The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010/05/18 Joint Mtg Final Staff ReportMAY 18, 2010, Item ~ TTEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARTNG: Consideration of Amendments to the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and Local Coastal Program Specific Plan, and consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report {EIR) and Errata for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment; making certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adapting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.A. RESOLUTION of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista consider Final Environmental Impact Report (UPD #83356-EIR-658; 5CH No. 2005081077) and Errata; make certain findings of Fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program far the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act 1.B. RESOLUTTON of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approve amendments to portions of the City's General Plan Land Use and Transportation; Economic; Public Facilities and Services; Environmental; and Implementation Elements, including associated test, maps and tables involving the Bayfront Planning Area 1.C. RESOLUTTON of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista making certain findings and recommending that the City Council of the 1-1 MAC 18, ?010, lte~n ~ Page `~ of ~1 City of Chula Vista approve the proposed amend~x~ent to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program consisting of the Land Use Plan and the Specific Flan, and amend Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.81 tllru 19.87 1.D. RESOLUTION EIR-10-02 of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista consider final Environmental Impact Report (UPD #83356-EIR-658; SCH Na. 2005081077) and Errata; make certain Findings of Fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program far the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act I.E. RESOLUTION GFA-10-01 of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approve amendments to portions of the City's General Plan Land Use and Transportation; Economic; Public Facilities and Services; Environmental; and Implementation Elements, including associated text, maps and tables involving the Bayfront Planning Area 1.F. RESOLUTION PCM-10-09 of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista making certain findings and recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approve the proposed amendment to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program consisting of the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan, and amend Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.81 thru 19.87 1.G. RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista making certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adapting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program after having considered and relying an the Final Environmental Impact Report (UPD #83356-EIR-658; SCH No. 2005081077) and Errata for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act I.H. RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving amendments to portions of the City's General Plan Land Use and Transportation; Economic; Public Facilities and Services; Environmental; and 1-2 MAY 1 ~, ? 010, lten~~_ Page 3 of 41 Implementation 1Jleznents, including associated text, rr~aps and tables involving the Bayfrant Planning Area SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: SLINIMARY I.I. RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista making certain. findings approving the amended Land Use Plan of the Chula Vista Lacal Coastal Prograrza and directing staff to forward the same to the California Coastal Commission. far certification l.J. ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, approving the amended Specific Plan of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, amending Chula Vista Municipal Cade Chapters 19.81 thru 19.87, and making certain findings with regard thereto DEPUTY CITY MANAGE IRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY MANAGE 415THS VOTE: YES ~ NO In 2002, the San Diego Unif ed Part District (Port) and the City of Chula Vista {City) began work to create a master plan for the approximately 556-acre Bayfront area (Proposed Project) (see Attachment 2, Locator Map). The Chula Vista Bayfrant Master Plan Area (CVBMP} represents a collaborative effort between the Port, community committees, and the City in developing a comprehensive plan that consolidates the respective jurisdictions planning vision. The CVBMP would promote public access to anal engagement with the water while enhancing the quality and protection of key habitat areas, with the ultimate goal of creating aworld-class Bayfront reflecting strong planning and design principles, economic feasibility, and community benefit. The project area is divided into three districts referred to as the Sweetwater District, the Harbor District and the Otay District. Development within these three districts is expected to occur in four phases and involves a land exchange between the Port and a private developer (Pacifica); redevelopment of the Sweetwater, Harbor and Otay Districts with a variety of uses, including parks, open space, ecological Buffers, residential, resort conference center (RCC}, hotel, retail, cultural and recreational space; a reconfigured marina basin and Boat slips; a new commercial harbor; and a realignment of the existing navigation channel. The Proposed Project also involves redevelopment of the existing roadway and infrastructure system to serve the proposed new uses, as well as the demolition and/or relocation of existing uses to allow far redevelopment to occur. ~ -3 MAY 18q 2010, Item page ~ of ~ 1 In addition to the Port's related actions, the Proposed Project includes aproject-level environmental evaluation of the Pacifica development project, as well as proposed City actions including amendments to the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and Local Coastal Program Specific Plan (Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.81 thru 19.87}. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Tn accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA), the Port, serving as Lead Agency, has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment (dated April 2010) (UPD #83356-EIR-558; SCH No. 2005081070. An errata to the Final EIR has also been prepared to address changes resulting from an agreement with the Bayfront Coalition {and its member organizations) approved by the Port and City on May 4, 2010 and May 11, 2010, respectively; minor project clarifications; proposed changes resulting from a project alternative (Alternate L Ditch Alternative), as well as boundary changes resulting from the recent sale of land from the Port to San Diego Gas and Electric {SDG&E). As defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21069 and Section 15381 of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines}, the City of Chula Vista is a Responsible Agency, which has discretionary approval power over portions of the Proposed Project and jurisdiction over resources affected by the Proposed Project. Pursuant to Section 15096 (f} and (i) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has considered the Final EIR (UPD #83355-EIR-558; SCH No. 2005081077) as prepared by the Port and determined that the Final EIR was adequately prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The City has also made the requisite CEQA Findings of Fact pursuant to Section 15096 (h} of the CEQA Guidelines and prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program {MMRP} for the Proposed Project. REC®MMENDATI~NS 1) That the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution (Item 1.A) recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista consider Final Environmental Impact Report (UPD #83356-EIR-658; SCH No. 2005081077) and Errata; make certain Findings of Fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 2) That the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution (item 1.B) recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approve the amendments to portions of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation; Economic; Public Facilities and Services; Environmental; and Implementation Elements, including associated text, maps and tables involving the Bayfront Planning Area. 1-4 MAC 1 S, 20I 0, Item ~ Page S of'lI 3) That the Chula Vista Redevelopment Cozporation of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution (Item 1.C) making certain findings and recommend that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approve the proposed amendment to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program consisting of the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan, and amend Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.$1 thru 19.87. 4) That the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution EIR-10-02 (Item 1.D) recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista consider Final Environmental Impact Report (UPD #8335b-EIR-658; SCH No. 2005081077) and Errata; make certain Findings of Fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. S) That the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution GPA-10-01 (Item 1.E) recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approve the amendments to portions of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation; Economic; Public Facilities and Services; Environmental; and Implementation Elements, including associated text, maps and tables involving the Bayfront Planning Area. 6} That the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista adapt Resolution PCM-10-09 (Item 1.F} making certain findings and recommending that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approve the proposed amendment to the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program consisting of the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan, and amend Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.81 thru 19.87. 7) That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution (Item I.G) making certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program after having considered and relying on the Final Environmental Impact Report (UPD #83356-EIR-658; SCH No. 2005081077) and Errata for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port Master Plan Azx~exzdment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 8} That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution (Item l.H) approving the amendments to portions of the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation; Economic; Public Facilities and Services; Environzx~ental; and Implementation Elements, including associated text, maps and tables involving the Bayfrant Planning Area. 9) That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt Resolution (Item l .I) making certain findings approving the amended Land Use Plan of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and directing staff to forward the same to the California Coastal Commission for certification. IO) That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopt Ordinance (Item I..T) approving the amended Specific Plan of the Chula Vista Local 1-5 t MA.Y 18, 2010, Ite~x~~~ Page 6 of ~1 Coastal Program, amending Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.$1 thru 9.$7, and malting certain findings with regard thereto. BOARDSICOMMTSSTON RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the joint Planning Commission, Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation {CVRC), and City Council hearing, the Planning Cornz~nission and CVRC will malte their recommendations to the City Council at the hearing. DISCUSSION Staff Report Or~anizati©~ The staff report is organized into four primary sections as described below. Page numbers for the report sections have also boon provided for ease of reference. Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan Overview (pages 7-16) This section provides a comprehensive overview of the CVBMP. The overview explains the proposed uses by parcel designations, as well as the phasing for the project over the three proposed Districts. This section refers to the CVBMP as the "Proposed Project," which is a general descriptor for the entire Bayfront planning area. The specific City actions proposed for consideration are more narrowly focused in geography and scope, and are separately described in the staff report. Recent Project Revisions (page 16-i7) This section describes two recent actions that have occurred after the circulation of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report {EIR} and that are outside the scope of the Proposed Project. These recent changes have resulted in minor modifications to the City's proposed Local Coastal Plan and General Plan, as well as consideration of an alternative for the proposed Pacifica residential develop~xaent plan. Proposed City Actions (pages 17-33) This section describes the two major land uses actions that are being considered for approval. These actions include a General Plan Amendment and a Local Coastal Plan Amendment (consisting of Land Use Plan and Specific Plan). This section also describes a proposed minor rr~apping change to the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan {MSCP) to revise the MSCP plan to be consistent with the proposed land exchange. CEQA Compliance {pages 33-40) This section describes the environmental review process for the project, the role of the Port as the Lead Agency for the Project and the role of the City as the Responsible Agency for the project as defined by the CEQA Guidelines. This section also provides an overview of the environmental impacts resulting from the project and the Errata to the Final EIR. 7-6 MAY 1~, ?010, Itezn~ Pagc ~ of 41 CI~exla Vista Bavrot Master Plan Pra~ect ®vervferv The following discussion provides a comprehensive overview of the Proposed Project. A separate discussion follor~vs this overview with a description of the City's specific actions being considered far approval. Project Location The project site is located within Port tidelands and the City of Chula Vista in San Diego County, situated on the southeastern edge of the San Diego Bay and located approxiarnately 1.5 miles west of the City's downtown conunercial area (see Attachment I, Regional Vicinity). The project site encompasses approximately 556 acres that includes 49~ acres of land area and 59 acres of water area. The project site is bordered by the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Reserve and the jurisdictional boundary of National City to the north. Interstate 5 (I-5) and the commercial development along Bay Boulevard are to the east. Palomar' Street and the South Bay Unit of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which includes the salt evaporation ponds at the southern end of San Diego Bay, border the project site to the south (see Attachment 2, Locator Map). An aerial photograph of the project site is also provided as Attachment 3, Aerial Photograph). Project Components The Proposed Project is comprised of the fallowing components: • Amendments to the Port Master Plan (PMP); the City of Chula Vista General Plan; and the City's Local Coastal Program {LCP), which includes the Land Use Plan and Bayfront Specific Plan. • Aland exchange between the Port and Pacifica Companies (a private developer}, • A specific residential development proposed by Pacifica Companies. • Implementation of the Proposed Project through redevelopment of the Sweetwater, Harbor, and Otay Districts with a variety of uses, including park, open space, ecological buffers, cultural, recreational, residential, hotel and conference space, mixed-use office/commercial recreation, and retail uses. Redevelopment may also potentially include a resort and conference center and proposed water uses, including a reconfigured marina basin and boat slips, a new commercial harbor, and realignment of the existing navigation channel. • Redevelopment of the roadway system and infrastructure serving the Proposed Project area both an site and off site. • Demolition and/or relocation of existing uses to allow for the above redevelopment to occur subject to existing Port lease agreements. The project planning area has been divided into three districts-the Sweetwater District, the Harbor District, and the Otay District {Attachment 4 Proposed Project Districts). 1--7 i~fAY 1$, 201(}, Item Page $ of 41 Sweetwater District: The Sweetwater District {approximately i30 acres) proposes the lowest intensity development of the three districts and focuses on lower scale, environmentally sensitive and environmentally the~ned uses, incll~ding a large ecological buffer, a signature park, bike path, pedestrian trails, other open space areas, uses such as ofticelretail, hotel, parking for the Chula Vista Nature Center, and roadway and infrastructure improvements. Harbor District: The Harbor District is most directly accessible to downtown Chula Vista and would be redeveloped to provide a significant link from the City to the Bayfront. It is composed of approximately 223 acres of land and approximately 59 acres of water. The Harbor District proposes the highest intensity development of the Proposed Project and encourages an active, vibrant mix of uses, including: an RCC, hotels and conference space; bike path; park and other open space areas; a continuous waterfront promenade; residential uses; mixed-use retail, office, anal cultural space; and new roadways and infrastructure. Also proposed is a reconfiguration of the existing harbor to create a new commercial harbor, and realignment of the navigation channel. Otay District: The Otay District is composed of approximately 144 acres, and proposes medium intensity development that will consist of industrial business park uses, low cost visitor-serving recreational uses, other open space areas, an ecological buffer, stormwater retention basins, bike path, pedestrian trails, and new roadways and infrastructure. As shown in Attachment 5, Proposed Project Tllustrative Plan, the Proposed Project will extend Chula Vista's traditional grid of streets to ensure pedestrian, vehicle; bicycle, transit, and water links. The Proposed Project also proposes a continuous open space system, fully accessible to the public, which would connect the Sweetwater, Harbor, and Otay Districts through a shoreline promenade or baywalk and a,bicycle path linking the parks. Significant park and other open space areas in each of the three districts are proposed along with a "signature park" and the creation of an active commercial harbor with public space at the water's edge. The Proposed Project would also enhance existing physical and visual corridors while adding new ones. Approximately 23$ acres {or 43 percent}, of the project site is proposed for open space, either in the form of natural habitat or public parks and approximately 258 acres {ar 46 percent}, of the project site is proposed for development. The remaining 59 acres, of the project site consists of water area for the marina basins and new commercial harbor. A map of the Proposed Project, depicting the Sweetwater, Harbor, and Otay Districts and their individual parcels, is provided on Attachment 6 Proposed Project Parcel Plan and Development Phases. The Proposed Project consists of four development phases over an approximately 24-year period. Construction of Phase Tproject-level components would begin upon project approval and conclude approximately five years later. Phase Tproject- level components are envisioned to consist of high-quality development and public improvements that would be concentrated in the Harbor and Sweetwater Districts and would be a catalyst far surrounding public and private development. The phasing 1-$ ~IAY 1 ~, ?010, ltcm Page 9 of 41 schedule represents abest-case scenario and will be contingent upon many factors, such as availability and timing of public lznancing and construction of public improvements, the disposition of existing long-term Port leases, actual market demand for and private financing of proposed development, and the relocation and/or demolition of existing uses. Overview of Planning Area Districts and Projec# Phasing The following discussion includes a description of each of the three Planning Districts 1) Sweetwater District; 2) Harbor District and 3) Otay District. Also provided in this discussion is an overview of project elements far each area and anticipated phasing components. For ease in referencing the proposed uses, each development component has been assigned an individual parcel number that corresponds to the project site parcel plan map (Attachment 6). These parcel designations are used for convenience and are not intended to correlate with the actual legal parcel references. ~. Sweetwater District Components The Sweetwater District consists of approximately 130 acres. In the Sweetwater District, the project proposes the lowest-intensity development of the three districts and focuses on lower scale, environmentally sensitive, and environmentally themed uses, including a large ecological buffer; a signature park; a bike path; pedestrian trails; other open space areas; and low-intensity uses such as office/retail, hotel, parking for the Chula Vista Nature Center, and roadway and infrastructure improvements. Sweetwater Phase I Proiects The Proposed Project includes an approximate 18-acre Signature Park open space area that would be connected to the existing Chula Vista Greenbelt. As currently planned, it would be constructed as a passive-use, meadow-type park, with pedestrian and bicycle trails, tot lots, picnic areas, benches, interpretive signage, restrooms, and landscaping. In addition, a 100-space asphalt parking lot and realigned Gunpowder Point Drive access road for the Chula Vista Nature Center are proposed in Phase I on a vacant, approximate 3-acre parcel located in the center of the Sweetwater District. This parking lot (on Parcel SP-3) would permanently replace the existing Chula Vista Nature Center parking lot located off the I-5 off-ramp at E Street. The Proposed Project will establish a 400-foot-wide ecological buffer zone surrounding the northern and western edges of the Sweetwater District consisting of approximately 41 acres of undeveloped land on parcel SP-l. This buffer would protect the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (NWR} from impacts associated with development in the Sweetwater District. From west to east, the buffer would consist of a 200-foot-wide No Use Zone, within which public access would be prohibited; wetland and upland habitat mitigation areas; a 100-foot-wide limited use zone, composed of revegetated open space areas with outlooks and trails; and a 100-foot-wide transitional use zone that would accommodate increased recreational uses such as picnic areas and trails and revegetated open space. The western portion will generally be used for potential upland and wetland mitigation 1--9 ~IAY 18, ?010, Item Page 10 of 41 and will contain no lookouts. The following table summarizes the proposed development for the Sweetwater District during Phase I for the Proposed Project. Proposed Phase I Developanaent for the Sweetwater District -Parcel Number ~ Proposed Use _ Prop-used Development SP-1 Ecoiogical Buffer 41 acres 51 _3 Nature Center Parkin and Access Road 3 acres S-2 Signature ParklOpen Space 18 acres Sweetwater Phase II Pro'ects In addition to the SP-1 Ecological Buffer proposed in Phase I, an additional buffer, approximately 100 feet in width, would be established around the seasonal wetland that currently exists in the Sweetwater District (Parcel SP-2}. This buffer would further protect the wetland from planned development. Approximately 3 acres of land that are partially an existing street and partially vacant is proposed for open space andlor mitigation opportunities between the new E Street extension and F & G Street Marsh. It is likely that the existing street segment between F and G Streets would be vacated, but would be reserved for pedestrians and bicycle use after the proposed E Street extension is completed. The following table summarizes the proposed development for the Sweetwater District during Phase II. Proposed Phase II Development for the Sweetwater District T~ -- - ~, Parcel Number PrflpoSed Use Proposed €]avefopment SP-2 Seasonal Wetland 14 acres S-2A Open Space 3 acres Sweetwater Phase III ProLcts There is no Sweetwater District development planned for Phase III. Sweetwater Phase IV Proiects The Sweetwater District components in Phase IV include development on parcels S- 3, S-4, S-5, SP-4, SP-S, SP-6, and SP-7. In addition, the S-1 Resort Hotel is in Phase IV. Parcel S-5 will remain as an existing park open space. The Proposed Project includes mixed-use office and comzxaercial recreation in Phase IV on two separate parcels. The S-4 office will include a 100-foot buffer on the north end. In addition, approximately 11 acres of parks/open space would be established. Development proposed in the Sweetwater District in Phase 1V also includes a 500-roorxk to 750-room resort hotel. The following table summarizes the proposed development for the Sweetwater District during Phase IV. 1-~ 0 SAY 18, 2010, Item Page 11 of 41 Pr®pcased Phase IV Develap~er~t f®~° the Sweetwater I~istrlct r Parcel ~>`~rt~ber P~opa,sed Use V PropaSed ~e?relop~ne:ht ~' S-1 Resort Hote! 500-750 rooms, 2-8 stories, 40-100 feet high SP-4, 5P-5, SP-6, parkslOpen Space 11 acres SP-7, S-5 S-3 Mixed-Use OfficelCommerciai 60,000-120,000 square feet, Recreation 2-3 stories, 30-45 feet high 120,000 square feet, 8 stories, 125 feet S ~ Office hi h .