Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/09/17 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, September 17, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of August 13, 1986 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Report: Open Space Maintenance District No. 15 Bonita Haciendas 2. Consideration of Final Supplemental EIR-86-1, Amendments to the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendments to the Certified Local Coastal Program and the Bayfront Specific Plan DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of October 8, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Item for Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 1986 Open Space Maintenance District No. 15. 1. REPORT ON PROPOSED OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 15 A. BACKGROUND McMillin Development, Inc. the new developer of Bonita Haciendas, submitted letters of petition on June 12, 1986 and August 19, 1986 requesting the formation of an open space maintenance district. There is no requirement for an open space district in conditions "a", "q" or "v" of Resolution No. 9119, the resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map of Bonita Haciendas. The developer proposes to convey title to three lots designated as open space lots "A", "B" & "D" on the Final Map of Bonita Haciendas. These lots which abut open space in the adjacent Bonita Long Canyon Development are to be maintained as natural and landscaped open space. All of these open space lots conform to the criteria contained in Section 17.08.020C of the Municipal Code. None of them will be maintained by a homeowners' association. However, lot "C" in Bonita Haciendas is proposed to be maintained by the homeowners' association. In a letter dated June 12, 19~6, iqcMilllin Development, Inc. requested that a parcel of land belonging to Sweetwater Union High School District be included in the open space maintenance district. This request has now been dropped. The Planning Commission took action to recommend approval of the Tentative Map No. 78-2 for Bonita haciendas on May 10, 1978 by Resolution No. PCS 78-2. D. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending formation of the proposed Open Space Maintenance District No. 15 before the City Council. A public hearing must be held before the City Council for this consideration. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION The Bonita Haciendas subdivision will comprise the district with a total of 29.91 acres and 61 lots within the project boundary. The total area of all proposed dedicated open space areas is about 5.35 acres. The total area of the natural open space lots is 4.93 acres. The previous developer, Sumitomo Bank of California, installed the necessary landscaping and irrigation at no expense to the City. The landscaping has been completed and established and is under the one year contractor maintenance period at this time. There are 57 benefiting properties (57 EDU) on the assessment rolls within the proposed district at the present time. McMillin Development, Inc. is the present owner of all the lots. The estimated annual maintenance cost to be assessed each EDU is approximately $114.00. Attachment "B" inndicates the allocation of costs for each lot within the district. Lot numbers are those shown on Map No. 9494, the Final Subdivision Map for Bonita Haciendas. Total annual maintenance costs are estimated at $6,515 per year (see attachment The City Open Space Coordinator estimates that these costs may vary by as much as 20 percent, based on recent bids. The petitioner, McMillin Development, Inc. is the present owner of all the assessed properties. McMillin purchased the tract from Sumitomo Bank of California earlier this year. The responsibility for paying the open space maintenance assessment will be conveyed with each of the benefiting properties as these properties are sold. A map showing the proposed district, the open space areas and the benefiting properties is attached. The review of plans and inspection of landscaping work are being coordinated with the Landscape Architect and Parks and Recreation Department. SMR:ljr (812:PC) .... . ..... 9EEN_.. S'...P.~..C_'E.__.NIAJ~TENA. NCE' DJ ~.[[ IR !C T NO. 15 BONITA HACIENL, AS CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 78-2 '."J~,. ;' zj --.r' IP. 34,4~:~ 7Pg.B.) G /~/q. / PEP ,,PI,, ;-~ P~'M M,~ 7Pwd ::P As',-,°,.G.~8-I F~t~. I~, IBC~O ,zl..~ FIZ6 A)O.P.~4-'~'20 ..'// D qJUN.~, legOoO AS F~L~ 11~4~-~ ~07't.-I ol= 0.~. LoT "~- = - 1,919. 40/7 :'41 ," 3 43 G~ ~ / d 28 P~ PM ~4 7 ~ 7~~ ~6 '~ /~8. . x ~ ~c~ ¢p o~ I ~ ATTACHMEN~ " Attachment "B" Open Space Maintenance District No. 15 6onita Haciendas Allocation of Costs Residential Units 100~ Total % of ~ of ~ of lots Assessment/ Assessment Residential District Residential or units Unit Units Assessment Assessment Single Family Lots 57 1.0 57 100.0 100.0 Total Assessment Residential 57 100.0 Annual Maintenance Costs - Open Space Lots = $6,515.12 Cost Per EDU = $6,515.12 = $114.30 = Assessment for Single Family Lot SMR:ljr:yc (B12:OSMD.15) BONITA HACIENDAS PROPOSED OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 15 SIZE TYPE DESCRIPTION LOT "A" 18,295 sq. ft. Green Belt Planted/Irrigated LOT "B" 41,817 sq. ft. Open Space Natural LOT "D" 172,933 sq. ft. Open Space Natural MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES LOT "A" 18,295 sq. ft. X 20¢ sq. ft./yr. $3,659.00 LOTS "B", "D" 214,750 sq. ft. X 03% Area Adjacent to Streets = 6,442 sq. ft. 6,442 sq. ft. X 12¢ sq. ft./yr. 773.04 Net Area 208,308 sq. ft. X 01¢ 2,083.08 TOTAL COST'PER YEAR $6,515.12 COST PER UNIT PER YEAR, · 57 $114.30 COST PER UNIT PER MONTH, + 12 ~9.53 A T TACHMENT "C" GMR/sg 8/19/86 Bonita Long Can, ./ p~OJEC--~F City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 1 2. Consideration of Final Supplemental EIR-86-1, Amendments to the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND A public hearing on the draft of this SupplemenTal EIR was held by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1986. At the public hearing several comments letters were submitted and verbal comments were given. These written comments along with a transcript of the testimony from the public hearing are included in the Final Supplemental EIR. Where appropriate, responses to comments are provided. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that Supplemental EIR-86-1 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and further that the Planning Commission should consider the information in the Final Supplemental EIR when it reviews the Local Coastal Program Amendments. C. ANALYSIS 1. Most of the comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR related to the drainage swale and the water quality impacts of discharging urban runoff into wetland areas. The following revisions to the SEIR were made in response to these comments: a. In response to discussion with the applicant regarding the adverse environmental impacts of the drainage swale, a second drainage alternative (Project Alternative 2) was included in the Final SEIR. Under Project Alternative 2 a +1.5 foot berm would be located between the inlets to an under~-round drainage pipe (located in approximately the same area as the proposed drainage swale) and the buffers for Sweetwater Marsh, Verier Pond, and Vener Marsh to prevent urban runoff from entering wetland areas. This alternative would require the importation of approximately the same amount of fill as the proposed project and avoid the adverse environmental impacts associated with the open drainage swale. b. In response to enhancement planning data provided by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., the City's enhancement planning consultant, the remnant marsh acreage (+3.2 acres) would be replaced by a newly created +3.2 acre ~-arsh south of Lagoon Drive, north and east of the ~xisting F-G Marsh. The remnant marsh would be recontoured to act as a desiltation basin to settle out sediments prior to discharge to the newly created freshwater marsh. A grease trap would also be required to help ensure that the urban runoff used as a freshwater source is of City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 2 acceptable quality. This operational scheme would eliminate the impacts of reducing the habitat value of the remnant marsh by recontouring it for use as a desiltation basin. In addition, the freshwater marsh and desiltation basin would receive dampened tidal action to compensate for the loss of the seasonal freshwater source from the reverse osmosis plant at the foot of Lagoon Drive. 2. A letter from Paul B. Webb, Coastal Commission staff, was received which expressed concerns with regard to land use reconfigurations and mitigation measures for the loss of parkland. The following revisions were made in response to these comments: a. A clarification that the specialty retail acreage, discussed in the Draft SEIR, is consistent with the specialty retail acreage allocated in the certified Land Use Plan is provided in the Final SEIR. The discussion regarding the change in specialty retail acreage referred to a change from the quantification presented in the Final EIR on the Bayfront Specific Plan to the acreage presented in the Final Supplemental EIR on the LCP Amendments. b. A provision was also included for requiring an additional acre of parkland to compensate for the acre lost for the Vener Marsh enhancement site if over 99 acres of developable land is available at the subdivision stage. If additional acreage is not available, then the exchange of uses (1 acre of parkland for 1 acre of marsh land) will be considered an acceptable trade off. The area adjacent to the desiltation basin and residential area was designated as the location for required parkland dedications not included in the proposed project. 3. A clause was added to the Final SEIR regarding the mechanism for implementation of the mitigation measures presented therein. This clause states that, "The subdivision maps for phases of Midbayfront development will be tied to specific required public improvements including the mitigation measures herein". D. CONCLUSION Providing that the mitigation measures presented in the FEIR on the Specific Plan, as well as, the mitigation measures presented in the Final SEIR are implemented, the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with development of the Midbayfront will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. WPC 2477H City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed amendments to the Certified Local Coastal Program and the Bayfront Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND Santa Fe Land Improvement Company is the major landowner of property located in