
::i :.:J a... m...J
;Qa
.,.-
~E
<'-(/)
-Ie
CD CD m
;;:10 ;t ;t
Q) Q)
C/) C/)
rnrn~
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
L.....__________
I
i
~
l
.~ [8[jJ
! :t.!~
. _ : ';" H
-.- =L- ~.~g;
'r :'1:'
'. .~,I .
,t_ ~
:' !!l
:: co
.~.
.~~-l
.....
I
l
.I
~~1r
....,JL
I
,k
'.I
~~
VJt
f ~"" 5_
~ ::sj
'/)/9:5! ~~ 6]
Policy US.1.C
Policy US.1.D
satisfaction of the Water District and Fire Marshall. A water main in
"G" Street connects the lines in Bay Boulevard and Marina Parkway.
This pipeline is necessary to maintain a looped system for devel-
opment of the project. An easement for pipeline operation should be
maintained even though the area may be fenced by or conveyed to
Rohr. Inc.
Phased development may require oft-site pipeline construction.
especially in industrial areas. to maintain adequate pressure and fire
flows. The major factor in sizing pipelines shall 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 metering facilities
would be constructed.
3. Areawide Gradin!! Objectives/Policies
Objective GR.!
Policy GR.1.A
Policy GR.1.B
Policy GR.1.C
Protect existing natural resources from any significant adverse impacts
during construction.
Special care shall be taken in development proposals adjacent to
wetland habitat to avoid or minimize problems of silting and oil or
chemical leakage. A major siltation basin shall be built in the
Midbayfront to accept surface drainage and provide for desilting
during and after construction of development projects and for oil and
chemical entrapment.
All grading and stockpiling of earthen materials is prohibited between
November 1 and March 31. except where proposed land development
meets the requirements of Section V.J.2 of the Bayfront Specific
Plan. Grading from April 1 through October 31 shall be subject to
standard practice.
All grading shall comply with the environmental protection policies of
the Environmental Management section. Refer to the two back-
ground documents referenced in Section III-E. Environmental
Management. Background/Existing Conditions. herein. which provide
relevant information for the design and evaluation of grading in the
Midbayfront.
4. Utility and Gradin!! Desi!!n Objectives/Policies
Objective GD.!
(09/23/92)
Provide for an adequate on-site storm drainage system to preclude storm
water run-off development from draining directly into wetland habitat
without adequate filtering of sediments or pollutants.
3' /7 i
IlI-39
Policy GD.1.A
Policy GD.1.B
Policy GD.1.C
Objective GD.2
Policy GD.2.A
(09/23/92)
Design to accommodate drainage of storm flows shall consider the
elevation of higher high tide and require gravity pipe or street flow to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Special design criteria shall be required at the marshes to reduce
problems of silting and oil or chemicals entering wetlands in storm
water runoff.
Development within the Bayfront shall comply with all applicable
regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 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.
Excavation 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 design of
all subterranean building components and related features. Final
design shall ensure that no permanent de-watering systems are
required.
III-40
fj/9S'
E. Environmental Management
1. BachroundlExisting 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 the Bayfront. With the
1988 establishment of the 316 acre National Wildlife Refuge, a substantial portion of this objective
was achieved. Virtually all the wetlands and biologically-valuable upland resources identified in
the 1984 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, long-term
protection of critical natural habitat areas. In addition, 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.1.C. and EM.1.D. required herein, the following background documents are hereby
referenced:
1. Final EIR Volume I & II for Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal 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;
3. Chula Vista Investors' (CV!) Proposed Mitigation Measures for Final
EIR - CVI Midbayfront Development Plan, December 16, 1990.
(Design Requirements USFWS);
4. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Merjan
(CV!), dated January 15, 1991;
5. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated March 11, 1991;
6. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated March 22, 1991;
'j-"7t
(W/23/92)
III -41
7. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated May 8, 1991;
8. Letter to Douglas D. Reid, City of ChuIa Vista, from Brooks Harper,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, dated May 23, 1991;
9. Letter to Diana Richardson. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks
Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, dated January 14, 1992; and;
10. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula
Vista Investors, dated February 6, 1992;
2. Environmental Management Obiectives/Policies
Objective EM. 1
Policy EM.l.A
Policy EM.l.B
Policy EM.l.C
(09123/92)
Provide for the long-term protection and enhancement of the critical
natural habitat areas by cooperating in a multi-jurisdictional planning and
implementation program with adequate safeguards and guarantees.
Coordination with the San Diego Unified Port District in the develop-
ment of plans and 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.
Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WSI shall
be maintained for the development of plans and programs adjacent
to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
Habitat Restoration and Manaaement Plan. To ensure an orderly and
efficient implementation of the various restoration and enhancement
features and actions specified for the Midbaytront, a comprehensive
Habitat Restoration and Management Plan shall be prepared and ap-
proved prior to initiation of development within the Midbaytront.
The Habitat Restoration and Management Plan 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:
a. Engineering design, grading plan, and cost analysis.
b. Vegetation design, including specifications for planting program,
source of plants, etc.
c. Implementation schedule and phasing.
III-42
3'~/?
Policy EM.1.D
Policy EM.1.E
(00123/92)
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 participation by the developer, the
City, the California Coastal Commission, the USF&WS, and other re-
source management agencies.
Bioloaical Resources Manaaement Plan. Additional protection of the
biological resources in the Wildlife Refuge shall be provided by the
preparation and implementation of a comprehensive Biological
Resources Management Plan 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 Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management
h. Construction Monitoring and Management
i. CC&R's/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
j. CEnA Mitigation Monitoring Requirement
Preparation of this plan will involve participation by the Developer,
the City, USF&WS, the California Coastal Commission and 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
'is-c; y
III -4 3
Policy EM.1.F
Policy EM.1 .G
(00/23/92)
provide for specific protection and enhancement measures for the
wetland and upland resources with specific design provisions for the
critical wetland buffer conditions illustrated in a series of sections.
The various mitigation features and actions specified for the Mid-
bayfront 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 actions focus on the
interface areas between the Midbayfront Subarea and the adjoining
National Wildlife Refuge. These features and actions are summarized
in Table 3-4.
Midbavfront 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 & 11)
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.
111-44
;;5/7;
~.. ..;. ."..~ Wetlands Buffer Zone
~ Primary Buffer Zone
I jp I' Public Park and Open Space
f: '.:1 Wetland Enhancement
I . I Desiltation Basin
I D I Nature Interpretive Center
lik~'),:::;::;:'id Sweetwater Marsh National
t.e"""\\""J Wlldlrfe Refuge
Environmental
Management
Element
Exhibit 9
r-''',--...
*
Potential Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
"--..
..--...-....--
...-....
..................
"-..
.......
SonClo>goIlfl\'
) i
&f-.._..~. i
d'/ C;,~~~ ,I
S,?d JI l'ol~~?~!,
/'""'f"'t-.._..,.........~f"~e:;.., l! 'Sl~.......~......, i ~""""-'_ ~"
L--"-'~'\~, ----" .....J - -..':.~ ~'" ,-~."" -- /' 0." I
~ - --?~~ ~~ , , "'.~..~ I~:---- - -_~._...-../.. .' ,',~~,'~ .
I I;'~, ''', -"-..-' 'i
~ !=-,.......; /;,/ /, - :~r ~~ f~.;.,;." -~i -,-~i J~:~~:j
f"'" //1 F ""__ " -1"-..--------rr, -- ,~ Tr
;/! olJ 61 'III i
II! l J" II~ li~l! ~ II!
t!t j! ~ 1~__ ..~ __----.Jl___n___~ __L .J
_L__",~ -- .-- "--'1 -, c----.-'
I' -_._- :,1--- I
!
/
~
\
"-
~
NOTE: Refer also to Policy EM.IL
,.~,~~~:~~~;~
" > " .,L~.j
i 0 ...." I ----,--~.-
d IiJ'
~ b ,I
8 .."Ii' ,
....~~.
,i * j' /
I, I ..-.. ,: ,I ..~
u v .-' ......1
'.. ", !
:-~-~JI.._______."j!..............J
------.-.----,r- -- :-".\j
c.ii'~I-!
....,,(0 ",,,,,.,, 9
-".'-=O::Ol
9/23/921 ......' -;~
S~ld~a'~~~
Buffer Zone Section
Exhibit 10
First Row
of Residential
( Two Story Maximum)
* /!&PtI1
*f~~
~c
~1
.
'"'"
I~
~i~i
8' WOo - ~i*~
e>Q
Public Park
( Active )
Width Varies
100 Feet Minimum
Primary Zone ~ Wetland Buffer
100 Feet 100 Feet Wetlands
\
..........
~
'-
Note:
Vertical Scale Exagerated
* Location of Fence and Berm
within Primary Zone Varies
(HULA VISTA
LocaJ' Coastal gram
Policy EM.1.H
Policy EM.1 .I
(rE/23/92)
Midbavfront South Interface Area. Because of pre-existing physical
constraints af and adjoining the "F-G" Street Marsh area. a different
mitigation approach shall be employed for the South Interface Area.
Specifically. along the north and west margins of the "F-G" Street
marsh area. the road areas of "F" Street (lagoon Drive) and Marina
Parkway. together with dense vegetational screening. shall serve as
the buffer area.
Vegetational screening of "F-G" Street marsh from lagoon Drive and
Marina Parkway will employ native plants including coastal sage
scrub and maritime succulents. Chain-link fence will be incorporated
in and largely concealed by the vegetational 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
maintain a de silting basin on the north side of "F" Street. Control
structures will include a low flow stage. three-chamber trap for oil.
grease. and particulates.
Because the USF&WS anticipates use of the "F-G" Street Marsh for
expanding the potential nesting habitat for the endangered light
Footed Clapper Rail. there will be no public access and 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 are about 100 feet wide by approximately 10400
feet long (totalling approximately 3 acres) will be excavated and
planted to create a corridor of salt marsh habitat immediately
landward of the present shoreline. This marsh corridor will be
protected from wave erosion by a rip-rap 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 mudflats and eel grass. storm drain outfalls to the Bay
will have flow energy dissipators and three-chamber type traps for
oil. grease. and particulates. In addition. irrigation and other water
sources in the development area shall be managed to achieve minimal
to zero freshwater outflows to the Bay during the dry season.
(( -/ [).:2
III-47
Policy EM.1.J
(09/23192)
A monitoring program shall be implemented to ensure that Bay
mudflats and eel grass are not adversely effected by storm drain
outflow.
To protect the biologically-rich mudflat and eelgrass meadows in the
areas of the Bay bordering on the National Wildlife Refuge. no
recreational boating facilities are permitted in this part of the Bay
without specific approval of the USF&WS and the Army Corps of
Engineers. and the California Coastal Commission.
Midbavfront Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Features. The
following actions involve habitat restoration and enhancement which
shall be incorporated in the development design in order to provide
mitigation for development impacts by improving the quality and
biological values of wetlands and uplands generally within the Wildlife
Refuge (Refer to Final E.I.R. Midbayfront local Coastal Program
Resubmittall.
Restoration bv Uoland Conversion to Wetlands. At the "F-G" Street
site. upland conversion to wetland shall be provided at three locations
(see Exhibit 10. "F-G" Street Marsh Conceptual Restoration and
Enhancement Plan) as follows:
i) Upland 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 2.0 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 1.5 acres of salt marsh immediately
west of Marina Parkway. thus extending the "F-G" Street salt marsh
to connect directly with San Diego Bay.
In addition. at the "0" 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 Existina Habitat. At the "F-G" Street site. existing
habitat shall 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 101.
11I-48
g-/')tJ)
Policy EM.1.K
(09/23/92)
iil Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub bordering the
south margin of the "F-G" Street Marsh.
iii) Provide new coastal sage habitat (or upgrade existing severely
degraded coastal 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 as shown in Exhibit 10.
Enhancement of Water Qualitv. 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
.Iocated 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 plantings 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 1 OO-foot wide Primary Zone along the northern and
northwestern interface with the Wildlife Refuge (I.e.. "E" Street.
Vener and 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.
Phasino of Environmental Mitioation MeasuresllmDrovements for the
Midbavfront Subarea. The preparation of management plans and 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 Plan. Exhibit 2. as CRD. RH. or PR in the
Midbay front Subarea. as follows:
III -49
?(/) Vi
Policy EM.1.l
(09/23/92)
i) Except for the restoration and enhancement features specified
above for the "0" Street fill and Gunpowder Point. all 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 &
Wildlife Serivce in required for the "0" Street fill (15 acre salt 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 the
responsibility of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Environmental Manaaement of Undelineated Resources. Sensitive
habitats exist in areas not delineated. including but not limited to the
Faivre Street Subarea. the Inland Parcel Subarea. and the' J" Street
Marsh. It is required that all environmental resources are analyzed by
an environmental professional. and that an Environmental Manage-
ment Plan is adopted to protect any sensitive habitats discovered.
prior to the commencement of any additional development.
III-50
8'/ ) (J~
<w:.>>:~"""._,.;...-.<<_><<<<<~..w.<.x<"'-^"'.>>:"'.~<<<.
TABLE 3-4
SUMMARY OF RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT FEATURES
AND ACTIONS FOR MIDBA YFRONT AREA
Habitat Restoration (New)
Aooroximate Area (Acres)
Wetland
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Freshwater Marsh
Salt Marsh (expansion)
Salt Marsh (extension)
Salt Marsh at "0" Street Fill
Fresh Water Marsh on Gunpowder Point
Salt Marsh at Bay Margin
3.5
2.0
1.5
15.0
2.0
3.0
Upland
7)
Coastal Sage Scrub
a) Perimeter screening
b) Berm
2.0
Habitat Enhancement IUpqrade\
Wetland
8)
Salt Marsh (high)
0.5
Upland
9)
Coastal Sage Scrub
0.5
Water Qualitv Enhancement
10) Desilting Basin
11) Improved Tidal Flushing -
(3 @ 48 inch diameter culverts)
Other Enhancement
12) Access Control
13) Visual Screening
14) Bridge structure to provide underpass for Fauna
NOTE: For location and supplemental information regarding -F-G- Street Marsh restoration, see Exhibit 10.
~..",.
?t//o~
(09/23/92)
III-51
I
~
i-
- --j
,
~
-'I
,
~~
-~
~=-~__L;:_-_~i\.~_.
I
....-<:~-'-:
" ~.-~-,
'J'
-"
""'--....,.
J
.~<,~,\"-~",.
/-..'-,,,,~,,
'.,,"",~-
. ',".,
"""-
, >::~
'<
/~
- /-
----------------------- '-
1
./
./
---~( / - --) ------~--
\, --~-~~,J~~ --
~xh bit~1~~~
F.G Street Marsh
Conceptual Plan For
Restoration and Enhancement
-~._--
LEGEND:
RESTORE
Freshwater Marsh
Sail Mal1ih
Coastal Sage Scrub
ENHANCE
SallManh
Coastal Sage Scrub
=
==
~
~~
('.. 0 ~
" 0 _ r.
I 'I ........ ."
'.00.-_"
racm
Dedt&tionBasirl
OischalgeControl
knpn:wed Tidal Acx.e$S
.........
.
lIl:
..=
flEVIS.D ~.19.92
SOU1CE: Rick 09....; l!l and
David SmIth & Associates
VISTA
Program
. 7 .... """,o[ill
eMF'. '10"..~'
(,Y" - / /) lAM DII!~. CALIfOllUA 11
o (/ I~-~; ~~-j f5)
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
development 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
Resort 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 north 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 ROWand adjacent to 1-5.
1. SDecial Subarea Conditions
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 S1.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 S 1.A. 1
The Conceptual Development Plan for the Midbayfront depicts
general land uses in the pattern indicated on the Land Use Plan
Map, Exhibit 3. In addition, it Indicates a large public lagoon of
(cYJ/23/92)
IV-l
~~ )iJ r
approximately 7-10 acres associated with the resort core and
adjacent public use areas and a smaller private lagoon of about
3 acres associated with residential development. Three hotels.
major commercial recreation facilities. retail and residential uses
are also located within the Resort Core. A large area of public
parks and open space. including buffers adjacent to the wildlife
refuge are indicated along the northern and western perimeter.
Residential uses. support commercial. and an inn are depicted in
the Residential Village/Park Sector. Development within the
Midbayfront shall be govern by a "master plan" which is consis-
tent with the Conceptual Development Plan and must be
approved prior to any development within the Midbayfront.
Although a certain amount of flexibility is required as more
detailed design occurs. consistency 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.
Policy S1.A.2
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 sf
1.906.000 sf
60.000 sf
75.000 sf
approx. 34 acres
approx. 8 acres
approx. 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 ~
Professional &
Administrative 60.000 sf
Visitor (retail) 150.000 sf
Visitor (non-retail) 1.360 rooms/1.146.000 sf
Visitor (recreation) 206.000 sf
Residential (300 du) 406.000 sf
Residential Villaae/
Park Sector 1.153.000 ~
Visitor (non-retail) 250 rooms/204.000 sf
Residential (700 du) 949.000 sf
(09/23/92) IV-2 0')07
Policy S1.A.2
Policy S1.A.3
Policy S1.A.4
Policy S1.A.5
Objective SloB
Policy S1.B.1
(09123/92)
Park Sector
Cultural Arts Facility
75,000 sf
up to 2,000 ...t./75,OOO sf
Citv/HiQhwav Parcel
Visitor (non-retail)
200.000 sf
250 rooms/200.000 sf
Additional building area is permitted within the sector. including public park uses
for restrooms. small maintenance or storage buildings, etc.
The Midbayfront shall be a mixed-use project which combines
into one development the facets of numerous activities so that
the whole will be more active. more economically viable. be a
more desirable place to be. and ultimately use less energy than
if these activities were separate and discrete.
Active uses such as retail. commercial recreation. and entertain-
ment shall be located away from the edges of the Subarea and
focused toward the interior 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 Plan for the Midbayfront Subarea shall
require buffer uses. including public parks. 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 shall 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 permitted 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)
?5 ~ / /0
IV-3
Park land/Open Space Zone - next 100 feet landward from
Primary Zone: public access and limited structures permitted
(e.g.. park pavilions. pedestrian and bicycle paths); landscaping
and structures over 6 feet (including signs. light standards. etc.)
must be screened from view of the wetland to the satisfaction
of USF&WS and California Department of Fish and Game; bu-
ilding height limit 30 feet.
limited Development Zone "A" - next 100 feet landward from
Parkland/Open Space Zone: building height limit 35 feet. except
the Cultural Arts Facility site where structures to 100 feet in
height are permitted as indicated in the Building Heights Map.
Exhibit 4.
limited Development Zone "B" - next 100 feet landward from
limited Development Zone "A": building height limit 44 feet.
except that portion of the Central Core Sector which may be
within 300 feet of the USF&WS boundary where the height limit
shall be 75 feet and a single high-rise hotel site (up to 229 feet)
as indicated in the Building Heights Map. Exhibit 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 S 1. C
Provide adequate public circulation and access routes commensurate
with the publicly oriented uses within the Midbayfront, including both
vehicular routes and parking, and non-vehicular access.
Policy S1.C.1
The following public streets shall be required for the development
planned within the Midbayfront:
Marina Parkwav shall be a dedicated 4-\ane Major Street for most
of its length within the Midbayfront (6-lane major between Bay
Boulevard and first intersection west).
"F" Street (lagoon Drive) shall be provided between Bay
Boulevard and Marina Parkway as a 4-lane Collector.
GunDowder Point Drive shall be maintained between the Nature
Interpretive Center and Marina Parkway.
(09/23/92)
IV-4
g'-)J/
Policy S1.C.2
Policy S 1.C.3
((J}123/92)
Access to the Citv/Hiahwav Sector parcel shall be addressed in
the MidbaYfront "master plan" process, as long as it is under
separate ownership.
The following types of pedestrian/bicycle paths shall be required
for the development planned within the Midbayfront:
Tvee 1 - Bicycle and pedestrian paths that traverse the buffering
parks and one within the SDG&E easement: minimum 8 foot
bikeway with adjacent 6 foot pedestrian way (may be combined
in a single 14 foot path).
Tvee 2 - Bicycle and pedestrian paths along major vehicular
ways: minimum 5 Yo foot sidewalk contiguous to curb and 8 foot
bikelane in street.
Tvee 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:
Alona Dark/oDen SDace buffer perimeter with Type 1 path
(including overlooks and interpretive 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 Trollev Station to Marina Parkway with Type 2 path
along south side of "E" Street and bridge over 1-5.
Alona Marina Parkway with Type 2 on both sides of the street.
Alona "F" Street from east of 1-5 with Type 2 path along the
north side of the bridge over 1-5 to SDG&E ROW.
Alona "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) with Type 2 paths on both sides
of the street from SDG&E ROW to Marina Parkway.
Alona Derimeter of laaoon in Resort Core with Type 3 path, also
connecting to entryway at SDG&E ROW/"F"Street (Lagoon
Drive) and private lagoon in Residential Village/Park Sector.
These paths shall be integrated into the architecture/urban design
of adjacent development and shall accommodate a variety of
pedestrian activities - shopping, strolling, people-watching,
IV-5
0' -/ /.2
Objective SloD
Policy S1.D.1
Policy S1.D.2
Policy 0.3
Policy 0.4
outdoor dining. entertainment. special events. etc. Street vendor
or outdoor retail/display areas are encouraged adjacent to the
pedestrian path.
Vehicle parking areas within Subarea 1 should be obscured to achieve
a pedestrian-oriented, village-scale atmosphere and open space area.
Subterranean parking shall be the preferred parking technique
and shall be required for the majority of parking within the Resort
Core and Residential Village/Park Sector. A minimum of 75
percent of the required parking for the Central Resort District and
Residential uses shall be provided in subterranean or concealed
parking structures. Some surface and structured. above-grade
parking is also allowed.
Subterranean parking shall be located at or below existing grade.
Structures at grade shall be screened or partially screened by
earth berm ed-up against the structure. Maximum slope for the
berm shall be 2: 1 or less. if required by City streetscape 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. .
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 architecturalllandscaping
treatment to reduce visual impacts. Above-grade parking shall
be constructed of permanent materials (demountable steel struc-
tures are not allowed).
Shared parking shall be encouraged in the Midbayfront. as
provided in Areawide Policy PK.3.A.
4. Phvsical Form and Aopearance Obiectives/Polices
Objective SloE
(09/23/92)
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
IV-6
f5 ---113
Policy S1.E.1
Landscaping shall be used to screen those elements of the
existing bllilt envllorimlmt which detract from the intended new
image of the Midbayfront as a destination resort. A Comprehen-
sive Landscaping Plan shall be required as a component of the
"master plan" for development of the Midbayfront.
Policy S1.E.2
The SDG&E ROW shall be fully landscaped in a manner consis-
tent with its use as a trail corridor and parking area.
Policy S1.E.3
Informal groves of trees shall be planted within the public parks
to provide shade and definition and identification for these parks,
subject to view considerations and impacts to the wildlife refuge.
Policy S1.E.4
Marina Parkway shall be identified with formal street planting
(regular, evenly spaced trees).
Policy S1.E.5
landscaping shall provide visual connections which relate the
surrounding environment to the Midbayfront development. At
the development perimeter, landscaping shall provide screening
and natural open space areas 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 wetlands environment to the formal character of
streetscapes and urban plazas.
Policy S1.E.6
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 plantings in containers or
terraced planters. Limited use of turfgrass shall be permitted as
accents to the building forms and to create informal seating
areas. Plant material shall have a more ornamental character and
may have higher maintenance requirements due to its proximity
to high levels of pedestrian traffic.
"Park Land/Ooen Soace" Zone - The landscape character found
within the parkland zone shall establish the first transition area
from the project core to the marsh area. Planting design shall
focus on lower profile massing of selected species to develop a
broader sense of scale in relation to the wetlands. Plant material
(09123/92)
IV-?
z(/)/L/
Objective S 1. F
Policy Sl.F.l
Policy Sl.F.2
Policy Sl.F.3
Objective S1.G
Policy Sl.G.l
(09/23/92)
found in this area shall be selected for its indigenous characteris-
tics for compatibility to the marsh environment. Careful atten-
tion shall be made to the maintenance requirements for plant
species such as water use. fertilizer. and growth characteristics.
These considerations shall provide a framework for long range
maintenance requirements which limit adverse impacts to the
more sensitive marshland environment.
"Primary Buffer Zone" - The Primary Buffer Zone will consist of
a 1 OO-foot wide buffer area contiguous with the Wildlife Refuge
boundary in the area of the "E" Street marsh. the Vener Marsh
and the Sweetwater Marsh as shown in Exhibit 9. Environmental
Management. The Primary Zone will contain a berm and a
chain-link fence with underground apron. and will be vegetated
with Coastal Sage Scrub/Succulent Scrub. Height of the berm
and location of the berm and fence within the Zone will vary.
With an overall length greater than 3.800 feet. the Primary Zone
will provide approximately 8 acres of new scrub habitat.
Provide clearly identifiable gateways to the Midbayfront at:
- Bay Boulevardl"E" Street
- Bay Boulevard/"F" Street
- Marina Parkway/"F-G" Street Marsh
The Bay Boulevard and "E" Street entry shall be the primary
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 1-5. 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 Marina Parkway shall include
special enhanced landscaping and signage to emphasize the
sense of arrival 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 various view
corridors along Marina Parkway and along the Resort Core lagoon
edge. Firm edges are identified by an abrupt and usually linear
change from building mass to open area. These edges will help
to define an urban environment.
IV-8
0-)/.5
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
development areas are identified:
- Resort Core
- Residential Village/Park Sector
- Park Sector
- City/Highway Sector
These sectors are logical subareas of Subarea I and have as boundaries the major plan streets. The
Resort 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 north 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 ROWand adjacent to 1-5.
1. Special Subarea Conditions
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 bay front 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 S 1.A.1
The Conceptual Development Plan for the Midbayfront depicts
general land uses in the pattern indicated on the land Use Plan
Map, Exhibit 3. In addition, it indicates a large public lagoon of
(IDI23/92)
lV-I
55 ,- II ~
approximately 7-10 acres associated with the resort core and
adjacent public use areas and a smaller private lagoon of about
3 acres associated with residential development. Three hotels.
major commercial recreation facilities. retail and residential uses
are also located within the Resort Core. A large area of public
parks and open space. including buffers adjacent to the wildlife
refuge are indicated along the northern and western perimeter.
Residential uses. support commercial. and an inn are depicted in
the Residential Village/Park Sector. Development within the
Midbayfront shall be govern by a "master plan" which is consis-
tent with the Conceptual Development Plan and must be
approved prior to any development within the Midbayfront.
Although a certain amount of flexibility is required as more
detailed design occurs. consistency 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.
Policy S1.A.2
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 sf
1.906.000 sf
60.000 sf
75.000 sf
approx. 34 acres
approx. 8 acres
approx. 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 n
Professional &
Administrative 60.000 sf
Visitor (retail) 150.000 sf
Visitor (non-retail) 1.360 rooms/1.146.000 sf
Visitor (recreation) 206.000 sf
Residential (300 du) 406.000 sf
Residential VilJaae/
Park Sector 1.153.000 n
Visitor (non-retail) 250 rooms/204.000 sf
Residential (700 du) 949.000 sf
(09/23/92) IV-2 ({-II?
Policy S1.A.2
Policy S 1.A.3
Policy S 1 .A.4
Policy S1.A.5
Objective S1.B
Policy S1.B.1
(09123/92)
Park Sector
Cultural Arts Facility
'.l.;,
75.000 ~
up to 2.000 ..at./75.000 sf
Citv/Hiohwav Parcel
Visitor (non-retail)
200.000 ~
250 rooms/200.000 sf
Additional building area is permitted within the sector. including public park Uges
for restrooms. small maintenance or storage buildings. etc.
The Midbayfront shall be a mixed-use project which combines
into one development the facets of numerous activities so that
the whole will be more active. more economically viable. be a
more desirable place to be. and ultimately use less energy than
if these activities were separate and discrete.
Active uses such as retail. commercial recreation. and entertain-
ment shall be located away from the edges of the Subarea and
focused toward the interior 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 Plan for the Midbayfront Subarea shall
require buffer uses. including public parks. 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 shall 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 permitted 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)
IV-3
?f/"//~
Park Land/Open Space Zone - next 100 feet landward from
Primary Zone: public access and limited structures permitted
(e.g., park pavilions, pedestrian and bicycle paths); landscaping
and structures over 6 feet (including signs, light standards. etc.)
must be screened from view of the wetland to the satisfaction
of USF&WS and California Department of Fish and Game; bu-
ilding height limit 30 feet.
Limited Development Zone "A" - next 100 feet landward from
Parkland/Open Space Zone: building height limit 35 feet. except
the Cultural Arts Facility site where structures to 100 feet in
height are permitted as indicated in the Building Heights Map,
Exhibit 4.
Limited Development Zone "B" - next 100 feet landward from
Limited Development Zone "A": building height limit 44 feet,
except that portion of the Central Core Sector which may be
within 300 feet of the USF&WS boundary where the height limit
shall be 75 feet and a single high-rise hotel site (up to 229 feet)
as indicated in the Building Heights Map, Exhibit 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 Obiectives/Policies
Objective S1.C
Provide adequate public circulation and access routes commensurate
with the publicly oriented uses within the Midbayfront, including both
vehicular routes and parking, and non-vehicular access.
Policy S1.C.1
The following public streets shall be required for the development
planned within the Midbayfront:
Marina Parkwav shall be a dedicated 4-1ane Major Street for most
of its length within the Midbayfront (6-1ane major between Bay
Boulevard and first intersection west).
"F" Street (Lagoon Drive) shall be provided between Bay
Boulevard and Marina Parkway as a 4-1ane Collector.
GunDowder Point Drive shall be maintained between the Nature
Interpretive Center and Marina Parkway.
((Y)/23192)
IV-4
0/ / I;
Policy S1.C.2
Policy S1.C.3
(W/23/92)
Access to the City/Hiohwav Sector parcel shall be addressed in
the Midbaytrollt "master plan" process. as long as it is under
separate ownership.
The following types of pedestrian/bicycle paths shall be required
for the development planned within the Midbayfront:
Tvee 1 - Bicycle and pedestrian paths that traverse the buffering
parks and one within the SDG&E easement: minimum 8 foot
bikeway with adjacent 6 foot pedestrian way (may be combined
in a single 14 foot path).
Tvee 2 - Bicycle and pedestrian paths along major vehicular
ways: minimum 5% foot sidewalk contiguous to curb and 8 foot
bikelane in street.
Tvee 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:
Alona eark/oeen seace buffer perimeter with Type 1 path
(including overlooks and interpretive signagel adjacent to
National Wildlife Refuge.
Within SDG&E ROW with Type 1 path extending from "F" Street
(lagoon Drivel north to connect to perimeter path along northern
subarea boundary.
"E" Street Trollev Station to Marina Parkway with Type 2 path
along south side of "E" Street and bridge over 1-5.
Alona Marina Parkwav with Type 2 on both sides of the street.
Alona "F" Street from east of 1-5 with Type 2 path along the
north side of the bridge over 1-5 to SDG&E ROW.
Alona "F" Street (lagoon Drive) with Type 2 paths on both sides
of the street from SDG&E ROW to Marina Parkway.
Alona eerimeter of laaoon in Resort Core with Type 3 path. also
connecting to entryway at SDG&E ROW/"F"Street (lagoon
Drivel and private lagoon in Residential Village/Park Sector.
These paths shall be integrated into the architecture/urban design
of adjacent development and shall accommodate a variety of
pedestrian activities - shopping. strolling. people-watching.
IV-5
tr;, /1-0
Objective S1.D
Policy S1.0.1
Policy S1.0.2
Policy 0.3
Policy 0.4
outdoor dining. entertainment. special events. etc. Street vendor
or outdoor retail/display areas are encouraged adjacent to the
pedestrian path.
Vehicle parking areas within Subarea 1 should be obscured to achieve
a pedestrian-oriented, village-scale atmosphere and open space area.
Subterranean parking shall be the preferred parking technique
and shall be required for the majority of parking within the Resort
Core and Residential Village/Park Sector. A minimum of 75
percent of the required parking for the Central Resort District and
Residential uses shall be provided in subterranean or concealed
parking structures. Some surface and structured. above-grade
parking is also allowed.
Subterranean parking shall be located at or below existing grade.
Structures at grade shall be screened or partially screened by
earth berm ed-up against the structure. Maximum slope for the
berm shall be 2: 1 or less. if required by City streetscape 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".
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).
Shared parking shall be encouraged in the Midbayfront. as
provided in Areawide Policy PK.3.A.
4. Physical Form and Aooearance Objectives/Polices
Objective S1.E
(09/23/92)
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
IV-6
0//1)
Policy S 1.E. 1
Landscaping shall be used to screen those elements of the
existing built env'irdiiriient which detract from the intended new
image of the Midbayfront as a destination resort. A Comprehen-
sive landscaping Plan shall be required as a component of the
"master plan" for development of the Midbayfront.
Policy S1.E.2
The SDG&E ROW shall be fully landscaped in a manner consis-
tent with its use as a trail corridor and parking area.
Policy S 1.E.3
Informal groves of trees shall be planted within the public parks
to provide shade and definition and identification for these parks,
subject to view considerations and impacts to the wildlife refuge.
Policy S1.E.4
Marina Parkway shall be identified with formal street planting
(regular, evenly spaced trees).
Policy S1.E.5
landscaping shall provide visual connections which relate the
surrounding environment to the Midbayfront development. At
the development perimeter, landscaping shall provide screening
and natural open space areas 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 wetlands environment to the formal character of
streetscapes and urban plazas.
Policy S1.E.6
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 plantings in containers or
terraced planters. limited use of turfgrass shall be permitted as
accents to the building forms and to create informal seating
areas. Plant material shall have a more ornamental character and
may have higher maintenance requirements due to its proximity
to high levels of pedestrian traffic.
"Park land/ODen SDace" Zone - The landscape character found
within the parkland zone shall establish the first transition area
from the project core to the marsh area. Planting design shall
focus on lower profile massing of selected species to develop a
broader sense of scale in relation to the wetlands. Plant material
(CB/23/92)
IV-7
g r ).1J-
Objective S 1. F
Policy S1.F.1
Policy S1.F.2
Policy S1.F.3
Objective S1.G
POlicy S1.G.1
(09/23/92)
found in this area shall be selected for its indigenous characteris-
tics for compatibility to the marsh environment. Careful atten-
tion shall be made to the maintenance requirements for plant
species such as water use. fertilizer. and growth characteristics.
These considerations shall provide a framework for long range
maintenance requirements which limit adverse impacts to the
more sensitive marshland environment.
"Primarv Buffer Zone" - The Primary Buffer Zone will consist of
a 100-foot wide buffer area contiguous with the Wildlife Refuge
boundary in the area of the "E" Street marsh. the Vener Marsh
and the Sweetwater Marsh as shown in Exhibit 9. Environmental
Management. The Primary Zone will contain a berm and a
chain-link fence with underground apron. and will be vegetated
with Coastal Sage Scrub/Succulent Scrub. Height of the berm
and location of the berm and fence within the Zone will vary.
With an overall length greater than 3,800 feet. the Primary Zone
will provide approximately 8 acres of new scrub habitat.
Provide clearly identifiable gateways to the Midbayfront at:
- Bay Boulevard/"E" Street
. Bay Boulevard/"F" Street
- Marina Parkway/"F-G" Street Marsh
The Bay Boulevard and "E" Street entry shall be the primary
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 1-5. 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 Marina Parkway shall include
special enhanced landscaping and signage to emphasize the
sense of arrival 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 various view
corridors along Marina Parkway and along the Resort Core lagoon
edge. Firm edges are identified by an abrupt and usually linear
change from building mass to open area. These edges will help
to define an urban environment.
IV-8
g-/j.2}
Policy S1.G.2
Objective 51. H
Policy S1.H.1
Policy S1.H.2
POlicy S1.H.3
Objective 51.1
Policy S1.1.1
Policy S1.1.2
Policy S1.1.3
(00/23/92)
Soft architectural edges shall be composed of smaller increments
of change o'fforflbiJlii:ling mass to open area. Such edges
emphasize a transition instead of an abrupt change. Soft edges
shall be utilized where development meets public parks and open
space.
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 axis sometimes with a focal element,
usually architectural and vertically oriented.
At the "En Street gateway, a termination view to a vertical focal
point shall be established. Past the first major intersection, the
panoramic view of the bay shall be emphasized. This shall be
established between the start of Gunpowder Point Drive and 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 bay and the "F-G" Street Marsh shall be
established south of "F" Street (lagoon Drivel. A framed view
to the bay should be created at the "F" Street (lagoon Drivel
gateway to the Midbayfront.
