Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/01/15 .'"/"'" City of Midbayfront Local Coastal Plan Amendment Responses to Coastal Commission Staff's Recommendations and Supporting Documents January 15, 1993 abi .` of Contents SUMMARY OF CITY'S RESPONSE ^w TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION GRAPHICS 2 Chula Vista LCP Amendment No. 2-92 BRIEF HISTORY OF BAYFRONT 3 PLANNING EFFORT CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Friday, January 15, 1993 VISUAL IMPACT/ Agenda Item 6.b. 4 URBAN DESIGN CONCEPT BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CITY'S 5 PROPOSAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION 6 LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM AND WILDLIFE SERVICE U.S. FISH ? ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION S KINGDOM AND INNER -CI SPORT TY 8 YOUTH PROGRAMS ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT 9 10 AVERY s READY INDEX -° INDEXING, SYSTEM (e e (e ...... - -~ LUCAST CONSULTING Coastal Land Use Planning & Advocacy 12760 Hiah Slut! Drive. SuitE: 280 San Dieoc. Cal;jornla 92130 (619i 793-6020 FAX (619'1793-0395 XMPORTANT NOTE: THXS DOCUMENT XS BEXNG PROVIDED SIMULTANEOUSLY TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF AND TO ALL COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS January 8, 1993 Chairman Thomas W. California Coastal 45 Fremont Street, San Francisco,'CA Gwyn and Commissioners Commission suite 2000 94105 Re: Friday, January 15, 1993 Agenda Item 6.b. Chula vista LCP Amendment No. 2-92 SUMMARY OF CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION Dear Chairman Gwyn and Commissioners: Wes Pratt, of Harrison, Taylor and Bazile, and I are co- representing the city of Chula vista in a request to amend its Local Coastal Program. It is the goal of this amendment to open up the City's long languishing bayfront resources to visitors consistent with respectful stewardship of the newly formed Chula vista National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Although the amendment involves the entire coastal zone of the city, the staff recommendation has focused on the midbayfront segment. Our comments will be confined to that area as well. The land uses in the current certified LCP for the midbayfront consist of a mixture of residential, office and visitor-serving commercial with an emphasis on office commercial. By contrast, the proposed amendment will strongly emphasize visitor-serving commercial and public recreation uses consistent with the high priority accorded these uses in the Coastal Act. The proposal concentrates the level of intensity of development the Commission certified in the original LCP on a smaller area in order to avoid any adverse biological impact on the NWR, to enable enhancement of wetlands not included in the NWR, and to maximize open space (e (e (e Chairman Thomas W. Gwyn and Commissioners California Coastal commission January 8, 1993 Page 2 and public parkland within the subsegment. To accomplish these benefits, the proposed development configuration includes four high rise structures. The staff is recommending approval of the LCP amendment, subject to numerous suggested modifications. The preponderance of the suggested modifications are acceptable to the City, although we will be seeking clarification of certain minor issues prior to your public hearing. We have only two major concerns with staff's recommendation, namely staff's suggestion that allowable building heights be reduced and that the site for the planned cultural arts facility be confined to the core area only. The midbayfront is the heart of the City's coastal zone and the City has pinned its economic hopes on the development of this centerpiece. As is usually the case with major LCP amendment requests, this effort is being driven by a specific and comprehensive development plan for the midbayfront. The development proposal has been finely tuned .to achieve resource protection and economic development goals. Graphics at Tab 2 illustrate the detail of the planned development concept which has been painstakingly crafted by the City, the landowner and a specially formed citizens group (the Subcommittee) over the past three years. While staff discusses the intensity of development in its report, it concludes that no adverse impact on coastal access will occur as a result. Staff's recommendations on proposed height limits and siting of the cultural arts facility are based only on concerns for visual and biological impact of the proposed development. The remarks below will summarize the City's response to these two issues. More detailed material and technical arguments are furnished under the tabs following this letter. REIGRT, BULK, SCALE AND VISUAL IMPACT The staff report suggests that the varying building heights allowed in the proposed amendment will adversely impact the visual amenities of the coastal zone because the resulting scale and bulk of development will not observe the established physical character of the area and could set an adverse precedent for high rise development around the bay. (e (e . Chairman Thomas W. Gwyn and Commissioners California Coastal Commission January 8, 1993 Page 3 The sUbdiscipline of planning and architecture which deals with issues of bulk and scale of development is urban design. One of the foremost urban design firms in the world, the Jerde Partnership, was retained to prepare the concept plan contained within the City's proposed amendment. Jerde has provided a brief urban design analysis appearing under Tab 4. It was the express intent of the city to breach the established character of the industrialized south bay with this plan. The mere fact that high rise development does not exist on or near the site at present is not a rationale to prohibit it under Coastal Act policies. The intent of Coastal Act view protection policies is to prevent urban development from despoiling scenic rural areas and to protect "special communities" which are major visitor destinations. The south bay . is unquestionably urbanized, but is fortunate enough to have set aside remnant wetlands in the NWR. It must be recognized, however, that this wetland complex exists within an urban area. The city does not propose to put urban development within a rural area, but within this urban area. This existing urban area is far from being a "special community" which is a major visitor destination. Rather, that character is what the City hopes to achieve with the amendment now before the Commission. The design concept for the central core of the midbayfront is the creation of a compact, pedestrian-scale village which allows maximum access and mobility for users, takes advantage of mass transit opportunities, and reduces reliance on the automobile. This concept allows for the maximum provision of parks and public open space and creation of new and restored wetlands with adequate buffers. The scale and "critical mass" of the project has been dictated by urban design, economics and the need to avoid adverse biological impacts on the adjacent bay and NWR. From an urban design point of view, great care was taken to follow citizen and environmental recommendations in setting the village back from the bay and wetlands and by placing parking largely underground. Building heights are stepped down as they approach park and open space areas. By creating a predominantly low rise/mid rise village (two to five stories) with only four high rise buildings (approximately 5% of the total project footprint area), it is possible to expand the area dedicated to parks and open space over the previously certified LCP by about 25% while still maintaining the critical mass of hotel and residential uses te {e (e Chairman Thomas W. Gwyn and Commissioners california Coastal Commission January 8, 199.3 Page 4 needed to support all of the services and amenities featured in the plan. Inclusion of high rise structures allows for smaller footprints for the major structures which, in turn, allows for greater view corridors on the ground plane. Ironically, the height reductions recommended by staff would require enlargement of building footprints which would impinge on ground level view corridors. The City'S proposal is significantly reduced in height, size and intensity from the project initially submitted. The City was forceful in requiring the landowner to reduce the height and number of units as the project went through the local planning and environmental review process. The City is persuaded that any additional reductions in the scope of the plan will make the project financially infeasible (refer to Tab 7) and result in the loss of open space and other amenities guaranteed by the plan. The adverse precedent claim put forth by staff fails since it is clear few, if any, coastal areas.can assemble a sufficiently large area within an urbanized waterfront, in a major metropolitan area, near an international airport adequate to support the major destination resort concept proposed. The cultural arts facility was specifically sited on the bayside of Marina Parkway as a location befitting its prominence. Relocating this facility within the central core, landward of Marina Parkway, will detract from the potential grandeur of the facility and will necessarily displace more economically productive land uses needed to support the public amenities of the plan, including the arts center itself. BIOLOGICAL IMPACT staff justifies its recommendation for reduced heights in part on presumed adverse biological impacts of the city's proposed plan, yet the plan does not result in any such impacts. Biologist David Smith, Ph.D., was retained to guide preparation of the plan with respect to design criteria and impacts on . sensitive environmental resources, especially the NWR. Dr. Smith has summarized the biological impacts and mitigations of the plan in his report under Tab 5, along with an analysis of the lack of biological basis for the staff's recommended height reductions. (e fe . Chairman Thomas W. Gwyn and commissioners California Coastal Commission January 8, 1993 Page 5 The project team worked in close coordination with the Department of Fish and Game and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service in establishing the proposed land use patterns and design criteria. The plan went through rigorous environmental review where it was determined that: Proposed building heights will not significantly impact the flight activities of birds using the NWR Required design criteria will prevent raptor perching and minimize predator threat The predator management program further minimizes the potential predator threat that might otherwise be associated with high rise buildings and other development-related features and situations Creation of new salt marsh in the NWR will fully compensate for the intensity of development The absence of significant adverse impacts associated with the height and intensity of development allowed under the City's plan is further underscored by the strong support given the project by the u.s. Fish and Wildlife service. The Service declares its support in a letter to the Commission appearing at Tab 6. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION The midbayfront project design, density and development program is aimed at serving a specific resort market--the regional and national meeting group market--a need which is currently not being met in the San Diego area. The feasibility of the project is tied to the success of meeting this demand. As shown in the economic analysis of staff's recommendation prepared by Price Waterhouse (Tab 7), any reduction in project density, beyond that already achieved during local reviews, would render the project infeasible since it could not effectively compete for its target market at a reduced density. Instead it would be forced to compete with the majority of other hotels in the overbuilt market.. In addition, a further reduction in density will SUbstantially reduce, or even eliminate, the ability of the project developer to finance infrastructure, public amenities, wetland restoration and enhancement and operations of the Nature Interpretive Center as required by the proposed LCP amendment. <e ie (e Chairman Thomas W. Gwyn and Commissioners california Coastal Commission January 8, 1993 Page 6 CONCLUSl:ON Major coastal resource and community benefits associated with the city's proposed amendment include: creation of 28 acres of new or enhanced wetland Enhanced access to bayfront for community and visitors 44 acres of new, improved public parkland, in addition to 348 acres of preserved wetlands Permanent funding for the Nature Interpretive Center Community beach CUltural attractions New bayfront, visitor-serving amenities Major new destination resort Additional lower cost motel accommodations Special recreation program for "Inner City Kids" and disadvantaged youth (See detail at Tab 8) 5,727 py in construction jobs 1,700 permanent new jobs Increased property tax base, sales tax and TOT revenue $250 million added to the local economy annually from tourism alone Support and complementary uses for J Street Marina Wetland habitat enhancement is assured in conjunction with the development proposed in the LCP through the terms of the LCP and through several of staff's suggested modifications. In a very real sense, the proposed high rise development will finance this wetland enhancement. If staff's recommended height limits are adopted, that financing mechanism will evaporate and the city ~ Ie ~ Chairman Thomas W. Gwyn and Commissioners California Coastal Commission January 8, 1993 Page 7 will have to weigh demand for wetland enhancement against demand for police and fire protection and all its other myriad responsibilities when doling out scarce funds. Simply put, public benefits like wetland enhancement cannot be publicly financed today and property owners must be allowed sUfficiently economic projects for such benefits to be realized. If you accept the staff recommendation on height limits and resiting of the cultural arts facility, the long-awaited project envisioned will fail and Chula Vista's midbayfront will never fulfill its potential as a major visitor resource. Rather, it will become just another urban waterfront or remain in its current degraded condition. Public funds will have to be used to finance the required infrastructure and wetland enhancement. And the City will have lost the opportunity to provide its citizns and the region the stellar bay front destination it has waite so long to achieve. We urge you approve the staff's recommenda ion of approval with suggested modifications, with the exception of those modifications aimed at reducing heights and relocating the cultural arts facility. Respectfully submitted, )/ cc: All Commissioners and Alternates Mr. Peter Douglas Mr. Charles Damm Ms. Deborah Lee Mr. Paul Webb :z :;;' ,::~~,":,::_;:;,::;,<,,"3"::'~~ < ~. 