HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2004/05/25 RDA PORT
Notice is hereby given that the Chair of the Redevelopment Agency has called and will convene a
special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council, Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 4:00 p.m"
in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Buildin 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California to consider, deliberate and act upon the following:
~{f?
-- ---- -
'- -~
~
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4:00 P,M. PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MEETING CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BOARD OF PORT
COMMISSIONERS
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Council/Agency Members Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas; Mayor/Chair Padilla
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on any subject
matter within the Council/Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however,
generaliy prohibits the City Council/Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on
the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council/Agency on such a subject, please complete the
"Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the iobby and submit it to the Secretary to
the Redevelopment Agency or City Cierk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your
name and address for record purposes and foliow up action.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council/Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the
Council/Agency and staff recommendation may in certain cases be presented in the altemative. Those who
wish to speak, please fili out a Request to Speak form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to
the Redeveiopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting.
1. PRESENTATION BY CONSULTANT TEAM ON THE THREE DRAFT LAND
USE PLANS FOR THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN AND
PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION - Through an extensive public outreach and
participation program, three draft Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plans
(CVBMP) have been designed to achieve a world-class waterfront through a
unique mix of land and water uses, and have been developed to provide
maximum policy flexibility, Port and City staff and the Citizens Advisory
Committee preferred draft land use plan identified as Option C. Option C
contains equal or greater open space than the total parkland within all land
under Port jurisdiction. This Option also creates three unique districts and
acknowledges the environmental sensitivity of surrounding areas. In staff's
view, this option best achieves the Port/City objectives. Land use policy
direction is needed before design guideline preparation, financial feasibility
analysis, and environmental review can commence. There will be additional
public outreach and citizen group meetings as the CVBMP process proceeds.
[Director of Community Development]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency and City
Council:
a) Receive consultant presentation on the three draft land use plans for
the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan; and
b) Adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (1) GRANTING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR
THE PLANNING AREA; AND (2) DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
DESIGN GUIDELINES TO PREPARE A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
PROGRAM, AND TO COMMENCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCESS
ADJOURNMENT
City Council adjourns to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on May 27, 2004 at 6:00
p,m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, thence to the Regular Meeting on
June 1, 2004 at 4:00 p.m., thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 1,
2004, immediately following the Regular Meeting at 4:00 p.m" in the Council
Chambers, and thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 2, 2004 at 4:00
p,m, in the John Lippitt Public Works Center.
Redevelopment Agency adjourns to the Regular Meeting on June 1, 2004,
immediately following the City Council Meeting at 4:00 p,m., in the Council
Chambers.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who
require special accommodates to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service
request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services
and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619)
691-5047 or Teiecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 161 g) 585-5647, California Relay Service is
aiso available for the hearing impaired.
City Council/Redevelopment Agency, May 25, 2004 Page 2
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25/04
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: A) RECEIVE CONSULTANT PRESENTATION ON THE THREE DRAFT
LAND USE PLANS FOR THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER
PLAN AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION
B) ADOPT A RESOLUTION 1) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PLANNING AREA
AND 2) DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE DESIGN GUIDELINES, TO
PREPARE A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PROGRAM, AND TO
COMMENCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/5THS VOTE: YESDNOD
BACKGROUND
In June 2002, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board) and Chulo Vista City Council (City Council)
jointly authorized Port ond City staff to proceed with a moster planning effort for the Chula Vista
Bayfront, In October 2002, the Board and City Council authorized a Port/City Joint Planning
Agreement that included a number of objectives for the Chula Vista Bayfrant Master Plan (CVBMP),
At the direction of the Board and City Council, and with the cooperation of Pacifica Companies
(Pacifica), a development company having an option to acquire the privately-held portion of the
Midbayfront properties, the CVBMP is a comprehensive planning process that encompasses
approximately 550 acres spanning the Chula Vista Bayfront from north of E Street south to
Palomar Street, The planning area has been divided into three districts: Sweetwater (northern
section), Harbor (middle section), and Otay (southern section) (reference Exhibit 1),
To achieve the established objectives, the Port and City conducted an extensive public outreach and
participation program and selected a consultant team led by Carrier Johnson/Cooper Robertson
and Partners, The year-long planning process is nearing completion, During this time, the
consultant team conducted a market analysis to determine potential land uses that could be
supported by current and future market demands, conducted an existing conditions and
opportunities analysis, and together, with the public input received to date, developed three revised
draft land use plans as shown in Exhibits 2, 3, and 4,.
1- ,
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25/04
Each of the three land use plans are designed to achieve a world-class waterfront through a unique
mix of land and water uses, and have been developed to provide maximum policy flexibility, Port
and City staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) preferred draft land use plan is identified
as Option C shown in Exhibit 4,
Option C contains equal or greater open space than the total parkland within all land under Port
jurisdiction, This option also creates three unique districts and acknowledges the environmental
sensitivity of surrounding areas, In staff's view, this option best achieves the Port/City objectives,
land use policy direction is needed before design guideline preparation, financial feasibility analysis,
and environmental review can commence,
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council/Redevelopment Agency:
1) Receive consultant presentation an the three draft land use plans for the Chula Vista
bayfront master plan and provide policy direction; and
2) Adopt a resolution (1) granting preliminary approval of the land use designations
for the planning area; and (2) directing staff to prepare design guidelines, to
prepare a financial feasibility program, and to commence the environmental review
process,
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable,
DISCUSSION
In June 2002, the Board and City Council jointly authorized Port and City staff to proceed with a
master planning effort for the Chula Vista Bayfront, In October 2002, the Board and City Council
authorized a Port/City Joint Planning Agreement, which contained the following objectives for the
CVBMP:
. Seamless integration with adjoining properties;
. Enhances a culturally diverse community and integrates the bayfront with the rest of
Chula Vista;
. Eliminates or reduces barriers to linking the bayfront to the rest of western Chula Vista;
. Includes recreational, public art, and open space opportunities as significant
components of the plan;
. A visionary master plan that is economically sustainable, provides revenue generation,
and will encourage private sector participation;
. Creates future market opportunities and defines the market rather than simply responds
to the existing market;
. Protects and enhances environmental resources;
/- 2.
