HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1979-9479
+-
RESOLUTION N0. 9479
as fbllows:
RESOLUTION OF THE ~ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
CHULA VISTA LOCAL OASTAL PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve
WHEREAS, the City ~f Chula Vista is required by the California
Coas al Act of 1976 to prepare a Local Coastal Program; and,
WHEREAS, the City ~f Chula Vista has been declared a pilot
proj ct; and, ',
WHEREAS, the City ~f Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency
of C ula Vista have adopted the Bayfr~ont Redevelopment Project Plan in July of
1974 and,
WHEREAS, the Redev lopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
issu d tax allocation bonds in the ar~ount of $3.4 million in August of 1975; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency conducted a public hearing on
the raft Local Coastal Program on October 5, 1978; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and
the ity Council of the City of Chub Vista conducted a public hearing on the final
Local Coastal Program on February 1,',1979; and,
WHEREAS, the ChulalVista Local Coastal Program has been prepared
purs ant to Public Resources Code, Sejction 30510(a) and (b).
NOW, THEREFORE BE I',T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of C ula Vista does hereby adopt the I,Chula Vista Local Coastal Program including
the and Use Plan and Implementation ,Measures, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be, and is hereby
auth rized and empowered to submit for and in behalf of the City of Chula Vista,
the dopted Chula Vista Local Coastalll Program to the San Diego Coast Regional Com-
mission for certification.
Prese~nt~d ~
;~ ~ .-
/.~ '~ p /~ _~/-
Pau Des rochers ,
Devel pment Director
~, Approved as to form by
-,
ommunity ~ Georg Lindberg, City Attorney
q 4 `a~
~F -•
~ i
ADOPTED AND APPROVED ~ THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, thlS 1st day of February
197 9 , by the following vote, to-with
AYES: Councilmen - Scott, Co~C, Egdahl, Hyde, Gillow
NAYES Councilmen- None I,
None ~I
ABSTA N: Councilmen-
ABSEN Coun~ilmen__ None ''
I
A'
STATE F CALIFORNIA )
COUNT OF SAN DIEGO ) s s .
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
DO HER
DATED
C~ .. ~~~ nn ''~~~~1-
~L~G.~
Mayor of the City of Chub V
I JENNIE M. F A
UL SZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
CERTIFY that the above ar~d foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
,and ghat the same has not been amended or repealed.
(seal) City Clerk
~9
CC-660
JOINT PUBLIC HEARINr,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
S
' ' I~t~m No. 2
For meeting of 2/1/79
TITLE Resolution 9479 Authorizting the Submittal of the Chula Vista
Local Costal Program
TTED BY Community Development~~,Director ~,~~
~ ~
ITEM~EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO X
On 0 tober 5, 1978, the Redevelopment Agency conducted a public hearing on the draft
Loca Coastal Program. Subsequent tp the public hearing, there was a meeting held in
San rancisco on October 30, 1978 attended by the State and Regional Coastal Commissions,
the .S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, Chula Vista,
Grue Gruen + Associates and a representative from Congressman Van Deerlin's office.
In r sponse to the public input and jthe workshop in San Francisco, the Redevelopment
Agen y approved three significant changes to the draft Local Coastal Program, namely:
the ealignment of Tidelands Avenue to avoid the F/G Street Marsh, the inclusion of
cult' its in the construction of the southerly access road to Gunpowder Point, and the
desi nation of a portion of the D Street fill as nesting area for the Least Tern. The
thre changes have been incorporated', in the text and graphics of the final LCP. The
prec'se engineering for the westerly realignment of Tidelands Avenue and for the cul-
vert in the southerly access road tp Gunpowder Point has not been accomplished. The
Leas Tern nesting area on the D Str et fill is proposed to be eigiht acres. Its exact
loca ion has also not been determine but it is being proposed for the southwest
corn r of the fill so that approxima ely four acres will be west of the mean high tide
(Por District property) and approxi ately four acres east of the mean high tide
(Chu a Vista jurisdiction).
Once submitted, the Local Coastal Pr gram will be criticized for several reasons:
1) 1 nd use considerations, 2) imple entation measures, and 3) LCP content. The land
use riticisms will center around th conversion of the agriculture land, the inclusion
of r sidential use, the preservation of wetlands (particularly the construction of
Tide ands Avenue), and the intensity of development adjacent to wetlands. The criticism
conc rning the implementation measur s will center around the absence of zoning ordi-
nanc s and regulations for the imple entation of the land use plan. These zoning
(continued on page 2)
P ' E~-IIBITS
A reement Resolution X Or finance Plat Notification List
0 her Final LCP ENVIRONMENTAL DO UMENT: Attached Submitted on
FINANICIAL IMPACT
Ple se see attached sheet.
STAFFIRECOMMENDATION
Adonlt resolution.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
REDEV LOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
Reso ution adopted.
t~ Q RA-4 (REV. 10/77)
f1
.,
Item No. 2
For meeting of
2/1/79
Page 2
ordi
Th e
acti
is t
is b
Proj
The
with
LCP
LCP
that
that
in w
our
for
lances would, of course, have to~,zone certain properties as open space or marsh.
agency had decided not to include actual zoning ordinances for fear that such
m would subject the Agency/City'~,to inverse condemnation suits. Our contention
iat the coastal zone is within a'redevelopment area and the Redevelopment Agency
Fund by law to develop the Bayfr~nt as proposed in the Bayfront Redevelopment
pct Plan.
:riticisms relating to LCP Conte t will center around the lack of specificity
n the LCP itself. This issue o specificity has been a continuous problem in
preparations since the inception!of the Coastal Commissions. Because the whole
process is new, there is no clead~ understanding as to the degree of specificity
is required. We have prepared he Chula Vista LCP with the degree of specificity
we feel is appropriate. Howeve we are certain that there will be several areas
rich the Coastal Commission will require greater detail. During the process of
.CP review, these areas will be efined and will probably require further study
:ertification.
Once the LCP is submitted, there are~lmany uncertainties that lie ahead. Ide had hoped
to r solve our differences with the l~.S. Fish & ~Jildlife Service and California
Depa tment of Fish & Game prior to t e submittal of our LCP so that we could receive
thei support during the review peri'd. This has delayed our LCP submittal for
near y a year with still no resoluti n of the conflict in sight. It is therefore
reco ended to submit our Local Coas al Program while continuing to negotiate with
the ildlife agencies concerning thelenvironmental impacts of the Bayfront Plan
FI
The
date.
c;ty
The ~
ICIAL IMPACT:
ity has requested reimbursement',under SB90 for the preparation of the LCP. To
the City has received a total df $11,934.29. We have been informed that the
will receive an additional $11, 26.70 for expenses incurred during FY 78-79.
otal state reimbursement will thlen be $22,960.99.
7q
t
�k OVA
Asks
WIT
ON
3
M
f
'1�1
loot
'.f
r
z
aib
l'
VON 0 TQ.r.l. ;i ,11]
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM REPORT
Prepared for:
The Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista
Prepared by:
WESTEC Services, Inc.
180 East Main Street, Suite 150
Tustin, California 92680
August 1, 1978
Revised February, 1979
1
9N~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
REVISIONS iii
ONE INTRODUCTION I
TWO SUMMARY 9
THREF. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 12
FOUR THE PLANNING PROCESS I~
FIVE OBJECTIVES OF THE BAYFRONT PLAN 22
SIX BAYFRONT PLAN - POLICIES 27
SEVEN BAYFRONT PLAN LAND USES 35
EIGHT DISCUSSION OF COASTAL POLICIES 40
NINE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAYFRONT PLAN 62
TEN THE SOUTHERN AND INLAND PARCELS 74
i
q'y?q
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Regional Location 3
2 Coastal Zone Boundary ~ Planning Areas 5
3 Related Planning Projects 8
4 Bayfront Plan Subareas 13
5 Land Use Plan 36
6 Land Use Chart 37
7 Public Access ~ Circulation 42
8 Marine Resources 46
APPENDICIES
A Public Participation A-1
B Intergovernmental Coordination g-1
ii
~ ~1 ?q
D1=VT C Tf1T~TC
It is anticipated that there may be revisions to this report
as it is reviewed by members of the public, the City of Chula
Vista, the California Coastal Commission, and other interested
groups and agencies. In order to document these revisions, it has
been decided to leave the text of the report in its original form
and to list the revisions separately in this section. In order to
assist the reader, a graphic symbol ( `'aye ls~al ) has been placed in the
margin of the text opposite sections which have been revised.
Wherever the symbol appears, the reader should refer to this
section for the revisions.
The revisions are listed below and are identified by page
number and by section heading or paragraph. A brief explanation
of each revision is presented the first time a particular revision
is mentioned. In subsequent sections, only the revision is
noted.