'l...'l....;l !1 '. .,>~ ~ ~ J L i>- ~ - z - ~ > \ \ .<..<.uj \ .... ~ i \ ~ \ 1. (I . ._<--~ . ~VnI3:V 3:.LIS . >- '-'I :...:i ..J o . .' . . . . o C '-'I - o z < (/) CITY OF CHULA VISTA . PRESERVED . . WETLANDS .' . . URBAN I . .:.O~..J CHULA VISTA URBAN CONTEXT BAY CITY CENTER . MULTI-FUNCTIONAL RESORT VILLAGE . ...l P <: <Il ~ ~ .... ~ ~el ...l ~~l'S .... U,=,""' ~ ~ U '='/ ....l r.tl <Il~~Z < ~<IlZ~W:O f:: ><Q~...l~O z!:lz[5<<el ~...l~<<~U<I: Q~U""...l(;l:;:J~...l .... ""UE-<~E-;- ~~~o~~g;~s~~ ......... <Il;> ~ U ...l :z . I ~! D...~.I~D ~ c\ ,~ . , " " " " ~\ II 1\ ~I\ /:' ~ '\ "', ,;:>/ Iii] __'=LJU j \\\\ j, ~ D '\ ( _ n" ~. r-- z <x: ...:l ~ ~ r./) :J o z <x: ...:l , I I I I Ir';l. lPARKS/OPEN sPACE J ~ 1 Ji;L - - - I , II' ' -d -;--~ ~1 Il.. ! 'J : \ " " ;,' ," /' NI// I, " dl " " " ~, c:=J \ ~~/// Ii \. // __UJUi \\\ D I'" OJ L CITY COUNcil APPROVED t~PR #8 """.. ',I :!: 48 ACREtS , I i . f I \. ( "../..,v~,....: / ~ ) ~)'s" ~ ; 1\ I I I I . ~ ~ ~ MM ~ ~ > - E-- U ~ p.. en ~ ~ p.. ~ ;>-c ~ en o ~ - i:Q . . ,....co.., , , -< N -< ....:l ~ r-- ~ ~ ~ -< :E Q ~ ~ o r-- ~ ~ ...... > r-- CI) ~ ~ ::c: r-- ~ o CI) , I I ( , I I ! \ I i ) , , I / \ .' ,,'i' "(~ . ~ ~ ;"', ~ " ",. 0::: >e,,",,,,,"' , ''''9{'' <"'l<)^~~ '~ .'C:". -.<" _._.- {c"..E; '/~ "'/ t:'t / < Z - 0::: < ~ c; 5 ....:l < E-- CI) ~ ~ c; z - ~ o ....:l ~ ~ - > ~ Q:l \... ':~' ~ ~ ~ .~ <I: ~ :I: Eo-; - :I: ~ ~ -< <~ ~ ~ 5 o ~ ...:l o ~ ~ o Eo-; ~ ~ - > Eo-; CI) ~ ~ :I: Eo-; 5 CI) tIfIIII!II - '. . CHULA VISTA BA YFRONT LOCAL COAST PROGRAM RFSUBMITTAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 1972 the City of Chula Vista hired Sedway-Cooke, a San Francisco planning firm, to evaluate options and prepare a master plan for the Bayfront. In 1972 Proposition 20, the Coastal Initiative, was passed by the voters of California. Proposition 20 mandated the preparation of the California Coastal Plan, which was issued in 1975. The California Coastal Plan and subsequent legislation established a stringent review process for proposed projects in the California Coastal Zone. In 1974, the City established the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, which encompassed the majority of the land in the Chula Vista Coastal Zone. In 1976 the City of Chula Vista requested consideration of its plan by the California Coastal Commission. However, the plan was subjected to a new series of environmental and coastal review processes because of the timing of the submittal. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and financial and engineering feasibility studies were completed. . During the period required for further review, Santa Fe Railroad, the primary owner of the undeveloped portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront, initiated legal proceedings against the City based on their objections to plan provisions requiring marsh preservation. This litigation was dropped in 1981. In 1978 the City formally submitted its Bayfront plan for consideration by the Coastal Commission. In June 1979 the Regional Coastal Commission in San Diego approved the City's plan. The only modification imposed by the regional commission was to reduce the size of the hotel on Gunpowder Point from 700 to 350 rooms, with an option to go to the full 700 rooms as proposed after certain specific environmental concerns were addressed. In September 1979 the State Coastal Commission voted to reject the City's plan. The Coastal Commission staff had recommended denial of the plan based on concerns regarding impacts of development on Gunpowder Point and D Street Fill and construction of the roadways to serve those areas. After its plan was rejected by the Commission in 1979, the City obtained the services of the Pacific Legal Foundation to review the procedures of the Coastal Commission in acting on the City's proposal. The Coastal Commission subsequently reheard and denied the plan in 1981. In March 1984 Chula Vista's Bayfront Land Use Plan, revised to reflect new environmental information, received Coastal Commission approval. The implementing ordinances were certified by the Coastal Commission in June 1985. Following certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), which is comprised of the Land Use Plan and the implementing ordinances, the Sierra Club filed suit against the Coastal Commission for improper certification. (The Sierra Club dropped this suit following the 1988 settlement agreement [described below]). Federal permits were needed by the City to implement its certified LCP. The Section 404 Permit Applications were filed but concerns were raised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that Page 1 of 4 (e e . implementation of the City's LCP would adversely impact endangered species habitat. This habitat was required to be set aside for preservation and recreation purposes as mitigation for the freeway/flood control project that adjoins the northern portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront. In 1986 the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Army (Marsh) because the property that was required to be dedicated to the federal government as mitigation for the freeway/flood control project had never been transferred to a public agency. In August 1986 the FWS formally requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to re-initiate the endangered species (Section 7) consultation on the freeway/flood control project. In July 1987 following a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 1987 enjoining.the federal project, the Corps formally re-initiated consultation with the FWS. That consultation resulted in a settlement agreement that was entered into in April 1988 among Santa Fe Land Improvement Company, the County of San Diego, the Corps, the FWS, the Federal Highway Administration, and CalTrans. That settlement agreement required that Gunpowder Point, D Street Fill, and the entire Paradise Creek and Sweetwater Marsh complex (including the F-G Street Marsh) be deeded to the FWS as a National Wildlife Refuge. In August 1988 the Midbayfront, the principal remaining undeveloped portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront, was sold to Chula Vista Investors (CVI). The new property owner began preparing a plan to propose modifications to the certified LCP to allow a mixed-use development. CVI's plan included Ii resubmittal of the LCP, along with a conceptual development plan consistent with the proposed changes to the LCP. The City required that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plan resubmittal. The EIR process began in June 1989 with a Notice of Preparation. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (July 1991) was certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991. The FEIR contains the CEQA compliance record for the proposed plan-level action that had been processed beginning with the Notice of Preparation in June 1989 to the completion of the FEIR in June 1991. The FEIR analyzed the applicant's original project, his revised (Alternative 8) project, seven other alternatives developed by staff and/or required by CEQA. The Alternative 8 Revised Development Plan, was similar to the applicant's original proposed project in types of land uses proposed. It differed from the original proposal by reducing the density of the project from 3.6 million square feet (without Rohr site) to the revised project of 3.3 million square feet. The original project had, in addition to the applicant's project, included 560,000 square feet of office/professional use for Rohr; now Rohr is being processed separately. No modifications to the originally proposed LCP Resubmittal document were made as part of the Alternative 8 Revised Development Plan. The Alternative 8 Revised Development Plan was heard by the City Planning Commission on July 24, 1991 and the City Council on August 20, 1992. The recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the resolution adopted by the City Council directed staff to work with the applicant and the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee to resolve key issues associated with the project including: Page 2 of 4 . . . . Determination of appropriate land use intensitY. . Siting of building exceeding two stories away from the perimeter of the site where they conflict with public open space uses and uses of the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. . Preservation of public views to the bay from "E" and "P" Streets and elimination of buildings west of Marina Parkway to ensure public views to the bay and wetlands from Marina Parkway. . Evaluation of the potential for inclusion of a cultural arts facility in the plan. . Exploration of alternative phasing and financing programs to increase the financial feasibility of the plan. . Resolution of unmitigated impacts in the areas of traffic, land use, visual quality, parks/recreation/open space and schools. Bavfront Plannim! Subcommittee Process The Bayfront Planning Subcommittee was established by the City Council in May 1991, in an effort by the Council to increase public participation in the Bayfront Planning process. In addition to a nine- member appointed Subcommittee, Mayor Tim Nader and Councilwoman Shirley Horton serve on the Subcommittee. Councilman Jerry Rindone served as a member of the Subcommittee prior to Councilwoman Horton's appointment. The following list includes the name and the appointing Commission/Councilmember for each member of the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee. Subcommittee Member Aooointment Commission/Councilmember Pat Ables John Ray William Tuchscher Joe Casillas Larry Dumlao Russ Bullen John Moot William Virchis Glenn Goerke Will Hyde (ex-officio) William Barkett (ex-officio) John Wehbring' (ex-officio) Cultural Arts Commission Resource Conservation Commission Economic Development Commission Planning Commission Mayor Nader Councilman Moore Councilman Malcolm Councilman Rindone Councilwoman Horton Bayfront Planning Subcommittee Bayfront Planning Subcommittee San Diego Unified Port District 1 Recently appointed. The Bayfront Planning Subcommittee met regularly with staff and the applicant. These meetings included informal presentations by both staff and the applicant, as requested by the Subcommittee Page 3 of 4 le .. - members. Subjects discussed include: the history of the Bayfront; the Subcommittee's vision for development of the Bayfront; the Environmental Impact Report; traffic/circulation; economics; water access; land use mix, density/intensitylbulk and building height; location, configuration, and amount of park land; public access; critical edge conditions; open spaceldevelopment interface; schools; view corridors; shade/shadow impacts; possible inclusion of a cultural arts facility; and conceptual plan criteria. Through consideration of these issues, a consensus was reached by a majority of the Subcommittee members regarding the basic parameters of a recommended conceptual development plan. The Subcommittee Alternative was similar to the applicant's original proposed project in types of land uses proposed. It differed from the original proposal by reducing the density of the project from 4.lS million square feet to the revised project of 3.3 million square feet. Other revisions included replacement of the Luxury Hotel with a Cultural Arts Facility, reduction in number of dwelling units to 1000, and a relocation of the residential high rises away from the buffer zones in the residential core area of the project. No modifications to the originally proposed LCP Resubmittal document were made at that time. The Subcommittee Alternative was heard by the City Planning Commission on December IS, continued to January S; and by the City Council January 14, 1992. Both approved the Subcommittee Alternative, certified the Final EIR, and made Findings, adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. At their January 14, 1992 meeting, the City Council directed staff to process and return to Council for approval of: a Local Coastal Program Resubmittal (amendment), a General Plan amendment, and a Redevelopment Plan amendment consistent with the Subcommittee Alternative and including their modifications and informational items. On September 23, 1992 the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of the Chula Vista Local Coast Program Resubmittal (Bayfront Planning Subcommittee Alternative). On October 27, 1992, the City Council approved and adopted the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal and the General Plan Amendment. Page 4 of 4 . INTERNATIONAL. Inc. URBAN DESIGN CONCEPT 7 January 1993 The Chula Vista Bayfront Resort Village is one of the most challenging and unique opportunities on the west coast of America. Located between the San Diego Bay, the Sweetwater National WIldlife Refuge, Rohr Industries Industrial Campus and Interstate 5/San Diego Trolley transportation corridor, the Bayfront site offers the opportunity to create the quintessential destination resort/recreation village in the designated "urban core" of Chula Vista, San Diego County's second largest city. Waterfronts around the world, and especially in the U.S., have been in a state of transition over the last 20 years, as priorities have shifted from locations for heavy industrial complexes to more public serving, leisure lifestyle, recreation and environmentaJ oriented amenities, and Chula Vista is no exception. The last four years has been an effort of transforming earlier industrial oriented visions into a carefully crafted public/private vision, bringing together some very diverse priorities to create a plan that weaves all of these elements into harmonic compatibility: environmental habitat preservation, recreation oriented amenities, cultural and entertainment attractions __ integrated with visitor-serving hotel, residential and festival shops and services. The essential concept of the new Bayfront plan is that ofa uniquely themed lnixed-use, compact, pedestrian scaled, visitor serving waterfront resort village which differs significantly from the previous Certified LCP which was a segregated use, dispersed, auto- oriented business development that had ancillary residential, hotel and retail uses. The new plan is crafted to achieve both the policy goals of City of Chula Vista, as well as, the mandate of the California Coastal Commission. The Chula Vista General Plan states that this site: . . Will be a water-oriented focal point for the entire city. . Will emphasize public recreation activities, tourism, conservation. . Will emerge as the premier water front experience in South Bay whose qualities and standards will equal those of similar redevelopments in northern San Diego Bay. . Is part of the urban core and will contain the greatest diversity of public, commercial, civic, financial, cultural and residential uses emphasizing its role as the hub of the city. . Is a candidate for higher concentrations and diversity of uses than is generally the case in the city now. . Is a candidate for high rise development. Architecture Urban Design Jon A Jerde F AlA 913 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291 USA (310) 399-1957 . - ( . Page 2 The California Coastal Act States the Goals for the Coastal Zone are to: . Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. . Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources, taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. . Maintain and enhance public access to the coast by providing transit service, commercial facilities and residential areas. The plan also is designed to meet regional San Diego planning objectives of creating mixed-use activity centers along the regional trolley transportation corridors. The challenge is "to do it right," to create a true Bayfront destination resort/recreation themed village with visitor (as well as resident) serving amenities carefully designed to celebrate the Bay, but protect and enhance the precious wildlife preserves. The Resort Village would provide recreation and conference visitors with: Accommodations . Hotel . Motel . Rentalffime Share Condo and Apartments . Extended-Stay Dorms Recreation: Nick Bolleterri SportS Kingdom . Swimming - Beach and Olympic Pool . Boating Sail, Power, Cruise, Ferry . Tennis Children, Adults, Professionals, Tournaments . Sports Arena - Gymnastics SkatingIHockey - Basketball - Volleyball - Fitness . Sports MedicineIHealth Maintenance . Children's Day Care Center . AsheJBolleterri "Inner City" Kids Program providing underprivileged children access to: Tennis Lessons - Golf Lessons - Library Programs - Healthcare Camps e . Ie ..... 3 Parks and Open Space . Active Bayside Park . Passive Nature Interpretive Buffer Park . Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge . Nature Interpretive Center . F.G. Street Marsh Habitat . Lagoon . Lagoon Promenade . SDG & E Linear ParklParking . Market Plaza . Trails and Bicycle Ways . Cultural Arts Center Theater . Galleries . Amphitheater on the Lagoon . ConferencelPerformance Center 29 ac. 14 ac. 331 ac. ]7 ac. 7 ac. 1/2 mile 1/2 ac. Entertainment/Services . Restaurants/Cafes . Cinema . Sports Oriented Shopping . MarketIFarmers Market . Resort/Recreation Business Services Residential . Condominiums . Apartments . Extended Stay Office . Rohr Corporate Headquarters . Minor SportsIRecreation Oriented Businesses Parking . Underground for Resort Core and Residential . Designated Surface Parking for Parks and Nature Interpretative Center Habitat Expansion, Enhancement and Funding: . Restoration of22.S acres of salt marsh . Restoration ofS.s acres of freshwater marsh . Creation of shoreline corridor . Construction of SO' long bridge with ] O' clearance to facilitate marsh bird movement . Establish] 00' wide buffer to supplement existing 100' buffer . Construct, operate, and maintain water quality control system for water run off . Establish detailed design requirements for project buildings, landscaping and lighting - . . I'Ige 4 . Fund a major predator management program. . Implementation of wetland creation and restoration measures on the order of $3.5 Million This Resort Village would become a major destination attraction serving four major audiences or markets: . Local Citizens - Residents of Chula Vista - Metro San Diego County - Rohr Employees . Regional Tourist and Conference Markets California Southwest . National Tourist and Conference Markets . International Tourist and Conference Markets - PaCific Rim! Asia No. & So. America - Europe By creating a compact, pedestrian scaled village, the wetland and Bay resources can be buffered and protected, while allowing the maximum access and mobility for users, reducing reliance on automobile trips, and maximizing usage of the San Diego Trolley system across the street and the Chula Vista shuttle. The scale and "critical mass" of the project is determined by both urban design, as well as, market principals. From an urban design point of view great care was taken in to follow many of the citizen and environmentalist suggestions of setting the Village back from the Bay and wetlands (Certified LCP minimum setback is approximately 75'; this plan is setback 200' - 600' from Bay and wetlands) and by placing parking predominately underground, and stepping the buildings down as they approach the park and open space areas. By creating a predominately lowrise, midrise village (2-5 story) with only selected (4) highrise buildings (approximately 5% of total project footprint area) located in the center of the lowrise village, it was possible to expand the amount of total parks and open space by 25% over the Certified LCP while still maintaining the necessary "critical mass of hotel and residential uses to support all of the other services and amenities to serve as a major visitor attraction. The present program has been significantly reduced from the original proposal i.e., hotel rooms reduced from 2,028 to 1,610, residential reduced from, 1,800 du to 1,000 duo Six high rises were reduced to four. Heights reduced from 265' to max. of229'. If these key elements are reduced further, market studies indicate the project will no longer be a major visitor resort/conference attraction. ;. . . Pagd The compact Resort conserves land, creates a more inviting pedestrian ambiance, allows more people to have greater access to the bay, parks and open space, yet maximizing the amount of open space and park (up to 34%). The village is made up offive inter-related major districts: . . Resort Core around the Lagoon . Sports Kingdom . Residential Neighborhood . Rohr Corporate Campus . Park and Open Space Buffers Following four years of extensive public/private/environmental design workshops the plan has been tailored to reduce any significant biological impacts, to reduce traffic (utilizing off-peak load mixed uses), to preserve or create very specific view corridor/window areas to the Bay, to set the village back from the Bay and wetlands and to increase public park, open space and cultural amenities. The project can meet the Coastal staff's recommendations, in general, with the exception of significantly reducing the high rise building heights, which would severely damage the hotel (loss of 900 rooms) and residential (loss of230 d.u.) program, which is crucial for maintaining the project's economic, social and urban design integrity and viability. In effect creating a "no project." The public benefits of this project are very significant for the city, the region, as well as the state: . Jobs . Tax Base . Major New Recreation Amenities . Cultural Attractions . Preservation, and Enhancement for Wetlands and Bay Resources . Provides funding mechanisms to support Nature Interpretative Center operations, as well as, significant wetlands mitigation improvements. . New California destination visitor tourist attraction Bayfront "Heart" of Chula Vista serving the City, Rohr, the Wetlands and Bay. . Provides new visitor access to, and parking for, the Bay and Wetlands. . Supports San Diego Regional Transit objectives of creating mixed-use neighborhoods adjacent to trolley stations. . Provide taxes that can help support AshIBolleterri inner-city under-privileged kids programs. . Provides services along Interstate 5. - . . Page 6 The project combines urban waterfront amenities with beaches, shops, restaurants and entertainment around the new lagoon, as well as, providing extensive access to and use of new parks and wetland preserves along the Bay. It is designed as an exciting "enhanced reality" experience, combining sports, culture, recreation, shopping and living. The Bayfront Project can be a model of cooperative, interactive, environmental/economic development planning providing an example of environmental preservation in conjunction with creating one of the most unique mixed-use waterfront village attractions on the west coast. I. i. . DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS DDS&A 90-518 CCC-SR January 8, 1993 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING STAFF-RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS IN LCP AMENDMENT Review and Analysis Prepared by: David D. Smith, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist I. EXPECTED IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment as submitted by the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Investors Development Plan embodied in the LCP are expected to bave NO SIGNIFICANT, UNMITIGATED IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL R,ESOURCES once the agreed-upon mitigation/compensation measures have been implemented. With very minor exceptions, virtually all important biological resources in the LCP area are located within the boundaries of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Subarea 8 of the LCP) under the management authority of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Service has been a very active, major participant in the LCP Amendment planning process for the Midbayfront. As a result of numerous workshops and problem resolution meetings in three years of joint planing work, a comprehensive package of mitigation and compensation measures have been developed and agreed upon by CVI and the City. Many of these measures are summarized in the Environmental Management section of Part III of the LCP Amendment's .Land Use Plan. In addition, CVI and the Service are now completing the documentation which comprises the CVI/USFWS MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION AGREEMENT. This lengthy Agreement is the contractual vehicle that stipulates in detail CVI's commitments to fund and implement the array of highly specific mitigation and compensation measures agreed to by CVI and the Service. (Note that the major mitigation and compensation measures are summarized in Item IV below.) Per the Service's October 13, 1992 letter to the City, the Service has been extremely pleased with the cooperation received from both the City and CVI in working to avoid direct and secondary impacts of the Midbayfront development on the biological resources of the Sweetwater Marsh Refuge. This close coordination has resulted in the preparation of Local Coastal Program documents which effectively address BOX 1338, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92038 TELEPHONE (619) 453-2210 . Page 2 DDS&A 90-518 CCC-SR January 8. 1993 the various concerns and questions set forth in the Service's previous comment letters. In short, the issues and concerns raised by the Service have been resolved (primarily as a result of major concessions made by CVI) and the Service is satisfied .ith the LCP Amendment and the CVI Development Plan. Accordingly. in considering approval of the LCP Amendment and. in particular. the need for Staff-recommended modifications. the Commission should take into account this un~sually active role of the Service in preparation of the LCP Amendment and place special emphasis on the Service's strona support of the Amendment in the form submitted by the City, II. BUILDING HEIGHTS . There are NO BIOLOGICAL REASONS FOR THE REDUCTION IN BUILDING HEIGHTS recommended in the Staff Report. o Building heights will not significantly impact the flight activities of birds using the Sweetwater Marsh NWR. In the early stag~s of the Midbayfront pl~nning sequence, the Service expressed concern about the potential biological impacts of the high rise buildings in the CVI Development Plan. To address these concerns. the City contracted with Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBSl to carry out an intensive. year-long study of avian flight paths in the Midbayfront. The results of the PSBS study demonstrated that high rise buildings located as proposed in the City's LCP Amendment would be expected to have minimal impact on the flight paths of the various avian species of concern using the Refuge. o Agreement threat. The various Design Requirements in the CVI/FWS will prevent rapt or perching and minimize predator . The Service also expressed concern that high rise buildings could serve as perches for raptors and other predatory birds that might prey on the terns and rails nesting in the Refuge. To assess this concern, CVI contracted with two experienced ornithologists, Michael U. Evans (a consultant to the County) and Peter Bloom (a rapt or specialist) . DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES . Page 3 DDS&A 90-518 CCC-SR January 8, 1993 Working closely with the Service, Evans and Bloom prepared a detailed series of special Design Requirements for the CVI Development Plan. The Design Requirements govern roof form and slope, character of roof facades, dimensions and slope of window ledges and balcony railings, . exterior signage, etc., as well as the use of various types of anti-perching devices and mechanisms. Implementation of the Design Requirements will minimize the chance of raptors usina the buildinas for nestina or foraaina perches. o The Predator Management Program further minimizes the potential predator threat that might otherwise be associated with high rise buildings and other development- related features and situations. . The CVI/USFWS Agreement stipulates funding (for the life the Midbayfront Development) for a major Predator Management Program that provides for two additional staff members for the Refuge, as well as the services of experienced predator control personnel throughout the nesting season. Developer funding for the Predator Management Program is expected to run about $100,000 per year. o The EIR's mitigation requirements include creation of new salt marsh in the Refuge specifically to compensate for the intensity of the CVI development plan. As a further safeguard, in order to offset any remainina non-specific potential adverse impacts on wildlife resources that might result from the CVI Development Plan, the certified Final EIR requires creation of about 13 acres of new marsh at locations within the Sweetwater Marsh Refuge. As summarized in Item IV below. the LCP Amendment and CVI Development Plan provide for creation of some 22.5 acres of new/restored salt marsh. This includes about 15 acres of new salt marsh complex to be created from upland at the D Street Peninsula in the Refuge. Thus, the LCP Amendment more than complies with the pertinent mitigation requirements specified in the Final EIR. - DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES . Page 4 DDS&A 90-518 CCC-SR January 8. 