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 Plan, the Implementation Plan shall
establish building setbacks from public streets and lot boundaries
to assure appropriate building placement.
High-rise residential towers shall be oriented with their long sides
paralleling the major view corridors from "E" Street/Marina
Parkway to the wetlands.
That portion of a residential building facing the wetlands shall
have a total length of no more than 1 50 feet without a separa-
tion of at least the same distance as the building width. The
IV-9
'(5//:<1
Objective S l.J
Policy S1.J.1
Policy S1.J.2
(09/23/92)
plane of a building line facing the wetlands must break (minimum
5 foot offset! at least every 50 feet.
Have a unifying, high quality architectural character and design to the
buildings constructed within the Midbayfront.
The following basic guidelines shall be followed in the design of
buildings and structures within the Midbayfront:
Colors - Coloration of the Midbayfront shall be perceived as a
single thematic impression made up of subtle variations of light
pastel tones of off-whites, creams, rose, peach as well as
"earth" tones. Bright accent colors shall be 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 Ooeninos - Window openings or patterns, especially in
the mid-rise 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, and railing types! shall
conform to the design requirements established in cooperation
with the USF&WS.
Roofs - Flat roofs without varied parapets are 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 and 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 be seen. Detailing
options include:
- floor paving patterns
monuments
- fountains
- bollards
- railings
IV-IO
/'
O/j:J!;>
window shape and window pane mullions
door treatments
light standards and lighting fixtures in general
public outdoor seating
trash/ash receptacles
- textile amenities - banners. awnings. umbrellas
community sign boards
planting urns and areas
niches in walls and wall decorations in general
All the above-cited elements shall be chosen and placed 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 S 1. K
Policy S 1 .K. 1
Policy S1.K.2
Policy S1.K.3
Policy S1.K.4
Grading design should achieve: I) all habitable spaces are situated
above the loo-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.
. 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) are above the 1 OO-year flood line; 2) the major circulation
arteries coincide with these activity levels; 3) most parking is
hidden; and. 4) the soil excavated from the lagoon areas is used
on-site to establish the new finish grade.
No new development which requires excavations to a ground
level that would require permanent de-watering shall be permit-
ted.
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.
Cut and fill activity shall be consistent with the Army Corps of
Engineers Permit No. 88-267-RH.
6. Environmental Management Obiectives/Policies
Objective S1.L
(00/23/92)
Protect and preserve the sensitive wildlife resources within the
National Wildlife Refuge while allowing development of public and
private uses on the adjacent Midbayfront property.
IV-ll
g / /2 ~
POlicy 5 1.l. 1
Activity along most sensitive areas adjoining wetlands shall be
restricted per land use designations. Intense development shall
be setback from sensitive edges and clustered toward the central
portion of the site.
POlicy 51.l.2
The siting and orientation of major high-rise buildings shall
respect environmental issues. 5uch buildings shall be set back
from the marsh to preclude their shadows from falling on the
sensitive wetlands. In addition. they shall have non-reflective
surface materials and be of muted colors.
B. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area
1. SDecial Subarea Conditions
The primary use in this subarea is the Rohr, Inc. industrial and manufacturing facility. This
was an existing use at the time the ChuIa Vista Bayfront LCP was first adopted. When the
facilities were constructed, landscaping and building aesthetics were not an issue of concern.
This use is anticipated to remain and limited expansion is permitted under the provisions of the
Land Use Plan. However, landscaping and other 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.
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 area.
Policy 52.A.1
C. Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel
1. SDecial Subarea Conditions
The southern parcel is located south of "L" Street and west of 1-5. 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 part of the SOG&E generating plant. In
addition, there is a small area (4 acres) which is used as part of the salt works, and an area (21
acres) which is developed with light industrial uses.
(09/23/92)
IV-12
25/)..2 7
According to an eXlstmg agreement among the State, 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 permanent basis, while
the salt works will continue into the foreseeable future. The industrial 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 and the generating plant. In addition.
no uses shall be located on this property which would economi-
cally compete with the Bayfront.
D. Subarea 4 - West Fairfield
1. Special Subarea Conditions
This subarea is identified in the Montgomery Specific Plan as the West Fairfield subarea,
separated from the majority of the Fairfield neighborhood by 1-5. The site is approximately
20 acres in size and is characterized by ajumbled arrangement of incompatible land uses. The
site is generally bounded by Palomar Street on the north, Bay Boulevard on the west, Main
Street on the south, and 1-5 on the east. The area was annexed to the City of Chula Vista as
a part of the Montgomery Annexation on December 31, 1985.
A land use survey completed in 1986 found the area contained 39 single family homes and a
duplex. In addition, approximately 32% of the area was in industrial uses, 17% was
commercial, and 22 % was vacant. Many existing uses are visually unattractive and dilapidated
vehicles, materials, and structures are evident. The commercial uses at both the north and
south ends of the site appear to be more recently constructed and in the best condition. Several
other isolated parcels are also in good condition but the general impression of the area is
haphazard and not attractive.
This area has long been designated for light industrial use in both the Chula Vista and San
Diego County General Plans. The assortment of existing uses could just as easily support a
residential, commercial or mixed-use designation.
'lf~)~</
((J')/23/92)
IV-13
2. Subarea Obiectives/Policies
Objective S4.A
Establish a land use plan and development regulations for this area to
integrate it into the City's land use planning and regulatory structure
in a manner which is consistent with community needs and desires.
Policy 54.A.1
Any major development or re-development proposal within this
subarea shall require a comprehensive analysis of the entire
subarea to determine the appropriate long-term land use pattern
and intensity for the subarea.
Policy 54.A.2
On an interim basis. the County zoning regulations in effect at
the time of annexation shall be utilized to regulate development.
E. Subarea 5 - Inland Parcel
I. Soecial 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-I (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 Obiectives/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 55.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 - Faivre Street
I. Special Subarea Conditions
This site is located south of the western end of Faivre Street, adjacent to the MTDB Trolley
tracks. The Otay River is its southern boundary. The site was annexed to Chula Vista in
(09/23/92)
IV-14
;5"' /.2;
December 1985 as a part of the Montgomery Annexation. It is approximately 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 are 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
floodway overlay. The project area is depicted in white (a part of the so-called "whitelands ")
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 Obiectives/Policies
Objective S6.A
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 structure.
Policy 56.A.1
The City shall endeavor to improve the screening and landscaping
of the- site and shall require such improvements to current City
standards with any new use or development permit approved for
the site.
Policy 56.A.2
On an interim basis. the County zoning regulations in effect at
the time of annexation shall be utilized to regulate development.
Policy 56.A.1
All development proposals shall demonstrate that proposed
improvements are located outside of the 100 year frequency
storm flood hazard zone.
G. Subarea 7 - Palomar/Bay Boulevard Reorganization
1. Special Subarea Conditions
The site is approximately 63 acres in size, generally located west of Bay Boulevard, north of
Palomar 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
the Western Salt Company property is "dry land." The dry area is located at the southern end
of the project site, adjacent to Bay Boulevard and the existing 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 Limited Industrial" while the site was pre-zoned is
"I-L-P" (Limited Industrial with Precise Plan) at the time of annexation. The existing uses are
(00123/92)
IV-15
g>):3 ()
consistent with these current designations. The General Plan Update appears to designate the
entire site Open Space.
2. Subarea Obiectives/Policies
Objective S7.A
Policy S7.A.1
Policy S7.A.2
Establish a land use plan and development regulations for this area to
integrate it into the City's land use planning and regulatory structure
in a manner which is consistent with its development capability and
environmental value.
Any development proposal within this subarea shall require a
comprehensive analysis of the entire subarea to determine the
appropriate long-term land use pattern and intensity for the
subarea.
On an interim basis. the City's I-l-P zoning designation shall be
utilized to regulate development.
H. Subarea 8 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
1. Soecial 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 Obiectives/Policies
Objective S8.A
Policy S8.A.1
(09/23/92)
Maintain and enhance wildlife habitat within the National Wildlife
Refuge while allowing public enjoyment of coastal resources in a
manner consistent with habitat protection.
The environmental management policies established in this land
Use Plan which protect and enhance the wetlands and 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.
IV-16
0;-/ J /
CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-IMPLEMENTATION PLAN-
BAYFRONTSPECIFICPLAN
DRAFT
September 23, 1992
(Planning Commission Recommendation)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Approved by the City of ChuIa Vista on
, 1992 as Resolution No. _
Certified by the California Coastal Commission on
,1992
;;{/ /32-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tim Nader, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
David Malcolm
Leonard Moore
Jerry Rindone
Shirley Horton
PLANNING COMMISSION
Joe Casillas, Chairperson
Laverne Decker, Vice Chairperson
Joanne Carson
Susan Fuller
Thomas Martin
John Ray
William C. Tuchscher II
CITY MANAGER
John Gross, City Manager
George Krempl, Deputy City 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)
(WI23/92)
~~J3)
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
Chula Vista Local Coastal Program
PLANNERS
Cinti & Associates
Gary P. Cinti
Jay Kniep
Midbayfront Proiect
ARCHITECTS
Jerde Partnership, Inc.
Carl Worthington
Ralph Yanagawa
LEGAL COUNSEL
Peterson & Price
Paul A. Peterson, Esq.
Matthew A. Peterson, Esq.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Wimmer, Yamada & Associates
Joseph Y. Yamada
Pat Caughay
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
Christine Keller
A.D. Hinshaw Associates
Philip Hinshaw
David D. Smith and Associates
David D. Smith
(09123/92)
ii
y/jJLj
STATE and FEDERAL AGENCIES
California Coastal Commission
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92108-1725
Attention: Deborah Lee, 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
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Martin Kenny, Fish & Wildlife Biologist
u.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Reguiatory Branch
300 N. Los Angeles Street
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Attention: John A. Gill, Chief
(09/23/92)
iii
/"
~/ / J->
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
-BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN-
Table of Contents
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Page
A. Purpose
B. Scope
C. Authority
.................................... .
I-I
I-I
I-I
.................................... .
................................ .
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-I
B. Conflict, Interpretation, and Applicability of Provisions .............. II-I
C. Plan Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. II-I
D. Incorporation by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. II-I
E. Issues Not Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. II-I
III. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES
A. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-I
B. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-I
C. Development Permit Conditions ............................. III-3
D. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-4
E. De Minimus Development ................................ III-4
F. Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-5
G. Emergency Development Permit ............................ III-6
H. Notice of Appealable Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-6
I. Public Hearing on Appealable Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-?
J. Notice of Local Government Action Where Hearing Continued .......... III-?
K. Notice of Non-Appealable Developments that Require a Public Hearing:
Conditional Uses ..................................... III-8
L. Public Hearing on Non-Appealable Developments: Conditional Uses ...... III-8
M. Notice of Non-Appealable Developments that Do Not Require a Public Hearing:
Permitted Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-8
N. Determination of Applicable Notice and Hearing Procedures ........... III-9
O. Finality of City Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-9
P. Final City Action - Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-9
Q. Failure to Act - Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-9
R. Local Government Action - Effective Date ...................... III-I0
S. Exhaustion of Local Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-JO
T. Appeal Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. III-ll
(00/23/92)
iv
t(/ /3 /P
Table of Contents (cont'd)
IV. LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
Page
.
A. Purpose and Scope ..................................... IV-I
B. Commercial Land Use Districts ............................. IV-I
C. Industrial Land Use Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV-2
D. Public and Open Space Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " IV-3
E. Residential District ..................................... IV-4
F. Central Resort District .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " IV-4
G. Circulation and Other District .............................. IV-4
V. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
A. Purpose and Scope ..................................... V-I
B. Permitted Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V-I
C. Development Intensity ................................... V-I
D. Height Regulations ..................................... V-2
E. Sign Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V-4
F. Form and Appearance ................................... V-IO
G. Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " V-14
H. Parking Requirements ................................... V-18
I. Site Development Standards ................................ V-20
J.Grading and Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V-21
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Purpose and Scope ..................................... VI-I
B. Resource Elements ..................................... VIol
C. Environmental Management Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VI-I
D. Midbayfront Subarea Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VIol
VII. SUBAREA SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Purpose and Scope ..................................... VII-I
B. Midbayfront Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII-I
C. Industrial Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII-18
D. West Fairfield Subarea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII-21
E. Inland Parcel Subarea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII-21
F. Faivre Street Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII-21
G. Palomar /Bay Blvd. Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII-21
((y}/23/92)
v
;8'/ /J?
List of Exhibits
1. Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Coastal Zone with Subareas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Land Use Districts ....................................
4. Building Heights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Midbayfront Gateway Monumentation ........................
6. High Rise Building Wall Sign .............................
7. Form and Appearance ..................................
8. Circulation Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Utility Systems ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Environmental Management Element .........................
11. Buffer Zone Section ...................................
12. Conceptual "F&G" Street Marsh Restoration ....................
13. Central Resort District Concept ............................
14. Residential District Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(W/23/92)
g'/ ) ), 6'
vi
Pal!e
1-1
1-3
IV-6
V-3
V-8
V-9
V-lI
V-16
V-17
VI-5
VI-6
Vl-lI
VII-2
VII -11
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
A. Purpose
The Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Implementation Program C"Bayfront Specific Plan") is
adopted to protect and promote the health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity
and general welfare. It is intended to implement the Chula Vista General Plan and the Chula Vista
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, which are also being implemented by the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan.
B. Scope
The Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Implementation Program shall govern and regulate all
development within the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program boundary as depicted on Exhibit #2,
entitled Coastal Zone with Subareas, herein.
C. Authority
The Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program Implementation Program is adopted pursuant to
Section 30500 Ca) of the Public Resources Code, relating to the requirements of a City to implement
the provisions and policies of the California Coastal Act. This Implementation Program is further
adopted pursuant to Sections 65450 through 65507 of the Government Code of the state; and, Chula
Vista Municipal Code Title 19, Zoning, chapter 19.07, relating to Specific Plans.
(09/23/92)
1-1
15~ ) J (
~ Regional Location
>:.
m
'"
'"
::!
/:!!
!'S
<fJ
a:
w
....
~
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..".......
..........
...........
..........
...........
..................... ~OCAL .........................................
::;:::::;:;:;:;:::::::::;:;:;:;:::::;:;::: ,::::.....:::::.:... ::::::;.:.:.;;::;:;:;:::;:::;:;:::;:::::;:::::::::::::;:;::.,
..................... . .....................
.................... .................. ...
.... ................. ....... '.... ...
.................... .......... ....
............ ... ..... .. -..... .....
'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: COAS1"AL ZONE ..:::::::........:::::::::::::
...... -. -... ....... . . .-......
................... ..........
................... ...........
................... ...........
.................. ............
.................. ..........
................. .........
.................. .. ........
.................. .... ......
...... ........... ...... .....
................. ....... ...
................. ........ ...
IMPERIAL BEACH
Exhibit 1
STATE 117
~-/Llo
LAND PLANNlNG
--_:_+" . ,d.--~__'"A~
c-HYK (r~e~
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Phone (619)239-1815 Fax (619)239-4737
rn
UNITED STA.TES
--
MEXICO n-IUlA Vl5fA
I;:;;.~r In;:,q,, I Prrwr::lm
----
CD I Midbayfront Subarea
@ I Industrial Subarea
@ I Southern Parcel Subarea
@ I West Fairfield Subarea
@ [Inland Parcel Subarea
@ I Faivre Street Subarea
(l) I Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea
I!j' [Sweetwater Marsh National
\W . Wildlife Refuge
~
"---.
~
'.....
/@S.....")i".""...
yv ....,,,
. 'I
J/! 1
- ~?
5;~
7-7
CHULA V15fA
LOCal' Coastal Program
~-
~---Ir
;
\
\
i
, , ,
l~0"~~I.
& --.... ~ /~ ._-. '...
If. - - ......~..'" --""'------;;:..1 ':'''-i':>~ ...~... @
@I""'..""..-......r-----'--._........IL : I~ r:r' r ,
: 'GI "rr...-.._.._r' - 11! ~ I; I
, II. ...........",'",.....",..,.,.""""",.,'."" "')1. d
_u_ Coastal Zone Boundary
- - - - Subarea Boundary
on______ City Limit Line
r.--................._..
I
i
i
--.._----
""-..,
"''''S;;;;'C;;'':;;;:':''''
. c:2l
I
:J
j::I
~L__,
w--- _n
-II
':
. --"',-"-----"---
-...-..--.
Coastal
Zone
With Subareas
Exhibit 2
.,--..
'"--..
.....--..
"-..
.....,
-'
.,-,,-.(
)
(
" '
''i
I.
;:=t2':F~':~:'~~::_
SonCillgo'&.:lley, '
I: l~
1'1 '
H 'ji'
" ,
"---... .,'-.
. . -.. '@"--r"l
J" .~..-t "I""
U'v' ...._.. ,
-~~~~~; :,0_- f".~'\~ ! m~.L.....J
"-
,,'.....,...
-
--~
IJ
I'
r""
1':
-,'
'-
-"---
i'J
"
,
'.
,
~[C7~~i..ft:1
9/23/92: -= ~ ,)
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Zoning
The Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Implementation Program is adopted as a Specific Plan by
ordinance, in accordance with Chapter 19.07, Specific Plans, of Title 19 - Zoning, of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, and therefore serves as the zoning for all property within the scope of the
plan area.
B. Conflicts, Interpretation, and Applicability of Provisions
Whenever the provisions of this Specific Plan conflict with the provisions of the Chula Vista Zoning
provisions or whenever the provisions reflect on internal conflict, the following rules shall apply:
the Specific Plan provisions shall supersede those of the Zoning Ordinance and the subarea
provisions shall supersede area- wide provisions. In the event that a map specification or illustration
is found to be infeasible, then the nearest to the original that is deemed feasible and practical shall
apply. In all cases, whenever provisions require interpretation, the Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan shall provide clarification and amplification.
C. Plan Amendment
Amendments to this Specific Plan shall require an amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
and shall be subject to the applicable sections of the California Coastal Act relating to amendments
to Local Coastal Programs.
D. Incorporation by Reference
Whenever this Specific Plan refers to another Article, Section, or Subsection of the Chula Vista
Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, such reference shall be deemed
incorporated herein by reference. Such reference shall be to the Article, Section, or Subsection of
the Chula Vista Zoning Code in force as of the date of the adoption of this Implementation Program.
Subsequent amendments to the Chula Vista Zoning Code shall also be applicable, but only to the
extent that such amendment are not in conflict with the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Land Use
Plan and Bayfront Specific Plan. A subsequent amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
which is in conflict with this Specific Plan shall not be applicable without an amendment to this Plan.
The applicability of provisions incorporated by reference may also be affected by Development
Agreements which may be entered into by the City and property owners within the plan area.
E. Issues Not Covered
In the event that an issue is not covered by any provisions or regulation provided for herein, then
the issue shall be governed by the applicable regulations of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance.
(08/31/92)
II-I
,r --) f :J-.
III. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES
A. Purposes
This part establishes the permit procedures for developments located in the coastal zone as defined
in Section 30150 of the Public Resources Code. This article is based on the Local Coastal Program
Implementation Regulations adopted by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public
Resources Code Sections 30333 and 30501, and as such shall constitute the procedural requirements
for review of developments in the coastal zone pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 306oo(d).
B. Definitions
1. "Aggrieved Person" means any person who, in person or through a representative, appeared
at a public hearing of the City in connection with the decision or action appealed, or who,
by other appropriate means prior to a hearing, informed the City of the nature of his
concerns, or who for good cause was unable to do either.
2. "Allowable Use" means any use allowed by right which does not require a public hearing or
any discretionary or non-discretionary permit of the approving authority.
3. "Appealable Development" means, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
30603(a), any of the following:
a. Developments approved by the local government between the sea and the first public
road, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide
line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance.
b. Developments approved by the local government, not included within paragraph (a)
above, located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of
any wetland, estuary, stream or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any
coastal bluff.
c. Any development which constitutes a major energy facility. The phrase "major
public works project or a major energy facility" as used in Public Resources Code
Section 30603(a)(5) or energy facility as defined by Public Resources Code Section
30107, with a value exceeding $100,000, as adjusted from the 1982 base year per the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
4. "Appellant" means any person who may file an appeal and includes an applicant, any
aggrieved person, or any two members of the Coastal Commission.
5. "Applicant" means the person, partnership, corporation, or state or local government agency
applying for a coastal development permit.
6. "Approving Authority" means the City officer, planning commission or council approving
a coastal development permit.
(08/31/92)
III-I
8'> / 'I)
7. "Categorically excluded development" means a development (upon request of the City, public
agency or other person) which the toa.<>~ Conimission has determined, pursuant to Section
30610(e) of the Public Resources Code, to have no potential for significant adverse
environmental effects and therefore has been issued an exclusion from the coastal
development permit requirements in accordance with the applicable regulations.
8. "Coastal Commission" means the California Coastal Commission.
9. "Coastal Development Permit" means a letter or certificate issued by the City in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter, after the applicant has submitted all necessary
supplementary documentation required to satisfy the conditions precedent in the notice to
issue a coastal development permit.
10. "Conditional Use" means any use which requires a public hearing.
11. "Development" means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid
material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid,
solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials;
change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government
Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is
brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public
recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction,
reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility
of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation
other than for agricultural purposes, and help harvesting.
12. "Structure", as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe,
flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and
distribution line.
13. "Development Permit Procedures" means access, open space, and conservation requirements.
14. "Emergency" means a sudden, unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent
or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services.
15. "Emergency Development" means work undertaken to resolve problems resulting from a
situation falling within the definition of "emergency. "
16. "Local Coastal Program" means the City's land use plan, zoning ordinances, zoning maps,
and other implementing actions certified by the Coastal Commission as meeting the require-
ments of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
17. "Notice to Issue Coastal Development Permit" means a letter or certificate issued by the City
in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, approving a development subject to
fulfillment of conditions prior to issuance of a coastal development permit, but if such
(08/3t/92)
III-2
'6/ /L/1
conditions are fulfilled, as being in conformance with and adequate to carry out the Local
Coastal Program.
18. "Permitted Use" means any allowed by right which does not require a public hearing, but
does require a discretionary or non-discretionary permit (e.g., building permit) to be issued
by the approving authority.
19. "Other Permits and Approvals" means permits and approvals, other than a coastal
development permit required to be issued by the approving authority before a development
may proceed.
C. Development Permit Conditions
Wherever reservation of an interest in land for public access, open space, or conservation is required
by the LCP, it shall be a condition of the coastal development permit.
1. Legal Instruments Required
Prior to issuance of a coastal development permit where a public accessway, or open space
or conservation restriction on land is required by this Local Coastal Program, each applicant
shall record one of the following legal documents as specified in the conditions of approval:
a. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication.
The applicant shall submit a preliminary title report and record an irrevocable offer
to dedicate the access, open space, or conservation easement or to convey such
interest in property in fee the accessway, as described in the permit conditions, free
of prior liens or encumbrances, except for tax liens. This offer can be accepted
within 21 years by a non-profit organization or governmental agency subject to
approval by the executive director of the Coastal Commission. Until this offer is
accepted or until the landowner allows, the public has no right to use the accessway,
provided that the landowner shall not interfere with established existing public use.
b. Outright Grant of Fee Interest or Easement.
If the project is important in and of itself for public access, open space, or
conservation needs, and the size and scope the proposed development is such that an
out-right conveyance interest is appropriate, or there is an accepting agency approved
by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission available to accept the easement
or fee interest, it can be required prior to issuance of the permit. Until such a grant
is accepted or until the land-owner allows, the public has no right to use the
accessway, provided that the landowner shall not interfere with established existing
public use.
g/It/5
(08/31/92)
III-3
2. Required Information
As a condition of the of a permit, title information and all necessary subordination
agreements shall be required. Title insurance may also be required when extensive interests
inland are being granted.
D. Applicability
Except as provided in Sections E and F, any person wishing to undertake a development in the
coastal zone shall obtain a coastal development permit in accordance with the provisions of this
article, in addition to any other permit required by law. Development undertaken pursuant to a
coastal development permit shall conform to the plans, specifications, terms and conditions approved
in granting the permit. The procedures prescribed herein may be used in conjunction with other
procedural requirements of the City, provided that the minimum requirements as specified herein are
assured.
E. De Minimus Development
The Director of Planning may issue a written waiver from the coastal development permit
requirements of this article for any development that is de minimis. A proposed development is de
minimis if the Director of Planning determines, based on a review of an application for a coastal
development permit, that the development involves no potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources and that it will be consistent with all applicable
objectives, policies, and standards of the certified Local Coastal Program. The determination shall
be made in writing and based upon factual evidence.
I. De minimis waivers shall be permitted only in the non-appealable area of the City's coastal
development permitting jurisdiction when no local public hearing is required.
2. The Director of Planning will consider the following types of projects for possible permit
waivers:
a. Projects which would have been placed on the consent calendar without special
conditions;
b. Projects fully consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and for
which all applicable policies of the LCP are objective in nature, such that staff does
not have to exercise its judgment as to satisfaction of subjective criteria;
c. Projects located in areas where similar projects have been approved as a routine
matter without conditions or opposition.
3. The following projects will not be considered for possible waivers:
a. Projects which involve questions as to conformity with the certified LCP, or which
may result in potential impacts on coastal resources and public access;
(08/31/92)
1II-4
g ---JIlt;,
b. Projects with known opposition or probable public controversy;
c. Projects which involve divisions of land including condominiums.
4. If, upon review of the coastal development permit application, the Director of Planning
determines that the development is de minimis, the applicant, shall post public notice of the
de minimis waiver on the property for at least seven calendar days prior to the final decision
granting the waiver. Notice of intent to issue a de minimis waiver shall also be made to the
Coastal Commission and to persons known to be interested in the proposed development in
the following manner:
Within ten (10) calendar days of accepting an application for a de minimis waiver or at least
seven (7) calendar days prior to the decision on the application, the Director of Planning shall
provide notice, by first class mail, of pending waiver of permit requirements. This notice
shall be provided to all persons who have requested to be on the mailing list for that
development project or site or for coastal decisions within the local jurisdiction, to all
property owners and residents within 100 feet of the perimeters of the parcel on which the
development is proposed, and to the Coastal Commission.
5. The notice shall contain the following information:
a. A description of the proposed project and location;
b. A statement that the development is within the coastal zone;
c. The date of filing of the application and the name of the applicant;
d. The number assigned to the application;
e. The date of the hearing at which the waiver may become effective;
f. The general procedure concerning the submission of public comments either in
writing or orally prior to the decision;
g. A statement that a public comment period of sufficient time to allow for the
submission of comments by mail will be held prior to the decision.
The Director of Planning shall report to the City Council at its next available public meeting
those projects for which waivers are proposed, with sufficient description to give notice of
the proposed development to the City Council. A list of waivers issued by the Director of
Planning shall be available for public inspection at the public counter of the Community
Development Department and at the City Council meeting during which any waivers are
reported. A waiver shall not take effect until after the Planning Director makes his/her
report to the City Council. If one-third of the City Council (two members) so request, such
issuance shall not be effective and, instead, the application for a coastal development permit
shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this article.
(08/31/92)
III-5
;;-/t/7
F. Exemptions
,;,!,:t~' ft.,.._~,,), ">.i
1. The following shall be considered exemptions:
a. Repair and maintenance activities which do not result in an addition to or enlargement
or expansion of the object of such activities, except as otherwise specified by the
Coastal Commission in Subchapter 7, Title 14, California Administrative Code, and
any amendments thereafter adopted.
b. Activities of public utilities as specified in the Repair, Maintenance and Utility
Hook-Up Exclusion adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 5, 1978.
c. Occupancy permits.
d. Improvements to single-family residences, except as otherwise specified by the
Coastal Commission in Subchapter 6, Title 14, California Administrative Code, and
any amendments thereafter adopted.
e. Improvements to any structure other than a single-family residence or a public works
facility, except as otherwise specified by the Coastal Commission in Subchapter 7.5,
Title 14, California Administrative Code, and any amendments thereafter adopted.
2. Notice of Exempt Development shall be as follows:
A permit issued by the City for a development which is exempt from the coastal development
permit requirements shall be exempt from the notice and hearing requirements of this article.
The City shall maintain a record for all permits issued for exempt developments which shall
be made available to the Coastal Commission or any interested person upon request. This
record may be in the form of any record of permits issued currently maintained by the City
provided that such record includes the applicant's name, the location of the project, and a
brief description of the project.
G. Emergency Development Permit
Application for and issuance of an Emergency Development Permit shall comply with requirements
set forth in Article 2, Sections 13329, 13329.1, 13329.2, 13329.3, and 13329.4 of the California
Administrative Code. An application and permit form prepared in compliance with said Article shall
be adopted by the City of Chula Vista.
H. Notice of Appealable Developments
Within ten (10) calendar days of accepting an application for an appealable coastal development
permit or at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the first public hearing on a development proposal,
the City shall provide notice by first class mail of pending application for appealable development.
This notice shall be provided to each applicant, to all persons who have requested to be on the
mailing list for that development project or for coastal decisions within the City, to all property
(08/31/92)
III-6
g' r/Y ~
owners and residents within 100 feet of the perimeter of the parcel on which the development is
proposed, and to the Coastal Commission. The notice shall contain the following information:
1. a statement that the development is within the coastal zone;
2. the date of filing of the application and the name of the applicant;
3. the number assigned to the application;
4. a description of the development and its proposed location;
5. the date, time, and place at which the application will be heard by the local governing body
or hearing officer;
6. a brief description of the general procedure of local government concerning the conduct of
hearing and local actions; and
7. the system for local and Coastal Commission appeals, including any local fees required.
Costs of notice which are not reimbursed to local governments through grants or SB90 reimburse-
ment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30353.
I. Public Hearing on Appealable Developments
At least one public hearing shall be held on application for an appealable development, thereby
affording any persons the opportunity to appear at the hearing and inform the City of the nature of
his or her concerns regarding the project. Such hearing shall occur no earlier than seven (7)
calendar days following the mailing of the notice required in Section H above and shall normally be
conducted by the Planning Director or hislher designee. The public hearing may be conducted in
accordance with existing local procedures or in any other manner reasonably calculated to give
interested persons, including the applicant, an opportunity to appear and present their viewpoints,
either orally or in writing.
The hearing officer's decision may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days following the
hearing officer's decision. Said appeal shall be processed by the City Council in the same manner
as a public hearing on appealable development described herein. The fee for filing said appeal shall
be in accordance with Section T below.
J. Notice of Local Government Action Where Hearing Continued
If a decision on a coastal development permit is continued by the City to a time which is neither (a)
previously stated in the notice provided pursuant to Section H above, nor (b) announced at the
hearing as being continued to a time certain, the City shall provide notice of the further hearings (or
action on the proposed development) in the same manner, and within the same time limits, as
established in Section I above.
(08/31/92)
III-7
'{{//ii
K. Notice of Non-Appealable Developments that Require a Public Hearing: Conditional
Uses
Notice of such developments shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days before a hearing in the
following manner:
1. Notice in the manner prescribed in Section H above; or
2. Notice as prescribed herein:
a. If the matter is heard by the planning commission, notice shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation or (if there is none) posted in at least three public
places in the local jurisdiction;
b. Notice by first class mail to any person who has filed a written request therefor;
c. Notice by first class mail to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project;
d. Notice by first class mail to residents within 100 feet of the proposed project;
e. Notice by first class mail to the Coastal Commission; and
f. The notice shall contain a statement that the proposed development is within the
coastal zone.
L. Public Hearing on Non-Appealable Developments: Conditional Uses
At least one public hearing shall be held on each application for a non-appealable development
involving a conditional use, thereby affording any persons the opportunity to appear at the hearing
and inform the City of the nature of his or her concerns regarding the project. Such hearing shall
occur no earlier than ten (10) calendar days following the mailing of the notice required in Section
H above and shall be conducted in accordance with local procedures or in any other manner
reasonably calculated to give interested persons, including the applicant, an opportunity to appear
and present their viewpoints, either orally or in writing.
M. Notice of Non-Appealable Developments that Do Not Require a Public Hearing:
Permitted Uses
Notice of such developments shall be provided in the manner prescribed in Section F.2 above.
N. Determination of Applicable Notice and Hearing Procedures
The determination of whether a development is categorically excluded or appealable for purposes of
notice, hearing and appeals shall be made by the City at the time the application for development is
submitted. This determination shall be made with reference to the certified Local Coastal Program,
including maps, categorical exclusions, land use designations, and zoning ordinances adopted as a
(08/31/92)
111-8
6/ ;SD
part of the certified Local Coastal Program. Where an applicant, interested person, or the City has
a question as to the appropriate procedures, the following procedures shall be followed.
1. The City shall make its determination as to what type of development is being proposed (Le.,
exempt, categorically excluded, appealable, non-appealable) and shall inform the applicant
of the notice and hearing requirements for that particular development. The local
determination may be made by the designated approving authority.
2. If the determination of the City is challenged by the applicant or an interested person, or if
the City wishes to have a Coastal Commission determination as to the appropriate
designation, the City shall notify the Coastal Commission by telephone of the dispute/ques-
tion and shall request an Executive Director's opinion.
3. The Executive Director shall, within two (2) working days of the City's request (or upon
completion of a site inspection where such an inspection is warranted), transmit a determina-
tion as to whether the development is exempt, categorically excluded, non-appealable, or
appealable.
4. Where, after the Executive Director's investigation, the Executive Director's determination
is not in accordance with the City determination, the Coastal Commission shall hold a
hearing for the purpose of determining the appropriate designation for the next Coastal
Commission meeting in the appropriate geographic region following the City's request.
O. Finality of City Action
A local decision on an application for a development shall be deemed final when (1) the local
decision on the application has been made and all required findings have been adopted, including
specific factual findings supporting the legal conclusions that the proposed development is or is not
in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program, and that the required conditions of approval
adequate to carry out the certified Local Coastal Program as required in the implementing ordinances
have been imposed, and (2) all rights of appeal have been exhausted as defined in Section S below.
P. Final City Action - Notice
Within seven (7) calendar days of a final decision on an application for any development (except
categorically excluded or exempt developments), the City shall provide notice of its action by first
class mail to the Coastal Commission and to any persons who specifically requested notice of such
final action by submitting a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the City (or, where required, who
paid a reasonable fee to receive such notice). Such notice shall include conditions of approval,
written findings, and the procedures for appeal to the Coastal Commission.
Q. Failure to Act - Notice
1. Notification by Applicant: If the City has failed to act on an application within the time
limits set forth in Government Code Sections 65950-65957.1, thereby approving the
development by operation of law, the person claiming a right to proceed pursuant to
Government Code Section 65950-65057.1 shall notify, in writing, the City and the Coastal
(08/31/92)
III-9
g//.5/
Commission of his or her claim that thedevelqIlment has been approved by operation of law.
Such notice shall specity the applfe1itionWhll:Ii."is claimed to have been approved.
2. Notification by City: When the City determines that the time limits established pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65950-65957.1 have expired, the City shall, within seven (7)
calendar days of such determination, notity any person entitled to receive notice pursuant to
Section P above that it has taken final action by operation of law pursuant to Government
Code Sections 65950-65957.1. The appeal period for projects approved by operation of law
shall begin to run only upon the receipt of the City's notice in the Coastal Commission
office. (This section shall apply equally to a City determination that the project has been
approved by operation of law and to a judicial determination that the project has been
approved by operation of law.)
R. Local Government Action - Effective Date
A final decision of the City on an application for an appealable development shall become effective
after the ten (lO)-working-day appeal period to the Coastal Commission has expired or after the
twenty-first (21st) calendar day following the final local action unless any of the following occur.
1. An appeal is filed in accordance with the Coastal Commission's regulations; or
2. The notice of final local government action does not meet the requirements of Sections P and
Q above.
Where either of the circumstances above occur, the Commission shall, within five (5) calendar days
of receiving notice of that circumstance, notity the City and the applicant that the effective date of
the City action has been suspended.
S. Exhaustion of Local Appeals
1. An appellant shall be deemed to have exhausted local appeals for purposes of filing an appeal
under the Coastal Commission's regulations and be an aggrieved person where the appellant
has pursued his appeal to the local appellate body as required by the City's appeal
procedures, except that exhaustion of all local appeals shall not be required if any of the
following occur.
a. The City requires an appellant to appeal to more local appellate bodies for permits
in the coastal zone in the implementation section of the Local Coastal Program;
b. An appellant is denied the right of the initial local appeal by a local ordinance which
restricts the class of persons who may appeal a local decision;
c. An appellant is denied the right of local appeal because local notice and hearing
procedures for the development did not comply with the provisions of this article; or
d. The City charges an appeal fee for the filing or processing of appeals.