~. Harbor District Components The Harbor District is most directly accessible to downtown Chula Vista and would be redeveloped to provide a significant link from the City to the Bayfront. It is composed of approximately 223 acres of land and 59 acres of water. The Harbor District proposes the highest intensity development of the Proposed Project and encourages an active, vibrant mix of uses, including hotels and conference space; park and other open space areas; a bike path; a continuous waterfront promenade; residential uses; mixed-use retail, office, and cultural space; piers; and new roadways and infrastructure. Also proposed is a reconfiguration of the existing harbor to create anew commercial harbor, and realignment of the navigation channel. Construction and development for project components in the Harbor District would occur in all four phases. Harbor Phase I Projects Of the various Phase I development components proposed for the Harbor District, the most prominent is the resort conference center (RCC). Located on a 39-acre parcel, the RCC may potentially include an entertainment-themed resort with approximately 1,500 to 2,000 rooms; approximately 415,000 square feet of net meeting space; and hotel support space. In addition, the RCC may include restaurants, retail shops, swimming pools, a spa, sports bars, gardens, a nightclub, a business center, and expansive open space areas. To better integrate the RCC with the greenbelt established in the Sweetwater District, the project proposes extending the Signature Park southward and wrapping the park around the RCC. This extension, consisting of approximately 17 acres of land, would enable the Signature Park to connect with the smaller Chula Vista Bayside Park that currently exists in the Harbor District to create one continuous park of approxizx~ately 40 acres. The Proposed Project also includes construction of the Pacifica project, which inchxdes approximately 1,500 mid-rise and high-rise residential units, subject to a land exchange between the Port and Pacifica (See Attachment 7, Proposed Pacifica Site Plan). An existing "L"-shaped drainage channel on HP-5 (referred to as an "L- Ditch") containing wetland habitat that borders the proposed residential development an two sides would not be developed, and would contain an average 50-foot-wide buffer from the delineated wetland edge on either side to protect against encroachment into the wetlands, other than for an access bridge crossing. ~ -1 1 l~i_~~~ 1 S, 201 Q, Item ~ Page 12 of 41 The Proposed Project inchrdes an approximate 12,000-linear-foot, continuous shoreline proir~enade or "baywallc" from the existing boatyard soL~th, around the marinas, and ending at tl~e shoreline north of the J Street Marsh, which would provide visitors with visual and physical access to the water. Parts of the promenade will be built in each phase, with the portion abutting HP-1 and H-8 built in Phase I. The promenade in the Harbor District would be connected to the Sweetwater District by a multi-use trail. Interim uses are proposed on Parcels H-9 and H-18. Parcel H-9 would contain approximately 2 acres of interim parkllandscaping within its northern. boundary along H Street. H-IS would consist of a 1,100-space interim surface parking lot. The Proposed Project includes the potential acquisition of Parcel H-17 by the City. As part of the Proposed Project, a fire station shall be constructed on Parcel H-17 at the corner of 3 Street and Bay Boulevard. This property is currently within the Port's jurisdiction and may be acnuired by the City prior to any use as a fire station. An interim facility may be utilized until final construction is completed. The following table summarizes the proposed development for the Harbor District in Phase I. Proposed Phase I Development for the Harbor District j Parcel Number Pra~aosed USe; - ! rropaseaueve),a~ment HP-1, H-~ { Si nature Park 17 acres HP-3 Shoreline Promenade (abutting 3 acres HP-1 and H-8 HP-5 Wetlands and Buffer 9 acres 1,500-2,000 hotel roams; 415,000 square feet net conference space; 100,000 square feet H-3 Resort Conference Center restaurant; 20,000 square feet retail; 240 feet high H-9 Interim ParklLandsca ing 2 acres 1,500 units; 19 stories; H-13, H-14 Residential 220 feet hi h H-13, H-14 Ancillary Retail 15,000 s care feet H-17 Ba front Fire Station 9,500 square feet; 2 stories; 27 feet high H-18 Interim Surface Parking t_at 1,100 parking spaces HP-23A industrial Business Park Use 1 acre Harbor Phase II Pro' ects To complement park development in the Harbor District during Phase I, the Proposed Project would establish approximately 8 acres of parks and open space in Phase II. Another major aspect of the Harbor District development plan is the reL~se of the former Goodrich South Campus parcels with 420,000 square feet of mixed-use afficelcommercial recreation use and a 250-room hotel with ancillary facilities. The 1-12 ~%1AY 1. S, 2010, ltena Page 13 of ~ 1 project also proposes a second hotel consisting of 500 rooms, conference areas, restaurants, open space, other ancillary uses, and up to 200,000 square feet of cultural andlor retail space. Consistent with the goal of iarzproved public access, the project also proposes to construct the first half of a new 36,000 square foot pier at the end of the newly extended H Street corridor. Construction of the Shoreline Promenade will continue in Phase II, during which the portion abutting Parcel H-9 will be built. The project also proposes the development of approximately 50,000 square feet of visitor serving retail and commercial recreation facilities around the northern end of the harbor. The following table summarizes the proposed development for the Harbor District in Phase II. Proposed Phase II Development for the Harbor District '~ Parcel Number__„' Proposed Ilse _ Proposed Development HP-6, HP-7 HP-8, ParkslO en S ace 8 acres H 9 RetaillCommercial Recreation and Marina Su port 25,000-50,000 square feet; 1-2 stories; 15-30 feet high H-15 Mixed-Use OfficelCommercial Recreation 420,000 square feet; 90-130 feet high H-15 Hotel 250 rooms, 90-130 feet high H-23 Resort Hotel 500 rcoms, 300 feet hi h H-23 CuiturailRetail 20D,DOD square feet; 30-65 feet high HP-3 Shoreline Promenade abuttin H-9 1 acre HP-28 H Street Pier first hal 0.4 acre Harbor Phase III Pro'ects The project proposes approximately 150,000 square feet of retaillcommercial recreation around the southern end of the harbor and approximately 18 acres of parkslopen space areas. Construction of the Shoreline Prorenade would continue in Phase III, during which the portion abutting Parcels HP-14, HP-15, and H-21 (approximately 3 acres) would be built. The following table summarizes the proposed development for the Harbor District in Phase III. Proposed Phase TTT DevelopnEaent for the Harbor District Parcel Humber _ ,Proposed tlsc T _-_I Praposird pevetQpment -1 HP 3 Shorefine Promenade (abutting HP- 3 acres 14, HP-15, and HP-21 HP-9, HP-12, HP-13, ParklOpen Space 18 acres HP-14, HP-15 H-21 RetaiilCommerciai Recreation 75,400-95D,000 square feet; 1-2 stories; 15-30 feet high 1-13 IvIAV 1$, 2010, Item Page 1~ o:~ 41 Harbor Phase IV Projects The Proposed Project would establish approximately 5 acres of parrs in Phase IV on the northern end of the Harbor District, completing the continuous signature park, totaling approximately 40 acres at build-out. A portion of the farmer Goodrich land areas would also he redeveloped with 100,000 square feet of mixed-use officelcommercial recreation use and a 1,100 to x,000-space collector parking garage. Currently, the Chula Vista Harbor, which contains two marinas with approximately 900 boat slips, lacks an active commercial harbor that encourages and enhances public access to the water and boating activity in the water. To facilitate the creation of an active commercial harbor, the existing manna slips would be reconfigured during Phase IV. Envisioned for this new commercial harbor are water taxis, dinner boats, harbor cruises, visiting historic vessels, and boat rentals. The commercial harbor would include a ferry terminal and second-story restaurant. The ferry terrr~inal would provide alternative transportation for commuters and tourists traveling to the Bayfront. Also proposed in Phase N is the realignment of the existing navigation channel, which would be straightened westward to make it easier for boats to enter the harbor from the San Diego Bay. The realignment would also place the boating channel further away from sensitive resources along the shoreline. Another rraajor carr~ponent of the Phase IV harbor project is the completion of the H Street Pier extension. Construction of the Shoreline Promenade would continue in Phase IV, during which the portion abutting Parcels H-1 and H-1A {approximately 2 acres) would be built. The final Phase N component includes a community boating center with 200 boat slips. The following table surnznarizes the proposed development for the Harbor District in Phase IV. Proposed Pl~tase IV Development for the Harbor District Parcal i ' Number Pro .used t}~se Pra,pased [?e~elaprnent _ ' H-1 Community Boating Center 10,000-20,000 square feet; 1-2 stories; 15-30 feet hi h H-1A Si nature Park 5 acres H-1 S Mixed-tJse OfficelCommercial 100,000 square feet; 6-10 stories; 85-155 feet Recreation hi h H-18 Collector Parking Garage 1,100-3,000 parking spaces; 6--10 stories; 85-155 feet high HP-3 Shoreline Promenade (at}utting H-1 2 acres and H-1A HW-6 Marina see H-1 200 slips HW-7 l`lavigation Channel 60 acres H-12 Ferry TerminailRestaurant 10,000-25,000 square feet; 2 stories; 30-40 feet high ~ -14 ~II~.Y 1 ~, 2010, Item Page 15 of 41 Parcel HW-1, NW-2, HW-3, HW-4 Proposed Use ~ ..Proposed E}E~r~i~plt~ent krlarinas, Boat f~avigation Area, 50 acres, 70Q slips -~ Commercial Harbor 3. Otay District Components The Otay District is composed of approximately 144 acres, and proposes medium-density developrraent that consists of indl~strial business park use, a recreational vehicle park, a new South Park, as well as other open space areas, an ecological buffer, bike path, pedestrian trails, and new roadways and infrastruchrre. Otay Phase I Projects All of the Otay District components are proposed in Phase III. No construction in this district is proposed in Phase I. Otay Phase II Projects All of the Otay District components are proposed in Phase III. No construction in this district is proposed in Phase IT. Otay Phase III Protects The project proposes a recreational vehicle park with approximately 236 RV parking spaces and ancillary facilities. Industrial Business Park uses are proposed on the northernmost and southernmost Parcels O-1 and O-4 in the Otay District. As with the Sweetwater and Harbor Districts, the Otay District would also include new parkland use. Specifically, a new passive South Park, composed of approximately 24 acres is proposed, as well as 27 acres of other open space areas on the eastern edge of the district. Like the Sweetwater District, the Otay District would have a buffer that would include a 170-foot-wide to 200-foot-wide No Use Zone that could be used for habitat mitigation opportunities. Finally, development in the Otay District wo~dd involve improvements to the existing concrete-lined drainage channel at Telegraph Creek within the Proposed Project limits to accommodate projected storm flows. The following table surrzmarizes the proposed development for the Otay District in Phase III. Proposed Phase Iif Developna-eat for the Otay District ~ Parcel !~u[nb~r ~~ - -- OP-1A, OP-16, OP-3 Proposed Use. _- ~ - - South Park10 en 5 ace L Proposed Qe~efanpment - - 51 acres OP-2A, OP-2B Ecological BufferlTelegraph Creek Channel Z7 acres 0-1 Industrial Business Park Use 18 acres 0-3A, 0-3B RV Park 175-236 RV spaces, 1-2 stories, 1-~ 5 1VlAY 1.8, 2010, lterrz Page 16 of 41 Parcel l~~iir:ber Pro_posetl tfse _ Propasecl.Develo3~rnerzt _ - , 15-35 feet high 0-4 ind€astrial Business Park Use 28 acres Otay Phase IV Projects All of the Otay District components are proposed in Phase III. No canstruction in this district is proposed in Phase IV. Phasing Analysis Phase I components of the Proposed Project, consisting of development on Parcels H-13, H-14, HP-5, (Pacifica development} and H-17 (fire station}, as well as proposed roadway and infrastructure improvements in the Sweetwater and Harbor Districts (except the new F Street segment), are analyzed in the Final EIR (further described later in the report) at a project-specific level and all other Phase I, II, III, and N components are analyzed at a programmatic level The nature and extent of additional environmental review, which may be required for the Phase I, II, III, and IV components, will be determined pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 151b8. Recent Paroiect Revisions Since the Revised Draft EIR was distributed, two changes occurred as a result of recent activities outside the scope of the Proposed Project. These two changes involved a land sale from the Port to SDG&E and initiation of a remediation effort on parcel HP-5 within the proposed Pacifica land exchange area. These recent project revisions are further described below along with how they are reflected in the City actions on the Proposed Project. SDG&E Land Sale On .Tanuary 6, 2010 the Port approved an agreement with SDG&E, which provides for the relocation of an existing SDG&E switchyard from Parcels O-l, O-3A and O~3B to Parcels O-4 and OP-2A and the transfer of ownership of the southerly portions of Parcels O-4 and OP-2A totaling 12.42 acres from the Port to SDG&E. The City's revised LCP was originally distributed for public review showing these areas removed from the boundary. The land acquired by SDG&E, as well as the southern b.08-acre portion of Parcel OP-3 directly adjacent to the transferred property will now remain in the City's LCP and graphics in the attached LCP (see Attachment 8, SDG&E Land Sale} have been revised accordingly to add this area back into the City's LCP boundary. Parcel HP-5 Remediation/Preferred Project Alternative At the time the Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR (DEIR} were prepared, the Port had not yet formulated a work plan far remediation of the existing contamination in the L- Ditch located on Parcel HP-5 in the Harbor District, which is considered a wetland and is subject to Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO} No. 98-08 issued by the California 1-16 MAY 18, '~OIO, Ite~n~_ Page 17 ofd 1 Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Revised DEIR analyzed two potential scenarios fox Parcel HP-5: the Proposed Project, which. assumed the existing contazr~ination