1993 III. 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT There are NO BIOLOGICAL REASONS FOR REQUIRING 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT in the area 200 feet landward from the inner edge of the secondary buffer (i.e. a line that is already 200 ~eet landward o~ the wetland boundary of the E Street. Vener. and Sweetwater marshes). For several reasons. it is highly improbable that thirty-five foot high structures (as authorized in the LCP Amendment) located along the outer perimeter of the development areas specified in the LCP Ameng~ent would be visible to the sensitive bird species that typically forage and nest in the landward portions of the E-Street, Vener and Sweetwater River salt marshes within the Refuge. The reasons are as follows: . 1. For extensive areas of the Midbayfront uplands. the natural topographic conditions are such that buildings 35 high (on a ground elevation of plus 10 feet Mean Sea Level and located in the development area more than 100 feet landward of the secondary buffer) will not be visible to most bird species using the landward portions of the marshes in the Refuge. This is particularly true in the part of the Refuge along the northern margin of the upland where a sharp natural declivity topped by a well-developed stand of scrub and other vegetation blocks the line of sight between the marsh and future buildings on the upland. 2. At the specific request of the Service. the 100-foot wide secondary buffer (illustrated in Exhibit 11 of the LCP Amendment Land Use Plan, and in Exhibit 3 of the Staff Report) will feature a vegetation-topped earthern berm with cresta1 elevations high enough to interrupt the line of sight between the landward portions of the Refuge marshes and buildings and other structures in the Park/Open Space zone immediately landward of the secondary buffer. . A "worst case" 1ine-of-sight analysis shows that 35 foot buildings with a 10 foot ground elevation located as close as 100 feet landward from the secondary buffer generally will not be visible to the sensitive bird species using the inner portions of the Refuge marshes. In view of the above. the 30 foot height limitation recommended in the Staff Report is unnecessary. DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES Ie Page 5 DDS&A 90-518 CCC-SR January 8, 1993 IV. PRINCIPAL BENEFITS FROM CVI/USFWS MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION AGREEMENT WETLANDS - The CVI/USFWS Mitigation and Compensation Agreement includes a multi-component wetland creation and restoration program that will result in some 28 acres of new/restored wetland at five locations within and adjoining the Sweetwater Marsh Refuge. The resulting wetland will increase the acreaae of salt marsh habitat borderina San Dieao Bay by approximately ten percent. Although the Staff Report states that the LCP Amendment meets the required 4 to 1 ratio for wetland restoration, there is no mention of the scope or sianificance of this major restoration proaram or of the important bioloaical benefits that it will produce at no cost to the public. BENEFITS TO ENDANGERED LIGHT FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL - creation of about eight acres of new Spartina low salt marsh habitat by excavation and revegetation of upland (or seriously degraded high marsh) in order to increase nesting habitat acreage for the Light Footed Clapper Rail. This action would substantially increase Spartina acreage at FIG Street marsh as well as connect this marsh with San Diego Bay by creating an extension of the marsh west of Marina Parkway. It would also connect the expanded FIG Street marsh with the E-Street marsh to the north by means of a marsh habitat corridor along the San Diego Bay shoreline. Construction of a fifty-foot long, single-span bridge with a ten foot vertical clearance across Marina Parkway to facilitate the movement of marsh birds (particularly the endangered light-footed clapper rail) between FIG Street marsh and the new extension marsh west of the Parkway. Substantially increase tidal flushing of the FIG Street marsh by installation of three 48-inch diameter culverts under Marina Parkway. BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT UPLAND HABITAT - e Creation of about ten acres of new coastal saae scrub/succulent scrub habitat on the uplands immediately adjoining the wetlands of the Sweetwater Marsh Refuge. This biologically significant habitat type is rare along the DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES . Page 6 DDS&A 90-518 CCC-SR January 8. 1993 margins of San Diego Bay salt marshes, and this addition is expected to provide a major benefit to the Refuge ecosystem. As part of the new coastal sage scrub/succulent scrub habitat acreage, establish a secondary 100-foot wide buffer landward of the Service's existing 100-foot buffer, so that all development and public access would be a minimum of 200 feet from the edge of the E Street. Vener and Sweetwater marshes. This supplemental buffer (comprising about 7.5 acres) would be planted with coastal sage scrub/succulent scrub. A specially designed fence about 3800 feet long would be placed along the inland portion of the buffer to control public access. The buffer would include a signed inter- pretive path and overlooks at appropriate locations for viewing the marshes and the Bay. WATER QUALITY - . Construct, operate and maintain a specially designed water quality control system for all runoff. and implement a site specific water quality monitoring program to ensure that runoff waters supplied to the F/G Street marsh are of acceptable quality. DESIGN REOUIREMENTS - Establishment of detailed design requirements for project buildings. landscaping and lighting so as to minimize the project impacts of biological resources. A key element of these design requirements is the elimination of potential perches for avian predators. thus preventing use of buildings by raptors that might prey on the endangered California least tern and the Light-footed clapper rail at nesting sites in the Refuge. PREDATOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - . Fund a major predator management program to protect terns, rails. and other species of high management priority to the Service (i.e. shore. marsh and wading birds). This program. which would be funded for the life of the Midbayfront Development, would provide two full-time staff personnel for the Refuge, at least two seasonal predator management specialists, and the services of a professional ornithOlogist with special expertise in capturing and handling raptors. DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES . Page 7 DDS&A 90-518 CCC-SR January 8, 1993 In addition, as compensation for loss of foraging habitat for wintering raptors, CVI will provide funding for Project wildlife's program for temporarily housing and rehabilitating ill or injured birds of prey. V. MITIGATION/COMPENSATION PROGRAM COSTS - Implementing the wetland creation and restoration measures summarized above will cost on the order of three to three and one half million dollars. This cost figure does not take into account the commercial value of the five acres of fee land that, as part of the wetlands creation program, will be donated to Federal o~nership and become part of the Refuge. . e DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES . . . DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUlT~NTS DAVID D. SMITH. Ph.D. Environmental Scientist Dr. Smith is a diversely experienced environmental scientist and applied geologist with degrees in earth science from Notre Dame (1951) and Stanford University (1955 and 1960). His industrial career has included a variety of scientific. technical and senior management positions with two nationally known engineering consulting firms and a major corporation. Prior to his industrial work. he was an engineering geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. and held faculty positions ranging from Instructor to Associate Professor at Dartmouth College. Louisiana State University. and the University of North Carolina. For more than 15 years. Dr. Smith has specialized in resolving private sector environmental and regulatory problems associated with land development projects in Southern California. with particular focus on endangered species. riparian habitat and wetlands issues. He has played a major consulting role in a number of large development projects involving sensitive terrestrial vegetation and related endangered species. Recent examples include work for: . pointe Builders' Hansen Ranch project (adjoining Sweetwater Reservoir) regarding agency approval for relocation of wetlands and riparian habitat. . Home Capital's Rancho San Diego project in connection with protection of riparian habitat and Least Bell's Vireo nesting areas. .' . A Crocker Bank subsidiary's thousand acre project near San Francisco relative to a Federally-listed endangered species and related Federal designation of "critical habitat,. and . The Fieldstone Company and The William Lyon Company concerning mesa mint and vernal pool encumbrances on several Mira Mesa projects. In connection with these and other projects, Dr. Smith has developed an extremely effective working relationship with key personnel in the various Federa~ and State resources and regulatory agencies, including among others: the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. the Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Fish & Game, and the California Coastal Commission. BOX 1338, LA IOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92038 TELEPHONE (6191 453-2210 . . - SELECTED PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS ON WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS David D. Smith Feasibility of Using Dredge Spoil to Generate a Wildlife Reserve and Salt Marsh in San Diego Bay, California. 1975. In Oceans '75, MTS-IEE 1975 Conference Proceedings, p. 180-187:- From Feasibility Study to Construction: A Dredged Material Wild- life Reserve in San Diego Bay, California. 1977. In Oceans '77, MTS-IEE 1977 Conference Proceedings, 10 pages.-- Regulatory Restrictions, Institutional Constraints. 1979. Invited presentation at American Shore and Beach Association Forum '79, "Differing Views on Man and the Seashore", Los Angeles, California, September 21, 1979. Concepts, Problems, and Examples in Wetlands Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement. 1981. Invited presentation to the American Association of Port Authorities, Environmental Engineering Seminar, St. Louis, Missouri, April 29, 1981. Permit Process/Agency Roles. 1981. Invited presentation and Panel Moderator at California Shore & Beach Association-Oceanside Symposium, December 5, 1981. Legal and Institutional Constraints and Opportunities in Wetland Restoration. 1982. Invited presentation and Panelist at Workshop on Wetland Restoration and Enhancement in California, Hayward, California, February 18, 1982. Suggested Marsh Generation Program for Chu1a Vista Wildlife Reserve. 1976. Prepared for San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, California, 14 pages. The Importance of Entrances for Wetland Habitat. 1986. Invited paper presented at California Shore & Beach Preservation Association Conference, October 23, 1986. DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES - I. . United States Department of the Interior , FISH AND ....1LDIlFE SER'r1ct ECOLOGICAL SERVICES CARLSBAD FIELD OFFICE 2730 Loker Avenue Vest Carlsbad, California 92008 January 8, 1993 Chairman Tho_s V, Gwyn California Coa.tal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 9410S.2219 R.a: aequest by the City of Chub Vbta to Amend the Local Coastal l'lan (Land V.e Plan and Bayfront Specific Plan) Dear Chairman Gwyn: Thi. letter ie to inform the Commission that tbe U.S. Fieh and Yildlifa Service (Service) supports the City of Chula Vista's (City) proposed Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Amendment and the Kidbayfront Development Plan ae proposed by Chula Vi.ta Investors (CVI). Service .upport of LCP Amendment and Kidbayfront Development Plan i. based upon funding and implementation of specific compensation measure. by CVI and the City'. future cooperation and coordination with the Service to en.ure that the desiln of buildinga and use of lighting within the Midbayfront would not advereely affect wildlife use in adjacent marsh and upland areas administered by the Sarvice. These compensation measures and othar aspeots of the Midbayfront Project are addressed below. Service Partiei~ation in Midbayfront P1AnninE For more than three years, the Sarvice has been an active participant in verious aspects of the planning process associated with the proposed development of the'Chula Vista Hidbayfront. A. you are aware, tbe Service's 318 acre Sweetwater Marsh National Yildlife aafuga adjoins the Kidbayfront upland. end is situated within tbe boundary of the Chula Viste LeP planning ar.a. During this period, Service representative. from Icological Services, Carlsbad, California and Sweetwater ~rsh National Wildlife Refuge, Imperial a.ach, California have participated in an extended serie. of planning work.hop. and problam resolution .eetinls with City etaff and eVI'a consultanta. In addition, the Service has carefully revieWed and commented at length on: (a) eaveral propo.ed dealgn ooncepta and the .uccessive draftl of the Environmental X.pact aeport prepared for tha LCP Amendment in latten dated Kay 23, 1991, and January 14, 1992, Gd (b) che City'e Local Coal tal Program Draft documant. . Land Ue. Plan and layfront Specific plan in a letter dated October 13, 1992. Ie {e (e Chair1Dan Thomas W. Gwyn 2 The Service ha. been extremely plea.ed with the cooperation ve have received from both the City end CVI in working to Avoid direct and secondary impects of the Midbayfront devalopment on the biological resources of the Sweatwater Kareh Refuge. Thi. close coordination, in our opinion, has resulted in the preperation of Local Coa,tAI Program document. which effectively address the various