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25/04
. Development of a comprehensive funding program; and
. Broad community input into fhe planning process and support of the master plan,
In March 2004, the Board and City Council approved an amendment to the Port/City Joint
Planning Agreement to incorporate the privately- and publicly-owned lands known as the
"Midbayfront Properties" into the CVBMP project area, As a result, the CVBMP study area was
expanded to a total of 548 acres, including 420 acres within the Port's jurisdiction and 128 acres
of the Midbayfront properties, which is within the City's jurisdiction, This action enabled staff to
jointly plan the two areas, as well as to explore the feasibility of a land exchange between them,
Port tideland trust regulations prohibit residential use on Port-owned land, However, a land
exchange between Port and City-jurisdictional property would allow residential use to be located
on property that is currently under the Port's jurisdiction, Residential development may greatly
enhance and accelerate opportunities for new development throughout the bayfront. It may also
help pay for needed infrastructure, Pacifica Companies, having an option for acquisition of the
privately-held portion of the Midbayfront properties, has been meeting regularly with staff to
provide input info the joint planning process and to further discuss the land exchange concept,
Throughout the past year, the CVBMP consultant team, led by Carrier Johnson/Cooper,
Robertson & Partners, has engaged in public outreach, researched the opportunities and
constraints for the planning area, conducted a market study, and developed preliminary concepts
and draft land use plans,
Public Outreach
To solicit public input on the draft land use plans, the Port and City conducted an extensive public
outreach and participation program, including holding 15 Citizens Advisory Committee meetings,
7 Power Plant Working Group meetings, 7 public workshops and joint Board/City Council
meetings, the distribution of 3 newsletters, and establishing a CVBMP web page, A brief
description of these public outreach efforts follows; however, a more detailed summary is
contained in Attachment A - Background Information,
Citizens Advisory Committee ICAe¡
A 21-member CAC was established with the intent of increasing citizen input into the CVBMP and
allowing for a constructive exchange of ideas with a diverse group of interested citizens and
community organizations, The roles of the CAC were to review consultant deliverables and make
recommendations to staff and the consultant team throughout the process, culminating in a
recommendation for a preferred plan (their recommendation is discussed below), The CAC
meetings were held between July 2003 and May 2004 and were well-attended by the public.
South Bay Power Planf ISBPP) Workina Group
A 19-member SBPP Working Group was established as a separate committee to focus on the
complexity of issues associated with the 1 50-acre power plant parcel as part of the CVBMP, The
role of the Working Group was to identify options for the SBPP and adjacent energy
1- E
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25/04
infrastructure, and to report its findings to Port staff and the CAC for inclusion in the CVBMP,
Seven Working Group meetings were held between December 2003 and April 2004,
Public Workshops and Joint Board/Cilv Council Meetinqs
Public workshops and joint Board/City Council meetings have served as another forum for
updating the public and policymakers on the master plan progress and for soliciting public input,
Five public workshops were held between January 2003 and April 2004, and joint Board/City
Council meetings were held in July 2003 and March 2004,
Peer Review
Staff presented an overview of the CVBMP process to members of lambda Alpha International
(LAI) at their regularly-scheduled monthly luncheon in April. LAI is a professional land use and
economics organization whose members are chosen from the community at large. The attendees
were very interested in the Bayfront master planning process undertaken by the City and Port and
requested that they form a subcommittee to further review the work that had been done to date,
similar to other focus group discussions they have conducted for other significant planning efforts,
The focus group, comprised of nine volunteers, was assembled to discuss the preliminary draft
land use plans, The outcome of that discussion is provided in Attachment B,
Newsletters and Web Paqe
Three newsletters and the creation of a CVBMP web page were other methods used to keep the
public apprised of the planning process and upcoming public meetings,
Preliminary Master Plan Concepts
At the joint Board and City Council meeting on March 30, 2004, the consultant team presented
its preliminary concepts for the master plan, which were based on the public input received to
date and the following consultant design principles:
. Create one Chula Vista Bayfront;
. Celebrate the serenity and Hispanic culture of Chula Vista's bayfront setting;
. Extend Chula Vista all the way to the bayfront;
. Take advantage of deep water at the harbor to create an active boating environment;
. Create a bayfront park system that marries ecological habitats and the recreational needs
of the community; and
. New development should reinforce the sense of place at the bayfront,
The preliminary concepts presentation consisted of ways of organizing the planning area into
three "districts" - the Sweetwater District, the Harbor District, and the Otay District (see attached
Exhibit 1); and within each district, various ways of organizing developable space, open space,
and the water area, The presentation also identified themes that should be considered in
developing a visionary plan for the Chula Vista Bayfront, These themes are included in
Attachment A),
/-4
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25/04
Draft Market Study Findings
At the March 30 joint Board and City Council meeting, the consultant team also presented its
market study findings, which identified potential uses that could be supported by current and
future market demands, The major findings are summarized in the following table:
Office/
Year Residential Business R&D Retail Hotel
(units) Park (square feet) (square feet) (rooms)
(square feen
5 - 250,000 540,000 100,000 75-150
10 2,100 590,000 640,000 140,000 150-250
20 2,700 1,065,000 830,000 220,000 250-300
30 3,300 1,500,000 940,000 265,000 400-500
Because the hotel room projections, as prepared by Sedway, appeared to be low, staff retained
PKF Consulting (PKF), a hotel economic specialist. PKF prepared a separate hotel analysis
expressing the opinion that a hotel of 325 rooms within five years could be achieved at a four-
star level, with an average daily rate of $150,00, with reduced rents to the Port if the master
planning objectives are first achieved,
Draft Land Use Plans
The consultant team incorporated the market study findings, preliminary concepts, and public
input received to date in developing three draft land use plans, which were initially presented to
the CAC and the public in April (see Attachment A for more detail on the three draft land use
plans), The CAC spent five meetings discussing and commenting on the draft plans, At two CAC
meetings in May, the CAC voted on specific land use components of the plans they
recommended should be further analyzed (see Attachment C for a summary of the CAC votes),
Goodrich Concerns
The Relocation Agreement between the Port, the City, and Goodrich (developed as part of a
previous land exchange between the three parties) precludes residential and other "sensitive
receptor" uses on the Port-acquired former "Goodrich South Campus," Goodrich is working with
staff to ensure any proposed use of the South Campus is compatible with current and future
manufacturing operations,
Stafe Lands Restrictions
Proposed residential use on property that is currently owned by the Port may greatly enhance and
accelerate opportunities for new development on the Bayfront, as well as help pay for needed
infrastructure, There are, however, significant regulatory issues concerning the Public Trust
Doctrine associated with the State lands Commission that must be resolved, Potential contractual
and environmental issues would also have to be resolved with adjoining tenants and landowners,
Pacifica has also indicated that they will need to further analyze the alternatives that do not
1-5
PAGE 6, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25104
include residential development in the Sweetwater District to determine the economic viability of
fhe land exchange,
Revised Draft Land Use Plans
Based on the CAC and public comments received between April 12 and May lOon the draft land
use plans, the consultant team developed three revised draft land use plans (see Exhibits 2, 3,
and 4), The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will equally evaluate three land use plans, along
with other alternatives as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), This
approach will provide maximum flexibility to the policymakers as the planning effort continues,
At the conclusion of the EIR process, the Port and the City will transmit one land use plan to the
California Coastal Commission for approval.
All three of the revised draft land use plans generally contain the following components:
. Significant open space components such as: a cultural park, regional recreational sports
park, ecological buffers, baywalks, trails, bikepath, and a continuous "greenbelt" and
shoreline promenade;
. In addition to open space, significant recreational opportunities such as new piers; new
navigational channel and new open water area to allow for ferryboats, historic vessels,
charter boats, and working boats; and a new kayak launch;
. Civic/cultural opportunities such as a community auditorium, entertainment use, and a
cultural park;
. Attractions such as an entertainment/events center, retail uses concentrated around the
harbor, and mixed uses;
. Hotel and conference center facilities, and residential use;
. The extension of H Street as a significant physical and visual corridor, ultimately connecting
the city to the waterfront; and
. Relocation of certain existing uses to allow for the public access opportunities described
above,
As previously noted, the planning area has been divided into three districts (see Exhibit 1): the
Sweetwater District (the northern section, formerly referred to as the "MidBayfront properties");
the Harbor District (the middle section, between the boatyard and J Street); and the Otay District
(the southern section, between J Street and the former lNG site),
The lowest intensity development is proposed for the Sweetwater District, land uses in this area
are focused on lower scale development that acknowledges the environmental sensitivity of the
surrounding areas, Included in this district is a large ecological buffer, environmental research &
development (R&D), and office, However, residential use is proposed in this district in Option B,
the "no land exchange option", in the event the land exchange is not successful.
