The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 1974-7145 RESOLUTION NO. 7145 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTIES IN THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT AREA The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, in accordance with the State Planning Act, the Planning Commission and the City Council have heretofore held public hearings to consider the amendment of the Chula Vista General Plan redesignating certain miscellaneous properties in the Chula vista Bayfront Area from General Industrial uses to Commercial Recreation and uses related thereto, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by Resolution No. PCM-73-20, adopted on the 17th day of October, 1973, a copy of which is attached he~eto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, has approved said revision of the General Plan, and WHEREAS, based upon said recommendation of the Planning Commission as contained in Resolution No. PCM-73-20, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council now desires to make said revision to the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby revise the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista in accordance with Resolution No. PCM-73-20 as adopted by the Planning Commission. u. Approved as to form by ~. $~.. (i. /..\'-.'_./::~ <:1__ r? 1/ /L 1,""""'---;- \ ~T \;~~~ ~ 7~ ~~ vr:~ n, D~rector of George D. Lindberg, City Attor~ Presented by D. J. Pete Planning ADOPTED AND APPROVED VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 15th the following vote, to-wit: by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA day of January , 1974 , by AYES: Councilmen Hyde, Egdahl, Scott, Hobel, Hamilton NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen None ~~.It"'~5h-- Mayor of the City of Chula vista STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, , City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. , and that the same has not been amended or repealed. DATED City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-73-20 RESOLUTION OF TilE CITY PLANNING CO~1rllSSION I(ECot~MENDING TO TilE CITY COIIIKIL A REVISION OF THE GENEI,f\L PLAN FOR r,lISCELLANEOUS PROPERTILS IN THE CIIULII VISTA UIIYFI,ONT I\REf\ , -;,~? _/il //.,,, :J IIfH'EI(EIIS, the City Council, on I\pril 20, 1971, approved a joint exercise of pm'lers agreement bet\;een the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District to employ Sedvlay/Cooke as planning consultants to conduct a study and develop a plan for the Chula Vista Bayfront, and \jHEREAS, on ~lay 16, 1973, the City Council referred the consultant's final report to the Planning COlTunission for recommendations on the General Plan arrendments, and I~HEREIIS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing to COilS i der amendment of the General Pl an fl'om General Industri a 1 uses to Commerci a 1 Recrea ti on and re 1 ated uses, and notice of s ai d heari ng, together with its purpose, was given by the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing, and WHEREAS, a hearing was held at said time and place, namely 7:00 p.m., September 26, 1973 and October 17, 1973, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was there- after closed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. From facts presented to the COllllllission, the Commission finds that publ i c necessity, conveni ence, general we Hare and good zoni ng practi ce requi re the adoption of an amendment to the General Plan for the Chula Vista Bayfront Area by incorporating into it: a. Exhi bit A to amend the General Plan map. b. Exh i bit B to amend the General Plan text. c. Exhibit C (portions of Sedway/Cooke's Report not in confl i ct with Exhibits A and B) to provide interpretive guidance. 2. The findings of fact in support of said determination are as follows: a. The water-related lands of the Chula Vista Bayfront are a unique resource which should be reserved for public and private uses which can benefit from and protect the location. b. The overall economic welfare of Chula Vista will be better served by uses of this land which will broaden the economic base of the community. '1(7/LJ5~ 3. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that said amendment to the General Plan be adopted, f" That this resolution be transmitted to the City Council and a copy be tran~mitted to the San Diego Unified Port District. PASSEf::, and APPROVED by the CITY PLANNING COMMISSION of CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 17th day of October, 1973, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Whitten, Wilson, Rice, Macevicz and Swanson NOES: Member Rudolph ABSENT: Member Chandler ( ~"d? Chairman <Ul.-rct Acting Secretary /.-' o 127/'1) . "b'8'C. III . = 0:'i.(,:.,{i "- ::t:;::;::+.::. ';':;:":;:.:.-.:. = ~ V> () ;:: III ::J: 0 III ~ = .;;' 3 ::!. '" :r " ;: :e 3 III :%l III .. CD CD Ul ~ III " '< " " ;;; :r " !!: "- III "tJ CD " - ;;; 0; " CD o' II> .. CD iii " CD "- " - III ~ ~ CD ii (') CD 0. " III 0. 0 - "tJ 3 o' c:: 0 3 " 5!: 5' CD o' ~ ~ " III 0 E " "0 "- CD ~ " V> :C' "0 III III CD " CD .." III g "" (ii' II> I1III1I11II111111111 m >< "0 '" " II> o' :J " CD II> CD ~ < CD ;: III ~ :;' III " CD iii CD "- :J "- c:: 2l. ~ [ :J "- c:: ~ !: :::0)>::0)::> --I (j) rno m:g =r CD 8~o AJ CD =' r-lE2 CD ~ Crrl-l [TI C c ::::!oc;o '< orozco ""-0 Z-< 2 -< (3 c 12:ip -I ::t ::t ~,..,,"U~ - l> I~ 0 () () !;" 3 .f::o:<:r: ~ CD co U10 ~ () C ::J () 0<1' CL 0' 0 3 ~ ~~g ~ ~:-I "'TJ Ui::j =: <D l<j 'jl :%l CD II> c: CD :J - [ :I> "- 3 :;' or - ~ o' :J III :J "- '" c:: !!!. :J CD II> II> V> CD ~ < o' CD --------.".~-::= '--- -l~_~ "~ ',~ ',i, , .... -'< " I' .~(~ ---"\ I I I I I C" I I I \ I \ I I I l~ I Ii I I: I.~ '. I,: \ ~ Ie \ \ ~ \ \ ~ I I ,-~ i.._____=___~ r--- [~ l '; o 1TI X :I: - CD -i )> , , II ~~v'T; ~ [,I " -', - ':> "-..-i I ''0\ il; I~._ ----"------- EXHIBIT B CHULA VISTA BAY FRONT AREA ^. BASIC POLICIES 1. Any marshlands determined to be of high ecological value should be preserved in their natural state and all new development, whether roadways, buildings, or other structures, shou.ld be carefully located and designed to promote this end. Whel'e it can be determined that some fill ing and dredging is required to accom- modate a viable plan, it will be considered. 2. Public use and enjoyment of shoreline areas should be promoted and protected. Public pedestrian access should be provided along the edges of the Sweetwater River Marsh, with the understanding that an occasional use requiring waterfront access may not tolerate interruption by pedestrians or bicyclists. 3. Good pedestrian and vehicular access should be created between the Bayfront and those areas of the City east of the freeway 4. Primary uses to be considered for the Buyfront area should be limited to public recreation, conlllercial activities such as hotels, motels and restaurants, and compatible water-related industrial activities when determined to be of sub- stantial public benefit. The question of water related industrial uses in this area between Rohr and the San Diego Gas and Electric power plant should be further studied. 5. Retail development which would be directly competitive with existing or pro- posed sub-~tegi0nal C.flU (egiulldl ~ilUi-'!JiflY center fctc-ilitics elsc~.:he!e in Chuiv. Vista should not be permitted within the area. 6. Where not disallowed by State tideland grant provlslons, limited residential developments, based on sound market analysis, may be considered to assist in providing a wider selection of housing types and environments in the San Diego area. B. SUGGESTED LAND USES 1. Primary use of the Bayfront should be limited generally to commercial recreation-oriented uses, such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and public parks and recreation activities, including marinas and marina-related commercial estab- lishments. Other uses, including residential and office uses, encompassing business services and light industrial uses exhibiting office-type characteristics, are permitted where complementary to the primary recreation orientation or where they contribute to the overall feasibility of the plan. Water-oriented industrial uses may be permitted in the vicinity of the existing "J" Street boat launching ramp if further studies pertaining to traffic and dredging indicate that such uses are feasible. 2. Small-scale water-related industrial uses should be permitted where they will contribute to the Bayfront and not impede proper development of public recreation facilities and the commercial recreation complex proposed in the Plan. 3. The Sweetwater Marsh should be preserved in its natural state to protect its many natural resource values. 1 ~'.-/ -1J ~ 11/.j5 4. In addition to the preservation of the marshes, the mudflats and shallow water areas should be protected because of their natural resource value. Additional fills should only be pet'mitted for construction of marina breakwaters and related facilities ~lhich will provide gl'eater public access and enjoyment of the Bay. 5. The Land Use Element map, Exhibit A, shows recommended locations for permitted uses. Public use of the Bayfront should be provided in the following manner: a. Expansion of the Chula Vista Boat Launch Facility to a marina with 650 berths, provision for a 450-berth marina adjoining the Sweetwater River and the deep water channel, to be provi ded by the U. S. Army Corps of Engi neers, and longer term allowance for an additional 850 berths in the southern and central portions of the Bayfront, if justified by future demands. As an alternative to construction of a marina in the vicinity of the "J" Street boat launching ramp, water-oriented industrial uses should be considered if additional studies indicate the acceptability of such uses in this location. b. Two large waterfront parks with a total area of approximately 30 acres; and c. A 50-acre hotel/motel conference complex, wi th other support facil iti es, including restaurants and retail facilities on Gunpower Point and the neighboring upland area. Included in the latter is the designation of approximately 10 acres of Gunpowder Point for public park purposes, and reservation of other shoreline areas for public access. TABLE 1 AREAS OF USE ALLOCATIONS ll2.e of Use . Mudfl ats and Submerged Lands* Marshlands Park and Recreation Areas (Exclusive of Golf Course) Golf Course Approximate Gross Acreage 475 167 110 30-40 Marina and Related Public and Private Facilities (Land only) * Industrial (Existing Rohr facilities) 50 71 54 21 42 153 21 Commercial Recreation Administration and Business Services Highway-Related Conmercial Residential Expansion Reserve *Excluding future expansion (shown with dashed line on map) 2 ~//y'\ C. GENERAL POLICIES RELATING TO CIRCULATION It shall be the objecti ve of the City Council to: 1. Provide for convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to the Bay- front from community areas east of Interstate 5. 2. Provide good regional access to the site from Interstate 5 and 54. 3. Create auto-free zones along the shoreline and other areas which have unique envfronmental conditions or potential, and make provision for pedestrians and bicyclists. 4. Route and design roadways in a manner which mlnlmlzes adverse affects on valuable marshlands, protects lands with high recreation value and avoids frag- mentation of developable lands into inadequately sized or located parcels. 5. Reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing for complementary public transit service, including smaller "mini-transit" vehicles. 6. Provide motorists, both on freeways and on arterials within and adjoining the Bayfront with enjoyable scenic experiences. 7. Provide sufficient separation between pedestrian ways, bicycle paths, and roadways to ensure traffic safety and the elimination of noise, functional disruption and visual intrusion caused by motor vehicles. 8. Develop the network of transporta ti on facil iti es, i ncl ud i ng freeways, major arterials, parking areas, and pedestrian and bicycle paths, into a system in which there is convenient transfer from one mode to another and an easily under- stood relationship between the various parts of the transportation system and the major destinations within the Bayfront. 9. . Avoid congesting the freeways and connecting arterials by maintaining a mix of land uses where peak traffic generating periods are staggered throughout the day. D. GENERAL POLICIES REGARDING FORM AND APPEARANCE OF THE BAY FRONT AREA 1. Preserve existing marshlands in a healthy state to ensure the esthetic enjoy- ment of marshes and the wildlife which inhabit them. 2. Change the existing industrial image of the Bayfront, and develop a new identity consonant with its proposed public and commercial recreational role. 3. Improve the visual quality of the shoreline by promoting both public and proivate uses which will provide for proper landscaping and maintenance of shoreline areas. 4. Ensure a harmonious relationship between the Bay, the marshlands and new development. 3 (~:/~/c . () ." .'-/ 5. Remove, or mitigate by landscaping, structures or conditions which have a blighting influence on the area. 6. 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. To promote these policies, the Physical Form and Appearance Element map, Figure 7, identifies three major components which comprise the physical form of the area: I) natural resource al"eaS to be preserved; 2) an open space system induding \'Ialkways, bicycle \~ays and park areas; and 3) development units having common usage and/or qualities, which should be treated as distinctive, but closely interrelated, visual entities. E. SPECIFIC CRITERIA REGARDING FORM AND APPEARANCE OF THE BAY FRONT AREA 1. GATEWAYS. 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, siting and design of adjoin- ing structures. These special gateway locations are shown on the Physical Form and Appearance Element map. 2. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. Dense plantings of trees and shrubs are proposed in loca- tions throughout the Bayfront to serve three puy-poses: f+irst, to diminisll t.;-:e visual impact of large existing industrial structures, such as those of Rohr Industries and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's plant and transmission towers, extensive parking areas and outdoor storage areas; second, to help define major entry points to the Bayfront and to frame views; and third, because of the . flat undifferentiated nature of the Bayfront site, to be used in masses as visual "stopping points" to limit views and provide natural vertical elements. 3. VIEW POINTS. Planning and development of the Bayfront should ensure provision of three types .of vi ews: a. Views fron the freeway and major entry points; the primary concern is to ensure a pleasant view onto the site and establish a visual relationship with the Bay, marshes and Bay-related development. b. Views from roads within the site, particularly Tidelands Avenue, to the marshlands, Bay, parks and other Bay-related development; locations should preserve a sense of proximity to the Bay and marshlands. c. Views from the perimeter of the Bayfront outward, mainly toward the Bay. 4. LANDMARKS. At present, the only dominant visual landmarks existing on the site are the industrial forms of the SDG&E power-generating plant and the massive complex of industrial buildings at the Rohr plant. As a part of the process of creating a new environment and visual image for the Bayfront, new landmarks should be designed into Bayfront development. Two major landmark locations are proposed: 1) on Gunpower Point, to focus attention and provide a new visual identity from the freeway and from the water's edge; and 2) in the southern portion adjoining the proposed Bayfront park, to provide a physical focus and identity. 4 ~ , . "'7-1///,\ f;' /1...-/ The landmark quality sought can be achieved by permitting a structure or complex of structures to exceed the height of buildings in the adjoining areas. This quality may be further reinforced by use of distinctive structural forms, materials, or colors. Additionally, it is proposed that the existing landmark function of the SDG&E generating plant be acknowledged and reinforced by repainting and night light- ing the structure to enhance its complex and basically interesting form. 5. BUILDING HEIGHTS. Heights of buildings should be varied in specific areas to set or retain an appropriate scale of development, to protect or provide for views of scenic areas, and to permit, where specified, taller buildings to act as land- marks. Additionally, taller buildings may be permitted adjacent to existing large- scale industrial buildings, if they can mask and thereby visually reduce visual incQngruity with surrounding areas. Figure 8 designates the recommended heights in the Bayfront. _."....---..,-__._____ ~';{,",}},:% :,;{:::\,,'::<)}}}}}'<'1~-- -., Figure 8: Recommended Building Heights l&I! llIIll 1-3 Floors 1-5 Floors 5 + Floors 6. EDGES. The interface of open spaces, such as parks and natural habitats, with developed areas, constitute functionally and visually critical areas deserving special design attention. From a functional viewpoint, development should be required to comply with the following conditions: a. Structures should be sited a sufficient distance from natural habitat areas to protect the natural setting and prevent interference with wildlife. b. Structures should be sited at a sufficient distance from the water's edge or marsh edge to ensure unencumbered pedestrian and bicycle access. c. Structures should be so 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 should be designed and use regulated in a manner which does not diminish the intended use of adjoining developed lands. 5 .~" -1) '//XI!J .~7- . , '~ .....-- 7) i/; CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PLAN AND PROGRAM Prepared for THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT SEDWAY/COOKE San Francisco, California Associated Consultants GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES EARTH SCIENCES ASSOCIATES DR. H. THOMAS HARVEY March 1973 PROJECT STAFF TOM COOKE, partner-in-Charge PAUL H. SEDWAY ---..-.--.----,---..---------.'.-.....-..... -"...._._-"...~._.._---~,..- ."-," -----.-...--.-.' ....--.--...."... -...--.-- - PARTICIPANTS BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS, SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary Comm issi oner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Dudley D. Williams C. R. Campbell Frank L. Hope, Jr. Miles D. Bowler Harvey Furgatch Lorenz H. Ruehle Walter A. Vestal Port Director Don L. Nay Director of Planning Frederick H. Trull CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Counci Iman Councilman Counci Iman Councilman Thomas D. Hamilton, Jr. Lauren I. Egdahl James E. Hobel Will T. Hyde F rank A. Scott Ci ty Manager John R. Thomson PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF CHULA VISTA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Leslie B. Rice John A. Macevi cz George F. Chandler Dorothy M. Rudolph Lester Swanson Paul F. Whitten David F. Wilson Former Commissioner Former Commissioner Edward H. Adams Kyle O. Stewart Director of Planning Assistant Director of Planning Davi d J. Peterson Norman G. Williams Former Director of Planning Bruce Warren PREFACE In the recent past, significant changes in technalogy and public attitudes suggested the need for a reevaluation of policy regarding Chula Vista's two-and-a-half mile long Bayfront. Among the factors involved are technologi cal change in maritime port facilities and on increased concern for the environment, focusing on the roles and values of natural areas such as the salt marshes and submerged lands of San Diego Bay. Recognizing these changing conditions, the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District jointly initiated steps to determine an appropriate future for the Chula Vista Bayfront. An environmental planning team headed by Sedway/Cooke, Urban and Envi ronmental Planners and Designers, assisted by Gruen Gruen + Associates, Economists and Sociologists, Earth Science Associates, Soi I Engineers and Geologists, and Dr. Thomas Harvey, Biologist, were retained to assist the City and Port in preparing a common plan for land and water. An integral part of this effort was a determination of methods to make the plan a reality. This Policies Plan and Program report contains three major elements: 1) a statement of primary policies and objectives; 2) a Development and Conservation Plan, including land use, transportation and urban/environmental design elements for the entire study area and for seven subareas; and 3) a Development and Conservation Program, includ- ing provisions both for regulating development in accord with the plan and for financing necessary physical changes. The recommendations in this report are intended for use both by the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District. The report provides the City with the basis for amending the General Plan, revising zoning provisions, enacting other new regula- tions and formulating capi tal investment programs. Simi larly, it should assist the Port in refining its recently revised Master Plan. The overall result hopefully wi II be mutual- ly supportive and coordinated development and conservation programs by the City and the Port. , ;/"-/5 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 BAYFRONT POLICIES AND PLAN ELEMENTS 7 BASIC POLICIES LAND USE TRANSPORT ATION PHYSICAL FORM AND APPEARANCE 7 10 13 18 3 SUBAREA POLICIES AND CRITERIA 23 SUBAREA A Gunpowder Point SUBAREA B Bayshore Village SUBAREA C North Marina SUBAREA D Bay Boulevard Area SUBAREA E Tidelands Office Area SUBAREA F Marina Green SUBAREA G South Marina 24 33 37 44 47 50 54 4 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 59 PLANNING AND REGULATORY METHODS STAGING OF IMPROVEMENTS FI NANCI NG PROGRAMS 60 64 66 IllUSTRATIONS FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 FIGURE 11 FIGURE 12 FIGURE 13 FIGURE 14 FIGURE 15 FIGURE 16 FIGURE 17 FIGURE 18 FIGURE 19 FIGURE 20 FIGURE 21 FIGURE 22 FIGURE 23 FIGURE 24 FIGURE 25 FIGURE 26 FIGURE 27 FIGURE 28 FIGURE 29 FIGURE 30 FIGURE 31 FIGURE 32 FIGURE 33 TABLES TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 Regional Setting Map Local Setting Map Land Use Element Map Transportation Element Map "F" Street Section Sweetwater Drive Section Physi ca I Form and Appearance EI ement Recommended Building Heights Map Perspective - Tidelands Avenue Subareas Map Subarea A - Illustrative Site Plan Subarea A - Policy Diagram Subarea A - Perspective Subarea A - Perspective Subarea A - Perspective Subarea A - Illustrative Section Subareo B - Illustrative Plan and Section Subarea B - Policy Diagram Subarea B - Perspective and Secti on Subarea C - Perspective Subarea C - Illustrative Site Plan Subarea C - Policy Diagram Subarea C - Illustrative Section Subarea D - Illustrative Site Plan Subarea D - Policy Diagram Subarea E - Policy Diagram Subarea F - Illustrative Site Plan Subarea F - Perspective Subarea F - Policy Diagram Subarea G - Perspective Subarea G - Policy Diagram Implementation Process Diagram Proposed Rezoning Map Opposite Opposite Opposite Opposi te Areas of Use Allocations Schedule of Improvements Major Financial Sources 1 2 12 14 16 17 20 21 22 23 25 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 38 39 42 43 45 46 49 51 52 53 56 57 59 62 13 65 69 -~ <.7I?iS _'u__._.,_____, _"_'__ on '" M ...... 