concerns And que'tions .et forth in our previous comment letters. I wish to emphAsize that, AS a result of ehil intenllva joint planning effort, the VArlou, 1uues And concarns rai.ed by the Sarvice during the plAnning aequance have bean aatisfActorily re,olved. CVt/ServicQ MieiRation and Comnensation A~r.emant CVI And the Service are currently completine the documentation compriaing the CVI/Servica "Mitilation and CompensAtion Agreement- (Alraement). Thi. lengthy Agreement will .erve a. the contract\L&1 vehicle atipulating in detail CVI'. commitments to fund and implement the comprehensive packaee of highly .pecific mitigation And compensetion me.lures airaed to by CVI and the Service. Copie. of the axten.ive CVI/Service correspondence detailing the acope And specifics of the "Mitigation/Compensation" mealures stipulated in the Agreement have been furnished previoualy to Commission Itaff. This was followed up with an October 28, 1992, aeeting between Commiaaion ataff members Deborah Lae and Paul Webb. Diana Richardson from the City And CVI's repreaentatives and consultantl and the Servica in order to review in detail various Aspects of the mitigation and compen.ation mea8~res asreed to between the Service and CVI. These measures were identified in tha LCP Amendment Land Use Plan. Part Ill. Section E (Environmental MAnaiament), Pag.s 111-41 to 111.52. In summary. the major elements of the Mitigation/Compen,ation Aireement include: 1. Creation of new weeland and restoration of delraded wetland totaling 22.5 acres of coastal salt marsh And 5.5 Acres of freshwatar marsh at the following five locations Nithin And adjoinini the Sweetwatar Marsh Refuge: a) FIG Str.at Marsh (creation of naw freshwater marsh. And 'coastal salt marah Alone with reatoration of 80me degraded coaatal .alt marsh habitat), b) Extension of FIG Street mArah (creation of new coastAl .alt marah habitat west of tha existing FIG Karsh that will provide an important corridor between the existing marsh and San nieso Bay). c) Bay .horeline corridor (creation of new coastal salt marsh connecting FIG and I Streat marshea) , d) n.Street Fill (creation of new .alt marah habitAt, and . . - Chairman Thomas Y. Gwyn 3 e) Gunpowder Point (creation of new freshwater marsh habitat). The marsh creation/restoration progr~ outlined above would result in about a ten percent increase in the acreage of coastal .alt mar.h habitat bordering San Diego Bay. 2. Approximately ten acre. of coastal aage aorub/.ucculent acrub habitat will ba planted on the uplands immediately adjoining the wetland. of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Thi. biologically aignificant habitat typa i. rare along the marginl of San Diego Bay aalt mar.hea. and the planting of thia habitat type is expected to provide a major benefit to the refuge ecosystam. 3. Construction of a fifty. foot loni. single'span bridge with a ten foot vertical clearance across Marina Parkway to facilitate the movement of marsh birds (particularly tha endancered light-footed clappar rail) betwean F/G Street Marsh and the proposed extension of coastal .alt marsh west of the Parkway. 4. Substantially increase tidal flushing of the F/G Street Marsh by installation of three 48.inch diaMeter culverts under Marina Parkway. 5. Establish a aupplemental 100.foot wide buffer landward of the Service's axisting lOO-foot buffer, aD that all development and public ac~ess would be a minimum of 200 feet from tha edg. of tha E Street, Vener and Sweetwater marshea. This aupplemental buffer (comprising about 7.S acre. that are included in the acreace figure given in Item 2 above) would be planted with coastal aage acrub/succulent .crub. A apecially designed fence about 3800 feet long would be placed along the inland portion of the buffer to control public access. The buffer would inclUde a aiined interpretive path and overlooka at appropriate locations for viewing the marshe. and the Bay. 6. Conatruct, operate and maintain a specially desicned water quality control system for all runoff. and implement a .ite apecific water quality monitoring program to ensure that runoff waters aupplied to the F/G Street Harsh are of acceptable quality. 7. Eatabli.hment of detailed design requirementa for project ~uilding., landscaping and lighting ao as to minimize the project impacta of ~iological resources. A key element of the.e deaign requirement. i. the elimination of potential perchea for avian pre4ator.. thus prevanting Ute of building. by raptor. that .isht prey on the endangered California lea.t tern and the light. footed clapper rail that utilize Sweetwater Kar.h National Vildlife aefuge. 8. Fund a major pre4ator management proJtaD to protect ternl, rail., and other .pecies of hiah management priority to the Service (i.e. ahore, marah and w.ding birds). Thia program, which would be funded for the life of the Hidbayfront Development. would provide cwo full.time .taff par.onnel for the Refuge. at least two s.aaonel predator managament .peeialiat., and the . i. . ChairDlan Thomas W. Gwyn 4 sarvice. of . profas.ional ornithologist with special expertisa in capturing and handling raptor.. CVI has e.timated that implementation of tha wetland creation and restoration measures (summarized in 1, 3, and 4 abo~a) vill Cost on tha order of three and one half million dollars. CVI has also emphasized that this co.t figure doe. not taka into account the commaroial value of the five acra. of fea land that aa part of the watlands creation progrsm, will be donated to Federal ownership and become part of SWaetwatar Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Cul~rAl Art. 'aeiliev A. to the looation of the Cultural Art. Faoility, as stated in our October 13. 1992 letter to tha City, to meet the Servica's goal of an open corridor between the FIG and E Street Harshaa, ve prefer the Cultural Art. Facility (Facility) be located east of Harina Parkway. If the Facility ware to be sited west of Marina Parkway, a structura smaller and less obtrusiva than tha currently proposed 2,OOO-seat Facility naeds to be considered and the potential impacts of this project would need to be addressed in an environmental impact report. All significant impacts identified need to be avoided or appropriately compensated. !uilding Mei~ht. In the aarly .tages of the Hidbayfront planning sequence, the Servica axpressed concern about tha potential biological impacts of including high risa buildings in the de~alopment. To address these concerns, the City contractad with Pacific Southwast Biological Servica (PSBS) to carry out an intensive, year-long .tudy of avian flight paths in the Kidbayfront. The rasults of the PSBS .tudy demonstrated that high rise building. locatad as proposed in the City's LCP Amendment would be expectad to have minimal impact on the flight paths of tha various avian species of concern using the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlifa Refuga. Tha Servica also expressed concern that the high rise buildings Could serva as perches for rap tors and othar predatory birds that might prey on the tern. and rails nesting in the Refuge. To as.ess this concern, CVI contracted with two experienced ornithologi.t., Michael V. Evans (a consultant to the County) and Peter Bloom (a raptor .pecialist). Hr, Evana and Mr. Bloom prepared a detailed serial of .pacial .De.ign R.quir.m.nts. that govern roof form and slope, character of roof faca4e.. dimensions and .lop. of window ladges and balcony railina', exterior sianage, etc., a. well as the un of various typea of anti-parching device. and IIechanhms. Implementation of the.. design req~ir.ments ~y the City will minimi.. the chance of raptors ueing tha buildings for n..ting or foraging parches, In addition, the CVI/Servica Agre.ment stipulates funding for the lif. the Midbayfront Development proj.ct .Pr.dator Managament Program" that provides for two additional .taff member. for the aafuge, a. well as the ..rvice of experienced predator control per.onnel throughout the ne.ting .ea.on. tvI . . - Chairman Thoma. V. Cwyn 5 has estimated funding for the "Predator Management Program" 1. expected to run about $100,000 per year. Provided the building design re~uirements are adopted by the City and the compensation measures including the "Predator Management Program" are implementad by CVI in a timely and efficient manner, it 1s anticipated by the Service that the building height. .pecified in the City'. proposed LeP Amendment would not adversely affect wildlife u.e of Sweetwater Marsh National Vildlife Refuge. In c1o.ing, I wieh to emphasi~e the importance of the commitment. made within the Lep Amendment and the CVI Midbayfront Development P1en and the CVI/Service Agreement to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources. The Chula Vista LeP Amendment, in our view, i. an outstanding example of what can be achieved as the result of c10.e cooperation between public agencies and the private eector in p1enning urban development that i. competib1e with tha protection and anhancament of wetland and wildlife resources. If you have any specific questions concerning this latter please contact Hartin Kenney of my staff at (619) 431-9440. Specific questions concerning Sweetwatar Marsh National Vildlife Refuge should be directed to Tom Alexander, Refuge Manager at (619) 57S.1290. Sincerely, ;:Att: ~.'~t~~~ :t't,~/L-~ ,,',I f, 'I . Jsf,frey . Opd k.e Fiard pervi80r . . co: California Coastal Commi.sion, Long Beach, CA (Attn: California Coastal Commission, San Diego, CA (Attn: Paul Vebb) City of Chula Vieta, Chula Vi.ta, CA eAttn: Chris Salomone) Chula Vista Investor., LaJolla, CA (Attn: Vil1iam Barkett) Sweetwater Marsh National Vildlife Rafuge, Imperial Beach, CA (Attn: Tom Alexander) Regional Director, USFVS, Portland, OR Chuck DB.IMl) Deborah Lae, 750 B Street, Surt, 2400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone 619 2311200 i. Price T#1terhouse .(. JAN 1993 _Re::eivc:' ChI.:. 'iL ~~~~7":.'~~::- ~ ;i:;;1it 8 January 8, 1993 California Coastal Commission 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92108 Re: Proposed Local Coastal Plan for Chula Vista Bayfront Honorable Commissioners: Price Waterhouse has served as marketing and financial advisors for the Chula Vista Bayfront for approximately two years. In this role, we have completed comprehensive analyses of the project including a market feasibility study, financial analysis, fiscal impact analysis and assessment of the financial impact of certain conditions of approval proposed by the Chula Vista City Council. . In addition to specific studies, Price Waterhouse has participated in work sessions and public hearings regarding project planning, marketing, feasibility, financing and approval with the City Council, Planning Commission, City Planning Department and City Council- appointed Mid-Bayfront Planning Sub-committee. Based upon our interaction in the planning process and the comprehensive research studies referenced above, we forward the following conclusions regarding the impact of the Coastal Commission staff's recommendation to reduce the projects height and density. The effect of the height reduction is estimated to eliminate 900 hotel rooms and 230 residential units. This proposed reduction in density would devastate the marketing plan and feasibility of the proposed project for the following reasons: 1) The current conditions of approval including required on and offsite infrastructure, conservation and amenities are a substantial financial burden to the project which are supported by the planned development density. Anv reduction in the oronosed densitv will l!re8tlv imoact oroiect feasibilitv and will reouire a reduction in amenities or substantial Dublic oarticipation bevond oracticallevels. 2) The project marketing plan is based upon the planned density as detailed below. The reduction in oroiect densitv recommended bv the Coastal Commission staff would render the oroiect comoletelv infeasible. This is because the project could not compete for its target market at the reduced density. As. such, the project would be forced to compete with the majority of other hotels in the region. (. (e January 8, 1993 California Coastal Commission Page 2 - The following section describes the research supporting the target marketing plan for the property. Importantly, this section summarizes the critical relationship between the plan's proposed development density and the market and financial feasibilitv of the proiect. TARGET MARKET The Chula Vista Bayfront design, density and development program has been prepared in order for the project to serve a specific resort market segment-the regional and national group meeting market. This target marketing is essential to the feasibility of the proposed development. . The total number of hotel rooms included in the project (1,610) is the most critical element of ihe plan--particularly the 1,360 four star rooms planned in the "core" of the project. This is because the regional and national group meeting market books their conferences at properties large enough to accommodate a room block for the entire group. Standard practice in the hotel industry is to set aside no more than 80% of the rooms in a property for a group room block. This practice is followed so the hotel can continue to serve its other guest segments in addition to the group demand. . Regional and national groups range in size from about 250 to 1,750 delegates. As such, the standard 200 to 300 room dotel is too small to accommodate even the smallest of these regional and national groups. The hotels, resorts and conference centers which most successfully serve this target market have 1,250 or more four star rooms enabling them to accommodate room blocks of 1,000 or more. Groups exceeding 1,750 delegates typically book their events at convention centers. Regional and national groups do not usually book their events at convention centers because convention marketing staffs give advance booking priority to the much larger groups. A typical regional or national group would not receive booking confl1'lll8tion at a convention center sooner than one year in advance. This is not acceptable to most of these groups who plan their events years in advance (as do convention groups). A national survey of 12,000 group meetings planned between 1989 and 1994 (see Table 1) indicates that 86% of total group room night demand in the Southwestern United States is represented by groups of 250 or more delegates. Approximately 55% of total group demand is attributable to regional and national groups of 250 to 1,750 delegates. e The market opportunity