I-C::.
PAGE 7, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25/04
The highest intensity development is proposed for the Harbor District, land uses in this area are
focused on mixed use development such as office, retail, cultural/entertainment, events center,
hotel, park, and recreational. Residential use is proposed in this district in Option C, which
would require a land exchange, In addition, various configurations of the harbor water area and
improvements to the navigation channel are proposed,
A medium intensity of development is proposed for the Otay District, land uses in this area are
comprised of a mix of industrial/power generation facilities, office, and active recreational park,
Residential use is included in Options A and C, which again, would require a land exchange,
The following key components are included in all three revised draft land use plans:
Sweetwater District
. Continuous 400-foot-wide ecological buffer to the north and west
. Greenbelt and trail within the Coronado Branch line right-of-way
. Environmental research and development facility
. Hotel and/or office use
. Connection between E Street and Marina Parkway
. F Street abandoned approaching the F&G Street Marsh and used as a pedestrian pathway
Harbor District
. Potential retention of boatyard use
. New hotel and office uses, and a community auditorium
. Relocation of the RV park
. A significant new cultural park north of the existing marinas
. Extension of H Street to the waterfront ending in a new pier
. New retail use surrounding the harbor
. New kayak launch at the end of Marina Way
. Greenbelt and trail within the Coronado Branch line right-of-way
Otay District
. Minimum 1 OO-foot-wide ecological buffer to the west
. Regional recreational sports park
. Relocation of the power plant
. Greenbelt and trail within the Coronado Branch Line right-of-way
A detailed list of the land use components for each of the three revised land use plans is included
as Attachment D.
The revised draft land use plans, as described above, were presented at the May 17 CAC
meeting, The CAC was generally supportive of Option C and voted unanimously on a number of
recommended modifications, which are included in Attachment E, Also included in Attachment C
are the CAC comments relative to the revised Options A and B,
I-'
PAGE 8, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 5/25/04
Conclusion
Each of the three draft land use plans will achieve a world-class waterfront through its unique mix
of land and water uses, Option C, however, is staff's preferred option because, in staff's view, it
provides the best mix and balance of uses, Option C , as compared against the objectives the
Port and City identified at the outset of the master planning process, best achieves those
objectives particularly in terms of maximizing open space, revenue generation opportunities, and
achieving the final objective of "..,broad community..,support of the master plan," Option C is
the option that the CAC generally supports, However, issues such as the feasibility of a land
exchange, residential use in the Otay District, and the (Goodrich) Relocation Agreement issues
with regard to South Campus will need to be resolved, Resolution of these issues will enhance
the opportunities afforded by Option C.
The next steps are to prepare design guidelines, conduct a financial feasibility analysis, and
define the size of the facilities within the land use areas, The design guidelines will identify a
more specific development program for the master plan and address density issues that have
been raised by the CAC and the public. Furthermore, the financial feasibility analysis will identify
potential costs and revenues of the master plan program and identify how the master plan
components should be phased, Specific economic information and program elements will be
defined after policy guidance is provided on the land use plans, The CEQA process would
commence once the above work tasks are complete,
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon approval of the Joint Planning Agreement between the Port and the City, and with
Redevelopment Agency/Council consent, the Port reallocated a portion of the monies remaining
in the City/Port MOU funds to fund the City's share of the CYBMP study, This includes the cost to
complete the design guidelines, financial feasibility analysis, and environmental review,
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 - Bayfront Districts
Exhibit 2 - Revised Draft land Use Plan Option A
Exhibit 3 - Revised Draft land Use Plan Option B
Exhibit 4 - Revised Draft land Use Plan Option C
Attachment A - Background Information
Attachment B - LAI Focus Group
Attachment C - CAC Comments on Draft land Use Plans
Attachment D - land Use Components of the Revised Draft land Use Plans
Attachment E - CAC Comments on Revised Draft land Use Plans
J:\Commdev\STAFF.REP\OS,2S-04\CVBMP Draft land Use Plans.dac
I-V
- ---~ --
," . ----- .... ./
- - -- /- '--c'"
OJ /. ./
r::::: .-
.--
....- ¡)
0 C
..... C ¡/
-:!: /'
C -
c .- /
.r::::: (.)
en I::
::J
n¡ 0
"Co
1::-
C "E en t.
On¡
~ 0 "
om ,..,
- -
~ I:: 0
- 0-
.- 0
£. .-
.r:::::1t) s...
>«'1,1
w >.
n¡ ,..,
:!: >
en
.-
C
Q)
Q)
s...
-'=
I-
~s~
~~,
~_. f
~o ~"
~'ic~.
~~
Ø>~ I....: ~
j/.r!~I&J~~¡ .. ;. ';"'fi.~L"~"""""""";
, êL LJLJW
\ -...
'. '. EXHIBIT 2 to Agenda Sheet
\ \ for May 25 Board/City
\ \.. Council Meeting
, '-..
J -,-
I r-.., --"..
, ---, ,
{,' "'\ '.
( \ \
I I \,
I' "
I iI',
I t \ I
I,' \ "
I I ,
I , ,
I , '
/ , '
I , I
~....,( ,I
~ \ ~
I I
, ,
I I
I '
\ \
I ,
, ,
~ --4 '.
I ,
\ '.
-', '
~
1:ð
.._~~" .
.~~c.- . ---'----- --~:::::::
c........., --- ._-~":::
1~1?I;:~.':';;:=
- 4"~~ CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT ~::';Ë~
"('p,u,v< MASTER PLAN
177l e¡.v.r,p.f;ÚV. OPTION A (Draft 5/17/04) "~."'"
=;:;'~/Iøf'~ ~ ~ J"'Mrf" -',X. a,,~ "ff(7ik
.... ~(
-> EXHIBIT 3 to Agenda Sheet
I for May 25 Board/City
I
I Council Meeting
\
I
I
I
/
/
,
,
I
I
I
I / H""i"t/
"J""tAwI..."'
\
I .
I CII".",,/
, r"/oCAo~¡
.""""'Yd
May,'"..
t-et,...-rU.