(08/31/92)
I1I-IO
{(, 1->..1
Where the local government would ordinarily require an appeal fee for the processing of
appeals within the appealable areas of the coastal zone, the City may apply to the Coastal
Commission for a reimbursement of that fee through an SB90 claim or similar reimbursement
process.
2. Where a project is appealed by any two (2) members of the Coastal Commission, there shall
be no requirement of exhaustion of local appeals, provided, however, that notice of Coastal
Commission appeals shall be transmitted to the local appellate body (which considers appeals
from the local body that rendered the final decision), and the appeal to the Coastal
Commission shall be suspended pending a decision on the merits by that local appellate body.
If the decision of the local appellate body modifies or reverses the previous decision, the
Commissioners shall be required to file a new appeal from that decision.
T. Appeal Fee
The fee for filing and processing an appeal within the City of Chula Vista shall be that specified in
the current Master Fee Schedule.
(08/31/92)
III -11
It/ /~J
IV. LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
A. Purpose and Scope
The Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan provides for the classification of land use and the regulation
of development by Land Use District. These classifications, "Districts", are depicted on Exhibit #3,
herein. Each Land Use District contains a set of regulations setting forth the standards for
development within that District. This section provides the development standards relating to
permitted uses within each District. Additional specific use regulations are included in Chapter VII,
Subarea Specific Development Standards, herein.
B. Commercial Land Use Districts
1. Visitor - Commercial: This use is permitted only in the Midbayfront, Subarea 1.
Refer to Chapter VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1.
2. Thoroughfare Commercial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as
Thoroughfare Commercial shall be permitted to accommodate the following uses:
a. For Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea
Refer to Chapter VII, Subarea Specific Development Standards.
b. For Subarea 2 - Industrial Subarea
I) Food Sales Commercial
2) Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
3) Transient Habitation Commercial
4) Automotive Servicing Commercial
5) Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial
6) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
7) Group Assembly Commercial
8) Parking Services Civic
9) Community Assembly Civic
10) Administrative Civic
11) Utility and Vehicular Civic
12) Special Signs
13) Development Signs
14) Realty Signs
15) Civic Signs
16) Business Signs
2. Commercial - Professional and Administrative: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts,
designated on Professional and Administrative (including portions within the Central Resort
District), shall be permitted to accommodate the following uses:
(09123192)
IV-l
g/ /(y
a. For subarea 1 - Midbayfront subarea refer to Chapter
VlI, Subarea Specific Development Standards.
b. For subarea 2 - Industrial subarea:
1) Administrative and executive offices;
2) Professional offices;
3) Research offices;
4) General business offices; and
5) Any other office use determined to be of the
same general character of the above permitted
uses.
C. Industrial Land Use Districts
1. Research and Limited Industrial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated
as Research and Limited-Industrial shall be permitted to accommodate the following
permitted uses:
a. For Subarea 2 - Industrial Subarea:
1) Administrative Commercial
2) Food Service Commercial
3) Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
4) Business and Communication Service Commercial
5) Retail Business Supply Commercial
6) Research Development Commercial
7) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
8) Custom Industrial
9) Essential Service Civic
10) Parking Services Civic
11) Community Assembly Civic
12) Special Signs
13) Development Signs
14) Realty Signs
15) Civic Signs
16) Business Signs
b. For other Subareas: Refer to Chapter VlI Subarea Specific Development Standards,
herein.
2. General - Industrial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as General -
Industrial shall be permitted to accommodate uses as follows:
!r/ /.S;
((f}I23/92)
IV-2
a. Permitted Uses:
1) Food Service Commercial
2) Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
3) Business and Communication Service Commercial
4) Retail Business Supply Commercial
5) Research and Development Commercial
6) General Wholesale Sales Commercial
7) Transportation and Warehousing Commercial
8) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
9) Custom Industrial
10) Light Industrial
11) General Industrial
12) Essential Service Civic
13) Special Signs
14) Development Signs
15) Realty Signs
16) Civic Signs
17) Business Signs
b. Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1) Automotive Sales (New), Rental & Delivery and Accessory Commercial
Activities
2) Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities
3) Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities
4) Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities
5) Boat Servicing Commercial Activities
c. The following are conditionally permitted uses only within the Inland Parcel, Subarea
5:
1) Commercial - group assembly
2) Commercial - sport and recreational enterprise
3) Golf driving range
D. Public and Open Space Districts
1. Public and Quasi-Public: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Public
and Quasi-Public, shall be permitted to accommodate the following permitted uses:
a. For Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea: Refer to Chapter VII Subarea Specific
Development Standards, herein.
b. For all Subareas with a Landscaped Parking Overlay Designation:
1) Parking Services Civic
(09/23/92)
IV-3
<;r /1 ~;;
2) Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
3) Special Signs
4) Civic Signs
5) Utility Transmission Systems
2. Parks and Recreation: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Parks and
Recreation, shall be permitted to accommodate the following permitted uses:
a. For Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea: Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific
Development Standards, herein.
b. For all other Subareas:
1) Public parks and facilities to serve park users
2) Public parking.
3. Water: Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1 -
Midbayfront Subarea for permitted uses.
4. Open Space: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Open Space, shall
be permitted to accommodate the restoration or enhancement of wetlands and other existing
natural conditions, with development or construction limited to the existing Nature
Interpretive Center, within the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. All other use
or activities shall be to preserve natural resources and habitat value.
5. Circulation/Other: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as Circula-
tion/Other is to be used for major circulation facilities, their adjacent right-of-ways, and
landscaped areas adjacent thereto.
E. Residential Districts
Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea
for permitted uses.
F. Central Resort District
Refer to Chapter VII - Subarea Specific Development Standards for Subarea 1 - Midbayfront Subarea
for permitted uses.
G. Circulation and Other District
All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, indicated as Circulation and other are for those uses
associated with major circulation elements including; Interstate 5, State Route 54, SD&AE Railroad
line, Marina Parkway, Lagoon Drive, oR" Street, and the rights-of-ways/adjacent open space
associated with these circulation elements.
(~/23/92)
IV-4
7' lZ; 7
Table IV-l
TABLE OF LAND USE STATISTICS
The following statistics are provided as a general reference for the overall Chula Vista LCP. The
acreages indicated are approximate gross acreages based on planimeter calculations from Exhibit #3,
Land Use Districts. These statistics are not intended to indicate an allowance nor a restriction of
permitted development.
Land Use
Approximate
Gross Acres
Residential - High
Commercial - Visitor
Commercial - Thoroughfare
Commercial - Professional & Administration
Industrial - Research & Limited
Industrial - General
Public & Quasi-Public
Parks & Recreation
Water
Open Space
Circulation/Other
Central Resort District
18 ac
11
12
12*
108
289
18
37
8
301
186
---AQ.
TOTAL
1,040 ac
* Use also included in Central Resort District
(09/23/92)
IV-5
3> /5?f
RESIDENTIAL
RH I High
COMMERCIAL
CV [ Visitor
CV-H [ Visitor/Highway
CP I Professional &
Administrative
INDUSTRIAL
IR r Research & Limited
IG [ General
PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE SPECIAL PLAN AREA
I PQ I Public & Quasi Public I CRD I Central Resort District
[ PR I Parks & Recreation OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS
I ,,[ Water [~::}j ~~~~ft;~~fu~earsh National
J OS I Open Space t....,..., ...... . .j Landscaped Parking
I I g~~~~aflonl r-.......... '" . .. ............... ~J Primary Buffer
, --....
j
[
,j
Land
Use
Districts
Exhibit 3
--.._,,--
.....".-
~
\
--------
\.r\
~
"""""fioi"",.
IIR')""'"
./ '!
!if "}
/11
bi?J
1'" I
~(
/
,
\ I \
.._..~ i
iR ..~~!
...
Sl'W'lOieOOltoIev
L. III
ZI 'i"
II
______.__....~_______~l._._
1'--'---';-- "Ii
...;;...
..JG IR ...~
u...~ PR. . I .
, ,--'-' I ~--"~:':::::"'..'
II I, CV.H
" 'i!l 1
1: ~~ b,
PO
SMOego~
-~..,
CV.H
i a
H
,
'I
1 '
t"
._-~------; ~-----~~-=-,-
-- ---
"
"
____<L __ __",-__L__~ . _ _
. "1' "~i:J-]~
F~", -..... u ../ :____\;J~~-_':m.-.mj
Sijld~a,\1~~
tf;[c7~~r~~ i
9/23/92 -= .---J
. "",,,."J'_'._' ~.'
V. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
A. Purpose and Scope
This Chapter of the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan provides development criteria for each Land
Use District with the plan area. Additional development criteria are included in Chapter VII,
Subarea Specific Development Standards, herein.
B. Permitted Uses
Permitted Uses for each Land Use District are listed in Chapter IV, Land Use Classification.
C. Development Intensity
The development intensity is established by using a Floor Area Ratio (FAR), a specific maximum
square footage allowance, or through setback and height controls, depending on the subarea.
Following are the applicable development intensities for each land use category listed by subarea:
1. Subarea 1 - Midbayfront: The development intensity for the Midbayfront subarea is
established by the specific square footage allowances described in Chapter VII herein.
2. Subarea 2 - Industrial Area:
a. Industrial - General: Maximum FAR 0.5
b. Industrial - Research & Limited: Maximum FAR 0.5
c. Commercial - Thoroughfare: Maximum FAR 0.25
d. Public-Quasi Public: Area designated for landscaped parking may be incorporated
into the adjacent land use area for FAR calculations.
e. Parks & Recreation: Development intensity limited by minimally permitted uses.
f. Open Space: none
g. Special conditions "C" and "F" on Exhibit 4, Building Heights: see special standards
in Chapter VII for Subarea 2.
3. Subarea 3 - Southern Parcel: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General which
is limited to an FAR of 0.5.
4. Subarea 4 - West Fairfield subarea: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General.
The maximum development intensity is established by the Height Regulations Chapter
V-D; and, Site Development Standards, Chapter V-I and Chapter
VII-E.
5. Subarea 5 - Inland Parcel: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General. The
maximum development intensity is established by the Height Regulations Chapter V-D; and,
Site Development Standards, Chapter V-I and Chapter VII-E.
(09/23/92)
V-I
y'/ /& [)
6. Subarea 6 - Faivre Street subarea: The only land use in this subarea is Industrial - General.
The maximum development intensitY is established by the Height Regulations Chapter
V-D; and, Site Development Standards, Chapter V-I and Chapter
VII-E.
7. Subarea 7 - Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea: The land use permitted in this subarea is
Industrial - Research & Limited. The maximum development intensity is established by the
Height Regulations Chapter V-D; and, Site Development Standards, Chapter V-I and Chapter
VII-E.
8. Subarea 8 - Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge: Development intensity is limited
to the existing Nature Interpretative Center facilities and other structures which are approved
by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.
D. Height Regulations
The maximum building heights are as shown on Exhibit #4, Building Heights, herein. This exhibit
also identifies certain specific locations for special height conditions for specific buildings. The
location of the symbol for the special height condition is intended to provide an approximate, but not
an exact location of the building regulated by the special height condition. Following are the height
regulations for these special height condition locations keyed to the Building Heights exhibit.
1. Special Condition" A": Three symbols are depicted. These three symbols represent hotel
sites, two of which permit hotel buildings up to 229 feet in height and the third permits a
hotel building up to 100 feet in height.
2. Special Condition "B": This symbol permits a Cultural Arts Facility up to 100 feet in height.
Site west of Marina Parkway is primary site; site in Central Resort District is alternative
site.)
3. Special Condition "C": This symbol permits an Industrial - Research & Limited Use in a
building up to 96 feet in height, subject to special conditions listed in Chapter VII for
Subarea 2.
4. Special Condition "D": This symbol permits a viewing tower in the Nature Interpretative
Center up to 45 feet in height.
5. Special Condition "E": These two symbols permit two residential buildings up to 229 feet
each.
6. Special Condition "F": The two parcels identified by this symbol shall be subject to the
special conditions listed in Chapter VII for Subarea 2.
(~123/92)
V-2
?r"lb/
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS
I 1 [ 30 Feet .
I 2 r 35 Feet
I 3 r 44 Feet
I 4 [ 60 Feet
I 5 r 75 Feet
NOTE: Areas without height regulations
are not planned for any buildings.
~
~
~ I
\/
"'r;" ""'"'' !)/
""''''''' ......
4 . ...,..
i./-I ./1,........
''''1
lilt!
!/i III
Jb I
'/' J
.J;d JL
._-.~:.:::.~=~;':~~r---:
~~~ki,~~~
SPECIAL HEIGHT CONDITIONS
@ 2 High-Rise and 1 Mid.Rise Hotel Sites
iaJ 1 Potential Cultural Arts FaCility Site (up to 69')
<CJ 1 Mid-Rise Office Site (up to 95')
@ Viewing Tower Site/Nature Interpretive Center
<t> 2 High-Rise Residential Sites(up to 229')
rEJ Special Architectural Feature
ro--",
\
; 1 I
1/;.....----"" << -.... !.!
o,~'~"
of; o,;,~~,
~I -w..~
~ ~
3 ....-
''''.
-<-:;.:.""':.'-
""~~-..--;-
':
,I
'j--
r--
.'----"7
( i
(I
''i
4\ .'~. .. I
'. >.~Ji~~3J~:_;~='=1:~:':~'
I g ., ,"
H
"
-----...
.._-..
..-.............-.-.
..-........-...........
.....
'"'-...
7
. ...... //
..''''.........'//..''.'''...'''''''''.,;;;,'';;;;;;'';;;;:,;.''
I
II
/"'--~~~-:::--~--_..--:;:.
ii._../
"- _0' 3
"----'3
--~!_-.~:,-~--i-
3 3
_,'Ii' ~ .,' .
-...-..-----
i!
"
,~ "1
. .1'.' '..'
, I'.~..
r'
--JL.._____,~___,_,~____----.i'--_,. ~
,~_._--- .---..---, _.~~~-,. ._--._~,-_._---
Building
Heights
Exhibit 4
.....
......
..............
...............
1
!
'" ~".
~"'..-
~.
,
" f I
-- ," "I~-
11 ~,. : ,II""
U I..V ".,.-u j
F/fln~_ ___ ......J......J
- - -~ rOo",;
Co;i';';':';';';";;'-I
,..."["""..,,,1'"
..,.,.,~~
9f2J/92; -=::---:J
7. Wildlife Refuge Buffers - Midbayfront Subarea 1
Notwithstanding the height limits described above, the following height restrictions shall be
enforced according to proximity to the USF&WS property line west of the SDG&E ROW:
a. Primary Zone - within 100 feet of USF&WS property line: Limited public access
(paths and overlooks only, no structures)
b. Park Land/Open Space Zone - next 100 feet landward from Primary Zone: public
access and limited structures permitted (e.g., park pavilions, pedestrian and bicycle
paths); landscaping and structures over 6 feet (including signs, light standards, etc.)
must be screened from view of the wetland to the satisfaction of USF&WS and
California Department of Fish and Game; building height limit 30 feet.
c. Limited Development Zone "A" - next 1 00 feet landward from Parkland/Open Space
Zone: building height limit 35 feet, except the Cultural Arts Facility site where
structures to 100 feet in height are permitted as indicated in the Building Heights
. Map, Exhibit #4.
d. Limited Development Zone "B" - next 100 feet landward from Limited Development
Zone "A": building height limit 44 feet, except that portion of the Central Core
Sector which may be within 300 feet of the USF&WS boundary where the height
limit shall be 75 feet and a single high-rise hotel site (up to 229 feet) as indicated in
the Building Heights Map, Exhibit #4.
e. 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.
f. 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).
E. Sign Regulations
The size, location and design of all signs in the Chula Vista Bayfront LCP shall be subject to the
following:
1. For all areas: no freestanding sign shall be greater than 10 feet in height and signs shall be
subject to the regulations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter
19.60, Signs, incorporated herein by reference, unless modified by the provisions of this
Specific Plan.
2. For the Midbayfront and Industrial Subareas, Subareas 1 and 2, the following regulations
shall also apply:
(00/23/92)
V-4
g'//fv}
(09/23/92)
a. Public Signs.
1) Street Name Signs: Street name signs shall have special mountings and
frames to identify streets as being a part of the new Bayfront community.
The sign copy and construction shall reflect a unified style and colors.
2) Directional Signs: Directional signs at intersections will help establish
gateways to the redevelopment area, and may include such generic informa-
tion as Convention Center, Marina, Special-Use Park, Wildlife Refuge, etc.,
as necessary. Directional information for private developments may be
included also at the discretion of the Design Review Board. Information will
be clustered on one sign per intersection. Signs will have standardized
mountings and trip. Each sign location shall include specially designed
landscaped areas to create a setting.
3) Information Signs: Public information signs are designed for public facilities
and services such as parks, marshes, marinas, trim, and colored to be unified
with the basic public sign theme.
4) Traffic and Parking Control Signs: Traffic control and parking signs shall be
designed with standard copy faces, and shall be trimmed in a manner con-
sistent with Bayfront motif. Exact sizes and locations are required by state
regulation.
b. Private Signs
1) Commercial Uses Adjacent to Freeway: Commercial uses with freeway
exposure shall be allowed either wall or low-profile monument signs with
name and/or logo. If the business logo is well-established as an identity
mark, then use of logo alone is preferable. Each lot may have two wall signs
or one ground sign only. Only one wall sign shall be visible at a time.
Maximum total copy area shall be 100 square feet. Ground signs may be
doubled-faced or parallel to the roadway and are intended to be low-profile
monument signs.
2) Automotive Service: Service stations with freeway exposure shall be allowed
freeway identification signs. Sizes shall be as small as possible and still have
freeway identity, in no case to exceed 50 square feet total sign area. Such
signs shall be subject to strict review by the Design Review Board.
3) Corner Lots: The identification allowance for sign development on corner
lots may be divided to provide for a sign on each frontage; however, the total
allowance for both signs combined is not to exceed 50 square feet.
4) Multi-Tenant Buildings or Complexes: Office, retail-commercial and
industrial uses which are multi-tenant shall be allowed additional tenant
identification signs: each tenant shall be allowed a maximum of three square
V-5
8'~/?f
feet on or adjacent to the entry door. These tenant signs shall be visible from
on-site parking and"9~;ped!lSlIian walkways, but not intended to be readable
from public streets. . .
5) Directional and Information Signs: These signs shall be allowed on a need
basis. They shall be directional in nature and not intended as identification
signs. Their maximum height shall be four feet with four square feet
maximum copy area per side.
6) Special Event Signs (Temporary): Special events such as grand openings
shall be allowed temporary signs. Such signs shall have a limited life as
determined by the Design Review Board.
7) Construction Signs (Temporary): Signs for oWners, cOntractors and
subcontractors, architects, etc., for new projects under construction shall be
subject to Design Review Board approval.
c. Allowable Copy Area
1) Hotel/Motel, RV Parks, Restaurants, and Retail-Commercial: Total copy
area for all identification signs combined shall be limited to not more than 50
square feet per parcel (except additional signage for high- and mid-rise hotels
is permitted per Section E.3.b, below). Signs may be wall signs andlor
ground signs. Ground signs may be single- or double-faced but may not
exceed ten feet in height. An additional changeable copy area of 25 square
feet maximum shall be allowed for uses which include entertainment or
convention facilities. Changeable copy area shall be single-faced only.
2) Automotive Service: Service stations shall be allowed one identification sign
(non-freeway) per lot. Signs shall be ground signs or wall signs and shall
have nO more than 40 square feet of copy area, six feet maximum height.
3) Industrial and Office Uses: Industrial or office uses shall be allowed one
identification sign per lot, visible from the internal street. Signs shall not
exceed 40 square feet in area or six feet maximum in height. Total sign area
may include a directory or tenant listing if the project is multi-tenant.
3. For the Midbayfront Subarea only: In addition to the provisions above, the following shall
apply in Subarea 1:
a. Midbayfront Sign Program: In addition to the regulations provided by this Specific
Plan and the Chula Vista Zoning Code for signs, additional more specific and
restrictive regulations shall be required for the Midbayfront Subarea in the
Midbayfront Sign Program. This sign program shall be approved by the City of
Chula Vista prior to the issuance of the first building permit in this subarea. The
purpose of the Midbayfront Sign Program is to provide a sign plan for the
(CS/23/92)
V-6
!{'/kS
(09nJl92)
Midbayfront subarea consistent with the goals and policies of the Local Coastal
Program, and to meet these specific objectives:
1) To create a system of signs which serves as an important design element in
establishing an identifiable image for the area.
2) To provide identification for the special components which make up the
Midbayfront area.
3) To reduce visual competition between signs, balancing the needs for
identification and aesthetic harmony.
4) To integrate signage with architectural and landscape design themes, thereby
reducing the prominence of signs.
5) To provide standards of acceptability for signs in order to facilitate the review
and approval process by the City of Chula Vista.
b. Scale of Signs for the Midbayfront subarea: The two most prominent signs in the
Midbayfront will be the Midbayfront gateway monument and the high- and mid-rise
hotel building wall signs. Because of the importance of these signs, the following
specific regulations are provided:
1) Midbayfront Gateway Monument: The sign element containing copy shall not
exceed a maximum height of 5'-6". The architectural element containing the
sign shall not exceed 12 feet in height. The maximum copy area per sign
face shall not exceed 50 square feet. lllustrations of a gateway monument
meeting these standards follow as a guideline.
2) High-rise Hotel Building Wall Signs: Only allowed on hotel buildings greater
than eight stories in height. Two signs per building, 300 square feet maxi-
mum each sign. Individual letters or logo only; maximum sign height shall
be 7 feet. An illustration of this type of sign follows as a guideline.
V-7
'rJ//~t
Midbayfront Gateway
Monumentation
Exhibit 5
13
Plan View
6AYrlMNT I~MALY\. NZlmm-
1/
'1/ srlECIALi'( 5\-tOP6' RE.5TAVR.AJrlTj;. CONFj:ftENCf. A 5rcp."~ Cf.NTe-f(:)
Elevations
~-i? 7
gjld~,\Q~~
High Rise
Building Wall Sign
Exhibit 6
MkJlrVG iYllJAJrMJ ~ ::;Mf at0
be "11 fYt.a&:6 5t3ttr~ <7/
~ 4<d' <5rI1tL- be.- q ff/tX!J.{tll1
tlf ~SF 8/f.Cff '" [t&,()6 thr/I k
ot ~#l'7
~ar~eqdt.
/e71ltz :JIt1/1 be
1/~~X.
t//~(
~rjld~,~~~
F.
Form and Appearance
"
.'
1. Form and Appearance Objectives
The following objectives shall serve as guidelines for use of land and water resources to
preserve a sound natural environment:
a. Preserve existing wetlands in a healthy state to ensure the aesthetic enjoyment of
marshes and the wildlife which inhabit them.
b. Change the existing industrial image of the Bayfront, and develop a new identity
consonant with its future prominent public and commercial recreational role.
c. Improve the visual quality of the shoreline by promoting public and private uses
which provide proper restoration, landscaping, and maintenance of shoreline areas.
d. Remove, or mitigate by landscaping, structures or conditions which have a blighting
influence on the area.
e. Develop a readily understandable and memorable relationship of the 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.
2. Specific Provisions
To promote these policies, the Form and Appearance provisions of the Land Use Plan
acknowledges three major components which comprise the physical form of the area: natural
resources areas to be preserved; an open space system including walkways, bicycle ways,
and park areas; and 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, Exhibit #7, Form and Appearance, identifies: landscape
character and function; major gateways; architectural edges; and views.
a. Landscape Character and Function
Major landscape components shall adhere to Exhibit #7, Form and Appearance, to
establish strong visual continuity in response to varied functional needs.
(09/23192)
V-lO
is/It!
~".U-1 Firm Architecturai Edge
I [ Irregular Architectural Edge
r......../ Formal Street Tree Planting
fOooooooo{ Informal Grove/Street Planting
~ Landscape Screening
~...,.... .....4 Landscape Parking
I V i Distant View to Protect
I !?~ [ Gateway
~
,
"-...
'2:5
~~,...
i ,..;"'
r' :I
II! 'j
il!
'"
&'I,y
.L-7f
i
.
/
//
II
c___
-.------ir--
mULA VISTA
LOCaJ Coastal Program
I 0 l Focal Point
I '",1 Major Open Space and Protected Areas
I--
I.!
"--..
'"'-..
'"'--
i~
I
;~
Form &
Appearance
Exhibit 7
-..----.
....--..-
---.-....
-..----......
........,
';J~(<~::~-i:" ',-
~... ',"\' "I'i:'ifl
'.1' . ~t@2~' '.,i"j
../~...,"1J~!~O~~~~I~ - - ',' -~. '(~.
....v/-. JOO, \ oo~~, ',' "'
,., .!! ~.....;s~~\ ,... ,
-., 'l '-~:!"il"i
.-~ . ., r ~J.(~$';'r9. Ii .X.... . ! ,_
-,,"-- .t:::::f:-~ .....J,5."...:.,
II - I r"-"-" .','
_O--"_"_n._ ..~::=::"" 's;;'o.eg;"li*Yc''''':~'.'"'~='
II I H.;'
" ;1
. - .H_...l___
"-"-"-"-'
I _"_' A...
u .....0. .,.....-...,.....;
F~'" ~ ..... r....\;L..}.h._.J
.:;.
~
.,
____~_~i
~r~t~~;'E7i
-=-= ---=r-=-]
6/5/92
(09123/92)
b. Landscape Screening
All areas designated for Landscape Screening on Exhibit #7 shall include dense
planting of trees and shrubs to serve three purposes: diminish the visual impact of
large existing industrial structures, such as those of Rohr Industries and SDG&E's
plant and transmission towers, and extensive parking areas and outdoor storage areas;
define major entry points to the Bayfront and frame views; and be used in masses as
visual stopping points to limit views and provide natural vertical elements. Heights
of trees and shrubs may be limited by USF&WS requirements in areas near the
wildlife refuge. The following standards shall guide Landscape Screening design:
Characteristics
Representative
Location
40' to 60' height
upright form
evergreen
Bay Boulevard
Existing pines and other trees shall be preserved to the maximum possible extent.
c. Parking Area Planting
All areas designated for Parking Area Planting Exhibit #7 shall include a planting
program coordinated with parking improvements beneath the power lines. The 150-
foot-wide right-of-way that bisects the Bayfront may include landscaped auto parking
to diminish the visual impact of the power lines and strengthen the ground plane
connection between both sides of the right-of-way. SDG&E criteria will permit
planting that can be kept not more than 15 feet high, thereby maintaining sufficient
clearance at the lowest point in the power line catenary. Planting in parking areas
should establish a dense ground plane massing of shrubs and short trees to create a
grove effect that screens cars from view and ties together in a strong horizontal line
an intersecting mass of foliage on either side of the right-of-way (see Section D in
Map 3, Circulation). The following standards shall guide Parking Area Planting
design:
Characteristics
Representative
Location
10' to 15' height
globular or multi-stem form
evergreen
SDG&E ROW
d. Informal Groves
All areas designated for Informal Groves in Exhibit #7, shall use a series of Informal
Groves to identify the major community or neighborhood parks interconnected by
continuous pedestrian circulation along the Bayfront's edge and into its interior.
V-12
2'~/?/
(09/23/92)
These Groves shall be planted with the same species in informal drifts to provide
shade for recreational uses. The following standards shall guide Informal Grove
design:
Characteristics
Representative
Location
40' to 80' height
upright and open-branching
in contrast with dense,
vertical form.
mixed deciduous and
evergreen
Community Parks
e. Formal Street Tree Planting
All areas designated Formal Street Tree Planting in Exhibit #7 have been designated
for the major circulation spines of the Bayfront. The planting should be in regularly
spaced intervals using species with predictable form characteristics to achieve strong
linear avenues that guide views and establish perspective.
Characteristics
Representative
Location
40' to 60' height
Marina Pa1Xway,
Lagoon Drive
E Street and D
Street
Bay Blvd. &
Marina Edge on
D Street
Crown shaped form
Evergreen
f. Gateways
Special consideration shall be given at Gateways, Exhibit #7, to roadway design,
including signing and lighting, landscaping, and siting and design of adjoining
structures to allow for design treatment which conveys an entry character. Refer also
to Section D, Sign Regulation in this Chapter.
g. Architectural Edges
The development shall comply with the following conditions in the specified areas:
1) Habitat Protection: Structures shall be sited a sufficient distance from natural
habitat areas to protect the natural setting and prevent interference with
wildlife.
V-13
c:;) ./ / 7:;
2)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access:
distance from the water's edge
pedestrian and bicycle access.
Structures shall be sited at a sufficient
or marsh edge to ensure unencumbered
3) Privacy: Structures shall be designed so 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. Reciprocal-
ly, the public areas shall be designed and their use regulated in a manner
which does not diminish the intended use of adjoining developed lands.
4) Firm Edges: Firm Edges as shown in Exhibit #7, are required where a
strong visual form, generally linear, is necessary to provide either for a
terminus of views in certain directions, or a sense of entry or arrival. These
edges should be formed by buildings, but also may be achieved by use of
earth berms or mass plantings.
5) Irregular building Edges: Irregular building edges are required where it is
visually desirable to soften or de-emphasize the distinction between open
space areas and adjoining development. This prevents harsh contrasts
between different areas, allows visual penetration between areas, and varia-
tion in the spatial experiences and qualities in these areas.
h. View Points
Development of the Bayfront shall ensure provision of three types of views:
1) Views from the Freeway and Major Entry: Ensure a pleasant view onto the
site and establish a visual relationship with the bay, marshes, and bay-related
development.
2) Views from Roadway Within the site: (particularly from Marina Parkway, to
the marshlands, bay, parks and other bay-related development). Locations
shall preserve a sense of proximity to the bay and marshlands.
3) Views from the Perimeters of the Bayfront Outward: Views which are
primarily pedestrian-oriented, stationary and more sustained should be
experienced from parts of the open space and pathway system and enable
viewers to renew visual contact at close range with the bay and marshlands.
G. Infrastructure
1. Circulation Standards
a. Primary Vehicular Circulation: The primary vehicular routes are identified on the
Land Use Districts, Exhibit #3, as Circulation and other; and on Exhibit #8, Circula-
tion Element. These consist of Interstate 5, State Route 54, Marina Parkway,
Lagoon Drive, and "H" Street. The majority of these routes currently exist. Those
(00123/92)
V-14
2(/ /7;1
portions of Lagoon Drive and Marina Parkway, which will be constructed as a
component of the Midbayfront Subarea are planned as 4-lane Ml\ior Arterials.
b. Internal Vehicular Circulation: Internal roadways shall be developed to the Design
and Construction Standards, published by the Department of Engineering, City of
Chula Vista.
c. Bike Routes:
1) Bike Lane: A bike lane is a lane on the paved area of a street for preferential
use by bicycles. These lanes are used for Regional Bicycle Routes. On
street parking, except for emergency stopping will not be permitted where
bike lanes are designed. These lanes shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width.
The filling of wetlands for bike paths is not permitted, including but not
limited to, any expansion of the toe of the CalTrans fill slope for the freeway
into the mitigation areas of the connector marsh.
2) Bike Path: A bike path is used for off street travel by bicycles. These paths
shall be a minimum of 8 feet in width.
d. Pedestrian Route: All pedestrian routes depicted on Exhibit #8, Circulation Element,
shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width. The filling of wetlands for bike paths is not
permitted, including, but not limited to, any extension of the toe of the CalTrans fill
slope for the freeway into the mitigation areas of the connector marsh.
2. Utility Systems: Refer also to Exhibit #9.
a. General Policies:
I) Provide adequate sizing of utility systems to assure sufficient capacity for
maximum build out potential of plan.
2) Protect existing sensitive natural resources from significant adverse impacts
during construction.
(00/23/92)
V-I5
'6.r/7tj
C+-'
OC
.- Q)
~E
::J(])
()-
!...oW
G
co
-
:0
E
x
w
"
:;
o
r:r:
"
c::;
iJ
OJ
"
:;
o
r:r:
"
~
u
OJ
<0
u
o
...J
"
:;
o
r:r:
c
OJ
."
1;;
"
D
"
D-
~---------------------------.._---
<0
r:r: c
w 0
I "0
0&
illillrn
Q. D
.8 OJ
(/) g U> U>
~ >- 'm <0 <0
.9! .;:: .~
r:r: .l!J
(5 (5 r:r: ~
F F ui <C ~ ~
<i. ...J ~
'" '" => " '" D
c c cIS () " c "
...J ~ ~ I U: t5 c
<i:: 0 c
'x 'x '2 'x OJ
a: w w ui w 0::
rn~ill ;rnrn
g CI I
. ,::~
...~.. .,-"t1 ~ ~ ~
moon 00 moon.. Tl""irlJ ~_
.. ~., ti 4_~ _
_.,-.....~ / :,~ ,.
,- ~.' . I
! 0 i
.)" ". i.- Al':J~1O
~",^~jQN.Q
. ,L ~f\ ' ~TI,
ill o"J~ool! \1'; ,
00<; ()()lJo=
Oo()tJ .~:: I :--
OC ~ J' ,....
g// ."0= ',m '....;
ell ......:()o::/,. .... . -- /
oo~~~..:....... -~~o - ~}- j
Oo()()..~ooooooo . ao,?, 00000 l
g~ :.g :~ j\:i 00
~~.; :~ ,.",
"..0 -0:: ';
;.:~..oooo '.. _,
o ...g '0 ~06".: ~~
~~:o~~i~, Ill' li! ~
::g\\ :~' d' rc.-; .
:-8. :~ f;:~' ~~H _
~rfr1! ,)\:..~n c~._. iil!
. 0' '1 '0 11~,U
~ P d' '.I.,.'~
. 0 I e'" t' 0 I
. 00: .::: ,.,.: 0 1
.... 0 .::~;.::.~O;'~:\~~l
_ _. l ._
'. .
i 0:
.'i :
? : '
,Ii ::/ I
I ~.. ~
.m_mmm"i~nl
1/; I
a~
j
............../....
"I,,~ o.
Io~ ~.
.
l
~lt
.. '
/: i
.:-e .
/1 ~ ii..
~~ I //
.. . . ,;,,:
..- '/:./
')~
:, )
r""--_
r~T":
,.1__,
I ; ;
. .---f----'----.l
i ! (-
i \ l
'\
-,
t
k
.
'0-/7)
~
fo;ll~
" .L
'1"1'
- ~.-
" :i
. .'; 'I
'~;'I'
'~;1 .
N
.
^
I
,
,
~~
5r
::;Cil
:J]
Q]
>.cnm
~E~
':.J=i 1:
:J ~ tb
~
en
(l)
c:
:J
c:
.Q
10
cii
a.
(l) E
c: ::l
::; a..
0-
E
~
"'-
Ci5.2
~10
cng
",-'
$i ~ ~ ~~
~ Q) Q) oS
:> CJ) (f) Q...(J)
rnw~~
r
..----.--_._______h___________
. I
II
"",,,Jl
- ------lr
j)
-, Jl
I
l
.i
-" [
1
'I
I
= II
-,
~
-,
"
cL
"
!
. .
,
I
I
I
L
Ir-
t
-'. j
_nn.n ~~
~'<i
II
I!
.i
ii
i I'
, II
~'-J~ Ii
, ~.,
, L
. r-
,
t
il
k
s--- ) 7 ?
'_n~ BEL
, >t>'~--
. . ,.
. -~ ~.~!
.. -.-..:::
. -~ :~'il'
,i .~ ,Iu_
Ilu *
Ii ~
'. ~
_I!..
~~
5r
::s~
~~
0]
b. Sewer Service:
The Metropolitan Sewage System of San Diego (Metro System), of which Chula
Vista is a member, 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 Lorna Sewage
Treatment Plan.
The project area shall drain to an existing outlet north of Marina Parkway where
metering facilities would be constructed.
c. Water Service:
Water service is provided by the Sweetwater Authority which obtains water from
local reservoirs and purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA). The SDCWA is furnished water by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California via aqueduct including a 69-inch pipeline which Sweetwater
Authority taps near the Sweetwater Reservoir seven miles east of the project.
Basic water service for the area shall consist of water mains in "E" Street (Marina
Parkway), "F" Street (Lagoon Drive), and "G" Street. A waterline in "G" Street
shall connect the lines in Bay Boulevard and Marina Parkway. This pipeline is
necessary to maintain a looped system during development. An easement for pipeline
operation shall be maintained even though the area might be fenced for security
reasons by Rohr.
Phased development may require off-site pipeline construction, especially in industrial
areas, to maintain adequate pressure and fire flows. Water service which meets the
standards of the Water District and Fire Marshall shall be maintained.
