The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/09/23 (4) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 1 I. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERA nON OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MIDBA YFRONT AREA AND A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT. CITY OF CHULA VISTA - CHULA VISTA INVESTORS A. BACKGROUND In 1972 the City of Chula Vista hired Sed way-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 ,./ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 2 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. (fhe 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 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 freewaylflood 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 freewaylflood 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 freewaylflood 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 Bay front , 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 a resubmittal of the LCP, along with a conceptual development plan consistent with the proposed changes to the LCP. The City required that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plan resubmittal. The EIR process began in June 1989 with a Notice of Preparation. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (July 1991) was certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991, and again on January 14, 1992. The FEIR contains the CEQA compliance record for the proposed plan-level action that had been processed beginning with the Notice of Preparation in June 1989 to the completion of the FEIR in July 1992. /.. :2. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 3 The FEIR analyzed the applicant's original project, his revised (Alternative 8) project, seven other alternatives developed by staff and/or required by CEQA, and the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee's alternative. The Subcommittee Alternative was similar to the applicant's original proposed project in types of land uses proposed. It differed from the original proposal by reducing the density of the project from 4.18 million square feet to the revised project of 3.3 million square feet. Other revisions included replacement of the Luxury Motel with a Cultural Arts Facility, and reduction in number of dwelling units to 1,000. No modifications to the originally proposed LCP Resubmittal document were made at that time. The Subcommittee Alternative was heard by the City Planning Commission on December 18, continued to January 8, and by the City Council January 14, 1992. Both approved the Subcommittee Alternative, certified the Final EIR, and made Findings, adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. At their January 14, 1992 meeting, the City Council directed staff to process and return to Council for approval of: a local Coastal Program Resubmittal (amendment), a General Plan amendment, and a Redevelopment Plan amendment consistent with the Subcommittee Alternative and including their modifications and informational items. The proposed Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Resubmittal is the document that has been prepared in response to this Council directive. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment has been prepared to make the General Plan consistent with the LCP. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment will be prepared following approval of these plans. B. RECOMMENDA TION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution to recommend to the City Council that it take the following actions: I. Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment (EIR 89-89), and Addendum thereto, have been prepared pursuant to CEQA, its Guidelines, and all local ordinances; II. Amend the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Circulation Diagram, and Parks and Recreation Element, and Bayfront Plan as shown in Attachment A; III. Adopt the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal, consisting ofthe Land Use Plan (LUP) and Specific Plan (SP), with the changes shown in the resolutiOno.~ /..3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 4 C. DISCUSSION I. Final Environmental Impact Report The Final EIR, Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment, and Addendum thereto, addressed impacts of changes to the LCP from development of the Midbayfront and the northern portion of Rohr's property. The proposed LCP Resubmittal includes the project as analyzed in the Final EIR and Addendum, and remains appropriate and adequate for this proposal. Certification that it has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), its Guidelines, and local ordinances is necessary in order to take action on the proposed LCP Resubmittal and General Plan Amendment (GPA). The Final EIR identified impacts associated with the LCP Resubmittal and associated GPA; it identified mitigation measures, and the level of significance after implementation of mitigation. The summary impact table from the Final EIR is included as Attachment B. The CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program will be prepared concurrently with, or subsequent to, City Council action on this proposed project. These documents (in particular, the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations) will need to make conclusions about the economic feasibility of the proposed project. The City Council, as the decision-making authority of the City, is responsible for identifying the City's willingness to approve the proposed project in light of the City's substantial economic commitment which will be necessary in order for the project to proceed. Thus, the Planning Commission's responsibility is to act on the proposed GPA and LCP Resubmittal as these documents relate to the Subcommittee Alternative, and to defer decisions on the supporting economic determination to the City Council. II. General Plan Amendment A. LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT The current General Plan and LCP designate the Midbayfront core area (between Lagoon Drive and Marina Parkway) for Professional Office and Residential Land Use. The City Council has provided specific direction that the Midbayfront land uses should develop with an emphasis on destination resort facilities coupled with a high degree of public park and open space acreage. The proposed GP A and LCP Resubmittal are consistent with the City Council direction on this matter. Irrespective of any potential issues raised by development intensity levels proposed in the LCP Resubmittal, the underlying land use designations proposed in the General Plan are recommended for approval. /. A{ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 5 The Midbayfront Conceptual Plan Subcommittee Alternative proposes a resort use of approximately 44 acres as the project centerpiece, between Bay Blvd., Marina Parkway (westerly extension ofE Street), and Lagoon Drive (westerly extension ofF Street). The current General Plan Land Use Element does not contain a land use category which adequately describes such a land use. Therefore, staff proposes that a new commercial land use category, entitled "Resort", be added to Section 4.2 of the Land Use Element. The proposed language is as follows: "RESORT: This category identifies large-scale resort facilities proposed to serve as "destination "-oriented, with a full range of resort-related services. Signing of resorts shall be in areas with significant atlractions, such as bodies of water or other natural features, which provide ample recreational opportunities and scenic vistas. Resortfacilities include, bur are not necessarily limited to, hotels and motels, resort-oriented commercial services, cultural arts centers, recreational uses, time-share residences, conference centers, and permanent residences. Specific intensiry of use for resorts within this category shall be determined at the prujecr level, with consideration given to general plan consistency, environmental impacts, and Ofher relevant factors. " This language adequately describes the proposed Midbayfront resort facility. It may be applied in other areas of the City upon approval of a general plan amendment based on a proposed project, but will clearly be limited in scope. B. LAND USE AND CIRCULATION DIAGRAM Exhibit A shows the existing land use and circulation diagram for the Midbayfront area, while Exhibit B shows the proposed land use and circulation diagram. The major changes to the diagram can be summarized in the following table: /"5 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 6 AREA OLD LAND USE NEW LAND USE North of Marina Parkway Professional & Administrative High-Density Residential Commercial (18-27 du/ac.) and Parks and Recreation North of Marina Parkway Open Space (SDG&E transmission Visitor-Serving Commercial line) North of Marina Parkway Circulation Element Class I Deleted Collector South of Marina Parkway. Medium Residential, Professional Resort north of Lagoon Driv~ & Administrative Commercial, Parks & Recreation, Open Space South 01 Lagoon Drive Research & Limited Industrial Professional & Administrative Commercial In addition, the alignments of Marina Parkway and Lagoon Drive have been slightly altered on the Land Use and Circulation Diagram, which has the effect of increasing the amount of area designated Parks & Recreation located between Marina Parkway and San Diego Bay. The proposed amendments to the diagram will result in the following changes in acreages for each affected land use category: Land Use Category Existing Plan (acres) Proposed Plan (acres) Medium Residential High Residential Visitor Commercial Professional & Administrative Commercial Resort Research & Limited Industrial Parks & Recreation Open Space Circulation Element Streets' 18 o 9 37 o 8 21 56 16 o 18 14 15 44 o 40 22 12 The proposed changes to the Land Use and Circulation Diagram are appropriate in order to allow the Midbayfront Conceptual Plan to proceed, and will have no adverse effects on the remainder of the General Plan. I.