P. 35, Subarea 1. In response to the comments received from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game, the planned uses on the "D" Street fill have been
revised to include an eight-acre special habitat area to provide
nesting areas for the least tern. This habitat area will include
a 100' wide buffer zone to protect the nesting sites. The final
configuration and design of the nesting sites and the buffer zone
will be established in consultation with the appropriate wildlife
agencies. The location of the proposed nesting site is illustrated
on Figure 5 (Revised: Feb. 1979).
iii
~~~
P. 35, Subarea 2. In response to comments received from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game, the design of the southerly access road to Gunpowder
Point has been modified to incorporate culverts to ensure adequate
tidal flow to the marsh area between the roads. The final location
and design of the culverts will meet the specifications and
requirements of these Wildlife Services. The general location of
the culverts is indicated on Figure 5 (Revised: Feb., 1979).
P. 38, Subarea 3. The original plan included the creation of 13
acres of new marsh area to compensate for the filling of the
existing F/G Street marsh. In response to comments by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game, the existing F/G Street marsh will now be preserved. In
order to accomplish this, Tidelands Avenue has been realigned to
~~ the west. Because of the realignment of Tidelands Avenue and the
preservation of the F/G Street marsh, no new marsh area will be
created (Revised: Feb., 1979).
P. 38, Subarea 5. This subarea will now include the preservation
of the existing F/G Street marsh. This will reduce the amount of
land designated for industrial uses (Revised: Feb., 1979).
P. 47, Subarea 1. The "D" Street fill will include an eight-acre
special habitat area to serve as a least tern nesting site.
P. 47, add section on Subarea S. The existing F/G Street marsh
will be preserved.
iv
~k~Q
P. 49. Subareas 3 and 5. In order to preserve the existing F/G Street
marsh, Tidelands Avenue has been realigned to the west. No additional
marsh is proposed, and no dredging or filling is now required.
P. 49, Subarea 4. The southerly access road to Gunpowder Point has
been redesigned to incorporate culverts to provide adequate tidal
flow. Thus, any minor diking or filling necessary to improve this
road will not restrict tidal flow. The creation of small islands for
the purpose of nesting and breeding of wildlife is no longer proposed.
P. 50, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. The Bayfront Plan
has been revised to include an eight-acre Special Habitat area to serve
as a least tern nesting site.
P. 56, Water and Marine Resources. The Plan includes the preservation
of the existing F/G Street marsh.
P. 57, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. The Plan includes
the establishment of an eight-acre least tern nesting site.
y
i
V
1 `'~ ~~
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The Coastal Act of 1976 requires that every coastal city and
county prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) to be submitted to
and approved by the California Coastal Commission. The Act defines
a Local Coastal Program as "a local government's land use plans,
zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and implementing actions,
which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement
the provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the local
level."
Recognizing that many local agencies were already involved
Tx
in comprehensive planning programs for their coastal areas, the
Coastal Act provided for certain agencies to be designated as Pilot
Programs. The City of Chula Vista, because of the extensive
f
planning effort which had gone into the Chula Vista Bayfront
Redevelopment Project Plan (Bayfront Plan), was so designated.
The Bayfront Plan, as presented in this report, is intended to
serve as the Local Coastal Program for the City of Chula Vista.
This report has been organized to give a complete description
and analysis of the Bayfront Plan. Chapter 2 contains a summary
of the key issues. Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions
in the Bayfront, and Chapter 4 reviews the planning process
~ which led to the Plan. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 present the Bayfront
Plan. Chapter 8 analyzes the Plan in terms of the policies of
q~~R 1
the Coastal Act. Chapter 9 presents the programs proposed to
implement the Plan. Finally, Chapter 10 discusses two small areas
of the City which are not included in the Bayfront Plan but which
are within the Coastal Zone.
This Report is based on the adopted Bayfront Redevelopment
Project Plan and therefore draws heavily on the work of earlier
consultants who played key roles in the formulation of the Bayfront
Plan. Sedway/Cooke, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Wilsey and
Ham have provided planning and economic services; WESTEC Services,
Earth Sciences Associates, Dr. H. Thomas Harvey, and David D.
Smith and Associates have provided environmental services. A
summary of the major consultant studies is contained in Chapter 4.
TL-iF ('TTY
The City of Chula Vista was incorporated in 1911 and became a
chartered City in 1949. The City currently has a population of
78,000 (January 1, 1977) and an area of 19.88 square miles. Geo-
graphically, Chula Vista is located adjacent to the east side of
San Diego Bay, eight miles south of San Diego and seven miles north
of the International Border.
The regional location is shown on
Figure 1.
THE COASTAL ZONE
The boundary of the Coastal Zone follows the centerline of
Interstate Route 5, except for in the northerly portion of the City.
There, it turns east (inland) along the prolongation of "C" Street
2
~~~Q
r i
.~
, OCEANSIDE
R
N1
. DEL MAR
- I-
S-
ESCONDI
,,~67
POWAY
i
- 63
I-8 ALPINE
LA MESA EL CAJON
• SAN DIEGO
S-94
~. ~ ~ • '.C ULA VISTA 5-94
. I-~
• I-5
•~ ---
~i
REGIONAL MA P
1
Fi~uRE
qk~q
1
to a point approximately midway between Broadway and Fifth Avenue,
and then north to the City boundary. The boundary is shown on
Figure 2.
The Coastal Zone consists of four planning areas:
1. The area included within the Bayfront Plan, which will be
referred to as the Bayfront.
2. The area bayward (west) of Interstate 5 and south of
L Street, which will be referred to as the Southern Parcel.
3. The area inland (east) of Interstate S northeast of the
intersection of Broadway (National Avenue) and C Street. This area
will be referred to as the Inland Area.
4. The area within the San Diego Unified Port District,
which will be referred to as the Port District. Although this area
is within the City, it will be included in the Master Plan for the
Port District rather than in the LCP for the City.
The boundaries of these areas are shown on Figure 2.
THE BAYFRONT PLAN
The Bayfront Plan is a comprehensive and cooperative plan
which has evolved from years of effort on the part of the City
of Chula Vista, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and the San
Diego Unified Port District. Land use, economic, and environ-
mental studies began as early as 1970, and the planning process
has included full public participation and interagency coordina-
tion (see Appendices 1 and 2). The City of Chula Vista and the
San Diego Unified Port District adopted the Plan in early 1974.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista formally
4
q~~q
.,
. , i i I~{~µi}r,~~ ._! I -- II _ I I -1 I I ~1.G' k Eft] I~:J 1.,.,j~;;] ~ H.»~.:1:,1.a i ~ l ~~ ~ ~i s
Legend
' Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Southern Parcel ~~~~ Coastal Zone Boundary
,.... ...............~ Project Planning Area
Inland Parcel
9 ~ ~ q North
FIGURE
2
Coastal Zone Boundary
& Planning Areas
adopted the portion of the Plan within its jurisdiction on July 16,
1974, and in 1975 Tax Allocation Bonds were sold for the Bayfront
Redevelopment Project. The Bayfront Plan covers 1,410 acres
including 679 acres of original uplands or landfill, 167 acres of
marshlands, and 564 acres of submerged lands. All of the submerged
lands and 205 acres of landfill are under the jurisdiction of the
Port District, leaving 474 acres of uplands and 167 acres of marsh-
lands within the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency.
RELATED PLANNING PROJECTS
As mentioned above, the San Diego Unified Port District
participated in the preparation of the Bayfront Plan and adopted it
jointly with the City. The Port's existing Master Plan reflects
the Bayfront Plan; it is anticipated that the Bayfront Plan will
become part of the Port Master Plan, which will be prepared in
~` conformance with the rec{uirements of the Coastal Act.
There is also a major public works project which will have a
direct bearing on Chula Vista's Coastal Zone and on the Bayfront
Plan. The Route 54/Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel will be
a joint California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and
United States Army Corps of Engineers project, with the Corps of
' Engineers being the lead agency. This project combines the con-
struction of State Highway Route 54 from Interstate Route 805 to
Interstate Route 5 (including the interchange with Interstate Route
5) with the construction of a flood control channel from Bonita
Mesa Road (immediately upstream of Interstate 805) to San Diego
Bay. The flood control channel would generally occupy the median
6
a~?9
between the eastbound and westbound lanes of Route 54. The project
includes the widening of a portion of Route S.
In addition, the project includes the acquisition of marsh-
lands and the provision of recreational facilities. The acquisition
of marshlands would include both the Sweetwater and Paradise Marshes
and would involve 44 acres as compensation for the impacts of the
project and 144 acres for preservation of habitat for endangered
species. The recreation facilities would include: bicycle, pedes-
trian, and equestrian trails; rest and staging areas; and a nine
acre beach park.
The interchange is located along the northerly edge of the
Bayfront, and because of the ramp design, would provide direct
access to the Bayfront via Tidelands Avenue. Figure 3 shows the
location of all of the related planning projects described above.
t~~ •
7
FIGURE
Legend
qy~9
-- --+;~~-- 3
Related Plannin
9
._
-....--
N ~ ~ __ ..
I DIE '-'
I 5
--
I ~ _-
.-__
Y
-- q
-- I
j ___
I II ;..vE .I .
9 at~tw~F_..~. 'I.