H. Parking Requirements
1. General Requirements:
The provisions of Chapter 19.62 of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, shall be applicable to off-street parking and loading areas in the
Bayfront area. These provisions generally control construction and development and design
standards of off-street parking areas. The number of spaces required for designated uses
shall be that designated below. In the event that there is no precise correspondence in the
use classifications with the common names used in this section, the Planning Director shall
have the authority to designate the requirements and the common names for proposed uses
shall generally be deemed to control.
2. Vehicle Parking Standards:
Business and Drofessional offices: 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area; minimum of 4
spaces;
(09/23/92)
V-I8
If/I??
Dance. assemblv. or exhibition halls without fIXed seats: 1 space per 50 square feet of floor
area used for dancing or assembly;
Dwellings. multiDle: 1.5 spaces per studio or 1 bedroom unit; 2 spaces per two bedroom;
2.5 spaces per three bedroom or larger unit (includes 0.3 space per unit guest parking);
Hotels. motels: 1 space for each living or sleeping unit, plus 1 space for every 25 rooms or
portion thereof;
Manufacturing Dlants. research & testing laboratories: 1 space per 1.5 persons employed at
anyone time in the normal operation of the plant or 1 space per 800 square feet of floor
area, whichever is greater;
Medical and dental offices. clinics: I space per 200 square feet of floor area; minimum of
5 spaces;
Public Dark/ooen soace: 1 parking place for every 10,000 square feet of park or accessible
open space;
Restaurants. bars. and night clubs: 1 space 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 seats, whichever is greater;
Retail stores: 1 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 centers: 1 space per 1.5
persons employed at anyone 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 Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
3. Bicycle Parking Standards
Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for developed uses according the following
schedule. Only those uses listed below are required to provide bicycle parking. Bicycle
parking facilities shall be fixed storage racks or devices designed to secure the frame and
wheel of the bicycle.
Business and orofessional offices (over 20,000 square feet of gross floor area): 5 spaces;
Shopoinl! center (over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area): 1 space per 33 automobile
spaces required;
(00/23/92)
V-19
25~/7ct
Fast food restaurant. coffee shoo. or delicatessen: 5 spaces;
Other eating and drinking establishments: 2 spaces;
Commercial recreation: 1 space per 33 automobile spaces required.
4. Shared Parking
Where uses have predictable time cycle parking demands and where supported by appropriate
traffic/parking studies, shared parking may be utilized as a means to reduce total parking lot
area. The criteria and standards provided in Shared Parking published by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) should be utilized to assess parking needs and formulate shared parking
agreements. Any use which intends to meet its parking requirements using shared parking
shall be subject to the approval ofa Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Chapter 19.14
of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The
approval of the Conditional Use Permit, may among other requirements, require a use,
business, or activity to only operate within restricted hours.
5. Concealed Parking
Within the Central Resort District and the Residential High District of the Midbayfront
Subarea 75 % of the required parking shall be provided in subterranean or concealed parking
structures. Concealed parking is when the parked vehicles can not be seen by the public
using public streets, bike lanes and paths, pedestrian walkways, public parks, and public
access open spaces.
6. Landscaped parking in SDG&E Right-of-way
Any landscaped parking in the SDG&E ROW north of Lagoon Drive shall be
available on weekends and evenings for use by coastal visitors. The parking needed
for visitor to the Nature Interpretive Center shall be managed as a priority for
parking in the SDG&E ROW.
I. Site Development Standards
1. The site development standards for the following subareas are specified in Chapter VII _
Subarea Specific Development Standards:
a. Midbayfront Subarea
b. West Fairfield Subarea
c. Inland Parcel Subarea
d. Faivre Street Subarea
e. Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea
f. Special Conditions "C" and "F" on the Building Heights Exhibit
(fi9I23/92)
V-20
[{'- / '77
2. For all other areas the following site Development Standards apply to the Land Use District
specified:
a. Thoroughfare Commercial:
1) Minimum lot area: 5,000 square feet
2) Front yard setback: 10 feet
3) Exterior side yard setbacks: 0
b. Industrial - Research & Limited:
1) Minimum lot area: 10,000 square feet
2) Front yard setback: 30 feet
3) Exterior side yard setback: 15 feet
4) Side yard setback 20 feet
c. Industrial - General:
1) Minimum lot area: 20,000 square feet
2) Front yard setback: 20 feet
3) Exterior side yard setback: 15 feet
4) Side yard setback 20 feet
J. Grading and Drainage
1. Special care shall be taken in development proposals adjacent to wetland habitat to avoid or
minimize problems of silting and oil or chemical leakage. Some diversion of water is
necessary and one or more desilting/retention basins may be required in development projects
to protect and enhance the biological and water quality of the wetland habitat. A major
siltation basin shall be built in the Midbayfront to accept surface drainage and provide for
desilting during and after construction of development projects and for oil and chemical
entrapment.
2. All development for properties within the coastal zone shall comply with the following
requirements:
a. A grading plan that incorporates runoff and erosion control procedures to be utilized
during all phases of project development shall be prepared and submitted concurrently
with subdivision improvement plans or planned unit development plans where such
development is proposed to occur on lands that will be graded or filled. Such a plan
shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall be designed to assure that
runoff rates will be controlled to minimize the potential for siltation in wetlands. The
erosion control measures and hydrology calculations shall be based on the six-hour,
ten-year design storm, or on the storm intensity designated in the City of Chula
Vista's Subdivision Manual, in the event that the Subdivision Manual requirement is
more stringent. Runoff control shall be accomplished by establishing on-site or at
suitable nearby locations catchment basins, detention basins, and siltation traps along
(09/23/92)
V-21
6' /-j 20
with energy dissipating measures at the terminus of storm drains, or other similar
means of equal or greater ~ffettiveness.
b. Sedimenl basins (debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed in
conjunction with the initial grading operations and maintained through the develop-
ment process as necessary to remove sediment from runoff waters draining from the
land undergoing development. Areas disturbed but not completed prior to November
1 including graded pads and stockpiles, shall be suitably prepared to prevent
excessive soil loss during the late fall and winter seasons. All graded areas shall be
stabilized prior to November 1, by means of native vegetation, if feasible, or by other
suitable means approved by the City. The use of vegetation as a means to control
site erosion shall be accomplished pursuant to plans and specifications prepared by
a licensed landscape architect or other qualified professional. Erosion control
utilizing vegetation may include, but is not limited to, seeding, mulching, fertiliza-
tion, and irrigation within sufficient time prior to November 1 to provide landscape
coverage that is adequate to achieve the provisions of this policy. Temporary erosion
control measures, shall include the use of berms, interceptor ditches, filtered inlets,
debris basins, silt traps, or other similar means of equal or greater effectiveness.
From November 1 to March 31, grading may be permitted provided the applicant
conforms to the requirements of subsection C and submits monthly documentation
within two weeks following the end of the preceding month to the City Engineer of
the condition of the erosion control procedures for graded pads, slopes and stockpiles
whenever precipitation during the month exceeds two (2) inches.
c. From November 1 to March 31, grading may occur in phased increments as
determined by the City Engineer provided all of the following requirements have been
met4S, 6-faJJ~ ~ . ^<>v.'\ I -n...v"'^5[." Oc--+o'=.,- 31 ';MII b.Q..
5uJOj'U- -J.o ~~ f"achee.
1) The increments shall be limited to those areas that have been prepared to
control the effects of soil erosion. Control measures, such as sedimentation
basins, detention basins and other facilities, shall be scheduled and placed in
a sequence that shall minimize and control the off-site transportation of
sediments. Such erosion control measures shall be installed for such
increments prior to commencing any grading that would be performed during
the period between November 1 and March 31.
2) The applicant shall post a deposit, for such areas to be graded, which shall
remain in force and effect for one year after final inspection approval of
grading by the City. The deposit shall be sufficient to cover the costs of any
remedial grading and replanting of vegetation, including any restoration of
wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive habitat areas adversely affected
by the failure of the erosion control measures required herein, as determined
by the City Engineer. The deposit will inure to the benefit of the City in case
of noncompliance as determined by the City Engineer.
3) The applicant agrees to provide daily documentation to the City Engineer of
the condition of the erosion control procedures for any 24-hour period in
(09123/92)
V-22
g//Cj)
which precipitation exceeds 0.25 inches. Such documentation shall be
provided within five working days of said 24-hour period. Failure to provide
such documentation of the occurrence of any significant discharge of
sediments or silts in violation of this policy shall constitute automatic grounds
for suspension of the applicant's grading permit(s) during the period of
November 1 to March 31.
d. The following additional safeguards shall be required for grading within the Inland
Parcel - Subarea 5 between November 1 and March 31:
1) A lOa-foot buffer is required between wetlands and grading activities.
2) A silt fence (or equal) shall be installed between graded areas and wetlands.
A distance of 10 feet is required between the silt fence and the toe of any
manufactured slope.
3) The maximum slope permitted is 3: 1.
3. Erosion Control Monitoring Program for Chula Vista Coastal Zone Areas Draining Directly
Into Wetlands.
a. Overall field review of grading operations will be performed by the City Engineer
on each grading project in the Coastal Zone.
b. Field review of erosion control devices, sedimentation basins, detention basins, and
landscaping will be made by the City Engineer prior to the advent of the rainy
season, and throughout the rainy season as necessary to monitor grading operations
phased between November 1 and March 31. The City Engineer shall document
non-compliance of projects with the grading and erosion control requirements and
correct problems with funds from the deposit posted by the applicant.
c. The City Engineer will periodically review and prepare a report on the effectiveness
of the runoff and erosion control measures for areas within the Chula Vista Coastal
Zone. The initial report shall be completed within two years following February
1989 and thereafter six months prior to any scheduled review by the California
Coastal Commission of the Local Coastal Program for the City of Chula Vista. A
copy of the report shall be submitted to the Chula Vista City Council and to the
Executive Director of the Coastal Commission.
4. All areas disturbed by grading shall be planted within 60 days of the initial disturbance and
prior to November 1 with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion
control methods. Such planting. shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed
landscape architect and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertilization and irrigation adequate
to provide 90% coverage within 90 days. Planting shall be repeated if the required level of
coverage is not established. This requirement shall apply to an distributed soils including
stockpiles.
(00/23/92)
V-23
y~/~J
5. Refer also to Chapter VI, EnvironmentalManagement Program for
additional requirements concerning g"rading.
'Y~/:t)
(09/23/92)
V-24
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Purpose and Scope
Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act provides for the protection of environmentally sensitive
habitat areas. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for such protection.
B. Resource Elements
The major wetlands and related sensitive habitat areas within the Chula Vista Bayfront area have
been acquired by the USF&WS and comprise the majority of the Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge. With the preservation of these areas assured through a transfer of ownership, the
focus of these regulations is reducing and mitigating impacts on the refuge from new development
within the Bayfront.
C. Environmental Management Requirements
1. Coordination:
a. Coordination with the San Diego Unified Port District in the development of plans
and programs for areas adjacent to the Chula Vista Bayfront shall be maintained to
assure that environmental management objectives in the Bayfront Land Use Plan can
be successfully implemented.
b. Coordination with the USF&WS shall be maintained for the development of plans and
programs adjacent to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
D. Midbayfront Subarea Requirements
The various mitigation features and actions specified for the Midbayfront 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 actions focus on the interface areas between the
Midbayfront Subarea and the adjoining National Wildlife Refuge. Major mitigation features and
actions are summarized in Table VI-I.
To assist in the preparation and evaluation of the management plans, specified in Policies EM.1.C.
and EM.1.D. required herein, the following background documents are hereby referenced:
1. Final EIR Volume I & II for Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal 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;
(09/23/92)
VI-1
o~/y'l
3. Chula Vista Investors' (CVI) Proposed Mitigation Measures for Final EIR - CVI
Midbayfront Development Plan, December 16, 1990. (Design Requirements
USFWS);
4. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Merjan (CVn, dated
January 15, 1991;
5. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated March 11, 1991;
6. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated March 22, 1991;
7. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated May 8, 1991;
8. Letter to Douglas D. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, dated May 23, 1991;
9. Letter to Diana Richardson. Reid, City of Chula Vista, from Brooks Harper, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, dated January 14, 1992; and;
10. Letter to Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, from Chula Vista Investors,
dated February 6, 1992;
I. Habitat Restoration and Management Plan
To ensure an orderly and efficient implementation of the various restoration and enhancement
features and actions specified for the Midbayfront, a comprehensive Habitat Restoration and
Management Plan shall be prepared and approved prior to initiation of development within
the Midbayfront.
The Habitat Restoration and Management Plan 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:
a. Engineering design, grading plan, and cost analysis.
b. Vegetation design, including specifications for planting program, source of plants,
etc.
c. Implementation schedule and phasing.
d. Management program.
e. Monitoring program.
(W/23/92)
VI-2
/'
2"~/Y!7
f. Maintenance program.
g. Funding arrangements: implementation, monitoring, and maintenance.
h. Contractual agreements.
i. Ownership transfer where appropriate.
Preparation of this plan will involve participation by the developer, the City, the California
Coastal Commission, the USF&WS, and other resource management agencies.
2. Biological Resources Management Plan
Additional protection of the biological resources in the Wildlife Refuge shall be provided by
the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive Biological Resources Management
Plan 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 Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management
h. Construction Monitoring and Management
i. CC&R's/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
j. CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Requirement
Preparation of this plan will involve participation by the Developer, the City, USF&WS, the
California Coastal Commission and other resource management agencies as appropriate.
3. Midbayfront Mitigation Program
The various mitigation features and actions specified for the Midbayfront 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 actions
focus on the interface areas between the Midbayfront Subarea and the adjoining National
Wildlife Refuge. These features and actions are summarized in Table VI-I.
(09123/92)
VI-3
I
g- /;5p
a. 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 and 11)
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.
b. Midbayfront South Interface Area. Because of pre-existing physical constraints at
and adjoining the "F-G" Street Marsh area, a different mitigation approach shall be
employed for the South Interface Area. Specifically, along the north and west
margins of the "F-G" Street marsh area, the 94 foot ROW road areas of "F" Street
(Lagoon Drive) and Marina Parkway, together with dense vegetational screening,
shall serve as the buffer area.
(00/23192)
VI-4
g/'j%?
r.'i'......~. Wetlands Buffer Zone
~ Primary Bufter Zone
mP r Public Park and Open Space
f"'&;;}F~ Wetland Enhancement
e1 [Desiltation Basin
D [Nature Interpretive Center
Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge
Environmental
Management
Element
Exhibit 10
r....-..........--_.
-.....-.
"'''''--""
---.....
.._-...-..
......
.
Potential Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
\
i
} i
;/"-"~~ i
"'~;9:"~-1,~ f /Yo! ~~~,-.," I
~.._..".....:..""""""~ d:~ . ..~.~~ ~Pll(o..ey ~/~ ~
{--I ~0... .....J~. o. ~ _ _ ~/' I \
cL/ -----J~ ""~,......,,(( .._......... . .,,; 1. "
~ :-...--C~~~___~ I~ C.'-"-'.-'-.'-
,,}t -~-------~ ~ ,I
-~':<"-' P'- ~ .JL _J&"~-
-- ~ I, ~ -- --__I -. f ']11
~ : ~ 1'lIIn'ilIlIJ~--::-""""~~1 _= -
. I' ~--i! - ~-- ~- !
~L_L_____.-JI ~:_____L__
.............
..-....-.
"'-...
...........')
vq
"'--
~~-'.:'
r:=:.J;~~~~--
I.
L
10
H
l
.,
I
n I'
1\;
NOTE: Refer also to Chapter VI-E
, ,
fi
.. .. .. ..~
I '* ;
. I.
I" .-"-t "::21
U;../. ....-;"-.. i
F/NrI"-'-"':. ,..;'..J......1
r....\!
Ir-----~;
" j'
1"
- --~- -,r--- -,_._~-- ----,,---..
gj~~al'i}~~
~r;~.~-&.fW1
::";"~D'
9/23/921. ....Ii; ~i.A
~
"'-
~
Buffer Zone Section
Exhibit 11
First Row
of Residential
( Two Story Maximum)
~.~
.
Public Park
( Active )
Width Varies
100 Feet Mrnimum
~
I~
~i!i
" wOe - \ ~i~~
Primary Zone ~ Wetland Buffer
100 Feet 100 Feet Wetlands
~ Location of Fence and Berm
within Primary Zone Varies
Note:
Vertical Scale Exagerated
~~ld~,~I51~
Vegetational screening of"'P.G" Street marsh from Lagoon Drive and Marina
Parkway will employ native plants including coastal sage scrub and maritime
succulents. Chain-link fence will be incorporated in and largely concealed by the,
vegetational 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 maintain a desilting basin on the north
side of "F" Street. Control structures will include a low flow stage, three-chamber
trap for oil, grease, and particulates.
Because the USF&WS anticipates use of the "F-G" Street Marsh for expanding the
potential nesting habitat for the endangered Light Footed Clapper Rail, there will be
no public access and only one or two pedestrian overlook areas for this unit of the
National Wildlife Refuge.
c. Midbayfront West Interface Area. Along the Bay shoreline between the "E" Street
Marsh and the western extension of the "F-G" Street Marsh, an upland are about 100
feet wide by approximately 1,400 feet long (totalling approximately 3 acres) will be
excavated and planted to create a corridor of salt marsh habitat immediately landward
of the present shoreline. This marsh corridor will be protected from wave erosion
by a rip-rap 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 mudflats and eel grass, storm drain outfalls to the Bay will have flow
energy dissipators and three-chamber type traps for oil, grease, and particulates. In
addition, irrigation and other water sources in the development area shall be managed
to achieve minimal to zero freshwater outflows to the Bay during the dry season.
A monitoring program shall be implemented to ensure that Bay mudflats and eel grass
are not adversely effected by storm drain outflow.
To protect the biologically-rich mudflat and eelgrass meadows in the areas of the Bay
bordering on the National Wildlife Refuge, no recreational boating facilities are
permitted in this part of the Bay without specific approval of the USF&WS and the
Army Corps of Engineers.
d. Midbayfront Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Features. The following actions
involve habitat restoration and enhancement which shall be incorporated in the
development design in order to provide mitigation for development impacts by
improving the quality and biological values of wetlands and uplands generally within
the Wildlife Refuge.
(00/23/92)
VI-?
1]/)10
. .. _..w.",^,.~..,.~ ~"_"'","'~"''''''''''''~,",._'''''',"",,~H'~ ~_~."",.-".~_,. "_._' ~
1)
Restoration by Upland Conversion to Wetlands. At the "F-G" Street site,
upland conversion to wetland shall be provided at three locations as follows:
a) Upland conversion to provide 3.5 acres of year-round freshwater
marsh along the east and northeast margins of the site. This freshwa-
ter marsh replaces the roughly 3.0 acres of degraded seasonal wetland
that will be removed for construction of the desiltation basin.
b) Upland conversion to provide at least 2.0 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.
c) Upland conversion to provide 1.5 acres of salt marsh immediately
west of Marina Parkway, thus extending the "F-G" Street salt marsh
to connect directly with San 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.
2) Enhancement of Existing Habitat. At the "F-G" Street site, existing habitat
shall be enhanced at three locations as follows:
a) Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded high marsh along the east margin of
the "F-G" Street salt marsh.
b) Upgrade 0.5 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub bordering the south
margin of the "F-G" Street Marsh.
c) Provide new coastal sage habitat (or upgrade existing severely
degraded coastal 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.
e. Enhancement of Water Quality. 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:
1) 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.
2) Improve access of tidal waters to the "F-G" Street salt marsh by increasing
the number and size of culverts under the adjoining roadway (Le., Marina
Parkway).
(09/23192)
VI-8
'5/j 1/
f. Other Enhancement Featur\l~(Apti9ns" Other enhancement features and actions that
shall be provided at or adjblhihg the "F-G" Street site are:
1) 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 plantings of coastal
sage scrub in association with the perimeter fencing.
2) 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 (Le., "E" Street, Vener and Sweetwater marshes),
will constitute a major enhancement 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.
y /' j Jd-.-
(09/23/92)
VI-9
TABLE VI-l
SUMMARY OF RESTORATIONIENHANCEMENT FEATURES
AND ACfIONS FOR MIDBAYFRONT AREA
Habitat Restoration (New)
Aooroximate Area (Acres)
Wetland
I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Freshwater Marsh
Salt Marsh (expansion)
Salt Marsh (extension)
Salt Marsh at "D" Street Fill
Fresh Water Marsh on Gunpowder Point
Salt Marsh at Bay Margin
3.5
2.0
1.5
15.0
2.0
3.0
Upland
7)
Coastal Sage Scrub
a) Perimeter screening
b) Berm
2.0
Habitat Enhancement (Uoorade)
Wetland
8)
Salt Marsh (high)
0.5
Upland
9)
Coastal Sage Scrub
0.5
Water Qualitv Enhancement
10) Desilting Basin
11) Improved Tidal Flushing -
(3 @ 48 inch diameter culverts)
Other Enhancement
12) Access Control
13) Visual Screening
14) Bridge structure to provide underpass for Fauna
NOTE: For location and supplemental information regarding -F-a- Street Marsh restoration see following exhibit.
(00123/92)
VI-lO
%./ 1e;:3
I
~
)
-J
-----..-
i
'I-
-;
I
;
/
.,.,~,.~,:;
~<.
-----------.
LEGEND:
RESTORE
FreshwaterMal"$h
Salt Marnh
Coaslal Sage Scn.Ib
ENHANCC
SakMa1'$1l
Coastal Saglll Scn.Ib
0) _
il,~,,,- ~
- ---;~ ---. ~Z'_ ~
=
=
~
~~
~['EJ'~'
I ~ ~ 0-
j~: k 1,0 0 ~ '. ~
.','.""
lUJ:!lIl
DesiltalionBasin
..........
..
41:
Disch.a/l;laConlrol
~ptOv9dTldal.A.xfls
80m
REVI5ED &./9-92
SOURCE: Rick Engineemg and
Dam Smith & Associates
rHULA Vl5rA
LcX:ar Coastal Program
?/ /1r
...0 '''.''.'[RI
aiH';' ~
SAM OII!~~AllfOlHI" 12
_Ml9t1lf..S "''''''l$_cr.l
L i I@ ~1E5l
E. Environmental Manaaement of Undelineated Resources. Sensitive
habitats exist in areas not delineated, including but not limited to
the Faivre street Subarea, the Inland Parcel Subarea, and the "J"
Street Marsh. It is required that all environmental resources are
analyzed by an environmental professional, and that an Environmental
Management Plan is adopted to protect any sensitive habitats
discovered, prior to the commencement of any additional development.
(CBI23/92)
VI-12
g/ /~~
VII. SUBAREA SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Purpose and Scope
This Chapter is intended to apply specific development standards to subarea, as identified on Exhibit
#2, Planning Boundaries. The development standards herein are in addition to the areawide
standards contained in other Chapters of this Specific Plan.
B. Midbayfront Subarea
I. Central Resort District
a. Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Central Resort District (CRD) is to provide an area within the
Midbayfront subarea for a mixture of uses intended to serve tourists, travelers, and
local residents. The regulations of this district are intended to encourage innovative
designs and combination of uses to create a high quality resort core for the
Midbayfront subarea.
A conceptual illustration of the Central Resort District is depicted on the following
page. It graphically portrays one of many "design solutions" that would be
consistent with the purpose and intent of this category. This conceptual illustration
is provided herein as an example of intent, but is not intended to indicate a specific
location, number, size, or configuration of buildings, parking, or other developed site
features.
(09I23/'Yl)
VII-I
15//'70
PUBLIC PARK
LAGOON
PUBLIC PARK
~
\
,
~
~
Central Resort
District Concept
Exhibit 13
to NATURE
INTERPERTIVE CENTER
LANDSCAPED PARKING
LANDSCAPED
PARKING
----
a
Interstate 5
a;
E!
en
~
Source: Design by Jerde Partnership
KEY
G) Mid-Rise Hotel (up to 100')
@ High Rise Hotel (up to 229')
@ Retail/Residential Above
@ Retail/Residential Above
CID Conference Facilities
CID Ice Rink (Park, or all. Cull. Arts Fac. Site)
(!) Child Care
@ Co-Generation Facility
@ Sports Facility
@) Tennis Club
@ Office
gjldooL~\,\<,~
b. Master Plan Process
1.l\,,;t
The Central Resort District is expected to be developed in phases. In order to insure
that each phase is in compliance to an overall plan, intended to implement the LCP
and local standards, a Master Plan shall be required to be approved.
1) When Required: The Central Resort Master Plan must be approved by the
City Council prior to the issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit
within the Central Resort District.
2) Application and Fee: Application shall be made on a form prescribed for this
purpose by the City, and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the
City.
3) Contents of the Master Plan: The application shall be accompanied by all
information necessary to convey the ultimate design and development
proposal of the Central Resort; including, but not limited to the following:
a) A written report describing how the proposed development is
consistent with all applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program -
Land Use Plan.
b) Dimensioned drawing(s) of the project on a scale of sufficient size so
as to readily indicate all dimensions of the various elements of the
development. The required elements are as follows:
(1) Legal description, legend, scale, north arrow, vicinity map,
and identification of designer;
(2) The boundary lines of subject property, fully dimensioned
together with the name and dimensions of adjoining streets;
(3) Existing topography and proposed grading plan, showing
slope, retaining walls, pad elevations, and percent of slope on
streets, driveways and other graded areas;
(4) Existing and proposed streets, utilities, and easements;
(5) Access: pedestrian, vehicular and service; points of ingress
and egress; with driveway locations and dimensions;
(6) Loading and trash areas, walls and/or fences (including
height);
(7) Proposed location, height, and dimensions of buildings,
including color and materials on all elevations. The floor
area, number of stories, number units and bedrooms (when
applicable) shall be given. Proposed uses shall be indicated
including floor area devoted to each use. (the exact level of
detail required for subsequent phases of a phase project may
be deferred, subject to City approval, where the purpose and
intent of this district and LCP are better served)
(00/23/92)
VII-3
'f(/ /9lf
(8) Parking Layout, including dimensions, number of stalls and
circulation flow;
(9) Location, height and size of signs proposed on the property;
(10) All landscaped areas: Such areas shall be defined with a
written proposal outlining the landscaping concept, as well as
the proposed method of irrigation. In addition, all existing
trees on the site shall be identified with a note as to proposed
disposition.
(II) Lighting, including the location, type and hooding devices to
shield adjoining properties;
(12) Location and design of recreation areas.
c) Supporting documents as may be required; including, but not limited
to: soils report, traffic report, air quality maintenance report, water
conservation report, public facility financing report, sign program,
environmental studies, phasing report, and reports indicating
consistency with other relevant City policies and regulations.
4) Procedures for plan review and approval: Shall be provided for Precise Plan
in the City Vista Municipal Code, Title 19.
5) Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review: A coastal development
permit shall not be issued until site plan and architectural approval has been
obtained for any use within the Central Resort District as provided for in
Section 19.14 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, except where the
level of detail provided in the Master Plan is of sufficient detail to satisfy the
requirement of Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review.
c. Land Use Categories
Several land use categories are permitted within the Central Resort district. A group
of uses and regulations are applicable to each category. These regulations are
outlined herein by land use category. Notwithstanding the permitted uses within each
category, the following limitations are indicted on Table VII-l are applicable within
the Central Resort District:
(09/23/92)
VII-4
f),; /9?
'fable VII-I.
".., , (':;;
Central Resort District Building Allowance
Land Use Cateaorv
Minimum
Building
Sa.Ft. Read.
Target
Building
Sa. Ft. *
Maximum
du/Hotel
Rooms
Residential-Mixed Use
100,000
1,000,000
406,000
1,503,000
300 du
Commercial-Visitor
1,360 rm
Comm.-Prof. & Admin.
20,000
60,000
N/A
Public & Open Space
**
Maximum Building Area Permitted
1,969,000 sq. ft.
*
The target building sq. ft. in any category may be exceeded by up to 20% provided that the increase is offset by a
corresponding reduction in other categories, and that the increase will not produce additional unmitigatible environmental
impacts. The maximum building square feet for the entire Central Resort shall not be exceeded. Changes in building sq.
ft. from one category to another that lowers the level of service for arterials shall not be pennitted.
**
Limited by limited permitted uses.
d.
Land Use Regulations:
I) Residential - Mixed Use
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the residential - mixed use
category is to provide for non-transient residents within the Central
Resort. It is the intent that these residential dwellings will be
integrated into the design of the Central Resort as a whole, rather
than considered an independent segment.
b) Permitted Uses:
(1) Dwellings, multiple;
(2) Dwellings, within buildings of another land use category; and,
(3) Private, non-commercial recreational facilities or convenience
facilities intended to serve residents of the dwellings only.
c) Conditionally Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(1) Residential:
(a) Residential units whose parking requirement will be
met by a shared parking agreement;
(b) Extended stay residential;
(c) Retail sales/leasing offices within a residential project;
(09/23/92)
VII-5
2)/ dOZJ
(00/23/92)
(d) Retail sales or personal service businesses intended to
primary serve the residents of the project;
(e) Day care facilities intended to primary serve the
residents of the project.
(f) Timeshare condominium units.
d) Site Development Standards: As indicated on the approved Master
Plan.
e) Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
f) Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4, and as specified in Chapter V-D, herein.
g) Floor Area Per Unit: The minimum floor area per dwelling unit in
the Residential - mixed use category shall be as follows:
(1) Four hundred square feet for each efficiency dwelling unit;
(2) Five hundred square feet for each dwelling unit having one
bedroom;
(3) Six hundred fifty square feet for each dwelling having two
bedrooms;
(4) Seven hundred fifty square feet for each dwelling unit having
three bedrooms; and an additional one hundred square feet is
required for each additional bedroom exceeding three.
h) Off-Street Parking: Off-site parking is required in the Residential _
mixed use category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
2) Commercial - Visitor
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Commercial - Visitor
category is to provide regulations of uses for the needs of tourists,
travelers, and local residents.
b) Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted within the
following sub-categories designated on an approved Master Plan.
(1) Hotel-High Rise: Buildings designated as Hotel-High Rise are
permitted to include:
(a) Hotels; and
(b) Incidental business within the hotel complex to serve
the patrons including restaurants, cocktail lounges,
meeting areas, recreation facilities, retail shops,
conferencing facilities, communication center, parking
VII-6
'/ ;- ,)0/
stI)lctures, and other similar businesses or facilities
detefflllned to be of the same general character of the
above primary permitted use.
(2) Hotel: Buildings designated as Hotel are permitted the same
uses as Hotel - High Rise.
(3) Retail: building areas designated as retail are permitted to
include:
(a) Restaurants with a cocktail lounge as an integral part;
(b) Theaters;
(c) Art Galleries;
(d) Retail shops;
(e) Parking garages;
(f) Bonafide antique shops;
(g) Markets;
(h) Restaurants and snack bars;
(i) Ticket sales;
U) Meeting halls;
(k) Service businesses; and
(I) Any other establishment serving visitors determined to
be of the same general character of the above permit-
ted uses.
(4) Commercial Recreation: Building areas designated as
commercial Recreation are permitted to include:
(a) Ice Rink;
(b) Tennis Clubs and facilities;
(c) Health clubs;
(d) Sports and health classes and clinics;
(e) Courts, arenas, and other sports facilities;
(f) Sports medicine facilities;
(g) Sports training facilities;
(h) Pool and swimming/diving facilities; and,
(i) Any other business or facility determined to be of the
same general character of the above permitted uses.
(5) Conference/Convention: Buildings designated as confer-
ence/convention are permitted to include:
(a) Conference and Convention facilities; and,
(b) Incidental businesses within the conference and
convention facilities intended to serve the uses of the
facility .
(fE/23l92)
VII-7
? -' J-OJ.-
(09/23/92)
(c) Conditionally Permitted Uses: The following Com-
mercial - Visitor uses are permitted subject to the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
(i) Any establishment whose parking requirement
will be met by a shared parking agreement;
(ii) Any business or activity that produces noise
beyond outside of the establishment and is
within 250 feet of a residential dwelling and is
open between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00
am;
(iii) Outdoor uses including amphitheaters, vending
carts, kiosks, and outdoor sales and displays;
(iv) Nightclubs, except within hotels;
(v) Video arcades; and,
(vi) Special events and tournaments that will
exceed the parking requirement of the primary
permitted use.
d) Site Development Standards: As indicated on the approved Master
Plan.
e) Sign Regulations: as provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
f) Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4 and Chapter
V-D, herein.
g) Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in the Commercial
- Visitor category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
3) Commercial - Professional & Administrative:
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Commercial - Professional
& Administrative category is to provide regulations for the devel-
opment of professional and administrative office uses.
b) Permitted Uses: Building designated as Commercial- Professional &
Administrative are permitted to include:
(1) Administrative and executive office;
(2) Professional offices;
(3) Financial offices, including banks, real estate, and other
general business offices;
(4) Medical care facilities; and,
VII-8
2{/;20)
(09/23/92)
(5) Any other office use determined to be of the same general
chatiieu:r of the above permitted use.
c) Site Development Standards: As indicated on the approved Master
Plan.
d) Sign Regulations; As provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
e) Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4 and Chapter V-D, herein.
f) Off-Street Parking: Off-site parking is required in the Commercial -
Professional & Administrative category for all uses as provided in
Chapter V-H, herein.
4) Public and Open Space:
a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of the Public and Open
Space category is to provide regulations for the use and development
of areas designated as Public and Open Space.
b) Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in all areas
whether designated as public and open space or not.
(I) Public & Quasi-Public: In areas designated as Public Quasi-
Public the following uses are permitted:
(a) Parking garages, structures, and lots;
(b) Day nurseries;
(c) Schools for arts and crafts;
(d) Places of worship;
(e) Electrical substations and gas regulators;
(f) Transit and other public transportation facilities; and
(g) Any other use determined to be of the same general
character of the above permitted uses.
(2) Parks & Recreation: In areas designated as Parks & Recre-
ation the following uses are permitted:
(a) Public parks & recreation;
(b) Business and facilities intended to serve the users of
the parks and recreation facilities; and,
(c) Cultural Arts facility, including associated accessary
commercial uses; and,
(d) Any other use determined to be of the same general
character of the above permitted uses.
VII -9
<[5/ ,Joi
(3) Water Feature: In areas designated as Water Feature the
following uses are permitted:
(a) Man-made lakes, ponds, and water features, which are
available for access by the general public on the same
terms and conditions as for access by customers and
patrons of other businesses within the Central Resort
District; and,
(b) Businesses intended to provide recreation opportunities
of the water feature such as, boating rental facilities
and boat storage facilities.
(4) Other Open Space: In areas designated as other Open Space
the following uses are permitted:
(a) Open Space; and,
(b) Trails, plazas, sculpture gardens, and other similar
uses.
c) Site Development Standards: As indicted on the approved Master
Plan.
d) Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be
supplemented by the approved Master Plan.
e) Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit
#4, and as specified in Chapter V-D, herein.
f) Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in the Public and
Open Space category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
2. Residential - High District
a. Purpose and Intent
The regulations of this district are intended to encourage innovative designs to create
a high quality residential community for the Midbayfront subarea.
A conceptual illustration of the Residential - High District is depicted on the
following page. It graphically portrays one of many "design solutions" that would
be consistent with the purpose and intent of this category. This conceptual
illustration is provided herein as an example of intent, but is not intended to indicate
a specific location, number, size, or configuration of buildings, parking, or other
developed site features.
(00/23192)
VII- 10
8:--020.3
O<Q
~
\:::J
~
CENTRAL
RESORT
DISTRICT
Residential
District Concept
Exhibit 14-
to NATURE
INTERPERTIVE
CENTER
PUBLIC PARK
to Commercial
~
Source: Design by Jerde Partnership
S:~ld~I~~~
(00/23/92)
b. Master Plan Process
The Residential - High District is expected to be developed in phases. In order to
insure that each phase is in compliance to an overall plan, intended to implement the
this Specific Plan and local standards, a Master Plan shall be required to be
approved.
1) When Required: The Residential Master Plan must be approved by the City
Council prior to the issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit within
the Residential High District.
2) Application and Fee: Application shall be made on a form prescribed for this
purpose by the City, and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the
City.
3) Contents of the Master Plan: The application shall be accompanied by all
information necessary to convey the ultimate design and development
proposal of the Residential Community including, but not limited to the
following:
a) A written report describing how the proposed development is
consistent with all applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program _
Land Use Plan.
b) Dimensioned drawing(s) of the project on a scale of sufficient size so
as to readily indicate all dimensions of the various elements of the
development. The required elements are as follows:
(1) Legal description, legend, scale, north arrow, vicinity map,
and identification of designer;
(2) The boundary lines of subject property, fully diminished
together with the name and dimensions of adjoining streets;
(3) Existing topography and proposed grading plan, showing
slope, retaining walls, pad elevations, and percent of slope on
streets, driveways and other graded areas;
(4) Existing and proposed streets, utilities, and easements;
(5) Access: pedestrian, vehicular and services; points of ingress
and egress; with driveway locations and dimensions;
(6) Loading and trash areas, walls and/or fences (including
height);
(7) Proposed location, height, and dimensions of buildings,
including color and materials on all elevations. The floor
area, number of stories, number of units and bedroom (when
applicable) shall be given. Proposed uses shall be indicated
including floor area devoted to each use. (The level of detail
required for subsequent phases of a phased project may be
VII-12
g-,.JO?
limit~d, subj~ct tO,City approval, where the purpose and intent
of tills dish-li:nidd LCP are better served.)