the Chula Vista Bayfront north of "F" Street. Santa Fe has combined wi th Watt Industries to form Chula Vista Investment Company (CVIC) for the purpose of developing Chula Vista bayfront lands. Since the adoption of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, CVIC has been evaluating potential development for the Midbayfront subarea (property located west of Interstate 5, north of "F" Street, south of the Sweetwater Marsh and east of the San Diego Bay). As the company's engineers reviewed the area in detail, it became apparent that soils conditions along the bayside would constrain development, particularly roadways and residential use, if not create a cost prohibitive situation. Alternative construction techniques were analyzed as well as land use and circulation reconfi§uration to find a financial and planning solution to development problems. As a result of the studies, CVIC requested modifications to the Midbayfront subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and Land Use Plan. These modifications constitute the need for the amendment of the Bayfront LCP which consists of both the Land Use Plan and Specific Plan. This amendment requires public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to review by the State Coastal Commission. A supplement to the Bayfront Master EIR also was prepared to address the additional potential environmental impacts which could occur due to development as proposed by the LCP amendments. The following items have been included in the ~embers' packets. These items are available for public review at the Community Development Department. The discussion section of this agenda statement includes a staff summary of the amendments for your information and consideration: 1. FEIR-85-1, 2. Supplemental FEIR-86-1, 3. Copies of the Certified Local Coastal Program, and 4. Proposed textual and graphic LCP amendments. B. R~CO~IENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution: a. Certifying that FEIR-85-1 and Supplemental FEIR-86-1 have been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed these documents; and City Planning Commission Agenda Items for iqeeting of September 17, 1986 Page 2 b. Amending the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and Specific Plan as set forth in Attachments A, B, and C of the attached resolution subject to conditions listed in Attachment D of the attached resolution. 2. Enact an ordinance amending the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan as set forth in Attachment A, B, and C subject to conditions listed in Attachment D. On August 18, 1986, the Resource Conservation Committee voted to recommend that the Planning Commission accept the proposed amendments to the Local Coastal Program subject to incorporation of the alternative that would eliminate the above-ground drainage swale by placing storm drain structures underground as described in Supplemental EIR-86-1. C. DISCUSSION The following amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) have been requested by Cnula Vista Investment Company. They include realignment of roadways, changes in right-of-way design, reconfiguration of parkland and residential uses, modification of grading and redesign of some storm drainage facilities. In addition, the City has included several general text, graphic and technical corrections to clarify land uses and ensure consistency within the Local Coastal Program documents. Resolution Attachment A contains all textual and graphic changes to the Bayfront Land Use Plan and Attachment B contains the amendments to the Specific Plan. Attachment C entails the addition of an emergency permit process to Section 19.92 of the Specific Plan. Most text changes are minor; the graphic changes are more significant. The following analysis provides a synopsis of the amendments. 1. Circulation Freeway Ramps and "E" Street Bridge The proposed amendments include the relocation of the I-5 southbound on/off ramp at the "E" Street/I-5 interchange to a location aligned with Bay Boulevard. (CalTrans is in the plan approval stage for this on/off-ramp re-configuration.) Relocation of these on/off ramps and construction as a loop-ramp would eliminate the westbound to southbound turn conflict now existing on the "E" Street bridge and would lengthen the storage capacity of the eastbound to northbound turn lanes on the bridge. (This ramp location and loop configuration is similar to the option-one ramp design discussed in the adopted LCP.) City Vlanning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 3 Also, relocating the southbound I-5 off-ramp eastward to align with · · ' " " meet Bay Boulevard would allow the restrlplng of the existing E St overpass to provide for a total of 6 travel lanes including two through lanes in each direction and dual left turn lanes. This restriping will be an interim solution for the increase in the traffic due to the Bayfront development. The major change to the "£" Street freeway interchange from the adopted LCP is that the widening of the "E" Street bridge is not proposed. Widening of the bridge would provide additional capacities at the ramp intersections that are projected to be congested and possibly reduced to a Level of Service D in the future due to Bayfront development. In addition, trips generated by the new "E" Street Trolley Station east of the bridge also have the potential to add to