712 MilES ...... ..j 5 ...... l ... :~ . 1I11I1I1.....'e' .~ .- 't; 1'.., #; /"$ ##,.~ ##,. 212 ~.. -", ~o .... ~'" iNATIO~ CITY 4 tate ~e(:"'~' .11 e \~~~ \)\\1:",'" ~ ULA VI) I I i; .- '" .+ . TO TI NITED STATES _ _ .. . , M ~...... INTRODUCTION 1 The geographic area for study and planning encompassed the land and water areas bordered on the east by U.S. Interstate Highway 5, on the south by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company facilities, on the west by the San Diego Bay bulkhead line, and on the north by National City and the Sweetwater River. The Chula Vista Bayfront enjoys a local and regional setting which makes the area highly appropriate for a range of public-oriented uses. Located seven miles from downtown San Diego and 7~ miles from the Mexican border, the site constitutes one of the last remaining blocks of undeveloped land on San Diego Bay. Regionally, the area is well served by In- terstate 5, the major freeway connection between San Diego and Mexico. The scheduled construction of Interstate 54 and its interchange with Interstate 5 in the Bayfront study area wi II further enhance the site's locational advantages. The site also is the southern- most area of San Diego Bay to which navigable channels are presently provided for mari- time and recreational purposes. Locally, the site is directly served by the City's major east-west arterials, including "E", "F", "H", "J" and "L" Streets. Approximately 54% of the City's population is within two miles. Both the Chula Vista Civic Center and its main commercial areas are within one mile of the Bayfront. EXISTING CONDITIONS The study area encompasses approximately 1,410 acres, of which 679 are original uplands or filled areas above mean high tide, 167 are in salt marshes and 566 are submerged lands. Four major ownerships dominate the study area: San Diego Gas and Electric Com- pany at the south end with 84 acres; Rohr Corporation in the central area with 156 acres, 56 of which are tidelands leased from the Port; the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail- road in the northern section, which owns nearly 400 acres; and the San Diego Unified Port District itself, which holds jurisdiction and ownership of all tidelands lying between mean high tide line and the City of Chula Vista's western boundary. The latter in- cludes 566 acres of submerged lands and 205 acres of tidelands east of U.S. pierhead and bulkhead lines which have been filled. With the exception of the 65 acres of leased land, the fi lied lands remai n vacant. The balance of the study area is comprised of approximately twenty small holdings, the largest being the Vener Farm parcel, between "F" and "E" Streets, at the water's edge. 1 .~ ;0':/5 __,.._.._._-(.J_~..__,_._._.^,.____.___..__. Most of the other holdings are located between the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Rai 1- road tracks and the freeway, and between "G" and "D" Streets. These range in size from one-half to three-and-one-half acres. Specific site conditions are discussed below. LAND USE Excluding 566 acres of submerged tidelands and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's 84 acres, approximately 763 acres or 54% of the study area is in urban use. The major land-user is Rohr Corporation, with manufacturing activities ranging from research ond development to assembly of aircraft components, rapid transit vehicles, and boots. Rohr's operations occupy a total of 153 acres. Approximately 50 acres are covered with industrial structures, with the balance used for parking, storage, and outside equipment assembly. Present employment is approximately 6,000, but has been as high as 13,000. A small group of bui Idings, including an unoccupied restaurant and convention faci Iity and a 34-unit motel, occupy land at the end of "F" Street. In the northern portion of the study area between the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad tracks and the free- ~H: r:\:: :.-;..: : ~~~:: . ::: a Broadway E Fou rth I... I i- ad -~ .5.::. L I Sho ing Center J H Civic Center I Figure 2: Local Setting 2 way, smaller property holdings ore occupied by 0 mix of auto wreckers, trailer parks, and other widely assorted uses. Of these, only California General, Inc., 0 manufacturer of aircraft and components, has a substantial investment in land improvements. The remainder of the site is either vacant or used for agricultural purposes. Vener Farms, which owns 23 acres and leases approximately 105 acres more from Santo Fe, is engaged in truck forming. Of the vacant lands, approximately 167 acres ore salt marshes along the Sweetwater River, and 35 acres ore composed of on abandoned gunpowder plant site surrounded by marshes. Both of these latter properties ore within the lands owned by the Santo Fe Rai I rood. NATURAL HABITATS The salt marshes in the site constitute one of the lost and most viable marshes in the south- ernmost portion of California. With only about 1,146 acres of salt marshes remaining in 011 of Son Diego County (of which only 350 acres ore in Son Diego Boy), the site's 167 acres of marshes ore 0 scarce and indeed valuable natural resource. I nvestigations under- taken by Dr. Thomas Harvey os port of this planning effort, corrobrate previous study findings that the predominant part of the marshes in the area have high natural habitat value. With the exception of limited areas near the rai I rood tracks, the majority of marshlands con- tain diverse species of marsh plants in healthy condition, and are used os nesting areas for marsh and shorebird species, including the endangered clopper roil. The value of the marsh setting is further enhanced by the habitat diversity provided by ponds in the marshlands. The mudflats and shallow water areas within the study area also constitute on essential part of the natural resources system. The existing mudflats ore 0 necessary port of the food base and feeding area of aquatic birds and fish in Son Diego Bay. Moreover, due to the higher surface-to-volume ratio of shallow waters, these areas ore vital to marine life because the principal methods of getting oxygen into the waters of the Boy ore the doily tidal movements and wove action. SOilS AND GEOLOGY Surface and sub-surface conditions vary throughout the study area. Portions of the site consist of original dry uplands. Within these areas, no difficult or unusual land develop- ment problems ore anticipated for standard bui Iding construction. However, in the bal- ance of the area, the depth of firmer "older formation" materials varies from 100 feet to 20 feet or less and they ore overlain by layers of sands, silts and soft boy mud of variable thickness. Of considerable importance is the presence of relatively shallow surficial deposits of soft compressible boy mud throughout the marsh lands and tidal flats, os well as in the deeper water areas. This mud, on organic silty soil, has on almost liquid consistency 3 ~2?ti_.~ and makes poor foundation material. Construction conditions also can be expected to vary greatly in the filled lands, some of which were not engineered fills. 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 durinq a severe earthquake. This is of special concern in tideland areas reclaimed by hydraulical- ly-placed sand fi lis. A detailed evaluation of liquefaction should be routinely made for any future major Bayshore 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. Rough estimates of fill costs in tidal, Bay, or marsh areas range from $20,000 to $25,000 per acre. Added costs associ ated wi th poor excavation conditions, requirements for pre-loads, piles, etc., although varying with type of development, could add approximately 15% to conventional building costs. VISUAL FACTORS The study area conveys two conflicting images. The first is an uninviting impression re- sulting from viewing the site from both the freeway and City approaches. From these vantage points, views are dominated by billboards, auto wrecking yards, power transmis- sion towers, massive industrial buildings, and other visually distracting elements. How- ever, a more careful examination of the study area, as seen from the freeway, reveals that the site is divided into two distinct visual units: 1) the southern half, which appears heavily built-up and industrialized; and 2) the northern half, which is flat and open, permitting some views across the site to the Bay. The second image, from within the site, consists of views across the marshes, distant views of the Silver Strand, the Coronado Bridge and San Diego skyline, and the Mexican coastal hills. These visual experiences are further enhanced by the immediate exposure to the water's edge and opportunities to view the wildlife inhabiting the area. The chal- lenge is to find ways to eliminate, or at least reduce, negative impressions, thereby pointing up the many assets which now go unnoticed. CURRENT POLICIES AND PLANS The current Chula Vista General Plan, adopted in December 1970, calls for devoting the predomi nant part of the area, approxi mate Iy 1110 acres, to genera I i ndustri al and research and limited industrial uses. An additional 40 acres is specified as visitor com- mercial with 140 acres for parks and public open space. Under this plan, land-fill out to the bulkhead line would be permitted. The San Diego Unified Port District's Master Plan recently underwent a comprehensive revision, arising, in part, from a recognition of changes in maritime technology. This plan, adopted in December of 1972, has eliminated the three marine terminals and ex- 4 tensive land-fill extending to the bulkhead line shown in the earlier plan. The current plan places a greater emphasis on marine-related recreational uses, to be located in the central and southern portions of the Bayfront I and marine-related industrial uses on fi lied tidelands adjoining National City. Other major plans affecting the study area include the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Sweetwater River Flood Control Project, the South Bay Channel Dredgi ng Project I and a study of a possible second harbor entrance to San Diego Bay. The California State Division of Highways also is preparing plans for a complete freeway interchange con- necting existing Interstate 5 and planned Interstate 54. Functional, visual and environ- mental impacts of this planned facility are especially critical. CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris 5 ~/--, .. '!Lil:'l2~ ..;.:.:.y ..:.:.:.:.:.. .mi_ SALT GRASS Distichlis spicata 6 BAYFRONT AND PLAN POLICIES ELEMENTS 2 The paramount concern of this Plan is to produce an environment responsive to social, economic and esthetic needs of Chula Vistans and other residents and users in the Greater San Diego region. The Plan has two primary aims: 1) to protect irreplaceable natural resources for the enjoyment and use of existing and future generations; and 2) to provide for man's use of the Bayfront lands and waters in a manner which recognizes its unique assets and maximizes benefits for the general public. This chapter sets forth basic Bayfront policies which underlie the Plan. This portion already has been accepted by resolution of the Chula Vista City Council and the Board of the Unified Port District of San Diego. These policies are amplified in the subse- quent discussion of the three major Plan elements of land use, transportation and phy- sical form and appearance. Generally, this Chapter presents planning policy at a level of detail suitable for general planning purposes, and provides an overall framework for more detailed policies and criteria for specific areas within the Bayfront. (The follow- ing Chapter on subarea policies and criterio is appropriote for use in revising land use regulations and in capital improvement programming purposes.) land use, transportation and physical form are discussed separately in this Chapter for purposes of clarity. However, they should be considered together because they are interdependent; one cannot be altered significantly without affecting the others. BASIC POLICIES During the course of the study, analyses were made of factors determinative of uses most appropriate for the Bayfront. These analyses included consideration of regional and local market conditions as they affect the potential for industrial, commercial and residential uses in the study area, transportation access to the site, availability of public services, such as water and sewer faci lities, ecological factors, geotechnical conditions and recreational resources. Based upon these analyses seven guiding policies were submitted to the City and Port for their consideration. Following public review, the policies, with minor modifications, were adopted by resolution of the City Counci I of Chula Vista on January 25, 1972, and by the Unified Port District of San Diego on February I, 1972. These policies fol- 7 ~ -i;- '1;///5 low with a brief explanation of the basis for each: A. ANY MARSHLANDS DETERMINED TO BE OF HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALUE SHOULD BE PRESERVED I N THEIR NATURAL STATE AND ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER ROADWAYS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES, SHOULD BE CARE- FULLY LOCATED AND DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THIS END. WHERE IT CAN BE DETERMINED THAT SOME FILLING AND DREDGING IS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMO- DATE A VIABLE PLAN, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED. BASIS: The salt marshes within the Bayfront planning area are among the last viable salt marshes in Southern California. These marshes are vital habitats for marsh and shoreline birds, including endangered species, and are an integral part of the complex Bay system which provides, directly and indirectly, major food sources for fish and fowl and the protection of water quality. Moreover, the visual richness of the marshes, their seasonal changes, abundance of wildlife, and panoramic views provided, repre- sent unique scenic and recreation values. Irrespective of the priceless natural resource value of the marshes, development of these lands is not readily feasible because of the need for extensive fill, poor subsurface conditions which would make development very costly, and greater seismic risk. Because the marshes constitute only 40% of the total acreage held by Santa Fe Railroad, it is both economical and legally feasible to concentrate development on remaining, more readi Iy developable portions. B. PUBLIC USE AND ENJOYMENT OF SHORELINE AREAS SHOULD BE PROMOTED AND PROTECTED. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SHOULD BE PROVIDED ALONG THE EDGES OF THE SWEETWATER RIVER MARSH, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AN OCCASIONAL USE REQUIRING WATERFRONT ACCESS MAY NOT TOLERATE INTERRUPTION BY PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS. BASIS: The Chula Vista Bayfront also represents one of the last remaining opportunities for public access along the southeast shore of San Diego Bay. The variety of exper- iences, including panoramic views, immediate shoreline access, potential for beach and marina facilities and viewing of natural area and wildlife, all reinforce the case for ensuring public access. Moreover, the relatively undeveloped state and consequent opportunity for planned development of the Bayfront as a whole, help ensure that pedes- trian access can be provided which does not interfere with other public and private uses of Bayfront lands. . C. GOOD PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS SHOULD BE CREATED BETWEEN THE BAYFRONT AND THOSE AREAS OF THE CITY EAST OF THE FREEWAY. BASIS: Despite its close proximity, the major portion of the City of Chula Vista is both physically and visually separated from its Bayfront. Because of the area's special op- 8 portunities, steps should be taken to ensure that the Bayfront will became a functianal part af the City, providing for both public and private uses which will serve and accom- modate local residents. Improved access is essential to ensure this end. D. PRIMARY USES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE STUDY AREA SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PUBLIC RECREATION, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS HOTELS, MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, AND COMPATIBLE WATER-RELATED INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES WHEN DETERMINED TO BE OF SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC BENEFIT. BASIS: The Bay ond its tidal areas are held in public trust. Hence, it is essen- tial that scarce Bayfront lands adjoining public areas be developed in a manner compatible with, and complementary to, the uses of these public areas. Analyses in this study indicate that changing maritime technology obviates the need for these areas to be reserved for port faci lities. Simi larly, there is no readi Iy determinable large- scale demand by marine-related industries for land. However, there is an established need for additional public park and recreation lands, marina facilities and a projected demand for tourist-related accommodations, such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and conference facilities. Hence, the aim is to reserve major portions of the Bayfront for public park and recreation use. Other and substantial portions of the area are devoted to private commercial uses which enhance the recreational value of the area and pro- vide greater opportunities for publi c access. E. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE WITH EX- ISTING OR PROPOSED SUB-REGIONAL AND REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER FACILITIES ELSEWHERE IN CHULA VISTA SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE AREA. BASIS: The Bayfront lands provide a unique water-related setting and should be reserved for uses dependent upon, or directly benefiting from, the natural resources of the area. Other sites centrally located within the Chula Vista trade market area and with good freeway access are available, for uses not dependent on the shoreline. Moreover, the traffic characteristics of region-serving retail facilities, i.e., the volume of vehicular trips generated and the time at wh'ich trips are produced, would create several traffic problems along Interstate 5 and the Chula Vista interchanges, thereby restricting the potential of the area for other more appropriate uses. F. WHERE NOT DISALLOWED BY STATE TIDELAND GRANT PROVISIONS, LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, BASED ON SOUND MARKET ANALYSIS, MAY BE CONSIDERED TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING A WIDER SELECTION OF HOUSING TYPES AND ENVIRONMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA. (This policy was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council but was deleted from the resolution adopted by the San Diego Unified Port District.) BASIS: The Chula Vista Bayfront is one of the few sites where water-oriented housing can be provided on San Diego Bay. Provision of some housing in the area is considered 9 pi) advantageaus from severo I standpoints: 1) it would diversify the housing stock and popu- lation of Chula Vista; 2) it would extend use of the Bayfront to more hours of the day and thus protect against vandalism and other police problems; 3) by mixing land uses, it would promote a balance in the traffic-generating characteristics of the area ond minimize trof- fic congestion; and 4) it would provide additional support for commercial facilities serv- ing recreational visitors to the area. LAND USE In accordance with policies adopted by the City of Chula Vista and the Unified Port District of San Diego, land use policies and specific designation of land uses for various areas of the Bayfront are proposed. These are consistent with the adopted policies, and represent a realistic appraisal both of development potential and constraints of the Bay- front and economic and market conditions prevailing in the greater San Diego area. GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES Primary use of the Bayfront should be limited generally to commercial recreation-oriented us- es, such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and public parks and recreation activities, including marinas and marina-related commercial establishments. Other uses, including residential and office uses, encompassing business services and light industrial uses exhibiting office- type characteristics, are permitted where complementary to the primary recreation orienta- tion or where they contribute to the overall feasibility of the plan. General industrial uses are specifically excluded. The reasons for this recommendation include the following: 1. The water-related lands of the Chula Vista Bayfront are a unique resource which should be reserved for public and private uses which can benefit from, and protect, the location. 2. There are no overriding functional reasons for using Bayfront land for general industrial use; the industrial growth of San Diego County is not likely to be impeded if the Bayfront lands are not developed for general industrial use. 3. The inclusion of more non-water-related industrial uses in the area would irreversibly denote the shoreline from National City south through the site as an area that could be marketed only for industrial purposes. 