I ~ i
I ~'1 1
I/~ J 1
I
~ ~ p1EG~ pISTR~~t
i ~; IE~ PORE ~~ ~ f
~ ~~ ~ . _.._.. i, ~ _ _ _ ~-, ~ i
~ I
~,~
of - -
~~
i ~ l~
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's
Sweetwater River Flood
Control Channel
Projects
North
~..
CHAPTER TWO
SUMMARY
This report demonstrates that the Bayfront Plan is highly
consistent with the Coastal Act of 1976. The Plan is based on
goals and objectives which were adopted prior to the formation of
the original California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission in
1973, and yet are completely consistent with the spirit and intent
of the Coastal Act. The Land Use Plan is highly consistent with
the individual policies contained in Chapter Three of the Coastal
Act of 1976. Finally, the Plan will be implemented by the Redevelop-
ment Agency of the City of Chula Vista.
The Bayfront Plan provides for: significant public access;
day-use and overnight visitor-serving facilities; and the preser-
vation and enhancement of the valuable natural resources of the
Sweetwater Marsh. The Land Use Plan includes approximately 630
acres. Approximately 185 acres are occupied by existing industrial
development. Of the 445 acres to be developed in accordance with
the Plan, 39o will be marsh and marsh buffer areas, 13o will be
public parks and open space, 19o will be visitor-serving facilities.
The remaining 29% will include residential and industrial uses,
street right-of-way, and utility easements.
However, in spite of the overall consistency of the Plan,
there are certain areas where the Plan may not be completely in
conformity with the Coastal Act. The following areas have been
identified by the City of Chula Vista and the Regional and State
Coastal Commissions staffs as potential issues:
9
~4~~
1. Tidelands Avenue
The Bayfront Plan includes the extension of Tidelands
Avenue from G Street in Chula Vista north across the Sweetwater
Marsh, the D Street Fill, and the Sweetwater River Channel to
National City. This project will require filling~a portion of
the Sweetwater Marsh. The Coastal Act, in Section 30233(c),
specifically includes a provision for limited filling in developed
areas of south San Diego Bay. This provision would seem to
permit the limited fill required for the construction of Tidelands
Avenue. However, despite this specific language, several questions
have been raised with respect to this fill.
In considering the Bayfront Plan, it is extremely impor-
tant to consider the Plan in its entirety rather than as a series
of separate pieces or projects. Tidelands Avenue is an integral
part of the entire Plan and serves many functions. Most impor-
tantly, it is an integral part of the internal circulation system
for vehicular movement, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle
trails. As such, it serves to provide improved public access as
required by Sections 30210-30212. It enables public facilities to
be distributed throughout the development in order to prevent the
overloading of any one area, as required by Section 30212.5.
Furthermore, because of the close interrelationship
between the uses on each side of the Sweetwater Marsh, the
construction of Tidelands Avenue is necessary in order to: 1) facili-
tate the provision of transit service, 2) provide commercial
facilities within residential areas, and 3) provide non-automobile
10
q~7q
circulation, all as required by Section 20252, and to minimize
vehicle miles travelled as required by Section 30253(4). Finally,
the proposed compensation program for establishing new marsh areas
to replace the area lost to the fill required for Tidelands Avenue
is consistent with Section 30607.1.
Because of the overall importance of Tidelands Avenue to
the Bayfront Plan and because the construction of Tidelands Avenue
provides many facilities which are required by the Act, it should
be approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 30007.5.
2. Land Use
The Coastal Act gives certain land uses priority over
other uses. The Bayfront Plan includes a variety of uses including
some which have lower priorities. However, 710 of the vacant land
has been allocated to very high priority uses including public
parks, marshes, buffers, and visitor-serving facilities. Thus, the
lower priority uses such as residential and industrial serve to
provide greater variety and better balance, .and have not precluded
the provision of high priority uses.
3. Lower-Cost Facilities
The Plan includes a variety of uses covering a range of
economic capabilities. Many of the public recreational facilities
will, of course, be free. The commercial visitor-serving
facilities will offer a range of services and accommodations for
both the day-user and overnight visitor. In addition, the Redevelop-
ment Agency intends to explore the availability of Federal Housing
Assistance in order to provide moderate cost housing.
q~i?9 11
CHAPTER THREE
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The Bayfront of Chula Vista is located adjacent to South San
Diego Bay and consists of marshlands, uplands, and man-made fill.
Most of the area has in the past been impacted by man's activities,
but today, except for two major industrial uses, man's use of the
Bayfront is marginal. With the exception of the J Street Park,
there are no recreational facilities, very limited provisions £or
public access, and no substantial visitor-serving facilities
within the City's jurisdiction, although there exist limited
recreational facilities on Port District property.
However, included are extensive marsh and tidelands which
provide important and viable habitat for many species of wildlife.
The California Least Tern and the Light-footed Clapper Rail, both
endangered species, are found in the Bayfront. In addition, the
inter-tidal zones and marsh areas provide important breeding and
spawning grounds for many species of marine life.
The Bayfront has been divided into planning subareas which are
shown on Figure 4. It is important to note that these subareas
differ from those used in the original Bayfront Plan, primarily
because this report addresses only the area under Chula Vista's
jurisdiction while the Bayfront Plan included the Port District's as
well as the City's territory.
1. Subarea 1, D Street Fill
The D Street Fill is a large landfill located in the northern
portion of the Bayfront
This fill was created in 1969, when 85
12
ay~9
{i.
I^~
V
L
V
LL
~~
0
~
M
W
r
t
d
;~
r 4-
~_~
4
~ i
w
~I
i T o
= ~ -
~I ~- -
T -_ ---
~~,~
-----
li z
_-
T
I
lli pz _. I '..
I / I - 35 Tit 9T
/~ f
J~~, ,/ I
~ ~
~~ ~p
%% ~
11 '~y vex
/ ~ CHULP VISTA r
~/ , IrL
II , a'l
i
i
i
L
++
O
Z
C
t0
N
C
N
C
M~
W
/Q
wV`I
_W
C
1
C
J
Q.
S
cs-
acres were diked and hydraulically filled and an additional thir-
teen (13) acres were partially filled. The City controls seventy-
one acres of this fill; the Port District has jurisdiction over
twenty-seven acres along the westerly and northerly edges.
This fill is vacant and has never been used by man except for
occasional unauthorized off-road vehicle uses. However, portions of
this subarea provide nesting sites for the California Least Tern.
Therefore, although man-made, the fill represents a significant
habitat area.
Any potential development of the D Street Fill would be
dependent upon the extension of Tidelands Avenue from both the north
and south. In addition, specific provisions would need to be made
to protect and buffer habitat areas both on the site and in the
adjacent marshlands. Finally, the fill itself would need to be
recompacted.
2. Subarea 2, Gunpowder Point
Gunpowder Point is an "island" located adjacent to the Bay and
surrounded by Sweetwater Marsh, Vener Marsh and Vener Pond. It is
connected to the uplands by two earth dikes.
Gunpowder Point derives its name from the munitions plant which
was operated there in the early part of this century. The only
current use is storage and other uses incidental to the agricultural
activities on the adjacent properties.
The location of this area presents both significant oppor-
tunities and significant constraints. Because of the scenic and
9y94 14
recreational values, it represents one of the prime areas within
the Bayfront. However, because of the extreme sensitivity of the
surrounding tidal and marsh areas, special attention must be
given to minimize the impacts of any development.
3. Subarea 3, Tidelands West
The area west of proposed Tidelands Avenue consists entirely
of uplands. It is bounded on the west and north by San Diego
Bay, Vener Pond, Vener Marsh, and Sweetwater Marsh. The area is
used primarily for agricultural purposes. In addition, there is
a small motel, a softwater service, a small boat building facility,
a recreation vehicle facility and a small industrial facility.
The F-G Street Marsh is located in this subarea.
This subarea will have good access from Tidelands Avenue.
Buffers and permanent open space should be provided as part of
any development on this site.
4. Subarea 4, Marshes
Subarea 4 includes Sweetwater Marsh, Vener D4arsh and Vener
Pond. All of these areas contain significant biological resources
and have been proposed for designation as critical habitat by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These resources have been
thoroughly discussed in several previous reports including the
EIR for the Bayfront Redevelopment Project, the EIS for the
extension of Tidelands Avenue and the EIS for the Sweetwater
River Flood Control Channel. The acquisition of the marsh complex
has been included in the Corps of Engineers project.
15
~~1q
5. Subarea 5, Tidelands East
This subarea includes all of the property east of proposed
Tidelands Avenue to Interstate Route 5 north of the Rohr Corporation
facilites. The portion of this area between I-5 and Bay Boulevard
is developed with a variety of industrial and commercial uses.
The remainder of this area is used as part of the agricultural
activities. This subarea is traversed by the San Diego Gas F,
Electric (SDG~,E) easements.
6. Subarea 6, Industrial
The existing SDG$E electrical generating plant and the
existing Rohr facility form Subarea 6. The Rohr facility is
partially located on Port property.
16
q~?9
CHAPTER FOUR
THE PLANNING PROCESS
By 1970 it was apparent to both the City and the Port District
that the adopted plans for the Bayfront should be reevaluated.