,y.",
('--roM
H '1'.'1"
K",¡AJc L--..¡,
RVP""J:
re.t,u.-re"
~~-"':;:~;..::':
~"~- w_--
~,-- - If-I "":""..:;:::::-::::~
"" Pt- ~ CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT - C-., A'¿"';n., -.=-:
k';'ø~,"/ MASTER PLAN JZZ CU¡""-¡ Is..r--....,
r¿z "Env. /f... Ð OPTION B (Draft 5/17/04) tn/"ÁI'f
- 11.,.;".. f"Y"t n!-vreJ ,lilt/.... I Rev1 051704 I
"'" E..",. c.wr.,... 1110 LA,,¿ 'SW'~l'
- /('TAII
t EXHIBIT 4 to Agenda Sheet
I for May 25 Board/City
I Council Meeting
I
I
,
,
I
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
J
11«Z"""
H- ,c.-re.-d
IIUtI' -"'tnJ""¡
j-f"",I"...-
;r"'JT<-hy""'¡
""" ',- ~
,JI.>"¡"'1'1-/ CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT
YTi '&to', fl.Tf) MASTER PLAN
, Hon.....,...,N{.mJ -111"'-'. OPTION C (Draft 5/17/04)
- "-"-I L",,'¡ 5-:fJ'
....' f(...-.I - /l~J'¡twrJ...I,kI."" IIi,h.,........ T' MN'inA.. -
Attachment A to Agenda Sheet for
May 25, 2004 4:00p.m.
Joint Board of Port Commissioners/City Council Meeting
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
Background Information
CONTENT:
. Public Outreach
0 Citizens Advisory Committee
0 Power Plant Working Group
0 Public Workshops and Joint Board/Council Meetings
0 Newsletters
0 Webpage
. Preliminary Master Plan Concept Themes
. Draft Land Use Plan Components
Public Outreach
Public outreach has been the cornerstone of the master planning process. There have been
several avenues of public outreach: 15 CAC meetings, 7 power plant working group meetings, 7
public workshops joint Board/City Council meetings, newsletters, and a webpage. These
activities are summarized as follows:
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
In July 2003, a 20-member CAC was formed, with the intent of increasing citizen input into the
CVBMP and allowing for a constructive exchange of ideas with a diverse group of interested
citizens and community organizations. The roles of the CAC were to: meet regularly; review
consultant deliverables; and make recommendations to staff and the consultant team
throughout the process, culminating in a recommendation for a preferred plan. Fifteen CAC
meetings were held between July 2003 and May 2004 and were well-attended by the public.
The following is a summary of the 15 CAC meetings:
1) CAC meeting #1 was held on July 28, and was an orientation to the CVBMP site and
planning process. The consultant team presented their preliminary existing conditions,
opportunities, and constraints findings. Several CAC members expressed their desire for the
CVBMP area to be jointly planned with the adjacent Midbayfront property, and for Part and
City staff to further explore a land exchange between the Port and Midbayfront properties,
which could allow residential use to be placed on existing Port property.
2) CAC meeting #2 was held on September 15 and consisted of a bus tour of the CVBMP
project area and a brief presentation by Port staff on land trading. The CAC requested that
State Lands Commission (SLC) staff present at a future CAC meeting.
3) CAC meeting #3 was held on October 13 and focused on the power plant site and its
relationship to the CVBMP process. Presentations were made on the South Bay Power
Plant site, tax increment funding, regional energy efforts, and the power plant licensing
process.
4) CAC meeting #4 was held on November 3 and included: an update on the formation of a
power plant working group; CAC discussion of a goal matrix, and CAC discussion of topics
1 ATTACHMENT A
of concern such as the South Bay Power Plant, tax increment funding, community impact
report, and joint planning/land exchange, A representative from South Bay Boat Yard made
a presentation on its proposed travel lift upgrade project,
5) CAC meeting #5 was held on November 17 and focused on land trading, Staff from the
SLC and Attorney General's Office made presentations on the Public Trust Doctrine, SLC
jurisdiction and authority, the Public Resources Code, and constitutional requirements.
6) CAC meeting #6 was held on December 8, and was a joint meeting with the Chula Vista
General Plan Update Steering Committee to inform both groups about, and desired
coordination between, the two planning efforts,
7) CAC meeting #7 was held on January 12, where the CAC participated in a visioning
exercise, and the consultant team presented its preliminary planning framework,
8) CAC meeting #8 was held on March 1 and primarily consisted of the consultant's
presentation on, and CAC discussion of, the draft market study findings.
9) CAC meeting #g was held on March 29 and primarily consisted of the consultant's
presentation on, and CAC discussion of, the preliminary concepts for the master plan.
10) CAC meeting #10 was held on April 12 and primarily consisted of the consultant's
presentation on, and CAC discussion of, the three draft land use plans, including open
space, land, and water plans.
11) CAC meeting #11 was held on April 19 and included a presentation on the Power Plant
Working Group report, and continued discussion of the draft land use plans. At this meeting,
Laura Hunter of Environmental Health Coalition presented two concepts, one with a land
swap and one without.
12) CAC meeting #12 was held on April 26 and consisted of presentations on, and CAC
discussion of, preliminary financial considerations, a revised land use plan Option C, and
open space concepts. At this meeting, the CAC approved two motions, first, to have four
alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report-- two with a land swap, and two
without; and second, to hold a special CAC meeting on May 3 for further CAC discussion,
13) and 14) CAC meetings #13 and #14 were held on May 3 and May 10, and focused on the
CAC "voting" on key elements of the draft land use plans that they agree on or could "live
with" that they would like further analyzed. The consultant prepared a facilitated exercise for
the CAC's self-guided discussion at both CAC meetings.
15) Finally, CAC meeting #15 was held on May 17 and consisted of the consultant's
presentation of the revised draft land use plans to be considered by the Board/City Council,
and the CAC's discussion of those plans.
Power Plant Workinq Group
A separate committee outside the CAC, the South Bay Power Plant (SBPP) Working Group,
was formed in December 2003, with the goal of identifying and examining potential relocation,
reconstruction and/or removal of the SBPP and adjacent energy infrastructure in greater detail
than would be possible within the broader mission of the CAC. As such, the Working Group
was asked to provide its input to Port staff and report its findings to the GAG.
2 ATTACHMENT A
The Working Group consists of representatives from the State Lands Commission,
Environmental Groups (Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego Baykeeper, San Diego
Audubon Society), Utility Consumers' Action Network, San Diego Regional Energy Office, San
Diego Gas & Electric, the City of Chula Vista, Sweetwater Authority, South County Economic
Development Council and others. Seven working group meetings were held from December
2003 through April 2004, Meeting topics included:
. Regulatory framework and policies for power plant permitting, reliability must run (RMR)
status, and cost recovery;
. Current leases, contracts, and easements for the facilities;
. Regional energy plans and its relationship to the SBPP;
. An understanding of the transmission network and how electricity currently is delivered in
the San Diego Region;
. Environmental and health concerns associated with current facilities and the potential
benefits and costs of closing, relocating, or replacing them with smaller, underground,
and/or newer technology facilities (including alternative cooling techniques, such as dry
coaling for gas-fired power plants and implementing renewable energy sources);
. Approximate costs of various alternative facilities; and
. Revenues produced by current facilities and projected value if facilities were relocated
elsewhere in the master plan area.