of the Chula Vista Bayfront is demonstrated by comparing group room night demand to the local hotel supply. Of 551 hotels identified in the San Diego region, 94% have less than 300 rooms (Table 2). Less than 6% of the hotel properties . lanuary 8, 1993 California Coastal Commission Page 3 8 are larlle enoullh to accommodate the relrional and national meetinllllrOUDS which llenerate 55% of I!lOUD demand (Table 3). This is extremely significant in San Diego as two-thirds of total room night demand in the market is represented by the group market. The supply/demand imbalance is further exaggerated by the fact that there are currently only five hotel properties in the region with more than 500 rooms. Two of these properties--the San Diego Marriott & Marina and Hyatt Regency-will not compete directly with the subject as they cater to the convention demand generated by the contiguous San Diego Convention Center. San Diego County currently captures very little of the demand generated by regional and national group meetings. This demand is lost to other markets due to an inadequate supply of large group meeting hotels in the region. As this information indicates, the ability of the Chula Vista Bayfront development to serve the regional and national group meeting market is essential to project feasibility. Any reduction in the density would dilute the ability of the project to serve its target market. A significant reduction in density would render the project as planned completely infeasible. . Thank you for your consideration of this information. We will be available to answer any questions at the public hearing. Sincerely, PRICE WATERHOUSE REAL ESTATE GROUP ~flV Frederick W. Pierce, IV Regional Director Real Estate Consulting FWP/vaj . i. . -- CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT Hotel Demand Analysis Regional & National Group Meeting Market January 14, 1992 . Hotel Feasibility Based Upon Target Market & Product Type Transient/Tourist Market Commercial Traveler Group Meeting Market . Project Designed to Target Regional & National Group Meetings . Meeting Planner Survey Details Market Demand 12,000 meetings surveyed (held 1989-1994) 30% of 40,000 estimated during this period . Southwest is Preferred Market 44% of Meetings held in CA, NV, AZ, HI 24% of Meetings held in CA San Diego is 3rd most preferred destination in US 1. Orlando 2. New Orleans 3. San Diego 4. Washington, D.C. 5. Chicago 8 TABLE 1 CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT - . GROUP MEETING MARKET Meeting Planner Survey Southwestern Region 1989 - 1994 Est. Percentage Number of Room of Room Market Meetings Nights Nights Local Group & Trade Show o - 249 2,886 1,190,000 14.1 % Regional & National 250 - 1750 1,958 4,668,000 55.2% Convention 1751 + 386 2,606,000 30.8% . Total 5,230 8,464,000 100.0% Source: lames Dunn Enterprises, Price Waterhouse. 08-1an-92 Hotel Demand By Market (Room - Night Demand) Convention Regional & National Group Meetings . TABLE 2 CHULA VISTA BA YFRONT 8 . GROUP MEETING HOTEL SUPPLY San Diego County 1992 Percentage of Hotels Number Percentage of Rooms of Rooms Local Group & Trade Show o - 299 520 94.4% 31,351 68.0% Regional & National 300- 2100 31 5.6% 14,745 32.0% Convention (1) 2101 + o 0.0% o 0.0% Total 551 Source: San Diego Convention Center & Visitors Bureau, Price Waterhouse. 08-Jan-92 (I) Hotel supply for Convention is included in inventory of hotels ranging from 300 - 2100 rooms. Convention groups are booked by CON VIS and the Convention Center in multiple large hotels adjacent to the center. This multiple hotel booking procedure is unique 10 the convention market. Hotel Supply By Market Local Group & Trade Show 94.4% S Regional & National . 6~ Group Meetings iO and Convention (See Note 1 above) . . . -- TABLE 3 CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT GROUP MEETINGS Hotel Market Demand VS. Hotel Supply 8 Market Hotel Su pI Total Rooms Room Night Demand # of Hotels Local Group & Trade Show 68.0% 94.4 % 14.1 % Regional & National 32.0% 5.6% 55.2% Convention (1) 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: James Dunn Enterprises, San Diego Convention Center & Visitors Bureau and Price Waterhouse. 08-Jan-92 (I) Hotel supply for Convention is included in inventory of hotels ranging from 300 - 2100 rooms. Convention groups are booked by CONVIS and the Convention Center in multiple large hotels adjacent to the center. This multiple hotel booking procedure is unique to the convention market. Hotel Market Demand vs. Hotel Supply 94.4% 86.0% mrn aD D Hotel Supply Room-Night Demand 14.1% Local Group &. Trade Show Regional &. National Group Meetings and Convention (See Note 1 above) \. . (e THE SPORTS KINGDOM AND NICK BOLL!::;! uERIlARTHUR ASHE INNER-CITY YOUTH PROGRAMS The Chula Vista Bayfront Development Project includes comprehensive sports participation and training facilities known ~ The Sports Kingdom. These facilities will include the acclaimed Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy and a sports arena with basketball, gymnastics, fitness training, swimming programs, and more. These facilities will serve visitors as well as community residents, and will also host the Nick Bollettieri/Arthur Ashe Inner-City Youth Programs which are designed to assist underprivileged youth in attaining new skills, self-esteem, and self development. The Sports Kingdom and Inner-City Youth Programs are further described on the following pages. . . - NICK BOLLETTIERI/ ARTHUR ASHE INNER-CITY YOUTH PROGRAMS The BollettierilAshe Inner-City Youth Program is a non-profit organization designed to assist underprivileged kids to develop new horizons of athletic skill, self esteem, discipline and habits that give them a stronger focus on long tenn goals their personal, educational and social development. The program (as implemented in Newark, N.]') utilizes existing city facilities in neighborhoods to support the following youth programs: . Tennis Training/Camps - Using existing neighborhood tennis courts. - Also access to Sports Kingdom Courts in Bayfront Sports Complex. . Golf Training Program - AssOciated with local courses. . City Library Access Program - Bookmobile stops by sports program sites for kids use. . Children (University) Hospital Program - Give kids access to health support services. - Privately funded by Ford Foundation and Hospital. - 2000 visits/year allowed - Drs. train sports coaching staff regarding health symptoms of kids. . State University (Rutgers) Program _ Provides resources for under privileged kids to gain access to universities. - Provides tutoring. - Academic excellence incentive awards. . Programs are Funded by a Combination of: - City taxes (from a project like Bayfront) - County taxes - Private funding . SPORTS KINGDOM The Sports Kingdom will be one of the most comprehensive sports training and management programs in the U.S. The internationally known Nick Bollettieri Academy, in conjunction with !MG, will operate all of the interrelated sports/recreation venues at Bayfront Resort: . Tennis Academy 9 month residency programs Year round training for short programs Club facilities Tournaments - Local - National - International Free clinics for children -- . Sports Arena Basketball Volleyball Gymnastics Hockey/Figure Skating FitnesslHealth Maintenance . Swimming Program Olympic Size Pool Beach Activities . Camps . Day Care . Sports Medicine . Boating. Cycling and other venues could also come under this management program. . PLEASE REf>:... y TO - SACRAMENTO OFFICE STATE CAPITOL ROOM 3046 SACRAMENTO CA 95614 (916' 445-6767 I.; HELEN JONES \ lNIST"ATIY( ASSLS.,.......~ PLEASE REF'!.. V TO = DISTRICT OFFICE 430 DAVIDSON STREET SUITE C CHUl..4 VISTA CA 91910 16191427.7060 BARBARA HUNSAKER <!Ialifnmia @1att ~tnatt ~"'..' " . a' .:; " 1''; STATE SENATOR WADlE P. DEDDEH ~INIST"j.TIYE ASS1S!IlNT FOFnlETH SENATORIAL. DISTRICT CHAIRMAN SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING. CQfl.iMERCE. AND INTERNATIONAL TRACE January 8, 1993 . To California Coastal Commission: COMMITTEES BANKING COMMERCE AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE CHAIRMAN EDUCATION HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES VETERANS AFFAIRS JOINT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RETIREMENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON PACIFIC RIM SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON BORDER ISSUES A letter from the office of state Senator Wadie P. Deddeh will be hand delivered to the Commissioners on Friday, January 15, 1993. . ~. STEVE PEACE ASSEMBLYMAN CHAIRMAN: Banking, Finance and Public t1ldetHdness COMMITTEES: Insurance Utilities and Commerce Willer. Parks and WUdlife MEMBER: Commission 01 the Californias Assembly California Legislature January 8, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Ste. 2000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Mr. Gwyn: I am pleased to add my name to those in support of the Chula Vista Midbayfront Conceptual Plan (Chula Vista LCP Amendment '2-92 - Item 68) . . As approved by the Chula Vista City Council, this project would enhance the community's coastal area with a well-planned combination of residential, recreational and family-oriented facilities. The plan includes something for everyone1 a vitally- needed conference center and resort complex, an international class tennis academy, open space and walking trails for nature enthusiasts, and a residential community that includes a child care center. It is a project resulting from years of discussion within the community of Chula Vista, and one which I believe will have a tremendous positive impact on the future of the region. I strongly urge your favorable consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. - . c_~ P.O. Bcac lM2M8 ~. CaIIIomia IQ4t-0001 TeIIphone: (1111445-7556 FAX 818-322-2271 C 430 DIvIdIon.... .... B CftuIlVillLCelltlmil.t1t10 T~('tII)426-'Bt7 FAXt1~ iii. . _...~"- D 1101 Airpc:WtADld-SultC tnlperialc.lllomll12251 T"""':(&181352-3101 FAXI1..-.....e31 . . . JAN El8 '93 17:47 S.D. CONV/VIS 8UREAU 619 2319783 P.4/2 SanDlegoconvennon&VJSttOIS Bureau . January 8, 1993 Mr. Thamas W. Gwyn, Chairman :Califoinia coastal C~ission . 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94102 _.....~,..._.., Dear Mr.. Gwyn: . It is with qreat pleasure that I write to you reqardinq the Chula Y'i.stA Bayfront project, which will be before you for review. I wish to urge your approval and support of 'this dynamic proposal for Chula vista's waterfront. The project bas been designed to . .provide . open space, parks, sporting facilities, a day-care oenter, residential housing, retail shopping, hotels and entertainment. ~s world class development will .brin9 ~y benefits to the City of Chuls Vista and provide yet another exciting attraction for visitors to our region. Again,. I enoourage your support and appreciate your consideration. eint lleinders, CHA .President RR/kCO . 1200 "!h.d AY8fIA, _ 824.llat> DIogo. CA 112101~11lO. Telei>lW* (6111) ZJ2.3101, FAX (6l9)1l!llHlS71 ~ FImdad by tht Cfly, 00unIY end Poll of SlIn Die9O. .. . .. - JAN El8 '93 54: 50PM ROHR CORP REAL ESTATE P.l 0000 0000 RDHR ROH~, INC. POST OFFICe IlOX S7S CHULA VISTA. C/IlFORNIA 91912-ll87S ( 19)691..11111.TElEX,69~ Janual'Y 8, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, ChaIrman California Coastal Commission 4S Fremont Street Suite 2000 San FranciscO, CA 94102 Reference:: City of Chula VISta Local Coastal Program MaJor Ame nt 2-92 ." . ..~ _ ... mo..!"_ .., >_,.....L Dear Chairman Gwyn: This letter is intended to outline the position of Rohr, Ine. regar . Chula Vista mid-bayfront plan. A3 ChuIa VlIlta bayfront landowners, we have been fon' the proposed development plan for the past four and one half years. . Generally, we feel very PQsitive about the {lroposed plan and its imp 'cations for both ROM, InC. and the City of Chula Vista. It III an imaginative plan arid we can visualize our employee.s living in the housing development, eliDing in the ts, and cnj~ng the shops and access to the bavfront. We also feel th the child care facilities, health dub facilities, qualilf hoter lodging and convention lil.ciIities would be VCIy beneficial to our business activities. We alSo see a direct benefit in having a well- planned and economically successful development located in such ose proXimity to our offices and 1IlIIDUfacturin F.acilities, From a broader public standpoint, the plan )'OIl arc consid has ~cant advantages OYeEtlans submitted by ~ous deve~rs. The plan pr~sed has now been throu numerous years of City and public review aDd dis . on. The plan has been m cd greatly to deal witb many iSsues such as cnvir ental sensitIVity, density, recreation, public aC(e$S, cultural aCtivities, as well as the wi variety of \Ise.$ encouraged by City Council ROM, Ine. therefore endorses approval of thi5 very exciting and . live plan and eagerly awaits its implementation. :Z~m' Arthur O. Sellgren Director, ReafEstate.and Development bee: Chris Salomone City of Chula VISta Commumty Development Director . . . Gregory R. Cox 647 Windsor Circle, Chula VISta, California 91910 Tdephone: (619) 420-3104 January 8, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94102 SUBJECf: CHULA VISTA LCP AMENDMENT #2-92 - ITEM 6B - JANUARY 15, 1993 Dear Commissioner Gwyn: As the Mayor of Chula Vista for nine years, during which I had worked extensively to bring a quality development project to the Chula Vista Midbayftont, I am extremely pleased that the Midbayfront Development is finally coming to fruition. After 20+ years of trying to create a Midbayfront project, a Conceptual Plan was created through the joint efforts of the current land owner, William Barkett, and the City's Bayfront Planning Subcommittee which included major citizen participation and input. The Chula Vista City Council approved the Midbayfront Conceptual Plan which is before you as the Chula Vista LCP Amendment ff2-92, Item 6B on January IS, 1993. This projec" as planned, with all its concomitant components (a destination-resort complex, 40,000 sql''are-foot conference center, residential community, international-class Nick Bolletieri tennis academy and 20Q0-seat tennis stadium, 7000 Square foot child care center, public parks, natural open space, walking trails, active lagoons, and large open space (extensive buffers) to protect the fragile natural environment) is a well thought-out, dynamic, and exciting project for the City of Chula Vista. Not only will the development as proposed provide the citizens of Chula Vista and the San Diego Region with much needed employment opportunities, it will also become the first major destination tourist attraction in the South Bay. As the President of the League of California Cities I had the opportunity to review and critique numerous major development projects throughout the State. In my opinion, this project is exemplary in its mix of major development, public amenities, and conservation and restoration of the natural environment which has been in a state of desolation for years. Additionally, this project will compliment the nationally accredited Chula Vista Nature Intaptetive Center. Knowing that the Commission will consider and de1iberate in the best interest of the California coastline, I strongly urge the Commission to approve the Chula Vista LCP Amendment #2-92. as submitted. S1rY'~ ~x - -- - -..