It was no longer environmentally, politically or even economically
feasible to fill the entire Bayfront out to the bulkhead line in
order to create industrial sites. The City imposed a building
moratorium on the Bayfront in January, 1971. In April of 1971
the City and the Port District entered into a Joint Powers Agreement
and retained the planning firm of Sedway/Cooke Consultants to
begin planning studies.
During the past seven years the Redevelopment Agency, the
City of Chula Vista, and the San Diego Unified Port District have
undertaken the preparation of numerous studies and reports to
determine an appropriate future for the Chula Vista Bayfront.
The major objectives of these reports have been to insure that
the redevelopment of the Bayfront provides for a public recreational
area, while preserving existing marshlands in a healthy state to
ensure the continued viability of the marshes and the protection
of the wildlife which inhabit them. During these studies, the
City has received valuable imput from several State and Federal
Agencies including the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps. of Engineers, the California
Department of Fish and Game, and the California Coastal Commission.
The overall planning process has included a series of land
use planning and design studies parallelled by a series of economic
17
~~~~
studies designed to test various alternatives. While it is not
feasible to detail all the reports issued, a summary of the major
studies is presented.
TENTATIVE FINDINGS CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEMAND IN THE BAYFRONT
This report, prepared by Gruen, Gruen and Associates in June
1971, identified some very preliminary findings relative to the
economic demand for various broad categories of land use in the
Bayfront. These included industrial, commercial, tourist commer-
vial, and residential. This report provided input into the pre-
liminary planning study.
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT STUDY - Preliminary Analysis
A joint City and Port District study was completed in October
1971 by Sedway/Cooke, Urban and Environmental Planners and Designers.
This study surveyed and analyzed: a) existing land and land use
conditions, including soils and geological conditions, visual
factors, and ecological considerations; b) availability and
adequacy of public services such as transportation, water, and
sanitary sewers; c) current plans and programs for the Bayfront;
d) governmental considerations such as zoning; and e) the market
potential of the Bayfront. Based upon these analyses, this
report made initial determinations as to the potential uses of
the subareas within the Bayfront site.
This report also contained a complete set of objectives for
the Bayfront. These objectives were subsequently adopted by the
City and the Port District with only minor modifications. The
objectives are discussed in Chapter Five of the LCP.
18
q~t9q
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT STUDY - Land Use Options Analysis
This report, also jointly sponsored by the Port District and
the City and issued by Sedway/Cooke in May 1972, was a more
detailed analysis which investigated the potential uses of the
Bayfront subareas and presented three possible land use options
for the site.
Option A devoted the major portion of the Bayfront to com-
mercial-recreational areas; Option B incorporated industrial,
commercial-recreational uses, and public parks; and Option C
allocated the major portion of the site to industrial uses while
still reserving a portion of the shoreline area for public parks.
At the conclusion of this study, Option A was chosen to
serve as the guideline for Bayfront redevelopment. The choice
was based on the consideration that Option A would provide for a
complex that would broaden the recreational, commercial, tourist
and housing markets serving Chula Vista. Option A, which would
have a higher development cost than either B or C, provides
greater public access and enjoyment of the Bayfront, greater job
diversification, and a more balanced land use for the site.
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PLAN AND PROGRAM
This report, issued in March 1973, contains an analysis of
three major elements: 1) primary policies and objectives; 2) a
development and conservation plan, including land use, trans-
portation and environmental design elements; 3) a development and
conservation program, including provisions both for regulating
development in accord with the Plan and for financing necessary
physical changes.
19
gK9q
BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN
This document is the legal document which contains the
adopted Master Plan for the redevelopment of Chula Vista's Bayfront.
Based on the findings of the Chula Vista Bayfront Plan and Program,
this report provides the legal guidelines for the implementation
of the Redevelopment Project. The report establishes basic objec-
tives, land use plans, subarea criteria, applicable controls,
redevelopment techniques, financing methods, and amendment
procedures.
BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPER'S REPORT
This report was prepared by Wilsey ~ Ham in August 1976, and
established parameters for the development of the major public and
quasi-public facilities that will be required for the ultimate
development of the Bayfront. Specifically, the report addresses
the extension of Tidelands Avenue, the preliminary grading plan,
the drainage plan, installation of the utilities for water,
sewage, gas, telephone and electric, and protection of marsh and
mudflat areas.
The Developer's Report also examines ways to minimize the
effects the proposed Bayfront development will have on existing
salt marsh and mudflat areas. In an effort to improve and protect
all the marsh areas, there is a proposed enhancement program
designed to clean up and restore degraded areas within the marsh.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
There have been two studies completed by the Southern
~~~~ 20
California Testing Laboratory Inc. concerning soil conditions at the
proposed redevelopment site.
FINANCIAL AND MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE BAYFRONT PLAN
Gruen Gruen + Associates prepared an in-depth economic analysis
of the Bayfront Plan in June 1976. It included a review of the
financial implications, market demand, and improvement costs of the
Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
Because of the unique and ecologically sensitive area comprising
the proposed Bayfront Redevelopment, several reports have been
prepared which address the potential environmental impacts of the
project.
The initial review and analysis of the Bayfront's impact on the
area was compiled by the Chula Vista Planning Department in September
1973. Subsequently, WESTEC Services, Inc. prepared a complete EIR
for the Bayfront Plan and a separate EIR/EIS for the extension of
Tidelands Avenue.
~~~ a 21
CHAPTER FIVE
OBJECTIVES OF THE BAYFRONT PLAN
The objectives of the Bayfront Plan were established in 1972
following extensive initial analyses of social, economic, physical,
and ecological factors which would affect the Bayfront. The
following objectives were formally adopted by the City Council of
Chula Vista on January 25, 1972, and by the San Diego Unified Port
District on February 1, 1972. The basis for each objective was
prepared by Sedway/Cooke and is presented here in order to give
the reader some historical insight into the reasons for each
objective.
I. ANY MARSHLANDS DETERMINED TO BE OF HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALUE
SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN THEIR NATURAL STATE AND ALL NEW DEVELOP-
MENT, WHETHER ROADWAYS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES, SHOULD BE
CAREFULLY LOCATED AND DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THIS END. WHERE IT CAN
BE DETERMINED THAT SOME FILLING AND DREDGING IS REQUIRED TO
ACCOMMODATE A VIABLE PLAN, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED
BASIS: The salt marshes within the Bayfront planning area are
among the Zast viable salt marshes in Southern California. These
marshes are vital habitats for marsh and shoreline birds, in-
eluding endangered species, and are an integral part of the
complex Bay system which provides, directly and indirectly, major
food sources for fish and fozuZ and the protection of water
quality. Moreover, the visual richness of the marshes, their
~~ ~ Q 22
seasonal changes, abundance of zviZdZife, and panoramic viez,:s
provided, represent unique scenic and recreation values.
Z. PUBLIC USE AND ENJOYMENT OF SHORELINE AREAS SHOULD BE PRO-
MOTED AND PROTECTED PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SHOULD BE PROVIDED
ALONG THE EDGES OF THE SWEETWATER RIVER MARSH, WITH THE UNDER-
STANDING THAT AN OCCASIONAL USE REQUIRING WATERFRONT ACCESS MAY
NOT TOLERATE INTERRUPTION BY PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS,
BASIS: The Chula Vista Bayfront also represents one of the Zast
remaining opportunities for public access along the southeast
shore of San Diego Bay. The variety of experiences, including
panoramic views, immediate shoreline access, potential for beach
and marina facilities and viewing of natural area and wildlife,
aZZ reinforce the case for ensuring public access. Moreover, the
relatively undeveloped state and consequent opportunity for
planned development of the Bayfront as a whole, help ensure that
pedestrian access can be provided z~hich does not interfere with
other public and private uses of Bayfront lands.
3, GOOD PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS SHOULD BE CREATED
BETWEEN THE BAYFRONT AND THOSE AREAS OF THE CITY EAST OF THE
FREEWAY
BASIS: Despite its close proximity, the major portion of the City
of Chula Vista is both physically and visually separated from its
Bayfront. Because of the area's special opportunities, steps
should be taken to ensure that the Bayfront u:iZZ become a functional
c~y~q, 23
part of the City, providing for both public and private uses which
r~iZZ serve and accommodate ZocaZ residents. Improved access is
essential to ensure this end.
4. PRIMARY USES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE STUDY AREA SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO PUBLIC RECREATION, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS
HOTELS, MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, AND COMPATIBLE WATER-RELATED
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES WHEN DETERMINED TO BE OF SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC
BENEF I T
BASIS: The Bay and its tidal areas are held in public trust.