would be excavated and removed and the L-Ditch would remain a wetland on which no development would occur; and the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative, which assumed that development would occur if the existing contamination were remediated in place by filling the L-Ditch and the L-Ditch were no longer considered a wetland. On March 2, 2010 the Port approved a work plan, pursuant to the CAO, which proposes to fill the L-Ditch and rerr~ediate the existing contamination in place, as provided in the Alternate L-Ditch Rearnediation Alternative which was analyzed in section 5.7 of the Revised DE1R. This Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative proposes to construct the Pacifica residential development on a larger footprint that includes development over HP-5 (see Attachment 9, Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative Site Plan). All other elements of this alternative are identical to the Proposed Project. Remediation and fill of approximately S.0 acres of Parcel HP-5 would distribute the residential development for the Pacifica project over 23 acres, in lieu of the 14 acres allocated within Parcels H-13 and H-14. This increase in land area will allow for a reduction in height, bulk, development density and visual impacts, while simultaneously affording an increase in useable public open space as compared to the proposed Pacifica project. The Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative is consistent with the proposed work plan for remediating the existing contamination in the L-Ditch, therefore, the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative is the preferred project now proposed for adoption. Both of these recent project revisions have been reflected in the attached proposed General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Amendment as further described below. Pro osed Ci Acti©ns The specific City actions related to the Bayfront Master Plan Project include the fallowing proposed actions: • Amendments to the City's General Plan; • Amendments to the City's Local Coastal Program (consisting of the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan); and • Consideration of the Final EIR and Errata, including attendant Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) fox the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative. Each of these proposed actions for consideration are described in further detail below. General Plan Amendment The City of Chula Vista is proposing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) involving land use designation acreage changes, and the introduction of new Objectives and Policies 1-1? M.AY 1 ~, 201 ~, hern Page 18 of ~ l within the Bayfront Planning Area Plan. The GPA also includes the introduction of a new `Bayfront High Residential" land use designation, and revisionshipdates to associated text, maps and tables. The amendment reflects extensive work with the community and Port District aver the last eight years, and would accommodate the proposed CVBivIP with proposed onsite uses and amenities such as: 1) A Signature Park(s), open space areas, and cultural uses; 2) Improved visual corridors to the San Diego Bay; 3) A RCC and other hotels; 4) Residential and mixed-uselcommercial recreation uses; Q-) Waterfront retail, recreational uses and public gathering spaces araund the harbor; 5) A new comrz~ercial harbor and improved navigation channel; 6) A public promenade and bike trail through the entire Bayfront; and 7) Large buffer zones to protect adjacent sensitive resources. The entire detailed amendment is contained in the document entitled General Plan Amendment Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan, dated May 2010 (see Attachment 14). 2005 General Plan U date GPU On December 13, 2005 the Chula Vista General Plan was comprehensively updated with a development horizon to the year 2Q30. Due to the ongoing joint bayfront planning efforts underway during the update of the General Plan, no land use designations for the Bayfront Planning Area were changed as part of the GPU (see Attachment 11, Existing General Plan Land Use Diagram). Pro osed Ba front General Plan Amendment GPA The proposed GPA reflectslaccoammodates the land uses and amenities envisioned in the CVBMP to guide the development of the Bayfront Planning Area (see Attachment 12, Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram). The following is a summarized list of the proposed amendments: Land use acreage adjustments; Deletion of three General Plan land use designations; New General Plan land use designations; • Deletion of the Mid-Bayl~ont Specific Plan reference; Revised Bayfront Area Plan that introduces new General Plan Objectives and Policies; and • Revisions to text, tables, maps, and graphics. New Bayfront Area Plan Subareas; Sweettivater, Harbor, and Otay The GPA descriptions for each of the three Subareas include the Vision and applicable Objectives and Policies, along with development paranrzeters, similar to the format and content of other Planning Areas in the General Plan. Each of the three Subareas contains unique opportunities and their own envisioned character (see Attachment I3, Proposed Bayfront Area -Subareas Map). The following Vision and Objectives reflect their respective uniqueness. There is one new Objective for each of the Subareas. Far each of the Objectives, several Policies are crafted with particular instructions that achieve the Objective. The Policies associated with these Objectives are not listed below but are contained in the detailed General Plan Amendment document {see Attachment 10 referenced earlier in the report). 1-i S MAY 1~, 210, Item Page 19 of 4I a. Sweetwater: This northerly portion is envisioned to have a mixtltre of e~r~ployxnent uses, visitor-serving hotels and restaurants, and a Signature Park located in proximity to Interstate 5 that are sensitive to the surrounding natural environment. These uses integrate the existing views of the Bay and the Sweetwater Marsh Wildlife Refuge, including linkages to the Bayshore Bikeway, Chula Vista Greenbelt trail systerr~, and the Urban Core. It is intended as the lowest intensity of uses. New Objective 10~ encourages development activities that minirrzize impacts to surrounding environmentally sensitive lands. b. Harbor: This central area is envisioned to have a major conference center, cultural facilities, offices, hotels, high-rise residential, shops ,and restaurants, piers and parks, and a central promenade. It is intended as the focal point and core of the Bayfront with the highest intensity of uses. New Objective 1.05 stipulates that new development should reinforce its identity as the City's Bayfront focal point. c. O_ toy: This southerly portion is envisioned to provide employment via a business park and minor visitor-serving commercial adjacent to Interstate 5. Other employment opportunities will include energy and utility-oriented industrial uses. Aregional-serving recreational vehicle park and passive parkland will provide nature-oriented visitor attraction near San Diego Bay. Otay is proposed as the medium intensity of uses. New Objective 10b encourages development activities that provide employment, recreational and visitor-serving uses. t4lzadysis~ o~'~'r~opo.~ec~ GP~4 This staff report analyzes the GPA proposal in light of the City's adopted General Plan. As described in this report, the key aspects of the GPA involve: 1} Comprehensive planning and distribution of land uses within the Bayfront Planning Area that is cohesive, balanced, and attractive; 2} Better balance and preservation of enviroa~uxzental resources at the fringe; and 3) Multi-modal mobility that enhances public access to the Bayfront. These three key goals are the subject of this analysis, as outlined below: l . Com rehensive Tannin and distribution of land uses within the Ba front Plannin Area that is cohesive, balanced and attractive The overall Bayfront Planning Area possesses distinct character and opportunities due to its geographic location within the southeast portion of the San Diego Bay. The Bayfront contains positive attributes such as: Environmental resources, accessibility and visibility frown San Diego Bay and along the Interstate 5 corridor, proximity to the City's more urbanized areas in Western Chula Vista, as well as downtown San Diego and the 1-19 r ~1AY 1 ~, 2010, ltez~ Page 20 of 41 Mexican border. In order to capture and build upon its base assets, it is necessary to establish the overall vision that Names the Objectives aild Policies to guide the development of the Chula Vista Bayfront as a world-class bayfront. The proposed GPA includes a balanced mix of land uses in the Bayfront Planning Area. Lower intensity uses are proposed at the periphery such as parks and maritime recreational facilities. More intense uses such as a Convention Center, Hotels, High density residential and Commercial are located within the core. The proposed types and location of land uses are intended to foster a dynamic plan that distinguishes the Bayfront as a cohesive and attractive waterfront project. In addition, new Objective ----LUT 98 reflects the vision of the Bayfront as awater-oriented focal point for Chula Vista with uses that are attractive to visitors and residents alike. Reflecting the separate jurisdictions between the City and the Part, the Bayfront Planning Area previously consisted of the Bayfront Specifac Plan and Mid-Bayfront Specific Plan Areas. Under the Proposed Project, properties have been consolidated. The Mid- Bayfront Specific Plan area is na longer a separate area, thus the reference is proposed to be deleted. The proposed Bayfront Planning Area consists of three distinct districts within the Proposed Project: Sweetwater, Harbor and Otay. The GPA proposes three Subareas with the same nomenclature as the Proposed Project for consistency. The Bayfront Area Plan also follows the format and stxucture of the other existing General Plan Area Plans. 2. Better balance and reservation of environmental resources at the Erin e The Bayfront Planning Area contains sensitive biological resources, including the Sweetwater Marsh Wildlife Refuge. Environmental preservation and resource management is important to minimize development impacts to these resources. Recreational uses such as boating, promenades and bicycle paths, and passive parks are proposed at the fringes of the site that interface with sensitive resources. These recreational uses take advantage of the natttxal beauty and provide amenities to serve residents aixd visitors. The following new Objectives reflect the balance between development and recreational uses with the natural environment of the Bayfront. • Objective 102 stipulates the creation of parks and recreational opportunities that protect the natural beauty of the Bay and improve access for residents and visitors to these amenities. • Objective 103 stipulates the conservation of natural open space within the Bayfront Planning Area. • Objective 104 encourages development activities within the Sweetwater Subarea that minimize impacts to sensitive lands adjacent to the Sweetwater Wildlife Refuge. ~-20 ~1A~' 1 ~, >01 ~, Item ~ Page 21 of 41 3. Multi-modal mobility that enhances ublic access to the Bavfront Improved access to the Bayfrorzt is necessary far efficient ingress and egress, and enhances public access to the Bavfront. The proposed roadways are intended for amulti- modal (i.e. vehicular, transit, pedestrian, bicycle} circulation system that provides safe public access to the waterfront. The multi-modal circulation system allows for a variety of transportation choices that link the Bavfront, internally, as well as to the surrounding area. As depicted on the Existing General Plan Diagram, the major roadway system serving the Bavfront is currently identified as a Major Street (4 Lanej. The GPA proposes to change the classification of the Major Street to a Class 1 Collector, and reconfigure this roadway to facilitate improved public access to and along the edge of the Bayfxont. The primary difference between the Major Street and Class 1 Collectors is: Major Streets are designed to carry high volumes of traffic and Class 1 Collectors are designed to carry lower traffic volumes at slower speeds. By reducing the roadway classification, the proposed major roadway system for the Bavfront will be more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, which facilitate a wider range of travel modes for patrons. The following Objectives reflect the provision of a multi-modal system to serve the Bavfront, and the roadway classification changes proposed above. Objective 99 stipulates the establishment of linkages between the Bavfront Planning Area and the Northwest Planning Area for pedestrians, bicycles and transit. Objective 100 stipulates the establishment of roadways in the Bavfront Planning Area that respond to conditions within a more urbanized environment that are pedestrian-oriented, and facilitate multi-modal design elements and amenities. Objective 101 stipulates increased mobility f`or residents and visitors within the Bayfxont Planning Area. General Plcrn Amendment Conclusion The proposed GPA for the Bavfront Planning Area is based on sound planning principles and goals, which presents a workable, rational, and comprehensive land use plan that would result in a dynamic Bayfi~ont for the city's residents alid visitors. The plan presents a cohesive development program for the Bavfront