4. The overall economic welfare of Chula Vista will be better served by uses of this land which will broaden the economic base of the community. Small-scale, water-related industrial uses should be permitted where they will contri- 10 bute to the Bayfront and not impede proper development of public recreation facilities and the commercial recreation complex proposed in the Plan. Reservation of large areas for water-related industrial uses is not recommended. However, the land use policies of the Plan should remain flexible to permit future consideration of special water-related uses not foreseen at this time. Sweetwater Marsh should be preserved in its natural state to protect its many natural resource values. Studies undertaken as part of this program and other prior investiga- tions have shown that this marsh is in healthy condition and an important habitat for marsh and shorebird species, including the endangered clapper rail. The marsh also serves as a filter, capturing silt, soil and other materials, thereby increasing the clar- ity and purity of Bay waters. Moreover, the marsh serves both as principal nursery for young growth stages of shellfish and other fish species, and as a source of nutrients exported to adjoining waters and used by fish in later growth stages. No overriding economic justification can be found for eliminating the marsh. The al- ready vacant and readily buildable land within the study area exceeds projected needs for commercial, residential and office uses, with allowances for recreation and park use. Additionally, the costs of preparing the marshlands are prohibitive when compared to costs of other available lands, due to extra expense associated with engineered fills, added construction costs for structures placed on fill, and the need for supplementary seismi c precautions. In addition to the preservation of the marshes, it also is proposed that mudflats and shallow water areas be protected because of their natural resource value. The existing mudflats serve as an important part of the food base and are a feeding area of fish and aquatic birds in San Diego Bay. Additionally, these shallow water areas, with their higher surface- to-volume ratio, serve as a principal means of introducing oxygen into the waters of the Bay through tidal and wave action. Additional fills should only be permitted for construc- tion of marina breakwaters and related faci Ii ties whi ch wi II provide greater public ac- cess and enjoyment of the Bay. Dredging for channels should be kept to a minimum. SPECIFIC LAND USE COMPONENTS The Land Use Element map, Figure 3, shows recommended locations for permitted uses. The entire Sweetwater Marsh has been designated for retention in its present state. Public use of the Bayfront is provided in the following manner: 1. Expansion of the Chula Vista Boat Launch Facility to a marina with 650 berths, pro- vision for a 450-berth marina adjoining the Sweetwater River and the deep water chan- nel, to be provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and longer term allowance for an additional 850 berths in the southern and central portions of the Bayfront, if jus- tified by future demand; 11 ;ijA/5 2. Two large waterfront parks with a total area of approximately 30 acres; and 3. A 50-acre hotel/motel conference complex, with other support facilities, including restaurants and retail facilities on Gunpowder Point and the neighboring upland area. Included in the latter is the designation of approximately 10 acres of Gunpowder Point for public park purposes, and reservation of other shoreline areas for public access. Adjoining the hotel/motel complex, two areas have been designated for residential use, with provision of a linear park along the Bay and marsh frontages. Additional provision for commercial recreation faci lities has been made along the proposed Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel and adjoining the proposed marina facilities in the southern por- tion of the Bayfront. Inland, six major use areas have been designated. Included are Rohr's 153 acres, which would continue in industrial use, two areas immediately south and north of Rohr which are recommended for office park development, and the lands bounded by Interstate 5 and the railroad right-of-way, which are designated for highway related commercial. Additionally, a 30-acre area along the railroad right-of-way, including lands beneath the San Diego Gas and Electric transmission lines, has been proposed as a nine hole golf course. This area could be expanded to over 40 acres with the addition of some adjoining low-value marshland. The primary purpose is to minimize the visual disruption of the transmission lines and towers and to provide a scenic, well-controlled entrance to the Bayfront. The area also would provide the complementary recreational faci lities con- sidered essential for a successful conference center. Finally, a 15-acre area adjoining the golf cpurse, office park and hotel/motel complex has been designated as an expan- sion reserve. Its ultimate use would be dependent upon the demand generated by the other Bayfront uses. Either commercial development complementary to the hotel/motel complex, additions to the office pork, or residential use are considered appropriate. However, the final decision on these lands should await determination of development plans for adjoining areas. Table 1 summarizes the allocation of Bayfront lands by type of use. A more detailed description of land uses and related development conditions is provided in Chapter 3. TOPSMELT Atherinaps affinis 12 ! I ! I II V I' _ --7~=~=-~~- ----I~_~--, - L . J-....----....------ --- 1/ / I , ---; / I : , I : I, / : i)' / : ,f~~~.__J :-- J ! , : J 'f .--E--....-....~:::~t.>~~.~_......... V ~..~="'~~~"".':.."'~~~! ~~- ~ r:=J: ,-~~~~~~ ~ [JrJ!1!TIf\I .;......=...,... , 0JIJJlIJD ~~~~ c . ~1iLl'I' 1[' _,<- cL,_, ..., ffiEdl [t[j .,..~. L1-.".., ." .. _______m___~... Figure 3: LAND USE ELEMENT I- . . Salt Marsh Preserve .. __u_____ Administration and Business Service Park, Recreation and Other Open Space Residential l~till Marina and Related Public and Private Facilities . Commercial Recreation . Highway Related Commercial Marina Related Industrial Industrial 1111111I1111111111 Expansion Reserve ~. I..a , SEDWAY/COOKE ,:lOCI' Urban and Environmental j PlilnnersandOesigners --77:Yy) Table 1 AREAS OF USE AllOCATIONS Type of Use Approximate Gross Acreage Mudflats and Submerged lands* 475 Marshlands 167 Park and Recreation Areas (Exclusive of Golf Course) 110 Golf Course 30-40 Marina and Related Public and Private Facilities (Land only)* 50 Commercial Recreation 71 Administration and Business Services 54 Highwoy-Related Commercial 21 Residential 42 Industrial (Existing Rohr facilities) 153 Expansion Reserve 21 * Excluding future expansion (shown with dashed line on map) TRANSPORTATION The recreation orientation proposed for the Bayfront, combined with the need for natural resource preservation, preclude conventional transportation approaches and standards. An innovative approach is needed which recognizes the increasing disenchantment with the private automobile as the sole means of transportation and the increasing public demand for public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle accommodations. Fortunately, the relatively undeveloped condition of the Bayfront permits such new approaches and standards. 13 -------") ~~~c~Z2"~~~~ .-"- '- GENERAL POLICIES A series of general policies are set forth below os guidelines for future transportation facilities and services. These are amplified in a following section, in which specific tronsportation element recommendations are included. 1. Provide for convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to the Bayfront from community areas east of Interstate 5. 2. Provide good regional access to the site from Interstate 5 and 54. 3. Create auto-free zones along the shoreline and other areas which have unique environ- mental conditions or potentiol, and make provision for pedestrians and bicyclists. 4. Route and design roadways in a manner which minimizes adverse affects on valuable marshlands, protects lands with high recreation value and avoids fragmentation of de- velopable lands into inadequately sized or located parcels. 5. Reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing for complementary public transit service, including smaller "mini-transit" vehicles. 6. Provide motorists, both on freeways and on arterials within and adjoining the Bayfront, with enjoyable scenic experiences. 7. Provide sufficient separation between pedestrian ways, bicycle paths, and roadways to ensure traffic safety and the elimination of noise, functional disruption and visual in- trusion caused by motor vehicles. 8. Develop the network of transportation facilities, including freeways, major arterials, parking areas, and pedestrian and bicycle paths, into a system in which there is conven- ient transfer from one mode to another and an easily understood relationship between the various parts of the transportation system and the major destinations within the Bayfront. 9. Avoid congesting the freeways and connecting arterials by maintaining a mix of land uses where peak traffic generating periods are staggered throughout the day. More detailed applications of these general policies are described below in the discus- sion of specific transportation components. Additional criteria also are set forth in Chapter III. SPECIFIC COMPONENTS The Transportation Element map, Figure 4, identifies the various components of the pro- 14 [I ! I 11 il r L-+-~ 'Ii /, _He I )~~/ --------',---,vr-~ ~_...-.... ... ",- ....!.:.~ ,......~ " "0...... ~, ..~v ...~....' ..';::~....... --'" "'-- .... --- : r~~----_.. ..T...... .......................,,;............... .~.~;t\ 00" .._..".... ~ jlll" r".....,,..-.tr........ i ~ ~..-".. ....>:::;~.....~ "\ " . I 0 (\!:....) ( 0,- , .....:.1-1 ................, -----=--=..:-=-=\ ~-'---??~ I ______ /(1 _.J ,- __=_~..-=------=-=--'';,.~~~~!,.~~~~~_J - , , \---, , , , , , -,\" / / ............. ....1 10 / j'Cl/- --- II ~]WIEJ, , ~-;,:,:(: . _______ _____ ____...__ ___ _ 111.11..,iljltll'UIl._....__ _ ___III ""..1_ - - - Freeway o Parking Figure 4: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Major Arterial Secondary Arterial -----.... Local Access Road Mini-Transit System Pedestrlanl Bicycle Path System ~,o I.2J ' SEDWAY/COOKE 1200' Urban and Enwironmental I Planners and Design..rs -1,0 ..",,~ posed Bayfront transportation network. The following are the standards and specifica- tions for each. FREEWAYS. Freeway service to the Bayfront is provided by recently reconstructed Inter- state 5 and the planned Interstate 54 and its interc.hange with Interstate 5. Interstate 5 provides freeway access at four locations - IIElI, "HII, IIJI' and "LtI Streets. Interstate 54 will provide a direct connection to the proposed extension of Tidelands Avenue and, thus, immediate access to the northernmost portion of the Bayfront. Because the con- figuration and design of Interstate 5 is already fixed, the only major concern is its landscaped appearance. This aspect is dealt with in the later Physical Form Element discussion. The alignment of Tidelands Avenue approaching the Sweetwater River and connecting with the ramps of the new interchange, as shown on the Transportation Element map, is based on present State Division of Highways plans. However, minor modifications should be considered to permit a more easterly alignment of Tidelands Avenue. The recently construc- ted Santa Fe railroad spur, extending south from National City and terminating abruptly after crossing the Sweetwater River, is the only factor which prevllnts redesign of the ramps and an improved siting of Tide lands Avenue. Because the proposed Bayfront .Iand uses do not require rail access, extension of this railroad spur is neither needed norde'sirable be- cause of conflict with planned land uses and transportation facilities. Hence, it is recom- mended that further consideration be given to removal of this railroad spur prior to finaliz- ing the alignment of Tidelands Avenue and the design of the Interstate 5 - 54 ramp connec- tions. MAJOR ARTERIALS. The major arterial system serving the site consists of three road- ways - "E" Street, "J" Street and Tidelands Avenue. "E" Street would serve as the major regional entrance point to the hotel/motel complex area and as a major connec- tion to commercial and residential areas of Chula Vista. "J" Street would provide direct local and regional access to Marina and park facilities in the southern and ,cen- tral portions of the Bayfront. Tidelands Avenue would serve as the major roadway spine of the Bayfront. A minimum right-of-way width of 110 feet is recommended for each of these three arterials. This would provide for four travel-lanes of 13 feet each, a 14 foot landscaped median, with left-turn slots, and an additional 40 feet to be used for pedestrian and bicycle routes and landscaping. Curb parking should not be permitted, to maintain efficient traffic movement eliminating the need for a six-lane facility. This also will eliminate the visual intrusion by parked vehicles, reduce the dominance of views of paved surfaces and thus promote the scenic quality of these roadways. Direct access to the arterials from fronting uses also should be restricted to ensure efficient traffic movement. A minimum distance of 200 feet should be maintained between connecting roadways or driveways. SECONDARY ARTERIALS. A lower level of vehicular access would be provided by the "F" Street connection to Tidelands Avenue and the proposed Sweetwater Drive serving the North Marina waterfront area. "F" Street would serve as a main entry point and 15 - --;;;. . .:~Lp~__ . connection from the residentiol areas adjoining the Chula Vista Civic Center area. Al- though its primary purpose would be as a pedestrian and bicycle connection, four 12- foot traffic lanes should be provided. Figure 5 below illustrates the recommended off- center alignment of the roadway which would permit, within the 85-foot right-of-way, an ample landscaped pothway, well-separated from vehicular traffic. Additional pro- vision should be made for bicycle movements east of the freeway to permit the integra- tion of the Bayfront bicycle paths with a more extensive path system serving the west- central portions of Chula Vista. This could be done by reserving curbside parking areas along one side of "F" Street for exclusive bicycle use. ~: 6' 48' -....1fI~1'" 85' t Figure 5: F Street Sweetwater Drive is proposed as a two-lane roadway, incorporating additional prOVISions for smaller "mini-transit" vehicles (common or personalized). Pedestrian and bicycle movements would not be provided, and would instead be accommodated on two separate paths along the marsh edge and the Sweetwater River Channel. Thus, a total right-of- way of 80 feet is recommended, as shown in Figure 6. This standard right-of-way width should be modified at the intersection with Tidelands Avenue, to permit four lanes for the initial 100 to 150 feet. This would increase the capacity of this intersection, which is the primary determinant of the overall capacity of Sweetwater Drive. Access to Sweetwater Drive should be restricted, with connections permitted at minimum inter- vals of 200 feet. I In the event that non-residential land uses are developed in the northern portion of the Sweetwater area, a right-of-way of 110 feet may be required due to the higher peak- hour vehicular movements likely to be generated by such uses. 16 .. .....:::.. 13 13' 10' 20' Illllllllllllllltll;UIIIIIIII,II[II(~llIlilll(J(lilllll()!;llt;I!I~1111'J,ilili!'i!1 80' Figure 6: Sweetwater Drive LOCAL ACCESS ROADS. The alignment of local access roods is shown schematically on the Transportation Element mop. No specific standards ore set forth for these facili- ties, because such decisions should be mode os 0 port of planning and design of specific areas. However, there ore two primary guidelines which should be followed: 1) local access roods should be aligned to permit unimpeded access by pedestrians and bicyclists to, and along, the Bayfront; and 2) the alignment and roadway width should minimize visual intrusions of roadway surfaces and vehicles both on the immediate areas served and on other ports of the Bayfront. MINI- TRANSIT SYSTEM. Development of the Boyfront should provide for 0 hard surfaced roadway with on approximately 16-foot width, to accommodate small-scale transit vehicles. An overall right-of-way of 30 feet, permitting passenger pick-ups and drop-offs and land- scaping, is proposed. The recommended transit network is shown in the Transportation Ele- ment mop, Figure 4 and consists of two routes. The first would provide service to hotel, conference and pork uses on Gunpowder Point, thus allowing that area to be developed os on auto-free zone. Other vehicular access would be limited to service and emergency vehicles. This route could be extended eastward into the golf course area, if individual vehicles similar in size and operating characteristics to electric golf-carts were used. The second route would link the North Morino/Sweetwater area, the expanded Chula Vista Boot Launching area and the intervening public parks and recreation areas. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATH SYSTEM. A combined pedestrian and bicycle path system, approximately seven miles in length, is proposed for the Boyfront. The Transpor- tation Element mop shows the designated location of this route. The intent is to provide convenient access to the Boyfront from Chula Vista at three locations - "J" Street, "F" Street, and 0 link along the Sweetwater River Channel connecting with existing and future pork and recreation areaS along the Sweetwater River. Within the Boyfront, the 17 -fi ,7//;/~ .,--,.."._-_::._---..,."-,._...,--~~---~- intent is to bring pedestrians and bicyclists into close proximity with the water; thus, major pedestrian and bicycle movements are directed off Tidelands Avenue and accommo- dated along the shoreline. Generally, a minimum path of six feet should be provided for bicycles and, where feasible, separate provision should be made for pedestrians. PARK ING. Parking areas provide the link between various transportation modes. Hence, the success of the transportation network depends in a large part on proper location of parking. The plan recommends two major parking areas. One serves shoreline park and recreation accommodations. The other serves the hotel/motel conference complex. Each of these locations, linked respectively with "F" and "E" Streets approaches, would serve as a collection and distribution point and provide for convenient transfer to the mini- transit system or connection to the pedestrian and bicycle path system. Other smaller- scale parking facilities could be allowed in other locations. Due to the large land areas consumed by parking, the design of these facilities is critical. All parking areas should be heavily landscaped, both on the perimeter and internally, with trees and shrubs visually breaking expansive paved areas. Wherever possible, parking lots should be located in areas where they serve as buffers between incompatible uses. Moreover, parking areas should not be located in immediate proximity to the water or marsh edge. Because the heaviest public parking demand will occur on weekends, the City and Port should request Rohr Corporation to make available its parking areas for weekend visitors. If this were possible, major reductions in the total land area devoted to parking could be achieved and more land could be devoted to public park and recreation uses. PHYSICAL FORM AND APPEARANCE The Bayfront provides a unique opportunity to establish a harmonious relationship be- tween the natural setting and the man-made environment. The area's natural resources and scenic quality provide a setting which have a distinctive "esthetic" and in turn, can ensure economic success for activities locating within it. Moreover, development which is properly sited. and designed can hold these natural areas in permanent reserve and pro- vide for controlled access and enjoyment of them by the public. GENERAL POLICIES Major policies recommended to promote harmony between nature and man's use of the land and water resources are as follows: 1. Preserve existing marshlands in a healthy state to ensure the esthetic enjoyment of 18 marshes and the wildlife which inhabit them. 2. Change the existing substandard industrial image of the Bayfront, and develop a new identity consonant with its proposed public and commercial recreational role. 3. Improve the visual quality of the shoreline by promoting both public and private uses which will provide for proper landscaping and maintenance of shoreline areos. 4. Ensure a harmonious relationship between the Bay, the marshlands and new development. 5. Remove, or mitigate by londscoping, structures or conditions which have a blighting influence on the area. 6. Develop 0 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. To promote these policies, the Physical Farm and Appearance Element map, Figure 7, identifies three major components which comprise the physical form of the area: 1) natural resource areas to be preserved; 2) an 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 enti Ii es. SPECIFIC POLICIES AND CRITERIA The Physical Form and Appearance Element map also designates other form and appearance objectives. These are identified below; more detailed specifications are provided in the respective subarea policies discussions in the following Chapter. GATEWAYS. 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, siting and design of adjoining structures. These special gateway locations are shown on the Physical Form and Appearance Element map; more detailed specifications are presented under subarea policies and criteria. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. Dense plantings of trees and shrubs are proposed in locations throughout the Bayfront to serve three purposes: first, to diminish the visual impact of large existing industrial structures, such as those of Rohr Industries and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's plant and transmission towers, extensive parking areas and outdoor storage areas; second, to help define major entry paints to the Bayfront and to frame views; and third, because of the flat undifferentiated nature of the Bayfront site, 19 / !- _ /A/5 ~.._.___,___...____..".~J___..___~~...,~_____._ to be used in masses as visual "stopping points" to limit views and provide natural vertical elements. VIEW POINTS. Planning and development of the Bayfront should ensure provision of three types of views: 1. Views from the freeway and major entry points; the primary concern is to ensure a pleasant view onto the site and establish a visual relationship with the Bay, marshes and Bay-related development. 2. Views from roads within the site, particularly Tidelands Avenue, to the marshlands, Bay, parks and other Bay-related deve lopment; locations should preserve a sense of prox- imity to the Bay and marshlands. 