(8) Parking Layout, including dimensions, number of stalls, and
circulation flow;
(9) Location, height and size of signs proposed on the property;
(10) All landscaped areas: Such areas shall be defined with a
written proposal outlining the landscaping concept, as well as
the proposed method of irrigation. In addition, all existing
trees on the site shall be identified with a note as to proposed
disposition.
(11) Lighting, including the location, type and hooding devices to
shield adjoining properties;
(12) Location and design of recreation areas.
c) Supporting documents as may be required; including, but not limited
to: soils report, traffic report, air quality maintenance report, water
conservation report, public facility financing report, afforable housing
policy consistency report and implemenation program, a report and
implemtation program on school facilities to serve students generated
by the project, and reports indicating consistency with other relevant
City policies and regulations.
4) Procedures for plan review and approval: Shall be as provided for a Precise
Plan in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19.
5) Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review: A coastal development
permit shall not be issued until site plan and architectural approval has been
obtained for any use within the Residential - High District as provided for in
Section 19.14 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, except where the
level of detail provided in the Master Plan is of sufficient detail to satisfy the
requirements of Site Plan, Landscape and Architectural Review.
6) Phasing limitation on Residential Develepment: The construction phasing of
residential dwelling units in the Residential-High District shall be limited to
a maximum of 25% of the total number of dwelling units permitted by an
approved Residential Master Plan, until development within the Central Resort
District has been substantially implemented. "Substantially Implemented" shall
be achieved when 50% of the building square footage permitted on an ap-
proved Central Resort District Master Plan has been constructed, or the
completion of same has been assured to the satifaction of the City of Chula
Vista.
c. Land Use Regulations:
1) Permitted Uses:
a) Dwellings, duplexes;
(09123/92)
VII-13
Jr;lOg"
b) Dwellings, town houses;
c) Dwellings, multiple;
d) Apartments;
e) Incidental Service, such as restaurants and retail sales to serve
residents;
f) Recreation facilities and amenities such as private clubhouse,
tennis courts, pools and uses of a similar nature;
g) Parking garages, structures, and lots;
h) Transit and other public transportation facilities;
i) Parks and recreation:
j) Open space, trails, plazas, sculpture gardens, and other
similar uses;
k) Man-made lakes, ponds, and water features;
I) Electrical substations and gas regulations
m) Any other use determined by the City to be at the same
general character of the above permitted uses.
2) Conditionally Permitted Uses:
a) Restaurants and retail shops;
b) Any use whose parking requirement will be met by shared parking;
c) Day nurseries/child care facilities;
d) Places of worship; and,
e) Timeshare condominium units.
d. Site Development Standards: As indicated on the approved Master Plan.
e. Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be supplemented by the
approved Master Plan, except that, no building identification signing is permitted
above the second story, or thirty feet, whichever is less, of any building in this dis-
trict.
f. Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit #4, and as
specified in Chapter V.D, herein.
g. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking shall be as provided for in Chapter V-H,
herein.
h. Development Intensity: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in this
land use district is 700, totalling no more than 949,000 square feet of building area.
3. Commercial - Visitor:
a. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the Commercial-Visitor Category is to provide
regulations of uses for the needs of tourists, travelers, and local residents.
b. Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted:
(09/23/92)
VII- 14
'6/;209
1) Hotels and Inns (within height limits specified on the Building Heights
Exhibit);
2) Retail; including:
(a) Restaurants with a cocktail lounge as an integral part;
(b) Art Galleries;
(c) Retail shops;
(d) Parking garages;
(e) Bonafide antique shops;
(f) Markets;
(g) Restaurants and snack bars;
(h) service businesses; and,
(i) Any other establishment serving visitors determined to be of the same
general character of the above permitted uses.
3) Commercial Recreation; including:
(a) Tennis Clubs and facilities;
(b) Health clubs;
(c) Sports and health classes and clinics;
(d) Courts, arenas, and other sports facilities;
(e) Sports medicine facilities;
(f) Sports training facilities;
(g) Swimming and diving facilities; and,
(h) Any other business or facility determined to be of the same general
character of the above permitted uses.
4) Public-Quasi Public, including:
(a) Public parks, recreation, open space, trails, and other similar uses;
(b) Places of worship;
(c) Day nurseries and child care facilities;
(d) Transit and other public transportation facilities; and,
(e) Electrical substations and gas regulators
c. Conditionally Permitted Uses: Any use whose parking requirement will be met by
shared parking;
d. Prohibited Uses: Any business or activity that produces noise above 60 CNEL at the
exterior boundaries of this land use district.
e. Site Development Standards:
1) Minimum lot area: 20,000 square feet.
2) Setbacks:
((1;1123/92)
VII-15
S/,)/(}
(a) To Marina Parkway: 25 feet minimum
(b) To other exterior boundaries of this land use district: 20 feet
minimum
(c) To interior boundaries which do not abut another land use district:
none.
f. Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be supplemented by an
approved Sign Program.
g. Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit #4, herein.
h. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in the Commercial - Visitor
category for all uses as provided in Chapter V-H, herein.
i. Development Intensity:
1) Maximum number of hotel rooms: 500 rooms
2) Maximum building square footage of all uses in this district: 403,000 square
feet.
4. Parks and Recreation
a. Purpose and Intent: These regulations are intended to provide for the regulation of
uses and activities designated as Park and Recreation on the Land Use District,
Exhibit #3, within the Midbayfront subarea.
b. Land Use Regulations:
1) Permitted Uses:
a) Public Parks and Recreation;
b) Open space trails, plazas, sculpture gardens, amphitheaters, and other
similar uses;
c) Man-made lakes, ponds, and water features;
d) Restaurants, snack bars, restroom facilities, and minor retail shops
primarily intended to serve the visitors of a public park;
e) Public parking lots; and,
f) Recreation facilities including, ball fields, courts, and playgrounds;
g) electrical substations, gas regulators.
2) Conditionally Permitted Uses:
a) Cultural Arts Facility, including integral meeting areas, art display
areas, restaurants, retail sales facilities relating to Cultural Arts
activities, and theaters.
b) Parking garages;
(09/23/92)
VII-16
g/ J) /
c) Any use whose parking requirement will be met by shared parking.
d) Retail uses ihtended to serve the users of park and recreation areas.
3) Prohibited Uses: Any use which is inconsistent with the Environmental
Management Program described in Chapter VI, herein.
c. Site Development Standards:
1) Master Plan Requirements: Master Plans for the Parks and Recreation areas
abutting the San Diego Bay and the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Preserve as follows:
a) For the Parks and Recreation area west of the Central Resort District
abutting San Diego Bay and south of the access road to the Nature
Interpretive Center: This Master Plan for Parks and Recreation uses
shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to, or concurrently
with, the Master Plan required for the Central Resort District.
b) For the Parks and Recreation area west and north of the Residential-
High land use district: this Master Plan shall be prepared and
approved by the City prior to, or concurrently with the Master Plan
required for the Residential-High District. The Master Plan for this
Parks and Recreation area may not be approved prior to the approval
of the Master Plan for 1) a) above.
c) Level of detail: The level of detail of the Parks and Recreation
Master Planes) shall be as described for the Master Plan requirement
for the Central Resort District.
2) Development Standards: All development within the Parks and Recreation
District shall be consistent with the standards adopted in the Master Plan.
d. Sign Regulations: As provided for in this LCP and as may be supplemented by an
approved Sign Program.
e. Height Regulations: As indicated on the Height Regulations Exhibit #4 and Chapter
V-D, herein.
f. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking in the Parks and Recreation category for all
uses as provided for in Chapter V.H, herein.
5. Open Space: The regulation of uses and activities designated as Open Space on the Land Use
District Exhibit #3, within the Midbayfront shall be as described in Chapter VI, Environmen-
tal Management Program.
6. Public - Quasi-Public:
Y/c2 J:l
(09/23/92)
VII-I?
a. Purpose and Intent: These regulations are intended to provide for the regulation of
uses and activities designated as Public - Quasi-Public on the Land Use District,
Exhibit #3, within the Midbayfront subarea.
b. Land Use Regulations:
I) Permitted Uses:
a) Landscaped Parking;
b) Open Space & Trail facilities;
c) Tennis Courts;
d) Electric Transmission towers;
e) Parks and Recreation;
f) Entry Monumentation; and,
g) Transit and other public transportation facilities.
2) Conditionally Permitted Uses: Parking facilities to meet the off-street parking
requirements of uses other than those permitted in this land use district and
the Parks and Recreation land use district.
7. Water
a. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of these regulations is to provide for those uses and
activities designated on the Land Use Districts Exhibit #3, for the Midbayfront
subarea.
b. Permitted Uses:
I) Man-made lakes, ponds, swimming lagoon, and water features;
2) Public park and recreational uses as defined in this Chapter, Section B4.
3) Businesses to serve the public access and use of man-made water features
such as, docks, boat rental and maintenance facilities, and other similar uses.
C. Industrial Subarea
The following special conditions shall apply to the specified sites within Subarea 2 - Industrial
Subarea.
1. Special Condition "C"
Specific development plans for the development of property located south of Lagoon Drive
("F" Street) and west of the SDG&E ROW shall be subject to Design Review Committee
review and Redevelopment Agency approval based on the following guidelines:
a.
Building setbacks shall be:
((J}I23/92)
VII-IS
g/J-))
1) For buildings 44 feet or less in height: as specified in Chapter V. I
2) For buildings 44 to 95 feet in height:
a) from Lagoon Drive: 200 feet
b) from USF&WS property (F&G Street Marsh): 200 feet
. c) from SDG&E ROW: 50 feet
b. Building FAR
A maximum FAR of 0.75 (including SDG&E landscaped parking area bonus) on the
subject site is allowed with one (1) new building permitted on such site to exceed the
44 foot height limit, provided that (i) a reduction in the total gross square footage of
structures presently located on the Rohr campus south of the subject site is effected
through the demolition or removal of such existing structures selected by Rohr
totalling 125,000 square feet (which is commensurate with the additional allowed
FAR on the subject site), (ii) such demolition or removal is completed within one (1)
year following occupancy of such new building, (iii) the footprint of such new
building does not exceed five percent (5%) of the total area of the subject site
(excluding the area encompassed within that portion of the SDG&E right-of-way
adjacent to the subject site), and (iv) the setbacks on the subject site specified above
are met.
c. Development plans shall include a Comprehensive Landscaping Plan which indicates
enhanced landscaping at the project edges and within the SDG&E landscaped parking
area.
d. Pedestrian or other off-street circulation connections to adjacent industrial and
business park uses shall be provided.
e. Project shall comply with all City-wide threshold standards for infrastructure
improvements and public services; specifically, associated traffic impacts will be
mitigated to a Level-of-Service "D" or better at the Bay Boulevardl"E" StreetlI-5
interchange.
f. All buildings on-site shall reflect a common, high quality architectural design and
construction standard.
2. Special Condition "F"
Specific development plans for the development of property located at the northeast and
southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and "J" Street shall be subject to Design Review
Committee recommendation and Agency approval based on the following guidelines:
g>.;2/tj
(W/23/92)
VII-19
a. Building setbacks shall be:
Parcel 2 Parcels 3/4
(Northeast (Southeast
Corner) Corner)
1) "J" Street (to maintain
view corridor) 50 ft. 30 ft. *
2) Bay Boulevard 30 ft. 30 ft.
3) Adjacent to 1-5 Freeway 50 ft. 25 ft.
4) From intersection of
"J" Street and Bay
Boulevard (measured
perpendicular to an-
gular corner property
line) 60 ft. 60 ft.
* so ft. setback required for construction exceeding a building height of 28 feet.
b. Maximum building height shall be 45 feet.
c. Architectural features such as a tower, with floor areas not exceeding 10% of the
ground floor area, may exceed the 45 ft. height limit by 15 ft. (Note: For calcula-
tion of the tower area, land over the drainage channel between Lots 3 and 4 and on
Lot 2 shall be included in ground floor calculations to the extent the second floor
spans the channel.) One architectural tower shall be allowed on Parcel 2 and one on
the combined Parcels 3/4.
d. Landscaping of the site shall be 15 - 20% of the total lot area.
e. Minimum landscaping depths along street frontages shall be 15 ft. in width.
f. Elevations facing the freeway shall be articulated in massing or architectural
treatment.
g. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to connect both sides of "J" Street as well as
linking the projects to the Bayfront development.
h. The maximum FAR for Lot 2 and the adjoining lot to the east ("the channel") when
combined shall be 0.55.
1. The maximum FAR for Lots 3 and 4 (the southeast parcel) when combined with the
adjoining parcel ("the channel") shall be 0.50.
(09/23/92)
VII-20
/
g>~JJ
j. Compact parking stalls shall be permitted with dimensions of7.5 feet wide by 16 feet
in length. The number of these stalls may be authorized to a maximum of 20% of
the required parking.
D. West Fairfield Subarea
Development in this subarea is subject to the regulations of the San Diego County Zoning ordinance
for subarea 24A, General Impact Industrial #16, of the South Bay Community Plan.
E. Inland Parcel Subarea
Development in this Subarea is subject to he I, General Industrial Zone, Chapter 19.46 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, except as modified by the provisions of this Specific Plan.
F. Faivre Street Subarea
Development in this subarea is subject to the regulations of the San Diego County Zoning ordinance
for, General Impact Industrial use, zoned M-54 (FP), manufacturing industrial zone with flood plain
overlay zone, except as modified by this Specific Plan.
G. Palomar/Bay Boulevard Subarea
Development in this subarea is subject to he I-L-P, Limited Industrial Zone with Precise Plan
Modifying District, as described in Chapters 19.44 and 19.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
except as modified by this Specific Plan.
(00123/92)
VII-21
0/;; I ~
Ordinance No. 2532
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING, ON CONDITIONS, THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, RE-
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, RE-ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVER-
RIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the Midbayfront Land, as the term is used herein, shall refer to the shaded
area of land as shown on the attached Exhibit ClI; 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 in Resolution No. 16838 under
the Section entitled "General Plan Amendment" ("Midbayfront GPA"); and,
(2) Local Costal Program Resubmittal No. 8
1. Exhibit A and B omitted.
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 1
g/c2J?
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 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 SP is, for the purposes of this ordinance,
considered the "CEQA Project"; and,
WHEREAS, concurrent with the first reading of this Ordinance, the City Council has
adopted Resolution No. 16838 adopting and approving the General Plan Amendment and the
LCPR No.8; and,
WHEREAS, that portion of the LCPR No.8 constituting the Midbayfront SP is required
to be adopted by ordinance inasmuch as it constitutes, under the ordinances of the City of Chula
Vista, a zoning activity; and,
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report, Midbayfront Local Coastal Program
Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (EIR-89-08), dated July 1991 ("FEIR"), consisting of:
A. 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 Addenduml; and
B. Appendices (A through H) to Environmental Impact Report dated April,
1991
was the FEIR for the Council Alternative, and is also the FEIR for this CEQA Project; and,
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 2
g/d)r{
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
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on February 4, 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 impacts2;
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 and adopt the Midbayfront SP, 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.3
WHEREAS, the CEQA Project is in all respects and concerns substantially identical with,
and does not substantially vary from, the Council Alternative approved on February 4, 1992;
and,
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY, FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, ORDER AND ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
2. The same FEIR has also been previously certified as compliant with CEQA on August 20,
1991.
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 3
g/) /7
CEQA Certification
Section 1. FEIR Adequately Address the CEQA Project.
The City Council finds that the FEIR was written specifically to address the CEQA
Proj ect.
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 CEQA1'; 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 CounciP'
Conditions of Entitlements
Section 4. Conditions of Entitlements; Effective Date.
Upon the occurrence of, and not sooner than, all ofthe 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:
A. A development agreement in a form satisfactory to 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:
a. 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,
3. Guidelines Section 15090.
4. Guidelines 15090.
5. Public Resources Code ("PRC") Section 21082.1(c)(3).
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 4
'6/;;' .20
Park, Lagoon, and Tennis Courts all in the manner therein specified as
amended by the conditions of Resolution No. 16838 and this Ordinance.
b. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
C. 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.
D. Phasing for other Public Benefits
omitted.
E.
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,
F.
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 approved.
G.
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
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 5
,>{ /d ;) )
of the "cultural arts facility" shown on the Midbayfront LUP herein
approved.
H. 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.
1. The owner of the Midbayfront Land performs all acts necessary on said
owners part to cause the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
attached to Resolution No. 16838 as Exhibit F, to be instituted,
maintained and implemented according to its terms.
the Midbayfront Specific Plan herein approved and adopted shall be deemed to be effective and
shall thereupon constitute the zoning for the Bayfront pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
19.07 as "plan effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual specific plan,
under the authority of Section 19.07.030 (A); unless such conditions occur and are deemed by
the City Council in writing to have occurred within 10 years from the date of adoption of this
Ordinance, unless extended, this Ordinance 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 Ordinance, and the approved and certified LCPR No.8, as same
may, from time to time be amended by the Council.
Conditional Entitlements
Section 5. Midbayfront Specific Plan
Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlements, and subject to Coastal
Commission certification of this Ordinance, the Midbayfront Specific Plan shall be as set forth
on the attached Exhibit D as the Specific Plan for the Bayfront Area, under the authority of
Chapter 19.07 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Section 6. Coastal Commission Policies Satisfied
The City Council finds that the policies of the California Coastal Act are satisfied by the
proposed Midbayfront SP in the manner articulated in City Council Resolution No. 16838, in
the section therein entitled "Coastal Commission Policies Satisfied", which section is
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 7. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
A.
Adoption of Findings
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 6
6'dd-:J-
The City Council does hereby approve and incorporate as if set forth full herein,
and make each and everyone of the CEQA Findings attached to Resolution No. 16838 as
Exhibit E ("Findings").
B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
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.
C. 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.
D. 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 to
Resolution No. 16838 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.
E. 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 to
Resolution No. 16838 as 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 8. Submission to Commission
A. The City Council hereby certifies, after a duly called and duly noticed public
hearing, that the Midbayfront SP, as an intregal part of the LCPR No.8, is intended to be
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 7
'd'" c2c2 'J
/
carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act of 1976.~1
B. The City Council finds that the Midbayfront SP, as an intregal part of LCPR
No.8, complies with the guidelines established by the Coastal Commission, and contains
materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review.
C. After a duly called and noticed public hearing, the City does hereby submit
the Midbayfront SP, as part of the LCPR No.8, 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 Ordinance and
the Midbayfront SP, along with the LCRP No.8, to the Coastal Commission at his earliest
possible convenience.
Section 9. Invalidity; Automatic revocation
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that
in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this ordinance shall be deemed to
be automatically revoked and of no force and effect ab initio.
Section 10. Repeal of Municipal Code Section 19.07.035.
Section 19.07.035 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, word
for word, as set forth in the attached Exhibit G.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
A
Presented by:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
6. Public Resources Code Sections 30510 and 30000.
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 8
;;Y, d.-:l Y
Exhibit List
to Ordinance
Exhibit A: omitted
Exhibit B: omitted
Exhibit C: Area 1 on Diagram of Midbayfront Land (not repeated for Council package. Please
use Exhibit C to Resolution No. 16838)
Exhibit E: omitted
Exhibit F: omitted
Exhibit G: Midbayfront Specific Plan (not repeated for Council Package. See attachment to
Al13.)
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
. Page 9
B,~a5
STRIKE-OUT UNDERLINE REQUESTED
AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 2532, SECTION 4
CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENTS; EFFECTIVE DATE;
AND TO RESOLUTION NO. 16838, SECTION 4;
CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENTS; EFFECTIVE DATE
Ordinance No. 2532
Section 4. Conditions of Entitlements; 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:
A. A development agreement in a form satisfactory to
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:
a. 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, €11'1:~lu'ai--hrt:1l
Fae:i:H:~y,
3. Guidelines Section 15090.
4. Guidelines 15090.
5. Public Resources Code ("PRC") Section 2l082.l(c)(3).
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 4
?J -.2'-5 A
Park, Lagoon, and Tennis Courts all in the manner
therein specified as amended by the conditions of
Resolution No. 16838 and this Ordinance.
b. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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 either approved or waived an implementation
plan assuring the City of the financing, design and
construction of the Cultural Arts Facility.
C. 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
Interpretive Center.
D. Phasing for other Public Benefits
omitted.
E. 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
Ci ty in connection with providing environmental
review and approving the Project; and,
F. 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 approved.
G. 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
mbf3 . wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 5
;8'.. 21." e
of the "cultural arts facility" shown on the
Midbayfront LUP herein approved, provided that such
facility is feasible and is located west of Marina
Parkway.
H.
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.
1.
The owner of the Midbayfront Land performs all acts
necessary on said owners part to cause the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
attached to Resolution No. 16838 as Exhibit F, to
be instituted, maintained and implemented according
to its terms.
mbf3.wp
October 9, 1992
Ord adopting Midbayfront SP
Page 6
5"' 225 C.-
RESOLUTION NO. 16838
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE
MIDBA YFRONT 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 BA YFRONT
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 MmGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE MIDBA YFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITT AL 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 Amendmentl 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
mbf1.Wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 1
?J -- ;l2~
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 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 P1an-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:
A. 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 Addendum2; and
B. 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;
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 2
8/(;2:27
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, 1992,11 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
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on February 4, 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 impacts3;
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 WilIiams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc., or some other competent economist,
evaluating the economic feasibility of the Project.'
WHEREAS, the CEQA Project is in all respects and concerns substantially identical with,
and do not substantially vary from, the Council Alternative approved on February 4, 1992; and,
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 Address the CEQA Project.
1. The same FEIR has also been previously certified as compliant
with CEQA on August 20, 1991.
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPAand LCPR No.8
October 9, 1992 Page 3
25'-;2:1 :5
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 Proj ectY
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 CounciP'
Conditions of Entitlements
Section 4. Conditions of Entitlements; Effective Date.
Upon the occurrence of, and not sooner than, all ofthe 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:
A. A development agreement in a form satisfactory to 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:
a. 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. .
b. Commits the Developer and secures the City that all mitigation
measures approved and adopted by the City for the CEQA Project have
2. Guidelines Section 15090.
3. Guidelines 15090.
4. Public Resources Code ("PRC") Section 21082.1(c)(3).
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 4
S~2d.-1
been or will be satisfied.
B. 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.
C. 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.
C. 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.
D. Phasing for other Public Benefits
omitted.
E. 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,
F. 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 approved.
G. 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
approved.
H. All mitigation measures found by the City to be feasible shall be
implemented, or assurances satisfactory to the City shall have been given
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 5
()/;),]O
that all such mitigation measures will be implemented prior to the issuance
of building permits for any improvements on the project.
1. The owner of the Midbayfront Land performs all acts necessary on said
owners part to cause the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
attached 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.
Conditional Entitlements
Section 5. 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 intensity
of 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
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 6
g'd-3/
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 approximate acreage changes:
Land Use Category
Existing Proposed
( acres) (acres)
Medium Residential
High Residential
Visitor Commercial
Prof. & Admin. Commercial
Resort
Research & Limited Industrial
Parks & Recreation
Open Space
Circulation Element Streets 16
18
o
9
37
o
8
21
56
o
18
14
15
44
o
40
22
12
C. 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.r
Section 6. Midbayfront Land Use Plan
Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlements, 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. Midbayfront Specific Plan
Upon the occurrence of the Conditions of Entitlement, and subject to Coastal Commission
certification, the City Council approves the Midbayfront Specific Plan in the form enacted by
Ordinance No. 2532, introduced on October 13, 1992, incorporated herein by reference, as the
specific plan for the Midbayfront LUP.
Section 8. Coastal Commission Policies Satisfied
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 7
~~d-]d
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 Plan designates 48 acres
of public and quasi-public, and parks and recreation adjacent to the bay and nature preserve.
Implementation of the Midbayfront LUP will assure that public access and recreational
opportunities will 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.
B. 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 to 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 Dis-
trict 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.
C. 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 wetland 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,
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 8
~r,-)3}
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.
D. 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, dredging, or filling of wetlands.
E. 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.
F. 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 interpretive
sign age. Public 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 setbacks are required adjacent
to the "F-G" Street Marsh.
G. 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.
H. Hazard Areas
The Coastal Act policy requiring new development to minimize risks in areas of
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 9
S-~d-Ji
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 conditions related to possible liquefaction.
I. Forestry and Soil Resources
The Coastal Act policy of preserving forestry and soil resources is not applicable
to the Bayfront area.
J. 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 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 Inter-
pretive 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.
K. 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 freeway 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. Landscap-
ing 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.
L. 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
mbfl. wp
October 9,
Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
1992 Page 10
.r-
.,.\ .
g'/""-->
serve future development as permitted by this LCP.
M. 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 Program, and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
A. Adoption of Findings
The City Council does hereby approve and incorporate as if set forth full herein,
and make each and everyone of the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit E ("Findings").
B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
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.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. Statement of Overriding Considerations
mbfl.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 11
X /cJ.- } ?
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)'
B. 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.
C. 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 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 anyone 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.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone Bruce M. Boogaard
Community Development Director City Attorney
5. Public Resources Code sections 30510 and 30000.
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 12
g"c2];
Exhibit List
to Resolution
Exhibit A: General Plan Land Use Diagram Old Land Use Categories
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Diagram New Land Use Categories
Exhibit C: Area I on Diagram of Midbayfront Land
Exhibit D: Midbayfront Land Use Plan (not repeated for Council Package. See attachment to
AI13.)
Exhibit E: CEQA Findings. (not repeated for Council package. See attachement to A1l3.)
Exhibit F: Mitigation and Monitoring Program (not repeated for Council package. See
attachement to A 113.)
mbf1.wp Resolution Approving Midbayfront GPA and LCPR No. 8
October 9, 1992 Page 13
?/,;2] )S'
-
--
IL__
,", ~ ..
(
.
.
I
.
.
I
r
,
.. -.... ~~
... - ... - ....
... ... ...~. --..
.... -.-
... .........
.. - ~ ... .'
..... .... ~...... M.
_ _ M, _
... -,.....
.' .
SWEETWATER MARSH
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
-
.-""
CSt
. . ~ ~ -
SAN DIEGO SA Y
..
Q.
"
.',~
"It
"tl
ell
..,
~
ell
f""l[
.
Ch(J1. I
8hO~ "';"'.
Cefl~~flq
LEGEND
n
EXHIBIT "A"
1lBSlDBNTlAL
l1li MIdium 6-11 du/ac
INDUSTRIAL
SPBCIAL PUN ARM
1777/1 Rtstarrh 4< Umiltd Manlifacturin; r:"':"'?s..,.".",,, MI1I'{h NadolUll
~ LiO..;:I WU4lV' R(/u"
COMMEltCIAL
PUBUC & OPBN SPACB
::::. Yuito, fill Perla . R""aIlD.
bd I'IvlmialUll 4< NiminUtratl., 0 Optll Spec,
-~.
[!]
!
..
noleeT TIne )t(illmQ) }J:1L/,f>\. )f)ir:IT:R @ J@I~ . 2"'- ,:02 J ~V~:.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM .~!~~
01Y Of
P L It. N N , N r. n w p " D T U V J\l T ~I n A VJCrA
.veLle :
wOlIl<<S i
CCH1[fl:
l.
r ".; I
, ..l..i
I
1
~_...L..- .
'1
SWEETWATER MARSH
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
- REFIJGE
.........................
..........................
...........................
............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
..............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
............................
SAN DIEGO BAY
............................
............................
............................
............................
..............................
...........................
t:
.
.............. ..
--...
J. .-. .J
"-n. n
. ,
. ,
GPA BOUNDARY
fin
,-,
,to
L\ s
.' .
...# .
~...,...
.
.
it i
EXHIBIT
LEGEND"
RESIDENTIAL
WHigTs 18.274ul"
COMMERCIAL
PUBUC" OPEN SPACB
[8 Parla & R.er.aJiD4
D Op.4 Space
. .' Vi .
:.:.: l$Uor
SPECIAL PUN AREA
F: ~ sw<<tw4ltr Mw NaJiDMl WUdIif. Rt/ug,
kd Pro/.wMl & MmiIlist~v,
J::: : : ~ RISOn
.,
t
-- ;'-
,. .::~::::: .
-4-. .
I
; --:-'.
...J UI'U~.
-~~';aJOO~ ,."
. ;~~
c "
'.'.
.-
.
.
.
"B"
PROJECTTTTU JRillTIIQ)J8i1. WW~(Q)~~ Y/;J.'-I!J~~'1:::.
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM .d-:::::;:::
rl
~
l' T. ANN T I'll r.
nl1.PAlITUl1.NT
,.....,Of
CHI II A V1<;TA
, \ ~ ((Q ----1~ \
0----..--'
-------- ~ ~ !
. ~ ,..--
..-\~ ~,,-
I
~
\
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
'-
/
~
.,
,
<1-""-
_...........""
~'~'
& -~ ...-----.,\,^,
- ~:;.--- .
~ . ~
. - P(2.0PO?~D
. ,~e. E'LAN 1 LOCATOR
NORTH (PC.M "'12-09) MID-BAY~RON
'z{ ~ ,).
-- ".
J;::A k,-6d C- .
ATIACHMENT 1
BEFORE THE CmJLA VISTA
CITY COUNCIL
October 13, 1992
RE: Proposed Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment;
"Subcommittee Recommendation"
(Alternative 8, with minor modifications)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
INTRODUCTION
The original Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared on this project addressed the
potential environmental effects of a proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal,
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 Alternative 8 in the recirculated DEIR. (July, 1991)
After recirculation of the DEIR 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 Redevelopment Agency
("decisionmakers") on August 20, 1991. After hearing public testimony, the Council closed the
public hearing, certified the EIR as adequate and complete under the California Environmental
Quality 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 environmental and planning issues which were associated with
Alternative 8.
1 In addition to a new project description, Chula Vista Investors also submitted new
geotechnical and hydrology 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 Sutter Sensible Plannin!!. 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 Subcommittee
of 11 voting members held 15 public meetings on the issue of formulating a Concept Plan for
the Midbayfront.
Page 1
'6~ c2lJ-
The Subcommittee returned to the City Council with a project similar to Alternative 8. That
project is referred to as the "Subcommittee Alternative." After reviewing the EIR 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 Subcommittee Alternative. Consequently,
the Council determined that with the exception of the preparation of an addendum 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, certified 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 directed 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.
II.
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 to 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 will be followed when subsequent activities such as redevelopment plan
amendments and site specific construction are contemplated.
The LCP Resubmittal and corresponding General Plan Amendment incorporates the concept plan
for Subcommittee Alternative, proposing 1000 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
[)/ dl/)
square feet which includes athletic facilitie~ artd a. conference center. A cultural arts facility on
approximately 3 acres, approximately 34 acres of parks, and two lagoons-one 8 to 10 acres and
one 3 acres--are also part of the proposed plan.
The 8 to lO-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 aesthetic amenity.
The proposed Project includes a combination of high- to low-rise structures, 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 structures, while the northern area would consist mostly
of two and four-story structures, with two high-rise residential towers.
Specifically, the discretionary actions taken by the decision makers in approving this Project are:
1. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation
Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element and Bayfront Plan.
2. Approval of the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, inclusing Land Use Plan and
Specific Plan.
ill.
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;
2. All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the planning consultant, the environmental consultant, and the City;
3. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in
connection with the EIR on proposed Project;
4. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public
hearings held by the City and Redevelopment Agency;
5. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and
public hearings; and
6. Matter of common knowledge to the City, which it considers, including but not
limited to, the following:
a. Chula Vista General Plan(update)-201O;
b. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan;
Page 3
g/c11!
c. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance;
d. Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance
e. Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Specific Plan;
f. Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan;
g. City of National City General Plan;
h. National City Local Coastal Program;
i. San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan;
j. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Interim Final Permit, No. 88-267-RH
IV.
TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS 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 ilY2iQ or substantially
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 another 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 declares 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 "avoid[ed] Q! 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
J/J-L/5
Moreover, although Section 15091, r~, ,literallY, does not require fmdings to address
environmental effects that an ErR identifies as mereiy "DOtentially significant," these fmdings
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency that a
project shall not be approved if it would result in a significant environmental impact if it is
feasible to avoid or substantially 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.
V.
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded 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 parties comply with the
feasible mitigation measures identified below. That program is described in the document
entitled, Local Coastal Program Alternative SA Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Chula
Vista. The minor modifications made to the Project as a result of the review by the Bayfront
Planning Subcommittee QQ not necessitate any significant changes to Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan (MMP).
Page 5
g--'d-i6
VII.
SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identified a number of significant or potentially significant environmental effects
(or "impacts") that the implementation of the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal 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 geology, soils, hydrology and water quality, visual/aesthetics and the
community character, air quality, biological resources, land 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 nearby region that are of greater height or intensity than currently allowed.
In order to build or redevelop, these properties would be subject to CEQA, probably requiring
an ErR for review of proposed plans. Thus, a mechanism exists to check and limit cumulative
impacts; however, the potential exists for development and/or redevelopment at a greater scale
than is presently allowed.
The 15+ projects proposed or approved for the South Bay and 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 Enhancement Plan (not adopted to date)
addresses biological resources of the South Bay region and 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 Sil!nificant Effects
Page 6
2"/').17
The following environmental effects, whicq \Vou19 b~ significant or potentially 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.
Detailed plans not available for on- and off-site water and sewer pipelines [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-9; Volume I, p.4-6]
Ground settlement due to consolidation of compressible bay d~sits and artificial fill
soils [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-10; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Flooding of low lying areas [FEIR, Volume II, 3-14 through 3-20; Volume I, p 4-6]
Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista design storm flow and gravity pipe requirements
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Adequate data regarding quantity 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 co-generation
plant impacts [FEIR , Volume II, p.3-52 through 3-54; Volume 1 p. 4-11]
Vehicular emissions would contribute incrementally to a regionally significant air quality
impact [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-51 through 3-55; Volume I, p.4-l2]
Construction dust and idling trucks could result in unacceptable air quality effects [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Construction noise could reach unacceptable levels [FEIR, Volume II, 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 [FEIR, Volume II, 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 wetland wildlife and vegetation [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-76
through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Eelgrass habitats and mudflat 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 [FEIR, Volume II, 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 [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-88 through 3-
115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Page 7
?;/ ).L(%'
Indirect effects on California Least Tern including water quality, degradation, nest site
predation, disruption from humans and pets, and altering of the predatory regime [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Placement of drainage pipes and resultant increased freshwater inputs and sedimentation
could severely affect eelgrass and mudflats marine resources [FEIR, Volume II, 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. 4-13]
Site grading may result in impacts to paleontological resources [FEIR, 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 [FEIR, 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
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18]
Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users [FEIR, Volume II, 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 [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-158 through 3-163; Volume I, 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 I, p. 4-21]
Proposed Project would result in increased fire inspection workload [FEIR, Volume II,
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 [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I,
p. 4-22]
Page 8
}5/.J-'1i
Incremental contribution to regionally significant demand on water resources [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-165; Volume t, 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 transportation costs [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162
through 3-167; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
Sil!nificant 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 displacement, liquefaction,
tsunamis, and earthquake induced-flooding [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6 through 3-11;
Volume 1, 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
[FElR, Volume II, 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 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and. establishments along
Bay Boulevard [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-31 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Creation of visually dominant urban landscape from areas within Chula Vista and 1-5 are
incompatible with the waterfront image identity of Chula Vista [FEIR, Volume II, p.
3-34 through 3-42; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-10]
Construction and Project operations would create contaiminants that would degrade water
quality [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-79 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13]
Concept plan would result in shade/shadow impacts to park and open space areas [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-150 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]
Page 9
'?{ /J-.5 D
The alteration of predator/competition/prey regimes would adversely impact biological
resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-91 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Loss of raptor habitat [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Proximity of development to extensive wetland would result in vector impacts [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-101 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The development would create predator enhancement effects to the Light-footed Clapper
Rail and the Belding's Savannah Sparrow which are federal and state listed endangered
species respectively [FEIR, 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 through 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 [FEIR, Volume II, 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 [FEIR, Volume II, 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 Broadway/"E" 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 [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at 1-5 South bound Ramp/"E" 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 determined that the impacts
are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations. The sub-
Page 10
~"d5)
sections below will define each of the above-described impact issues in detail, setting forth either
the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to
substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures proved to
be infeasible due to specific economic, social or other consideration.