In summary, the Working Group recommended the fallowing two alternatives for the power plant
site:
Land Use A/ternative A:
. Close SBPP as soon as possible (when RMR status is removed)
. Move switchyard to former LNG site (southernmost portion of the "Otay District")
. Underground all current and future transmission lines on the bayfront
Land Use Alternative B:
. Build a new power plant at LNG site that includes the best available contral technology for
entire plant (including but not limited to prohibition of the use of bay water and the use of
best air pollution control technology)
. Move switchyard to new site (LNG site or southeast in transmission corridor)
. Place all current and future transmission lines underground on the bayfront site
. Create ownership/funding mechanism to help support switchyard relocation and
transmission line undergrounding and/or development of South Bay renewable
strategy/industry
Moving forward with two alternatives for the power plant site enables the Port and City to keep
their options open as the SBPP replacement feasibility investigation continues, Duke Energy is
currently working with engineering consultants to develop replacement power plant
configurations and believes that 33 acres would be a sufficient set-aside for on-going
replacement plant considerations.
It is expected that the SBPP Working Group will continue to meet to discuss replacement plant
issues as more environmental, plant ownership, renewable energy, and health impact related
information becomes available.
3 ATTACHMENT A
Public Workshops and Joint Board/City Council Meetinas
Public workshops have served as another forum for soliciting public input and support during the
master planning process, To date, five public workshops have been held, which are
summarized as fallows:
1) Public Workshop #1 was held on January 16, 2003, and was conducted by Port and City
staff to introduce the public to the planning area and process, A wide variety of questions
and comments were received from the public regarding: the study area, public outreach
and participation, the planning process, potential opportunities and issues, and preliminary
development ideas for the Bayfront.
2) Public Workshop #2 was held on May 21 and consisted of an introduction to the consultant
team and scope of the public outreach program, and a facilitated discussion with the public
on opportunities within the project area. A brief presentation was made on the CVBMP
project, including the planning, regulatory, and coastal processes. Comments were made
by the public regarding joint planning of the Midbayfront and Port properties and the
necessity to remove the power plant.
3) Public Workshop #3 was held on July 30 and consisted of the consultant team's
presentation on its preliminary existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints findings
for the CVBMP,
4) Public Workshop #4 was held on March 1 and consisted of a presentation on the master
plan progress, summary of public input received to date, consultant design principles and
development framework, and draft market study findings,
5) Public Workshop #5 was held on April 19 and consisted of the consultant team's
presentation on the preliminary concepts and draft land use plans.
In addition to the CAC meetings and public workshops, joint meetings of the Board and City
Council have served as another forum for soliciting public input and support during the master
planning process, To date, two joint meetings have been held.
At the first joint meeting held on July 29, the Board and City Council received a presentation on
the consultant's preliminary existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints findings, As a
result of public comment, the Board and City Council directed Port and City staff to conduct a
separate public workshop on the power plant, and to explore joint planning of the CVBMP and
Midbayfront properties as well as to explore the feasibility of a land exchange between the two
properties, which could allow residential use to be placed on existing Port property,
Consequently, in December 2003, a power plant working group was established to focus on the
complexity of issues associated with the entire 150-acre power plant parcel. Furthermore, in
March 2004, the Board and City Council approved an amendment to the Port/City Joint
Planning Agreement to incorporate the Midbayfront properties into the CVBMP project area.
Pacifica Companies, who has an option to acquire the privately-held portion of the Midbayfront
properties, has been meeting regularly with staff to provide input into the joint plan and to further
discuss the land exchange concept.
The second joint meeting was held on March 30th, at which the Board and City Council received
a presentation on the consultant's draft market study findings and preliminary concepts for the
master plan. Much public input was received concerning various aspects on, and potential
ideas for, the draft land use plans.
4 ATTACHMENT A
Newsletters
In addition to the public forums, three CVBMP newsletters were published to keep the public
apprised of the master planning progress. The first newsletter was issued in June 2003, and
described: the master planning site, process, allowable uses on Port tidelands, a summary of
the May 21, 2003 public workshop, the Port/City master plan objectives, and opportunities for
public input. The second newsletter was issued in January 2004, and described the Citizens
Advisory Committee formation, CVBMP timeline, availability of the CVBMP webpage and on-
line survey, and contained an article written by the CAC. The third newsletter was issued this
month and provided an update on the master planning phase and a summary of the January
CAC visioning exercise results.
Webpaae
Another method of keeping the public apprised of the planning effort and soliciting further public
input was the creation of a CVBMP webpage, which contains: a description of the project area,
planning process, and schedule; public input opportunities through public meetings; and access
to major consultant deliverables. The webpage also allows the public to register to be placed on
the CVBMP mailing list, and provided an on-line survey where the public could provide input on:
issues of concern, and ideas for: the vision for the bayfront, master plan alternatives, public
outreach, and the planning process. Over 60 individuals completed the survey either on-line or
in written format.
Preliminary Master Plan Concept Themes
At the March 30 joint Board and City Council meeting, the consultant team presented its
preliminary concepts for the master plan, which were based on the public input received to date,
and the following consultant design principles:
. Create one Chula Vista Bayfront;
. Celebrate the serenity and Hispanic culture of Chula Vista's bayfront setting;
. Extend Chula Vista all the way to the bayfront;
. Take advantage of deep water at the harbor to create an active boating environment;
. Create a bayfront park system that marries ecological habitats and the recreational needs of
the community; and
. New development should reinforce the sense of place at the bayfront.
The preliminary concept presentation consisted of ways of organizing the planning area into
three "districts" - the Sweetwater District (the "north" section, generally north of F Street), the
Harbor District (the middle section, generally between F Street and J Street), and the Otay
District (the "south" section, south of J Street); and within each district, various ways of
organizing developable space, open space, and the water areas, The presentation also
identified themes that should be considered in developing a visionary plan for the Chula Vista
Bayfront, such as:
. Sensitivity to the existing environmentally sensitive resources adjacent to the planning area,
and incorporating appropriate buffers and/or connections between proposed bayfront
development and these resources;
. Activating the harbor, like Baltimore Inner Harbor, to allow both boatowners and non-
boatowners to experience the water;
5 ATTACHMENT A
. Creating significant and various open space areas and recreational opportunities to attract
people from the city and the region to the waterfront, and to add variety and interest to the
waterfront experience;
. Encouraging mixed uses to synergize the waterfront, including hotel, office, retail,
residential, cultural/civic, entertainment, recreational, open space, and other uses;
. Relocating existing uses as appropriate to allow for the above to occur; and
. Balancing revenue-producing development with public open space and infrastructure
improvements, and developing an appropriate phasing plan
Draft Land Use Plan Components
The consultant team incorporated the market study findings, preliminary concepts, and public
input received to date in developing three draft land use plans, which were presented to the
CAC and the public in April. They generally contained components such as:
. Significant open space components such as: a cultural park, regional recreational sports
park, ecological buffers, baywalks, trails, and a continuous "greenbelt" and shoreline
promenade;
. In addition to open space, significant recreational opportunities such as new piers; new
navigational channel and new open water area to allow for ferryboats, historic vessels,
charter boats, and working boats; and new kayak launches;
. Civic/cultural opportunities such as a civic building, cultural park, aquarium, or museum;
. Attractions such as an entertainmenUevents center, retail uses concentrated around the
harbor, and mixed uses;
. Hotel and conference center facilities;
. Residential use;
. The extension of H Street as a significant physical and visual corridor, ending in a new pier
at the bayfront, ultimately connecting the city to the waterfront; and
. Relocation of certain uses, such as the recreational vehicle park, marina slips, power plant,
and switchyard, to allow for the public access opportunities described above.