-""","""...-- ~_. -. '.'._"._.-'---""~'''''''~'---------'--'. -. - '. .,"'1; ~I ~ BA YFRONT CONSERVANCY TRUST 1000 Gunpowder Point Drive Chula Vista, California 91910 (619) 422-8100 FAX (619) 422-2964 STEPIEN NEUDECKER. PH, D. ExEcUllVE DIRECTOR January 7,1993 Mr. Thomas Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission c/o Ms. Deborah Lee, Assistant District Director California Coastal Commission 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108 Dear Chairman Gwyn and all Commissioners: . The purpose of this letter is to request your approval of Item #6B Chula Vista LCP Amendment 2-92, Vl-ith some of the modifications recommended in the staff report. The Bayfront Conservancy Trust is directly affected by this action since the LCP provides a beneficial tax assessment district to provide funds for the operation and maintenance of the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center. The plan is a good one because it balances the needs of conservation (the preservation and enhancement of coastal wetlands) against the needs of development (development of the nonsensitive surrounding uplands). The most robust aspect of the arrangement is that it is in the developer's self interest to be sure that the wetlands are protected and enhanced because their unique flora and fauna and the highly-acclaimed Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center are the major attractions for the development. -- The Bayfront Conservancy Trust (BCT) is a public benefit, 501 (c) 3 nonprofit corporation formed to enhance, restore and preserve the Sweetwater Marsh and to provide educational programs and facilities. The ongoing operation of the 12,000 square foot Nature Interpretive Center (NIC) on Gunpowder Point in Chula Vista is dependent upon the funds to be provided by the beneficial tax assessment district. While the formation and implementation of the beneficial tax assessment district was part of the original and subsequent LCPs, it is not included in the item (6B) before you now. Consequently, we strongly urge you to include the suggested . . . Page 2 117/93 modification #24 provided in the Staff Report. The Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center has always been part of the mitigation for the proposed project. It has already become a recognized leader in environmental education, wetland restoration and preservation. We have participated in all phases of the planning of this project and are well aware of its intent. Both the Board of Directors of the BCT and myself have provided written comments on the EIR and LCP resubmittal (Dr. Stephen Neudecker, Review of the Draft City of Chula Vista Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8.Amendment Environmental Impact Report, and Draft City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Resubmittal Specific Plan, 9/12/90, 17 pp. Comments of the Board of Directors, Bayfront Conservancy Trust on the Draft City of Chula Vista Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment Environmental Impact Report, and Draft City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Resubmittal Specific Plan, 9/19/90, 4 pp). Those comments identify strengths and weaknesses and suggest specific actions to mitigate negative environmental effects of the project. Since several of our concerns (parking for the Nature Center, runoff from the project, monitoring, environmental management, habitat restoration and buffer zones) are addressed the Staff Report, we also request that you include suggested modifications #s 5, 8 - 12, 15 - 17,21- 23. Provided that the appropriate modifications are made and a genuine concern for the importance of the invaluable natural resources of the area is shown by the project proponent, we support your adoption, with amendments, of Item #6B Chula Vista LCP Amendment 2-92. We appreciate your careful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, \~~ Dr. Stephen Neudecker P .2 k ,.~ _.~.. ..___..... ."... ...__u.. . January 8, 1993 y;t. 'l'U aM) U.S.. IDYL (415) IU-54DD ~- ...-..-.......... ""_.,.._...:,-,, Thomas W. Gwyn, ch~irman CALXFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FremQnt street, suite 2000 5an Francisco, California 94102 Re: city of Chula vista Local coalltal program Major Amendment 2-9::t HQaring Date: January 15, 1993 _ Dear Mr. Gwyn: I am writir'g this letter ill support of the proposed development project of the City of Chula Vista f~r the Hid-Bayfront Which is scheduh.d for hearing before the Coastal COl1llllillsion on January 15, 1993. I was Vice-Chairman of the Bayfront planning subcommittee which was created by the Chula viata City council to specifically .olicit pUblic opinion, input, and r4tco_endations for development on the Chula vista Mid-8ayfront. 'l'he Chairman of the Elayfront Planning subcOl1llllittee was Hayor 'l'im Nador. The subcommittee recomaended a development plan for the Mid. Bayfront which is practically identioal to the proposed project which has been presented to the coastal coa.i..ion for approval. The city council of Chula vi.ta made Boae modifications to our r&oommendation which, in my opinion, improved on the SUIX:OIllIIlitt&e's plan. 'rbo SUbcommittee arrived. at. its r8COllJll8ndation through a diligent process which began in Kay of 1"1. A total of .ixt.en Ileetings were h.ld. The SubcOllllllittee met twice a lIIonth and conducted an exllllination of ~he .ite proposed tor c1.valopment. The 8ubcollUllit.te. considered twelve statt position papCtrs, includinlJ economic and traffic analysis prepared by cOlUlultants retained by . 11:. ..; , 'Ie . . p n ,...~.. ..--....--.. Thomas W. GWyn, Chairman c:ALJ:FORNIA COASTAL comullSION JanllAry 8, 1993 Paqe :2 the city, position papeJ:s on the Chula Vista Bayfront History, the Hid-Bayfront Planning ProqraD as well as the Draft Environmental :IIIIPact Report. The Subcommittee considered a wide range of conceptual alternatives :for developlllent on 1:he a.yfront frOlll park-like concepts such as that existing adjacent to Ki.sion Bay, to the commeroial/retail developments similar to Shelter Xsland and seaport Village in San DiegC'. ~esentations were ..de by staff and their consultants, the landowners' Qons111t.ants, the chairpersons of the Chula Vista 2000 SubC'.()lIJIIittee., as well &. lIlore. infonaal presentations-by' thi"c:ulturaJ: Arts' Cl5Ui'tt... ot'""'the''City-Of Chub' Vista, the San Diego port District, and the Fish' Wildlife Service of the united states Governaent. A lIlyriad of issues affecting different proposed development plans such as traffic circulation, water access, publiC access, open space, density and bulk of aevelopl1lent,building heights, land use mix, and critical edge considerations affecting the environmentally sensit.ive sali: lIIarshes and Nature Interpretive Center were examined. It was the teeling ot the Chula Vista Cii:y Council that no development should be implemented on the Bayfront without siqnificant community input and support. The Subc:cmmittee was created in an ettort to provide this input. The COJIll\ii:t.ee consisted at fourteen members, eleven of whom were voting members. There were two members or the Chula vi.t.ll. City Council cn the subCommittee and tour of t.he city's commissions inclUding 1:he cultural Arts Committee, Planning commission, tc:onomlc Development Commission, and Resource Conservation co_i.sion were repre.ented. There were three non-voting or eX-Officio members Which included the general partner of the landowner, will Hyde, the former Kayor of the City of chula Vista and a member of crossroads, and the director of planning of the san Diego Unified Port District. 'l'he citizens from t.he community, all of whom were voting .embers, brought to the Subcommittee a wide-range ot viewpoints. The majority were lite-long or lon~-time Chula Vista residants and included a cat.erer/rest.aurant owner, the pre.iclent of the San Diego Country Club, an artist, w110 was also viae-Chainan of the LoCal Chapter of the Sierra Club Executive COIIllIIii:tee, a Rohr Inclustry administrator, a real estate broker, an attorney, e lIIana'iJer employed at a major hot.el Ghain based in San Diego, and an entrepreneur arti.t/teacher /play 4irector. !ro say 'there was a wide variety ot viewpoints expr..sed during our _etings and deliberations would be an understatement. '. . (e P 82 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman CALU'ORIUA COASTAL COMMISSION January 8, 1993 Paqc 3 A.U the meeting's of the SubcollDli'ttee vere open to 'the pU])lic and it was not unc01lllDon for fift_n or more persons froa the pu])llc who were not on the SubcolUlittee to be present. At 'the end of each lIeetlng, tille was .pecifically allocated tor IlBDbers of the pU])lic to speak and address the subcommittee. The work 0:1: the COIIIIlIittee can be fairly categorized as occurrinq in two staljles. In the first staqe, the SubcOlllllittee acquainted Itselt with the history of the Kid-Bayfront and the planninq proces. tor its developllent. In this .tage, the Subcommittee outlined its vision for a Bayfront developJllent and roundtabled their ideas tor what they teltthe cOIIIIlIUnity wanted on the Baytront. "-'l'ypical lJU9gestions by'lIIeabers of.-4m,,'6UbcGlDlllittee included recommendations for a resource gener~tinq resort development, quality restaurants, water access and public parks, a cultural arts center, and a siqn1ficant water feature to compliment the Bayfront 10cat10n. Alternative types of parks and conceptual u..y.lu~J"'lIL. w...... uUlI..1tl.""...... ..lulIY Lh.. lln"li prevlously ..entloned. In this initial phase, the SUbcommittee came to aome tentative consensus anl1 oonclusions. They were (1) that the Baytront ahould have, ir eoonomically teas!])le, a first class gultural arts facility; (2) the prilllary land use 8hould be :for a destination resort hotel complex with a co_relal/retail .el_ent with a visitor serv1n9 fOCUS targeted at current Cbula Vista residents. The S\1l)committee also recognized that t21ia area was envS-ronlllsntally sensitive and that marshes and Ilud-flats should be preserved with significant buffer zones. It was felt that the project should emphasize public access, open space and passive parks. A residential componont was oonsidered aoceptable as long as it did not predominate the development and was neoessary for economic feasibility. In the second phase, the Subcommittee looked specifically at III development plan proposed by the landowner and alternative proposals. Ln, this phase, important 48&i9n changes, which included a significant reduction in density and bulk and an elimination of a hotel vest of Marina Parkway were put forth. A reeo_nation to put a ouJ.tural art. fAcility in a scenic and -stunning" location west of Karina parkway was reCODllllllnded with the approval and donation of land frDlll the landowner. The residential component in the northern sector was scaled back and a rBC01IIIIIendatlon for a limited nUJllber of high-rise struotures to eliminate bUlk and denaity .1.n the core were sU9gested. In addition,. reooDllllendations to pull these higher .trUcturaa away trOlll the ~vironmanta11y sensitive salt marahea were made. ~', , ~----- . . . P .5 '!'homas w. Gwyn, Chairman CAt.IFORNIA coASTAL COMMISSION January., liiJ pagel " Tne alternative proposec1 by the subco1lmittee anel approved with lIodifications by the city council included dramatic reductions In density and bulk as criq!.nally proposed by the landowner. '!'he overall density was reduced by 985,000 sqUare feet with a proposed recolDlll8ndation to reduce the number of botel roODS by 430 and r.sidential units by 550. The me:llbers of the cOlUIunity wl10 served on the Subcommittee and Ultimately aade the reCOlllllenc1ation that is before you contributed a great deal of their ti_ anel energy in executing the tallk qi ven to ~em.JIilny Of __~, left.!!9Z:~ !July ,-~,~~~~~L~ouqh dinners. It was not unoommon for our meetings to 'last 1n excess of three hours. All ot the citi~.n members of the 'Subcommittee reooqnizec1 that tne aaytront was one of the great jewels of the City and was a potential source of qreat pride and joy for the citizenll of cl1ula Vista. There was a ccnsensus that the City of Chu!a vista should have a world-class development on its Bayfront with a cultura! arts facility at a truly unique and exciting location. speaking as an individual who was also Vice-Chairman or tile Bayfront Planninq Subcommittee, I was greatly disappointed wben I reviewed the Coastal COlllllilillion'. Staff recommendations. Bconomic f...sibility was one of the major conllidorations in the Subcommittee'. recommendations. It was apparent to us that the extensive publio _enities, including the cultural arts center, tennis academy, a potential ice rink, and lagoons oo~ld not be built unless concelllsions were made in other areas to insure feasibility of the project. 1 personally do not see how your staff's proposed project could be built by any developer and include the amenities the subcommittee felt vere so vital to the project. l'Urther, it was the fe.ling of the Subcommittee that Chula Vista, like any city on the calirornia waterrront should have the opportunity to experience a truly first olass project that was as excitinq and vibrant as any in Los Angeles, Long aeach, San Francisco, or Laguna Beacl1. It would be Illy bope that the Coastal commission give Chula Vista the same opportunity to re.ponsibly cleve lop its Bayfront as has been afforded the other coastal cities. I believe tne citizen .emberS of the SUbCommittee sincerely hope that the coastal cOlllllission will approvo the developmont plan proposed in LCP _jor amendment orfered by the city of Chula vista. I was personally impressed with the creativity and thought put into the proposed project and the _nner in which the project vas planned with direct and substantial input from the Fillh and Wildlife Service sO as to protect and preserve the environaentally P 96 Ii;",---,-" .....