A. GEOWGY/SOILS/GROUNDWATER
Significant effect: Seismic hazards/risk exists, including ground shaking, surface
displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-induce flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6
through 3-7; Volume I, 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 FEIR and restated below, additional
study is necessary 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 [FEIR, 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]
1. 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.
2. 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 in the Proj ect 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
Page 11
'? ,,). ,C: J-.-
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 table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto eXlstmg
compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils will require subgrade
modification pursuant to accepted engineering standards 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 -construction differential settlements,
depending upon the type of improvements they are 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.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the lO-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 City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to Project approval.
7. 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 accelerations.
Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required
where appropriate as part of the Project design.
8. The embankment separating the IO-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced
storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this EIR) or earthquake-
induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment
must be made prior to detailed project approval to evaluate stability of the
embankment during these conditions and the likelihood of these hazards. Design
Page 12
(f /' J.:{3
to be defined prior to detailed 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.
* * *
Significant Effect: Potential foundation design and construction difficulties associated
with the construction of foundations at or near the groundwater table could occur [FEIR, Volume
II,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 necessary at the Project level 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 II, p. 3-7 through 3-II; 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]
I. 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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 I3
g/ ;LSJj
structural improvements. Soil improvement may 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 table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate the potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto eXlsbng
compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils 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-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are 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.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the lO-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 City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to Project approval.
7. Geotechnical studies prepared prior to detailed project approval and included in
the environmental analysis for the Project must also address the impact of
foundation location near or below the groundwater table, and recommendations
shall be made which mitigate both construction-period difficulties and uplift
pressures that may affect foundation elements and subterranean parking floor
slabs extending below the transient groundwater level. Construction-periodimitigation must require temporary 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 structural foundations to restrain slabs.
* * *
Page 14
,//
<;t,-;2 !J}7
Potentially Significant Effect: Ground settlement could occur due to the consolidation
of the compressible estuarinelfluvial (bay) deposits and artificial fill soils on site [FEIR, Volume
II, 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 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 through 3-10]
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 compaction, and/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 potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be defined at the Project level may include designs such
as deep foundations or mat foundations, or other methods acceptable to the
Department of Public Works.
5. 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-
Page 15
g/)Sb
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 flils 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 to be completed at the Project level
must address post-construction settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the
specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer)
for the 100acre 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 City in accordance with approved engineering
standards, prior to detailed project approval.
7. 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 accelerations.
Measures are technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be required
where appropriate as part of the detailed project design.
8. The embankment separating the lO-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
has tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced
storm waves (discussed in the Hydrology Section of this EIR) 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 likelihood 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 II, 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 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
If/d~?
1. When detailed development plans for the Project are proposed, detailed grading
and drainage plans must be pteparedin 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.
2. 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 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.
B. HYDROLOGY/WATER OUALITY
Significant Effect: Flooding on-site from storm drain overflow [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-
14 through 3-15; Volume I, p. 4-6]
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]
1. 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.
2. 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 video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
Page 17
%'.)~7
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion
must be completed prior to Project approval and included in the environmental
analysis for the Project.
4. The storm drain system will be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
.. .. ..
Significant Effect: Erosion from coastal or inland flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14;
Volume 1, p. 4-6]
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 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
11, p. 3-22; Volume I, pA-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, 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 II, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Erosion control recommendations developed during site-specific hydrological
studies must be adopted as part of the Project approval. These erosion control
recommendations must include coastal erosion of embankments, 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
outlets.
4. The embankment separating the lO-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay
is to be constructed as a soil berm extending up to elevation + 11 feet. The
bayward slope may be subject to shoreline erosion. Likewise, the landward slope
may be subject to erosion from inland flooding. Mitigation measures which may
include a rock revetment to minimize erosion or other suitable design, must be
Page 18
6/;25/
,
analyzed during the environmental review on the Project and adopted as a
condition of Project approval.
* * *
Significant Effect: Siltation and chemical contamination/ degradation of water quality
from surface runoff (pesticides, fertilizers, oil grease, etc.). [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through
3-16; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated 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 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
applicants through these findings. {FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
I. 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 portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. 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 video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. 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.
4. The detention basin has been designed with a minimum I-foot freeboard base on
a lOO-year/6-hour storm event. Additionally, a dip in "P" Street creates a
spillway for excess waters, which would then encroach on "F" Street as the water
travels over the embankment and into the "P" and "G" Street Marsh [John
Goddard, pers 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 "P"
Street or causing damage to the downstream embankment to the satisfaction of the
Department of Public Works.
'If> c7 (; 0
Page 19
5. The proposed design of the detention basin makes 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 constructed in accordance with the County Design and Procedure Manual
[rev. October 1985] which outlines spillway design for small dams (p. 11-13).
The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable County of San Diego
regulations. Compliance with these regulations will be verified by the City of
Chula Vista Engineer.
6. Traps for contaminant control must be approved by the City Engineering
Department 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 [FErR, Volume II, 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]
1. 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 portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. 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 video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. 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
;?-' )t /
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 through 3-22]
1. 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 portion of the site in order to provide no
less than a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. 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 video camera) shall be
provided. Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy
season.
3. 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.
4. The storm drain system, must be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Limited data regarding quantity and quality of groundwater
for the lagoons. [FEIR, Volume II, 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.
1. 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).).
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-21]
C. VISUAL AESTHETICS! COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Page 21
;:?/;) t>,;L
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 [FErR, Volume II, p. 3-29, 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7
through 4-8]
Finding: The FEIR described mitigation measures that required a redesign of the
proposed Project. No other mitigation measures were identified that would reduce 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 exceeding 12 stories, and scaled
down development east of the marsh. Redesign of Concept Plan Alternative 8 (beyond the
minor modifications proposed by the Bayfront Planning Committee) 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
establishments along Bay Boulevard. [FErR, Volume II, p. 3-31, 3-39; Volume I, p. 4-8]
Finding: The FErR 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 environmental effects remain significant. [FErR, Volume II, 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. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-34 through 3-35; Volume I, p. 4-9
through 4- 10].
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 incorporated 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
g'/d-b}
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. [FErR, Volume II, p. 3-40 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7
through 4-10] 'I
I. The design of the Project must establish landmarks on the site which would be
visible from "E" Street. The design of the Project must also establish a design
pattern or sequence north of the freeway and continue this design element on the
site. The Project must use compatible streetscapes along "E" Street on both sides
of the freeway to create a visual connection between the 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The applicant 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.
5. 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 patterns, and by building siting.
D. CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Less-than-Significant Effect: The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential
agricultural land. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-44; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Finding: The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse Project effects in the area of
conversion of agricultural lands. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-45; Volume I, p. 4-11]
E. AIR OUALITY
Potentially Significant Effect: Development of a co-generation 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
2r';2jpt(
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: 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.
1. Mitigation is required by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) before Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is issued.
Mitigation may include concurrent reductions in NOx, ROO 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 II p. 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 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.
Various transportation control measures (TCMs) 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 accepted engineering
methods.
The implementation of these various TCMs must be coordinated through a transportation
management agency (TMA) dealing specifically with bayfront traffic demand
Page 24
/
2f? t,~
management. The applicant will be requir~ to form such a TMA, including funding of
a TMA coordinator and mandatory tenant participation, to the satisfaction of the City.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54 through 3-55]
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction activities would create dust that contributes
to violations of inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards, and multiple construction-related trucks
blocking traffic or idling near occupied receptor sites could create unacceptable air quality
effects. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-50; Volume I, p. 4-11]
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. 3-54]
1. Dust control measures required by the APCD will be implemented during
construction. Such measures must include maintaining adequate soil moisture as
well as removing any soil spillage onto traveled roadways through site
housekeeping procedures.
2. 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. Construction will be limited to operations during daytime periods of better
dispersion that minimizes localized 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 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.
I. Construction noise intrusion will be limited by conditions on construction permits
to weekday 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
Page 25
';5> ,) ??
existing residential, park, or other noise sensitive uses to comply with General
Plan noise standards and policies. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-58, 3-60]
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to 1-5
(800 feet) and to the co-generation plant exhaust stacks (500 feet) has the potential to result in
significant noise effects [FEIR, Volume II, 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 EIR.
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.
I. Child care center noise exposure must be minimized by establishing a noise
performance standard 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 eastern 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. 4-13]. 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. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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,
Page 26
<;5/.J-& 7
. 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&RslOrdinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. 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 discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. 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 wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. Long-term silt removal 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.
5. Further studies during the project level environmental analysis are required to
evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagoon. If these
studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution because of contaminants or
reduced 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 further defined and environmental review will
be completed at the Project level.
6. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
Page 27
~/<} &ct
mudflat 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.
7. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
Project shall 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.
8. All landscape chemical applications (e.g. pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
9. 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 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.
II. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parkIands.
* * *
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. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
Page 28
~/;2.& '1
1. 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 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.
2.
a.
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 USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat
during the period 15 March and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game.
3. 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.
4. 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, 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.
Page 29
%--;2 70
5. 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 must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fmes.
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" Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Plans to achieve these goals, including detailed landscape and buffer design plans
are required to be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
7. 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 Connors [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.
8. 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 checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (Le., silt/grease 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.
9. 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.
10. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
11. 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
<;r/J-7!
and USFWS 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.
12. 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.
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors 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 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.
14. 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
Yener 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.
15. 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.
16. 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" 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 marshland fringing the
"E" Street Marsh, Yener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh 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
6"'/ d- ?d-
Significant Effect: Due to the limited extent of coastal habitats, and the high diversity
and numbers of raptors utilizing this area, the loss of habitat to development is considered an
incremental, but significant effect of the Project. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through 3-100;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that, although there are feasible 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 in 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]
1. 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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
5. 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" & "Gh
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
2{'/ .J- 7 J
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 halProUl'ld"cotrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more
radius). .
6. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall 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 USFWS 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.
7. 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.
8. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors 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 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.
9. 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 wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "FIG" Street Marsh,
2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "FIG" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
* * *
Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed development to the extensive
surrounding wetlands creates significant vector impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-101 through
3-102; Volume I, p. 4-13]
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
25'J.?'-(
vector control plan is available for the project level analysis, a determination of mitigation
effectiveness cannot be determined. Thus, this impact remains significant at this level of
analysis. [FEIR, Volume n, 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: 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 n, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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.
2. All landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
3. 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.
4. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fmes.
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" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
5. 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 Connors [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
6. Revenues generated from the selling, leasing, or operation of the hotels,
residences, and commercial properties associated with the proposed Midbayfront
Page 34
'6/J7S
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 pt:~tuity. These employees would specifically
. '..' ...'::....,.,;.kt'"., ,.',':, .
be responsible for controllIng aVian artd 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 landscapt: plans shall be
required at the Project level of CEQA compliance.
9. 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-
footed Clapper Rail and Belding's Savannah Sparrow, 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 specific 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 EIR 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 environmental analysis will be required for specific
construction Projects. [FEIR, Volume II, 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.
o/d-?t
Page 35
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]
1. 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/RunofflDrainage Management Plan,
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan,
. Project Lighting Plan,
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan, and
. CC&Rs/Ordinancesl Applicable Policies.
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. 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.
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
Page 36
~/ d-?;
achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. 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 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" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
7. 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 Connors [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
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 acres of Marsh and four acres of
Salt Marsh shall 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).
?/J? y'
Page 37
11. 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,
and USFWS 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.
12. 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 f11m glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
project level CEQA analysis.
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which raptor
could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the
wetlands 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.
14. 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 shrub land 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.
15. 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.
16. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
17. 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
~ '/5/d-7~
In addition to the wetland 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 wetland habitl!,ti~me.4!,alfly west of "F/G" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National. Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Vegetation and wildlife within wetlands could be
significantly altered by wide fluctuations in the salinity regimes of the marshlands due to
increased freshwater input from site drainage. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-76 through 3-79; 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
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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.
2. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
3. 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
Page 39
'B"" d- :5 ()
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.
4. 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.
5. 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
radi us)
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The substantial grading, excavating, and dewatering 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 mudflat 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
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final ElR.
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. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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 Wetland Monitoring Plan
. Project Lighting Plan
· Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
Page 40
6/),<6)
. CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be availaple in a completed form for review during the
project level environmentai proCess."
2. 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 discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. 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 wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. 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 suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced 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 further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
5. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
6. 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 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.
Page 41
<,?'/ d- f5:J-
7. 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.
8. Public awareness signs explaining the resource concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parkIands.
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction of the Project would generate considerable
noise and increased human activities for a 20-year period, could increase sediment erosion and
accretion patterns, further generate elevated turbidity in adjacent water, siltation in adjacent
wetlands, potentially release toxins into adjacent wetlands, and elevate predator/scavenger
densities within the vicinity of the development area. [FEIR, Volume n, p. 3-84 through 3-85,
3-105 through 3-106; 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 ElR.
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. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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 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.
2.
a.
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 USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
Page 42
~/d- g J
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat 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.
3. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 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 significantly 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, set 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 II, p. 3-91] 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.
25/.}. fr1
Page 43
"
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. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5. 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 are along the fringes ofVener 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/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
Page 44
d'/c2?rS
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the city prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6. 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 Connors [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.
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. 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)
10. 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,
and USFWS 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.
II. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are
Page 45
? / d-g~
exposed to the wetlands 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.
12. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F" & "Goo
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 mudflats.
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 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 wetland acreage noted above CVI would be responsible for
specifically creating 5.3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent to "FIG" Street Marsh,
2.0 acres of wetland habitat immediately west of "FIG" Street Marsh, and 3.8
acres of wetland habitat within Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge or
within the boundaries of Midbayfront Project.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Effects from development on the California Least Tern
could occur including indirect effects of water quality degradation, nest site predation, disruption
from humans and pets, and altering of the predator regime. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-104;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Page 46
g> ,}-'67
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 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. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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/RunofflDrainage Management Plan
. Mudflat and Wetland 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.
2. 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 discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple chambered.
3. 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 wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must be done to ensure that maintenance
is occurring as required.
4. 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 suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced 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 further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
5.
a.
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
Page 47
Y-eJeg-'
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 actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat 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.
6. 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 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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
7. 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.
8. All landscape chemical applications (e.g., pesticides and herbicides) must be done
by a state-certified landscape contractor.
9. 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.
10. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parkiands/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
g-/ cJ2';
A plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the
issuance of building permits.
11. 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. A plan
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of
building permits.
12. 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 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 "P" & "G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the"P" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Plans
to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits.
13. 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 Connors [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 permits.
14. 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. Pish and Wildlife
Service, Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Punding 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 reclromed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
;S/d'70
Page 49
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).
17. 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,
and USFWS 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
18. 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.
19. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which raptor
could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the
wetlands 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.
20. 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 compliance.
21. 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.
22. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited
activities must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
Page 50
'%/)-9;
23. 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" Street Marsh and Sweetwater
Marsh to aid in off-setting impactsitsSOCiated 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 marshland fringing the
"E" Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh 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 the issuance of building permits and will be verified for consistency with
current plans/programs of the USFWS.
Potentially Significant Effect: Placement of site drainage pipes and resultant increased
freshwater inputs and sediments accretion and erosion could severely affect the eelgrass and
mudflats marine resources. [FErR, Volume II, 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
applicant through these findings. [FErR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. 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 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.
2.
a.
The "direct to bay" drains shall be designed and constructed with effective
energy dissipators and flow diffusers which eliminate erosion or accretion
of the mudflats and ensure the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds. 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 mudflats and eelgrass beds shall be
monitored in accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands
Monitoring Plan (Measure 1) for a period of five years and any additional
Page 51
l5'c2/d-
corrective measures required must be implemented an any additional
impacted areas resulting shall be replaced by the creation of a similar area
from the uplands of the "D" Street Fill or Gunpowder Point.
b. 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 must be located at a minimum depth of -
10 ft. MLLW and shall be buried in the mudflat to a point below the
existing eelgrass beds. Drain placement shall seek to impact the least
amount of eelgrass beds. Drain placement shall seek to impact the least
amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either combining the drains or
avoiding dense eelgrass beds. Surface contours must be restored and any
construction impacts to eelgrass must be mitigated by replanting over the
pipeline.
3. 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 suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced 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 further
defined and environmental review will be completed at the Project level.
4.
a.
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 USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat 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.
5. 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
Page 52
Z>')- 5 ;;
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, dewatering water must be pumped across the
mudflat 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.
6. 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 checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as the 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 must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
the issuance of building permits will be verified for consistency with current
programs of the USFWS.
7. 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.
8. 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,
and USFWS 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.
9. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
H. ARCHAEOWGYIHISTORY/PALEONTOWGY
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.
a. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to archaeological review at the
project level of environmental review. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-124; Volume I,
p. 4-13].
Page 53
Y" ,1; r
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Impacts to 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, pA-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 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. A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-construction meeting to consult with
the grading and excavation contractors.
b. 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. (The areal
distribution of these deposits is summarized on the geological map of Kennedy
and Tan, 1977.)
c. In the event that well-preserved fossils are 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.
d. Fossil remains collected during any salvage program will be cleaned, sorted, and
catalogued an then, with the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific
institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
I. 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 certified 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
/'
Y/)J~
has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social,
and other considerations.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The residential 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 parking, noise from traffic and visitors, and night-lighting
could create significant incompatibility impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14
through 4-15].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects 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. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14 through 4-15].
a. Insulation, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), shall be
required in all exterior and interior residential walls.
b.. Units must be designed such that insulation between units occurs, in walls,
ceilings, and floors, to reduce potential noise impacts.
c. Residential window treatments shall be designed to reflect some light.
d. 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 between the National Wildlife Refuge and the proposed development site.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14].
Finding: The FEIR concluded that only Project redesign to lower building heights which
are close to the Refuge boundaries (to no greater than 30 feet along the perimeter of the site),
and decrease intensity (to a level similar to the intensity allowed under the certified LCP) would
mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138; Volume I, p.
4-14]. 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.
* * *
lS'cZ<Jt
Page 55
~
Significant Effect: The proposed Subcommittee Alternative s embodied in the LCP
Resubmittal and GPA documents are not consistent with the certified LCP, General Plan (2010),
and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required 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 fmdings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I, p. 4-15].
1. 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. COMMUNITY SOCIAL FACTORS
The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse effects in the area of Community Social
Factors. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-142 through 3-143; Volume I, p. 4-15 through 4-16].
K. COMMUNITY TAX STRUCTURE
The FEIR does not cite any significant effects in the area of Community Tax Structure.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-144; Volume I, p. 4-16].
L. PARKS. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
Potentially Significant Effect: Public access opportunities from 1-5 and areas to the east
may be constrained. [FEIR, Volume II, 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
which will substantially avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in
the EIR.
Mitigation Measure: 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.
a. The applicant shall submit an access plan, showing designated public parking
areas, access routes to public areas, and access routes and signage from the east
side of 1-5 across the "E" Street bridge at the project level of environmental
review. An access plan to achieve these goals must be reviewed and approved
Page 56
6/c27'?
by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. [FErR, Volume II, p. 3-
151; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19].
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Park development according to the proposed phasing plan
would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the anticipated high
public usage. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148; Volume I, p. 4-18].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 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.
a. The applicant must include all parks development and parking for parks within
the first phase of development. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18].
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan includes a potentially
insufficient amount of parking for park users. [FErR, 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.
a. 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
shadel shadow impacts to park and public open space areas. [FErR, 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
'if'd-? ~
Page 57
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 resources (fossil fuels).
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-158; Volume I, p. 4-20].
Finding: The Final EIR concluded that, cumulative energy resource impacts can 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.
a. Include double-pane glass, provide increased wall and ceiling insulation,
incorporate solar energy opportunities, provide efficient sealing 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 II, 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 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 as a condition of approval or have been made binding on the applicant through
these findings.
a. 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. 3-164; 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. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21].
Page 58
~/ ;;1/
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 have been made binding on the applicant
through these findings.
a. An additional fire inspector will be necessary to handle the additional work load
created by this Project. The City's General Fund will pay for the additional
position. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
* * *
Potentially Significant 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
safety 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 will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: 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. [FElR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-
21]
a. Maximum fire flow shall be 5000 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.
d. 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.
e. A fire alarm/excavation system shall be provided for all
public assembly, and multi-residential occupancies.
f. All Title 1924 California Code of Regulations (State Fire Marshal's Rules and
Regulations) shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise occupancies.
g. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided
with the provision for the turning around of fire apparatus (either a 75 x 24 foot
hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
25/300
Page 59
h. 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 materials.
1. 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 fue 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.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: Solid waste generated from the proposed Project site
would result in an incremental contribution to the limited and declining landfill space in San
Diego County. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160; Volume I, 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.
a. 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]
b. 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 I, 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 II, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Findings: 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.
Page 60
Z/)O(
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.
a. The City Engineering Department must review the plans for consistency with the
City's Thresholds Standards and with the system which the Project will tie into.
Connections which exceed the threshold standards will not be allowed. [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-22]
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts
to water infrastructure. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 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
ElR.
Mitigation Measure: 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. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-
22]
The Sweetwater Authority analysis indicated specific areas where upgrading of water
mains must be completed. These include:
a. A 12 inch main in "F" Street from Broadway to approximately 830 feet west
must be installed.
b. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way
extension westerly must be installed. (This 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.
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The Project would incrementally contribute to a regionally
significant demand on water resources. [FEIR, Volume II, 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 environmental effect as identified in the Pinal
EIR below a level of significance.
((-3D.)
Page 61
Mitigation Measure: 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.
a. The applicant must provide water conservation measures at the project level
design, including elements such as low flow showerheads, low flush toilets, timed
irrigation, drought-tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation (where appropriate) and
reclaimed water lines 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 demonstrates 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 are therefor considered significant and not
mitigated at the plan 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 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]
a. Further testing and verification of well supply must be completed for both lagoons
and included in an EIR at the Project level.
b. Information must be provided to show the proposed well locations and
engineering design of the circulation system.
c. 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 decrease 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 through 4-24]
Page 62
;{/ ]tJ)
Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which could reduce to a less than significant level the school overcrowding impacts. These
measures shall be incorporated into the prpP9sed Project at the pProject level of CEQA
compliance. Additional information is, however', necessary to determine Project level impact
significance and mitigation feasibility. 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.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures may be feasible and shall be
required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on the applicant during the
Project level of CEQA compliance.
a. 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]
b. 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 I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
* * *
Potentially Significant Effect: The location of 1-5 between the Project area and the
schools would prohibit the feasibility 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 has 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.
a. Annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers'
salaries must be funded by the applicant in a manner acceptable to the City.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-24]
* * *
N. TRAFFIC
Significant Effect: Development under Subcommittee Alternative would result 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
t-- 3p(
Page 63
would operate at LOS F (lCU 1.04) 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 to a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/"E" Street
intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated into
the project level design. Additional mitigation measures shall be examined at the Project level
of review and shall be adopted if found to be feasible. The identified impacts 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 at the project level CEQA compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadwayl"E" Street intersection.
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn and 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 (lCU 0.84) 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/"F" Street
intersection. These measures shall be allocated on a fair share basis and be incorporated 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 measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadwayl"F" Street intersection.
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane.
Page 64
,/
:>{..- 30)7
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-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 Subcommittee Alternative generated traffic added to the network, the
Broadway/"H" Street intersection would operate at LOS E (lCU 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
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 Project vicinity, therefore,
remain significant. 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 measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the Project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements 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 Alternative 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.
[FElR, 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) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency
(CalTrans) and not the City Council. Such changes must be approved by CalTrans.
Page 65
3'/3tJb
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.
a. The following improvements are required at the 1-5 Northbound and Southbound
Ramp/"E" Street intersections.
Northbound 1-5 Off-Ramp at "E" Street: Construction of an additional right-turn
only lane along "E" Street east of the ramp.
* * *
Widen the 1-5 northbound off-ramp 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 and two right-
turn lanes.
Widen eastbound Marina Parkway 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 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
Additional mitigation measures not considered in the EIR but required as a condition of
Project approval by the Chula Vista Planning Commission.
Vill.
INFEASmILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES OrnER mAN mE SUBCOMMrnEE
ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21081(B)
The approval of the proposed Project will cause significant unavoidable impacts as 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 instances, rejected the proposed 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 financially feasible as possible, given the amount 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 proposed (Subcommittee Alternative) will
Page 66
go 307
increase the City's property tax base, the City's occupancy tax revenues and the City's sales tax
revenues which are necessary in order to economically enable the project to be developed.
1,.\.
In addition, the City Council 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.Rptr. 727]; see also, Public Resources Code section 21002.) As will be explained below
the decisionmakers conclude that none of the proposed 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 EIR. The
decisionmaker(s) further finds that each independent consideration, standing alone, would be
sufficient to make infeasible the Project alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated
into the project which were identified in the EIR.
Economic considerations that make the alternatives infeasible include a reduction in the level of
employment opportunities which would accompany the proposed Project.
The Redevelopment 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 tax 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 Partnership before the Planning Commission
on December 18, 1991.) For the neighborhood to be well balanced between jobs, housing and
services, 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 trips 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 1-5,
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
'g'---j Ot"
Page 67
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 8, as well as Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would result in the same level of visual
urban dominance, obstruction of bay views, land use, and shade/shadow impacts. The
Subcommittee Alternative lessens the visual impacts although not to a level below significance.
(See testimony of John Moot, Vice Chair, Bayfront Planning Subcommittee, before the Planning
Commission on December 18, 1991.) Only Alternatives 2, 7, 7a or 9 would mitigate these
impacts. However, Alternative 2 would result in significant, unmitigable traffic impacts and
Alternatives 7, 7a and 9 are infeasible due to economic, social, and other considerations as
previously stated.
Alternative 1. No Proiect - No Develo,pment
This alternative would retain the site in its current degraded condition and would not result in
attaining the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Redevelopment
Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan. The No Project alternative would not revitalize
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 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 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 Existine: 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 sufficient 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 reduces the number
of hotel rooms within the Midbayfront area.
Based upon these and other factors, this alternative is determined to be infeasible.
Page 68
2"/]0 ~
Alternative 3. Reduced Density I
This alternative would result in the same level qfbiolqgica1, 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 attract
sufficient retail establishments needed to sustain the development. In addition, the hotel element
provides less economic return which would aid in offseting costs of public infrastructure
development.
Further, the Redevelopment 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 IA
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 attract retail
establishments needed to sustain the development. Likewise, the hotel element is inadequate in
providing a greater economic return to offset public infrastructure 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 attract 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 alternative is determined
to be infeasible.
Alternative 6. Locational Alternatives
None of the alternative locations described in the EIR would accomplish the Project's major goal
of developing the Midbayfront area. This alternative would retain the site in its current
degraded condition and would not result in attaining the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Code, or the General Plan.
S"/3/0
Page 69
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 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 be no managed opportunity for the public
to access the bayfront in this location.
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.
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 locational alternatives are determined to be infeasible.
Alternative 7. Reduced Density 3. Modified Design
This alternative would not create a "viable" community that would attract retail establishments
needed to sustain the development. In addition, this 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.
Alternative 8. Applicant's Reduced Density Proposed LCPR #8
This alternative proposed a reduction in the original project including a decrease 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 residential use that was
proposed at the corner of Marina Parkway and "F" Street has been eliminated, thereby
increasing the public park acreage from 29.8 to 33.8 acres. Alternative 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 reduction also reduced the
traffic impacts associated with the original project.
This alternative would result in a somewhat reduced level of visual urban dominance, obstruction
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 Arts Facility.
This alternative is rejected because it results in the same impacts as the Subcommittee
Alternative without the added social benefit of the Cultural Arts Facility.
Alternative 9. Alternative Developed in Resoonse to Public Comment
Page 70
?{/)J I
This alternative would create a long, narrow lagoon corridor along the northern and western
edges of the Midbayfront Project site adjacent to the National Wildlife Preserve. The technical
feasibility of this lagoon corridor is questipn!lt>le fOJ; the following reasons:
1. A 1400-foot long breakwater to protect against erosion by wave action would be required
to create a saltmarsh habitat along the exposed shoreline;
2. The breakwater would disrupt several acres of mudflat bayward of the lagoon corridor;
3. Installation of a breakwater would almost certainly result in increased wave erosion of
both ends of the breakwater;
4. 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
5. 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 needed to sustain 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 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.
Alternative 10. Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No.8 ffiayfront Subcommittee 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 compromise
could be reached between the differing positions of the developer, the Planning Department, and
the community groups. The Subcommittee Alternative proposes a further reduction from
Alternative 8 to encompass a total of 1610 hotel rooms and a total of lOoo dwelling units. In
addition, plan designation and/or wning 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 relocating the towers just to the east of the
residential lagoon and in their place, substituting low-rise residential adjacent to the buffer areas.
In addition, there have been further reductions in the height of structures located within the core
so that the maximum height permitted would be 22 stories or 229 feet. The site of the proposed
luxury hotel, which was to be located on the west side of Marina Parkway, has now been
designated for the possible location of a Cultural Arts Facility and support retail. With this
modification, the total square footage of the project has been reduced from approximately 3.4
Page 71
'l~J/,)
million square feet down to approximately 3.3 million square feet (Rohr 560,000 square feet is
now considered a separate project). This reduction will also reduce the traffic impacts associated
with the project, although not to a level of insignificance.
This alternative would result in a somewhat reduced level of visual urban dominance, obstruction
of bay views, land use, shade/shadow impacts as compared to the proposed Project, although
not to a level of insignificance.
The decisionmaker(s) finds that this alternative lessens the significant environmental effects as
identified in the final EIR (though not to a level of insignificance). The decisionmaker(s) have
also elected to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to California
Administrative Code Section 15093.
IX.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Chula Vista City Council in approving the
various permits that are the subject of the FEIR, having reviewed and considered the information
contained in the FEIR, and independently judged the information provided in the FEIR, and
having reviewed and considered the public testimony and record, makes the following statement
of Overriding Considerations in support of the Findings and the action of the City Council
approving the Project.
The City Council finds and concludes that the public benefits of the Project outweigh the
identified significant unmitigated impacts set forth in the Findings (pages I to 72). The
decision makers find that the following factors support the approval of the Project despite the
FEIR identified significant environmental impacts and other alleged potential environmental
impacts. Therefore, the City Council sets forth and adopts the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations:
I. The Project will help fulfill attainment of various goals in the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Plan with a use and density that is appropriate for the site.
2. As set forth in the findings, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Project or made binding on the applicant through the adoption of the findings,
which to the extent feasible, reduce impacts below a level of significance.
3. Approval of the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal (Subcommittee Alternative) and
corresponding GP A will result in the following specific economic, social, and
other considerations which the City considers beneficial, including, but not
limited to:
>
A. Careful management of the sensitive, natural resources on site.
Additionally, the Project will allow for controlled public access to natural
areas and parks.
';)/3/'3
Page 72
B. Construction of needed circulation improvements.
C. Construction of neq:ssary service and utility improvements in the
Midbayfront area.
D. Identification of Chula Vista as an important seaside hub on the southern
coastline of California. The destination resort will be equally accessible
to downtown San Diego and to the City of Tijuana.
E. Direct access for the public to public open space including but not limited
to an 8 to 10 acre lagoon, an EducationalJInterpretive Park adjacent to the
wetlands, and a public beach along the lagoon.
F. Possible development of a Cultural Arts Facility that would provide space
for municipal festivals and events.
G. 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.
H. Construction job opportunities as well as permanent jobs in an economy
which is currently lacking job opportunities.
1. Generation of transient occupancy tax, increased sales taxes and tax
increment to the City of Chula Vista through the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency.
(C,IWP51 IRA YFRONTIFINDING 1.TXT][l 0/8/92J
~r JJV
Page 73
ATTACHMENT 2
MIDBAYFRONT LCP RESUBMITTAL NO.8 AMENDMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
Assembly Bill 3180 (AB 3180) was passed by the California State Assembly on August 22, 1988
and subsequently signed into law by the Governor of California. AB 3180 requires 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 Code.
The City of Chula Vista is acting as the lead agency for the Midbayfront 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 are general in nature and are
followed by more detailed, project-specific EIRs which are part 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 environmental 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 Overriding 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, and development intensity in the Midbayfront
planning subarea.
Page 1
-----
g'/] /...-> September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The Subcommittee's Concept Plan for the Midbayfront proposed a mixed use project totalling
approximately 3.3 million square feet of building area. The concept proposes 1000 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. The parks and lagoon in 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 will 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 MONITORING PROCEDURES
The MMP consists of a Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary, fIling requirements, and
reporting and compliance verification. These procedures are outlined below.
Mitil!ation Monitorine: Prol!ram Summary
The Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary provides a comprehensive list of the required
mitigation measures that are 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 Monitoring Program Summary for the Midbayfront LCP
Resubmittai No. 8 Amendment is provided as Table 1.
Mitil!ation Monitorinl! Prol!ram Files
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.
Page 2
:}>J/?
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continuedl
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Summary. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the
refinement or addition of mitigation measures, particularly in this case where project
construction requires a multi-year phasing program. The Planning Director of the City of Chula
Vista, with advise from staff or another City Department, is responsible 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 carrying forward the measures to the
project-level of CEQA compliance for finalization and implementation.
A. GEOLOGY /SOILS/GROUNDW A TER
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 estuarinelfluvial (bay) deposits and the artificial fill soils on-site; (2) grading
impacts for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines; (3) seismic hazards, including ground
shaking, surface displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-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
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are proposed, 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 Department prior to
any grading work.
21~ 3i /
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
2. 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. Each investigation shall contain adequate subsurface 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 sha1l also provide detailed foundation
recommendations, and will be subject to review by the City of Chula Vista Engineering
Department.
3. To provide adequate foundation support for the structure, a1l high-rise structures will
require deep foundations, or some type of mat foundation integrated into subterranean
parking.
4. 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 compaction,
and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-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 geotechnical impact due to compressible soil.
5. 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-construction settlement.
Soil improvement could include partial or total removal, 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 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 post-construction total and differential
settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) currently planned for the lO-acre salt
water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits) is a relatively brittle
material which may require relatively stringent subgrade improvement to ensure acceptable
long-term performance. Subsequent design shall consider other options for this liner,
including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners.
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking, geotechnical
studies must specifically address seismic analysis based on site-specific subsurface data.
Page 4
zr~j /~
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaI No.8 Amendment
(Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
As a ffilmmum, seismic analysis should address seismically-induced slope failure,
liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. Appropriate measures to reduce seismic
risk must be implemented into project design.
8. The embankment separating the IO-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.
9. Geotechnical studies must also address the impact of foundation location near or below the
groundwater table, and suitable recommendations should be provided to mitigate both
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 temporary 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 structural 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 geology/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 geotechnical studies must be submitted for review with all other project level plans
so that the environmental analysis will include these studies. Approval of the studies will occur
prior to the issuance of grading permits. The choice of pond liner for the IO-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 satisfaction of the Engineering,
Building, and Housing Departments prior to issuance of building permits.
'6/ :1 )(
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
B. HYDROWGY/WATER QUALITY
Approval of LCP Resubmitta1 8 and eventual construction of the Subcommittee Alternative
would result in five potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts. These include: (1)
flooding of (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs, compounded by runup from wind-driven waves
(coastal flood hazards); (b) flooding from the Sweetwater River; (c) flooding associated with
exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain facilities on-site; (2) erosion from inland or
coastal flooding; (3) siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality from
surface runoff-pesticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.; (4) inconsistency with City of Chula Vista
standards, specifically related to the design storm flow, and gravity pipe requirements; and (5)
issues regarding quantity and quality of water for both the lO-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 tide 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 outlet protection at the
on-site storm drains discharging directly into San Diego Bay. The existing bay deposits,
located bayward of the two proposed discharge points, are highly susceptible to erosion 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 sediment and chemical pollutants 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 approved by the City Engineering Department
before they may be installed. The City Engineering Department must verify that all EPA,
Page 6
%" 3d.-O
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Con~~oo)
Mitigation Monitoring Program
and any Regional Water Quality Control Board Standards and all other applicable
regulations are met. Grading may not proceed until the standard are met. Proof of
effectiveness of the traps must be demonstrated.
15. The proposed on-site storm drain system must be designed in accordance with City of
Chula Vista Standards and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Any deviation
from these standards must be approved by the City Engineer. In addition, calculations
should be made for the loo-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 amount,
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
Engineering 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 traps 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 the oil and sediment traps, the
desilting basins, storm-drain outlets in the bay, and the detention basin upstream of the F and
G Street Marsh.