&:, City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 7 C. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT An amendment to Table 7-2 of the Parks & Recreation Element is also proposed as part of this General Plan Amendment. The proposed change would remove Park 2.23, the proposed Bayfront Park, from the list of Planned Neighborhood Parks, and w9uld instead designate it in the list of Planned Special Purpose Parks. The amendment would allow the Bayfront Park to be developed as the specialized park facility with amenities such as water-related recreation and cultural arts facilities that are proposed in the Midbayfront Conceptual Plan. D. BA YFRONT AREA PLAN A minor textual amendment to the sentence incorporating by reference the Bayfront Specific Plan into the General Plan would indicate that revisions to the Plan occurred as pan of this action. III. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL The proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Resubmittal, changes the existing certified LCP in the Midbayfront area (Subarea I), the northern portion of Subarea 2(Rohr), and changes the land use designations to reflect the existence of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Otherwise, information in the LCP has not changed, but has been re-arranged for organizational reasons. The changes in the LCP are consistent with the Planning Commission and City Council approved Subcommittee Alternative. The informational items that the Council directed staff to include are discussed below. I. Economic Feasibility - Council required an Economic Feasibility Analysis which would be approved prior to, or concurrently with, the LCP Resubmittal and General Plan Amendment. The criteria for approval of this report was that it demonstrated clearly that the proposed project/phasing is economically feasible. Staff has reviewed an economic feasibility analysis from the developer's consultant, Price Waterhouse. Based upon the conclusions of their analysis which was predicated upon the developer's phasing plan, the project, as approved by the City Council on January 14, 1992, excluding the Cultural Arts Center and ice skating rink (discussed below), would require public assistance estimated at $18.2 million to be feasible. This includes school mitigation and lowlmoderate income housing requirements as well as a fair return to the developer (13%). The Redevelopment Agency has retained William Kubelbeck to review the developer's analysis and verify the conclusions in order to comply with the /-7 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 8 Council's direction. However, this information is not available as of the writing of this report, but may be available by the date of the Planning Commission hearing. Based upon previous analysis done by Williams Kubelbeck and a cursory review of the developer's analysis, the general consensus is that the project, as approved by the Council, will require substantial public assistance to be economically feasible. The extent of such assistance to be confirmed by the Williams Kubelbeck analysis, is not anticipated to exceed the developer's estimate. To date, the City Council has indicated that public subsidies would not be available for this project. 2. Minimal Residential Density to Permit Economic Feasibility - Council requested that the minimum number of residential units be identified that would permit the project to remain economically feasible. The developer's analysis (and the forthcoming Williams Kubelbeck analysis) has assumed a minimum of 1,000 dwelling units. Since the project's economic feasibility is in question, the number of units proposed in the Subcommittee Alternative would be the minimum required for this feasibility status. 3. Shipbuilding Jobs - Council requested the retention of shipbuilding jobs, through the relocation of the shipyard facility to a site within the same general area. The lessee of the shipbuilding business has not, to date, indicated an intent to vacate the premises prior to the termination of the lease. 4. Coordination with Coastal Commission Processing - Council directed staff to review mass transit options with Coastal Commission staff, and to work with the Coastal Commission staff as to the acceptability of the proposed building heights and other project features. Coastal Commission staff are interested in all transportation demand management programs that achieve reduction in numbers of trips. They are more concerned though, that land use densities are exceeding projected/planned densities and resulting in more vehicle trips. The Commission staff views the trolley as a benefit to transportation options at the Midbayfront area. Also, they indicated that the railroad tracks were retained in the existing certified LCP and could be another possible solution in proposed LCP for future mass transit. These tracks are also shown on the land use map in the proposed LCP Resubmittal. Regarding building heights and other project features, Coastal Commission staff said in their review letter dated July 28, 1992 that, "as we have stated on numerous occasions in the past, we remain concerned about the scale and intensity of development proposed for the Midbayfront." Their concerns regarding traffic and visual quality of the 1- 1 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 9 Midbayfront area stem from their concern over the intensity. Coastal staff is presently discussing the issue of building heights, and, if they formulate an opinion by the time of the Planning Commission meeting, this will be stated verbally in the staff presentation. The City Council also directed that certain conditions are proposed in the LCP Resubmittal and General Plan Amendment documents. Each of these is discussed below. I. Cultural Arts Facility - Council stated that upon determination by them that a cultural arts facility is most appropriately placed within the territory of the Midbayfront area, that the developer shall dedicate the land for this facility including parking, and develop and present to the Council for approval a feasible financing plan that will permit the design and construction of a multi-functional cultural arts center with a minimum goal of 2,000 seat capacity. Also, they stated that the developer should contribute significant financing for this facility, while also allowing for Port participation. As described in number I under the Economic Feasibility Analysis discussion, the project would require substantial public assistance without the cultural arts facility. The cultural arts facility analysis completed by AMS Planning & Research Corporation in March 1992 found that a multi-form facility of 1,500 seats would be most appropriate for this market area, and that such a facility would cost between $30-37.3 million to construct (excluding land and parking costs). Assuming dedication of land by the developer and parking structure costs of $6.8 million, the total cost could reach from $36.8 to $44.1 million. The LCP Resubmittal document reserves space for such a facility in one of two locations - either at the west end of the site, west of Marina Parkway, or at the southeast side of the Midbayfront development, west of the SDG&E right-of-way (see Exhibit 4 and pg. IlI-7, LCP Resubmittal Land Use Plan). The LCP Resubmittal calls for this facility to be 100 feet high. However, due to environmental considerations, the building height cannot exceed 69 feet above grade if located west of Marina Parkway. Staff's recommendation includes a change of this height to 69 feet to address this. Otherwise, new environmental analysis must occur, and recirculation of the EIR. 2. Ice Rink/Park - Council required developer dedication and construction of lor funding construction of a 62,000 square foot, 5,000 seat capacity ice rink, or, alternatively, a park. The ice rink with parking has been estimated to cost $18.2 million by the developer ($4 million without parking). 1-'1 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 10 As discussed earlier regarding economic feasibility, the project would require substantial public assistance without this facility. Therefore, any additional capital costs added to the project by including an ice rink would add to the required public assistance. Space has been reserved for an ice rink in the LCP Resubmittal (see Central Resort District Concept, Exhibit 4, LCP Resubmittal Land Use Plan). 3. Limited Number of High Rises - Council stated that the LCP Resubmittal and General Plan Amendment should provide no more than four (4) high rise structures ("high rise" meaning more than ten (10) stories tall). The LCP Resubmittal provides for this condition. 4. Parking - Council directed that a minimum of 75% of the required parking for the resort and residential uses be provided in subterranean or "concealed" parking structures. The LCP Resubmittal provides for this on pg. III-27. 