3. Views from the perimeter of the Bayfront outward, mainly toward the Bay. (In the first two instances, the view experiences are, for the most part, from a moving vehicle - momentary and unstructured. In this instance, the view is primari Iy 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 contact at close range with the Bay and marshlands.) LANDMARKS. At present, the only dominant visual landmarks existing on the site are the industrial forms of the SDG&E power-generating plant and the massive complex of in- dustrial buildings at the Rohr plant. As a part of the process of creating a new environ- ment and visual image for the Bayfront, new landmarks should be designed into Bayfront development. Two major landmark locations are proposed: 1) on Gunpowder Point, to focus attention and provide a new visual identity from the freeway and from the water's edge; and 2) in the southern portion adjoining the proposed Bayfront park, to provide a physical focus and identity. The landmark quality sought can be achieved by permitting a structure or complex of structures to exceed the height of buildings in the adjoining areas. This quality may be further reinforced by use of distinctive structural forms, materials, or colors. Ad- ditionally, it is proposed that the existing landmark function of the SDG&E generating plant be acknowledged and reinforced by repainting and night lighting the structure to enhance its complex and basically interesting form. BUILDING HEIGHTS. Heights of buildings should be varied in specific areas to set or retain an appropriate scale of development, to protect or provide for views of scenic areas, and to permit, where specified, taller buildings to act as landmarks. Additional- ly, taller buildings may be permitted adjacent to existing large-scale industrial build- ings, if they can mask and thereby visually reduce visual incongruity with surrounding areas. 20 ~--~------------- -- - -,---~~~~""-",,,-.'="'""~'j --- , L___\ jJ ---i-~~~~~-"".. , '1-[-:-:::T1~r---'--- I i.1"nlTlnn 1-1-'1-- Jr', "', . rr,-,--l CJ1111h " "';-1 I 1-" "r!l!r~' 10 : tpL ,J;- T]Ii, i i D.... [":',lil',I.ln illl.", .: _ ':, L;l;~illu~[]IIl : [J][I]TIIl~JW.Ul I 1 flI NT-"T! ,1lf'lT"7"I ,---'-11 "-,--,--, --:: 1 1 1 : 1--1 0c-,-~-=i::-~~"-"'-~"'1I',--~-'riTIr-~;r---- Figure 7: PHYSICAL FORM AND APPEARANCE ELEMENT T~ " 'L' ., I, . - r\ Marsh Preserve Public Open Space Gateway landscape Buffer View Point landmark Firm Edge '...u- '} Irregular Edge - ----) + ~" \.211 ' ,~' , SEDWAY/CDOKE Urban and Environmental Plannera and Designers -,'1 Figure 8 designates the recommended heights in the Bayfront. I , , l Figure ----. --~"___________ ,>,,"'>"''h <i>>>,'\ _~ 8: Recommended Building Heights 1-3 Floors _ 1-5 Floors lIIlIlIII 5 + Floors As indicated, taller structures, up to eight stories, are permitted in the Gunpowder Point area which will maximize the number of hotel rooms with views and those which can be provided on the island while retaining major portions in open space. Similarly, five stories are permitted in the central portion of the proposed North tvlarina residential area to per- mit views outward over lower townhouse development to the south and commercial develop- ment to the north. A maximum of five stories also is proposed in the Bayfront Vi lIage area, provided that two-story heights are maintained immediately adjoining the public open space and in the northern portion of the office park area adjoining the Rohr plant. Gen- erally, the remainder of the area should have a maximum height of three stories. Excep- tions to these heights could be conditionally permitted where consistent with landmark policies described above. EDGES. The interface of open spaces, such as parks and natural habitats, with developed areas, constitute functionally and visually critical areas deserving special design atten- tion. From a functional viewpoint, development should be required to comply with the following conditions: 1. Structures should be sited a sufficient distance from natural habitat areas to protect the natural setting and prevent interference with wildlife. 2. Structures should be sited at a sufficient distance from the water's edge or marsh edge to ensure unencumbered pedestrian and bicycle access. 3. Structures should be so designed to ensure that the uses which take place in a struc- ture or private space adjoining the structure do not detract from, or prevent appropriate 21 _n.___:? -/). /1/;:2 -_.~._._..._---~-_._-_._._--_. ---~,... public use of, adjoining public open spaces. In turn, the public areas should be designed and use regulated in a manner which does not diminish the intended use of adjoining de- veloped lands. Visually, edges are of two kinds: 1) firm edges, where there is a readily distinguishable and abrupt change from open space to building mass; and 2) irregular edges where open spaces and buildings are more intricately intertwined at a small scale. Firm edges are shown in the accompanying Physical Form and Appearance Element map, 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 buildings, but also may be achieved by use of earth berms or mass plantings. Irregular edges are shown 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. Generally, the firm edge is employed where the concern is the spatial experience of the motorist; the irregular edge is used in areas slated for pedestrian use because this provides a setting more consistent with pedestrian scale and movement. Figure 9 View from Tidelands Avenue showing the approach to the new bridge connection to National City. The roadway, aligned to the east to avoid unnecessary disruption of the Sweetwater Marsh, swings westward to the planned bridge alignment. 22 SUBAREA POLICIES AND CRITERIA 3 An effective planning program must address itself to specific site conditions and es- tablish guidelines for land use, transportation and site and building design responsive to localized factors. For this reason, the Bayfront Study Area has been divided into seven subareas, as shown in the diagram below. - ~~ t. i .:. _ L~ "" ..' - : ~- - ~ -:: ~-; . j (--dO::: =::::?:i ~, F V - ..........,1- - -- - -- - -E-B Gill..: :: ~ : Rohr Corp. : : ~, J'",: : _ .1" S.D.G.&E. "",. :: ~ . - .. . - - . '- ..-....... 1'. ."11111'111111111111" ........--."- ---'" '- "--.-~""'IHI"'f".......D.....rflll': i 'ii Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" .... w c : : Figure 10: Subareas Although individualized treatment is given to each, most of these subareas are highly interrelated, and subarea policies and criteria are complementary to, and fit within, the broader policy framework in the preceding chapter. Moreaver, the extent of the area in the respective subareas was determined in part by graphic presentatian limits, such as maintaining pal icy maps at a scale sufficiently large to be read clearly. The arder in which subareas are discussed reflects degrees of impartance and interrelated- ness. For example, the discussion starts with Subarea A, which contains the matel/ hotel conference center complex; it is followed by other subareas which are func- tionally or visually closely related to ar dependent upon it. Each af the subarea discussions includes a statement of land use and circulation policy and develapment and conservatian criteria. These are accompanied by a policy dia- gram which further specifies the conditions which should be observed. Where appro- priate, an illustrative site plan is provided to clarify further the intent of the plan. However, the latter are nat intended as an exact representation of proposed develap- 23 7?,/yS ment, but rather as merely the example of how development might take place within specified conditions. SUBAREA A Gunpowder Point The Gunpowder Point Subarea includes major portions of the Sweetwater Marsh, all of the island formerly used as the site for gunpowder manufacturing, and upland areas extending eastward approximately 3,500 feet from the westernmost portion of the is- land. At present, the upland area is leased for agricultural purposes; the island area is used for storage related to the agricultural uses. Road access is limited to an un- improved and undedicated extension of "E" Street. The entire subarea is owned by Santa Fe Railroad and has a current assessed market value of $231,250, excluding railroad right-of-way. The combination of this site's resources and locational advantages make this sub area perhaps the most important segment af the Bayfront. Among the beneficial attributes are the high wildlife habitat values of Sweetwater Marsh, the scenic and recreation values created by the marsh and island area, direct and convenient access from In- terstate 5 and the local community via "E" Street, and the opportunity for a well- planned development arising from single ownership of the site. Four major use areas are designated for Gunpowder Point: the Sweetwater Marsh and lagoon, the island, a gateway area immediately east of the Marsh, and a golf course along the eastern boundary. The land use, circulation and development and conser- vation policies and criteria for each are set forth below. LAND USE MARSH AND LAGOON. Much of Sweetwater Marsh within this subarea should be maintained in its natural state to protect its many natural resource values. The Marsh would serve as a wi Idlife preserve and ecological study area for educational and re- search purposes, and would provide a distinctive natural setting for the hotel, motels, conference center and related facilities. To improve the wildlife habitat values, con- struction of several small islands in the existing lagoon for breeding and nesting sites is recommended. ISLAND. The 38 acre island area is proposed as the nucleus of the resort hotel and conference center. With provisions for auxiliary uses - including tennis courts, swim- ming pools, small retai I shops and restaurants - the island could accommodate up to 700 hotel and motel units plus conference facilities. No private vehicles should be permitted in the area in order to retain the natural character of the site and to promote a distinctive pedestrian-oriented environment. 24 T ~\ ' A~~~G~O~ .... j ~\ ~Z-"\~~~..~~ . 0,^'~~ .I, . '....>:~..:~'~,~'Ii. . .... ,--" ,.....:-:,., . ,'iI. ~"'''''#',_..._ ~'_ ,: h:.:..p. .... ~ __,' -'- l ,.,' I:. ".<:, . ,,} '. ~ ~ ~..IQr~ '- _ :>:i ]:._:' .,-,.: -":'1. < 'j' }.~ .~ ",,..: <'\.- ':.'";., :,_,' 4 ~:tiJty :~~~ ~ .. ., ~ ,;. 1. - "- ,- ~ ' ~r"~-'~' . ~;o.,J""j,;' "Jo J ~ ,-..~,~ -, ~. .. .:' ',':.. ~"r GATEWAY Qo ". i .... '"....a ~., 1: ~"'" .. ~~$ ~.,-"'- ' ''''\ ...:0. '_ 1'J1S}1 ~~,- t-' ;s ."",1 ~, ~; ,;.} i J,~ ~. w_"."~;1)~lo .'. ~"'.'" ,:~'5 fI/,: J'/:'/l~$'1 "1o'~1 . ~"~"~/:'.}(1 '# "... ~ , ~ ~ :' ~ ,: I.; . I " . . ""''''''cOn.""Co ' I '1: -., ~ .;. ~.';)o ~ ~:~ - ~ ' - , ,,' ~?<:""!t~:,.n~'/ .' MARSH Figure 11: Illustrative Site Plan T ISLAND 25 ........., il2/..5 . To maintain the maximum amount of open space and maximize available view units, a combination of three to eight story hotel facilities is proposed in the center of the island, partially surrounded by one and two story hotel units. Along the Bayside, a two to three story boatel, with approximately 50 units and adjacent boat-berthing facilities, should be permitted. Additionally, seven to eight acres of public park space should be provided on the Bayside of the island. The island's marsh setting and sense of insulation make it ideally suited for recreation and park purposes. Hence, consideration should be given to acquiring the entire is- land for some public open space uses. If such a decision were made, residential de- velopment designated for shoreline areas in the south should instead be changed to commercial recreation purposes. GATEWAY AREA. Immediately east of the Marsh, 25 acres has been designated for commercial use complementary to island facilities. The reception building for the island complex would be located here, along with parking required for island units. An addi- tional 250-300 motel units would be permitted, along with small shops and restaurants. Generally, this area would cater to overnight stays in contrast to the longer-term re- sort and conference emphasis of the island area. GOLF COURSE. A nine-hole short golf course of approximately 35 acres is recommend- ed along the eastern edge of the site. It would provide some of the complementary re- creation facilities essential for a successful conference center, and equally important, it would provide a controlled, well-landscaped approach to the Bayfront. Lands beneath the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's transmission lines which are limited in their use would make up a portion of the golf course. Clubhouse facilities and parking for the course would be provided within this area. It is recommended that the course be pri- vatelyoperated, as part of the conference facilities, but open to the public. CIRCULATION MARSH AND LAGOON. Access across the marsh and lagoon area would be limited to the roadway to the island area and to a pedestrian and bicycle path along the north side of the lagoon. Both would be located on existing dikes which help form the lagoon. Additional access to the marsh, as well as to the mudflats, should be provided for ped- estrians by means of boardwalks. These should be placed at intervals which permit ob- servation of the marsh and wildlife which inhabit it, but should be spaced for enough away to ensure protection of the habitats.. ISLAND. Access to the island area would be restricted to mini-transit, service and emergency vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. A two-lane roadway, with a maximum road width of 20 feet, would be provided for permitted vehicles. The perimeter of the island would be served by a path system suitable for both pedestrians and bicyclists. 26 GATEWAY. A main entry loop, off "E" Street, would provide access to the motel area and parking areas for island facilities. The main transfer point for the mini-transit sys- tem would be located here. It would link the route used to transport hotel guests and others using the island facilities to the Bayfront route, connecting the North and South Marina areas. Approximately 1000 parking spaces would be needed for the island com- plex and for the motel and restaurant facilities in the gateway area. Pedestrian and bicycle movements would be accommodated by a path along the marsh and lagoon as shown in the accompanying Policy Diagram, Figure12. GOLF COURSE. "E" Street would bisect the golf course and provide the main entrance to the Bayfront. A four-lane roadway with landscaped median and parkway strips on each side is recommended. Curbside parking should be prohibited. A pedestrian and bicycle path should continue around the edge of the golf course and adjoining develop- ment to provide an interior walkway system separate from Tidelands Avenue and "E" Street. A grade-separated crossing should link the southern and northern portions of the golf course. Necessary change in elevation can be achieved by slightly depressing the pedestrian route and raising the roadway on a low earth berm. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION CRITERIA The policy diagram for Subarea A designates the development conditions which should be observed. These are complemented by the criteria outlined below. An illustrative application of these policies and criteria is shown in Figure 11. MARSH AND LAGOON. Criteria which should be applied to these areas are: 1. Further fi II ing of the marshes should be prohibited except for the express purpose of providing for extension of Tidelands Avenue, for limited access to Gunpowder Point, for improvement of the dikes creating the lagoon area, or for creation of small islands which would serve solely as nesting and breeding areas for wildlife. 2. The construction of the Tidelands Avenue extension across the marshlands should provide for unrestricted tidal action throughout the marsh and additionally allow for the flow of fresh water from the Sweetwater River to marsh areas west of the Tidelands Avenue right-of-way. 3,' The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Sweetwater Flood Control Project should be de- \ signed to retain the flow of fresh water into the marsh from the Sweetwater River. 4. An open space buffer should be provided along the marsh edge, approximately SO- lDO feet in depth. Pedestrian and bicycle access should be allowed within this zone. 5. Pedestrian walkways and observation points should be located within the marsh, pro- vided that construction is on piles to minimize disruption of the marsh habitat. 27 ~~-----) " t).'2?~ Figure 12: POLICY DIAGRAM AREA ~ ~ Provide Views .......... Irregular Edge _ Firm Edge + Landmark Form '" Gateway ~~ Allowable Bldg. Ht. ..... Pedestrianway 111111 Mini-Transit Service P- Parking Area 0000 Formal Planting ~:;~.;' Mass Planting *** Screen Planting _ _ _ Shallow Water Preserve Marsh Preserve _ Park-Open Space Gunpowder Poi~ no ~I 50 I ISLAND. The following criteria should serve as a basis for reviewing this property: 1. An open space buffer zone should be provided around the perimeter of the island in which structures generally would not be permitted. This area, ranging in depth from 50-100 feet, should be reserved for pathways, landscaping to providing visual screen- i ng, and recreation use. 2. The major hotel and conference development should provide a strong landmark element when viewed from the inland areas, the freeway and other approach roadways. This would establish an identity in an otherwise "featureless" area. Buildings in the central portion should be of sufficient height, perhaps six to eight stories to achieve this. Tall slab buildings should be avoided, while point towers (buildings whose length and width are almost equal and whose height is at least twice the building width) and stepped or ter- raced building fonms should be encouraged. 3. The low buildings facing the perimeter should not fonm a wall, but instead should pre- sent a broken, variegated edge facing the marsh and lagoon. The perimeter open space buffer should penetrate into this edge. Figure 13 Proposed hatel and motel facilities on the Island could be designed as a series of low, terraced structures maximizing views from the units and minimizing the introductian of a new scale of development into this portion of the Bayfront. 29 --"::> 1)< ;/~ '.:,: y ~ I; " , y _ -"'41-1_ . ,.- 'l.ff/;1/lif/I/'f'j,ffj . , /,1 'i ' '/ /'//'; f'~f ,,.' L bd 1-, Figure 14 An alternative design of hotel accommodations on the Island would employ a mid or high-rise structure so as to create more open space and provide a strong visual identification for the Island complex. 4. Building materials and colors should be consistent throughout the island. Materials and colors should be limited either to natural colors (and materials) or to white and off- white colors. 5. The northern portion of the island, shown in the policy diagram as low, clustered development, should be heavily landscaped with deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees. This would serve three purposes: I) to mask the buildings when viewed from neigh- boring areas; 2) to add mass to the flat, undifferentiated landscape; and 3) to create a sense of scale and character different from the major hotel area, for people staying in the cluster units. 6. The southern half of the island containing the public park space can be less densely landscaped wi th open grassy spaces predominating. 7. If economically feasible, a channel and small marina suitable for power boats and shal- low draft sailboats should be permitted at the west end of the island. A boatel should be allowed in conjunction with the marina, and may occupy space within the open space buf- fer if adequate allowance is made for uninterrupted pedestrian and bicycle movement around the island. GATEWAY AREA. The following criteria are designed to ensure successful integration of development with the adjoining marshlands and the "E" Street entrance to the Bayfront. 30 1. Structures should not be permitted within the open spoce buffer described in the obove discussion of the marshlands. 2. Motel and restaurant buildings should be sited to maximize views outward over the marsh and lagoon. 3. The island resort hotel reception center should be designed as an integral part of the adjoining motel and restaurant facilities. All these structures should be sited and designed to achieve a "gateway" effect for people approachi ng from" E" Street and Tidelands Avenue. ~;:~::;::;::::;:~;:::};>;:/::;: ..................................;.;.;. ~"'I I '44 .. /Pi:; '11 - dJ ((AI 'I ,1!JjfJ " .,i' , <-- --p~ ...-t.v1l{/' ~ ~ '~V,~l];)t,.. ." dU<MJ. ~..>'(I \ ~ v,d", > -v' ~\7' ." VI \ II:' ~ ;-;I?-::J?1J!j4 . )Y!~I(rt4;, ~df~All ~ k' " ._ -w AJ~~AjJ ,,", v' i ',,, "r~Ll) t'J I '~'it\:. (/U'" .< A ;;:..,;J',."~ ~~,~'''''','' ,,," ~ ,f q,(. '"j) .." "."' '~,', ~~ io~C,', .._,.4;''-::;''''-''''/.:#':(,.,_.. 't~ ~ :~-..., . . ,',....J,;..n- "'. ~ 'I : ' Figure 15 Along the bay and marsh edge of the Island, buildings should be kept low and provisions made for public access. 31 q ;V^/~ .,._...,__,.....,..__...._.._._..._,_L.~. 4. Because this portion of the area is intended for short-term, overnight accommoda- tions, parking in areas immediately adjoining the motel units is appropriate. 5. Due to the large amount of parking needed to accommodate uses within this area and the island, special steps must be taken to minimize the visual intrusion of parked vehicles. To achieve this end, a low, landscaped berm should be provided along the western side of Tidelands Avenue and the parking areas should be slightly depressed below roadway elevation. This would retain views toward the Bay and screen cars from sight. Additional landscaping should be provided throughout parking areas to minimize the sterile expansiveness of paved areas and alleviate heat build-up. Ap- proximately one tree should be provided for every four to five parking spaces. 6. Trees for use in parking areas should be selected for their obi lity both to maxi- mize the extent of the overhead canopy effect and to facilitate the view through the parking areas toward the Bay. For the latter purpose, the lowest branches of the tree should, within five to eight years, be at least ten to twelve feet from the ground. (See Figure 16.) VIEW .~ .~ \lj::~~illl~lif~1111~f.