Monitoring Schedule
The drainage and hydrology studies must be received with all other project level plans so that
environmental analysis will include those studies. Approval will occur prior to grading for
installation of drainage structures. 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 are graded.
The MCC will be responsible for periodic evaluation of the desilting basins, oil and sediment
traps and erosion control structures at the storm-drain outlets in the bay. 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
7/3;2.)
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaI No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur from development of the proposed c0-
generation plant. An incremental contribution to regional air quality problems would also occur
from vehicular sources. Vehicular emissions added to cogeneration plant emissions would result
in cumulative impacts. Construction activities also result in short-term air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures
17. Mitigation for air quality impacts associated with the co-generation plant required by the
APCD before an Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is issued. Mitigation
would include concurrent reductions in NO" RaG, 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 aimed primarily at employees on the project site, but might also
include site residents and visitors in certain instances. Measures that should 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
The effective implementation of these various TCMs will be significantly enhanced if they
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 construction.
Such measures 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 should
be incorporated into any project construction permits. Trucks must turn off engines while
waiting, or not be allowed to enter the site again. The permits should limit operations to
daytime periods of better dispersion that minimizes localized pollution accumulation.
Page 8
g--- Jdd-
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaI No.8 Amendment
[ Contin~ed]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department must receive notification from the APCD that an
Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate have been issued before they issue the building
permit for the cogeneration facility.
All dust control measures required by the AQMD must be implemented and verified by the
MCC and/or Engineering Department. Periodic checks 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 biweekly,
unannounced during construction and grading. Monitoring will cease upon completion of
grading activities and approval of final grading.
D. NOISE
Two potentially significant impacts were cited:
1. Construction noise could reach 75 to 100 dB at 50 feet from the source; and
2. The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to 1-5 (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 construction 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 silencers; a performance
standard of 45 dB at night and 50 dB by day at 400 feet from the exhaust stack is required
Y" ];2 J
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaJ No.8 Amendment
[Continuedl
Mitigation Monitoring Program
to prevent excessive exhaust noise intrusion. A noise barrier along the eastern play area
boundary to screen out traffic noise must also be incorporated into the project-level design.
Monitoring Agent
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department, via the MCC, is responsible for ensuring that
these measures are implemented. The monitor will check that construction permits, and c0-
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. BIOWGY
Numerous biological resource impacts were cited, including:
· generation of contaminants 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-footed 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
2'<7.2L/
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
. Landscape Design and Management Plan
. Water Quality/RunofflDrainage Management Plan
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
. Project Lighting Plan
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
. CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
23. A "biologically aware" construction monitor shall be required for all phases of grading and
installation of drainage systems. The monitor should be employed through the City and
should report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning or
Community Development Department or the mitigation compliance coordinator (MCC).
The monitor will remain on-site and available for consultation should construction 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 discharges. 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 effective energy
dissipators and flow diffusers which eliminates erosion or accretion of the mudflats and
ensures the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds. An expected loss of mudflat 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 mudflats and eelgrass beds
must be monitored in accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands 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 replaced 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. MLLWand should be buried in the mudflat 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. Surface contours must be restored and any construction impacts to eelgrass
must be mitigated by replanting over the pipeline.
/'
~r J2!7
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal. No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
27. Studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the proposed
lagoons. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution for reasons of
groundwater contaminants or induced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay should be
placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and should 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 rather than directly to the bay.
28. 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 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 mudflat 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.
29. 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 to leave the
construction site. In addition, construction dewatering should be directed into a basin with
a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into a basin. As an
alternative, dewatering water should be pumped across the mudflat into the boat channel
and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid re-suspending bottom silts, but at a
depth of at least 8 feet.
30. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the project
should be of the rapidly biodegradable variety, and registered by the Environmental
Protection Agency for use near wetlands. Further plans required for water quality
management, landscape management, and 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
J5/J~~
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[ Continuedl
Mitigation Monitoring Program
32. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to the City
Landscape Architect for review. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt
and brackish marshes (!-imonium or Carpobrotus species), or those which are known to be
attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators, (Washingtonia or Conaderia),
must be restricted from use. Landscape plans required to be reviewed at the project level.
33. 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 requirements (i.e., silt/grease 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 control and
should possess the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem
predators. Detailed plans are required to be submitted for review at the project level.
34. The proposed bayfront development and parks shall 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. Plans addressing how pets will
be prohibited will be required to be reviewed at the project level.
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 wetlands or
bay mudflats.
Human access to marshlands and buffer areas 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 feeder channel and southeast of the F Street/Marina Parkway
intersection. Detailed landscape and buffer design plans will be required at the project
level.
35. 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. Garbage must
be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open garbage containers must be issued
to any entity not complying. Restaurants and park areas are of special concern. Plans
addressing how garbage will be contained will be required and reviewed at the project
level.
%/ J;);
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
36. Annual funding shall 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.
37. Not less than 3.5 acres of Brackish 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, tidal flushing
must 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. 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.
38. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall 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 USFWS 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.
39. 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 raptors 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 perching 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.
40. 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 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
Page 14
~> 52?:
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
.I Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
and the marshlands. Both the needs for habitat protection and recreation would be met by
this design approach. Buffer area landscape plans require project-level review.
41. 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 Point, idea1ly 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 fringing the E Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh
that would be impacted by predator/competitor 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 Connors (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 tool 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 areas. 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
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the City Engineering Department, and
City Landscape Architect.
Mitigation Schedule
The complete schedule of mitigation measure 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 resolved
during subsequent environmental review. No grading or other construction permits may be
issued until these issues are resolved.
The contamination traps must be cleaned in the fall as specified and throughout the winter as
needed. The drainage facilities must be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to
grading for installation.
~/ J;) '7
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaI No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
All revegetation must be initiated as soon as possible after the area to be revegetated is available.
In areas where the revegetation is to occur on a site not to be disturbed by future grading, then
the revegetation should be started prior to site grading. Otherwise, revegetation should begin
as soon as feasible after grading is completed.
F. ARCHAEOWGYIHISTORY/PALEONTOWGY
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 archaeological 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 Point 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 areal distribution of these deposits is summarized 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
J{/ }}O
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that mitigation
measures for paleontological resources are incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance
process and mitigation monitoring plans. That plan will include the following measures. The
MCC shall coordinate at least one pre-construction 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. LAND USE
Development of the Midbayfront, as proposed, would result in incompatibility between the
project and surrounding land uses, specifically the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
and the Nature Interpretive 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,
certified 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 treatments. 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.
~/ J'3/
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaI No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
H. PARKSIRECREATION/OPEN SPACE
As currently proposed, the project would result in several impacts to parks and recreation and
open space. Park development according to the proposed phasing plan would not provide
adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the anticipated high public usage. In
addition, there is a potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users in the overall plan.
Information regarding public access from on-site areas to parks, and from areas east of 1-5, 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 parking must be provided within Phase I. To mitigate
the public access inadequacies, the applicant must submit an access plan, showing
designated public parking areas, access routes to public areas, and access routes and
signage from the east side of 1-5 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 five 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
park/recreation/open space mitigation measures are incorporated at the project-level of CEQA
compliance and mitigation monitoring program. The City of Chula Vista Planning Department
must determine the adequate number of parking spaces and verify that they are provided in
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
Adequate 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
~/3;5-
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaI No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
I. UTILITY SERVICE
The Midbayfront development project would require modifications to the existing SDG&E
service system, as well as an increase in the amount of energy to the site. The project would
also impact the City Fire Department'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 1-5
between the project area and the schools would prohibit the feasibility of students walking to and
from school, resulting in potentially significant transportation costs.
Mitigation Measures
Energy
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.
lr ~ J.J)
Midbayfront LCP ResubmittaI No.8 Amendment
[ Continuedl
Mitigation Monitoring Program
d. All apartments three stories or more in height or containing more than 15 dwelling
units and every hotel three or mpre 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 Title 1924 CCR shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise occupancies.
g. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided with
the provision for the turning around of fIre apparatus (either a 75 X 24 foot
hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
h. 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
materials.
I. 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 proj ecl.
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 Metro system (which the project will
tie into).
Page 20
r-- J3Y
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
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 .
b. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way extension
westerly must be installed. (This 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 conservation measures at the project-design level, including such elements as low-
flow 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 any 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.
b. 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.
c. 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 transportation costs.
,~'J3_S
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continuedl
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
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations (formerly titled the California Administrative
Code), which requires energy saving devices in new buildings.
The City Fire Department must approve all building plans for inclusion of fire 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 approved 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 entitlements 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 impacts 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 service (LOS D or worse -
Arterial Intersections, LOS E or worse - Freeway Ramp Intersections). Those intersections are:
Page 22
3"/"JJ~
September 30, 1992
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Broadway at E Street, F Street, and H Street and the northbound and southbound ramp
intersections of E Street and 1-5.
Mitil!ation Measures
56. To improve these ]evels-of-service, the following mitigation measures are required:
a. Widen westbound E Street to provide an exclusive right-turn lane from westbound E
Street to the 1-5 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-turn lane.
c. Restripe the E Street overpass to provide two through lanes per direction, and two
left-turn lanes from eastbound E Street to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
d. Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and two right-
turn lanes.
e. BroadwaylE Street
Westbound: Construction of an additional1eft-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn
only lane
Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn
only lane
f. Broadway/F Street
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane
g. 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.
~/33?
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment
[Continued]
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the mitigation
measures for Traffic and Access are carried forward to the project-level of CEQA review, and
are incorporated, to the degree feasible, into the project-level mitigation monitoring plans. The
feasibility of the above stated planned roadway improvements must be determined by the City
of Chula Vista, Engineering Department and Caltrans. The City Engineering and Planning
Departments shall condition project approval on all traffic improvements determined to be the
responsibility of the applicant.
Monitoring Schedule
The schedule for monitoring will be based 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-determined amount of square-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.
[C:\WP51 \BA YFRONTIMMP.TXT]
Page 24
6'~ J J %
September 30, 1992
Table 1
MIDBAYFRONT LCP RESUBMITTAL NO.8 AMENDMENT
Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary
I MITIGATION MEASURES I MONITORING ACTIVITY I TIMING I MONITORING AGENT I
A. Geology/Soils/Groundwater
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are The review and approval of The grading and City Planning and
proposed, a detailed grading and drainage plan must be the grading and drainage drainage plans should be Engineering Departments
prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code, plans will occur during prepared in conjunction
Subdivision Manual, and all City ordinances and adopted project-level analysis, and with subsequent project-
standards. This plan must include not only grading for prior to grading and specific environmental
structures and roads, but also grading for on-site and off- construction activities. The review. That
site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be City Planning and Engineering environmental review
approved and permits issued by the Engineering Departments will verify that process must be
Department prior to any grading work. the detailed grading and completed prior to
drainage plans include issuance of a grading
recommendations and permit.
~ detailed design incorporating
all measures contained in this
\ EIR. Monitoring activities
W associated with this pre-
01 construction design and
. permitting measure cease
~ upon issuance of the last
Grading Permit.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, Each geotechnical Completion and approval City Planning and
including soils study and seismic study, must be investigation will be reviewed of plans must occur Engineering Departments
performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan, and and approved by the City of prior to issuance of
for each proposed structure. Each investigation shall Chula Vista Engineering grading permits.
contain adequate subsurface exploration and analyses to Department.
determine short- and long-term settlement magnitudes,
expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and
characteristics, and potential and mitigation for seismic
ground failure (including liquefaction). Each investigation
shall contain detailed foundation recommendations, and
will be subject to review by the City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department.
1 of 27
October 13, 1992
~
\
W
~
MITIGATION MEASURES
3. All high rise structures must have adequate foundation
support. This may involve deep foundations or some type
of mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing
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 compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to
pre-compress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits
which exist below the groundwater table. Other
conventional engineering techniques may also be used to
mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to
compressible soil. These additional techniques may
include designs such as deep foundations or mat
foundations.
5. 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-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-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of
improvements they are to support. Site-specific
geotechnical studies 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.
'MONITORING ACTIVITY
The Building and Housing
Department will review all
proposed foundations for
adequacy.
All soil improvement
techniques must be reviewed
by the City Engineering
Department for adequacy.
See numbers 2 and 4 above
- f 27
TIMING
Approval of foundations
must be received prior
to issuance of the
building permit.
Techniques to address
compressible soil under
all structures must be
approved prior issuance
of grading permits.
See numbers 2 and 4
above
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning, Building
and Housings
Departments
City Planning and
Engineering Departments
City Planning and
Engineering Departments
Oc' 'r 13,1992
I MITIGATION MEASURES I MONITORING ACTIVITY I TIMING I MONITORING AGENT I
6. The currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay The choice and design of the Approval prior to City Planning and
soil layer) for the 10-acre salt water lagoon (which liner must be approved by the initiation of grading for Engineering Departments
encroaches onto compressible bay deposits) is a relatively City Engineering Department. the pond.
brittle material which may require stringent subgrade
improvements to ensure acceptable long-term
performance. Subsequent design must consider other
options for this type of liner, including clay soil liners and
flexible pond liners.
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused The City will review the Approval prior to City Planning and
by seismic shaking, geotechnical studies must specifically geotechnical report for issuance of the grading Engineering Departments
address seismic analysis based on site-specific subsurface accuracy and approve any permits.
data. At a minimum, seismic analysis must address measures recommended to
seismically-induced slope failure, liquefaction, and ground reduce seismic risk.
surface accelerations. Appropriate measures to reduce
seismic risk must be implemented into project design.
8. The embankment separating the 1 Q-acre salt water The City will review the The determination will City Engineering
lagoon from San Diego Bay has tentatively been designed required assessment and be made prior to Department
with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind induced storm determine the most issuance of the grading
waves or earthquake-induced flooding could exceed the appropriate stabilizing permits.
height of the embankment. An assessment must be measure.
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.
9. Geotechnical studies must also address the impact of The City will review the Measures must be City Planning and
foundation location near or below the groundwater table, geotechnical report for approved prior to Engineering Departments
and suitable recommendations should be provided to accuracy and approve any issuance of the grading
VQ mitigate both construction-period difficulties and uplift measure recommended to permits.
pressures that may affect both foundation elements and reduce high groundwater
\ subterranean parking floor slabs extending below the impact.
W transient groundwater level. Construction-period
~ mitigation may require temporary dewatering andlor
"- 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
andlor structural foundations to restrain slabs.
3 of 27
October 13. 1992
C>\!
\
W
'Z
~
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
B. Hydrology
10. A detailed drainage plan must be prepared in The City Engineering The plan approval must City Planning and
accordance with the Chula Vista Code Subdivision Department will review and occur prior to issuance Engineering Departments
Manual and applicable ordinances and adopted approve the drainage plan. of grading permits.
standards (including Thresholds Standard Policy).
11. A site-specific hydrology study must be performed for The City will review the The study approval and City Planning and
the Midbaytront site, addressing such issues as hydrology study, and incorporation of Engineering Departments
flooding of low-lying areas during high tide conditions incorporate appropriate recommendations must
and the effect of wind-driven waves generated from recommendations onto occur prior to issuance
within San Diego Bay; flooding from the Sweetwater grading and construction of grading permits.
River; and erosion from inland or coastal flooding. plans.
12. Recommendations shall be provided for erosion The City will evaluate the All erosion control The City Planning and
control to mitigate both coastal erosion and erosion erosion control measures measures will be Engineering Departments
from inland flooding. Additionally, monitoring shall be recommended to address reviewed and approved
performed for a minimum period of three years to coastal and inland flooding prior to issuance of the
evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed outlet and erosion. Periodically grading permit.
protection at the on-site storm drains discharging during the three year period,
directly into San Diego Bay. The existing bay a monitor will evaluate the Monitoring at the open
deposits, located bayward of the two proposed amount of erosion, occurring discharge points will
discharge points, are highly susceptible to erosion. at the storm-drain discharge occur at least twice a
The resulting scour is likely to impact sensitive marine points in the bay. If erosion year, in the fall and
habitat west of the Midbaytront site, if the force of is impacting marine habitat spring, for three years,
the water being discharged is not properly mitigated then redesign or improvement to evaluate the
by the proposed discharge aprons. of the discharge aprons will effectiveness during
be necessary. winter storms.
The MCC will be
responsible for
coordinating the
personnel and time
schedule for monitoring
of the open discharge.
1f 27
0' er 13,1992
~
W
'-t
\ .
'^J
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
13. The effectiveness of proposed oil and sediment traps, Prior to any development, the Monitoring shall be The City Planning and
as well as that of the desilting basin in removing both water quality of the "F" & initiated prior to any Engineering Departments
sediment and chemical pollutants from the "F" & "G" "G" Street Marsh shall be grading to determine
Street Marsh, shall be monitored for a minimum measured for sediment load baseline criteria. It will
period of three years. as well as chemicals. These continue with
will serve as the baseline inspections at least
criteria. At least quarterly quarterly until
during and after construction, construction activities
the marsh will be retested at cease.
the same locations. If
pollutant levels increase The MCC will be
substantially, then measures responsible for
to locate and remove the coordinating the
source must be undertaken. personnel and time
schedule for monitoring
water quality impacts.
14. Traps for contaminant control must be approved by The City Engineering Grading permits will not City Planning and
the City Engineering Department before they may be Department must verify that be issued until the Engineering Departments
installed. all EPA, and any Regional standards are met.
Water Quality Control Board
Standards and all other .
applicable regulations are
met.
15. The proposed on-site storm drain system shall be The City Engineering The storm drain system City Planning and
designed in accordance with City of Chula Vista Department will review and must be approved prior Engineering Departments
Standards and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision approve the storm drain to issuance of grading
Manual. Any deviation from these standards must be system. permits.
approved by the City Engineer. In addition,
calculations should be made for the 1 DO-year design
storm, as required by FEMA and prudent engineering
practice.
16. The applicant must prepare a groundwater quality and The City will review all The groundwater City Planning and
quantity analysis for replacement water required for groundwater evaluations to evaluation must be Engineering Departments
the lagoons. If groundwater supplies are not determine if groundwater is completed and a source
adequate and if they are contaminated, then an an adequate water source. of water identified and
alternative source must be approved by the City. Any possible alternative approved prior to
source must be approved by issuance of grading
the City. permits.
5 of 27
October 13, 1992
<\J
\
\
IrV
~
~
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
C. Air Quality
17. Mitigation for air quality impacts associated with the The APCD reviews plans and The necessary APCD APCD, City Planning
co-generation plant is required by the APCD before an issues permits after CEOA permits must be Department
Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is review is completed, thus received by the City
issued. Mitigation would include concurrent once the project-level EIR is prior to issuance of a
reductions in NO.. ROG, and CO to "off-set" project certified, which will include building permit for the
(co-generation plant) emissions. information on the co- co-generation plant.
generation plant, the APCD
will review project plans, and
establish requirements. They
will also verify completion of
requirements to issuance of
permits.
18. Various transportation central measures ITCMs) must The establishment of TCMs must be included City Planning
be incorporated to reduce vehicular emissions that minimum participation goals in all project-level plans, Department
may affect air quality. Measures include: and the formation of a for all phases, as
. Airport shuttle services for destination resort visitors Midbayfront TMA will be appropriate, and will be
. Ridesharing implemented by the Findings a condition of each
. Van pool Incentives of Fact for the proposed building permit approval.
. Alternate Transportation Methods project, and will be included Establishment of a TMA
. Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel in project-level plans. The may take place after
. Transit Utilization MCC will facilitate formation construction is
. Program Coordination of a TMA, with participation completed when site
. Traffic Signal Coordination from site users and, if tenants are in place.
. Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of appropriate, other bayfront
"D" or Better users.
The effective implementation of these various TCMs will
be significantly enhanced if they 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.
'f 27
0(' ~r 13, 1992
I MITIGATION MEASURES I MONITORING ACTIVITY I TIMING I MONITORING AGENT I
19. Dust control measures required by the AOMD will be The MCC will monitor The MCC will verify that City Planning and
implemented during construction. Such measures construction traffic. The grading and construction Engineering Departments
include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as construction contractor will permits include these
removing any soil spillage onto traveled roadways inform construction related measures and will make
through site housekeeping procedures. Reducing traffic of these requirements. periodic, unannounced
interference with existing traffic and preventing truck Grading and construction visits (at least monthly)
Queuing around local receptors should be incorporated permits will include these during the period of
into any project construction permits. Trucks must requirements. construction. Monitoring
turn off engines while waiting, or not be allowed to ceases upon the
enter the site again. The permits should limit completion of grading
operations to daytime periods of better dispersion and construction
that minimizes localized pollution accumulation. activities.
..:
~
\
'y
~
~
7 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
D. Noise
20. Construction noise intrusion will be limited by The City will ensure that this The condition must be City Planning and
conditions on construction permits to weekday hours measure is included on the placed on all grading Engineering Departments
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those same construction plans. and building plans
permits will also specify construction access routing before their approval;
to minimize construction truck traffic past existing monitoring will occur
park, residential, or other noise sensitive uses to through the course of
comply with General Plan standards and policies. construction.
21. Child care noise exposure must be minimized by The City will ensure that the Compliance must occur City Planning and
establishing a noise performance standard on co- co-generation operating prior to issuance of Engineering Departments
generation exhaust stack noise met through the use permit includes this condition, operating permit (co-
of silencers; a performance standard of 45 dB at and that the noise barrier is generation plant) and
night and 50 dB by day at 400 feet from the exhaust included on building plans. prior to issuance of
stack is required to prevent excessive exhaust noise grading permit for this
intrusion. A noise barrier along the eastern play area area.
boundary to screen out traffic noise must also be
incorporated into the project-level design.
~
l--J
~
'f 27
Or er 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
E. Biology
22. The applicant must prepare a Biological Resource This Plan will be reviewed by This document must be City Planning
Management Plan to determine project-specific the City. the U.S. Fish and available in a completed Department
mitigation measures. The Plan must include the Wildlife Service, the form for review during
following sections: California Department of Fish the project-level
. Predator Management Plan and Game, and environmental environmental process.
. Human Activities Management Plan experts to verify its accuracy The plan must be
. Landscape Design and Management Plan and the feasibility of adopted by the City
. Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan suggested mitigation Council and enforced
. Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan measures. throughout the life of
. Project Lighting Plan the project.
. Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
. CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
23. A "biologically aware" construction monitor shall be The biological monitor will be The monitor will remain City Planning
required for all phases of grading and installation of present on the site during on-site and available for Department
drainage systems. The monitor should be employed construction to provide consultation, at least
through the City and should report directly to a verification of numerous 25% time during
specific person in the Engineering Planning or measures during grading and grading. This monitor
Community Development Department or the construction. shall be present on a
Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCCI. reduced basis during ...
actual building
construction.
24. All post-construction collector drains must be directed The City Field Inspector will Prior to issuance of City Planning and
through large volume silt and grease traps prior to verify that the type of grease occupancy permits the Engineering Departments
being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or traps placed on the site are drains and traps must be
the bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines those approved by the City. inspected and approved.
entering the detention basin must be triple-
chambered.
~
W
~.
"'-.)
9 of 27
October 13, 1992
C>\?
\
W
~
~
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
25. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly As part of the drainage Cleaning must be City Planning
with thorough cleaning. Maintenance should be done system and water quality initiated in late Department
by removal of wastes rather than flushing. monitoring provisions set by September or early
the RWOCB, the MCC will October (no later than
coordinate with the applicant October 15) and as
to inspect and report that silt needed through the
and grease traps are cleaned winter and spring
at least as often as the times months for the life of
specified. Cleaning will be the project.
noted in the reports
submitted to the RWOCB and
copies will be furnished to
the City within 30 days of
inspection.
of 27
Or er 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
26. The "direct to bay" drains could be designed and Drain placement must be The pipe placement City Planning
constructed with effective energy dissipators and approved by the Engineering must be approved prior Department
flow diffusers which eliminates erosion or accretion Department, Planning to extension of the
of the mudflats and ensures the protection of Department and biological drains. The Mudflat
adjacent eelgrass beds. An expected loss of mudflat monitor to ensure that it Wetlands Monitoring
totaling no fewer than 1.7 acres should be replaced satisfies listed criteria. Plan will be approved
within the NWR in a location away from the proposed with subsequent project-
development area. These drains and the surrounding specific CEQA review
mudflats and eelgrass beds should be monitored in and will detail timing of
accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands the 1.7 acre mudflat
Monitoring Plan for a period of 5 years and any replacement.
additional corrective measures required should be
implemented and any additional impacted areas
resulting should be replaced by the creation of a
similar area from the uplands of "0" Street Fill or
Gunpowder Point. As an alternative, the two "direct
to bay" drains shall be extended to subsurface
discharge points located in the existing deep water
boat channel. These discharge points shall be located
at a minimum depth of -10 ft. MLLW and shall be
buried in the mudflat to a point below the existing
eelgrass beds. Drain placement must impact the least
amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either
combining the drains or avoiding dense eelgrass beds.
Surface contours shall be restored and any
construction impacts to eelgrass shall be mitigated by
replanting over the pipeline.
~
\.....j
~,
'-..1:::,
11 of 27
October 13, 1992
'1
S
\:}
MITIGATION MEASURES
27.
Studies are required to evaluate the effects of
groundwater pumping to fill the proposed lagoons. If
these studies indicate that this is not a suitable
solution for reasons of groundwater contaminants or
induced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
should be placed in a drain alignment (5.a.) or along a
similar low impact corridor and should 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 rather than directly to
the bay.
28.
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 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(sl of construction.
No construction activity, earthmoving or high intensity
activity will occur within 200 feet of any salt marsh,
freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat during the period 1 5
March to 31 August without prior approval by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of
Fish and Game.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
The City will review the
groundwater report and
approve the final water
source for the lagoons. They
will also ensure that
restoration is completed and
the proper drainage installed.
The biological monitor must
verify that no construction
occurs during the restricted
time period.
.
'If 27
TIMING
The groundwater
evaluation must be
completed and all
drainage issues resolved
prior to grading permit
issuance.
On-going throughout the
term of construction.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning and
Engineering Department
City Planning and
Engineering Departments
Oc'
1r 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
29. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large The City Field Inspector must On-going throughout the City Planning and
enough to handle storm water runoff must be verify that desiltation basins term of construction Engineering Departments
maintained during the construction phase so that no are adequate to prevent silts
silts are allowed to leave the construction site. In from leaving the site. The
addition, construction dewatering should be directed biological monitor will ensure
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system other criteria are followed.
so that clear water is released into a basin. As an
alternative, dewatering water should be pumped
across the mudflat into the boat channel and
discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid re-
suspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8
feet.
30. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within The City Landscape Architect Approval prior to City Planning
landscaping areas of the project must be of the must verify the suitability of initiation of landscaping Department
biodegradable variety and registered by the all fertilizers, pesticides and and throughout life of
Environmental Protection Agency for use near herbicides. the project.
wetlands. Further plans required for water quality
management should be developed in accordance with
the Biological Resource Management Plan (number
19)
31. All landscape chemical applications should be done by The City must verify the state Approval prior to City Planning .
a state-certified landscape contractor. certification of any landscape initiation of landscaping. Department
contractor retained.
~
~
~
13 of 27
October 13, 1992
~
\-\
~
33.
MITIGATION MEASURES
32.
Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project
area shall be submitted to the City Landscape
Architect for review. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes
(Limoniurn or Carpobrotus species), or those which
are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or
roosting sites for predators (Washingtonia or
Cortaderia), shall be restricted from use.
A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers
must 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
requirements (i.e., silt/grease 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
control and should possess the necessary skills,
permits and authority to trap and remove problem
predators.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
The City Landscape Architect
must approve the landscape
plant list. The City's
Landscape Architect will
inspect landscaping of the
project to verify that the
species planted are
consistent with the
Landscape Plan. If species
substitutions are desired, the
applicant shall submit
proposed changes to the
City's Landscape Architect
who will consult with the
biological monitor to ensure
that appropriate species are
being used. Monitoring
activities associated with this
mitigation measure will be
conducted at intervals to be
established by the City's
Environmental Review
Coordinator and Landscape
Architect's Office.
Detailed plans for funding and
employment of the two
enforcement staff must be
reviewed and approved by
the City.
'f 27
TIMING
The plant list must be
approved prior to
initiation of landscaping
Plans and funding
review will occur during
subsequent project
specific CEOA review.
Funding must be
finalized and
enforcement staff hired,
prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning
Department
City Planning
Department
OC'r 13, 1992
~
W
""\
~
MITIGATION MEASURES
34.
The proposed bayfront development area, including all
parks, shall 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.
Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns
and prohibited activities must be prominently posted
through the affected parklands.
Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due
to the kites being perceived as predatory birds and thus
should be prohibited from parkland ares adjacent to
wetlands or bay mudflats.
Human access to marshlands and buffer areas should be
restricted through fencing and signs. This restriction
should 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 should be restricted
through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the
"F" & "G" Street feeder channel and southeast of the "F"
Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
35.
Open garbage containers shall be restricted and all
dumpsters shall be totally enclosed to avoid attracting
avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to
the area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as
possible. Citations for open garbage containers shall
be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants
and park areas are of special concern.
MONITORING ACTIVITY
All plans for use restrictions
must be reviewed by the City
Planning Department at the
project level of CEOA
analysis.
Plans for garbage control
must be reviewed by the City
Planning Department at the
project level of CEOA
analysis.
15 of 27
TIMING
All plans must be
approved prior to the
issuance of grading
permits and signs must
be posted prior to
issuance of occupancy
permits.
Plan review would occur
during subsequent
project-specific CEOA
review. Approval of
plans must occur prior
to issuance of grading
permits. Garbage
control would continue
for the life of the
project.
MONITORING AGENT
City Planning
Department
City Planning
Department
October 13, 1992
'><Q
,
~
\J\
'"
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
36. Annual funding should be designated for the purpose Plans for long term funding Funding must be City Planning
of garbage control, repair and maintenance of will be reviewed by the City negotiated and approved Department
drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control Planning Department. during subsequent
program, and mitigation programs for the project. project-specific CEOA
review.
37. Not less than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4.0 Establishment of new From planting to City Planning
acres of salt marsh must be created within the" F" & wetland habitat must be establishment, Department
"G" Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. In addition, initiated prior to grading and monitoring at least
tidal flushing should be enhanced as identified in the monitored annually, by the annually for 5 years.
Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans biological monitor, until Revegetation should be
(1987). Further, if marshlands are to be created, as established to the satisfaction initiated as soon as
proposed, on both sides of Marina Parkway, of the appropriate wildlife possible upon project
undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide agencies. The City Field approval.
would be required. It is suggested that large half- Inspector must verify that
round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot or more radius proper culverts are installed.
be considered for this purpose.
38. Further dredging, structural changes, or proposed The biological monitor will Monitoring will occur City Planning
uses must not occur along the mudflat or marshland verify that no changes to during grading and Department
areas of the bayfront under the jurisdiction of the City these areas occur during construction, and should
of Chula Vista. This includes such activities as grading and construction. be checked at least four
marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the The MCC will facilitate times a year until
developer, City, and USFWS should jointly seek to agreements to post buoys. construction is
have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line of completed. The buoys
buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas. should be in place
indefinitely.
39. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and heavy All building plans must be Verification of the City Planning, Building
architectural lines. A film glass manufactured by 3M reviewed during project-level incorporation of these and Housing
is recommended. CEOA review for adherence measures on the Departments
to these requirements. The building plans will occur
Buildings facing marshlands should not include extraneous MCC will facUitate prior to issuance of
ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest. preparation of an agreement building permits.
Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to whereby the developer
the wetlands should be covered with an anti-perch commits to correcting
material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any perching problem areas to the
additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy best of his/her ability.
incidence of perching be observed or should nest building
by raptors be initiated on the buildings or in landscaping
materials.
f 27
OCl
r 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
40. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8 acre park The park buffer area Review will occur during City Planning
zone at the "F" & "G" Street Marsh feeder channel landscape plans must be project-level CEOA Department
should be limited to passive use and should include reviewed and approved by review, and approval
such features as abundant native shrubland the City Landscape Architect, prior to issuance of
restoration, which would preclude active recreation in City Park and Recreation grading permits
this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Department, City Planning
Marsh and Vener Pond should be designed to include Department, and biological
a visual and human encroachment barrier between monitor.
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 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. Both needs would be met
by this design approach. -
41. New marshland, pond fringe and salt pond habitats Habitat restoration must be From planting to City Plannifig
totalling no fewer than 13.2 acres shall be created on initiated upon project establishment, at least Department
the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder approval, and must be annually for five years. .
Point, ideally with marsh linkage to both the "E" monitored annually until \
Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh to aid in off- established to the satisfaction
setting impacts associated with encroachment, of the appropriate wildlife
predation, and loss of habitat use by avian species. agencies.
C><Q
\
~
~
17 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
42. A predator management program for the Chula Vista It is anticipated that a long- Review of the PMP will City Planning
Bayfront must be developed to control domestic as term Predator Management occur during the project- Department
well as wild animal predators. This program should Program (PMP) for the NWR level CEOA review.
utilize the Connors (1987) plan as a basis, but should and adjoining areas of the Approval of the PM P
be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed Midbayfront Uplands will be will occur prior to
development. This plan should include the use of established. The project issuance of grading
fines as an enforcement tool to control human and applicant will be required to permits.
pet activities. The plan should be comprehensive and participate in the PMP on a
should include management of predators within the pro rata (fair share) basis.
adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the proposed Until the PM P is
development areas. implemented, the project
applicant shall conduct a
project-specific predator
management program, which
would operate for the late
March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-
specific program will focus
primarily on the "F" & "G"
Street Marsh unit of the
NWR. Predator Management
actions will include regular
censusing, trapping and
removal of mammalian
predators as appropriate
(including domestic, feral,
and wild mammals), as well
as removal of selected avian
predators when necessary.
The MCClbiological monitor
will verify that the project
specification program occurs
as approved.
,
S
~.
,f 27
Dc
r 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
F. Archaeology IHistory IPaleontology
43. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to Archaeological review will be Prior to issuance of City Planning
archaeological review at the project level of conducted at the project-level permits for off-site Departm~nt
environmental review. of CEOA compliance. work.
44. A qualified paleontologist should be at any pre- The City's Field Inspector and During cutting of any City Planning
construction meeting to consult with the grading and MCC will coordinate with a undisturbed Bay Point Department
excavation contractors. paleontologist to ensure that Formation, and half time
qualified personnel are throughout entire
A paleontological monitor should be on-site on a half-time present as required. grading period.
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 should
proceed; if they turn out to be barren colluvial deposits,
then monitoring should not be continued.
In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered,
the paleontologist shall 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
should be cleaned, sorted, and cataloged and then with
the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific
institution with paleontologic collections such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum.
~
\
W
\r-\
~
19 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
G. land Use
45. Incorporation of buffering design measures--including The Planning Department will During project-level City Planning
maximum insulation in all exterior and interior walls, review building plans for review. with approval Department
insulation between floors; window treatments to verification of incorporation prior to issuance of
reduce light and intrusion. and designated parking of these measures during the building permit.
spaces for residents within a separated and locked design review process.
area of parking
~
"'--.)
~
~
7 'f 27
Oc' 'r 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
H. Parks and Recreation
46. All park development and associated parking must be a) All parks must be a) Prior to Occupancy in a) City Planning and
provided in Phase 1 as well as an access plan, constructed to the Phase I. Parks and Recreation
showing designated public parking areas, access satisfaction of the Parks b) Prior to issuance of Department
routes to public areas and access routes and signage Department prior to the subsequent project b) City Planning
from the east side of 1-5 across" E" Street. issuance of occupancy permit approvals. Department
for Phase I.
b) The access plan must be
provided during project-level
environmental review.
47. Additional public parking may be required by the City. A determination regarding the During project-level of City Planning
number of spaces and the CEQA review, with Department
location of those spaces will approval prior to
be made prior to issuance of issuance of grading
grading permits. permit.
48. The City's Parks and Recreation Department has The City will hire the Following acceptance of City Parks Department
stated the need to hire one gardener for ever five additional gardeners and title to the parks by the
acres of parkland (a total of six). as well as to acquire landscaping equipment. City.
additional landscaping equipment such as mowers.
~
S
~
21 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
I. Utility Service
Gas & Electric
49. Energy resources shall be conserved by such Energy conservation Approval of measures City Planning
generally accepted methods as sealing doors and measures must be evaluated prior to issuance of Department
windows, double-pane glass, increases in wall and and approved by the Planning building permits and
ceiling insulation, and the incorporation of solar Department . final approval with
benefits. Time-controlled lighting systems throughout inspection prior to
the industrial/commercial portions of the project issuance of occupancy
would also conserve energy. permits.