The Sweetwater District proposed the lowest intensity development of the three districts, and
focused an lower scale, environmentally sensitive and environmentally themed uses, such as a
large ecological buffer; and civic, office, retail, hotel, and possible residential uses. The Harbor
District proposed the highest intensity development of the three districts, and consisted of a mix
of office, retail/entertainment, hotel, civic, park, recreational, and possible residential uses (in
conjunction with a land exchange), In addition, the Harbor District proposed various
configurations of the harbor water area and improvements to the navigation channel. The Otay
District proposed a medium intensity development, and consisted of a mix of office, ecological
buffers, park, recreational, possible residential (in conjunction with a land exchange) and power
generation uses, Any options with residential use on existing Port property assumed a land
exchange with some portion of the Midbayfront property.
6 ATTACHMENT A
Attachment B to Agenda Sheet for
May 25, 20044:00 p.m.
Joint Board of Port Commissioners/City Council Meeting
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
lambda Alpha International (lAI)
Focus Group Discussion - April 27, 2004
Phasing & Implementation
. Start with the Harbor District; improve J Street gateway first (easier than H)
. Build a critical mass of residential first; commercial will follow
. If you can't make residential work, the project needs a big "wow" anchor
. Get the old Goodrich warehouses down ASAP
. Dedicate a single Port staff person to shepherd the master plan
. Port staff oversight not strong enough; project needs a master developer or management
entity to hold the vision together, make deals - consider forming a JPA to make it happen;
don't' leave implementation to government
. Greatest challenge is keeping continuity over the life of the plan
Residential - Opportunities
. Start with a lower-priced, higher quality product to draw the market; increase prices over
time
. Prove the market with lower density, stick construction
. Best site is near the Harbor; build high-rise there (need view premiums)
. With enough units, Sweetwater would be its own distinct community; start small with 12
DUjacre, perhaps town homes, have 3-4 product lines, increasing with density over time
. Buyers: From outside Chula Vista; young professionals and empty nesters
. Price points of $300-400 sq.jfoot (in today's dollars)
. School will not be needed; use land for a higher purpose
. Look into incorporating timeshare-like residential into hotels
. Don't underestimate future demand; housing demand will be very strong in the mid- to
long-term
Residential - Constraints
. The plan sets the housing densities too low
. With only 450 units, Sweetwater would not be the place to start; start in the Harbor District
and build higher-end homes in Sweetwater after the residential market is proven
. Need better "front doors" or entries to the residential parcels; improve E Street
. Power lines are a perception issue, but not a deal breaker for residential; can be overcome
1 ATTACHMENT B
Commercial
. Need a major entertainmentjrec. attraction, e.g. sports arena; So. Bay aquarium
. Hotel with convention center could be anchor
. Doubt about the viability of a convention center in c.V.
. Best site for the hotel is near the bayfrontjharbor area
. Two hotels could work over time; build mid-rise with residential-type component
. Don't build the hotel in Sweetwater until other development happens there
. Need incentive package for commercialjofficejR&D, e.g. land giveaways, subsidies, amenity
package
. Bayfront probably won't be enough of a plus to attract officejR&D
. Retail: Looks too small to be a regional draw; too big to be local-serving
. Specialty retail is difficult; don't try to start there
. Build a smaller lifestyle center later in the phasing process
Public Realm
. Need a landmark building; E Street site good; bond to enhance gateway
. Sweetwater District is isolated; its own unique place, separate from the harbor area
. Improve H Street and E Street corridors
. Improve E Street entrance first, then move south
2 ATTACHMENT B
Attachment C to Agenda Sheet for
May 25, 20044:00 p.m.
Joint Board of Port Commissioners/City Council Meeting
CHUlA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
Citizens Advisory Committee
Comments on Draft land Use Plans - May 3 and 10, 2004
Background
The Citizens Advisory Committee for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan was instrumental in
reviewing and shaping the three draft land use plans developed by the consultant team. The
CAC reviewed preliminary concepts, and then spent five meetings reviewing and commenting
on the three draft land use plans. Public comments were also incorporated into the discussion.
The following is a concise summary of the group's comments. It does not reflect the robust
discussion that surrounded each issue. It also does not reflect comments made that relate to
program issues including densities, EIR issues and implementation. These issues will be
addressed later in the master plan development process,
CAC Participants"
Patricia Aguilar, Crossroads II
Jennifer Badgley, SD-Imperial Counties labor Council
Jack Blakely, CV Downtown Business Association
Diane Coombs (May 3) and Bruce Warren (May 10), Citizens Coordinate for Century 3
Nick Delorenzo, SO Council of Design Professionals (led discussion, voted)
Susan Fuller, CV Nature Center (committee chair)
Clay Hinkle, Goodrich
laura Hunter, Environmental Health Coalition
Chris lewis, CV Chamber of Commerce
Beverly Mascari, SO Port Tenants Association
Charles Moore, South County Economic Development Council
Jim Peugh, SD Audubon Society
Rudy Ramirez, CV Vision 2020 General Plan Update Steering Committee
Allison Rolfe, SD BayKeeper
Victoria Touchstone, US Fish & Wildlife Service (scribed, did not vote)
"The CAC originally included representatives from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
California Coastal Commission, San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego Convention
and Visitors Bureau, San Diego Convention Center Corporation, and San Diego Regional
Economic Development Corporation. These groups did not participate in the discussion
represented below.
Facilitation Process
The framework for the process was developed by the consultant team and executed by the
group members themselves. The group elected to record tallied votes on specific statements
that described shared opinions about elements of the plans,
Vote Tallies
A 14-0 vote indicates 14 in favor and 0 opposed. A 12-0-1 vote indicates 12 in favor, 0 opposed
and 1 abstention, The votes that do not total 14 may indicate the absence of one or more
committee member when the vote was cast. As scribe, Victoria Touchstone of U,S. Fish &
Wildlife elected not to vote on the discussion items.
1 ATTACHMENT C
CAC COMMENTS ON DRAFT LAND USE PLANS
Overall Master Plan Area
The CAC expressed strang support for joint planning and a land trade that would allow for
residential development outside the Sweetwater District (former mid-bayfront), Another strong
theme was their unanimous desire for mixed-use development with appropriate open space,
good design guidelines that include "green" building techniques, transit throughout project with
appropriate connections to the trolley, pedestrian/bike access, protected view corridors to the
bay, and public access,
They unanimously supported the idea of distributing jobs-related uses (office and R&D)
throughout the master plan area, though no specific amounts were discussed, They were
united in opposing "big box" development on the bayfront. They were also unanimous in their
support of "stair-stepped" development in the each of the three districts (lower in the west to
higher in the east),
The group unanimously supported incorporating the Chula Vista greenbelt throughout the plan
and generally endorsed the idea that that master plan should emphasize public/visitor-serving
uses (12-0-1).