~~llI1jIJI11~lltlfi~iS~iIii~:::. Figure 16: Illustrative Section 32 SUBAREA B Bayshore Village At present, this subarea is primarily used as farmland and contains only a few small buildings and portions of the Sweetwater and "F" Street Marshes. Aside from these marsh areas, parts of which have been recently fi lied, the major portion was dry land as far back as 1850. The land is now in four ownerships, two of which have an area of one acre or less. The Vener parcel is east of the proposed right-of-way of Tidelands Avenue and has an area of approximately 25 acres. The remainder of the land, lying generally west of Tidelands Avenue, is owned by Santa Fe Railroad. With both Bay and marshland on its western borders, the subarea has scenic and recrea- tion potential. Moreover, lying between "E" Street, the principal auto entrance to the Bayfront, and "F" Street, the major connection to residential areas adjoining the Chula Vista Civic Center, the subarea has easy access to the freeway and Chula Vista. LAND USE Because of its accessibi Iity from Chula Vista and Interstate 5, and its recreational and scenic potential, varying types of land use ore acceptable in the subarea. The success- ful development of the adjoining Gunpowder Point Subarea os 0 resort hotel and con- ference center will almost certainly hove a significant impact on what is developed here. Given this, Subarea B is proposed for 0 mixture of uses - residential west of the proposed Tidelands Avenue right-of-way, on "expansion reserve" portion east of Tidelands, and, forming the eastern edge and providing 0 buffer zone from the Son Diego Gas and Electric transmission lines, and the railroad and freeway, port of the nine-hole golf course. Bordering the Bay and Marsh, at varying widths (but with a 100 foot minimum) 0 land- scaped open space strip acts os both 0 buffer between the more active, built-up areas to the east and the marshland and its wildlife, os well os 0 pedestrian, bicycle and mini-transit vehicle corridor. A combination townhouse-apartment facility is proposed adjacent to this linear pork to toke advantage of the recreational potential and the views over water and marsh. With about 13 acres of land available, approximately 210-230 townhouse and apartment units could be constructed in this area. This would permit from 16-18 dwelling units per gross acre, producing 0 density equivalent to the City's R-3-T zone. As shown in Figure17, townhouses border the linear pork-strip, with higher apartment buildings constructed over parking in the center. Immediately east of Tidelands Avenue is on area of approximately 15 acres, proposed os on "expansion reserve" area. This would be available for varying uses, depending upon the success and, consequently, any increased space needs of adjoining development. A growing multi-family market demand might justify expansion into this area of ad- ditional townhouse and apartment units. The office pork proposed for the area south 33 ~// . <("?'tS . -..--... -.-,,----.--.---..- of "F" Street, could, if needed, be exponded here. The demand for motels, restaur- ants and shops in close proximity and with east access to the freeway might dictate development of this area for commercial use. Whatever the land use, it will be com- plemented and enhanced by the portion of the nine-hole golf course which, bordering it on the east, forms a permanent open space buffer and provides a green, landscaped setting for the "E" and "F" Streets approaches. .... . . ...... ;.;.;.: . ,:,:.' :;::::> <:::.:-:. ......... . ..... .... :.:-:-:," : .:-:.:-: ........ ,.., ..... .... .-:.:-:-;. ....... ){:}(;:::::;::;::", . .. .:-:-:.:-:-:.:-:-:.:-: :-:.: .... -:-: ::::;:;:;:::;:;:::;:;::....:-:. .... ,",:. ............ . .,.....,..............'. . ,', .':;~~~~.~~c~. ..... " '14:/(/! ~~ ~~t~~ 0 ................ . .... ....,., .,.,., ,. 'i, , ,. ............................. i""'lJ~,~~':::l .,.,.,.,',.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ~... .;:;.;.:-:.;.;-;.;.;.;.;.:.:.; . ;:;:;:::::::;:;:::;:;:::::::;:;:;:::; :;:;:::::;:;:::::::::;:::;:;:::;::: .....'......................... .' ;_:-:-:.;.....'.-:.....,......, .................................. .......1................. . ;:::;:;:::::;:;:::;::-:.;.:.;.; .' . '.' .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . ....... .. . . . . .. . . .. ~ .. . .... .................. ..........,:-:.:.;<.:.:-:.;. .'.. :.;-:.:-:' .:. .::;......:::.:.:-:.:-:.;.;.; ..:-:.:.;.;.:.....:-: '.:.:-:.:. .......................... ~!!."i.!'~".. Figure 17: Illustrative Plan and Section 34 Tidelands . ..: III W :igure 18: POLICY DIAGRAM :::q Provide Views P Parking Area ""'" Irregular Edge 0000 Formal Planting Firm Edge .-:~~ Mass Planting - ~~"" ., + Landmark Form *** Screen Planting '" Gateway - -- Shallow Water Preserve :;:~:Ij Allowable Bldg. Ht. Marsh Preserve .... Pedestrianway - Park-Open Space 1111 Mini-Transit Service AREA B Bayshore Village no .la, 500' I --~ ._..._.~'.~6.~;??5..__. CIRCULATION The three major roadways bordering or bisecting this area - Tidelands Avenue, "E" Street and "F" Street - have been discussed in prior sections of this report. However, the function and relationship of "F" Street in particular should be re-emphasized. It serves as the main auto entry from Chula Vista, and the importance of its pedestrian and bicycle pathway function, connecting to the residential areas near the Chula Vista Civi c Center, should be stressed. The off-center alignment of the roadway, discussed earlier in the Transportation section, allows the pedestrian and bicycle paths to be both physically and visually separated from auto traffic. These paths should be continued to the waterfront, connecting with the paths and mini-transit vehicle roadway in the linear park strip fronting the Bay and marsh. -~~ .- I' ~ -''I , J!l1 I ~'\~ ~ \, \ j'" , " AI, ,,'-, ' / .'" ' r'.. "7 " l'----~ '~-'-: .>- - :5 . ~ : J' .. marshland 1iI~~'!~mW#::i..lts"...'. . ............. ................... .................... .................. .... ... .... ........... Figure 19 The shoreline areas of the Bayshore Village Area should be developed in a manner which provides for mini-transit, bicycle and pedestrian ac- cess while still permitting bay oriented views for the residents. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION CRITERIA This subarea derives significant benefits from its location between Bay and marsh on the west and the golf course on the east. The following criteria and the Policy Diagram (Figure18) provide specific guides which relate development to the adjacent scenic and recreational potential. 36 1. Bui Iding frontage facing on to the shore and marsh edge and along the golf course should be variegated, broken, and pierced by open space and pedestrian paths to pro- vide both physical and visual entries into and through the frontage. 2. A three story height limit should be required throughout the subarea, except for specific locations west of Tidelands Avenue, as shown on the Policy Diagram. 3. Heavy, dense landscaping and tree planting should be provided to screen residen- tial areas from traffic on Tidelands Avenue and "F" Street, and from parking areas as- sociated with adjoining hotel and commercial development. 4. In the linear park strip along the western edge of the subarea, used in part as a cor- ridor for both pedestrians and bicycle paths and mini-transit vehicles, pedestrian paths should be allowed the closest possible proximity to the water and marsh edge, consistent with protection needs. SUBAREA C North Marina The North Marina Subarea consists of vacant filled land and marsh area, extending from the water's edge on the west to the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway line on the east, and bordering the northern edge of the study area. There are about 85 acres of land which were diked and hydraulically filled in 1969, and an additional 12-14 acres diked and only partially filled. The majority of the land in the subarea is owned by Santa Fe Railroad, with approximately 27 acres under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District, and a 150 foot-wide strip of San Diego Gas and Electric right-of- way, which includes marsh and partially filled land. It can be assumed that the fill has been engineered to support light commercial and industrial structures. This subarea is important both locationally and for its habitat and scenic values. Tide- lands Avenue eventually wi II bridge the Sweetwater River flood control channel and enter the study area here. The proposed Interstate 5/Route 54 freeway interchange wi II have off and on-ramps in, or in close proximity to, this subarea, further increasing its importance as a vehicular gateway. Subarea C acts as the buffer between the high value marsh, potentially developable areas to the south, and National City's industrial area to the north. Its scenic and recreational potential and a possible future linkup with the proposed Sweetwater Regional Park system add to its significance. Because of the al- most continuous industrial belt to the north and the sti II undeveloped area adjoining Subarea C, the type of development that occurs here will have a major effect on poten- tial use of the marshlands and Gunpowder Point. LAND USE POLICY As the name of this subarea suggests, one of the major facilities proposed is a marina 37 /.---j 1/ )//v': .._._ _'_'~"""",_",M_"__".'_""'~.d___ with approximately 450 berths and related commercial and recreational facilities. The offshore area adjoining the filled tidelands conveniently abuts existing deep water chan- nels; hence, there is the future potential for a direct deep water channel to the ocean via a second Bay entrance through the Silver Strand. Thus, this location will afford berthing opportunities for deeper-draft craft without extensive dredging, as would be the case for the central and southern marina locations. Presently filled tidelands and marshes should be reserved for uses which can benefit from this water-related site and its many scenic and recreational opportunities. Permitted uses also should be selected to promote public access and enjoyment of the area. Two distinct areas have been identified. The first includes the Port lands along the Sweet- water Channel and the immediately adjoining lands owned by Santa Fe Railroad. Because the dividing line between these two holdings is the irregular mean high tide line, the two areas should be considered as an integral unit in planning and development. Primary uses recommended are small-scale commercial uses, such as boating and fishing, retail shops, and restaurants, which would complement the recreational functions provided by the marina and a linear water-oriented park along the Channel. The latter should be construc- ted as an integral part of the flood control project, and developed to form a link to the proposed Sweetwater Regional Park east of Interstate 5. This would permit an almost total- ly grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle route between these two major recreation areas. A roughly triangular area of approximately seven acres also is shown in commercial use and considered an appropriate site for motel development, with associated restaurants and small shops. .r ,..:s-ny' ..... /" ~~4'; ~ _~------=c___ __ (! -J < y . ~ \ Figure 20 A public park strip along the Sweetwater River flood control channel would provide water-oriented walkways, restaurants, shops and boating facilities. .---~---~-'~-- 38 ~ 'Ii if i",'!i;: I,i "i Ild'l I ~ I ]I ,JJi 1'\1\(, ~'.": : L j,,'11 /1\.: 11,,)Ii' 1,lt~ 'f'~, ( Site Figure 21: Illustrative Plan 39 /--~ ----l.ft/~ _ __.____....!.l.....__._.____..____ The second area, composed entirely of lands owned by Santa Fe Rai Iroad, has been shown in the overall Land Use Policy Map as a residential area. This option, along with other acceptable options, are discussed below. The major objectives are a land use whl ch will be a suitable neighbor for the hotel and conference center proposed immediately to the south and an attractive entrance to the Bayfront from the Interstate 5 and Tidelands Ave- nue approach. Another concern is selection of a land use which will promote a balanced traffic load on the freeway and related arterials. Due to these considerations, residential uses are considered especially appropriate. A townhouse and apartment complex with per- mitted densities of 10 dwelling units per net residential acre is recommended. Incorporated into the residential development would be public open spaces along the water and marsh edges As an alternative to the recommended residential use, office and research industrial uses are considered appropriate. The main rationale for this use option is the ability to attract a more diversified employment base, due to site amenities. However, the major problem is the high traffic generation typically associated with these uses. In any case, office and research industrial use should not be allowed until full development of the lands designated for simi lar uses in Subarea E is assured. Due to the combination of single ownership, high degree of regional accessibility and a marine-related setting, the area also may be appro- priate for single or special purpose uses - the need for which is not yet evident. Such uses should be considered provided that: 1) it can be shown that other inland locations are in- appropriate; 2) the use would derive substantial benefits because of the Bay-related site and in turn would produce substantial benefits to the community-at-Iarge, including guar- anteed public access and enjoyment of shoreline areas; and 3) that other criteria in this and other sections of the Bayfront Plan and Program are satisfied. In the easternmost portion of this subarea, low value marshes exist between the filled lands and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad tracks. At present, these lands are unat- tractive and detract from the appearance of the Bayfront, as seen from the freeway and re- lated ramps. However, with removal of existing dikes, the marsh vegetation could be re- newed and unified with the larger mass of the Sweetwater Marsh. A fresh water inlet from the flood control channel to the marsh should be provided to ensure regeneration of vege- tat ion. CIRCULATION The major circulation elements in this subarea include: 1) Tidelands Avenue, bridging the Sweetwater River flood control channel and continuing south to cross the marsh; 2) the on-ramp to the Interstate 5/Route 54 freeway interchange; and 3) a new roadway running west from Tidelands Avenue to the marina, and dividing the residential area to the south from the commercial development and park strip along the flood control channel. (As discussed earlier in the Transportation section, this would be a divided two-lane road with no curb parking for most of its length which would widen to four lanes at Tidelands Avenue to permit turning movements and increase the capacity of this intersection. An additional and adjacent right-of-way would provide space for smaller, slower mini- transi t vehi cl es.) 40 Pedestrian and bicycle movements would be contained in a separate pathway system in the linear park strips around the periphery of the fi II area, as shown in the accompany- ing Figure22. The removal of the Santa Fe railroad spur, while allowing a more easterly alignment of Tidelands Avenue, would also faci litate the eventual linking up of this I inear park strip with the Sweetwater Regional Park System. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION CRITERIA The major physical form objectives for the North Marina subarea are: 1) to form an appro- priate physical and visual buffer zone between the National City industrial area and Chula Vista's Bayfront to the south; and 2) to uti lize the visual and recreational poten- tial of the surrounding marsh, Bay and Sweetwater River. These are considered in more detail in the Policy Diagram, Figure22, and in the following criteria: 1. A building-free buffer zone should be provided, ranging in depth from 50-100 feet, on the fill area perimeter facing the Sweetwater Marsh. This buffer zone, in which structures would not be permitted, would furnish space for landscaping providing visual screening, pathways and recreation. 2. The buildings facing onto the above buffer zone should be designed and sited to pre- sent a broken, varigated edge facing the Marsh, rather than a continuous flat-wall effect. 3. To prevent a too-harsh contrast to the marsh area, natural building materials and muted, earth colors should predominate. 4. Tree planting and landscaping along the marsh edge should be a semi-transparent screen, to allow some views out over the marshes, while still breaking up the geometric shapes of the buildings. To accomplish this, trees to be planted should have a lighter, more open foliage, such as Callisteman citrinus (Lemon Bottlebrush) or Melaleuca stypheloides. 5. Building heights should be restricted to three stories, except that when soil condi- tions permit, a five story height limit should be allowed in the central area (see Policy Diagram). This greater height should be permitted only if parking is provided at the first or second story, thereby reducing the ground area used for parking and elevating in- habited space to a height sufficient to provide views over the surrounding structures. 6. If feasible, short-term berthing of small boats on the Chula Vista side of the flood control channel should be permitted. 7. A landscaped public access strip at least 50 feet wide should separate parking areas from the water's edge. 8. All parking areas should be sufficiently landscaped to ensure that views of the North 41 ~/ f\ . ;/~5 00 00 **********0 0 _ **** 00:: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 p Figure 22: POLICY DIAGRAM AREA C ~ Provide Views P Parking Area l"tJ't Irregular Edge 0000 Formal Planting - Firm Edge r~~" Mass Planting h.".,> + Landmark Form *** Screen Planting "- Gateway - -- Shallow Water Preserve it's\% Allowable Bldg. Ht. Marsh Preserve .:::;...,..,J.., ..... Pedestrianway - Park-Open Space 111111 Mini-Transit Service North Marin, fJ o I 501 , I Marina area, as seen from the elevated approaches of the freeway interchange and the Sweetwater River Bridge, are not dominated by expansive paved surfaces. 9. High intensity night-lighting which would detract from the marshland setting and interfere with night views seen from the neighboring motel, hotel and conference center facilities, should not be permitted. 10. No use located within a structure should emit noises which exceed 55 dBA at Ll 0 (i.e., 10% of the time) when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the structure. No outdoor use located south of the proposed Sweetwater Drive should emit noises in excess of 55 dBA at L1 0 when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. North of Sweetwater Drive, a noise level of 65 dBA at Ll 0 is acceptable at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. 11. Flood protection measures along the Sweetwater Channel should be constructed in a manner which permits public access along the Channel and the use of those portions of the Channel subject only to occasional flooding. Views To Marsh Views To Channel I( 50 -100 Fl.~ << < -- , -~ -- '" = Figure 2 3 One and two story residential structures are recommended along the southern edge of the North Marina area with the central portion devoted to two and three story structures over parking. This serves to maintain the maximum bayfront orientation for the residential units while avoiding use of high-rise buildings. " 43 .~ 7), ?'l~ SUBAREA D Bay Boulevard Area Although it is small in area compared to the rest of the Bayfront, the band of land between Bay Boulevard and Interstate 5 has special importance because of its location at the major entranceway to the Bayfront. Hence, it is essential that special attention be given to types of uses permitted. Still more important are the standards of design employed. At present, existing conditions seriously detract from the image of the Bayfront; uses include auto- wrecking yards and vacant lands. However, with improvement of Interstate 5, there is strong market evidence that the present uses are transitional. Major prospective uses of the area are freeway-related commercial faci Iities, such as motels, restaurants and gas stations. The total area contains approximately 12 acres and is accessible from the free- way only from the "E" Street off-ramps. LAND USE POLICY It is proposed that current market preferences for freeway-related commercial uses be recognized and reflected. However, two principal objectives of the Bayfront Plan must be observed. First, the uses permitted should not dilute the market for the uses proposed in the main motel/hotel/conference complex. Second, high design standards must be main- tained so that an attractive entranceway is created, consistent with the planning for the balance of the Bayfront. Permitted uses should include restaurants, gas stations, motels and other travel-related commercial uses. Additionally, office facilities for professional or business services also should be allowed and indeed encouraged, so that an overly large portion of avai lable land is not devoted to restaurant and motel accommodations to the detriment of other Bay- front areas. Uses to be excluded are restaurants, automobile sales and service facilities, warehousing, wholesale distributors, auto wrecking yards, trailer and mobile home parks, industrial uses, and commercial services, such as plumbing and electrical contractors. CIRCULATION Automobile access to uses within this subarea should be limited to Bay Boulevard. No access should be permitted directly from "E" Street, and no direct connection between Bay Boulevard and Tidelands Avenue should be permitted. Generally, parking should be confined to the eastem edge of properties adjoining the freeway right-of-way, prin- cipally for visual reasons, as explained later. To avoid an excessively long cul-de-sac on the portion of Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street, the northernmost section of Bay Boulevard should be abandoned and sold to the adjoining property owner. In its place, a loop road should be provided in conjunction with development of adjoining properties to the south. (See illustrative site plan Figure 24.) 44 I ) I . , ~ .-..~ ." ~ Figure 24: Illustrative Site Plan DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION CRITERIA To promote an attractive entranceway to the Bayfront, the following design and develop- ment criteria should be observed (see Policy Diagram, Figure 25): 1. A landscaped earth berm approximately four feet in height should be provided along the "E" Street frontage. This would serve two purposes: 1) to channel views and direct motorists to the main portion of the Bayfront; and 2) to screen from view the develop- ment within the area and visually emphasize the mai n portions of Bayfront development west of the rai I road right-of-way. To accommodate the landscaped berm, a fifteen foot landscaped strip should be provided by adjoining properties. 2. Buildings should be sited and designed to be visually unobstructive when viewed from freeway approaches to the Bayfront. To achieve this end, the following conditions should be observed: a. Bui Iding heights should be limited to twenty-five feet, and attention-attracti ng structural forms intended as indirect advertising should be prohibited. b. Buildings should be sited close to the Bay Boulevard frontage, and most related parking should be provided in the rear, adjoining the freeway right-of-way. c. A landscaped berm, sufficient in height to screen parked vehicles from view, should be provided adjoining the "E" Street off-ramp. Uniform plant materials should be used through- out. 3. Individual business identification signs intended to be viewed by motorists on Interstate 5 should be prohibited. In place of these individual signs, one or two free-standing signs 45 /~ , -j'.~D. Figure 25: ~ Provide Views ......... - + " ..... 