Solid Waste
50. A recycling program must be undertaken by the The recycling program must Recycling plan approval City Planning
developer in conjunction with a local recycling be reviewed and approved by prior to occupancy Department and
company. This would include bins on-site for the the City and Planning permits. Enforcement Resource Conservation
collection of recyclable materials such as glass, Department and Resource throughout life of Coordinator
plastic, metal and paper products. Additionally, the Conservation Coordinator. project.
development must incorporate trash compactors to Trash compactors must be
reduce volume. clearly provided in project
plans and verified by the City.
~
\
~
~
~
~ ,f 27
Oc' ,,13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES
Fire
iJQ
\
LJ
~
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.
d) All apartments three or more stories in height or
containing more than 1 5 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 Title 1924 CCR shall apply relative to public
assembly and high rise occupancies.
g) Fire department access roadways greater in length
than 1 50 feet shall be provided with the provision for
the turning around of fire apparatus leither a 75 x 24
foot hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
hI Private fire hydrants will be required to satisfy the
requirement that any part of the ground floor of any
building shall be' within 1 50 feet of a water supply
These hydrants shall be in place and operable prior to
the delivery of combustible building materials.
i) 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, using large,
contrasting block letters and numbers.
k) Additional fire inspector would be necessary to
handle additional work load created by this project.
---
MONITORING ACTIVITY
The City must review all
future development plans for
conformance with standards
determined by the Fire
Department. The applicant
shall enter into an agreement
to guarantee contribution of
funds for a ladder truck based
on the City Fire Department
estimate.
23 of 27
TIMING
All standards must be
met and approved, and
all funding provided,
prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.
MONITORING AGENT
City Fire and Planning
Departments
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
Additionally, the applicant is responsible for payment of
the additional ladder truck through the Development
Impact Fees. and the City's general fund would pay for
the increase in annual salary for the four-person crew and
fire inspector.
Sewer
52. The developer must submit detailed drawings to the The City Engineering Plan approval prior to City Planning and
City showing sewer line locations and capacities. Department must review the construction. Engineering Departments
plans for consistency with
the thresholds policy and
with the Metro System. Any
off-site improvements will
undergo environmental
review.
Water
53. Specific water mains must be completed or upgraded, The City Engineering Plan approval prior to City Planning and
these include: Department and Sweetwater construction Engineering
. A 12 inch main in "F" Street from Broadway to Authority will review all Departments;
approximately B30 feet west must be installed. water main plans to ensure Sweetwater Authority
. A 1 2 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to that they provide the
about Sierra Way extension westerly must be necessary flow. Any off-site
installed. (This will connect the project with supplies improvements will undergo
of water from the southern portion of Chula Vista, environmental review.
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 1 2
inch main
. All on-site mains must be sized 1 2 inches
~
\
\,..j
~
N
'r 'f 27
Oct r 13,1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
54. To mitigate the incremental impact to regional water Such designs will be During subsequent City Planning and
supply, the applicant must provide water reviewed and approved by project-specific CEOA Engineering Departments
conservation measures at the project-design level, the City. review and prior to any
including such elements as low-flow showerheads, construction
low-flush toilets, timed irrigation, landscaping with
drought-tolerant species, drip irrigation where
appropriate, development of reclaimed water lines for
future use, and participation in any fee program the
City has in place for no net increase in water
consumption.
T""
~
,
W
I:;'--
W
25 of 27
October 13, 1992
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
Schools
55. To mitigate impacts to school overcrowding and City Planning will ensure the To be resolved during City Planning
school transportation the applicant must: form new provision of transportation subsequent project- Department
Mello-Roos Districts to finance capital costs such as funding and new schools specific CEOA review
permanent or relocatable classrooms and school sites prior to approval of and prior to issuance of
buses; resolve the issue of new school sites or development entitlements. development
additional property adjacent to existing schools for entitlements
the construction of capital improvements; and provide
annual costs for student transportation costs
including bus maintenance and drivers' salaries.
~
'^-.l
~
-t..
'f 27
Dc' 'r 13, 1992
~
,
W
G'-
lI\
~
,
"'" IC:\WP511BAYFRONTlMITIG-1_TBLI
c!:Q (For City Council 1/141921
MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING ACTIVITY TIMING MONITORING AGENT
G. Transportation/Access
56. To improve these levels-of-service, the following The applicant shall be Developer contribution City Engineering and
mitigation measures are required: required to contribute funds prior to issuance of a Planning Department
a. Widen westbound E Street to provide an exclusive towards future improvements certificate of
right-turn lane from westbound E Street to the 1-5 based on the City Engineer's occupancy.
northbound on ramp. This lane must be a minimum estimate of his/her fair share.
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-turn lane.
c. Restripe the E Street overpass to provide two through
lanes per direction, and two left-turn lanes from
eastbound E Street to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp.
d. Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an
exclusive left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes.
e. Broadway/E Street
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn
lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane
Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn
lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane
f. Broadway/F Street
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-
turn only lane
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-
turn only lane
g. 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
27 of 27
October 13, 1992
\
ijj~wll$~!if!~!lffpliHllf.Ifflj;Rwlj1f1
25/ J (,?
W/h-vI 2'
PAUL A. PETERSON
GREGORY C. M. GARRATT
EDWARD F. WHITTLER
LYNNE L. HEIDEL
REBECCA MICHAEL
MARSHAL A. SCARR
MATTHEW A. PETERSON
LARRY N. MURNANE
PETER.SON l!l PR.ICE
__ ,_ ~ ,., fr~ rl
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION R::. ,__', ',.- ""~' ~-- __.'
LAWYERS
530 B STREET, SUITE 2300 .., .c-
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92IOI-44~ GCi -5' ~ . -'-
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 619
234-0361
FAX
(619) 234-4786
CIT\
,I'
CITY
"i,~
c'er.
3848.002
via messenger
FILE No.
October 5, 1992
Mayor Tim Nader and Members of
Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Public Services Bldg.
Chula Vista, California 92010
Re: October 13, 1992 City Council Hearing
Chula Vista Bayfront
Dear Mayor Nader and Members of Chula Vista City Council:
As you know, we represent Chula Vista Investors with regard
to a proposed General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment for the development of the Midbayfront. This LCP
provides for the sensitive development of a comprehensive visitor
and community serving mixed use project. This project is a vast
improvement over the previously approved LCP.
Our client has reviewed the draft General Plan Amendment and
the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and generally agrees
with what has been submitted for your approval. However, our
client believes that certain issues such as "timing and phasing"
should be deferred and resolved at the time that the Development
Agreement is negotiated. These timing and phasing conditions are
set forth in the Draft Resolution Section X - 11, 13, and 14.
Phasing issues should not be incorporated into the LCP because
any proposed change to the phasing in the future may trigger the
need for an LCP Amendment. The City should attempt to retain the
greatest amount of flexibility in dealing with changing market
conditions which cannot be anticipated at this time.
lJ/JIP7
Mayor Tim Nader and Members of
Chula Vista City Council
October 5, 1992
Page 2
Therefore, we would respectfully request that the City
Council:
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and
Addendums Thereto, and adopt the Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations;
2. Recommend approval of the Amendments to the General
Plan; and
3. Recommend adoption of the Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program Resubmittal (with the deletion from those
documents of any reference to the timing and phasing of
the project).
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
~ fI ~W\
Matthew A. Peterson
cc: John Goss, Chula Vista City Manager
Bruce M. Boogaard, Esq., Chula Vista City Attorney
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development
Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator
Chula Vista City Clerk
Chula Vista Investors
?'/3/?~
ERRATA SHEET
Item 8, Bayfront
Council Meeting
Page 11-4 of L.U.P.:
Add the word "approximately" prior to 37 acres in the first
sentence of paragraph c.
Page IV-12 of L.U.P.:
Pluralize the word "area" which is the last word in Policy 52.A.l
if ~3 t /
:;r~
ERRATA SHEET FOR BAYFRONT LCP - LAND USE PLAN
P. 11-4 of L.U.P.:
Add the word "approximately" prior to 37 acres in the first
sentence of paragraph c.
P. 111-11 of the L.U.P.:
Correct Table 3-1 to accurately reflect the change of 12 acres
in the Land Use Plan for Rohr's headquarters office complex
from "Industrial" to "Professional' Administrative". Correct
the same statistics on p. 111-6 under the heading Industrial.
P. IV-12 of L.U.P.:
Pluralize the word "area" which is the last word in Policy
52.A.1
7~ ]')0
/Ire?
':<-
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF PERMITIED LAND USES BY SUBAREA
(Approximate area - in acres)
Residential, high
18
SUBAREA
1 ~
18
1
i
.2
9.
1
li
LAND USE
TOTAL
Commercial
- Visitor
- Thoroughfare
- Professional &
Administrative
11
12
11
6
12
.
4
12
Industrial
- Research & Limited
- General
106
269
10
155
27
6
63
96
36
Public & Open Space
- Public &
Quasi-Public
- Parks & Recreation
- Water
- Open Space
- Circulation/Other
16
37
6
301
27
6
34
6
22
14
11
6
3
266
2
12
3
Special Plan Area
- Central Resort
District
40
40
Major Circulation
159
TOTALS
1040
161
215
101
27
36
8
63
270
. Allocated within Central Resort District as a pennitted use
NOTE: Acreages are indicated to the nearest acre based on planimeter readings and available infonnation. Minor refinements that may result
from the development permit and IUbdivilion proceu Illall not require &11 amendment to this LCP provided that the character of development and
approximate proportion of land uael i. maintained.
:<-."<<<<<<.:<<<<<<<<
,
(10/12/92)
III -11
11>- 371
~
SEP 1992
Received
Community Development
Department
RECEIVED
e::~, ,.; 'I'<(J)
..........~ t". ....,;:}L
f.LANNING
09/1 7/92
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Planning Commision, Public Hearing considering amendments to
the Certified Local Coastal Program.
Dear Planning Commision Members,
We request that you NOT approve the sections that pertain to
Subarea 4, West Fairfield of the following plans:
A.) Chula Vista Local Program -Land Use Plan-
Draft dated August 31, 1992.
B.) Chula Vista Local Coastal Program -Implementation Plan
Bay Front Specific Plan-
Draft dated August 31, 1992.
The plans as drafted, do
devoid of any benefits to
the West Fairfield Subarea 4.
not take into consideration, and are
the residents that currently live in
Please bring your attention to Part Two, page 32, Number 2, of
the 1987 Montgomery Specific Plan. This paragraph states,
"...it's existing land use would just as readily support a
residential, commercial, or mixed-use designation. Actually, a
carefully-crafted and administered mixed-use plan, coupled with
redevelopment, would probably constitute the most effective
mechanism for the revitalization of the involved enclave."
(JE~ t:.vCL ....2.)
The last paragraph on page IV-13 of the 1992 draft of the "Land
Use Plan" has been lifted from "The Montgomery Specific Plan-
1987" (see above) and reads virtLlally the same, with the
exception, "...a buy-out of minor landowners by a major
developer..." .What happened to the 1987 "most effective
mechanism?" (See €A/CL J;)
There are thirty-nine single family homes and a duplex in
Subarea 4 that account for approximately twenty-nine percent of
the subarea land total (Land Use Plan, page IV-13). (See
attachment #1). They are referenced as "minor landowners".
Since when
Additionally,
developer. Is
is twenty-nine percent considered
why discard the current landowners for
there someone waiting in the wings?
minor?
a llmajorll
Why not the mixed-use plan as presented to us in your l~,jr ~.
Montgomery Specific Plan and reinforced by the "Redevelopment )/---]'7.>
cont.
Plan for the Southwest Development Project Area." (Sept. 1990)
(Section 601, see attachment #4)
The "Implementation Plan" does not offer any benefits to the
existing residential development nor does it recognize the
existence of these thirty-nine single family residences in
Subarea 4.
Some of the current residents of the West Fairfield area have
lived here for over forty years, we have lived here a modest
twenty-five. It is not necessary to eliminate the present
occupants to achieve your stated purpose. (Implementation Plan,
page I-I, paragraph A.I
Relative to Subarea 4, we urge you not to adopt the
Implementation Plan or the Land Use Plan in their present form.
We feel the existing drafts unintentionally left out subarea 4
for single-family designation.
r;;%OU'02~
c&a.h & W. li~~
883 Doro hy Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911-3947
(619) 424-7196
PS. Please read "Towness and it's application to the Montgomery
Community" of which West Fairfield is a part. (Page 33, Part II,
Montgomery Specific Plan, attachment #3.1
6'/ J 7?
vq~
~
According to an existing agreement among the State, 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 permanent basis, while
the salt works will continue into the foreseeable future. The industrial land is located between
Bay Boulevard and 1-5 and does not have any direct Bay frontage.
2. Subarea Objectives/Policies
Objective S3.A
Provide for maintenance of appropriate existing development and long
term conversion of potential habitat areas to protected open space.'
Policy 53.A.1
Preclude any visitor-serving facilities here because of the
proximity of the freeway and the generating plant. In addition.
no uses shall be located on this property which would economi-
cally compete with the Bayfront.
D. Subarea 4 - West Fairfield
I. SoeciaI Subarea Conditions
This subarea is identified in the Montgomery Specific Plan as the West Fairfield subarea,
separated from the majority of the Fairfield neighborhood by 1-5. The site is approximately
20 acres in size and is characterized by ajumbled arrangement of incompatible land uses. The
site is generally bounded by Palomar Street on the north, Bay Boulevard on the west, Main
Street on the south, and 1-5 on the east. The area was annexed to the City of Chula Vista as
a part of the Montgomery Annexation on December 31, 1985.
A land use survey completed in 1986 found the area contained 39 single family homes and a
duplex. In addition, approximately 32% of the area was in industrial uses, 17% was
commercial, and 22 % was vacant. Many existing uses are visually unattractive and dilapidated
vehicles, materials, and structures are evident. The commercial uses at both the north and
south ends of the site appear to be more recently constructed and in the best condition. Several
other isolated parcels are also in good condition but the general impression of the area is
haphazard and not attractive.
This area has long been designated for light industrial use in both the Chula Vista and San
Diego County General Plans. The assortment of existing uses could just as easily support a
residential, commercial or mixed-use designation. The seemingly random pattern of uses,
multiple ownerships, and the sub-standard condition of many properties in the area suggests
that either a bUY-<lut of minor landowners by a major developer or redevelopment would be
the most feasible approach to improving the area.
(08/31/92)
PAGe> IV-13 ~ --- 3 :77
C./J. LOCAL eMS'!A L Peb GJC'IJ/Vl - UJ/Jd U~e PlAAJ
2. Harborside's West Fai rfield subarea, detached from
the balance of Fairfield by 1-5, is depicted as a
"white area" on the plan diagram of the Specific
Plan. This depiction should not be construed as the
Speci fi c Pl an's acceptance of the hi ggl edy-pi ggl edy
land use pattern which presently dominates West
Fairfield, but as a statement that the further study
of the 20 acres in question is essential. This area
has long been slated for light industrial
development by both the Chula Vista and County
General Plans, but its existing land use would just
as readily support a residential, commercial, or
mixed use designation. Actually, a
carefully-crafted and administered mixed use plan,
coupled with redevelopment, would probably
constitute the most effective mechanism for the
revitalization of the involved enclave.
3. It is proposed that those territories west of
Broadway and south of Main Street which are zoned
M54, and are primarily developed with industrial
uses, but secondarily developed with commercial and
resi denti al uses, shoul d be treated as a speci al
study area, and subjected to intensive study prior
to its final designation. (Please see the plan
diagram of the Specific Plan.l
4. The narrow strip of land, located between Moss and
Naples Streets, and Colorado Avenue and the MTDB
right-of-way, presents a special planning problem.
It is generally planned for "Low/Medium Density
Residential" development, and is situated in
adjacency to the Harborside Subdivision and the
Harborside School. Notwithstanding these factors,
it is zoned M54 and is partially developed with an
industrial use.
PARTJI FA Gt:; 32. -32-
!10NiCu{'1 cRY .s Pt~Clr/C PL/J;.) /'l!?7
?/37Y
r Jb7_/ ,I
It is alternatively proposed that this strip be
acquired as a passive-recreation parksite, and be
developed wi th shaded wal kways and ornamental
landscaping. If this proposal is implemented, the
involved territory should be planned, designed, and
1 andscaped in conjunct i on wi th the adjoi ni ng ~1TDB
right-of-way.
In the event the stri pis not acqui red for park or
open space purposes, its residential development at
a low/medium density of 3 to 5 dwelling units per
gross acre is suggested.
8. Townness and Its Application to the Montgomery Community
Montgomery is virtually a built-out settlement, or, more
appropriately, a cluster of several, nearly built-out
settlements. If it is to achieve high levels of order,
amenity, economic stability, and environmental quality, it
must first assert and increase its sense of "townness."
Therefore, all of the programs, plans, proposals, strategies,
and tactics formulated for the improvement of Montgomery must
be predicated upon townness.
Townness may be defined as a unique feel ing spawned by an
emotional relationship between people and their community.
This feeling is founded upon a sense of belonging. When the
people feel that they belong to their community, and that
their community belongs to them, a state of townness exists.
Without townness, new buildings, roads, public facilities, and
business centers are of limited value, and cannot create a
viable, social community.
-33-
rA}C/]I: Pit Ge: 3.3
MONTGDMEKY ~?EC/;=/C PLIJIJ /9t7
p;sr 6'/37
/
/
/
10.
11.
organizations for the purpose of providing low and moderate
income housing, if at least half the units provided as a result of
each transfer are affordable to lower income households, as
defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
Develop plans, pay principal and interest on bonds, loans,
advances, or other indebtedness or pay financing or carrying
charges.
Maintain the community's supply of mobilehomes.
Preserve the availability to lower income households of
affordable housin$ units in housing developments which are
assisted or subsIdized by public entities and which are
threatened with imminent conversion to market rates.
9.
The Agency may use these funds to meet, in whole or in part, the replacement
housing provisions in Section 529 above. These funds may be used inside or outside
the Project Area; provided, however, that funds may be used outside the Project
Area only if findings of benefit to the Project Area are made as required by Section
33334.2 of the Redevelopment Law.
The funds for this purpose shall be held in a separate Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund until used. Any interest earned by such Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund shall accrue to the Fund.
Any reduced income resulting from the below-market rate sale or lease, grant, or
donation of land to private for-profit and non-profit organizations may be debited to
the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The amount of any debit
shall not be subject to any transfer required by law for failure to expend or
encumber the moneys held in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
SECTION VI. (600) USES PERMITIED IN THE PROJECT AREA
A. (601) Map and Uses Permitted
The Map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein illustrates the
location of the Project Area boundaries, the immediately adjacent streets, and
existing public rights-of-way and public easements. The land uses permitted by this
Redevelopment Plan shall be those permitted by the City of Chula Vista's General
Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan, as they now exist or may hereafter be
amended.
B. (602) Maior LInd Uses
Residential
Includes single, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, group quarters, and
mobile home parks. This classification does not include motels and hotels, which
are classified as. commercial uses.
~
\chula\n.lplan
[5 --- ]%!)
~ ~~ A
h ~~
fLIJAl /5io u.fh 1)'1P.i.7- KPDeVel. OPI1l tfN/ P~.diJ'~r:1
~E :DE;VeL 0 f(lll tnfJ''r
9)/7J9J-
To; CHULA II!S7/! CITY CtJU))C)L
cH{)LIl fIsT/) ?Lilcf.JAJ/f{)6 (O)?1msS/{)AJ
(De -F0LLtJw)/V7 C/D /007- Cu/1AJ'f -10 j/c/L:
0. f rZ-e.s I d('OA.x!//j L /./ t//AJ J /;l) lUp~i- AI.-e 'l;e~
~ LA.b - Atl-T'J1 -4hl :
.A DDR.ESS
/;
6
~
cV:
e. v.
/
.
Fi!/
.J
I,C.,- .
t
'Z
J
(rlJ Q./
I f/(
o
D I ~ I'. r ~ ______ I ~ ....._ . v
B
8 II?I/
8 ~/
f ' I (
<[)
//
~
'11 I
?( (
( ( 8'" ----.Jg I
9//~
/ .-re!:s-
f
/
~@'!\~M!"~I,"ei,~,};m,\}'c"~,.".~('):ji~~eftmm, :, }m()i~rmm)jB, 1~m!m1i};:"'~(),iE"}(3.,JilM1Slmnss,.,t,111
'K"Tn, ,Tffi,V:. ,,' . Tno.r ,.,.IT.,. " 'llL. . ," .... .. ., ..... ., ...UUT!:......,.. . &fl'Ok'
m,::p::::::::.;_.:::.;I:::!::::~;::::\.::::;:;~:::::;:::,',Y:f;l::::.;:;/:.,::EL,-::,.-::::!1)';:;:-:;:::;,:.:::::::::::.:::::::i:::::::;;;;;;:::,\:::;f::){t~;;<:::AiJ:;::;~;)':t:~f~{:L/;::::::}~&!jll
NODCEIS IlEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Planning
Commission and the City Council of the City of Chula Vista for the purpose of considering amendments
to the Certitied Local Coastal Program and corresponding amendments to the City's General Plan.
The proposed amendments will revise the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Bayfront
Specific Plan affecting development of the Midbayfront area described as subarea 1 and the nonherly
portion of subarea 2 in the map, following. These amendments would implement the Conceptual
Development Plan approved by the City Council at their meeting of February 4, 1992.
The City's General Plan will also be amended to be consistent with the Local Coastal Plan
Amendment.
The Planning Commission and City Council public hearings will be held as follows:
· Planning Commission - Wednesday, September 23, 1992 at 7:00 p.m.
· City Council - Tuesday, October 13, 1992 at 6:00 p.m.
Both public hearings will be held in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers, Public Services
Building, 276 Fourth Avenue (northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and F Street).
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR-89-<l8) has been prepared for the Conceptual
Development Plan. The Final EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on July 24, 1991 and
certitied by the City Council on August 20, 1991. Subsequent to certification by the City Council, minor
moditications were made and an Addendum to the EIR prepared. The City Council held a public hearing
on the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan on January 14, 1992 and recertified the EIR on that
date. The EIR will be recertified again by the Planning Commission on September 23 and the City
Council on October 13 as pan of the consideration of the amendments to the Local Coastal Program and
General Plan.
All interested persons are invited to appear and be heard at the hearings. If you wish to challenge
the City's action on the amendments in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the Planning Commission and/or City Council at or prior to the public hearings. Any petition to be
submitted to the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Planning Department no later than 5:00
p.m. one day prior to the date of the hearing. Any petition to be submitted to the City Council must be
submitted to the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. one day prior to the date of the hearing.
Copies of the proposed Local Coastal Program and General Plan amendments are available at the
Community Development Department, 263 Fig Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, at the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Founh Avenue (Public Services Building), Chula Vista, CA 91910, at the
Chula Vista Public Library, 365 F Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910, and at the Coastal Commission Office,
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92108.
For further information, please contact Fred Kassman at the Community Development
Department, 691-5047.
~.~
Lc ~ /
Chris S omone, Community Development Director
6~J~)
Au(!Ust 3 I. 1992
Dated
[C,IWP51IBA YFRONTINalICE.TX]
I-~<' ..
7 . /'
FISH AND WILDliFE SERVICE
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
Southern California Field Station
Carlsbad Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
.- .
- .
United States Department of the Interior
October 13, 1992
Mr. Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Ms. Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator
Re: City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Draft Documents - Land Use
Plan and Bayfront Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Salomone:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the City of Chula
Vista's (City) Local Coastal Program (LCP) draft documents titled "Land Use
Plan" and "Bayfront Specific Plan" dated August 31, 1992. These documents
have been prepared in response to the establishment of Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) administered by the Service within the
City's planning area and the proposed development of Midbayfront by Chula
Vista Investors (CVI). The CVI proposed development has been described in
your Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and LCP
Resubmittal No.8 Amendment. Previous Service comments and concerns
regarding this project have been stated in letters submitted to the City
dated May 23, 1991 and January 14, 1992.
The Service's involvement with CVI included numerous meetings with their
representatives, their consultants, personnel from the City's Parks
Department and Ms. Diana Richardson of your staff. The Service has been
extremely pleased with the cooperation we have received from both CVI and
the City in attempting to avoid direct and secondary impacts associated
with proposed Midbayfront Development. This close coordination, in our
opinion, has resulted in the preparation of local Coastal Program Documents
which addresses our concerns with one major exception. This area of
concern is the proposed Cultural Arts Facility which was a project feature
not discussed in the EIR or the LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment documents.
This feature is currently proposed to be located at the former site of the
Luxury Hotel west of Marina Parkway or core section of the Midbayfront
development designated as the "Central Resort District." The proposed
locations for this facility is shown in Exhibit 4 "Building Heights of the
Bayfront Specific Plan. Pages 111-12 of Land Use Plan and V-2 of the
Bayfront Specific Plan indicate that the Cultural Arts Facility may be up
to 100 feet in height. The Service is opposed to the construction of a
Cultural Arts Facility located west of Marina Parkway that exceeds 69 feet
{5>3~
Mr. Chris Salomone
2
in height. This height limit was the standard defined in your previous ElR
and LCP documents for the former Luxury Hotel that was being considered for
this site. The Service's goal is to minimize building heights west of
Marina Parkway in order to preserve the visual openness and wildlife
interchange between "F/G" and "E" Street Marshes which are critical wetland
habitats of the Refuge. The potential impact of a tall structure being
placed west of Marina Parkway can be visualized by examining existing
structures adjacent to the Refuge such as Rohr's Building 61 which is 74
feet in height. This structure creates a significant visual barrier. To
meet our goal of an open corridor between "F/G" and "E" Street Marshes we
prefer the Cultural Arts Facility be located east of Marina Parkway. If
the proposed Cultural Arts Facility were to be sited west of Marina
Parkway, a smaller and less obtrusive structure should be considered and
any likely adverse impacts should be discussed and mitigated.
The Service would like to receive a complete description of this feature,
its likely impacts and to provide written comments on this proposed
facility. Potential impacts of the Cultural Arts Facility would appear to
include: (a) additional perches for avian predators of the light-footed
clapper rail and Belding's Savannah sparrow; (b) sources of light that may
intrude into the Refuge or adjacent wetland habitat; (c) noise as defined
in decibels that could be emitted from various anticipated events scheduled
to occur at this facility; (d) movements of people using the facility that
may disturb wildlife use in adjacent wetland areas, etc.
The Service has some specific comments on the draft plans. These are
listed below.
Suecific Comments
Bavfront Suecific Plan. VI. Environmental Mana~ement Pro~ram. D.
Midbavfront Subarea Reauirements. Pa~e VI-8
This section of the document addresses the creation of salt marsh habitat
at "F/G" Street Marsh. In Section 1) Restoration by Upland Conversion to
Wetlands, subsections "b" and "c", it is stated that 2.0 and 1.5 acres,
respectively, of salt marsh would be created. CVI has agreed ,to create
approximately 2.3 and 2.0 acres of salt marsh at each of these respective
sites. These figures should be corrected and Table VIol be modified to
accurately reflect CVI's restoration commitment.
Bavfront Suecific Plan. VI. Environmental Mana~ement Pro~ram. D.
Midbavfront Subarea Reauirements. Exhibit 12. Pa~e VI-II
Exhibit 12 "F/G" Street Marsh Conceptual Plan for Restoration and
Enhancement" does not illustrate the shoreline marsh creation project
agreed to by CVI, the City and the Service. This creation project is
described in subsection "C" page VI-7. This is a critical wetland
enhancement measure in order to maintain a viable wildlife corridor
connection between "F/G" and "E" Street Marshes. This exhibit should be
modified to illustrate this wetland creation feature.
g~Jyr
Mr. Chris Salomone
3
Bavfront Snecific Plan. VI. Environmental Mana2ement Pro2ram. D.
Midbavfront Subarea Reauirements. Table V-I
This table which provides a summary of restoration and enhancement features
for the Midbayfront area does not include the 8.5 acres of new coastal sage
scrub/succulent scrub habitat that CVI has agreed to plant in the 100-foot
wide "Primary Zone" buffer. This restoration feature is described on page
VI-g. The table should be modified to include this restoration feature.
Bavfront Specific Plan. V. Development Criteria. E. Sign Regulations. Page
V-7
Item 2 under subsection "b" of this page describes the maximum height of
individual letters or logo that can be incorporated into hotel buildings
greater than eight stories in height. This potential feature is
illustrated in Exhibit 6 - High Rise Building Wall Sign. Individual
letters or logo that project outward from the face of a building have the
potential to be used as a perch sites by avian predators of the California
least tern, light-footed clapper rail, or Belding's Savannah sparrow. All
building faces that are oriented toward and have a line-of-sight view of
the Refuge or wetland habitat adjacent to the Refuge shall have letters or
logo that are flush with the face of the building to prevent the creation
of potential avian perch sites.
Land Use Plan. III. Areawide Development Obiectives and Policies. E.
Environmental Management. Exhibit 10 Buffer Zone Section. Page 111-46
The proposed 8-foot wide moat shown in this exhibit has been eliminated
from further consideration by the Service. In discussions with the Corps
of Engineers, who were responsible for designing and constructing this
feature, the Service determined that a substantial acreage of coastal scrub
habitat would be eliminated by the footprint of moat and the material
excavated to create this feature.
Land Use Plan. IV.
1 - Midbavfront. 3.
IV-4. 5 and 7
Subarea Development Objectives and Policies. A. Subarea
Circulation/Public Access Obiectives/Policies. Pages
This section of the document discusses project features that would be
incorporated into Marina Parkway including bike paths, pedestrian
sidewalks, planting area for trees, etc. The Service wants assurance that
incorporation of all these features along with the proposed 4-lane road
will not increase the width of Marina Parkway beyond what is shown in
Exhibit 11 "F/G" Street Marsh Conceptual Plan for Restoration and
Enhancement," page III-52. Any widening of Marina Parkway beyond what is
shown would likely result in fill being placed in existing or proposed
wetland habitat and/or significant shading impacts to wetland habitat. The
Service is also concerned with lighting features associated with this
roadway, particularly where it crosses "F/G" Street Marsh. We request that
the City work closely with us in the lighting design associated with Marina
Parkway near wetland habitats.
. ---
<;5>-- .3 S':!?
Mr. Chris Salomone
4
The Service wants to continue our close coordination with CVI and the City
in the development of an acceptable plan for the Midbayfront. Based On the
receipt of more refined information for specific development features, the
Service may make additional recommendations to avoid or reduce impacts to
fish and wildlife species and their habitats. Coordination should continue
to be conducted with Martin Kenney of my staff at (619) 431-9440 and Tom
Alexander, Refuge Manager at (619) 575-1290.
SE IJl-6-93-TA-4
cc: CDFG, San Diego, CA (Attn: T. Dillingham)
Sweetwater Marsh NWR, Imperial Beach, CA (Attn: T. Alexander)
California Coastal Commission, San Diego, CA (Attn: D. Lee)
. g /_~J"j,
.
EXHIBIT "B"
I ~-....:- ~
. : :-.."
=- ~ .,.
.. -:
l-:-~ -"
. - - ..
- - -
- ..,... ,.
. - --
"J..........
- . ....
,.-.:. :
_.
. ..~ ;:.~
:"-.....
--,-
'.. _..
- - .
- - ,
-
II
I
I
:~~l'iillll'l~,i'
.*= ....., ~
.~ :.:.. ..
. ::;..:;:; ~ .\'
:::::1i:~3:::: .1
.........~;.... . I
::::::.:: :::: .
. ... ..
/
SWEETWATER 1iI,,"SH
.ATIONAL WILDLIFE
. REFUGE
........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
......................... .
.........................
.........................
......................... ...
......................... ...
......................... ...
......................... ...
.......................... .0'
_Ie
-.
UlIlt"
......................... ...
.......................... ...
...............................
.....................................
SAN D.EGO BAY
................................
.............................
\!!~lllllil! ..
~Hn~~~~~~~~ ::
. I
---'--
\'"
, .\
.1.
. .
...
.' .
....- .
......"....
.
.
.
LEGEND ~
usmElY7UL
m... JI-21 ftlu
CPL--!;,"~L
,u.uc~ __~
~::::~ lWw
.,...~- "
D~""
D'1lQAL trAIl......
[TIIs_.....-
r' 1IIIIIif, -."."
r::::::11'1 " .
IllllllJ ~ ..
~.-
~ ......
r'. .. . ,
. ,
IT~I"J ,
_.- [
':.:j;i-
-
... .
.... .
- . -..
UI"U".
- '~':[5oo~ :..'
. !.~
:.'
. ,
....
"
.
.
,.
l.
"f
.
I
.tJ
I
,
.~
~Vt-
-.-
~-...;: \;Y 7~
,~- 0 <..)C/?
,...."Of
DEPA.TIIENT QiUAVISI'A
~ - -
mJECTrmE J~.nnr>>JB.&. i!'Jrll&(Q)~T
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM
~ii
5
PLANNING
PETER.SON g PR.ICE
PAUL A. PE:.TERSON
GREGORY C. M. GARRATT
EDWARD F. WHITTLER
LYNNE L. HE1DEL
REBECCA MICHAEL
MARSHAL A. SCARR
MATTHEW A. PETERSON
LARRY N. MURNANE
A PROFESSI:~C~RPORATlO1i. E C :: ~ \J ~-~_ 0
530 B STREET, SUITE 2300
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92I~'4JGT -5 ::0 f ,C "
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 619
234-0361
FN<
(619)234-4786
CiT'l '>i '
CITY eu
October 5, 1992
fA
CE
FILE No.
3848.002
via messenger
Mayor Tim Nader and Members of
Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Public Services Bldg.
Chula Vista, California 92010
Re: October 13, 1992 City Council Hearing
Chu1a Vista Bayfront
Dear Mayor Nader and Members of Chu1a Vista City Council:
As you know, we represent Chula Vista Investors with regard
to a proposed General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment for the development of the Midbayfront. This LCP
provides for the sensitive development of a comprehensive visitor
and community serving mixed use project. This project is a vast
improvement over the previously approved LCP.
Our client has reviewed the draft General Plan Amendment and
the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and generally agrees
with what has been submitted for your approval. However, our
client believes that certain issues such as "timing and phasing"
should be deferred and resolved at the time that the Development
Agreement is negotiated. These timing and phasing conditions are
set forth in the Draft Resolution Section X-II, 13, and 14.
Phasing issues should not be incorporated into the LCP because
any proposed change to the phasing in the future may trigger the
need for an LCP Amendment. The City should attempt to retain the
greatest amount of flexibility in dealing with changing market
conditions which cannot be anticipated at this time.
0'- 3~S'
Mayor Tim Nader and Members of
Chula Vista City Council
October 5, 1992
Page 2
Therefore, we would respectfully request that the City
Council:
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and
Addendums Thereto, and adopt the Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations;
2. Recommend approval of the Amendments to the General
Plan; and
3. Recommend adoption of the Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program Resubmittal (with the deletion from those
documents of any reference to the timing and phasing of
the project).
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
~~.lu j- f6kEiV\
Matthew A. Peterson
cc: John Goss, Chula Vista City Manager
Bruce M. Boogaard, Esq., Chula Vista City Attorney
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development
Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator
Chula Vista City Clerk
Chula Vista Investors
lr/ :?~!
TES'i'HdONY of ';iilliam E. Claycomb, Save Our Bay, Inc. (forming)
to CHULA VIS'I'A CITY COUNCIL during PUBLIC COl:,idt:NT PE.UOD on
October 13, 1992
Assemblyman Steve Peace just about made the point that San
Diego Unified Port District revenues are really tax dollars
in disguise. But then the Port District hired attorney C.
Michael Cowett to say that Peace's law was unconsti"tutional.
If I could pay as much as I was told the Port District paid
Counselor Cowett, I'b bet I could hire three attorneys who
would say Peace's law was cons"titutional.
But, if I remember correctly Chula Vista had a ~6 million re-
serve and really didn't need to force the Port to give it money.
Of course, Chula Vista wants the Port 1;0 pay for some kind of
Bayfront development and certainly for a $3,800,000 (not in-
clUding already completed studies' costs)Nautical Activity
Center which would run a ~50,OOO deficit each year!
If Chula Vista has such a healthy fund surplus, it would be
nice if they re-paved II/ain and Broadway and a few other streets.
And in the spirit of the Golden riule, it would be nice of
Chula Vista to let San Diego have that $14 million San Diego
thought it would get so they wouldn't have to layoff police
and firemen and a whole lot more.
The best that can be said of all this messing around is that
priorities are about to be set.
Police, Bayfront development, firemen, liautical Acti vi ty Center,
paved streets_ _ _ -bovernments can only spend a million
dollars for one thing at a time~ever and ever. Once it's
spent, it can't be unspent. If/~?:::.~~~
a~~~