5. Bike/Hiking Trails - Council required an integrated trail system to maximize trail and visual access to the Bayfront, providing linkage to the Chula Vista Greenbelt. The LCP Resubmittal provides for this on pgs. III-23 to III-24. 6. Water Access - Council mandated that a location be identified that would provide for future direct access to the bay (pending federal, state and Port District approvals). The LCP Resubmittal provides an area of passive park uses that would not preclude such access (see Policy EM.l.I, pgs. III-47 to III-48 LCP Resubmittal Land Use Plan), however, the mudflats and eelgrass westward of this are extremely rich and sensitive ecosystems. The federal and state regulatory agencies have indicated that such access would be prohibited due to these resources. 7. Traffic - Council stated that the project shall not cause traffic in the project vicinity to exceed City Threshold Standards, and that a traffic monitoring program be established as an implementation and phasing requirement. A traffic monitoring program has yet to be established; traffic impacts and mitigation would be determined at a project level. Impacts were considered significant and not mitigated at the Plan level, however, potentially feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final ElR maintained City Threshold Standards in the project vicinity. /-/(;) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 23, 1992 11 8. Compliance with the City's Affordable Housing Policy Compliance with this Policy will be included in the LCP Resubmittal on page VII-13 of the Specific Plan. 9. Agreement between the Develorer. School Districts and City to Assure Adequate Student Facilities This agreement will be included in the LCP Resubmittal on page VII-13 of the Specific Plan. The Council's condition for a detailed Phasing Plan is appropriate for the Owner Participation Agreement or Disposition and Development Agreement, yet, the LCP Resubmittal should include general Midbayfront phasing. Staffs recommendations include this general phasing to incorporate development of biological mitigation measures, and the Central Resort District first, while allowing no more than 25 % of residential development to also be included in this first phase. This condition was also important to Coastal Commission staff. Also, the Council's conditions to prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation Plan would be prepared at the project level. IV. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS Some conditions required by the Council were determined by staff to be appropriate items for the Redevelopment Plan Amendment rather than be included in an LCP or GPA. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment shall be accomplished only through an Owner Participation Agreement or Disposition and Development Agreement which contains the following requirements for the Midbayfront area only: o Prohibition of hotel conversions to residential use o Participation in a yet -to-be-established Nature Interpretive Center Benefit or Assessment District o Agreement to allow lagoon in northern residential area to be private o Detailed Phasing Plan IC:\WP~J \j(.I(.'HAkDS\LCPPUBLHTEXj /-1'/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF . CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT THEY RECERTIFY EIR-89-Q8; AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM; AMEND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND LAND USE DIAGRAM FOR THE MID-BA YFRONT AREA; MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASmlLITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES; ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, on February 4, 1992, the Chula Vista City Council adopted resolution No. 16467, which approved the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) with modifications, on approximately 165 acres of property, located west of Interstate 5, east of San Diego Bay, south of the Gunpowder Point Wildlife Refuge, and north of the Rohr Manufacturing operations; and WHEREAS, the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use and Circulation Diagram, and Parks and Recreation Element and the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, including a Land Use Plan and Specific Plan (Implementation Plan), were prepared according to Chula Vista City Council directive, Resolution 16467, given on February 4, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said amendments including the recertification of EIR-89-08 and notice of the hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within a minimum of 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property and other designated agencies as required by the Local Coastal Plan at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, notice was also provided to said property owners listed above six weeks prior to the hearing citing that copies of the amendments were available in the Planning and Community Development offices; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely September 23, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue in Chula Vista, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OFCHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND CERTIFY AS FOLWWS: I-I ;;r . ---~---- _._--~- ----- -- -- -- I. The Final Environmental Impact Rc:port The Final Environmental Impact Report, Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No.8 Amendment (EIR-89-08), dated July 1991, consists of: A. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR-89-D8) SCHN 89062807, dated July 1991, which contains: 1) Volume I - Comments and Responses of Draft and Recirculated EIR, Summary of new project information, and analysis of two new alternatives; 2) Volume n - text changes to the Draft and Recirculated EIR, and re-analysis incorporating new project information; and, 3) one Addendum; and B. Appendices (A through H) to Environmental Impact Report dated April, 1991. n. Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) Reviewed and Considered The Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) has been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista. m. Indc:,pendent Judl!ement of Plannin~ Commission The Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission. IV. Certification The Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) is hereby certified by the Planning Commission to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable guidelines. V. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT The Planning Commission recommends the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Text, Section 4.2 (COMMERCIAL) with the following additional land use category: Resort This catel!ory identifies larl!e-scale destination-oriented resort facilities with a full range of resort-related services. Siting of resorts shall be in areas with significant attractions. such as bodies of water or other natural features. which provide ample recreational Qp,pOrtunities and scenic vistas. Resort facilities include. but are not necessarily limited to. hotels and motels. resort-oriented commercial services. cultural arts centers. -2- 1-/3 -~-_.._---- ----- ---- ,-- recreational uses. time-share resiQences. conference centers. and permanent residences. Specific intensity of use for resorts within this catel!ory shall be determined at the prQiect level. with consideration ~iven to e:eneral plan consistency. environmental imnacts. and other relevant factors. VI. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM The Planning Commission recommends the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram from the categories as shown on Exhibit A to the categories as shown on Exhibit B. This will result in the following approximate acreage changes: Land Use Category Existing (acres) 18 o 9 37 o 8 21 56 16 Proposed (acres) o 18 14 15 44 o 40 22 12 Medium Residential High Residential Visitor Commercial Prof. & Admin. Commercial Resort Research & Limited Industrial Parks & Recreation Open Space Circulation Element Streets VII. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT The Planning Commission recommends the amendment to the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, Table 7.2 to change the park in the Midbayfront from a Planned Neighborhood Park to a Planned Special Purpose Park. VIII. BA YFRONT AREA PLAN A minor text amendment to the sentence incorporating by reference the Bayfront Specific Plan into the General Plan would indicate that revisions to the Plan occurred as part of this action. IX. CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS a. Adoption of Findings The Planning Commission does hereby approve and incorporate as if set forth full herein, and make each and everyone of the CEQA Findings attached hereto as Exhibit C. -3- I-/~ b. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in the previous environmental documents for this project area (EIR 89-8) and the CEQA Findings for this project which is hereby attached hereto as Attachment C, Council hereby finds that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, that certain of the mitigation measures described in the above referenced document are feasible and will become binding upon the appropriate entity such as the Applicant, the City, or other special districts, which has to implement these specific mitigation measures. c. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives As set forth in Attachment C attached hereto, the Planning Commission finds that the remainder of the proposed mitigation measures, identified therein as infeasible, and none of the proposed Project alternatives set forth in the Final EIR feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the potentially significant effects that will not be substantially lessened or avoided by adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. d. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in FEIR to this resolution and incorporated by reference as set forth in full. The Planning Commission recommends that the Council find the Program is designed to ensure that, during the project implementation and operation, the Applicant and other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings and in the Program. e. Statement of Overriding Considerations Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, certain significant environmental effects caused by the project will remain. Therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 as set forth, attached hereto within Exhibit C, a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects still significant, but acceptable. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission recommends that the Chula Vista City Council recertify the EIR-89-Q8, amend the City's General Plan, amend the Loca1 Coastal Plan, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations in -4- /-1.5 accordance with the conditions and findings included in the attached proposed City Council resolution, and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1992 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, TO WIT; AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Joe D. Casillas, Chairperson ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary (nooIqo) -5- I"" RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MIDBA YFRONT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL NO. 8 AMENDMENT (EIR 89-08) AND ADDENDUM THERETO; AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, LAND USE AND CIRCULATION DIAGRAM, PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT AND BAYFRONT AREA PLAN; AND ADOPTING THE CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITTAL CONSISTING OF THE LAND USE PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN WITH CHANGES IDENTIFIED HEREIN WHEREAS, on February 4, 1992, the Chula Vista City Council adopted resolution No. 16467, which approved the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) with modifications, on approximately 165 acres of property, located west of Interstate 5, east of San Diego Bay, south of the Gunpowder Point Wildlife Refuge, and north of the Rohr Manufacturing operations; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) with modifications will require approval of a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Resubmittal; and WHEREAS, the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use and Circulation Diagram, Parks and Recreation Element, Bayfront Area Plan, and the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, including a Land Use Plan and Specific Plan (Implementation Plan), were prepared according to Chula Vista City Council directive, Resolution 16467, given on February 4, 1992; and, WHEREAS, these documents are consistent with, and do not vary from, the Chula Vista City Council approved Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) approved on February 4, 1992; and, WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 1990, evaluating the proposed Midbayfront Local Coastal (LCP) Resubmittal and associated General Plan Amendment was prepared and was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the draft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from August 6, 1990 to September 26, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the draft Environmental Impact Report on September 26, 1990; and WHEREAS, at this hearing, CHULA VISTA INVESTORS (the project applicant) introduced a new revised concept plan described as Alternative 8; and I-I? WHEREAS, based on new information raised in the public comment period and at the public hearing, a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for Alternative 8; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft supersedes the previous Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report evaluating the proposed Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment project, was prepared and was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report were accepted from April 10, 1991 to May 22, 1991; and WHEREAS, the public review period on the Recirculated Draft ErR was extended until May 24, 1991 to allow additional response time for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on May 22, 1991; and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment, dated July 1991; and WHEREAS, the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 project was heard by the City Planning Commission on July 24, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has, by separate resolution (Planning Commission Resolution No. ErR-89-08) (hereafter "ErR") certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (No. EIR 89-08) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, tit. 14, section 15000 et seq.) which analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal, Alternative 8; and WHEREAS, the City Council certified the EIR on August 20, 1991 wherein the project was described as Alternative 8; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16328 on August 20, 1991, which neither approved nor disapproved of Alternative 8 but referred same to the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee for their review and recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee held approximately 15 public meetings and recommended to the City Council that they approve Alternative 8, as identified in the EIR, with minor modifications. As so modified by said subcommittee, the recommendation of said subcommittee is officially referred to as the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative), and shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Subcommittee Alternative"); and 2 /./ r WHEREAS, these minor modifications proposed by the Subcommittee Alternative to Alternative 8 include the elimination of a previously designated luxury hotel and placing in its stead a Cultural Arts facility on approximately three acres, a reduction of the number of residential units from 1400 to 1000 (although the total square footage remains the same), and minor design modifications to the northern residential area; and WHEREAS, on or about December 10, 1991, an addendum to the Final EIR was prepared which identified the proposed Subcommittee Alternative modifications and which concluded that said modifications did not change the conclusions as contained in the Final EIR as to the impacts of the Subcommittee Alternative on the Environment; and WHEREAS, public notice was given on December 11, 1991, that the EIR for Resubmittal No. 8 would be used as the EIR for the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 18, 1991 for the purpose of hearing public testimony as to the Subcommittee Alternative and the proper and adequate preparation of the EIR, and at a continued meeting thereof held on January 8, 1992, by the adoption of their resolution PC No. 89-08A, recommended to the City 'Council the certification of the final EIR and approval of the Subcommittee Alternative with additional minor modifications ("Planning Commission Alternative"); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on January 14, 1992 for the purpose of approving Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan (Subcommittee Alternative) providing, among others, for the development of the site in the manner described by the Subcommittee Alternative, and for the further purpose of certifying the EIR, making findings and adopting a mitigation and monitoring program and statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, at their meeting of January 14, 1992, the City Council did conduct and close said public hearing, certified the proper preparation of the Final EIR for the Subcommittee Alternative by their adoption of Resolution No. 16466, proposed amendments to the concept plan (which as so amended, shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Council Alternative," or alternatively hereinafter as the "Project"), and directed staff to prepare and return to the Council a revised approval resolution which incorporates their proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991 and again on January 14, 1992 addressed the impacts of the Subcommittee Alternative; and WHEREAS, the final EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the Project; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on February 4, 1992, the City Council adopted all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on February 4, 1992, the City Council declared that, despite the occurrence of certain significant and potentially significant effects that cannot be substantially 3 /-1 ? lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that the City Council believes justify the occurrence of those impacts. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: I. The Final Environmental ImDact Re.POrt The Final Environmental Impact Report, Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment (EIR-89-08), dated July 1991, consists of: A. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR-89-08) SCH# 89062807, dated July 1991, which contains: 1) Volume I - Comments and Responses of Draft and Recirculated EIR, Summary of new project information, and analysis of two new alternatives; 2) Volume II - text changes to the Draft and Recirculated EIR, and re-analysis incorporating new project information; and, 3) one Addendum; and B. Appendices (A through H) to Environmental Impact Report dated April, 1991. II. Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) Reviewed and Considered The Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) has been reviewed and considered by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. III. Independent Judgement of City Council The Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista City Council. IV. Certification The Final EIR (and Addendum thereto) is hereby certified by the City Council to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable guidelines. V. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT The City Council amends the General Plan Land Use Element Text, Section 4.2 (COMMERCIAL) with the following additional land use category: Resort This category identifies lar!l:e-scale destination-oriented resort facilities with a full range of resort-related services. Siting of resorts shall be in areas with significant attractions. such as bodies of water or other natural features. which provide ample recreational oDDOrtunities and scenic vistas. Resort facilities include. but are not necessarily limited to. hotels and motels. resort-oriented commercial services. cultural arts centers. 4 /- .2c recreational uses. time-share residences. conference centers. and permanent residences. Specific intensity of use for resorts within this cate~oTJ shall be determined at the proiect level. with consideration given to general ulan consistency. environmental imuacts. and other relevant factors. VI. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM The City Council amends the General Plan Land Use Diagram from the categories as shown on Exhibit A to the categories as shown on Exhibit B. This will result in the following approximate acreage changes: Land Use Category Existing (acres) 18 o 9 37 o 8 21 56 16 Proposed (acres) o 18 14 IS 44 o 40 22 12 Medium Residential High Residential Visitor Commercial Prof. & Admin. Commercial Resort Research & Limited Industrial Parks & Recreation Open Space Circulation Element Streets VB. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT The City CounciJ amends the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, Table 7.2 to change the park in the Midbayfront from a Planned Neighborhood Park to a Planned Special Purpose Park. VlII. BA YFRONT AREA PLAN A minor text amendment to the sentence incorporating by reference the Bayfront Specific Plan into the General Plan would indicate that revisions to the Plan occurred as part of this action. IX. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RESUBMITfAL The City Council approves the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, a Land Use Plan and Specific Plan (Implementation Plan), and as revised in order to conform to the Midbayfront Conceptual Development Plan as approved by the City Council on February 4, 1992, and hereby authorizes submittal of the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal to the Coastal Commission. X. LANGUAGE CHANGES TO POLICIES AND REGULATIONS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) RESUBMITfAL: 1. Revise the last sentence of Land Use Plan (LUP) Section 11-6, 6b (page 11-7) to read: "Virtually all of the environmentally sensitive habitat areas are located in the National S ,. 2.1 Wildlife Refuge. though other sensitive habitat areas are scattered throughour the LCP area. " 2. Add to the first sentence in Policy LU.4.A, page 1lI-4 of the LUP the following: ", though other sensitive areas exist in the LCP area adjacent to the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers. " 3. Add to the second to last sentence on page 1lI-3 of the LUP describing Open Space/Wildlife Refuge Overlay the following: "... with Coastal Commission Review. " 4. Change the beginning of the second to last sentence on page 1lI-9 of the LUP from, "in addition" to "within this square footage,... " 5. Change the Central Resort District Concept Key, Exhibit 4 in the LUP, and Exhibit 14 in the SP, as follows: a. Change "Hotel" to "Mid-Rise Hotel (up to 100')" b. Add "(up to 229')" for the High-Rise Hotel c. Add to Ice Rink ", Park, or alternative Cultural Arts Facility Site. " 6. Change the first two sentences in Policy DI.I.A., MidbayfrontDevelopment, page 111- 12 of the LUP to read, "The permitted height of the development in the Resort Core area ranges up to 229 feet for two high-rise hotel structures (Special Condition "A" in Exhibit 5) and up to 100 feet for a Mid-rise hotel structure. Also in the Midbayfront Subarea is a site for a Cultural Arts Faciliry up to 69 feet in height west of Marina Parkway and an alternative site within the Central Resort District (Special Condition "8" in Exhibit 5). " 7. Revise the Building Heights Exhibit 5 in the LUP, and Exhibit 4 in the SP, Special Height Conditions, as follows: a. Special Condition "B" to read: "Potential Cultural Arts Facility Site (up to 69')" b. Add to Special Condition "C": "(up to 95')" c. Add to Special Condition "E": "(up to 229')" 8. Delete the second sentence in Policy GD.I.B. on page III-40 of the LUP concerning diversion of Hood water. 9. Modify the Environmental Management Element, Exhibit 9 in the LUP, and Exhibit 10, in the SP, as follows: a. Add a small strip of land designated as "Wetlands Enhancement" in the Midbayfront fronting the bay south of the designated primary buffer zone. b. Add an asterisk to the legend for other potential environmentally sensitive areas. And, put this designation on the exhibit for the inland parcel, the Faiver Street parcel, and west of the park at J Street. 6 /O' 2~ 10. Add to the last sentence of Policy EM. I. I. on page III-48 of the LUP "..., and the California Coastal Commission. " II. Replace Policy EM.I.K., on page 111-49 of the LUP and add this policy to the Environmental Management Program in the SP as follows: "Phasin~ QfEnvironmental Mitigation Measures/lmDrovements for the Midb(lYlront Subarea. The preparation of management plans and the implementation of mitigation measures/improvements shall be required prior to the issuance of the first building permit in any area designated on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 2, as CRD, RH, or PR in the Midbayfront subarea, as follows: i) Except for the restoration and enhancement features specified above for the D Street fill and Gunpowder Point, all restoration and enhancement features called out in Policy EM. 1.1. are required. ii) A funding agreement between the developer and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is required for the D Street fill (/5 acre salt marsh) and the Gunpowder Point (2 acre freshwater marsh), which are located within the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The implementation of these enhancement features shall be the responsibility of the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. " 12. Revise Policy EM.I.L. on page Ill-SO of the LUP and page VI-12 of the SP to read as follows: "Environmental Mana~ement Qf Undelineated Resources. Sensitive habitats exist in areas not specifically delineated, including but not limited to the Faivre Street Subarea, the Inland Parcel Subarea, and the J Street Marsh. All environmental resources shall be analyzed by an environmental professionals, and an Environmental Management Plan shall be adopted to protect any sensitive habitats discovered, prior to the commencement of any additional development. " 13. Add the following policy statement to L.U.P Policy DI.I.B, page 111-14: "The construction of housing in the Residential-High category shall be limited to 25% of the maximum permitled until the Central Resort District has been substantially implemented. " 14. Add the requirement to SP Chapter VII as B.2.b 6) on page VII-I3 "6) Phasing IimilUlion on Residential Development: The construction phasing of residential dwelling units in the Residential-High District shall be limited to a maximum of25% of the total number of dwelling units permitted by an approved Residential master Plan, until development within the Central Resort District has been substantially implemented. 'Substantially Implemented' shall be achieved when 50% of the building squarefootage permitted on an approved Central Resort District Master Plan has been constructed, or the completion of same has been assured to the satisfaction of the Ciry of Chula Vista. " IS. Add to Chapter VII-B,2,b,3),c), page VII-13 of the Specific Plan, which indicates supporting documents required to be submitted with the Master Plan for the Residential- High District in the Midbayfront Subarea, the following additional documents: ..., "affordable housing policy consistency report and implementation program, a report 7 /... ~3 and implementation program on school facilities to serve students generated by the project,... " XI. CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO IMPROVE READABILITY OR TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS l. Insert a List of Exhibits in the Land Use Plan and paginate all exhibits in both plans. 