111111 identifying businesses in this oreo should adjoin the freeway before reaching "E" Street. This sign or signs should be positioned and of sufficient size so as to be easily read by motor- ists on the "E" Street off-ramp traveling at an average speed of 30 miles per hour. Infor- mation included on the "consolidated business identification sign" should be limited either to the name of the firm and/or its logo. A smaller-scale sign directing motorists on "E" Street to the businesses along Bay Boulevard also should be provided in the general vicin- ity of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard. 4. Along the Bay Boulevard frontage, free-standing identification and direction signs may be permitted, provided that they are not more than eight feet high, eight feet long, and with a surface on anyone side not in excess of 32 square feet. One such sign should be permitted for each property. All other signs should not project and should be designed as an integral part of the building accommodating the permitted uses. These signs should not be located at a height greater than twelve feet and should not occupy a surface, including the message and background field, greater than five percent of the total surface of the re- lated building facade. 5. As shown in the Policy Diagram, tall, dominant tree-plantings should be provided at the north end of this subarea to minimize the visual dominance of structures within the Bay Boulevard area and to direct views across Bayfront lands. Similar landscaping should be provided on each side of "E" and "F" Streets to emphasize their role as gate- ways. IIIII .. oooooooou,ou8a- .. 0 /00= p-=--= ~p- ******************* :::H"Y"'I'~ 1.1 10 u. - - '" "' POLICY DIAGRAM AREA [ P Bay Boulevard Are Irregular Edge Firm Edge Landmark Form Parking Area Formal Planting Mass Planting Screen Planting Shallow Water Preserve Marsh Preserve _ Park-Open Space o I 501 . I 0000 "'~~ ~;,.,> *** Gateway Allowable Bldg. Ht. fJ Pedestrianway Mini-Transit Service SUBAREA E Tidelands Office Area This subarea is a relatively narrow section of land lying between the Rohr Corporation property to the south and "F" Street on the north, and extending from the freeway to the water's edge. It contains approximately 10 acres of the original "F" Street Marsh. Due to its small size, isolation from the Bay, proximity and size of heavy industrial buildings, and the casual and sporadic fill it has received, this Marsh does not have significant habitat, scenic or recreational value. Most of the land in Subarea E is owned by Santa Fe Railroad. On the eastern edge, between the freeway and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Rai I road tracks, there are seven parcels of varying sizes in different ownerships. Most of these are small - less than an acre in area - and only a few contain buildings of any size. Both the Railroad and the San Diego Gas and Electric rights-of-way cross the subarea, and a parcel of approximately five acres, containing a small group of structures originally built as a restaurant and convention facility, is situated south of "F" Street at the water's edge. Because of its shoreline, Subarea E has scenic and recreational potential. However, its major importance is as a transition zone, functioning to minimize the impact of Rohr's heavy industrial faci lities on future development to the north. LAND USE Two uses are proposed for this subarea. The first is an office park development, to be sited primarily on approximately 25 acres of vacant land east of Tidelands Avenue, with an additional 8.5 acre section between Interstate 5 and the rai I road tracks. Some of this land, due to past filling, or because of the necessity for filling the remaining piece of "F" Street Marsh, will require extra land preparation or building foundati"on work, with a consequent increase in building costs. However, it is reasonable to assume that the land can be made to support light commercial or industrial buildings of the type common to this kind of development. The second area, west of Tidelands Avenue and with water frontage, is proposed for a public park. This 12-13 acre parcel would contain recreational facilities, refreshment stands, cafes, etc., plus a parking area for park users and persons transferring from autos to the mini-transit system at this point. (Perhaps some use could be made, at least in the initial phases, of existing convention and restaurant buildings on the site.) While pro- viding needed water-oriented public open space and opening up Bay views from the end of "F" Street and Tidelands Avenue, this park also performs the function of separating industrial activities to the south from proposed residential areas to the north. CIRCULATION As discussed elsewhere in this report, "F" Street east of Tidelands Avenue would be a four- lane roadway without curb parking. It would have separate pedestrian and bicycle lanes 47 ~7/YZ; ," _~_,.. .._..._.,.__.._.,....~._.....~"_'_.M___~_.,_. ___ located in a landscaped strip on the north side of the right-of-way. West of Tidelands Avenue, "F" Street would be abandoned and the land devoted to park development. Auto access to the office park area should primarily be from "F" Street, although one access road to Tidelands Avenue should be permitted. For the area between Interstate 5 and the railroad tracks, all access to individual properties should be from Bay Boulevard. A minimum distance of 200 feet should be maintained between connecting roadways along Tidelands Avenue and "F" Street. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION CRITERIA To provide an acceptable transition or buffer use adjacent to the existing heavy industry, and a water-oriented park easily accessible to Chula Vistans, the following criteria, along with the accompanying Policy Diagram, (Figure 26) are proposed: 1. A three-story maximum building height should be imposed throughout the office park area. In the proposed park area, buildings should be subject to design review if they exceed a one-story structure. 2. In the area between Interstate 5 and the railroad tracks, buildings should, in general, be sited close to Bay Boulevard, with related parking provided in the rear areas ad- i acent to the rai I road. 3. In general, parking areas should be used, where possible, as spatial buffer zones, i.e. adjacent to industrial uses, railroad tracks, near, or in, power line easements, etc. If possible, they should be consolidated with common driveways in the center rather than on the periphery of a lot, so that they are screened from surrounding roads by land- scaping and buildings. 4. A well landscaped building set-back, 80 feet deep, should be required on the office park side of both Tidelands Avenue and "F" Street. 5. Heavy screen-plantings with sizeable trees should be provided along the southern edge of the subarea to visually break up the adjacent massive, flat facades of adjoining industrial buildings. This type of planting should also be carried out along the San Diego Gas and Electric easement, providing some natural vertical massing to relieve the impact of the tall power transmission towers. 6. Signs should be limited to free-standing directory signs at the major entranceways to the office park, free-standing directory signs for individual bui Idings or bui Iding groupings, and individual establishment signs. The entranceway signs should be limited to an area of 80 square feet on anyone side, a height of eight feet, and a length not greater than 10 feet. Directory signs within the project should be limited to an area of 40 square feet on anyone side, a height of eight feet and a length not greater than eight feet. Individual establishment identification signs should be maintained flush on 48 * * **** =* * -* * =--= * * ~ P ~* * -* * =* * -* * IJ ** .... ***** - ***** * * * * * * * * * 1<**** Tidelands AveJooo ~**** :igure 26: POLICY DIAGRAM AREA E :::r:: Provide Views P Parking Area """ Irregular Edge 0000 Formal Planting Firm Edge '-'~~ Mass Planting - .' . '-".";.'" + landmark Form *** Screen Planting " Gateway - -- Shallow Water Preserve ....M'" Allowable Bldg. Ht. Marsh Preserve ;;.....:*i:i~: .... pedestrianway - Park-Open Space 1111 Mini-Transit Service Tidelands Office Area fl? 500' I /------, ..____2)~_~ Azj_____ the building face, limited to a total area of 10 feet and located not higher than 10 feet on the building facade. SUBAREA F Marina Green This subarea consists primarily of about 49 acres of land created by fill by the Unified Port District in 1960. It lies wholly within the Port's jurisdiction. The major existing uses are a small boat building facility and the old Chula Vista boat launch, both located in the northwest corner. Three rather large warehouse-type bui Idings, of recent construction and leased by Rohr, form part of its eastern boundary. While no major geotechnical constraints exist which would prohibit light construction, more complex or multi-story buildings would probably result in some increase in foundation costs. At present, there is somewhat difficult access, both physically and visually. The subarea's major road entries will be the approximate extensions of "H" Street and "G" Street eastward from Tidelands Avenue. Since the great bulk of Rohr's industrial facili- ties makes impossible any strong visual relationship with the freeway or areas east of it, major visual connections will necessarily be to the Bay. With soil conditions probably precluding extensive building, and with its long waterfront- age, availabi lity of Bay vistas and the existence of a 15-20 foot deep boat channel close off shore, this subarea's future development seems most reasonably to be directed at those uses which will take advantage of its scenic and recreational potential. LAND USE As the name of the subarea indicates, the primary use proposed is a park of approximately 18-20 acres with a Bayfront setting, containing landscaping and grassy green spaces, pathways and benches and extensive parking. It is envisioned as a facility for more pas- sive forms of recreation, such as walking, picnicking, kite flying, etc., as well as for some minor active recreation activities, such as volleyball, etc. In its initial phases, a beach area here would provide a recreational facility almost totally lacking in the Chula Vista area. In a later phase, as the need for small boat berthing grows in the South Bay, dredging an existing channel and filling of areas of land extending out to and along the Pierhead- Bulkhead line (see dashed outline on Policy Diagram, Figure29) could create a marina of some 500-550 small boat berths. In this phase, the Marina Green park would be the key element in a linear open space network surrounding the marina. Related marina fa- cilities, such as a boat launching area, fuel dock, boat storage, fishing supplies and food service, as well as restaurants overlooking the marina and the Bay, would all be part of 50 the final marina development. Other possible uses include commercial fishing and party fishing boat accommodations. Adjoining the park, an area of approximately 14 acres is proposed for motel development. This motel, with associated shops, service facilities and restaurant, could contain up to 200 rooms with views of the marina and Bay, and, if sensitively designed, could provide the visual landmark element the subarea needs to differentiate it from surrounding shoreline development. Figure 27: Illustrative Site Plan CIRCULATION This subarea would be served by two streets reaching westward from Tidelands Avenue _ the existing "G" Street and a new street which is an approximate extension of "H" Street. No specific standards are given for these local streets because such decisions depend on individual requirements of the facilities finally selected. These two streets and a connect- ing street are shown diagrammatically in Figure 29. The parking areas shown, which are intended to serve the public park and marina as well as the motel and restaurant facilities in the subarea, are used as a screened and landscaped buffer zone to soften and diminish the impact of the large industrial buildings to the east. 51 /-7 /1) _'??<a. Themini-transitvehicle pathway is shown bordering the parking areas, connecting the motel with marshlands, parks, hotels and recreational facilities to the north. Pedestrian and bi- cycle paths would be provided at, or in close proximity to, the water's edge, allowing the public access either to the beach area, or in a later phase, to enjoy the sights and activities of the mari no. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION CRITERIA The following criteria are proposed with the Policy Diagram to provide the framework for development of the Marina Green Subarea: 1. Motel use (as noted on the Policy Diagram) is proposed at a five story height limit provided soil conditions make such structures feasible. Elsewhere in the subarea, there should be a three story height limit on all buildings. ;. ~~fJl P 1"1 (? ,\'" 1 :V.I~I/ 1/ " I(j10/ ~ ~? '- - ' ,.~ '"" ""<:' ~ ~- ~~ or 'v" ... Figure 28 The view from the South Marina Area illustrates the intent to provide a strong visual identification for the Marina Green by means of the bulk, height and architecture of proposed commercial and marina facilities in that crea. 52 --- --- --- -------l-- -----', I I , , , , --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1--' , '-- ,- I , -1 --- , --- --- '- --- --- --~\ I , I I I I I I I I I ,\1 ,- ( I , I I I I I I I , , I I I I , I \. o i~ o "'~~i~i/~oIt~~ * *- o r~--~~-~--__*--- o *-- P_--*==- P _*_ P ___ * - .. * *-. * * o *-~---,& * * o * **********"'*"'~'" *"'****"" .....'. 00******************************* *=~ ~ ~ *-.. --* ~~ ** - '" o r:igure 29: POLICY DIAGRAM AREA F ~ Provide Views P Parking Area '""""' Irregular Edge 0000 Formal Planting - Firm Edge '-~~ Mass Planting ); ."'" "'t + Landmark Form *** Screen Planting " Gateway - -- Shallow Water Preserve ~iC~I~* Allowable Bldg. Ht. Marsh Preserve '.... Pedestrianway - Park-Open Space 11111 Mini-Transit Service Marina Green fl? 500' , -) --x.;0yj ----...".,.-...-.----,..-.-.-..--- 2. The motel building, or any building constructed in this part of the subarea, should be so sited and designed that as a strongly identifiable form it provides a landmark for the Bayfront. 3. Parking lots should, where possible, be used as a buffer from existing industrial areas. These lots, heavi Iy landscaped and used in combi nation with dense tree planting along the eastern edge of the subarea, are used as visual screens to minimize the visual impact of large industrial buildings to the east. 4. The water's edge around the Marina Green and in later phases, around the total marina development, should in general be used for public access for pedestrian and bicycle paths. Such pathways could, however, be interrupted occasionally far uses necessarily located at the water's edge. SUBAREA G South Marina The South Marina Subarea is a section of the Bayfront almost entirely under the jurisdic- tion of the Port. It was filled in 1968 partly for construction of the Chula Vista boat launch ramp and marina and partly for industrial purposes. East of the mean high tide line, the "J" Street right-of-way is in City ownership while to the south of "J" Street, portions of the marsh have been filled and are owned by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company. Rohr industrial facilities border the subarea on the north and east sides, while the fuel tanks and transformer units of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company are to the south. On the west is San Diego Bay. With its extensive shoreline, the subarea has scenic and recreational potential. How- ever, it also has the problems of a visually disjointed and constricted entry through an industrial area, and of poor visibility from the freeway. Its eastern and northern edges are a rather overwhelming mixture of massive buildings and industrial clutter. Its assets include the water-oriented public park and recreational facilities, designed as part of the boat launch and marina by the Port, the Bay vistas available along its shore- line, the proximity of the developing salt marsh fronting the San Diego Gas and Elec- tric Company property, and the ease of access from Tidelands Avenue, which merges with "J" Street after traversing the subarea. LAND USE There are two major land uses proposed for this subarea. The first - the design and construction of a marina with related commercial, park and recreation facilities - already has been started in the western-most section with the boat launch ramp area. 54 The marina could, if demand increases in the future, be expanded ta the west by addi- tional fill eventually to accommodate about 1,100 small boat berths. (See the dashed outline on the accompanying Policy Diagram, Figure 31.) Various marina-related commercial uses, such as fuel docks, boating supplies and acces- sories, bait and tackle shops and restaurants and coffee shops, would be an integral part of the marina development. In addition, public open space, primarily linear in character, would ring the perimeter of the marina with a landscaped park strip along "J" Street running eastward to the freeway underpass. Sitting areas and scenic outlooks should be provided at various points throughout the park area. The second major use is for an area of approximately 17 acres east of Tidelands Avenue, proposed for administrative and business service use. This filled land should be suitable for the light commercial or industrial buildings usual in this kind of develop- ment. Besides general office uses, other more specifically marina-related uses, such as motor and boat sales, dry storage and repair, chandleries, etc., would be suitable. This area also would fit the criteria for the five-acre regional fire training facility proposed for the Bayfront, because access to other parts of the Bayfront is good, and the outdoor training and storage areas would serve as buffers between industrial uses to the north and east and the mari na deve lopment a long the water. CIRCULATION Tidelands Avenue, with its "J" Street merger, has been discussed in the Transportation section of this report. The marina extension of "J" Street has been designed to Port standards, wi th an 85-foot right-of-way; in future expansions of the marina, roadways presumably would be designed to the same standards. Vehicular access to Port-owned properties east of Tidelands Avenue should be limited to two or three entranceways, thereby improving both traffl c capacity and the appearance of the area. Pedestrian and bicycle movements from the "J" Street underpass to the marina should be provided in a landscaped strip on the south side of "J" Street, with pathways extending around the perimeter of the marina. The pedestrian path system should be continued south through the marsh by a bridge over the creek and a system of paths and catwalks (where necessary) so that hikers and nature observers may have as close contact as possible with the marsh and water edge. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION CRITERIA To provide the framework necessary to create a visually effective "J" Street entrance to the Bayfront, and to develop the marina area and a pedestrian path link to the marsh and waterfront to the south, the Policy Diagram (Figure31) and the following criteria are proposed: 55 / -, ~ ,;VV 1. Dense landscaping and tree planting should be provided to screen industrial buildings and clutter from "J" Street, Tidelands Avenue and the administrative and business service area east of Tidelands Avenue. 2. Any landscaping and buildings along the eastern edge of the marina should be care- fully located so as not to interfere with views out over the marina from Tidelands Avenue. 3. On the land areas of the marina, tree planting and landscaped screening of parking areas, etc., should be in rather dense masses to provide visual punctuation in the general flatness of the area, and to de-emphasize the visual length of the road. In the same way, a mass of trees at the curve, where "J" Street merges into Tidelands Avenue, will accent the road curve and provide a visual terminus for people entering from "J" Street. 4. The marina water edge should, in general, be reserved for pedestrian paths and pub- lic use. However, such pathways and parks can be routed inland where there are occa- sional uses necessarily located at the water's edge. 5. Stringent sign controls similar to those proposed for the Bay Boulevard properties (Subarea D) shou Id be i nsti tuted. 6. A maximum height of three stories should be maintai ned throughout the South Marina area. However, an exception should be made to permit a five-story fire tower if a fire training facility is located in this area. " ~ --------...- ~ -_.~------------_.- ------- "-:::.:....-~--- . :,,:,,:;:;i::;::::::,;:::;:~!~:~[llljlUtftft (/' /! (I I Figure 30 A public boardwalk is recommended through the areas adjoining the San Diego Gas and Electric Company power generating facilities. 56 ,.- / / r I I I I I I I I I I I "'\ I I ./ r I I I _ ,---- '\ I I I I I I I I I I /" / I I I I I I I I \ P P ***** ********** o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 Tidelands Ave o 00 * ****** ************************* *** * * * * * * * * * o * * o * ****** * o # ****** * o * ******* # o * ****** 0* 0* * 0* 0* 0* 0* ~igure 31: POLICY DIAGRAM ==4 Provide Views P Parking Area ...." Irregular Edge 0000 Formal Planting - Firm Edge '~:~~ Mass Planting h.."" + Landmark Form *** Screen Planting ~ Gateway -- Shallow Water Preserve - -- :Jt{ Allowable Bldg. Ht. Marsh Preserve .... Pedestrianway - Park-Open Space 1111 Mini-Transit Service AREA G South Marina n 0 500' ~~I"'I ..c_-:t~ff/;/5 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 4 The Bayfront's combination of extensive land and water areas under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District, and large undeveloped upland properties in private ownership presents both problems and opportunities. The ownership conditions, com- bined with special concerns for natural habitat values, geophysical limitations and recreational values, dictate an implementation program in which public agencies must take the initiative. An innovative and aggressive program utilizing a broad range of avai lable powers and resources is needed. The diagram below depicts the basic implementation steps recommended, with two major variations identified. One variation relies primarily on regulatory powers; the other combines regulatory and redevelopment powers. The latter has the advantage of ready financing of needed public improvements. AMEND CITY GENERAL PLAN AND PORT MASTER PLAN , . ADOPT APPROPRIATE PORTIONS OF BA YFRONT PLAN AS SPECIFIC PLANS (CITY) . REZONE PROPERTI ES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SA YFRONT PLAN (CITY) PREPARE AND ADOPT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (CITY) ACQUIRE PUBLIC AREAS BY DEDICATION OR PURCHASE (CITY) PREPARE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PRIVATE DEVELOPER) I APPROVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (CITY) I CONSTRUCT PRIVATE FACILITIES MAKE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (CITY AND PORT) FI NANCED BY, Figure 32: Implementation Process ...............Tox Increment Bonds General Obligation Bonds Other Fundings Sources 59 ---:> -1, . 