that protects sensitive resources at the fringe by concentrating higher-intensity uses at the core, improves public access to the Bavfront, and sets the Bavfront as a focal area at Chula Vista's waterfront and southern tip of the San Diego Bay. It establishes Goals, Objectives and Policies for the Bavfront area in a format that is consistent with other Area Plans. It also reflects the cooperative process and inputs of the Port and Community. ~ -21 MAC' 18, 2010, Item Page ?2 of 41 focal C®astal Plan A~end~neral California State law requires that coastal cities adopt a LCP. The LCP must be certified by the California Coastal Commission {Coastal Commission) before the LCP can become effective and implemented. The current Chula Vista LCP was certified by the Coastal Commission on January 15, 1993 and amended by the City of Chula Vista City Council pursuant to Resolution loo. 17036 and Ordinance No. 256 on March 23, 1993. The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan; the Land Use Plan is a policy document, while the Specif c Plan is the regulatory document. The Specific Plan is incorporated into the Chula Vista Municipal Code as Chapter 19.81.001 et seq. PLiroase of the Proposed LCP The puzpose of the Chula Vista LCP is to provide a detailed plan for the orderly growth, development, redevelopment, and conservation of the City jurisdictional parcels located within the Chula Vista Bayfront coastal area. The LCP must be consistent with both local and state land use policies. The LCP must be sufficiently detailed to indicate the kind, location, and intensity of land uses and the applicable resource protection policies for development within the local coastal zone. The Land Use Plan component of the LCP must provide land use and development policies, which will ensure that development within the local coastal area will be consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Act. In addition, the LCP must contain implementing ordinances to carry out the policy provisions of the Land Use Plan. These are provided in the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan, which serves as the implementation plan for the Chula Vista LCP. The LCP must be consistent with, and implement, the City of Chula Vista General Plan, which is the primary local land use and development policy document. The Bayfront Specific Plan is a component of the City's General Plan and represents a step toward systematic implementation of the General Plan in the Bayfront. Or anization and Forl~nat of the Pro osed LCP The Proposed LCP consists of the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan described in further detail below. PYOposecl Lana Use Plan The first portion of the LCP is the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan includes three major components: (1) Introduction, Planning Context, and Coastal Act Policies Summary; (2) Areawide Development Objectives and Policies; and (3} Subarea Specific Development Objectives and Policies. The policies of the Land Use Plan will be reviewed by the Coastal Commission to ensure that they are consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act. After the introductory chapter, the Land Use Plan presents a discussion of the Coastal Act policies relevant to the LCP Planning Area, identifies existing conditions pertaining to each policy category, and outlines the LCP provisions that implement the coastal policies. These policies are specifically identified to aid in supporting the finding of Coastal Act ~-22 ~IAY 18, 2010, Iterr~ Page 7, of 41 consistency. The second component of this Plan consists of the objectives and policies that are intended to be applied throughout the LCP Planning Area. These Areawide Objectives and Policies are organized into five elements: 1. Land Use and Intensity 2. Circulation and Public Access 3. Physical Dorm and Appearance 4. Utilities and Areawide Grading 5. Environmental Management Each element contains a survey of existing conditions, objectives for development, and specific policies relative to that element. This section is intended to describe the composition of the LCP properties within the Bayfront and ensure both conformance with the Coastal Act Policies, as well as consistency with the City's General Plan. The third component of the Land Use Plan contains an analysis of conditions, development objectives, and policies, which are responsive to the unique needs of each subarea. The Subarea Specific Development Objectives and Policies focus the areawide policies on the unique characteristics and needs of each planning subarea and provide greater policy detail for site-specific development issues. Proposed Implementation Plan (BayfYOnt Specifc Plan) The second portion of the LCP is the Implementation Plan. This plan is also commonly referred to as the LCP Specific Plan. The Implementation Plan is intended to implement the policies of the Land Use Plan through development regulations and standards for the LCP Planning Area. The implementing ordinance for the Chula Vista Sayfrorit LCP is the Bayfront Specific Plan, which is adopted pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). As provided in Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps or other implementing actions shall be reviewed by the Coastal Commission to ensure they conform with, or are adequate to carry out the provisions of the Land Use Plan. The Bayfront Specific Plan specifies, in detail, the permitted land uses, and the standards and criteria for development and conservation of resources. It contains the implementation plan for the LCP Bayfront properties (LCP Planning Area}, as well as specific development standards unique to each subarea, where required. The Bayfront Specific Plan is consistent with, and will carry out, the provisions of both the LCP Land Use Plan and the City's General Plan. The Proposed LCP Bayfront Specific Plan includes seven major divisions: 1. Scope and Purpose -- Chapter 19.81 2. General Provision _ Chapter 19.82 3. Coastal Development Permit Procedures -Chapter 19.83 4. Land Use Zones -Chapter 19.84 5. Development Criteria -Chapter 19.85 1-23 MAY 18, 2010, Item ~ Page 2~ of ~ 1 6. Environmental Management Program _ Chapter 19.$b 7. Infrastructure Financing and Funding Mechanisms -Chapter 19.87 Proposed LCP Changes In 2005, the City of Chula Vista embarked on a process to amend the 1993 LCP. The need for the proposed amendment originated out of 1) updates to the Port's Master Plan during the past years and 2) a proposed land exchange between the Port and a private land owner. While the land exchange between the Port and Pacifica has already taken place, the proposed land exchange is still subject to approval by the State's Lands Commission. Approval of the land exchange must occur before this project can be implemented. Therefore, the LCP describes the exchange as if it has already been consummated to reflect an ownership condition that will exist following LCP adoption. The updates to the Port's Master Plan and the land exchange have created four major changes in the LCP, which necessitate the LCP amendments. These changes include: 1) changes to the Port and City boundaries, 2) changes to the proposed development projects within the LCP area, 3} consequent changes in land uses within the LCP area, and 4) changes to the circulation system within the LCP area. These changes are described in more detail below and provided in Attachment 14, Proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendment, dated April 2010. 1. Changes in jurisdictional boundaries The currently adopted LCP {i993 LCP) boundary lines are shown in Attachment 15, Adopted 1993 LCP Coastal Zone with Subareas. In an effort to clarify jurisdictional authorities in a manner consistent with the Port Master Plan, the Chula Vista Bayfront area, covered by the LCP amendment, has been redefined into three Subarea districts {LCP Subarea 1 LCP Subarea 2, Harbor District, and Subarea 3, Otay District) as shown in Attachment 16, Proposed LCP Subarea Districts. 1n addition, the proposed land exchango includes a large block of land located in the northern portion of the Bayfront area near the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Sweetwater District), which encompasses parcels located in the central portion of the Bayfront area {harbor District} that were deemed mare suitable for residential development. Parcels involved in the land exchange are shown in Attachment 17, Proposed LCP Land Exchange, which shows the new jurisdictional line extending from the mean high tide line west to Marina Parkway. Another change in the jurisdictional boundaries involves the Otay District area south of .T Street to Palomar Street. The current LCP boundary includes the land area from the mean high tide line to I~S. Changes in Port land ownership have changed the west LCP boundary line to include only the industriallcomrnercial properties generally along Bay Boulevard. 1-24 MAY 1 °, 2010, Iterr~ Page 25 of ~-1 2. Project changes The project changes that are part of the LCP amendment primarily involve the lands subject to the land exchange, which are located in the Sweetwater District and Harbor District. The parcels involved in the land exchange are shown in Attachment 18, Proposed LCP Parcel Areas. The four parcels proposed for transfer from Port ownership and jurisdiction to Pacifica's ownership and City jurisdiction are located east of the Chula Vista Marina, north of J Street. For purposes of the LCP description this area is consolidated into two parcels, Parcels 2-f and 2-h as described further below. {For purposes of clarification, the Port's parcel nomenclature as referenced on Attachment 6 is provided after the LCP parcel references below). Parcel Area 2-f (HP-5, H-13, H-14) is located just east of the Chula Vista Marina in Subarea 2. This parcel area covers approximately 23 acres. The site was previously part of the Rohr Industries building complex, which has been demolished. Currently, the site is entirely undeveloped. Proposed development of Parcel Area 2-f {HP-5, H-i3, H-14} consists of mixed residential with a maximum of 1500 units and supporting ancillary retail uses up to 15,000 square feet. Residential buildings range from 4 to 19 stories and a maximum of 220 feet in height. Parcel Area 2-f {HP-5, H-13, H-14) zoned as Residential Mixed in Harbor (R-MH} will contain development blocks that will have individual building footprints and towers of varying heights. Parcel Area 2-h, {H-15) located directly east of Parcel Area 2-f (HP-5, H-13, H-14), is approximately 10 acres in area. Proposed development for this parcel area includes office, retail, and a hotel. This parcel area includes up to 420,000 square feet (excluding structured parking) of mixed-use office and commerciallretail use, and a 250-room hotel. The hotel is a maximum of 233,000 square feet (excluding structured parking) with a maximum height of 130 feet. Parcel Area 2-h {H-15) off-street parking spaces will be provided in accordance with Policy A.PK1 for hotels and professianalloffice space. Parcel Area 2-f (HP-5, H-13, H-14) is separated from Parcel Area 2-h (H-15) by a new road, Street A, which runs in a north south direction and extends from north of.l Street to H Street. 3. Land use changes Considering the land exchange and the relocation of the intense development project contained in the 1993 LCP from the sensitive areas in the Sweetwater District to the Harbor District, the remaining changes in land use designations that are part of the LCP are limited. The areas within the LCP boundaries that are subject to land use changes are listed in the table below and are based on the parcel description shown on Attachment 1 S and Attachment 19, Proposed LCP Zoning Map. Existing and Proposed Land Uses within the LCP Area ""Parcel AreAre_a i~ Existing ~ar<~;U~e Propa~eci_lan~ef use _ Parcel 1a Commercial Visitor Professional and Administrative Parce! 2f Tidelands Residential in Harbor 1-25 MAY 13, 2010, Item oe Page 26 of ~ 1 -- _.__ _ - Parcei Area t*Xstietc~ i_and ~Jse Prap~seci Eared use _~ - --- Parcel 2h industrial General ProfessionallAdministrativelComm. Visitor Farce! 