2. Revise Land Use, Exhibit 3, in the LUP and SP to change the CT "Commercial Thoroughfare" designation to CV-H "Commercial Visitor/Highway". And make corresponding changes in text and tables of the LUP and SP 3. Add a new second sentence to the Visitor Servicing Commercial description on page 111-5 of the LUP to read as follows: "This use is primarily located in proximity to the freeway. " 4. Use an upper case "E" in the word "Exhibit' on page III-6 of the LUP describing Professional and Administrative Commercial. 5. Change the word conceptional to "conceptual" in the last sentence on page III -8 of the LUP 6. Delete the fourth sentence in Policy D.l.l.A. on page III-12 of the LUP, which begins with, "Several other buildings... . 7. Change Table 3-2A in the LUP and Table VII-I in the SP With respect to the Target Building sq. ft. assigned to the Commercial-visitor category from "2,503,000 sq. ft. " to "1,503,000 sq. ft. " and the total from "2,969,000 sq. ft. " to "1,969,000 sq. ft. ". 8. Change the first sentence of the second paragraph on page III-17 of the LUP from ....easterly of the AT&SF railroad. "to ....easterly of the railroad right-aI-way.' 9. Delete the colon in the last sentence of Policy R.l.l.B. on page III-21 of the LUP 10. Pluralize the word "structure" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of Policy VW.l.A. on page 111-33 of the LUP II. Change the dates of the background documents number 9 and 10, on page III-42 of the LUP and page VI-2 of the Specific Plan from '1991" to '1992'. 12. Add to the last sentence of the first paragraph of Policy EM.I.J., page III-48 of the LUP the following: "(Refer to Final EIR Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal). " 13. Revise Table 3-4 in page III-51 of the LUP and page VI-IO of the SP to change the Wetland 5) from "Salt Marsh on Gunpowder Point"to "Fresh Water Marsh on Gunpuwder Puint ". 8 /.2.y' 14. Add the word .approximately" prior to the word "acres" in Policy LU.6.B., page III-S of the LUP IS. Change the contact name for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on page jji of the LUP and SP from "Charles M. Holt, chief" to "John A. Gill, Chief". 16. Correct the spelling of "uses" in Objective U.S.1. page III-37 of the LUP 17. Add the phrase ...., specified in Policies EM.J.e. and EM.J.D,. after the word "management plans. in the third paragraph of page III-41 of the LUP and a similar reference on page VI-I of the SP 18. Delete "(Reference ~. at the end of Policy S 1.L.2. of the LUP 19. Change the building square footage in the first sentence on page III-9 of the LUP from .2,969, ()(X) sq. ft.. to "J ,969, ()(X) sq. ft. " Presented by: Approved as to form by: Chris Salomone Community Development Director Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney IA'IBA YFRONT.RESj Bulin's Disk 9 1-2..5 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS LAND USE ELEMENT SECTION 4.2 -- COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial This category includes neighborhood, community,and regional shopping centers; retail establishments typical of traditional downtowns, such as the shops on Third Avenue between E and G Streets; and service commercial. This category may include limited thoroughfare retail and automobile-oriented services if they constitute a small part of a planned commercial d~velopment. Thoroughfare Commercial This category includes all uses identified for Retail Commercial plus thoroughfare retail and automobile-oriented services. Visitor Commercial This category includes motels, restaurants, establishments. transient lodging, such as hotels and commercial recreation, and retail Professional and Administrative This category is intended for professional and administrative office uses. Limited retail uses, which serve the nearby office employees, are also permitted. Retail uses which predominately serve residential neighborhoods or shoppers from outside the immediate area are excluded from this category. Resort This cateaorv identifies larae-scale resort facilities proposed to serve as "destination"-oriented. with a full ranae of resort- related services. Sitina of resorts shall be in areas with sianificant attractions. such as bodies of water or other natural features. which provide ample recreational opportunities and scenic vistas. Resort facilities include. but are not necessarilv limited to. hotels and motels. resort-oriented commercial services. cultural arts centers. recreational uses. time-share residences: conference centers. and permanent residences. Specific intensitv of use for resorts within this cateaorv shall be determined at the proiect level. with consideration aiven to aeneral plan consistencv. environmental impacts. and other relevant factors." /. :2.&' LAND USE & CIRCULATION DIAGRAM See Exhibit A for the existing land use & circulation diagram for the Mid-Bayfront area and Exhibit B for the proposed land use & circulation diagram for the Mid-Bayfront area. PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT Table 7.2 EXISTING AND FUTURE CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Existing Community Parks 1.1 Eucalyptus Park 1.2 Greg Rogers 1.3 Rohr-Sweetwater 1.4 J Street Marina and Bayside Planned Community Parks 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 Bonita Miguel EI Rancho Del Rey Eastlake High School Salt Creek Rutgers Telegraph South Montgomery Otay Valley University West University East Existing Neighborhood Parks 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 Marina View City Hall & Friendship Memorial Park Norman Park Hilltop Park Lauderbach Park Palomar Orange Ave. & Rienstra Loma Verde Park SDG&E Park Park Field BAYFRONT AREA PLAN Existing Neighborhood Parks (continued) 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 Otay Park Los Nino.s Park Vall~ Lindo Park Halecrest Park Terra Nova Park Independence Park Tiffany Park Paseo Del Rey Woodlawn C.C. Park Planned Neighborhood Parks 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 Bonita Long Canyon Park Sunridge Park Sunbow Park BayfreAt F Street & Woodlawn Orange & Hermosa EI Rancho Del Rey 1 EI Rancho Del Rey 2 Otay V. Rd. & Brandywine Paseo Ranchero & Wolf Cyn Rancho Drive Park Eastlake Greens Eastlake Trails Salt Creek Planned Special Purpose Parks 2.34 ~ Rancho San Miguel Bavfront The Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan, as amended bv the Citv Council on (Resolution # ) is included in and made a part of the Chula Vista General Plan. /" "2. '7 . . I . . I r . ..~.- -- .~,~'.- .-..:, :...:::-" ..~: "-" '~c:.s :~::::_.;?:~:::',~~;. . ..,............."........ ..... -, --. ..,.... .... ..................... ......: .' ( .-.... C St "'. .... ..~ .d...: ;.. ......... ... -..... A~. ...... ''''''', ,....., ,.,,:...~,,_.....:. :::t SWEETWATER MARSH NA TIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE - SAN DIEGO SA Y D~D DESt p:;] II nl u~D UIFSt o . '" ~ I~s lB St fI[ "It "'s 0 . I Dc:J ~ ... ~ - - ~-:........- ;--~_.~- f- ."' j~>EXHIBI~~ INDUS77UAL SPBClM. PLAN ARB.t \ [:'77/1 Resetu'Ch '" LImiJ.d Mantifaau~ r::"':-;::lSw-..ater Mtufh NaliDMl ICLL.::J . _ _. ~ Wi1dJi,f, R(/ul' _ ...., JI" PUBUC & OPEN SPACB . . Chul. I r. e If.' Q'ho/J . /8te Cel1fe~119 , LEGEND '""' RBSlDlINTIAL II Medium 6-11 "ulllt: -:.-.: Visitor . . COMMBRClAL ..-. k d I'rDf.uioMl '" AilminiJtrati., . Path & R,.rt4IW. o Op,. Spat, I...~g [!] '~_.- - ........----.-- ----'----- , o 1:> It) - mJECT77TLE EillTI]J)JBjj\ 1{W~<<>>~T EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM 01Y Of PLANNING DEPARTMENT OfUIAVlSTA ~ . - ~ --_. "'--. -- - -:. . - - - - - - ..-.....'"':;.,......-. ..:,...-...:::.. ,.,~.:-" ~ -.-.....~ ..--......:::::... ~.....:: _...~".-.;~::.s:~:. .............. -....... -.....- ......:"':...... ~.......-.-.....-._- . - .- ..~. ;-. .......-.... ..-.......... _M:.~__. ........- ....;,:.;.:'""-""':.",;- ...,... ......,..... ..::~:".::'~:~" - - ..... ~....... . .- ~ ...... '" .-.. .- .....- ,,, ... ,,- - . ...._- SWEETWATER MARSH NATIONAL WILDLIFE . REFIJGE SAN DIEGO BAY ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................. ........................... "vellC WQAK$ Ct~1(111t t: ~- '::::::::::::::: :: A:::::::::::::: :: .............. .. ;gg~~g~gg ;; .............. .. .............. .. :::::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::: :: .............. .. :::::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::: :: .............. .. , I __...1....-_ ..; I GPA SOUNDARY fin . .\ .t. L\ Ii I j EXHIBIT :..; I....,.": i ,. LEGEND" RESlDENTL4L WHig" 18.27 du/ac COMMERCIAL PUBUC'" OPEN SPACE . Paries " R.cnaJion D Op.n Spac. .:.:: VISitDr . . . SPECIAL PlAN ARB.4. V:. ~ SwfttwGt.r Marsh NaJiolUll Wildlife Rifug. k d ProlessiolUll " Administrativ. L H Resort ~ PROJECT TITLE EillJIID JB3.& WJF1 JE& (Q) N~ PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM ~ t ':'~ ',: iG : ;~;;. t . --=-.. . . . .. .. . ~_....- ..... . .- . "-- ru"u;. -,It.HOOL ". :' 'd];~ .. [ \. .., ... . . ..; , ,. i l. j I ..J..j I "': . "B" ~{f? -.- ~~ ~"...~ - DEPARTMEN.T \...~OF CHUIA VISTA PLANNING ..,; :I: U ..:: I-- I-- ..:: ~ ~ '" ~ ... u << 00 ! ~ . ~ OJ - .~ > OJ -c:: '3 .c u I ~ .~ - OJ ::E 1:) OJ 0.. Jj "0 V .~ v P::: .