1'7'" ..__~L_____,._L____,_____.. The process depicted in Figure32 is initiated by amendments to the City General Plan and the Port's Master Plan, both of which reflect the policy and program components of the Bayfront Plan and Program, as approved by the City and the Port. This should be followed immediately by rezoning of the Bayfront lands to coincide with the City's amended General Plan. Here, two steps would be taken concurrently: 1) applying applicable City zoning provisions to the various areas of the Bayfront; and 2) over- lying these standard zoning designations with specific plans based on the subarea poli- cies and criteria included in the Bayfront Plan and Program. Once the necessary legal steps have been taken to prohibit development inconsistent with the City's and Port's adopted aims, consideration can then be given to use of redevelopment powers as a means for promoting proper development and conservation. Because the redevelopment plan would, in effect, be the same as the adopted speci- fic plan, private landowners could proceed to plan and develop their properties with- out waiting final determination by the City as to its intent to use redevelopment powers. The owners of the small property holdings along Interstate 5 could prepare and submit their building plans to the City for approval. Similarly, the larger property owners would be free to prepare planned unit development applications and submit these to the City for approval. However, in both cases application also must be made to the San Diego Regional Coastal Commission under the provisions of the Coastal Conservation Act. Similar Plans would be required for Port lands where either public or private im- provements were proposed. Areas intended for public space or recreation would be secured either by dedication or purchase and necessary improvement plans and programs undertaken. As shown in Table 3, many of these public costs could be financed by tax increment if redevelop- ment powers are employed. Otherwise, these public costs must be financed by other means, probably requiring passage of general obligation bonds. Each of the major steps shown in the diagram are discussed more fully below, and the various planning and regulatory methods are explained further. PLANNING AND REGULATORY METHODS GENERAL AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS Following acceptance of the Bayfront Plan and Program, with any modifications made by the City and Port, the Chula Vista General Plan should be amended to in- corporate the policies contained in the land use, circulation and physical form and appearance elements of the Bayfront Plan. Because any redevelopment plan must be consistent with a community's general plan and all zoning also must be con- 60 sistent with a general plan by June 30, 1973, it is imperative that the General Plan amend- ment procedure be initiated as soon as possible. For simplicity, the pertinent sections of the Bayfront Plan could be included in the General Plan by reference, with a brief summa- tion of the main policies incorporated into the text description of the various General Pion elements, including open space, conservation and land use. A similar amendment process is also recommended for the recently adopted Master Plan of the San Diego Unified Port District. Although generally consistent with the policies and program outlined in the proposed Bayfront Plan and Program, minor modifications should be considered. The principal differences between this report's recommendations and the Port District's Master Plan include the following: 1. the extent of marina development designated for the central portion of the Bayfront; 2. the extent of public park space adjoining the central marina area; 3. the alignment ofTidelandsAvenue; 4. Bay fill designated in the Port plan in the northern portion, where marina development is proposed in the Bayfront Plan; and 5. minor route differences for proposed bicycle trails. REZONING At present, the Bayfront area is zoned in two classifications. First, all tidelands and sub- merged land are in a special Tideland Zone which permits a wide range of industrial, rec- reation and commercial uses if consistent with provisions of the tideland grants from the State of California. These zoning provisions imply and permit filling of both tidelands and submerged lands. Second, upland areas extending eastward from the ordinary high water mark which defines the eastern limits of the Tideland Zone to the freeway right-of- way are in the General Industrial Zone. Permitted uses include most industrial activities and related office, retail and commercial service functions. Conditionally permitted uses are motels, restaurants, service stations and a wide range of noxious industrial activ- ities if located more than 500 feet from other more restrictive zones. To avoid the necessity of creating new zoning districts specifically oriented to unique conditions of the Bayfront, the following approach is recommended. Existing zones which most closely approximate the intent of the Bayfront Plan would be mapped in various of its subareas. These would then be modified by adoption of specific plans for each area. The use of specific plans is authorized in the State Planning and Zoning Law and the Chula Vista City Code has made provision for this approach in Article 2, Sections 33.202 _ 33.205, and in Article 6, Section 33.601. Under this approach, the City would prepare and adopt specific plans designating types of uses permitted, intensity of use, standards for development including type and location of structures, siting, landscaping and other design considerations essential for proper site development. Areas to remain in open space or to be dedicated for public access or use also could be indicated. In effect, the specific /) ct5 . /f) 61 plan becomes a planned unit development plan prepared by the City rather than by a private developer. When the developer prepares his own proposal, he would be required to meet the specified conditions. However, bosed upon his own more detailed studies, he could seek adjustments of the City's plan, if these were in accord with the general purposes expressed. The Bayfront Plan has been drafted in a manner which permits adoption of the subarea planning sections as specific plans. In this way, the Bayfront Plan, in effect becomes the regulatory instrument amplifying conventional zoning. The adoption of specific plans provides the City with an immediate means for ensuring development in accord with the plan. The Ci ty may ei ther permit development through normal processes by awaiti ng de- velopment applications by private property owners, or it can take the initiative and use State development powers. In the latter case, the specific plan serves as an interim regu- latory device until such time as the redevelopment plan is approved. . .' :.:" -::::;\~\;;J~;\~~I\f}:\::j):::::;::::::::::{.:: ". ." .: .........:::::..:::. .:.;.:.::::;:;:::::::::.:.:::.:....:.:.:.:.....;.: ........ .: :.:.::::::.:.:.:. ..................:-:.;.:.:.:.:.;. \\\\\\\\\\;{:\\\ ::::;:;:::;:::::::::::::::::: .. ..........:-:.:.::::::::::::::::::: ............ I 1 ! I. /.-.-.~._.. . I . I . -'-. -! , "--;,' " ,:;:::;::: ...::::' P-c ;.-.--.......-.-.-.-.-."! I-R I-R C-V Visitor Commercial I-R Research Industrial P-C Planned Community P R-3-H Precise Plan Apartment Residential Figure 33: Proposed Rezoning Figure 33 presents the recommended underlying zones. In rhe case of the Santa Fe Properties, use of the City's P-C Planned Community Zone is recommended. The Vener property is proposed to be rezoned to R-3-H Apartment Residentiol Zone; the H de- signation permitting up to 10 stories in height would, however, be limited by the over- lying specific plan. For the two areas designated for office and research industrial use the City's C-O Administration and Office Zone is recommended with provisions that 62 principal permitted uses in the I-R Research Industrial Zone be conditionally permitted. Once again, this relaxation of the underlying C-O zone can be accomplished by superimposing a specific plan designation. Two areas are suggested for C-V Visitor Commercial. The first, along the freeway near "E" Street should also permit, by means of specific plan, business service types of uses. The second area encompasses land recommended for the shoreline park. Until such time as a final decision can be made on park acquisition and improvement plans, the C-V zone provision will at least ensure that if development must be allowed, it wi II generally be compatible with adjoining development proposals. Within Port land proposed for marina and marina-related com- mercial uses, a specific plan approach is recommended. In these instances the City would adopt specific plans mutually agreed upon by the City and Port. Use of planned unit development procedures should be mandatory for the Santa Fe and Verner properties. Under provisions of either the redevelopment plan or specific plans, a planned unit development application should be required prior to development of any portion of these properties. This has several advantages, among which are the establish- ment of a cooperative arrangement among the City, Port and private developer. The pri- vate developer thus has the ability to conduct his own detailed planning studies and may request changes in the City's specific plan or redevelopment plan where it can be demon- strated that his proposal meets the intent of the officially adopted plan. At present, the City's P-C Planned Community zones enables the Council to require use of the PUD approach for Santa Fe properties. However, in the case of the smaller Ve- ner properties, present regulations do not permit mandatory use of PUD provisions. An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to authorize the City Council to designate such PUD areas should be enacted. . REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION As the next step, the City Council could, acting in its capacity as a redevelopment agency, undertake the actions necessary to declare eligible portions of the Bayfront as a redevel- opment project area. Applicable portions of the Bayfront Plan and Program would serve as the basis for the redevelopment plan. Upon adoption of the redevelopment plan, the agency would be authorized to finance site acquisition and improvements by means of tax increment funds. Such tax increment financing is permitted under provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law, and authorizes use of all property tax revenues resulting from increases in values of property within the redevelopment project area, to be applied to its improvement. The agency also would be authorized to condemn properties where necessary to promote development or conservation objectives contained in the redevelop- ment plan. However, private property owners would retain the right to develop in accord- ance with the plan. The redevelopment project area boundaries should be drawn to include public lands whose 63 .., /~ / IJ- /'0 improvement, either in a natural or developed state, would benefit uses designated in the project orea. This permits these improvements to be financed by tax increment funds. Major portions of the Bayfront clearly are eligible for redevelopment under State legis- lative provisions which specify that an area is eligible if there are inadequate streets, open spaces or utilities, land subject to being submerged, and lack of proper utilization resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful in contri- buting to the public health, safety and welfare. Moreover, there have been recent amendments to the Community Redevelopment Law specifically drafted to apply to areas such as the Chula Vista Bayfront. The sections of the law define "blighted" areas as un- inhabitated areas adjacent to a seashore when characterized by: (1) the imminent danger of substantial decline in the coastal environment, including its recreational and aesthe- tic values; (2) the need for public beach areas and public access routes through such areas; and (3)a danger to the quantity and quality of marine life through uncontrolled private development. Clearly, these are all conditions and threats applicable to the Bayfron t . Use of the redevelopment approach is strongly recommended both because of the financ- ing opportunities provided and the ability to promote orderly and staged development consistent with natural resource protection. Reliance solely on regulatory methods is insufficient because of the need f~r close coordination in scheduling improvements throughout the entire Bayfront. DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR PORT PROPERTIES More detailed site development planning should be undertaken by the San Diego Unified Port District for lands under its jurisdiction. These studies should be timed to coincide with detailed planning for adjoining areas and related facilities. This is especially im- portant in the North Marina Subarea where close coordination between the Army Corps of Engineers Sweetwater Flood Control Project and the planning and development of ad- joining Port lands is essential. Similarly, the irregular boundary between Port lands in this same area and Santa Fe properties dictate that the entire area, irrespective of owner- ship, be conceived of, and planned, as an integral unit. Consequently, close coordina- tion among the Port, the City of Chula Vista (acting either in a regulatory or redevelop- ment role), and the Santa Fe Railroad is necessary. STAGING OF IMPROVEMENTS For the Bayfront to reach its full potential as a natural resource area and economic asset to the region, improvement actions must be systematically phased. The schedule below indicates the suggested sequence in which the subareas of the Bayfront should be improved. 64 Table 2 SCHEDULE OF IMPROVEMENTS BY AREA AND TYPE OF USE Type of Development Priority of Development for Specific Uses Commercial Recreation 1. Island and Gateway Areas 2. South Marina or 2. North Marina or 2. Marina Green 3. Expansion Reserve Areo 4. Central Marina Marina Focilities 1. North Marina 2. South Marina 3. Central Marina Pork and Recreation 1. Shoreline Park adjoining Bayshore Village 2. Golf Course 3. Island Park 4. Marina Green 5. Linear Park (along Sweetwater Channel) Office, Business Service, Research, Industrial Facilities 1. Tideland Office Park 2. Expansion Reserve Area 3. North Marina (alternative to residential use) Residential Foci lities 1. Bayshore Village 2. North Marina 3. Expansion Reserve Two areas, the properties adjoining the freeway near "E" Street and the Port land bounded by Tidelands Avenue and the Rohr facilities, have been shown in the schedule in Table 2. Both of these properties can be developed independently of other areas if high develop- ment and design standards are maintained. The more critical areo is that adjoining the freeway; it is essential that the subarea development criteria and standards of Chapter III be observed and the quality of the major entryway to the Bayfront thereby protected. Preference should be given to improving the central area (essentially Subareas A and B) so as to ensure success of the motel/hotel conference center, in turn to preserve Sweet- T 65 --) ...._1Pi5 water Marsh, and enhance public access and use of the Bayshore. This will increase the ability to finance other Bayfront improvements. It is especially critical that competitive commercial recreation not be allowed elsewhere in the Bayfront unti I such time as this central area is developed and a demonstrable need for additional commercial recreation faci lities exists. Moreover, avai lable funds for park development, landscapi ng and other public improvements, such as road and storm drainage, should be channeled to this area since the success of the entire plan depends upon the appearance of this highly visible and dominant portion of the Bayfront. Among the proposed marina improvements, the North Marina has been assigned top priority because deep water access may be made available providing greater recreational boating opportunities than at the South Marina location. Development of the North Marina facili- ties is also seen as a catalyst to attract other water-related commercial uses to lands along the Sweetwater Channel. The next priority is given to the South Marina location. However, small boat berthing facilities might be constructed concurrently with North Marina facilities to provide broader recreational boating opportunities. The area designated for the Central Marina should be held in reserve until such time as the North and South Marina facilities have reached full capacity. Residential development in Bayshore Village should be deferred until a determination is made of the total acreage to be devoted to public land in the adjoining island area. In case more acreage is devoted to park use than is shown in the subarea Policy Diagrams, a reduction in the residential area or elimination of residential use would be appropriate. The office-industrial park development in the area adjoining Rohr facilities can proceed concurrently with improvements to "E" Street and Tidelands Avenue, and should be given a high priority if tax increment financing is utilized. Decisions as to the exact use of the expansion reserve immediately to the east should be deferred until such time as the market demand for commercial recreation, office park development and waterfront residential use is tested in other portions of the Bayfront. FINANCING PROGRAMS Public funding requirements and financing alternatives for proposed actions are highly pertinent to the successful implementation of the proposed Bayfront Plan and Program. Emphasis is placed on financing alternatives that could be applied to such public invest- ments as park acquisition and improvement, pedestrian and bicycle paths, mini-transit vehicles and related operating costs, park and open space management and maintenance, and natural habitat acquisi tion and management. 66 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Of the various funding requirements under review, the public outlay for park acquisition and improvements is one of the most important elements in implementation of the Bayfront Plan and Program. There are 110 acres of proposed park and open space lands within the study area, of which 78 acres would be developed exclusively with public funds. The bal- ance of 32 acres could be improved with private funds or a combination of private and pub- lic funds. Depending on the precise park activities proposed for the 78 acres of public park and/or open space land, funding requirements for improvement could differ markedly. Assuming an average of $20,000 per acre of overall park development cost to cover groding,. soil preparation, parking (where applicable), curbing, storm drainage control, utilities, night lighting and ordinary recreational facilities, a public investment on the order of $1.6 million would be required. In addition to development costs, approximately $1.5 million would be required to acquire some 20 acres of lands presently in private ownership. This reflects an estimate of the market value of the properties, using the values in the assessment rolls at the County Assessor's office and the State Board of Equalization. Administrative costs related to land acquisition, any required condemnation costs, and inflationary increases in land value, are not included in this estimate. The acquisition cost might be reduced by use of methods other than fee simple acquisition, such as dedication by the private owner and/or devel- oper, easements, etc. The balance of the proposed park and open space lands in the study area is under public ownership, with the major owner the San Diego Unified Port District. These lands need not be acquired, but a public capital outlay is still required to cover their improvement costs. T he management, operation and mai ntenance of all park and open space lands must be met by public expenditure. It is estimated that approximately $150,000 will be required annually for these purposes. Top priority for open space acquisition should be assigned to that portion of the shoreline .park between "G" and "F" Streets, which is in ownership separate from the Santa Fe Railroad property. Because this area is partially developed, public acquisition will be necessary. Hence, it is important that acquisition take place before additional develop- ment occurs and before land values increase due to public investments in the general area. T ax increment funds could be used to acquire this parcel if redevelopment powers are used. The balance of the park site can be secured later, when either the Santa Fe Railroad or the redevelopment agency has finalized its plans for the entire central area. Other critical open space programs include the golf course area, proposed to be developed privately, and the shoreline parks shown for Gunpowder Point. Although the Marina Green is seen as an important park site, it has been assigned a lower priority for two reasons: 1) 67 /-/ ~7) , :PAD the property is in public ownership ond therefore less vulnerable to loss for public use than private lands; and 2) other park improvement programs would have a greater impact in eliminating the negative image af the area and inducing development consistent with the Bayfront Plan. Development ather than the marina faci lities proposed in the North Marina area can pro- ceed independently. The major portion of this area could be held in reserve to determine if uses other than residential and water-related commercial are feasible and compatible with the Bayfront Plan and the specifi c criteria established for the area. However, an important consideration is ensuring that the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel design is developed as part of an integrated design for the channel and adjoining shoreline pra- perties. Preservation and management of the natural habitat areas within the study area is another important funding requirement in the proposed Plan and Program. The Sweetwater Marsh, which lies almost entirely within the Santa Fe Railroad praperty, probably can be pro- tected by regulation. (Amendments to the State Subdivision Map Act in 1972 rei nforce the case for this approach, as does the State Environmental Quality Act.) This would permit preservatian of the marshes without capital autlay far acquisition. The opportunity for economic return has not been abviated, because a substantial portion of the land- holding still remains developable. Indeed, the natural habitat preserve could enhance the develapment potential of compatible uses around the marsh lands, and thereby in- crease the economic return for the property owner and developer. Other natural habitat preserves within the study area are on tidelands under jurisdiction of the Port. Again, this can be secured without initial capital outlay. Management and maintenance of the natural habi tat, as well as enforcement of regulation to ensure its preservation, will re- quire public funds. These funds could came from a variety of sources, depending on the responsible agency at the local, State, or Federal level. Public outlays may be required for mini-transit services, to canstruct and improve roadways, develop pedestrian and bicycle paths, and construct sewer, storm drainage, water supply and other utilities. Some of these, as indicated in Table 3, could be financed by match- ing private and public funds. Other funding needs relate to marina development, golf course construction and maintenance, and general landscape improvements. MUDFLAT CRAB Hemigrapsus oregonensis 68 Table 3: Ma jor . . . MAJOR SOURCE ALTERNATIVE MAJOR SOURCE MINOR SOURCE FINANCING SOURCE Tax Increment Financing General Obligation Bonds General Fund - City of Chula Vista Port Revenues and Revenue Bonds Real Estate Transfer T ox (proposed) Assessment District California Bagley Conservation Fund California Natural Habitat and Ecological Preserve Program California Pork and Recreation Bond (proposed) California Gas T ax Funds California General Soles and Users Tox California State Highway Funds :olifornia Boating Facilities Program =ederol land and Water Conservation Fund =ederol Coastal Zone Management Program :ederal Morine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Program :ecleroJ Open Spoce Land Program :ederol Wildlife Restoration Program "ederal Flood Control Project ederal UMTA Capital Grants ederaJ UMT A Demonstration Project Grants Jser Fees; Private Funds; Dedication Financial Sources FUNDING REQUIREMENT c o '5 0- w <l: ." C o ~ c . E . > o "- E ." C o c .2 ~ C 5 " c 8.2 o c ~ '0 0::;: 0.. ." Vi ~ o 0.. ~ o 0.. E ,- " -g .