Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1974/01/15 Item 02a,b AGENDA 'ITEM NO.. r2a,b] CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: January Ii 1974 Public hearing - Consideration of a ~enera1 Plan Amendment for the Bayfront area to change designated land use from General Industrial to Commercial ITEM TITLE: Recreation and related uses Resolution - Amending General Plan to redesignate land use in the Bayfront area from General Industrial to Commercial Recreation and related uses INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND On August 15, 1973 the City Planning Commission considered the proposed Chu1a Vista Bayfront Plan and Program prepared by the planning consultants Sedway/Cooke in a study session, and set the matter for public hearing on September 26, 1973. At the meetings of September 26, 1973 and October 17, 1973 the Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed plan. At that hearing four separate items were considered~ 1. The Environmental Impact Report 2. Modification of the General Plan for the Bayfront Area 3. Rezoning of various parcels in the Bayfront Area 4. Specific Plans for the Bayfront Area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Commission reviewed the E.I.R. and adopted it by a 6-0 vote. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The SedwayjCooke report, Chu1a Vista Bayfront-f1an andPro~tam, provides the basis for amending the General Plan. The map l~ed Exhibit A 1S recommended for adoption as the Land Use Element. The Commission recommendation, as reflected on Exhibit A, differs from the SedwayjCooke proposal in only one area. The property located north of Rohr Industries, east of the proposed extension of Tidelands Avenue, south of F (continued on supplemental pages) ATTACHED: Resolution [~ Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS ~~ No. 1 Financial Statement: On 10-17-73 the Planning Commission by a 5..1 vote, Commission-Board Recommendation: with one member absent, adopted Resolution PCM~73~20 recommending that Council amend the General Plan from Industrial, Visitor Commercial and Parks & Public Open Space to Industrial, Visitor Commercial, Residential & other cat- egories as shown on Exhibit A. The Commissioners further recommended adoption of Exhibit B (General Plan text) & Exhibit C (Sedway/Cooke Report) to provide interpretive guidance. Department Head Recommendation: It seems probable that industrial development as proposed under the Railroad's plan would make the areas designated as IIP1anned Communityll unattractive for development as a Com- mercia1-Visitor-Recreationa1 area. Thus, approval of the Railroad's plan may result in committing the entire Bayfront Area to industrial use. The question as to whether the Bayfront should be developed with industrial uses or visitor-commercial uses is largely a policy matter for Council to decide. Either type of development is acceptable from a land use planning standpoint. It should be pointed out that the peak hour traffic generating characteristics of additional industrial uses probably would be similar to City Manager Recommendation: those of the existing industrial uses in the area so that traffic service may be low during peak periods. This con- trasts with probable traffic generating characteristics of (See Supplemental Page 4) visitor-commercial uses which tend to occur at times other than the peak hours. Any Council determination in favor of industrial development of the Bayfront Area should be preceded by a traffic study of the area. 'l(7/~S AGENbA ITEM NO. i~' a J ~ Supplemental Page No. 2 Street and west of I-5, is proposed for Industrial use rather than Administration and Business Service use as proposed by the consultants. This change was recommended by the Commission for two reasons: 1. To provide an area for potential expansion of Rohr Industries. 2. Existing development between the railroad right of way and Bay Boulevard from F Street to G Street is industrial in nature and recent proposals for development by property owners in this area are of an industrial nature. The basic policies from pages 8 and 9 of the consultant's report have been consolidated into a format appropriate for inclusion in the General Plan Text and are attached as Exhibit B. The basic policy recommendations of the consultant have been modified to allow water-oriented industrial uses to locate in the area between Rohr Industries and the SDG&E plant if additional studies pertaining to traffic and dredging demon- strate the desirability of such uses in this location. The remaining portions of the consultant's report, not in conflict with Exhibits A and B, are recommended for adoption as Exhibit C in order to provide guidance in interpretation. CITY COUNCIl CONSIDERATION TO DATE On November 13, 1973 Council opened the public hearing on the Bayfront General Plan Amendment, took testimony and continued the item to the meeting of December 11, 1973 to allow time for the Santa Fe Land Improvement Company to present an alternative plan for their property. The Santa Fe plan was received on December 6, 1973, which did not permit time for adequate staff review prior to the December 11 Council meeting. Therefore, Council continued the public hearings on the Bayfront Plan to the meeting of January 8, 1974. SEDWAY/COOKE PLAN - ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES The Sedway/Cooke Plan proposes a major change in the direction of development on the bayfront, moving away from industrial development to commercial/recreation uses. The Sedway/Cooke Plan has several advantages: 1. The plan will provide a wider diversification of the City's tax base. 2. The plan will create a new image for the entrance to Chula Vista along I-5. 3. The plan will permit greater use and enjoyment of the bayfront by the general public than can be expected under continued industrial development of the area. The major disadvantage of the Sedway/Cooke Plan is that it will require a great deal of City involvement in implementation since the plan does not meet with the approval of the major property owners on the bayfront. SANTA FE PLAN - ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES The Santa Fe Plan proposes a continuation of the industrial development of the bayfront with a small amount of commercial/recreation development adjacent to the bay. The major advantage of the Santa Fe Plan is that it is a proposal by the major property owner on the bayfront and therefore is likely to be implemented with less City involvement. The major disadvantages to the Santa Fe Plan are: 1. The plan will not provide as great a diversification of the City's tax base as the Sedway/Cooke Plan. 2. Access to the commercial/recreation area is through the industrial area surrounding it on three sides. Marketability of the site for commercial. visitor-recreational purposes may be adversely affected because of its location in the middle of an industrial area. 3. Additional industrial uses will have the same peak hour traffic generating characteristics as the existing developments on the bayfront, which will increase traffic problems in the area. (continued on supplemental page) f{7/Lj( "....._...._._-_.-"._."....,..,.,.~ , . AGENDA ITEM NO'. ' [ 2 a, ~ Supplemental Page No.3 PORT DISTRICT POSITION The San Diego Unified Port District has not taken a position on the proposed Santa Fe Plan. The plan is presently scheduled for discussion at the Board of Port Commissioners meeting on the afternoon of January 8, 1974. However, it should be noted that the Santa Fe Plan proposal for Marine oriented Industrial use on the property in the northwest corner of the plan is in conformance with the adopted Port District Master Plan. CONCLUS ION If it is found necessary to compromise and permit additional general industrial development as proposed by the Santa Fe, such development would be more appropriately located south of G Street in the area of existing industrial development, which would leave the northern portion of the bayfront open to be developed in commercial/ recreation use. '/I 71 t/r- <~..._.",__~._"^,,.'"'~' _11IM' ....'" ill Supplemental Page 4 It em . 2 a [{ b - City Manager Recommendation Concur with the comments of the Director of Planning. I feel that a tight precise plan dealing with the screening of the visible aesthetic defects of an industrial facility can mitigate the "mix" problem. Council should also weigh heavily the consultant's position that commercial would be a more productive tax base than industrial. This issue is not administrative, but policy. ,.....,....,~_..._-_.~...~~..--.,~-,.~_.".,,'''-'-,.. -"'