--- <> '" ... :E'" :;~ g! <> z ... z -<< '" ~ ~ '" ~ ~ z <> u << ;;; ... <> z ~ << ... u u << ~ 0- '" '" z '" m 0- '. ~ OJ : ... ... << ~ z '" -4 '" ... M ~ << N ~ <> '" 0- 0- ~ OJ ... ... << ~ z '" .. '" ... '" ~ x << N ~ <> '" 0- 0- ~ OJ ... ... << ~ z '" -4 '" ... M -' N << ~ <> '" 0- 0- >< ~ OJ >< ... >< ... ... >< z << ~ < '" z > >< '" 0- 0- ... '" OJ <> ::: ... z ... < ~ ... ...- w < ~ <> > z z w w '" -4 < ... ~ w ~ < ... M U Z ~ ~ < < N Z ... ~ 0- ~ U '" <> ;;; '" 0- ---- '" 0- - ~ ... m OJ z < .. Z N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ---" --- >< . . --- " " . . , . . )( .' X . ..... ><,.:,...:f" x >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< --- >< >< --- >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< X >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< --- . . . . . . --- ... . ~ ~ &Ie & ,"c __ i ~i';' i6: ~t ~ Ii~ ~!:-_~~ !is ~ g- _0 u_ ~~! LO: _. _ .1:._ o f0'O~ C_'.~ ~~ -L He" E~ tu~ :~:~~ ~~: t- ~ ~~ ~6: f~ ~~C ~ ~j::~ ~_i:~~ ~i "R~ ~Cl~:o alii - &~ --"2 a~ ~ 2&1 ~f'.2u c~fi ~ ~~ g! ~-. ~ U -~ ~c: f~ ~~u -~--~-~-~-----------~-~~~-~~- " ~ ~ L L . ... ... < '" ----_!::.._- i!i ... 0- '" U 0 '" <> ... u << 0- ;!; . '" ~ . .. ~ ~ .. ~ .. g - >:. ~ '" ~ .. .. :> en 1 '0 ~ .. 0 '0 <> ~ '0 .. .. ~ .. .. .. u .. z ~ .. .. '" ----------------------------- J.. ~D , ; ! I :1 , I . \ 0\ ..... 0 - V bO OJ Il. I ~ , I, t' r ~i' 1'1 r! " I:, I: , I I' , I .' ['.I i I +-' ~ o u .( . ..... , ..... V ~ --- <> w ~ ;:~ u ~ c( ... ~ '" <> <> z ~ w > w ~ ~ u ~ ;!; ~ z - c( w U .. '" ... ~z c '" c( .. ~ <> z ~ " c( W U ~ m ... c( '" " '" ~ ;;; '" ~ o " ~ c( ~ w ~ c > z w w c( ~ ~ u c( '" " _ c( ~ ~ ~ ;: CL .. ~ c( tit; c( ... ... ~!; w m 0- W'" > ... ~ c( on Z ~ ~ W ~ '" ~ c( N 0- ~'" ... ~ c( on Z ~ ~ W ~ '" ~ c( N ~ <> ~ ... 0- ~'" ... ~ c( on Z ~ ~ W ~ '" ~ c( N ~ o ~ ... 0- . i:~ ~ c( on Z ~ ~ W ~ '" ~ c( N ~ o ~ ... 0- W'" > ... ~ c( on " ~ ~ W ~ '" ~ c( N ~ o ~ ... --- w 0- - ~ ~m '" ~ ~ ~ U ~ on ....:.= ... " "'~ '" o .." N ~ o ~ ---~-~- " 2 ~ ... ~ u .. w <> .... u c( ... ;!; w ii! .. m ii! w :> .. .. --- ~ o ~ ... --- '" '" , " . --- --- " '" '" " " --- --- . . .. is; &I CI _ . ... -' ... .- t" L~ . - E ~ " u ~ . ::, f & ~ u " w . --- ------;-2 '5 " ti'E " ... ~ o .. ,.. .. ~ ~ u .. > ------- .. "''0 ~ :; ~'E .. " - ~ .. .. s.., .5-; . " " '" . . .)C . . . " . '" . " . e e . 11 ... 11 .... I- ... . 0 .... o. :J"'''~' :;).. 0: Oot S 0: _s :=:!; "Z!.:e :; ~;:j~'~;:,:;",,~ !~.w;.j:'!~;~ . ... .... . - N . '" . _ . N .,., --:-------------------- .. ::;; " ~ 8: c( ~ o " '" . ~ - ~E~ .. .. .. .. ':;e-~ . cS ~ ti : !:u . . . ---- ---- . ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- e... 11 0 .. .. :> Ii !d :!. Ii ><> .: " " " " '" '" '" '" " '" '" " '" '" '" . . '" '" >< '" '" " '" '" " '" '" " " . . -.- . ,- ~- '" " '" " >< " " " " '" '" '" '" '" '" " .. " ~ .. z ~ e " ~ ! ... o ! ~ ~ .. .. s - .. ~ i: 8- .. > .i ~ Om 'E .. E.I~ ~ u .., ;Ii~ m .. w ~-------------------- ~'E :E~ f~:5 t:GI~ ,.. ... .. ... ... .. ~ .. ~ " .. .. .., ;: :; .. c( ,.. .. ~ .. II uu 1- ~ , I f t I 1 f J ~l O' N ~l .P-. f I I I I , J I II L. II .. II II 11 II pi . ..; '" o u ~ . ..-< , ..-< ., ~ ---- ~ "" u t; "" ~ 0. ~ ~ w ... . : <> W 0- ~t; ~ "" 3 ~ <> '" ~ ~ w ~ 0- U "" 0. '" 0- '" "" ~ ~ '" ~ w > '" <> '" "" .. 0- <> '" 0- '" "" w U ~ a> ~ "" '" '" '" 0- ;:;;;: ~ <> Z 0- "" ~ w ~ <> > '" w w ~ ~ ;; "" 0- ~ Z 0. '" '" ;;; , w - ~ 0- a> ~ ~ U 0- ~ 2'" '" 0- <> .. '" : ... w'" :::.... 0- ""on '" '" 0# W 0- .... ~ "" N ~ <> '" -~ ... ~: 0- ""on '" '" 0# '" 0- .... ~ ""N ~ <> '" 0. ~ <> '" 0. ... '" .... ~ .. .... N . . ... ~: 0- "" on '" '" .. '" 0- .... ~ ""N ~ <> '" 0. ... ~: 0- "" on % '" 0# '" 0- .... ~ ""N ... w'" > .... ~ "" on % '" 0# w ~ .... ~ <eN ~ <> '" 0. ---- ~ <> '" 0. -------- '" o 0- 0. '" U .. w <> 0- U "" 0. '" >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ~ ~ - o Ii >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< \ . . . . . Ii . - . ~ :i - o >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< .. Z ;; >- .. '" c: .8 L ," ~ & .$! .. t;~ ~ 0 - ~ . >< >< >< >< >< >< >< -- ...,;' ...... - o >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< .' , ~ U ;; >- .. a> . . . . . . . , . . . . c: '.8 . L . . J ~ . '" . 2! : ! ~ . . .. u . L . . u >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ~ u ;; - o >- .. a> u " u .. >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< a> .. i~ ~ .8 r; oa> >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< . . . . . - o ~ -" ~ - a> . . ! : s :;; ~ c _ . S _E!I L .. . ;i u:;; 15 .. ~ .. u ~ ~ - ... >< >< - .. :> .. ;; -- . . . , '. . . . . . . . . . . . >< : , . . . - ~ 0-" '" . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . - o . ! u :1 L U U.. Ii_ - a> ~ 2- - !I E .. =; . .. . . . .. " .. ;: ~: a> . ________N__~__~__N__~__~__~__ on '" ii! .. ~ ~ : !i .. .. ~~~ VI~- ~ >-- ~.!~ :a :a 2i :EA.~ ~~ ~ :: & L >< ~ ~ .. '" ----------------------------- z >-u_ 1:iCi 11", ~ ... E ~ ~ ... '" '" '" .. .. ... ~ .. 0. o >< ~ ----------------------~-~~-- --- 0- >< W ., >< > ~ ~ .... >< '" '" '^ >< ~ x " " ~ ~ " >< '" w ~ n. ~ .... >< w ~ .... x '" N >< w ., ~ 0 >< ~ _2:- , 0- w ., <> > ... W ~ ~ '" '^ '" 0- X " ~ ~ .... '" w n. ~ .... '" ~ .... 0 '" N 0 ~ X <> '" _2:- Do .... w w ., > 0- > W x ... .... ,,; '" ~ ~ '" '^ 0- ~ X " '" ~ ~ ~ '" ~ X w n. ~ .... ~ <> CO .... '" '" N ~ ~ 0- 0 <> '" x _2:- Do ~ ., ... ~. ~ x '" '^ '" W x U ~ ~ ~ ;: m w '" ~ .... X co ~ ;: '" N co ...; X ~ t:1 ~ <> ~ 0 n. ) 0- :( ~ W ., <> > , x ~ .... .... '" ~ - , ~. w '" '^ .... <> ... x x w w ~ ~ Q) '" - ~ w u '" ~ .... :0 co x ~ ~ ;: '" '" N ~ .... x X n. ~ co <> ;;; ~ -~--- w 0- ~. ~ ., ., x j ... :s ~ '^ ~ % X ~ co ~ .... <> ~ X N --- >< >< >< >< >< >< >< . >< --- . . ~ ~ --.i! >< .. ~ >< Ii >< " >< 0: >< . ~ >< .. " >< .!: ~ --- -......;.- --- ~ <> ~ . -----,!!:.._-- --- , '" .. .. 2 :> . ~ "E .. . ~ ;;: - ~ co n. 0 .c ~ ~ - .. , ti ~ 0 >- Ii - . - u co - co ~ C ., ., 0 .. w 2 - , n. " <> " co - - - c c co , - :; ~ co ] " 0 u .. .. .. " '" .. " ;;: .. n. u ~ w .. .. ~ 0 .. .... '" ::._..:..~-..:..._-- >- .., co .. 0: w :> co => .., .. n. ~ .. .. ~ .. & " ~ co .c >- ~ "E n. ~ - :; .. iJ j 2s co co ~ .... a .!: ~ ~ .. .. ... co '" '" u . --------- w a ~ - 0_ co fi !;.", f-5~ .. ".... > c .. o DO U'" ----- --- ~-- . >< . >< . >< , . >< . >< , , >< , . . . . . >< >< >< , . , >< >< . , >< >< . , , , >< , . . _. . . , , . >co..;.: >< , >< >< >< : >< , >< . >< >< , >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< , >< >< >< x x x x x x 'X x . . . x x x x X x. x , ., , . . .. , " , , . . ,. . " . . , . " . . ::5: : i :~ ;;~ g ~ ::;: :i::'.~ "::..!'~ t3"_ c ~ u ~ ~ ~ L ~ C . 0 :Jj~:~ =~ ~~ ~~i.! :fial ~~ s- >~ ~~:~ IU ._. U -< .e.. o : "2 : ~ ~ . . . . . . c ------------------- . x .. " ~ co :> .,c .. .. .. ~ '2 ~ .. co " .. !! >- ~ .. ,,0: ... " :!! 0 - .. co .. .. ~ 0:: .. " " - " .. ~ ~ :;:; . , . ------------------- ~ ~ ., I .. 3~ ------------------- . - . . . I I I I I 0;' ~I Q) :;p P<I I I I I I .1 I .,1 . ---- ~ < uti < ~ "- ~~ W .. 0 W ~ ~ ~ , u ~ < "- . ~ :!: 0 z , ~ ~ , ~ W Z ~ ,;; < ~ ~ ~ u ~ - < ~ ;; "- :!: !i1 '" ~ ~ 0 z .: z < W ~ ~ .. ~ ;:!i ;; '" ~ --' ;;; '" ~ 0 u .{ ;:; ~ , z ..... < ~ , .: W ..... 0 > z W W Q) < ~ ~ ~ < - '" z .D ~ < ~ ;; ~ ~ '" ;;: "- ;;; W ~ ~ .. z < < CO u ~ ~;;: z CO ~ o ~ z 0- W '" == ... ~ < '^ z ~ ~ W ~ .... ~ N < ~ 0 ~ "- 0- ~ '" ... ~ < '^ Z ~ '" W .... ~ ~ N < ~ 0 '" "- 0- ~ '" ... ~ < '^ Z ~ ~ W .... ~ ~ N < ~ 0 ~ "- ... ~ '" ... ~ < '^ Z ~ ~ W .... ~ ~ < N ~ 0 ~ ... 0- W '" == ... ~ < '^ z ~ ~ W .... ~ ~ < N ------ -------- >< ! >< >< >< >< >< , >< . . >< >< , , >< >< , , >< >< >< >< . >< >< , . >< >< >< >< >< >< . , , , >< . . , >< >< , >< , >< >< >< , >< >< >< >< , >< . >< , >< , , >< >< , . , , . ~. , '.' -:- , , , >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ------ -------- >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ------ -------- ------ -------- ------ -------- 0- .... 0 10 >< Q) >< \?f >< t:I-. >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< o )o()o( ~ "- --------- -------- ... '" ... >< >< >< >< >< >< >< '^ ~ .... N ~ o ~ >< ---~-~------- z ~ ~ ... ;;; U ~ W 0 .... U C "- :!: W => ~ .. ~ , , . W => ~ , ~ ---~--~- - ~ '2 WI :: t:~ t ~ '0 U'I:a. ] ~ ~ O~ ~Q ~~ * ~ ~~ ; : c ~ ~ ; 6: .f ~~ S 6:i ..~ << - ~<< _WI ~~ ~~ u ~~ ~ : - E" :: ~:: ~~ ~:SWlfi~ ! :s !~ ~ .i~ a.. ~ 'i- .,., ~~CD~12 ~ ....~.... .~E ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~=~fl ~ ! wi ~::.f g IU U ~ Z 1f)".U" c..J _ N'; :::c ~ N . .: ----------------------------- "'i., i t ~ :: go I! .. .. /I. f"ECIt "" W .... , , , , ----------------------------- '.3"1 -----------------------/~~L;- ,r '0 , .... . ..... <) - .D ~ --- 00 , ~ '" .... , .... ~ , ... ~ ... ~.. % U U ~ 0# . ;;: ... w ~ ~ '" w = .... % ... N W m ~ 0 , ~ _!!:. ., 00 ~ '" <> w .... ~ ~ E ... ~ ~ % U ~ 0# .... ... w ~ ~ '" 3 = .... ... N 0 ~ % 0 ~ _!!:. 00 .... w w '" > ~ ~ .... W % .... ... ~ w u .. ... ~ ~ .. % U ~ - ~ 0# ;:: !:! ;;; w ~ '" = <> '" .... ... ;;; ... N ~ .... 0 0 '" % ~ 00 x w '" x .: ~ .... x .... X % ... ~ ... W % X U ~ ~ 0# X m w - ... .... '" x ;;; '" ~ ... N '" ~ x .. ;;: 0 ~ ~ ..; 1'1 ..., , , .. . x x x x x , x , >< . >< 00 x .... w '" X 0 ~ % ~ .... x ... ~ ~ x ..... w ... ~ <> > % % W W ~ 0# X ... ~ ~ w X U ... ~ '" '" % ~ N X - ... ... ~ ~ % ;;: ~ ~ >< ~ 0 ~ .. ~ ----- , - w 00 ~ .... m '" % ... .... ... '" u .... ~ .... ;;: ;;; 0# '" .... '" 0 ... % N X. x x x x x >< x ~ o ~ ---..:..._~--- % o .... ~ '" u .. w <> .... u ... ~ :I: w v: .. '" '" .. --- --- . . --- --- , x >< , x . . >< .