Hence, it is essential that scarce Bayfront lands adjoining
public areas be developed in a manner compatible with, and com-
plementary to, the uses of these public areas. Analyses in this
study in~icate that changing maritime technology obviates the need
for these areas to be reserved for port facilities. Similarly,
there is no readily determinable large-scale demand by marine-
related industries for Zand. However, there is an established
need for additional public park and recreation lands, marina
facilities and a projected demand for tourist-related accommoda-
tions, such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and conference facili-
ties. Hence, the aim is to reserve major portions of the Bayfront
for public park and recreation use. Other and substantial port~,ons
of the area are devoted to private commercial uses which enhance
the recreational value of the area and provide greater opportunities
for public access.
qw~ q 24
~~ RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE WITH
EXISTING OR PROPOSED SUBREGIONAL AND REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER
FACILITIES ELSEWHERE IN CHULA VISTA SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN
THE AREA
BASIS: The Bayfront lands provide a unique water-related setting
and should be reserved for uses dependent upon, or directly bene-
fitting from, the natural resources of the area. Other sites
centrally located mit~iin the Chula Vista trade market area and
with good freeway access are available, for uses not dependent on
the shoreline. Moreover, the traffic characteristics of region-
serving retail facilities; i.e., the volume of vehicular trips
generated and the time at which trips are produced, z~ouZd create
several traffic problems along Interstate 5 and the Chula Vista
interchanges, thereby restricting the potential of the area for
other more appropriate uses.
6, ~'~HERE NOT DISALLOWED BY STATE TIDELAND GRANT PROVISIONS,
LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, BASED ON SOUND MARKET ANALYSIS,
h1AY BE CONSIDERED TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING A WIDER SELECTION OF
HOUSING TYPES AND ENVIRONMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA (This
policy was adopted by the Chula Vista City Council but was deleted
from the resolution adopted by the San Diego Unified Port District.)
BASIS: The Chula Vista Bayfront is one of the fern sites where
water-oriented housing can be provided on San Diego Bay. Provision
~.~~9 25
of some housing in the area is considered advantageous from several
standpoints: 1J it z~ouZd diversify the housing stock and population
of Chula Vista; 2) it would extend use of the Bayfront to more hours
of the day and thus protect against vandalism and other police
problems; 3) by mixing Zand uses, it r~ouZd promote a balance in the
traffic-generating characteristics of the area and minimize traffic
congestion; and 4) it would provide additional support for commer-
cial facilities serving recreational visitors to the area.
Keeping in mind that the above objectives were adopted in
early 1972, it is remarkable that they embody so many of the key
policies contained in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976.
Objective #1 is consistent with the policies relating to water and
marine resources, and to environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
Objectives #2 and #3 reflect the requirements of the policies
relating to shoreline access, and recreation and visitor-serving
facilities. Objective #4 embodies the full intent of the policy
pertaining to visitor-serving facilities. Objective #5 is con-
sistent with the policy requiring that the coastal area be preserved
for coastal dependent uses. Objective #6 is consistent with the
housing policy.
All of these objectives are strong statements which will
serve to implement the major concepts of the Coastal Act. A
detailed comparison of these objectives with the policies con-
tained in the Coastal Act is included in Chapter Eight of this
report.
q~l7a 26
CHAPTER SIX
BAYFRONT PLAN - POLICIES
The Bayfront Plan is a detailed policy plan rather than a
precise development plan for the Bayfront. The Plan that has
been adopted by ordinance establishes the types and locations of
various land uses and then contains detailed development policies
for each subarea. The Plan, because it is a Redevelopment Project,
can and does include a substantial commitment to the provision of
public facilities. These are discussed in detail in the Plan.
The policies presented here are excerpted directly from the
policies contained in the adopted Bayfront Plan. They have, however,
been edited in order to update them with respect to comments
received from several responsible agencies, and to delete policies
or portions of policies which would apply only to the Port District
lands.
The adopted plan contains policies relating to land use,
circulation and aesthetics. These are as follows:
1. LAND USE
A. Primary use of the Bayfront should be limited generally
to commercial recreation oriented uses, such as hotels,
motels, restaurants, and public parks and recreation
activities. Other uses, including residential and
office uses, encompassing business services and light
industrial uses exhibiting office-type characteristics,
e~ („~ ~ l1` 2 7
are permitted where complementary to the primary
recreation orientation or where they contribute to the
overall feasibility of the Plan.
B. Small-scale, industrial uses should be permitted where
they will contribute to the Bayfront and not impede
proper development of public recreation facilities and
the commercial recreation complex proposed in the Plan.
C. The Sweetwater Marsh should be preserved in its natural
state to protect its many natural resource values.
D. In addition to the preservation of the marshes, a
majority of the mudflats and shallow water areas should
be protected because of their natural resource value.
E. The Land Use Map (Figure 5, Page 37) shows recommended
locations for permitted uses. Public use of the
Bayfront should be provided in the following manner:
i. Four large parks with a total area of approximately
49 acres.
ii. A 50-acre hotel-motel conference complex, with
other support facilities including restaurants and
retail facilities, on Gunpowder Point and the
neighboring upland area.
iii. A 20-acre specialty shopping area providing
recreation and visitor-related commercial facilities.
2. CIRCULATION
A. Provide for convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular
28
~ ~t 9 9
access to the Bayfront from community areas east of
Interstate 5.
B. Provide good regional access to the site from Inter-
state 5 and Route 54.
C. Create auto-free zones along the shoreline and other
areas which have unic{ue environmental conditions or
potential, and make provision for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
D. Route and design roadways in a manner which minimizes
adverse effects on valuable marshlands, protects lands
with high recreation value and avoids fragmentation of
developable lands into inadequately sized or located
parcels.
E. Reduce dependency upon the private automobile by pro-
viding for complementary public transit service, including
smaller "mini-transit" vehicles.
F. Provide motorists, both on freeways and on arterials
within and adjoining the Bayfront, with enjoyable
scenic experiences.
G. Provide sufficient separation between pedestrian ways,
bicycle paths, and roadways to ensure traffic safety and
the elimination of noise, functional disruption and
visual intrusion caused by motor vehicles.
H. Develop the network of transportation facilities, in-
eluding freeways, major arterials, parking areas, and
pedestrian and bicycle paths, into a system in which
~y n ~ 29
there is convenient transfer from one mode to another
and an easily understood relationship between the
various parts of the transportation system and the major
destinations within the Bayfront.
I. Avoid congesting the freeways and connecting arterials
by maintaining a mix of land uses where peak traffic
generating periods are staggered throughout the day.
3. FORb1 AND APPEARANCE
A. Preserve existing marshlands in a healthy state to
ensure the aesthetic enjoyment of marshes and the wild-
life which inhabit them.
B. Change the existing industrial image of the Bayfront,
and develop a new identity consonant with its proposed
public and commercial recreation role.
C. Improve the visual quality of the shoreline by promoting
both public and private uses which will provide for
proper landscaping and maintenance of shoreline areas.
D. Ensure a harmonious relationship between the Bay, the
marshlands and new development.
E. Remove, or mitigate by landscaping, structures or
conditions which have a blighting influence on the area.
F. Develop a readily understandable and memorable relation-
ship of the Bayfront (and the areas and elements which
comprise it) to adjoining areas of Chula Vista and to
the freeway and arterial approaches to the Bayfront.
30
4. SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. GATEWAYS. Certain points of access to the Bayfront
will, by use, become major entrances to the different
parts of the area. A significant portion of the
visitors' and users' visual impressions are influenced
by conditions at these locations. Hence, it is impera-
tive that special consideration be given to roadway
design, including signing and lighting, landscaping,
siting, and design of adjoining structures.
B. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. Dense plantings of trees and shrubs
are proposed in locations throughout the Bayfront to
serve three purposes: first, to diminish the visual
impact of large existing industrial structures, such as
those of Rohr Industries and the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company's plant and transmission towers, exten-
sive parking areas and outdoor storage areas; second, to
help define major entry points to the Bayfront and to
frame views; and third, because of the flat undifferen-
tiated nature of the Bayfront site, to be used in masses
as visual "stopping points" to limit views and provide
natural vertical elements.
C. VIEW POINTS. Planning and development of the Bayfront
should ensure provision of three types of views:
i. Views from the freeway and major entry points: the
primary concern is to ensure a pleasant view onto
G~'j 1 31
the site and establish a visual relationship with
the Bay, marshes and Bay-related development.
ii. Views from roads within the site, particularly
Tidelands Avenue, to the marshlands, Bay, parks and
other Bay-related development: locations should
preserve a sense of proximity to the Bay and
marshlands.
iii. Views from the perimeter of the Bayfront outward,
mainly toward the Bay.
D. LANDMARKS. At present, the only dominant visual land-
marks existing on the site are the industrial forms of
the SDG~E power-generating plant and the massive complex
of industrial buildings at the Rohr plant. As a part of
the process of creating a new environment and visual
image for the Bayfront, new landmarks should be designed
into Bayfront Development. A major landmark location is
proposed on Gunpowder Point, to focus attention and
provide a new visual identity from the freeway and from
the water's edge. The landmark duality sought can be
achieved by permitting a structure or complex of struc-
tures to exceed the height of buildings in the adjoining
areas. This duality may be further reinforced by use of
distinctive structural forms, materials, or colors.
Additionally, it is proposed that the existing landmark
function of the SDG~E generating plant be acknowledged
and reinforced by repainting and night-lighting the
~~~ ~ 32
structure to enhance its complex and basically inter-
esting form.