the "E" Street congestion. IqTDB has reviewed the potential for additional traffic congestion. They recently evaluated headway times (4 trains per hour versus 6 trains per hour) and concluded that by adding one car to the existing three car trains, no change in headway was needed. Ultimately, ridership increase could dictate the need for additional trains. MTDB is also reviewing a proposed fail-safe system which would eliminate the need for the trolley line crossing arm to be lowered when passengers are loading at "E" Street or the other stations adjacent to road crossings. Success of such a system would reduce the arm "downtime" by 50% thus reducing backup traffic conditions on the public street. Because of the potential for serious traffic impacts at the "E" Street/I-5 bridge and interchange, it is recommended that when the traffic circulation on "E" Street between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue declines to a Level of Service D as determined by the City's Traffic Engineer, the "E" Street bridge must be widened to 7-9 lanes as originally designed in the current certified LCP. Also, a feasibility study of the widening should be required of the Bayfront developer and should be included in the facilities/finance plan that will be required for the Midbayfront Subdivision Map processing. If the bridge widening is found to be feasible, a monitoring program should be implemented to determine when the bridge width needs to be increased. Marina Parkway {Formerly Tidelands Avenue) In the existing LCP, Tidelands Avenue traverses the Midbayfront from the southwest to the northeast and continues northward (from "E" Street) to National City. lhe roadway section is 120' with 6 travel lanes and bike lanes separated from the street by a 9' landscape strip. The right-of-way is planned to narrow to two lanes at the Sweetwater Marsh crossing to the "D" Street Fill. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Ileeting of September 17, 1986 Page 4 The amendments propose to realign Tidelands Avenue (renamed Marina Parkway) to sweep northeast from "F" Street and to link up directly with "E" Street at Bay Boulevard. The new street section would have two through lanes in each direction, left-turn lanes, bike lanes, a raised, landscaped, median and "No Stopping Anytime" restrictions within a minimum 95' right-of-way. The street would widen at "E" Street to three through lanes in each direction, left-turn lanes, raised median, and "No Stopping Anytime" restrictions within a minimum 108' right-of-way. The new Marina Parkway alignment would: 1) provide continuous direct visual access to the waterfront from a major public right-of-way, 2) allow the creation of a continuous linear waterfront park which is separated from private development, and 3) allow consolidation and reconfiguration of residential areas into one parcel that had previously been separated by Tidelands Avenue (blarina Parkway). The northern extension of Tidelands Avenue is proposed as a link between Marina ParKway and the "D" Street fill. The roadway section would have six lanes at Marina Parkway and would reduce to the planned two lanes at the Sweetwater Marsh crossing. The primary function of this roadway would be to provide access to the highway commercial properties at the northwest quadrant of Interstate 5 and Marina Parkway and the "D" Street fill. Lagoon Drive Section In the adopted plan, the '~F" Street extension includes a lO0-foot right-of-way with two travel lanes in each direction, a left turn lane, a sidewalk adjacent to the roadway (separated by a curb), a separate bike path, and landscaping. The proposed revisions to the "F" Street extension, renamed Lagoon Drive, include a right-of-way reduction to the 95-foot roadway section. The provision of a landscaped median would be positive from an aesthetic standpoint because it would provide visual continuity with Marina Parkway, the other major bayfront thoroughfare. The changes would result in a roadway that would be adequate to handle the anticipated traffic. BaS Boulevard In the traffic analysis for the adopted plan, railroad abandonment was assumed east of Bay Boulevard, allowing for right-of-way expansion. In the traffic analysis for the revised project, the roadway width was assumed to be constrained by the railroad right-of-way to the east because railroad abandonment is not foreseen in the near future. Bay Boulevard between "E" and "F" Streets was calculated to operate overcapacity when the bayfront is completely developed due to the dedicated right-of-way constraint. This is not seen as a significant traffic impact because of the limited area that is projected to operate overcapacity, and the amount of vehicle traffic that would be effected. Also, the potential exists for a future expansion of Bay Boulevard into the railroad right-of-way at a later date if abandonment can be accomplished. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 5 2. Land Use Development parcels within the Midbayfront have been reconfigured based on soils limitations and the revised circulation system. Total acreage per land use has, however, not been modified significantly. (Acreage changes are shown on page III-4 of the Land Use Plan.) The most notable changes on the Land Use Plan are within parklands and the residential area. The existing LCP indicates that a major park will be located at the foot of Lagoon Drive (formerly "F" Street) adjacent to the waterfront. It also designates parkland area adjacent to the Vener Marsh and Pond, adjacent to the eastern edge of the residential area and north of the highway commercial site at Bay Boulevard and "E" Street The amended plan proposes reconfiguration of parkland adjacent to bay and marsh areas into a consolidated, larger, linear park along the bay and marshlands from the foot of Lagoon Drive extending to Gunpowder Point Drive. This modification would open the waterfront views along Marina Parkway and increase public access to the coastal area which is a prime objective of the coastal program. In addition, reconfiguration of the +3.0 acre salt marsh to be recreated adjacent to the "E" Street Marsh-is proposed to reflect the City's enhancement planning study for this area. Residential parcels in the existing LCP are segmented by Tidelands Avenue (renamed Marina Parkway). The most westerly residential area has the potential to limit public views and access to the bayside. By consolidating the residential uses onto the east side of Marina Parkway, as proposed in the amendments, private views of the waterfront ~ould be preserved and public access and enjoyment of the coastal resource would be increased. In addition, this consolidation would allow a larger and more usable park adjacent to all residential properties on the east side of Marina Parkway. The proposed amendments include a provision allowing transfer of development rights from the office park area south of Marina Parkway to the office park area north of Marina Parkway. This transfer would allow a floor area ratio (FAR) of .65 on portions of the office park area north of Marina Parkway and reduce the FAR on parcels of equal size south of Marina Parkway to .35 to maintain the existing overall FAR of .5. To ensure that this intensification of use north of Marina Parkway does not result in a bulky appearance, the following provision was included in the amended text, "Special attention will be required to ensure that substantial building setbacks include consideration for stepping building heights to retain proper scale and views to the Bay. In general, building setbacks from the public road shall be equal to or greater than the building height." City Planning Commission Agenda Item, s for ~,ieeting of September 17, 1986 Page 6 3. Grading and Urainage The grading plan for the Midbayfront has been revised to allow for the realignment of Marina Parkway and to decrease the amount of imported fill required for adequate building pad elevations. CVIC has requested that the grading/filling/and drainage plan be modified to reduce the amount of import originally estimated at one million cubic yards. The 1-1.5 acre desiltation basin north of Lagoon Drive would be retained. This desiltation facility would connect to the newly created freshwater marsh adjacent to the F-G Marsh to provide a seasonal freshwater supply. This freshwater pond has been expanded to the east of the F-G Marsh to provide +3.2 acres of freshwater habitat. Both the desiltation basin and ~he newly created freshwater marsh would receive dampened tidal action during the dry weather season. This dampened tidal action would compensate for the loss of the seasonal freshwater supply from the reverse osmosis operation at the foot of Lagoon Drive that was included in the certified plan. The idea of utilizing this seasonal freshwater supply was dropped following inquiries by the City's enhancement planning consultant about the reliability oand long-term availability of this water source. Areas south of Marina Parkway will drain as originally planned. However, the area north of Marina Parkway now is planned to drain west via a swale into the bay. This grading change will reduce the amount of import needed for filling to approximately 4UU,UO0 cubic yards. This grading and drainage amendment, as proposed, creates several problems. The open swale, as designed, would run parallel to the Vener Pond and Marsh within the areas designated for office park and public parkland. During and following storm events, park use would be impeded by runoff and wet soils conditions. In addition, the entire length of the drainage swale would require constant maintenance to provide an acceptable appearance and unrestricted water flow. The Final SEIR discusses two additional drainage alternatives both of which utilize underground drainage facilities. The incorporation of the proposed open swale within public parkland would result in less usable public space adjacent to the coastal area due to the land area necessary to create the swale, slopes and land graduation to the swale. A primary objective of the LCP is to provide public access and recreation to coastal areas. The open swale, as proposed, would restrict the viability of the acreage to be devoted to public use. Therefore, an alternative drainage system, such as underground facility, should be utilized within the park area. If this alternative is not feasible, additional usable parkland should be dedicated and developed to fulfill the intent of the coastal program provisions for public access and recreation opportunities adjacent to coastal resources. City Planning Commission Agenda Ite~as for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 7 If the applicant wishes to incorporate the drainage swale into the office park, the applicant should be responsible for ongoing drainage swale maintenance. A tentative agreement has, however, been reached between staff and the applicant to implement Project Alternative 2 which includes the follo~ing drainage provisions. An underground drainage system would be located in approximately the same location as the swale. Inlets for drainage would be provided along the length of the underground pipe. A +1.5 foot berm would be located west of the inlets to the undergrouff~ pipe to ensure that urban runoff, from storm events up to the 1UO-year storm, does not enter Sweetwater Marsh, Verier Pond, or Vener Marsh. This alternative would require importation of approximately the same amount of fill as the proposed project. 