2g Commercial Visitor Public-Quasi Public 4. Changes in CirculationlPublic Access As it exists today, direct vehicular and pedestrian access to the Bayfront is limited. Regional entry to the Bayfront is provided by the off-rarrip configurations of I-S and the location of wetland resources. At the present time, indirect access is available at "E" Street and "H" Street, and direct access at "J" Street. Abridge overpass at "F" Street provides a local connection to the east side of I-5 but no freeway on- or off-ramps are provided. The "H" Street ramps primarily serve the Goodrich facilities, and the "J" Street ramps primarily serve Part lands and the marina westerly of Goodrich. "J" Street also serves as the termination of Marina Parkway. Marina Parkway is the main street through the Bayfront and runs northerly from the "J" Street/bay Boulevard. The current LCP contains a circulation system intended to provide convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to the Bayfront while affording natural habitat protection and traffic capacity. The proposed amendment to the LCP incorporates the same circulation/public access objectives and policies as the existing LCP. However, certain modifications are proposed to be made to the layout and configuration of the street system within the Bayfront (inside and outside of the LCP Area}. Below is a detailed list of the changes to the street system contained in the current LCP (see Attachment 20, Proposed LCP Circulation Map}. E Street: "E" Street extends west and south toward the western part of the Bayfront to connect to the terminus of "H" Street. The extension of "E" Street and "H" Street will provide access to the Bayfront Parlts and the waterfront. F Street: "F" Street will be removed from the west end of the Goodrich property, adjacent to the "F&G" Street Marsh. The road will be redirected north to intersect with the extension of "E" Street to facilitate the movement of traffic into the Bayfront and provide access to the facilities in the Sweetwater District. I-I Street: "H" Street will be extended west to intersect with "E" Street and will serve as a major central entrance to the Bayfront area and the waterfront. The cuzxent LCP designates "H" Street as a primary entry to the Rohr18F Goodrich industrial cainplex. The proposed LCP amendment designates "H" Street, along with its designation as a major central entrance to the Bayfront and its extension toward the waterfront, as a Major Gateway into the Bayfront. The amendment to the LCP establishes policies that provide that special consideration should be given to roadway design, including signage and lighting, landscaping, and design of adjoining structures, in order to enhance the sense of arrival and invitation to the Bayfront. 1-26 MAC 1 ~, ? 01 ~; Items l Page 27 of 41 J Street: "J'' Street will be extended west from Bay Boulevard at the Gateway entrance past Marina Parkway until it terminates at the south end of the marina, providing closer access to the waterfront. The amendment to the LCP includes two new streets in the Harbor District, ~,vhich will serve the proposed residential/commercial project. "A" Street will run in a northlsouth direction and extends from "J" Street to "H" Street. "C" Street will run in an eastlwest direction from Marina Parkway to Bay Boulevard. Marina Parkway is proposed to extend its current configuration from "J" Street to end at the intersection with "I-I" Street. LCP Implementation: The Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan will be implemented by the Bayfront Specific Plan in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65450 et seq. The Specific Plan, adopted by Ordinance, will meet the Implementing Ordinance requirements of the Coastal Act. The amendments being proposed as part of the LUP must also be reflected in the Specipc Plan. Although new in appearance, the substantial revisions to the LCP arise, as indicated previously, from the changes in the jurisdictional boundaries and changes in the development project location. The properties that become part of the Part's jurisdiction will be part of the Port's Master Plan and will be regulated by that plan. The lands that become part of the City's jurisdiction through the land exchange (Harbor District) are being incorporated into the City's LCP. These lands, plus two other parcels {Parcels 1-a and 2_g}, constitute the changes in land use that are part of this LCP amendment. Analysis for Proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendment The changes that represent the amendment to the LCP will be analyzed by the Coastal Commission in relation to the applicable policies of the California Coastal Act and the Goals of the Chula Vista General Plan. The next section of this report describes the changes that are part of the amendment and discusses the relationship between those changes and the policies of the Coastal Act and the General Plan Goals. 1. Jurisdictional boundaries As indicated previously in this report, during the past few years the Port has been malting updates to its CVBMP. The CVBMP is intended to guide and regulate the development of lands within the Port's jurisdiction outside of the City of Chula Vista LCP jurisdiction. At the same tune, the Port has been actively involved in the acquisition and exchange of properties that are currently located within the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program area (LCP Area). The parcels transferred through the proposed land exchange process will result in changes to the boundaries of the City's LCP planning area. As these land areas transfer to the Port's jurisdiction they become part of the Port's CVBMP and are regulated by its policies. The portion of land in the Harbor District (west of the mean high tide line) that is part of the land exchange will transfer to City ~-27 MAY 1 ~_, ZO10, lterrl ~ Page 2$ 0'41 jurisdiction and will become part of the LCP and, together with the proposed Pacifica project, subject to the City's LCP Objectives and Policies. 2. Project Changes The land exchange between the Port and a private owner has resulted in the relocation of a previously proposed development project from the Sweetwater District to the Harbor District. The Sweetwater District is characterized as a sensitive area that contains a variety of habitat that requires protection. The Harhor District is characterized as a previously disturbed area that has been utilized for industrial developrxaent as part of Rohr/BF Goodrich industries. The proposal to locate the residential/commercial development within the Harbor District meets the Coastal Act policies and General Plan goals as described below. Environmentall Sensitive Habitat Areas Section 30240 of the Coastal Act provides far the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas by restricting uses within, or adjacent, to such areas. Locatin and Plannin New Develo ment Sections 30244, 30250 (a), 30252, and 30253 of the Coastal Act provide criteria for the location of new development. Generally, new development should be concentrated in areas of existing development with adequate public services. New development should provide adequate support facilities, including provisions for recreation facilities and for public transit, and should preserve archaeological or paleontological resources. Recreation and Visitor-Servin Facilities Sections 30212.5 and 30213 apart, 30220-30223 and 30250(c)J of the Coastal Act requires the provision of public and low-cost recreation and visitor-serving facilities, and encourages the provision of commercial recreational and visitor-serving facilities by requiring that saeitable land be reserved far such uses and that uses be given priority over other uses. By locating the residential/commercial project within the Harbor District, the LUP is meeting the above-mentioned provisions of the Coastal Act. The rerr~oval of the Mid Bayfront Subarea from the Sweetwater District will allow this property to remain as undeveloped open space. This will contribute to the protection of sensitive habitat and biological resources within the Sweetwater District. Locating the new development project within the Harbor District meets the Coastal Act provision of concentrating new development within areas of existing development with adequate public services. The Harbor District is an area that has been previously developed with industrial uses, as part of Rohr/BF Goodrich industries. The Harbor District has existing access and connections to interstate 5 and the rest of the City and the region. The Harhor District is close to the proposed park facilities and water activities to be developed around the Chula Vista Marina. 1-28 MAV lie Salo, ltem Page 29 of 41 In addition to the facilities currently existing within the Bayfront, the proposed Harbor District development will create new visitor serving facilities. Future facilities within the LCP Planning area include a hotel and ancillary retail establishments such as restaurants, shops, and shared public plazas. Although the LUP specifically provides new facilities within the Harbor District, other new facilities are provided within all districts through the Port Master Plan. 3. Land Use Changes The land use changes that are part of the proposed LCP amendment result primarily from the land exchange and the relocation of the proposed development project from the Sweetwater District to the Harbor District. In the Harbor District, the current land use designation contained in the 1993 LCP is primarily Industrial General {1G). The portion of the property west of the rriean high tide line is currently within the Port Master Plan (PMP) and will became part of the City's LCP through the land exchange and the proposed LCP amendment. The proposed land use designation is Residential Mixed in Harbar and is designated for the development of the residentiallcomrnercial project. In addition to these changes in land use, two other minor changes in land use are being proposed as part of the LCP amendment. These changes involve two properties: Parcel 1-a {S-4) and Parcel 2-g (H-17) (see Attachment 1$). Parcel 1 Ta (S=4) is owned by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of Chula Vista and is located north and west of the "E" Street south off-rannp from I-S). The second property Parcel {2-g) is located an the north side of "J" Street, east of Bay Boulevard and west of the I-5 southbound off ramp at "J" Street. These two properties are currently designated as Commercial Visitor (CV) in the adopted LCP and axe being changed to ProfessionallAdministrative and PubliclQuasi-Public, respectively. Parcel 1-a {S-4) is currently vacant; a portion of the property is located within the Caltrans' Right-of-Way easement; and it has significant limitations for its developrz~ent, including limited access because it is bounded on two sides by the freeway off ramp, on the west by the railroad right of way and an the north by the open space preserve. Parcel 2-g {H-17} is proposed to be designated as PubliclQuasi-Public and is intended for the construction of a fire station to serve the Bayfront, as well as areas of the City located east of I-5. The proposed land use designations are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act as described below. Locatin and Plannin New Develo ment Sections 3024, 30250 (a}, 30252 and 30253 of the Coastal Act provide criteria for the location of nevv development. Generally, new development should be concentrated in areas of existing development with adequate public services. New development should provide adequate support facilities, i-29 SAY 1 ~, ? 010, Item i Page 30 of'11 including provisions far recreatr.'on facilities and for public transit, and should preserve archaeological or paleontological resources. Public YVorks Section 3025'l of the Coastal Act limits the construction or expansion of pacblic works facilities to the capacity required to provide service to only those users permitted by the Coastal Act. The proposed land use designation as Commercial-Professional Administrative allows for the concentration of development in an area that has been previously developed and is close to freeway access. The designation of the Redevelopment Agency parcel with an office use will facilitate development of a site with limited access and will facilitate and enhance the connection of this parcel with the rest of the City and the Bayfront. The development of office space will provide the support facilities far the industrial and commercial area within the Bayfront and in the western part of the City. The site's proximity to the "E" Street Trolley Station, located within aquarter-mile of the site, will contribute to create pedestrian orientation and reduce dependence on the automobile. The site's designation as office use will contribute to the generation of revenues by enhancing property values and tax revenues for the City and the Redevelopment Agency. The designation. of the "J" Street parcel as Public Quasi-Public and the construction of a fire station will serve to provide the necessary infrastructure and public works facilities to meet the needs of the Bayfront as well as the immediate areas of the City east of I-5. The site is conveniently located on "J" Street to effectively and efficiently serve the north and south areas of the Bayfront, as well as areas east of I-5. Implementation of the proposed LCP will facilitate the construction of the fire station and reduce the amount of funds needed for the project, while providing a .major facility to meet the needs of the Bayfront and the requirements of its future development. 4. Circulation andlPublic Access As indicated previously in this report, the proposed amendment to the LCP incorporates the sazx~e circulationlpublic access Objectives and Policies as the existing LCP. However, certain rnadifications are proposed to be made to the layout and configuration of the street system within the Bayfront {inside and outside of the LCP Area). Modifications are made to most of the streets as currently shown in the 1993 LCP and two new streets are created in the Harbor District, in conjunction with the proposed residentiallcomercial development project. The circulation and street system within the LCP Area as proposed will implement the following Coastal Act policies and General Plan goals as described below. Shoreline Access Sections 30210-30212 of the Coastal Act require that public and recreational oppartacnities be provided for all the people, that development not interfere with the public's right of access, and that new development provide public access to the ,shoreline. 