E. BUILDING HEIGHTS. Heights of buildings should be
varied in specific areas to set or retain an appropriate
scale of development, to protect or provide for views of
scenic areas, and to permit, where specified, taller
buildings to act as landmarks. Additionally, taller
buildings may be permitted adjacent to existing large
scale industrial buildings, if they can mask and thereby
reduce visual incongruity with surrounding areas.
F. EDGES. The interface of open spaces, such as parks and
natural habitats, with developed areas constitutes
functionally and visually critical areas deserving
special design attention. From a functional viewpoint,
development should be required to comply with the
following conditions:
i. Structures should be sited a sufficient distance
from natural habitat areas to protect the natural
setting and prevent interference with wildlife.
ii. Structures should be sited at a sufficient distance
from the water's or marsh's edge to ensure
unencumbered pedestrian and bicycle access.
iii. Structures should be so designed to ensure that the
uses which take place in a structure or private
space adjoining the structure do not detract from,
or prevent appropriate public use of, adjoining
t~~~Q 33
public open spaces. In turn, the public areas should be
designed and use regulated in a manner which does not
diminish the intended use of adjoining developed lands.
34
~yy 9
CHAPTER SEVEN
BAYFRONT PLAN LAND USES
The actual land uses which are proposed for the Bayfront area
are shown on Figures 5 and 6. These uses are entirely consistent
with the original Bayfront Plan, but for purposes of this report
have been further refined. These land uses are discussed by sub-
areas below.
Subarea 1, D Street Fill
The D Street Fill will contain commercial and residential Revised
uses, public parks and marsh buffer areas. The commercial develop-
ment will be located along the northerly edge of the fill in
conjunction with similar development on the Port property. The
residential development will be built along the southern edge of
the fill at a density of 10 dwelling units per acre. One park
will be located within the residential area fronting on Sweet-
water Marsh, and a second park will be located adjacent to the con-
dominiums. A 100' wide buffer zone containing 6.5 acres will
separate the Sweetwater Marsh from the residential developments.
Subarea 2, Gunpowder Point -_
~_
-~~S -~,>
Gunpowder Point will be a major focal point within the Bay- ae~~sed
front. It will contain a major hotel and related conference faci-
lities. In addition there will be an 8-acre public park, and the
entire "island" will be surrounded by a 100' buffer zone. A public
beach will be located adjacent to San Diego Bay. No public vehicular
35
9y~q
BUR
5
ly~~q
Land Use Plan
~,f
1 :~.,~ -
.,
-_ ~ _
.y ;
._ _
~~ ~ ~,
W _ y. r6J
w+
QN ,
The area west of realigned
•• .
TidelandsAve. will remain ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ , ~- ~ ~- - ~.J} ~~
„ • ,.. ~ ,
....
_ as uplands. ~' ~~ ° ~1,t
.,~
A } Q
Tidelands Ave. realigned to preser ~ _ ;. r 1 tl~'W:'~T1 -
r
o
'~F F / G Street Marsh.
(I If-~
-.
~- ~~,
~, ~ .,v.
J r
I -
~. _
O -~~ ~ ~ - _ _. -
~ *, ~
~~~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ 1111 ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~~~ ~/
~~ of nrvos a i ~ - ~
~ ~ ~ ~_
~ T '- ..- ~ LIFT ~ ~7 ~i ~`_']___ _-_. ~ I~_ _____.. _.. .._ ~ - _.._ '.
_ O,
- SDBAE BWY '
~_ L OiT~T~TXr itILf Yllill -1['. _,~•' ~„- "fi Dfxl tnSFMEN J ~ -~, 5
= .
r x rm S ?Iil{3fi1 - -. _~ ~ 1~--_. ~ ii~iLjZII ~~ini tig$+F
r ~~+f3> I
L ~ ~_~
\ II
~~ n
_ _ ! 'Y>~ _
/ )III ~ ~` - _~-"' ~~ ~ ~ __- ~ _ _ _ L _ - ~~~'~` _ -.._ _~ . ~\. _ - _
_ E€WAY
~ T~TTTT~ tNfi€RSfiATE TTFR ~
~~~~~~i 1,~1~IX X1 ~i Xr~'{ ., ..... ~, ~~~.., L I ~~..~.. ~ AVE F ~ .. _.,., i ~~i.~~ COIPiFDOU_LLLLL LII~LJ-LJ-LU ~..i~ i~~i ~ ~..Y ~ tiwwµyµr.X . ~ ,- _
NU __
~~~~~~~ _ foaaoo n 1. _. F~ _
~~ '. ~ ~ ' nwx ~ + wfxuf ~J ~ r wa0a.1W r =F ~ ~ ~~y,... ~ ,.
> ~ AYENU v
m ~ r -rl W ~ ~~ m0 AVENUE WOOOLFWH AYFIIUE r '•n. ... .. ~«V G~N.s' "
' ~ ~ oo~w Nu m w ova x I.. ~ N __. ~ ..__ _- ooD '~ ,_ ~ ' +
~ I ~ ° O;X ~l lVE E i a ~ ~ _- ~'.. 'i_.._i n l~i~ { ' i III '.
- ~ ~~~` 77~177`~~jj771~~III iiII ML _ ~ r- ^ I . r V _ _ E ', +
I
I~r Irk { Nlf I .. 0 T N AVENUE i ___T_ N _ n.- r
OA LA -
~ ll.._iL~_1 l ~_1J F~ '~ I ~ X i ~ OAX~ I~ L 1.1 i_l f ~... COOEIOGE 4vf
D {. TTt 1 ~ li _ _. _~ ~ y i dVf NU ' (r``_ ' ~ ~~
c ~' ~ ~µ~7}7}7}~7}~1~}{T-~~}~1~~',77}t }TT77} ~~, ~~, }i~~ ~ ~, ~ I f IF i _ '~ ~ n r,~. - ~ ~~
_ . U_LLLL~ I I l I I I I I I '7 '. J 1 ,
N _
I ~~ - Ti - -, _ _ - ~_. ~ cvEaso -_ nve a I-~~~~ ~ I 1 I
ue I ,-~
o -
~ 1 I
e
ai f f l ~ ~ evfxuf
~ ~ I ,i~. i~. ___ r : _
uaoi I
- W Y BROADWA 4 _______
nn nI~ ~l I-I ~Iu'C_
Legend
San Diego Bay ~ park -Visitor Commercial ~ Commercial Recreation III Plan amended Jan., 1979.
Residential -
- Buffer ~ Medium Density Highway Commercial Industrial
Residential - ~ /North
Marsh ~ Medium High Density -Hotel /Motel Public Beach
~~_ I
..A
s
..o
r
~
~ USES 1
-
~.
Commercial
C Visitor 19.5
~ r~otel/Motel
~
Highway
Commercial
Residential
Medium Density 27.5
~ Medium-high
Density
Industrial
SDG~E Plant
Commercial
Recreation
Public Park 11.0
Marsh
Marsh Buffer 6.5
~ TOTAL: 64.5
C
m
SUBAREAS/ACRES
2 3
4 5 6 TOTAL
19.5
21.5 27.0 48.5
13.5 6.0 19.5
27.5
18.0 18.0
33.5 90.0 123.5
84.0 84.0
19.0 19.0
8.0 29.5 6.0 4.0 58.5
13.0 128.5 141.5
10.0 11.0 --- --- --- 27.5
39.5 98.5 128.5 72.0 184.0 587.0
access or parking facilities will be provided. Primary access will
be by pedestrian trail or mini-transit from parking areas located on
the adjacent uplands. Emergency and other limited vehicular access
will be provided.
Subarea 3, Tidelands West
This uplands area west of Tidelands Avenue is designated for a
motel, support facilities including parking for Gunpowder Point,
residential development, public parks, and marsh buffer zones. The
motel will be located in the northerly portion of this subarea, and
the residential development will be built in the southern portion.
The parking and support facilities for Gunpowder Point will be
clustered with the motel.
A major public park containing 29 acres will surround these two
~' ~~" _:
development areas, and a 100' buffer zone will protect the marsh Rc~~s~~i
areas. A public beach will be located adjacent to San Diego Bay.
Subarea 4, Marshes
The marshes represent an extremely valuable biological resource,
and the Plan provides for their preservation, protection, and
enhancement. No development will be permitted except for essential
access and utility connections, including the extension of Tidelands
Avenue and improvement of access to Gunpowder Point.
Subarea 5, Tidelands East
The area east of Tidelands is planned for a variety of land tic~~s~~i
uses including highway commercial, industrial, and a commercial
recreation area. The commercial recreation may include a mini-golf
course, tennis courts, a swimming pool, and similar facilities.
C~t~~q 38
This area will serve as a major entryway to the Bayfront, and is
highly visible from Interstate 5. Therefore, special care will
be taken to enhance the visual qualities of the area.
Subarea 6, Industrial
This area includes the two major existing industrial uses.
No change is contemplated; existing uses will be permitted to
continue and expand. The area also contains the J Street Park,
which will continue, and an area designated for highway commercial
or industrial uses.
In order to remain consistent with the Bayfront Plan, the
property that lies between J and L Streets that is west of Bay
Boulevard and east of the San Diego ~ Arizona Eastern Railroad
tracks can be developed as either Highway Related Commercial or
light industrial.