-- . ThoDas W. Gwyn, Chairman CALIFORNl:A COASTAL COMMISSION January S, 1993 Pll<;le ti ..nsitive area that is aojacent to this project. If the development and land use plan proposed by the city is strictly ~mplem.nted and ~s consistent with existing recoDDlendations, the Bayfront project in Chula Vista will be a great reservoir of pride and joy not only for Chula vista, but for all californians who will visit this unique projeot. "~M/ec<;J __-2INIrf~, 1111 ..'_..-,.~...,~..,.....,.- ':' ,'~ . . . -- ~~~ :-~:-: ~~~~ ""-"""" _-::a... OlY OF CHUlA VISTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION January 9, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street Suite 2000 SaIl Francisco, CA 94102 Honorable Chairman Gwyn and Commissioners: I have been authorized on behalf of Chula Vista's Economic Development Commission (EDC) to draft this letter of support for Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment. The charter of our commission is to form recommendations and strategies for economic policy within our City. With this in mind, we have spent much time and resources evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of our community and formulating a vision for our community's future. Our bay front has been identified as our City's greatest asset for providing future recreational amenities and financial benefit to our City. Then.~ has been much debate over many years about how our bayfront should be developed; and through a lengthy process of planning, designing and gathering citizen input, the project that is before you has evolved. The highrise configuration and its density/intensity are seen as a strength and benefit to this project. It is that intensity that will make this mixed-use project an exciting place to live, visit, and conduct business. It is also this intensity that will allow public spaces such as the large park areas, the manmade lagoon, and concealed parking to be included in this project. Our commission has fully endorsed this project, and we strongly encourage the LCP amendment, as proposed, be approved by your commission as it would benefit our City, its citizens, and the South San Diego County region. Best personal regards, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION A/f- ~ William C. Tuchscher Chairperson Bayfront Development Subcommittee 276 FOURTH AVE!CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047 . . . Frank A. Tarantino 1006 Paseo del Paso Chula Vista, Calif., 91910 January 8, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, Ca. 94102 Dear Mr. Gwyn, The purpose of this correspondence is to voice my support for the Chula Vista Bayfront Project, ~ planned. I served as the chairman of the Chula Vista 21 Committee--a committee of 21 individuals appointed by the City Council to review, synthesize, and facilitate the implemen- tation of recommendations of a citizen task force (Chula Vista 2000) numbering more than 200 individuals. I believe the Bayfront Project addresses the "needs" outlined in the Chula Vista 2000 Task Force Report which centered around the following themes: A GROWING INVESTMENT IN PEOPLE, A CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT, and THE IMPORTANCE OF A !lROADER ECONOMIC BASE. The overall thrust of this report was "Making a Nice Place to Live Even Better." This project, as proposed, will enhance the quality of life for Chula Vistans and accomplish many of the recommendations of the citizen task force. Increased recreational services, a cultural arts complex, sporting, child care, and co-generational facilities, and increased park acreage in the western portion of the city are needed: Moreover, the acreage proposed for open space strengthens the environmental assets of the area, and ensures its continued protection. Furthermore, the residential housing, retail shopping, hotels and entertainment com- ponents will create new business and employment oppo,tunities in the city, and will expand the present economic base and help fund public service projects. In closing, I urge you and the California Coastal Commission to approve the Chula Vista Bayfront Project, as proposed. Your support of this "world class" development is essential if we are to make Chula Vista, "A nice Place to Live, Even !letter." ~SincEir,Q, (). .(. .L\)\ ~~~ L Fra k A. Tarantino - --- Chula Vista 21 Committee CIwla'lllsm :Pollee Qffials Stssocialion Thomas W. Gwyn California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Mr. Gwyn, The Chula Vista Police Officer's Association would like you to know that we endorse the Bayfront Project in Chula Vista. We believe that this project will be good for the City of Chula Vista. It will provide jobs, economic developement, facilities for youth> and an opportunity for this city to attract activities that are usually destined for or located in the city of San Diego. We believe that the city is ready for the proposed $600 million Bayfront Project including the Cultural Arts Center. It seems as though this project has been going on for several years without any real progression. We believe that the time is now to move on the developement of this project. Thank you for your consideration. S~rely, ffiv,O --" Bryan Treul President Chula Vista Police Officer's Association P. O. Box 848 . (hula Vista, CA 91912 · Tel: (619) 426-5657 . . . JAN-07-1993 15:53 FROM TO 4765318 P.e2 MICHAEL A. GilDEN ......~ CBlJlA YJSTA, c.AUPORKJA'mo-eJOl IMIt 4. UiO MI..... 'IV January 7, 11193 ThQll\aS W. Gwynn, C2ul.1raan California Coll8t.al eo-i_ion 4S 1'Z'8IIlOn1: S1:ree1:, 8uit.8 2000 San l'Z'ancisco, CA 94102 FAX NO. (415) 904-5400 Dear Cbainan Gwynn an4 K~s-- of t:h. C&1Uornia eoast.al cOllImieaion: T~: ~ : ... In 1989, aore t:han 200 residents of Chula vista worked as atllllberB of the Chula vista 2000 COIlDaunit.y TaU. poree 1:0 develop a plan for Chula vist.a'a fut.ure. :I __ the Chair of t:ba't t.au. foree. our group identified a II.UlIIber of lJtrat..;ieB cen1:ral to maintaininq the charac1:llr of Chula viBt.a .. . nice place to live, ana to improvin9 the city'S imaqe. . Bayfront. development. VIUl at the 'top of 'tlie lis't. The plan for the Kid-aarront, .. a~ed by the Chula vi.t.a ci'ty council. is the rRlilul of a coll rative .ffort of many cOllImUDity leaders. :It fit.8 the s1:rateqlc ~t~ for our ci'ty bY expanding the City'S economic bas., !:JY provi 9 racreat.ional ana cultural fllcilit.i:es for local resident. and bY. aaintaininq our environmental alilllete. Xf the plan i8 Chanqed, lot will nO longer provide th_e ..sent.ial ingredients which proaote Chula vista's future. . I respect.fully reques't t:ha't you approve t.his plan as submi't'ted. It is th:e result. of 1:he latiors of-many of Chula vista'S ci'til:en volunteers and represents t:he hopes of JaanY for our City'S fut.ure . Sincerely, . ~ a..h~~ JaOJU.KL A. ___ lIAGfwah TOTFL P. e2 . . 619474512135 MRRC PROJECT 831 PI2I2 JRN 1218'93 1121:38 MAAC DJECT C1l AGENCY ADMINISTRATION 140 W. 16th. St., N.tioaaI Citr. CA. .18SO (119) (1.&-2!!12. FAX ('18) (14-5U5 January 7, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman CAlifornia' Coastal COIIlllIission-'~---" 45 Fremont st., suite ~ooo San Francisco, CA 94102 "'-"~_..__ ._._~...-...~ .F_, '_ . -,"~-. Dear Chairman Gwyn: The KAAC Project is a county-wide lIlultipurpose aocial servioe agency that has ))een serving this cODllllunity for twenty-.even years, Our services range from Head start to Seniors and include housing and economic development with an emphasis on jobs and aelf sufficiency. We are writing you this letter to express our full support of the proposed Chula Vista Bayfront Developlllent. We work closely with the Chub. vista City staff and the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and we are supportive 'of the economic benefits in terms of construction jobs and 10Dq term jobs that will. be created by this project. We have experienoe in training and placing low-income residents in jobs on Baytront developments. We were able to train and place several people at the San Diego convention Center, a project that I supported very actively. Also, I was raised and I live in this community and we need clean tourist oriented Bayfront development to enhance the imaqe and long term will being of our area, Currently we are building a 144 unit low income apartment cQDlplex and 100,000 sq. ft, commercial Kercado in Barrio Loqan one llil.e from the San Diego COnvention Center in Chicano. Park. !rhi. va. made possible through the cal.i~ornia Coastal COJDliadon. aoknoWledgJIent that all resident. de.erve access to the Bayfront by approving the Chicano Park eKP!lnllion to the bay. OUr project is in the corridor of the expansion and it will revitalize the l.ow inCODe cDmIIIUIlity. , ." . .:i Chula vista al.o has a large low incOlle IAtino population in the older veatern part of the city Dear the proposed project and we expect that the jobs and business opportunities vil.l be made available to thae long term reaidentl!l. . . Unl\IICI_ OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY I~g.!! SAN ClEGO ~ COUNTYCAP~ . . . 6194745035 MRRC PROJECT 831 P03 Letter to Thomas W. Gwyn January 7, 1993 - Page TwO JRN 08'93 10:39 Thank you and the other cOllllllssion IleDberB ot all due consideration CItven this request tor reasonable consideration of equitabl.e disbursements of Bayfront assets to all communities. ...pocttul~ ~..._~ Roger Cazares Executive Director RC/9jn . ___._.~, _.,~ ......,..~.. :.._ .._:nIo._ ......._--~......, -_..,-. .,.' ~ Admlnl.t,.U.. Olfle. 1301 Oleander Ava. Chula VISIa, CA 91911 (619) 421-4011 (619) 482-6738 FAX BRANCH LOCATIONS: 1301 Oleander A.e. Chula Vista, CA 91911 (619) 421-4011 350 "L" Slreet Chula Vista, CA 9191 1 (619) 420.1222 Board of Director. Benjamin Richardson President Royce Jensen Vice President of Finance Sue Welsh Vice President of Administration .n K"",n \ ;e President of \oJPerations Gany ButI8rfield Secretary David McClurg Treasurer Roben P. Fox Past President Patricia Ables Rikki Alberson Martin Barros Robert J. Bliss Dr. R. Dale CoDier CarolGove Xeme Jeoobson Cinde Jones Paul Kapler George Krempl I. Joseph Malacia W. Soon Mosher Executive Director ~irls lilt. A membe, organization of Gi~s Incorporated BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA January 8, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94102 SUBJECT: CHULA VISTA LCP AMENDMENT #2-92 ITEM 6B - JANUARY 15, 1993 Dear Commissioner Gwyn: I am writing on behalf of the Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista to voice full and unequivocal support for the Midbayfront Concept Plan as approved by our City Council that is before you as Chula Vista LCP Amendment #2-92. The Project, as planned, will provide many unique experiences and exceptional opportunities for the thousands of youths, as well as families, to participate in the Chula Vista Bayfront, e.g., the man-made lagoon with its swimming area and beach will offer a much needed recreational area for family gatherings. The world-class tennis academy will offer tennis classes through the school system for the youth and citizens of our community; the olympic-size swimming pool will provide a place for the very young to learn to swim; the 7000 square foot child care center will be a much needed welcome addition for young parents; the natural open space, walking trails, and nature-oriented amenities will offer distinctive and educational training experiences for our young people. Needless to say, the South Bay/San Diego Region is expected to experience phenomenal growth in the next 20 years. This project, as planned, will provide many much needed jobs. I, on behalf of the thousands of Chula Vista's youths, urge you to approve the project as approved by our City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to present the Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista views. Sincerely, i (o.d;, / ~ Cathi Jami Board Mem er . UnIIlIlI_/CHAD ................... .. 'e ~@(U]1t[h) ~(IDW (G@mrumru(u][)'j)o1tW ~@[1'WO@@~{J D[)'j)(Q;o 315 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA 91910 January 8, 1993 Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman, California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program #2-92, Item 6B - January 15, 1993 Dear Mr. Gwyn: As the Director of South Bay Community Services, Inc., I am writing this letter to lend my full support of the City of Chula Vista Midbayfront Project. The addition of the project as planned would add significantly to the social, economic, and cultural development of our City. Chula Vista is in need of this type of commercial and residential services. fe As a provider of social services and community development activities, SBCS is well aware of the need for economic development (jobs) of all types and the need for increased revenue. Additionally, SBCS clients are mainly families, children, and youths and the additional recreational and cultural opportunities that will be provided through this project can only be an asset to their quality of life. Once again I support the Bayfront Project as planned and urge the Commission to approve the project as planned. Thank you for this opportunity for South Bay Community Services to provide input. Sincerely, ~ !~~e!70~chroeder - \e . . 6l9-476-El828 .TAKES SOUTH BAY 992 PEll .TFV-l El8 . 93 El9: 56 January 7, 1993 California Coastal Co.mission 45 fremont St., Ste. 3~00 San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 reo Chula Vista LCP Amendment 12-92 Item 6B January 15, 1993 Dear Sirs, '" ,.-....... .~.. --. As a businessllan on the bay in Chula Vista, I want. to voice my support for Mr. William.BarketB Ilid-bayfront.project. It has come to my attention ihat tha Coastal COllmisBion is considering aenying approval of. the project because of height restrictions. I would like to 'point out that there are several "high rise. developments currently on the water in San. Diego. A few of these are. the recently completed downtown Hyatt.Regency, which is one of the tallest buildi~gs in San Diego, the Harriott, Harbor Drive condominiums and several condominiums in Coronado. -, Why should San Diego and C~p:-onado r.eceive apprQvals and Chula Vista be denied? I trust that in the final analysis, you will not discriminate against Chula Vista and give your approval to this project. This development is very important %0 Chula Vista. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Chula V$ta ~rina 570 Marina Parkway ChulaVista, CA 91910 (619) 476-0400