~ , ~ ~ --- --~ ~ >< ~ IS >< " >< - x j x >< ~ >< ~ - --- ~ --- ". >< >< >C "": x x x >< >< x >< >< >< x >< >< >< >< x x x X )( X )( >< x )( X >< )( x X )( >< )( )( x --- --- , , . . , . , .. , 0 ~ . ~" .~!! . ~.B ~ . &.. - .. . ~:;.: - IS ~ u;: ---..:..._-_.:...=.~ >< >< >< >< )( >< )( >< , . , , --- , . , , , .. .. . . ... . ... ! = f:l =.. ..: I ., c ~ .., ... 3.. _6'::: ~. ~ ct gCII:'~'''cn 'ti_' ~; ~i~i:~g'~:~ 1;~ <<I ~... &.. ..... . . ... ~~ -,u.~.:~ ~ .~ ... u.. u -----------,------ , , .: . . . ,. , . .. , , . . . B .. . IS 8- '" .. .. .te Ow :z --- . , , . . " , . . . ~ " .. ~ <5 ~ c: .. .. .. c: .. ~o.E " w u , ~" ' .. <5 . -:)- . ~:: : .c _ , ~.5 . , , ---------- ... g~ - 0 2 ~ .. - .c '" " ~ '" .. .. ! e ~ i! .. .. x .. '" ------------------ , , , , w v: .. ---. . . . . , , . . --- ... .. .. ~ :s !: ~ B. '" o ~ ~ ~ o .. ~ ~ .. .. - ~f ,.. ... ~ !~ ;; " 2 0 0 ~. .. on .. '" - ,.. 305 " '" ... ~ ... --~- - ------------------ I . I . . . I I 01 I .... 0 \0 <) . :;p p.., . . . I . . . .J - --- ~ << c::;t; << ~ a. w :r z w .. " w ~ g ~ u ~ << a. g ;!; " z ~ ~ ~ w z ~ . << w u ~ '" ~ u '" << ~ ;; a. ;!; " '" << ;;; ~ " z ~. z w < z w w <> << ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ z .D ~ << ~ ~ ~ z a. '" :r '" w ~- ~ m z << << ~ u ~ ~ ;: ;; '" ~ " '" z 0- W ., :: .... ~ << .... z '" ~ w ~ ,., ~ '" N ~ " '" -~ 0- ~ ., .... .... << .... z '" ~ W .... ,., ~ '" N ~ " '" -~ 0- ~ ., .... ~ << .... z '" ~ W ~ ,., ~ '" N ~ " .", a. 0- w ., > .... ~ << .... z '" 0# W ~ ,., ~ '" N ~ " '" a. 0- ~ ., .... ~ '" .... Z '" 0# w ~ '" ~ '" N ~ " '" a. ---- --- ------- ------- --- , , . ------- , . , . ------- "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" --- ------- ------- --- . . , ------- . , . ., , ------- "" "" "" >< >< >< >< ~';;' "" "" >< "" >< >< >< --- ------- ------- >< >< >< >< >< >< --- ------- ------- 0- ., .... .... 0# '" N "" "" "" "" >< "" "" "" . : ~ " '" _____..2--__ "" "" --- --- --- --- --- --- --- >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< , , , , , . 0\ .... o t- <> bO ~ ~ . '5... l~:. . 0 3:!,= ~E '; c~SA. -.; :~IOt . ~. ~ j ~:~ ~ .~L~ fi ~~~ . ~ ;1~ ~c~~ ~j ~~11 ~~, !]! . ~ i~~ Ij~~ !t !j~I i€:j!! u '" GI: . .. ------------~-~--~----~-~~--~ . a c :.. i fi . 4t) a.. N ~ , . - .. : '2 ~ ~ ': ~ 5 I . '" :-~--~--------------~----~-~-- , . . , . --- ------- ------- 2 .... a. '" u .. w " .... u << a. ;!; .. ~ u c ! w ::> .. .. .. a >- a o -0 ~ & co .. a. , , . , , . , , . . s . ~~ ':: g> co_ - .. ;/ iJ- Itze- a. w w a .. .... c , co, ;;j co co __ ~ w >- a o -0 ~ Ii co co .a.. . CI . --------------------~----~~~ .. -i -;; E u u o c '" ~ u a c ~ N >- ~ --- . ~t;: -';I' fg x <> '" ~ ~ -' ~ '" -' ~ u "" ~ x ~ :z ~~ '" ~ .~ z <> '" "" - on .. <> z ..; ~ o , .. :z "" '" u -' m ~ ~ :z '" - fI) ;:" , ..... ., ::0 ~ ~ <> z ~ "" -' w ~ <> > z w w ~ :;: ~ '" z .. ~ -' ~ ;: A. on -' "" , u t; .' "" ~ ~ ~~ w m 0- !:!'" '" .. "" ~ z "'. '" - ~ . -' ""N ~ <> '" ~ '" '" >", ~ "" ~ Z '" ~ '" ~ ~ -' "" N ~ o '" ~ 0- !:!'" '" ~ .. ~ Z '" ~ W ~ '" -' "" N ~ <> '" ~ ... !:!'" '" - "" ~ Z '" ~ W ~ '" -' "" N ~ <> '" ~ . --- '. . --- --- 0- --- --- 0- !:!"' '" ~ .. ~ Z '" ~ '" - ~ -' "" N ~ <> '" ~ ------ '" ~ .. 0- '" '" ~ ~ ~ N ~ <> '" ----=--~---- z o .. ... - '" U .. '" <> .. U "" ~ X .. .. > o ~ c :: 1: II co ~ ~ .. ~ 0 .. 1\.- I! " e- - '" '" '" "-' ~ m z "" "" '" U - ~X ;; '" ~ <> .. Z . . . ,;: ~. . . . ~-- a .. --- '.. c ";; fit" CO"" '" .. ~~! u "" co .. .. f~~ ~A: . - . "I( ." . . . ~ ---=-----=-~--~-~--=-~--=----=----=-~ . . . :"'fj" :: 2:..!::: Cat., O. L. . .. u u -0 .~ ._ "E~! ~ ~ :~ :.f fIIfc ~ ~:w :.aI ~~~ :g ~ :': :t A. Go ctI.. CI .... . '" . ------------------------- >< >< >< x >< x 'X X . , . , , .. .. >- " ~ ~ 1~ u " co ~ --- X X X X X X X X --- --- --- .. :;; co ~ 8: "" ~ o z X --- --- --- o ... .. co ~ :l ~ co .. .. u .. '" C> u 3- .. c & ---- ---- >< X X >< X >< X >< . . . . . . , . . ----, , . ---- ---- ---- ---- "" :;~ ...'" ~ .. ... .. ~ '" - o >- u i] '" C> ~ .. & .' . - c o . ><5' x:!:!, )( E . >< 8 : ><:ii!' >< c >< .. . oe : )( ! . " ' c . .,. . . . . ....T- ~. >< X X X X X X .: 1! ~ <> .. ~] :i ~ ..! -0 :g~ ... - fi .. C> '" X .. .. f ~- .., .., co '" - .. " m ... :; ~ ~ .. - . , >< >< >< . . . . , . . >< x x x >< x x x X X . >< X X .. ii :ii OJ .. 0. p; ; ~ c: " o II :z~ ;; " '> o .. ~ .0 ~ >- ~ - >- .. ~ u -;: .. ~ .. :> on I-~h It .. . .. .. . II .. 0\ ..... o 00 v 01) '" A; " . . II . II II 11 II ~ I 8fi1 --- . . 00 . . ~ '" . ... oJ . ~ c . '" oC '" ;:; ~ z u .. .. . ;;: oC - W . ... ~ ... w i!: oJ . Z oC N . W ~ .. 0 .. . _.2:. . 00 . . ~ '" 0 W ... ~ ~ ~ oC '" .. Z U .. .. oJ oC w !f - ... .. oJ N 0 oC 0 ~ Z 0 .. _.2:. - Q ( 0 U .( , ..... . ..... t> ::c ~ oJ ~ W oJ .. . U oC . ... . ~': . . . . . .. Z W' oC U .. .. ~ ~ z !l '" .. .. 0 z .: z oC W U oJ .. ~ ~ Z '" ;:: .. ;;: ~ 0 Z ~ oC oJ .: w 0 > " W W ~ ~ oJ '" '" " ~ '" Z ~ oJ '" X ... .. W .: oJ .. Z '" ~ '" .. ~ ;;: Z '" .. 0 .. Z . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . , . . " . . . . . . . " . . .. . . ~ : :: '.. S : ~ b .' . t . ~ . ~~ .3 IV 11 u u....._. ";: i. ~ it ~t:~t ~~:~,'2~ t ~:k ti~ ?:::"?:: g:!:g:&"l;-1It .: a.:.; Ie :;-3::;-3 "'f:"'~'~1~ 0 ~'o ~~ ~i:ci ~a.:Z Ie 1 ~'a. ~ .... ... III ... ., .. 0... A. :a .:11 . ~ _ ~~~~-----~-----~--~-~~------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 ~"': ... - ~It\: .. ..- w_ ~.... oJ . "'N. ~ . o .. . ... . . . . . . . -. . 00 w'" >... .. "'''' " .. .. w ~... oJ '" N ~ o .. _.2:. 0. <0: ~.,: ... . .. '" '^ z .. .. W ~ ... oJ '" N ~ o .. ... ---- . : . . '. 00 '" ... '" .. ... N ~ o .. ... -------- . 2 . . . ~ !!;- . . .. . u . .. "' . "" . .. ... oC ... : . . . W . iiI .. l a W iiI .. , , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. . . , . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . >C . . . . . . . . >C . . . . . >C . . . >C . . , " , . . >C . . . >C . . . >C . . . >C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . ! . . . . . -, . . . . ~ . -..i! . . ....;. . . >C . >< . )( . . >< .. )(. . ~ )( . >< . )C >< ~ >< . . . >< . >C >C >< >< . >< >< . >< >< - )( >< .. )( >< >< ~ )( i )( )( >< . >< >< >< >C >C )( )( .. . >C >C >C ! )( ~ ---- , . . . . . . .. . . >< . .. . . )C .' >< . >C .. . >< . . . .. .. .. .. .. -II ~ - Ii -u ti . : . ~ .. & ... t i "Z~t,.. ""5 -=:~:;.:: . lit _. u . u.....8., . ~.E III . . u u ---------------------:~---:-- . Ii . . - . . ~ . . " .. .. : ~ : : ~ : 8. H : & : ~ <C : . .. . .. . - ----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- ---- )C )C )C >C >C >C >C >< ---- >< >C >< >< >< >< >< >C >< >< >< >< >< -- >C >< ---- >< ---- . . . .. . ~ " ~ :2 :'0 ." . . . , . .. .. ~ .. .. .. ~ ~ ... ~ - .. !:; 1';: oJ J u /.. '~>> _ 0\ .... o 0\ .. bQ '" p., 11 .. Q, .!I !! '::I .. '3 ~- - ~ ] .. ~ " 0 '61> u .. 0 " -- ~ n ;; "" Co ~ ~ 8 ~ . .... PAUL A. PETERSON GREGORY C. M. GARRATT EDWARD F. WHITTLER LYNNE L. HEIDEL REBECCA MICHAEL MARSHAL A. SCARR MATTHEW A. PETERSON LARRY N. MURNANE PETE R.SON S PR.ICE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS 530 B srREET, SUITE 2300 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101~4454 ! TELEPHONE AREA CODE 619 234.0361 ~. ,~,/( , FAX (6!9J 234.4786 FiLE No. September 23, 1992 3848.002 via messenger Chairperson Susan Fuller and Members of Chula Vista Planning Commission 276 Fourth Avenue Public Services Bldg. Chula Vista, California 92010 Re: September 23, 1992 Agenda Item No. 1 Chula Vista Bayfront Dear Chairperson Fuller and Members of Chula Vista Planning Commission: As you know, we represent Chula Vista Investors with regard to a proposed General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the development of the Midbayfront. Our client has reviewed the draft General Plan Amendment and the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and generally agrees with what has been submitted for your review. However, our client believes that certain issues such as timing and phasing should be deferred and resolved at the time that the Development Agreement is negotiated. These timing and phasing conditions are set forth in the Draft Resolution Section X - II, 13, and 14. These types of issues should not be incorporated into the LCP because any proposed change to the phasing in the future may trigger the need for an LCP Amendment. The City should attempt to retain the greatest amount of flexibility in dealing with changing market conditions which cannot be anticipated at this time. Chairperson Susan Fuller and Members of Chula Vista Planning Commission September 23, 1992 Page 2 Therefore, we would respectfully request the Planning Commission to: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendums Thereto, and adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2. Recommend approval of the Amendments to the General Plan; and 3. Recommend adoption of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Resubmittal with the deletion from those documents of any reference to the timing and phasing of the project. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, PETERSON & PRICE A Professional Corporation ~{(t-ti ~ Il- fe~~lJvL'l Matthew A. Peterson cc: John Goss, Chula Vista City Manager Bruce M. Boogaard, Esq., Chula Vista City Attorney Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director Diana Richardson, Environmental Facilitator Chula Vista Investors