39
~~a q
CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSION OF COASTAL POLICIES
This chapter has been prepared in compliance with the require-
ments for "issue identification" contained in Sections 00020-00022
of the Commission's LCP regulations. Chapter 3 describes the
existing conditions within the Coastal Zone, and Chapter 7 contains
a discussion of the development policies and plans proposed for this
area. This chapter is organized in accordance with the 14 policy
groups identified in the LCP Manual, and discusses both existing
conditions and the Bayfront Plan. It must be remembered that this
report does not include the Port of San Diego's land.
A - SHORELINE ACCESS
1. Policies. Sections 30210-30212 require that
public access and recreational opportunities 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.
2. Existing Conditions. There is currently very
limited public access to Chula Vista's shoreline. Except for Rohr
Corporation and some mixed commercial development immediately
adjacent to the freeway, the entire Bayfront area is vacant. The
only public road which extends to the waterfront is F Street, and
the only visitor-serving commercial activity is the 34-unit motel.
~~~ q 40
at the end of F Street. No lateral access extends from the end of
F Street. The D Street Fill, Gunpowder Point, the Sweetwater Nlarsh,
and the Vener farm are completely closed to public use.
3. Bayfront Plan. The Bayfront Plan provides for
extensive public access including walkways and trails, parks, beaches,
commercial recreational facilities, parking, and improved vehicular
access. These are shown on Figure 7. Basic objective #2 states, in
part, that "public use and enjoyment of shoreline areas should be
promoted and protected." In addition, the Plan calls for the following:
a) Subarea 1. Pedestrian and bicycle ways are
proposed to surround the D Street Fill. Pedestrian, bicycle, and
mini-transit service as well as vehicular access will be provided
via Tidelands Avenue. Eleven acres of public park are proposed.
b) Subarea 2. Gunpowder Point would be developed
as an auto-free island with no privately owned vehicles permitted.
Access would be by tram, mini-bus, or pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails would circle Gunpowder Point.
Wildlife observation posts would be included within the trail
system. In addition there is an eight acre public park proposed for
the southwestern edge of Gunpowder Point, and a public beach adja-
cent to the Bay.
c) Subarea 3. Pedestrian, bicycle and mini-transit
services are proposed along the edge and throughout the Bayfront
itself. Additional pedestrian and bicycle trails are proposed along
Tidelands Avenue. Nearly 30 acres of public park are proposed,
including a public beach adjacent to the Bay.
41
~~~ q
~~~~~.
FIGURE
7
Public Access And Circulation
_.
• e.~-~+_
•
i • ~.. ~
`MF.,
QN
I
-, "1t
/ ~ -
i'
,~ -
i ..
,,
..~~.
,. .~ ,
-° ~ 1
/1 l
+~~~~<~.
t . NF
~'
F - ~-
i~~'~~.
~';~
•~ .l
~oF -~ Tidelands Ave• realigned to prase ~ _- ~~ ~~ • /~~,
..
I
~; existing F/G Street Mar .1~1) ~ :,--_ ~:~ ~~~~ ~ -_ - ~ ~~`~'~ ;~
NEB -1, o ~ ~ ~~ ~ -~,~ ~
I ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~~ /
~ SDBa
Y ` ` ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~ it1TISIIII -._. ' -'- •I.I fk-_~ .~[ i JIIJ LI~i s{II_LLLlyl#l' Fi ~- .
~~_~. ~ ~ _
~"
- _ -
- - ~_ ~
~ J __ ` _-- - - - - - ~ - ~ __ _ -
fI ~_ ~ J
I ~-
i \ __ ---- - ~=?QTiRE~TATt ~ ~= - -_.-#R$C W RY -- -__ ~ ~.,- - _ t. _ _ J`--~~ - ---_ _-
~4YG - ~T - - ---- - - - _ _ -
~ i nnrm ~ _ mF ~ • ' ~~ _ - ..-
aR
--~~~~~~~ m~onaoo RvExuE ~ ~~ ~~ coEO ~o RvE E - -_- ,_- Via= ~ :._ ~ ._~~~~• ._ ~ ~~..~ ~ f ~r,~ J~
I {
' WOODL ..
AWN AVENUE ~ - - W0p0.AWH
__.. -_~ w nwx, -.. -.--. ~._ ~ wcooa a nuE --- wooofnwx nvEHUE ~ ~~ f ~~
n ~ °~ - OR ~ AVENUE :- AXE ~OANLRWN _ RVENUE ~i, L i - - _m_. y n OR I', ~ ' ~_ y \I III !~ COOli04E nvE
' _ r t+
~, ~ N
y
r
r
p RLLiLLL LU JEffEP V ----~- ti - -~ ' 1 - - _..
-_ - aE fEesox~ R~Exoe _ ~'
~ ~ i i dVFHUE
1 J •_- ~ {
- J-' ~ L_W_LL11L~ RI EflLA ~ ~ 5r F%~~/1 - i --
iIY~ '
'I
- MGO~ L.L1~1J L_L_LiJ
',~ ~RxU_LLL1_1LJ \
~i W'Y _ I 1 ~ ~ BROADWA ~I I~ cif
E
Legend
1 I) Plan amended Jan, 1979.
- San Diego Bay -Park ~ Public Beach
Vehicular Circulation • ~ • Pedestrian /Bicycle Trail
North
- Buffer --- Mini Transit
~`~Zg
'1
iw- ~
d) Subarea 4. No public access is proposed in
the marsh areas, although pedestrian and bicycle trails will be
provided along Tidelands Avenue.
e) Subarea 5. This area is located adjacent to
the freeway and is designated for highway commercial and industrial
uses. No particular provision has been made for public access
although both E and F Streets will provide vehicular access and
pedestrian and bicycle trails.
B - RECREATION AND VISITOR-SERVING FACILITIES
1. Policies. Sections 30212.5, 30213 (part), 30220-
30223 and 30250(c) require the provision of public and low-cost
recreation and visitor-serving facilities, and encourage the pro-
vision of commercial recreational and visitor-serving facilities
by requiring that suitable land be reserved for such uses and
that such uses be given priority over other uses.
2. Existing Conditions. Except for one motel, one
restaurant, and one park there are no existing visitor-serving
facilities.
3. Bayfront Plan. The Bayfront Plan provides for a
variety of recreation and visitor serving facilities including a
motel, a hotel, parks, beaches, restaurants, and tourist oriented
retail facilities. The original Plan included a public golf
course, but this has been deleted in order to provide a more
environmentally sensitive alignment of Tidelands Avenue. Specifically,
the Plan provides for the following facilities:
43
9u~9
a) Subarea 1. Subarea 1 includes a specialty
commercial center (partly on Port District property) and eleven
acres of public park.
b) Subarea 2. The primary uses in this subarea
will be a 700 room hotel, conference center and restaurant. In
addition, this area includes an eight acre park, a beach, and
unique opportunities for wildlife observation.
c) Subarea 3. The primary visitor serving
facilities in Subarea 3 are the thirty acre public waterfront
park, including the beach, and a 300 room motel and restaurant.
d) Subarea 5. This area is designated for a
variety of uses, and will include motels, recreation vehicle
facilities, restaurants, and other visitor-serving uses.
C - HOUSING
1. Policies. Section 30213 requires that housing for
persons with low and moderate income shall be protected and,
where feasible, provided, and that new housing developments
conform to local housing elements.
2. Existing Conditions. There are no existing housing
units within the Coastal Zone.
3. Bayfront Plan. The Bayfront Plan calls for the
construction of residential uses in Subarea 1 and in Subarea 3.
Economic projections indicate that the prices would be mid- to
upper-range. Low or moderate cost housing may be possible, but
would depend on Federal housing assistance programs.
44
~ `~~ ~
The median household income of the SMSA is $10,982
and therefore, according to Coastal Commission interpretation,
"moderate income" would be $13,178, and moderate cost housing
would be $275 per month.
D - WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES
1. Policies. Sections 30230, 30231 and 30236 require
the preservation, enhancement and restoration of water and marine
resources including coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries,
and lakes.
2. Existing Conditions. The Chula Vista Bayfront
contains substantial and significant marshlands and submerged
lands. Of the 350 acres of marshland remaining in San Diego Bay,
167 acres are located in the Chula Vista Bayfront.
3. Bayfront Plan. One of the key provisions of the
Bayfront Plan is the protection and preservation of the marsh
areas (see Figure 8). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposes
to acquire the Sweetwater and the Vener Marshes either as compensation
for the proposed flood control channel or as habitat for endangered
species.
The development of the adjacent uplands will
include buffer zones, drainage controls and water quality control
measures. The buffer zones were originally planned to be 50'
wide, but have been increased to 100' in accordance with the
recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game. Drainage
controls will include the diversion of runoff away from the most
critical areas, and water quality control measures will include
siltation control, landscape maintenance programs and street
sweeping.
45
gw?~
FIGURE
8
a
' ~ _ Marine Resources
9
A
i
.„
w~
^m
§b
- ..,„
ice. '*..