Sweetwater District
Most of the CAC members felt the Sweetwater District should have a strang environmental
theme or emphasis (13-1) and lower-intensity development than the Harbor and Otay
districts (13-1).
The group was unanimous in its desire to see an environmental protection buffer between
habitat and adjacent development and many felt that a 400-foot buffer would be appropriate if it
included both environmental preserve areas and areas for public use (11-3),
The group unanimously supported the gradation of building heights, regardless of use, from
low-scale on the west to higher scale on the east of the District; and also unanimously endorsed
the concepts of wildlife viewing areas and good access to the Chula Vista Nature Center from
the future land uses there,
Regarding F Street, more members of the group supported stopping cars east of the F&G
Street Marsh, removing the roadbed and restoring the habitat there (10-4); all members
supported continuing F Street as a pedestrian/bike path toward the west, improving tidal
flushing and wildlife corridors.
With regard to land uses sited in the Sweetwater District, a majority liked the location of
research & development/office uses, and supported the inclusion of institutional uses "like
Scripps or Salk, different from Nature Center or school" (13-1).
They unanimously supported the inclusion of a civic building that allows for the preservation of
the E Street view corridor, The group voted 12-2 to support the civic building as a public,
community center and 10-4 to incorporate conference facilities into the civic building,
There was unanimous CAC support for a proposed hotel site and for the design of the hotel to
reflect environmental sensitivity, The group was not unanimous with regard to the type or scale
of the hotel. Many supported the idea of a "low-rise, one-story bungalow type to the west with
2 ATTACHMENT C
added height to the east (similar to Loews)" (12-3). The group was also unanimous in its support
for a conference facility in conjunction with the hotel in the Sweetwater District.
The CAC was evenly divided on the issue of including housing in the Sweetwater District (7-7),
Some CAC members opposed housing due to its potential adverse impacts to adjacent habitat
and bird species; some members expressed a desire to have mixed-use development with
housing in all three districts, including Sweetwater,
The group was also even split over a CAC recommendation to locate a white-water rafting
park in the Sweetwater District (7-7).
Harbor District
The CAC was unanimous in its support for a new open water area in the harbor as well as for
increased public boating activities (Harbor Cruise, water taxis), Many of the members
supported aggressively expanding the harbor area to the maximum size possible with
appropriate environmental mitigation (11-3), More CAC members supported the ideas of
expanding private, small craft boating as a priority (9-4-1) and expanding the number of boat
slips in the harbor (8-5-1),
The group unanimously supported straightening the navigation channel further from the shore
and ensuring that depth of navigation channel is adequate to accommodate the water taxi both
to the boat basin and South Bay Boat Yard, They also unanimously stated that any such
changes should result in no net loss of eelgrass.
The CAC unanimously endorsed the location of a signature park north of the marinas,
Everyone felt the beach was an important element in the Harbor District, but only half felt the
beach should be retained, as is, in its current location (7-7),
There was unanimous support for a hotel on the current boatyard site, the "100% corner,"
All CAC members supported the idea of cultural/retail/museum and public facilities
integrated within or adjacent to the signature park, keeping view corridors open from all
strategic locations including from Marina Parkway, Most, but not all, were comfortable with the
idea of including office in this mix (12-2),
Nearly all liked the idea of a destination entertainment venue/events/arts center south of
and adjacent to B.F. Goodrich, with a mix of uses including office and shared parking (13-1).
Most of the CAC members also supported residential in the Harbor District as a result of a land
swap that would eliminate housing from the Sweetwater District (12-2); however, some
preferred residential spread among all three districts.
Otav District
The CAC unanimously voted in favor of a mix of uses in the Otay District including housing,
"jobs," RV Park, regional sports park, enhancements to L Street, and appropriate buffers to
protect sensitive habitat.
The group was also unanimous in its opposition to keeping the current South Bay Power Plant
"as is." They were also united in their preference that if the power plant is needed and is rebuilt
in the Otay District, that it be located on the former LNG site.
3 ATTACHMENT C
Most supported the idea of designating the current power plant area for revenue-producing,
job-generating uses if the power plant is removed from the planning area altogether (13-1).
Unresolved Items
There were a number of items left unresolved by the group. They included:
. Enhance E St gateway (discuss bigger land use items first)
. Need for school site (would be similar to required fire and police services)
. Research/educational facility (need more info)
. Bike path along buffer's edge
. Pedestrian boardwalk connecting CVNC to Harbor
. Recreational activities: kayaking, etc.
. Boatyard - move back, move elsewhere, move out
. Theme for Harbor District (Iandside)
. Pier into harbor at I Street
. Eliminating power plant from the bayfront
. Project should generate its own power
. Provide views from 1-5 to the water where topography allows
4 ATTACHMENT C
Attachment D to Agenda Sheet for
May 25, 2004 4:00 p.m.
Joint Board of Port Commissioners/City Council Meeting
CHUlA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
land Use Components for the
Revised Draft land Use Plans
Revised Draft Land Use Plan Option A
Option A assumes a land exchange, with residential use only in the Otay District, and contains
the following components that distinguish it from Options Band C:
Sweetwater District
. No residential use, like Option C
. Two hotels
Harbor District
. No residential use, like Option B
. Existing boatyard remains; no hotel on this site
. RV Park relocated to isthmus along Marina Way, like Option C
. Existing fishing pier, marinas, and water areas remain
. Hotel and office use at the farmer Goodrich "South Campus" site
. Office use on the 15-acre parcel adjacent to the former "South Campus" site, similar to
Option B
Otay District
. Predominantly residential use (in conjunction with a land exchange)
. Power plant relocated off the bayfront
. Switchyard relocated to the former LNG site, similar to Option C
Water Area
. Retention of the existing "Z"-shaped navigational channel
Revised Draft Land Use Plan Option B
Option B assumes no land exchange, with residential use only in the Sweetwater District, and
contains the following components that distinguish it from Options A and C:
Sweetwater District
. Predominantly residential use, unlike Options A and C
. One hotel
. No office use
Harbor District
. Allows for "Marine Sales and Service" uses at the existing boatyard site, similar to
Option C
. Hotel use on a portion of the existing boatyard site, similar to Option C
. Existing RV Park relocated to the Otay District
. Cultural/entertainment use next to the new H Street pier and
cultural/entertainment/parking uses and community auditorium next to the cultural park
1 ATTACHMENT D
. One marina relocated west of Bayside Park to allow for a new commercial harbor at the
current marina site
. Improvements to existing fishing pier
. New pier at end of I Street, similar to Option C
. Park use at the isthmus along Marina Way
. Hotel/events center, and office use at the former South Campus site
. Office use on the 15-acre parcel adjacent to the former South Campus site, similar to
Option A
Otay District
. Predominantly office use
. Power plant and RV Park relocated to former LNG site
. Switchyard remains
Water Area
. Straightening of the navigational channel
Revised Draft land Use Plan Option C
Option C assumes a land exchange, with residential use only in the Harbor and Otay districts,
and contains the following components that distinguish it from Options A and B
Sweetwater District
. Identical to Option A, but allows for hotel or office use at the northeast edge
. No residential use, like Option A
Harbor District
. Allows for Marine Sales and Service use at the existing boatyard site, similar to Option A
. Hotel use on a portion of the existing boatyard site, similar to Option B
. RV Park relocated to isthmus along Marina Way, like Option A
. Cultural/entertainment use and community auditorium use next to the cultural park,
similar to Option B
. Widening of fishing pier with cultural/entertainment use on top
. One marina relocated to the boatyard site to allow for a new commercial harbor at the
current marina site
. Events center and office use at the former South Campus site
. A boutique hotel and residential use on the 15-acre parcel adjacent to the former South
Campus site; modification of Marina Parkway
Otav District
. Residential use on the "North Tank Farm" site and some south of L Street, but less
residential in this district than in Option A
. Power plant and switchyard relocated to former LNG site
Water Area
. Straightening of the navigational channel
2 ATTACHMENT D
Attachment E to Agenda Sheet for
May 25,20044:00 p.m.