4. Pt~sical Form and Appearance The applicant has revised the "E" Street/Marina Parkway Gateway format to create a "project focal point" at the Marina Parkway/Tidelands Avenue intersection. Once past the gateway, traveling west on Marina Parkway, views would be focused at the ~iidbayfront's center of urban activity. Building heights on the south and north sides of the parkway will be stepped to a maximum of 4 to 5 stories respectively to provide architectural edges. Special attention will be given to plazas, planting and other landscaped features. An architectural focal point such as a tower, dome or other vertical form reaching a height of (up to) 70 feet would be permitted in the office park north of Marina Parkway. This vertical element would be a visual landmark identifying the core area of the ~li dbay front. This proposal follows the basic design intent of the existing plan. However, due to the realignment of Marina Parkway and relocation of the residential and parkland areas to the west of the gateway, the new proposal provides a more dynamic entry to the Midbayfront and sense of arrival. Once west of the focal point the views to the marshlands and waterfront open-up dramatically. 5. Consistency Amendments The City of Chula Vista proposes to make the following amendments to the Land Use Plan and Specific Plan to ensure consistency within the LCP documents. a. Specialty Retail The Specialty Retail ($R) designation on the Land Use Control l.lap #1 of the Specific Plan should be changed to Office Park and a note indicating "4 acres of Specialty Retail to be integrated within the office park use" in accordance with the text of the City Planning Commission Agenda Items for ~eeting of September 17, 1986 Page 8 Certified Lano Use Plan. Also, an addition to the text on page III-7 of the Land Use Plan requires that the specialty retail hi§h volume activities be located a minimum distance of 200 back from the wetland buffers to avoid disturbance to the high use wildlife areas. b. The Industrial Business Park designation for approximately 21 ac res within the Midbayfront appears as Office Park on Figure #4 of the Land Use Plan. Specific land uses allowed within the Industrial Business Park of the Specific Plan are very similar to those allowed under Office Park. Industrial Business Park uses at this location would provide a good transition from existing General Industrial Development south of "G" Street to the proposed Office and Highway Commercial uses north of "F" Street. Therefore, the Midbayfront Office Park designation south of "G" Street on Figure 4 of the Land Use Plan is proposed to be changed to Industrial Business Park in accordance with Map 1 of the Specific Plan. c. When the Coastal Commission reviewed the City's LCP, Section 19.85.01 of the Specific Plan included a special condition to allow a maximum height of 44 feet at the northeast quadrant of Bay Boulevard and "E" Street provided that the structure was at least 4DU feet north of "E" Street and did not contain more than 2U% of the allowed FAR of the total site. At the time of its adoption, the Land Use Plan failed to address this condition, therefore, it was deleted, to be addressed through a future amendment. T~e Commission's condition has been re-evaluated and considered appropriate and consistent with pt~sical form and appearance criteria set forth in the Specific Plan and Land Use Plan. Therefore, the condition as described above is being proposed to be included in the Land Use Plan. This would bring the Specific Plan and Land Use Plan into conformance. d. At this time the City is utilizing the general provisions within Article 2, Sections 13329 through 13329.4, of the California Administrative Code for issuance of emergency coastal permits. Since it is desirable to have specific procedures and a consistent format for such permits, a new section is proposed to be added to Section 19.92 (Coastal Development Procedures) of the Chula Vista Specific Plan, Section 19.92.05-Emer§ency Development Permit. A copy of the Emergency Development Permit Application and ~ermit is attached as Attachment C. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 17, 1986 Page 9 e. When the LCP was certified, the street names were tentative. The City has approved permanent names as follows: Existing LCP New "E" Street west of I-5~ Marina Parkway "J" Street west of I-5' Marina Parkway Tidelands Avenue south of "E" Street* Marina Parkway "F" Street west of I-5 Lagoon Drive Gunpowder Point access road Gunpowder Point Drive "J" Street west of Tidelands Avenue Marina Way *The first three street sections will connect as a "loop" street. WPC 2462H