~ I_ e :~ " , , 0- _ u ~<l: E :.E l:: o . I ~ '" e 0 , c c~ z ." C o c o u L c c o . U E S~ ~ e ." Q, o E 0- '" ~ u c ~o . ::0 U ." , " " o " " c 0 .~ u ~.E . - ." 0 .0.. 0.. '" c " .- ~e u . ~O >." .-=. 2 " 0 c_ e . - '" , - '2 -g 0 ~cu c o l..:' ~ OJ 13 Q) c of: :J t;;:Ot; ~ ~ , 0." " " c 0 '0 aU o ~:c >-.- Eo.,:;; o a.._ ~~5 , . w g E g " . " - o " U '0 ~::;: s-g (J 0 ~ g <3:C " . E Q, o -. > . Cl o " C ::;: . Q, o u " ';c " . .3 ~ ~ ~ . "- . E l? r -- - +-=:=tH --t-==t---r-l~-~ +_J__ --l-L- -t--_1_-t---i r~ - -'-.-~---+~ '--1-I-f-~-T-'-!--+--'-1 -----"[ ~-I ----r i~--l · I L... I ---+-- i I ~--I---:-~~I ~~;=. ---L--+---L-~ ,. I.. I -i-- ---j---t- i.! . i i i i ! ---+-- , , ---t~ .-_. i .. -t-- -+ ------J---~ . I i . I I j- , +- --+~- ,-t ...=t--U- (" 69 ----) If PzS POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Depending on the type and location of development, as well as the entity responsible for development, a variety of funing sources are or may be available for use in the Bay- front area, including those of the Port, City of Chula Vista, and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. While Federal and State funds also may be available in the form of grants-in-aid or loans, the main responsibility for implementation realistically should be placed on local governments and other County and/or regional authorities. The three major local financi ng options - use of general funds, tax increment funds, and general obligatian bonds - are discussed below. GENERAL FUNDS. The City could appropriate monies from its general fund, via the annual Capital Improvement Program, to responsible departments, including the Depart- ment of Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation. However, this may be unlikely in view of the scale of investment anticipated compared to the overall City budget. The avai lability of funds from the Federal government, under the Fiscal Assistance to State and Local Government Act of 1972, depends on the degree ta which these funds are committed to other urgently needed public services and improvements. To the extent that they are available, the funds cauld be applied to the ordinary and necessary maintenance and operating expenses under categories of "environmental pra- tection", "public transportation, including transit systems and streets", "recreation", and "ordinary and necessary capital expenditures authorized by law". Of significance is the eligibility of maintenance and operating costs for the proposed natural habitat preserve and the park lands not under jurisdiction of the Port. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. The most practical approach to financing public im- provements in the Bayfront is tax increment financing. This alternative is available under provisions of the State Community Redevelopment Law, and can be applied only by a redevelopment agency to public improvements located in a redevelopment area and found to benefit development within the redevelopment project area. The method is based on the principle that the costs of public improvements incurred for, and benefit- ing uses designated in, a redevelopment project should be financed by recapturing the increment in value of properties within the project area as a result of such public improve- ments. More specifically in the Bayfront case, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency could pledge or allocate the tax revenues generated from the added assessed value within the project area to the retiring of bonds, loans and other obligations issued by the Rede- velopment Agency for the purpose of financing project costs incurred in initiation and management of the redevelopment project. Among eligible project costs to be financed by this alternative are: land acquisition costs for purposes of park development, park site improvements, related administrative and planning costs, and relocation expenses, if any. Ongoing operating and maintenance expenses are not eligible under this alter- native. This method of financing is recommended, especially if the redevelopment process is 70 used to guide and control development in the Bayfront. It provides a reasonable in- cidence of tax (or financing) burden, because revenues used to finance the public improvements are derived from properties benefiting from these public investments. All taxing agencies presently receiving property tax revenues from property lying in the project area would continue to receive their present levels of revenues from these properties, based on assessed values at the County Assessor's Office and the rate upon which the taxes are produced. When all the bonds, loans and other obligations related to the project are repaid in full, these taxing agencies would again receive the full amounts of taxes based on the new and enlarged assessed values of the properties. Another advantage of tax increment financing is timing; no referendum is required and the redevelopment agency can initiate the process quickly. This is essential to success of the proposed Plan and Program because acquiring key lands for park and open space pur- poses would enhance immensely the viability of the program. Because it is one of the intentions of this form of redevelopment financing to improve the fiscal base of taxing agencies by improved land uti Iization, care should be taken to con- fine public improvements to a level which can be completed within a reasonable time. This should enable the affected taxing agencies to benefit from an improved tax base at the earliest time. Hence, it is necessary to carefully select those public improvements to be undertaken within the proposed redevelopment area. For example, a private de- velopment project that would generate a total of $60 million of improvements in addition to existing land"and improvement values could support bond issues in the order of $7 million, with principal repayable over a ten-year period, and interest at 6~% interest rate, payable semiannually. This estimate assumes that construction would be spread evenly over a period of eight years, and that incremental tax revenues are based on pre- vai ling property tax rates of property in the Bayfront area. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Bayfront acquisition and improvement programs also can be financed by issuance of general obligation bonds by the City of Chula Vista, ex- clusively for this purpose. However, this alternative applies only to improvements on lands in the ownership of the City, because general obligation bonds are a liability of the com- munity and are payable by the City from general fund monies. This method also is less desirable than tax increment financing for several other reasons. One of the disadvantages of general obligation bond financing is the requirement for two- thirds voter approval. Although general obligation bond proposals for purposes of open space and conservation have, in recent years, been highly successful in California, the time required to pass such a proposal, as well as the uncertainty, can cause operational problems. Land presently under private ownership may, for various reasons, not be avai 1_ able for acquisition by the City (without eminent domain), or the cost of such acquisition could increase due to appreciation in land values, thus requiring a greater outlay. Fu.... thermore, as the success of the proposed Plan and Program depends heavily on the ability to alter completely the negative image of the Bayfront, any delay in such improvements will weaken the program. .~71 ( 7).;/~) Because of the potential of the proposed project to serve as a regional open space park/ recreation area, the general obligation bond financing alternative is less equitoble than tax increment financing to the people of Chula Vista, who would be financing retirement of the City-issued general obligation bonds through the City's general fund. This could be reduced or eliminated if the County of San Diego, instead of the City of Chula Vista, issued the general obligation bonds to finance the Bayfront park and open space develop- ment, as well as other high priority open space and park developments in the County. The problem of timing and accelerated cost during a referendum still remains. COMPLEMENTARY FUNDING SOURCES. Port revenues generated from marina develop- ment and leasing of lands within the Bayfront area to private users present another source of financing public improvements. However, this revenue source is limited in its applica- tion because those public improvements must be Port-owned and/or would benefit the uses designated in the Port-owned lands. Some examples of eligible expenditures are: management and maintenance of public marina-related facilities, marina-related parks, etc. These revenues could be used as a pledge for revenue bonds issues by the Port for the public improvements outlined above. A potential tax source available to the City of Chula Vista is the real estate transfer tax. Presently, the City imposes a transfer tax on property transacted withi n the City at a rate of 11~ per $100 of value of property transacted exclusive of mortgage. This rate would be increased to 25~ per $100 of value of property transacted and the additional revenues earmarked for open space and recreation purposes upon approved presently proposed legis- lation (although the form of disbursement is sti II unclear). As provided under State laws, an assessment district could be established to raise funds for capital improvements by imposing an assessment on property which benefit from such improvements within the proposed district. This district could either be established through petition by property owners in the area, or by initiative act of the legislative body having jurisdiction over the proposed district. Assessments levied therein are secured by specific fixed liens on real property lying within the area. Both the creation of the assessment district and the rate of lien to be imposed are subject to public hearings before a decision could be made by the respective legislative body. Sewer, storm drainage, water supply and other utilities construction in the Bayfront area are proposed to be financed by this funding method. Maintenance of these facilities could be financed through assessment on real property upon the establishment of a maintenance district, using similar procedures. A variety of Federal and State funds are available or potentially avai lable in the Bayfront. For the most part, these sources can only supplement the local resources described above. Moreover, the future of some of these sources is presently highly uncertain due to Executive impoundment in selected categories of Federal aid, and the reevaluation by some Federal agencies of performance of existing categorical programs. 72 These funding sources are described below: Land and Water Conservation Fund. This fund is administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the U. S. Department of Interior, through the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Assistance is provided for acquisition and development projects approved by the State. Eligible development projects may include such varying pro- jects as bicycle paths, hiking trails, roadside picnic stops and marinas. Priority is given to projects serving urban populations for basic facilities, and for projects for which other Federal financing is not available. Grants are made on a 50-50 matching basis, with the Federal share based on allowable project costs. The projects so financed must be perman- ently dedicated to public outdoor recreation use, and the agency applying for the funds must assume responsibility for continuing operation and maintenance. About 40"10 of the appropriated funds under this program are retained by the Federal government for use by such Federal agencies as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the National Forest Service. Manage- ment of the Sweetwater Marsh may be fi nanced with this program if it qualifies as a Na- tional Wildlife Refuge area, as administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wi Idlife. Federal Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. As provided under this Act, the Secretary of Commerce may, after consultation with appropriate Federal agen- cies based on specific proposed designation of areas for marine protection and sanctuaries, approve such proposals and appropriate funds for acquisition, development and operation of the designated marine sanctuaries. An amount not exceeding $10 million has been authorized by Congress for each of the two fiscal years in which this Act will operate. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. As provided under this Act, the Secre- tary of Commerce may allocate funds to the State for preparation of a State coastal zone management program, for operation of such program, and as matching funds for the acquisi- tion, development and operation of "estuarine sanctuaries" for creating natural field labor- atories to gather data and make studies of natural and human processes occuring within es- tuaries. The State may allocate administrative grants to local governments to operate an approved coastal zone management program. Funds are appropriated by Congress for opera- tion of activities provided under this act, but according to the budget proposed by Presi- dent Nixon, such funds are not forthcoming in the coming fiscal year. Hence, it is un- certain at this time as to availability of such funds for carrying out activities thus provided. To qualify for the admi nistrative grants allocation to Chula Vista to administer the Sweetwater Marsh, the marshland would have to be included in the State management program as a high priority area for conservation. Federal Open Space Land Programs. This program is administered by the U.S. Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development. Assistance is provided on a 50-50 matching basis to local public agencies to cover eligible costs incurred in a project that would: 1) provide, preserve, and develop open space land in urban areas; 2) acquire, improve and restore historic sites; and 3) develop and improve public urban lands for open space. Eligible development includes transportation and circulation facilities, land- 73 /~ _ _l_21~l___m scaping and basic site improvements, including grading, planting, construction of re- taining walls and fencing, installation of utilities, recreation facilities and equipment, including playground apparatus, game fields, fountains and equipment. While this program provides funds for which a great portion of the proposed park and open space activities in the Bayfront Plan and Program is eligible, the prospect of securing assis- tance from this categorical program is not promising. Both the President and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development have recommended that this program be terminated, probably at the end of this fiscal year or earlier, and be replaced as one component of the proposed Community Development (special) Revenue Shari ng package. Federal Flood Control Project. This program, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provides for assistance for land enhancement and project costs assigned to projects other than flood control, such as landscaping and installation of benches along the banks of a flood control channel. The local government must provide cash contri- bution. Wildlife Restoration Program (Pittman-Robertson Program). This program, administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, provides for assistance on a 50-50 matching basis to the State Fish and Game Department for restoring or managing wildlife populations and preservation and improvement of hunting and related uses. In recent years, application of this fund to preservation of wildlife not related to hunting species has been successful. Urban Mass Transportation Administration Grants. This grants could be used for two pur- poses: 1) capi tal expenditures, such as acquisi tion, construction, reconstruction, or improvement of facilities ond equipment for use in public transportation service in urban areas; and 2) demonstration projects to develop and test new facilities, equipment, pricing and operating policies, traffic flow, coordination of various modes of transportation and basic research. These grants may be applied to establishment of the proposed mini-transit system, provided that the system would connect to the public mass transit system operating in the City of Chula Vista and other parts of the County of San Diego, and that the pro- posed system does not serve exclusively the users of parks and other development in the Bayfron t area. State Bagley Conservation Fund. This fund is to be used for beach, park and land acquisi- tion programs, including wildlife areas, and coastline planning and development of recreational facilities, which are of a one-time, nonrecurring nature. A total of $40,000,000 has been authorized under the bill to be expended in three fiscal years following Fiscal Year 1973. Of this$40 million, almost half has been earmarked al- ready. State Highway Fund. As provided under SB 36 (1972), a minimum of $368,000 annually would be allocated from the State Highway Fund to be used for construction of bicycle facilities along the State Highway system. 74 State Fish and Game Deportment Natural Habitat and Ecological Preserve Management Program. Natural habitat areas that do not meet requirements of notional significance to qualify for Federal acquisition and/or management, may be acquired by the State Deportment of Fish and Game, and managed by them. Where necessary, the State Deportment of Fish and Game also may contract with the Federal Bureau of Sport Fisher- ies and Wildlife to hove the latter manage the natural habitat area. Funds for these activities come both from the operating budget of the State Deportment of Fish and Game and other applicable Federal grants-in-aid, such os the Land and Water Conservation Fund. State Gas Tax Funds. These funds con be applied to construction, improvement and maintenance of streets and other vehicle-related facilities. As provided under SBIIOO (J 971), these funds also con be used for construction of separate bicycle lanes along State highways which conform to local general plans for development of such facilities. Acquisition of real property for such purpose also is eligible. The funds can be used os well to acquire lands adjoining or near highways, for pork purposes, and to provide for maintenance of such parks. As provided under SB 36 (1972), $30,0000 month could be allocated from the State Gas Tax Funds to cities and counties for use in construction of bicycle lanes along local streets and roods. State Soles Tax, SB 325 (1971). This revenue based on 0 5% tax rote on gasoline con be used in improving and operating public transportation and highways. There is also on allocation of i% of the general soles and user tax by the State to counties for local transportation. State Booting Foci Ii ti es Program. This program, administered by the State Deportment of Navigation and Ocean Development, consists of booting facility construction loons, boot launching romp grants, and planning loons. These funds ore provided to local government agencies for planning, designing and constructing booting foci lities and marinas. More specifically, the booting facility construction loan, financed through the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund, is used for construction of booting facilities, for planning and construction of marinos, for construction of launching fa- cilities on 011 suitable bodies of water, for planning, design and construction of harbors of refuge, and for acquiring desirable land and water areas for use by the booting public. These loons ore repaid mostly by revenues produced by the facilities, marinos, and re- lated commercial uses constructed under the program. The loons ore generally of 0 30-year period and the current interest rote is 4~'7'0. While Chula Vista is currently not in the high priority category for funds under this loon program, application would receive equal consideration by the Deportment of Navigation and Ocean Development for approval of funds. State Pork and Recreation Bonds. AB 392 (1972) enacted the State Beach, Park, Recrea- tional, and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974, which, if adopted upon passage by voters at 0 special election to be consolidated with the 1974 Primary Election, would 75 ____3_/(~l_ authorize issuance of $250 million in bonds to acquire and establish beaches, parks, recreational facilities and historical resources. Based on the passage of the 1964 Park and Recreation Bond issues, this potential funding resource could have a significant effect on implementation of the park and open space, and natural preserve elements in the proposed Bayfront Plan and Program. PICKLEWEED Salicornia virginica 76