1-30 I~IAY 18, 210, Item Page 31 af'11 Coastal Visual Resources and S ecial Communities Sections 30251 and 302.13 (e) of the Coastal Act require the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, and the preservation of unique visitor destination communities. Recreation and Visitor-Servin Facilities Sections 30212.E and 30213 jpart, 30220-30223 and 302~0(c)] of the Coastal Act requires the provision of public and low-cost recreation and visitor-serving facilities, and encourages the provision of commercial recreational and visitor-serving facilities by requiring that suitable land be reserved for such uses and that uses be given priority over other uses. Environmentall Sensitive Habitat Areas Section 30240 of the Coastal Act provides for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas by restricting uses within, or adjacent, to such areas. The proposed LCP street layout will provide access to the shoreline and its scenic and visual qualities, will protect sensitive coastal resources and habitat, and will provide a strong east-west connection and regional access to the Bayfront. The extension of "E" Street and "H" Street will create direct and closer access to the waterfront for residents and visitors alike. This street connection will provide ready access to the parks, and open spaces, as well as water facilities within the Port lands. The extension of "E" Street and its connection with "H" Street will provide and maintain direct scenic views of the Bayfront area and the San Diego Bay. The opening and extension of "H" Street,. previously limited by the Rohr/BF Goodrich industrial. campus, will become a central access and connecting point to the Bay from 1-S, as well as all areas of the City. The "H" Street designation in the LCP as a Major Gateway to-the City and its design treatment pursuant to the policies of the "Form anal Appearance" section of the LCP will provide and enhance the sense of arrival and invitation to the Bayfront through the use of prominent landscaping and signage. These "H" Street Gateway features will also open up direct views toward the waterfront and enhance the visual qualities toward the Bay from the City east of 1-5. The alignment of "E" Street and removal of a portion of "F" Street within the Sweetwater District will provide for the preservation and protection of coastal and biological habitat resources within the F-G Marsh. The construction of two new streets in the Harbor District will provide adequate access, circulation and road capacity far the new development project. These roads will establish better connection with the major access streets to the Bayfront from 1-5, such as "Y' and "H" Streets. LCP Amendment Conclusion While the proposed changes to the LCP are limited in scope, they represent a significant effort to create the conditions that will lead to the development of a Bayfront consistent ~-31 ~IAY 1 ~, 2Q 10, ltcm ~~ Page 32 of 41 with the Coastal Act and the Vision and Objectives and Policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed amendment is based on sound planning principles and practices that will provide for the protection and conservation of sensitive natural resources. The amendment allows the transfer of development from the Sweetwater District to a previously developed and less sensitive area of the Bayfront, leading to the development of a project that will minimize potential negative impacts. The amendment will also contribute to provide more direct access to the Bayfront and create better cannection to the rest of the City and the region. This will open up the Bayfront for the enjoyment of residents and visitors. The proposed amendment will be conducive to the development of the Bayfront and the creation of a world-class destination for residents and visitors. Mul#i le S ecies Conser~vatian Plan Ma in- Chan e Section 3.4.1.b of the Final EIR discusses the need for an MSCP amendment to revise the City's MSCP mapping designations consistent with the proposed land exchange action. After completion of the Final EIR and further evaluation of the project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (Wildlife Agencies} determined that a formal MSCP amendment was not warranted. The Wildlife Agencies have determined that the proposed changes are considered only a minor mapping change to the City's MSCP Plan. As proposed, Parcels H-13, H-14, H-15, and HP_5 will be transferred to the land use jurisdictional authority of the City. Parcels H-13, H-14 and HP-5 are currently mapped in the MSCP Subarea Plan as "Other Agency -Preserve Planning Efforts." Parcel H-15 is currently mapped as a "Development Area" outside of "Covered Projects and the Proposed Project does not propose to change that designation." The land exchange would also transfer lands within Parcels S-l, S-2, S-3, SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3 from City land use jurisdiction to Port land use jurisdiction. These lands are currently shown in the MSCP Subarea Plan as "Development Area" and are identified as being outside of "Covered Projects" (see Attachrr~ent 21, Proposed MSCP Mapping Change).. The Proposed Project will require a minor mapping change to the MSCP Subarea Plan to adjust the boundaries of the plan to correspond to the change in land use jurisdictional boundaries. The proposed mapping change will re-designate Parcels H-13, H-14, and HP- 5 from "Other Agency -~ Preserve Planning Efforts'' to "Development Area" autside of "Covered Projects," and will change the designation of lands within Parcels S-1, S-2, S-3, SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3 from "Development Area" to "other Agency -Preserve Planning Efforts." The Wildlife Agencies concur with the mapping change as proposed and have issued a letter of concurrence as provided in Attachment 22, MSCP Mapping Change Concurrence Letter. As a result of the proposed mapping and land use authority change, development within the fiiture City land use jurisdiction on Parcels H-13, H-14, H-15, and HP-5 will be subject to a Habitat Loss and Incidental Tape {HLIT} Permit. 1-32 M.~Y 1$, 2010, Item I Page 33 of ~1 CE~A C~~apliance The CVBMP Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.} and pursuant to CEQA Section. 21067 and Sections 15367, 15050 through 15053 and 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines {see Attachment 23, Final EnviNOnmental Impact Repo~~t (EIR) foY the Bayfi°ont Master Plan and PoYt Master Plan Amendment (dated ApYil 2010} (UPD #83356-EIR-658; SCH No. 205081077). The Port is the Lead Agency under whose authority this EIR has been prepared. Pursuant to Section 15096 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is considered a Responsible Agency, which means the City has the responsibility or authority for carrying out or approving a project within the scope of the Proposed Project. Draft EIR The Draft EIR, dated September 2006 was circulated fora 60-day public review period from September 29, 2006, to November 27, 2006. In response to requests for additional review time, the public review period was extended to January 11, 2007, bringing the total public review period for the DEIR to 105 days. The Port received 59 individual comment letters, many of which requested more information and project-specific data, specifically for the project-level components {i.e., the proposed RCC, Pacifica Residential Site, and the Signature Park). The Port and project applicants subsequently commissioned additional project-level technical studies for Phase I components and incorporated this data into each issue section of the document. Revised Draft EIR In response to the nuarraerous public comments on the Draft EIR and substantial additional information concerning the Proposed Project, a Revised DEIR was prepared and circulated to the public. Because the revisions described above were substantial, the entire Revised Draft EIR was re-circulated for public review and.comment. The Revised Draft EIR was circulated fora 60-day public review period (May 23, 2008, to August 7, 2008} to further make project description refinerrients and revisions that were analyzed throughout the document. Fifty-three {53) comment letters, including nearly 1,000 individual comments, were received on the Revised Draft EIR. Public comments on the original Draft EIR are included in the administrative record, but the Port was not required to provide written responses to them in the Revised Draft EIR. Instead, pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(f)(1}, the Port advised that new comments must be submitted on the Revised Draft EIR and that the Port would respond in writing in the Final EIR only to those comments submitted in response to the Revised Draft EIR. In addition, a number of events have occurred since the Revised Draft EIR was made available far public review, which has resulted in changes to the Revised Draft EIR that are reflected in the Final EIR. These events include the following: i-33 MAC 18, 2010, ltez~ ~ Page 3~ of ~1 1. Tn November 2008, Gaylord Entertainment ~.vithdrew its proposal to develop a RCC on Parcel H-3 in the Harbor District. The specific RCC proposed by Gaylord was analyzed in the Revised Draft EIR at a project level. Although the Gaylord RCC is no longer part of the Proposed Project, the technical studies conducted for the Gaylord development arc still valid and applicable to a RCC development. Parcel H-3 retains its designation for use as a RCC and the future development of an RCC on Parcel H-3 is analyzed in the Final EIR at a program level. 2. The Proposed Project includes a proposed land exchange between the Port and Pacifica, which was analyzed in the Revised Draft EIR. On February 2, 2010, the Port entered into an Exchange Agreement with Pacifica, which provides for the transfer of approximately 97 acres of land in the Sweetwater District froze Pacifica to the Port in exchange for the transfer of approximately 33 acres of land in the Harbor District from the Port to Pacifica. 3. In response to comments received on the Revised Draft EIR, the Port and the City engaged in outreach efforts with Rohr, Inc., operating as Goodrich Aerostructures, (Goodrich}, to address its concerns regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on Goodrich's ongoing and future manufacturing operations and contamination remediation activities. As a result of these outreach efforts, the Port and City entered into an agreement with Goodrich which addressed all of the concerns expressed by Goodrich to its satisfaction. 4. In response to comments received on the Revised Draft EIR, the Port and the City engaged in public outreach efforts with many interested persons and organizations, including representatives of the Bayfront Coalition (and its member organizations). The outreach effort resulted in an agreement with the Bayfront Coalition, the City, the Port and the RDA. As a result of the agreement, additional project design features and mitigation measures above and beyond those required by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations were added to the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograzxz (MMRP}. 5. The Revised Draft EIR discussed the L-Ditch on Parcel HP-5, located to the north and east of parcels H-13 and H-14, which is considered a wetland and is subject to CAO No. 98-08 issued by the RWQCB. On March 2, 2010, the Port approved a work plan that proposes to fill the L-Ditch and remediate the existing contamination in place, as provided in the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative that was analyzed in the Revised Draft EIR. The final EIR reflects these events and responds to significant environmental points raised in the public and agency comments by making changes in the Revised Draft EIR. Any changes in the text of the Revised Draft ETR are shown in the attached Final EIR (Attachment 23) in a "strike-out and underline" manner, such that information that has been deleted from the text of the Revised Draft EIR is shown in ~f~~~~t form.; and ~-34 ivIAY 1 ~, 2 (~ 10, Mean Page 35 of~l information that has been added to the test of the Revised Draft EIR is shown in underline form. Findirt s of Fact of the Final EIR SCH20450S1Q77 The p'inal EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts"} that would result from the Proposed Project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other significant effects cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. Summary of Environmental Impacts The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions for the Final EIR. Direct (project level) (CEQA Guidelines Section. 