Joint Board of Port Commissioners/City Council Meeting
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
Citizens Advisory Committee
Comments on REVISED Draft Land Use Plans - May 17, 2004
CAC COMMENTS ON REVISED LAND USE PLAN OPTION C
At the May 17 CAC meeting, the revised draft land use plans were presented, In general, of the
three revised draft land use plans, the CAC was supportive of Option C, and unanimously voted
on the following comments/modifications:
All Districts
. Incorporate mixed-use development, wherever possible, throughout the project;
. Include one or more freeway covers to link the Bayfront to western Chula Vista;
. Maximize view corridors, particularly on F and H Streets; and
. Include a commercial recreational use like a whitewater park in at least one alternative
for further analysis,
Sweetwater District
. Incorporate a civic building back into this district
Harbor District
. Create appropriate buffer between Goodrich and residential;
. Route Marina Parkway west of the cultural buildings to preserve views to the water;
. Enhance the public beach area west of the cultural park;
. Maximize the existing harbor to create an active/deep water boating and docking area;
move some slips into an improved area at the current boatyard site, without altering the
current size of its leased water area; and
. Move as much residential from south of L Street in the Otay District to this district,
Otav District
. Title the southern Otay District area as an "Energy Utility Zone;"
. Create a 200-foot buffer between the marsh and residential use (100 feet for
natural/passive use, 100 feet for park/active use);
Other items the CAC voted on, but did not achieve consensus on, include:
. Support the harbor and marina configuration as shown in Option C (5-2-3);
. Locate destination entertainment/events/arts center close to Goodrich as a buffer,
incorporate a mix of uses with the center (10-1); and
. Support RV park location at the isthmus (9-2),
In addition, the CAC provided the following individual comments on Option C:
Sweetwater District
. The environmental R&D use should be a public, not private use
1 ATTACHMENT E
Harbor District
. Reduce size of events center to allow for more residential use;
. This district should contain the most residential use of the three districts;
. Events center should be relocated to the Otay District;
. The RV Park should be relocated to the Otay District, not to the isthmus in this district.
The isthmus would be a good site for cultural/entertainment use.
. Relocation of marina to boatyard site may obstruct views from the cultural park looking
northwest.
Otay District
. Prefer residential use in this district be moved to Harbor District, but reserve residential
use here in case residential is not able to be sited on the South Campus;
. Reduce residential use in this district; replace with park, or replace with revenue-
generating uses like office or hotel;
. Sports park should not be surrounded by residential use; the park may be viewed as
exclusive to the surrounding residents; and
. Power plant is incompatible with residential use in this district.
The CAC generally focused their comments on Option C; however, they did provide the
following individual comments on Options A and B.
CAC COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT LAND USE PLAN OPTION A
Sweetwater District
Likes
. Environmental R&D use is more appropriate than residential, like Option C
Dislikes:
. Environmental R&D use seems private; should be public
Harbor District
Likes:
. Cultural park
. Relocation of RV park to isthmus to free up site for the cultural park, like Option C
. Maintaining boatyard
Dislikes:
. No residential
. Mixed use should be part of the plan
. Relocation of RV Park to isthmus would occupy an important vista area
Otay District
Likes:
. Power plant relocated off-site
. Switchyard relocated to LNG site
Dislikes:
. Two southern residential areas should be changed to office use
. Moving power plant offsite may affect financial feasibility of this option
. Sports park surrounded by residential may be uninviting to public, like Option C
. Residential is too far south from the downtown corridor, similar to Option C
2 ATTACHMENT E
CAC COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT LAND USE PLAN OPTION B
Sweetwater District
Likes:
. Residential is close to the downtown corridor
Dislikes:
. Opposed to residential in this district; will work hard to make land exchange work to
allow for residential to be sited in the other two districts;
. Residential shown appears to exceed that approved by the Coastal Commission; and
. Removal of mixed uses, as shown in previous master plan alternatives,
Harbor District
Likes:
. Cultural park;
. Shared parking concept; and
. Hotel integrated with events center.
Dislikes
. Marina relocation will be expensive, which may increase the intensity of adjacent
development and increase traffic; and
. Marina relocation west of Bayside Park obstructs public access between cultural park
and the water.
Otav District
Likes:
. Relocation of RV Park
Dislikes:
. Be more generic about power plant relocation use, similar to Option C;
. Office use rather than residential use would be more appropriate adjacent to the marsh;
. Buffer next to marsh should be larger; and
. Office use is uninviting,
3 ATTACHMENT E
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT
AND
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS FOR THE BAYFRONT PLANNING AREA AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE DESIGN GUIDELINES, TO
PREPARE A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PROGRAM, AND TO
COMMENCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS,
WHEREAS, in June 2002, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board) and the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista/Chula Vista City Council (Agency/Council) jointly authorized Port
and City staff to proceed with a master planning effort for the Chula Vista bayfront; and
WHEREAS, in October 2002, the Board and the Agency/Council authorized a Port/City Joint
Planning Agreement that included a number of objectives for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
(CVBMP); and
WHEREAS, in March 2004, the Board and Agency/Council approved an amendment to the
Joint Planning Agreement to incorporate the privately- and publicly-owned lands known as the
"Midbayfront Properties" into the CVBMP project area; and
WHEREAS, the Port and City conducted an extensive public outreach and participation
program and selected a consultant team led by Carrier Johnson/Cooper Robertson and Partners;
and
WHEREAS, the consultant team has developed three draft land use plans based on the
consultant team's existing conditions and opportunities analysis and market analysis, and the
extensive public comment received during the year-long planning process; and
WHEREAS, each of the three land use plans are designed to achieve a world-class
waterfront through a unique mix of land and water uses, and provide maximum policy flexibility; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will equally evaluate three land use
plans, along with other alternatives as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
and
WHEREAS, the CEQA process will commence once the design guidelines and financial
feasibility program are complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council and the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista do hereby grant preliminary approval of the land use designations
for the bayfront planning area and direct staff to prepare design guidelines, to prepare a financial
feasibility program, and to commence the environmental review process.
Presented by Approved as to form by
laurie Madigan Ann Moore
Director of Community Development City Attorney and Agency Counsel
J :ICOMMDEVlRESOSI5-25-04 ICVBMP. doc