15126.2} and cumulative impacts (effects from the Project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects which when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130)) are identified and divided into three categories: 1) significant and ualmitigated, 2} significant and mitigated to less than significant, and 3) less than significant. Cumulative impacts are cumulatively considerable when the incremental effects of the Project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of reasonably foreseeable probable fixture projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a}(3)}, 1) Significant and Unmitigated .Impacts • Land Use/Water Use Compatibility {direct}: - The Pacifica project would result in significant direct impacts on Land/Water Use Compatibility because it would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan objectives regarding aesthetics and visual resources (LUT 11) and library services and facilities (PA'S 11). Traffic and Circulation {direct and cumulative}: - The addition of traffic from all phases of the Project would result in significant direct and cumulative impacts to freeway segments of I-5 between SR-54 and Palomar Street during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours; - The addition of traffic from the Project would result in a significant direct impact in that E Street and H Street intersections affected by an at-grade trolley crossing would experience additional delay along the arterial and at adjacent intersections; -- The addition of traffic from Phase III of the Project would result in a significant cumulative impact on the roadway segment of H Street between Street A and the I-5 ramps; and ~-35 MAY 18, 2 ~ 10, Item Page 36 c~f~l - The addition of traffic from Phase III of the Project with the extension of E Street would result in a significant cumulative impact on the intersection of H Street and I-~ southbound ramps during the p.m. peak hours and the intersection of J Street and I-~ northbound ramps during the p.m. peals hours. • AestheticslVisual Quality (direct and cumulative): - The Pacifica project would result in significant direct impacts in that its proposed buildings will exceed the scale of the existing waterfront development and will block existing views of San Diego Bay for motorists on portions of 1-S; and - The Project would result in a significant cumulative incipact in that it would add to the intensification of land uses and further change the character of the area and result in the loss of views of significant landscape features and landforms. • Air Quality {direct and cumulative}: - Emissions from construction activities in all phases would result in a significant direct impact because they would exceed the federal and state standards far criteria pollutants; - Emissions from Project operations in all phases would result in a significant direct impact because they would exceed the federal and state standards for certain criteria pollutants; - Construction activities associated with the program-level components of all phases would result in a significant direct impact because sensitive receptors located on site would be exposed to emissions that would exceed federal and state standards for criteria pollutants; and -- Construction activities and project operations in all phases of the Project would result in significant cuzxiulative impacts on air quality because of the San Diego Air Basin's existing non-attainment status for the federal S-hour ozone standard and the state ozone, PMio, and PM2.5 standards. • Public Services (Library Services) (direct and cumulative): -- The Proposed Project would worsen the existing shortfall in library square footage and books per capita until new library facilities are constructed or existing facilities are expanded in the City of Chula Vista. • Energy (cumulative impact}: - Uncertainty regarding long-term energy supply. All feasible mitigation measures have been required of the Proposed Project with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts. 1-36 V1AV 18, 2010. Item ~ Page 37 o~f 41 Role of the Cit as a Res onsible A~cncv As a Responsible Agency, the City must make findings required by Section 15091 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043, 15091, 15096 and 15x93 for each significant impact and unmitigated impacts. The attached Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations have been tailored specifically far the project actions for which the City has authority to approve or carry out (see Attachment 24, Findings of Fact and ~S'tatement of Overriding Considerations, dated May 2010). Sections 15043 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines find that the adverse environmental effects are considered "acceptable" and a Lead Agency or Responsible Agency can approve a project that will result in the occurrence of significant effects when, based upon substantial evidence, findings have been made that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse enviranrr~ental effects. 2) Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant Significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas, and mitigation measures were required in the Final EIR to reduce all of the described impacts to less than significant. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to ensure that the mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with specified monitoring requirements (see Attachment 25, ~Llitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Bayfi^ont Master Plan (UPD #83356-EIR-658; SCHNo. 2Q050810~7), dated, May 2010). • Land UselWater Compatibility: lrrapacts to r~vetlands and seasonal ponds; project would also require an MSCP HLIT permit. • Traffic and Circulation: -- Impacts on project intersections and street segments; inadequate access and frontage during development. • Aesthetics/Visual Quality: - View blockage from the western tidal edge of the Sweetwater Marsh NWR, background views of the Bay from the Silver Strand, impacts to sensitive receptors from light and glare, contrast with existing patterns of development. • Hydrology: - Impacts to quantity and quality of surface runoff, potential to disturb contaminated soils and groundwater during construction, dredge and fill operations may result in impacts to water quality and marine resources if contaminated sediments are exposed or sediment is suspended in the water column. ~-37 MAC 1$, 201(}, Item ~~ Page 3 S of ~ 1 • Air Quality: - Greenhouse Gas (GHG} impacts for Phases II-IV. Program.-level components will need to develop GHG reductions measure and design features to reduce these impacts. • Noise: - Construction and on-site stationary noises; exterior noise on sensitive uses, interior noise levels; construction noise and impacts on sensitive wildlife; and traffic noise on ground-level receptors. * Terrestrial Biological Resources: - Impact on plant and animal species resources during grading, nesting raptors, migratory birds, impacts to inlet of F&G Street Marsh, indirect impacts to sensitive resources, impacts to surface water foraging habitat, impacts to jurisdictional waters, California Coastal Comrzaission wetlands and California Department of Fish and Game streambed areas; and disruption to avian flight patterns. • Marine Biological Resources: - Impacts to eel grass resulting from construction of H Street pier, reconfiguration of harbor, construction of South Bay Boatyard Marina and navigation channel realignment; lighting impacts to sensitive species. • Paleontological Resources: - Grading could potentially impact paleontological resources during CoristrLlCtlon. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials/Public Safety: - Potential to encounter contamination during construction; unintentional discharge of fuel, lubricants or hydraulic fuels used during construction; exposure of contaminated groundwater and/or soils; release of contaminants into subtidal areas of the marina; rerrraval of underground storage tanks (USTs); exposure to asbestos containing materials, lead based paints, potential for hazardous irrigation runoff; potential human health and safety innpacts. • Public Utilities: - Provision of sewer service and water service and infrastructure eo.mensurate with growth; construction noise and traffic impacts; contamination impacts due to construction related to temporary dewatering. Public Services: - Fire station construction impacts related to noise, air. quality, water quality, hazards, and geology and soils; provision of police protection, schools and parks commensurate with growth. • Seismic/Geologic Hazards: -- Unstable soils; seismicity. 138 ~IAY 1 S, 2010, Item I Page j9 of 41 ® Energy: - Potential to exceed the available energy supply. 3) Less than Significant Irnpactsr Less than significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas: • Parking • Cultural resources • Population and Housing Alternatives The Final EIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the Proposed Project's significant impacts. The alternatives considered in the Final EIR are the No Project Alternative, the Harbor Park Alternative, the No Land Trade Alternative, the Harbor Park Alternative, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, and the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative. In considering the feasibility of the alternatives, the Final EIR included an analysis that examined whether the proposed alternative would avoid or substantially reduce significant unmitigated impacts and it relationship to the Proposed Project's objectives. Errata to the Final ETR After the issuance of the Final EIR in April 2010, an Errata to the final EIR was prepared to clarify and address the following items: • The inclusion of additional design features and mitigation measures in the Final EIR, above and beyond those required by CEQA, resulting from an agreement with the Bayfront Coalition {and its member organizations) approved by the Port and City nn May 4, 2010 and May 11, 2010, respectively; • Minor clarifications and corrections of the text of the Final EIR; and • Minor changes to the GPA resulting from the Alternate L Ditch Alternative; and • Boundary changes to the draft copies of the LCP and PMP resulting from. the recent sale of land frozxi the Part to San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) The Errata has been prepared to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the Final EIR. {See Attachment 26, Errata to the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Bayfrant Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment (UPD #$3356-EIR-658; SCH No. 2005081077), dated May 201 D). The changes in the Final EIR are listed by section number and page number, with the new or correct information shown in double underline and the old or incorrect information shown in ~'~-~'~'~ °~N~'~~`'~ format. The Errata makes corrects minor project clarifications to the Final E1R and provides additional protection for natural resources and the environment in the project area. The information contained 1-39 MAY 18, 2010, Item ~ Page ~0 of~1 in the errata does not change any of the findings or conclusions of the Final EIR and does not constitute "significant new information" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS: Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council, CVRC Members and Planning Commissioners and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property, which is subject to this action. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund during the current fiscal year. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT As part of the overall CVBMP development and implezuentation, the City, RDA and Port anticipate the formation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA}. Revenues from CVBMP development projects, including hotel occupancy taxes paid to the City, Ground Lease payments paid to the Port and property tax increment paid to the RDA, will be combined within the City1RDAlPort JPA to fund CVBMP infrastructure and ongoing operations and maintenance costs including costs for the mitigation and monitoring of impacts. To the extent permitted by law, the above new revenue sources will be used by the JPA to fund costs associated with this action and are expected to be sufficient to fully fund these costs, therefore no additional impact to the General Fund is expected. Costs related to the Pacifica project and any associated approval processing andlor mitigation monitoring efforts would be funded directly by a developer deposit account. ATTACHMENTS 1. Regional Vicinity 2. Locator Map 3. Aerial Photograph ~. Proposed Project Districts 5. Proposed Project Illustrative Map 6. Proposed Project Parcel Plan and Development Phases 7. Proposed Pacifica Site Plan 8. SDG&E Land Sale 9. Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative Site Plan 10. Propased General Plan Amendment Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan, dated May 2010 11. Existing General Plan Land Use Diagram 12. Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram 13. Proposed Bayfront Planning Area _ Subareas Map 1-40 MAY 18, 2010, Item Page 41 of 41 14. Local Caastal Plan Amendment, dated April 2010 {consisting of Final Draft Land Use Plan, dated April 2010 and Final Draft Specific Plan, dated April 2010) 15. Adopted 1993 Coastal Zane with Subareas 16. Proposed LCP Subarea Districts 17. Proposed LCP Land EYChange 1 S. Proposed LCP Pareel Areas 19. Proposed LCP Zoning Map 20. Propased LCP Circulation Map 21. MSCP Propased Mapping Change 22. MSCP Mapping Change Concurrence Letter 23. Final Environmental Impact Report {EIR} for the Bayfront Master Plan and Part Master Plan Amendment {dated April 2010) (UPD #k83355-EIR-558; SCH N©. 2005081077} (3 bound valurr~es and CD Appendices previously distributed to CVRC, Planning Commission and Council members an April 27, 2010 and available in the Office of the City Clerk) 24. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, dated, May 2010 25. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Bayfront Master Plan (UPD #$3355-EIR-658; SCH No. 2005081077), dated, May 2010 25. Errata to the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Bayfront Mastcr Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment (UPD #83356-EIR-658; SCH No. 2005081077), dated May 2010 Prepared by: Marisa LLtndstedt, Principal Planner, Development Services Department J.• lPfanningl~YlarisalBayfi°ontlHearingsll'~Iay 18th Joint Staff Report} CT/Bll<IP Final Staff Report 5-1~-10.dac ~-~~