~ ~„~
! i_
S
f
t
r _ ~ -.1 ~
(Y ~~ -- A i
~ M1V vi"'~ -- 1
t -
' i ~ 4 r
~~' ~ ~ ~ _ _._. '~ 1
~ - ~._
_ I
~ '~ - `
1
,.
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, E s preserved for
a r _ - -+~ - - - Fl a
~__~ ,~-_~ ~~ ~ Tern nesting site
//I
``~%.. /pN ~..-,y- ~ -' ~. ~ / 4 buffer. III
Ste` ~
Tidelands Ave. wfl l remgiind i_ j ~' ~"` :"--# . = ~. ,~= ~', w ; -~ / a
_ _,.
c" as uplands. ~-~' ~_ Culvert rove -~ a a'~ I'Iv
~s~~,
.-
"~ .,,,~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ P _. - ~ ~.
~, ~ Tidelands Ave realigned to~ _ ~_ road to ens -~~ t
_ ~ ~~~~
'~ T~°F - ~ preserve F/G Street , F~ III ^. 4 ` ~ ~ ~"
~.
~ _- (~
~. ~ ~
~ ~ ~ O o O ~ `- i ot~RHw nve r ' 1`
' `-- -------- ------ ° o------ -------- ' `~------ --------' ~--- - --------- ----- -- ---- -- -~ -- - ---~---~
------ xwr - - ~ ~ "~
~ i ~~ ~ some ___~ - ~ ,soeaE eRSe Ew ~ ~', ~ I '~
_- ~
,~
a~~
~ ~€ R=~~a~ ~- ~ ~ -mot: e€ ~ ~~ ~~ ~= __- ~
- - ; , ~ _ - - - ,r ~-
~.a.~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ,_,..,....,.,.... _ ~ ..... , _ .,,.. , , ,,,,., , . ,,. .,, ,,,,.. . , , ~ . , „ . ~, ,_ _ .~,,,.,,,.... _ ~~ - _ -
f~
CIIITTTTTI _ - ~~ - ~ ~` ~ - ~~"
~~
~'
-T ~ ~ ~ eavoeAao Rvexue ~ roeoeaoo Rvcxue ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - I _
~m ~ , ~~
'O ---. -'_ I WOODL~aWN ^ - 1VENIIE ',' _ ___._ _r W LAWN WWOIFWN , 4VEXx - _ ~__ J WOOOLA N IlE - T MOOLIWN ,VENUE ' ~ ~••`.-++wy ~~ r ~,
~ i ~ I~ J
! >I~ 0 XA LAWN ~ RVEHIIE ~ ,- i i ~•___.- ~, ~ i '____ _ _________ ~_ L ~~ ~ - ~ wry I
i
. c ~ ~L~L~LJ.~W +t"cx x ~ ,' Ax _.Tarcuwx wexue ~ _--J_-_ ,_ ' ~I,.-_.____ Lfl ~ ° owK ~r__ -i 1 y _. ~~1 ~ Quote ave
e ~ n~ criEe _ - ~ _ ~ _ ~ co
i 1
. ~~_ ~ vx R _ ' .~.~ p°" ow„E/ { I ~ :~ ~ - _ ~ ~_, ~ Rvexue ~~ ~ ~ ~ _
~.-~ i ?T I ~ ~ i ~ T _,...-.' ~.._ ~. __ - J FE SON u RYE OF i -
-- fll E es, I I ~p ~ `* _-_ ~ I MROISOH I -\~
1 1:, rWRw xn ~
;~,
~ r ~ ~LLLLL~J ~ ~ ~ i ~i ~ I i ~ ~y
I~ ; ~
nn ~--~ ~ ~i r~ ~ ~°~'"~ ------ ~
~y~9
Legend
Plan amended Jan., 1979•
- San Diego Bay
- Buffer
North
Marsh
~_.
Where it will be necessary to fill minor portions of
the marshes in order to construct access and utility connections,
the Plan calls for the formulation of compensation measures,
including the creation of new or enhancement of degraded marsh areas
on an acre-for-acre or greater basis. The specific size, location,
and design of such areas and the proposed restoration program for
each area will be determined in close coordination with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish
and Game. Actual conversion of these areas will occur in conjunc-
tion with adjacent development.
More specifically, the Plan includes the
following provisions:
~,
-_;-_,
a) Subarea 1. The residential uses proposed in r~lt5~~i
this area will be separated from the marsh by a buffer zone.
b) Subarea 2. A full one hundred foot buffer area
will be provided around Gunpowder Point.
c) Subarea 3. The residential and motel uses
proposed in this area will be separated from the marsh by a buffer
zone and the public park.
~,
~_ mss-
d) Subarea 4. The marsh areas will be preserved. kc~~5~<~
E - DIKING, DREDGING, FILLING, AND SHORELINE STRUCTURES
1. Policies. Sections 30233 and 30235 establish
47
q~7 9
conditions under which diking, dredging, filling and the construc-
tion of shoreline structures may occur.
2. Existing Conditions. In the past there has been
considerable alteration of the natural shoreline. The most signi-
ficant in terms of this plan is the D Street Fill which constitutes
all of Subarea 1.
In addition, there has been some diking around the
lagoon separating Gunpowder Point from the adjacent uplands. The
railroad and an old road were also constructed across the marsh.
3. Bayfront Plan. The Bayfront Plan represents a major
departure from the City General Plan prior to 1970, which called for
filling the Bayfront all the way out to the bulkhead line. A Santa
Fe Railroad Plan prepared by Stanford Research Institute as recently
as 1974 called for rail-served industrial uses in the entire area.
The Bayfront Plan proposes no additional fill for purposes of creating
building sites and proposes only minimal fill for the construction
of necessary roadways, particularly Tidelands Avenue. It is pro-
posed to compensate for any fill by creating additional marsh area
on a acre-for-acre basis.
Specifically, the Plan proposes:
a) Subarea 1. Tidelands Avenue is proposed to
bridge across the Sweetwater River. In addition, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is proposing the construction of the flood
control channel. In order to minimize the amount of required fill,
Tidelands Avenue has been realigned and narrowed from a 120' right-
of-way to a 76' right-of-way.
~t~7 9 48
b) Subarea 2. No diking, dredging or filling is
proposed for this subarea.
JT
=j•
c) Subarea 3. Tidelands Avenue would extend ~~~V{5~~~
through the F and G Street marsh and the marsh area would be
enlarged west of Tidelands Avenue. This will create a direct
connection to San Diego Bay and permit tidal flushing of the
marsh.
--
~~~,,-_
d) Subarea 4. One of the basic development ae~;sea
criteria which would apply in this subarea is, "Further filling of
the marshes should be prohibited except for the express purpose of
providing for the extension of Tidelands Avenue, for limited
access to Gunpowder Point, for improvements of the dikes creating
the lagoon area, or for creation of small islands which would
serve solely as nesting and breeding areas for wildlife." In
addition, "The construction of the Tidelands Avenue extension
across the marshlands should provide for unrestricted tidal
action throughout the marsh and additionally allow for the flow of
fresh water from the Sweetwater River to marsh areas west of the
Tidelands Avenue right-of-way."
F - COMMERCIAL FISHING AND RECREATIONAL BOATING
1. Policies. Sections 30224, 30234 and 30255 en-
courage increased recreational boating, require the preservation
of boating facilities, and give precedence to coastal dependent
development, except in wetlands.
2. Existing Conditions. There are no boating facil-
ities within the City of Chula Vista's portion of the Bayfront,
49
q~17 9
although a marina is being constructed within the Port Authority's
jurisdiction.
3. }iayfront Plan. 'I'hc Plan contains no provision for
creating new boating facilities, although there are plans for
additional recreational boating facilities in the marina within the
Port's jurisdiction.
G - ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS
1. Policies. Section 30240 provides for the protection
of environmentally sensitive habitat areas by restricting uses
within or adjacent to such areas.
2. Existing Conditions. In addition to the marsh area
discussed above, there is one area of sensitive habitat; that is,
portions of the D Street Fill which are being used for least tern
nesting.
'~ ~
3. Bayfront Plan. The Bayfront Plan calls for the ~tQ""`'`'
provision of 100' wide buffer zones adjacent to all marsh and
nesting areas including the nesting areas on the D Street fill.
H - AGRICULTURE
1. Policies. Sections 30241 and 30242 provide for the
preservation of agricultural lands and establish criteria for the
conversion of such lands to non-agricultural uses.
2. Existing Conditions. Approximately 100 acres are
currently being used for agriculture production. These are not
prime agricultural lands, but are being farmed on a year to year
basis.
SO
~~~7
3. Bayfront Plan. The Plan would replace existing agri-
cultural uses. This conversion would provide needed recreational
facilities and serve to concentrate development in an already
developed area.
I - HAZARD AREA
1. Policies. Section 30253(1)(2) requires new develop-
ment to minimize risks in areas of high geologic, flood and fire
hazard and to prevent structural damage to bluffs and cliffs.
2. Existing Conditions. The two potential sources of
hazard are seismic and flood.
3. Bayfront Plan. All new structures within the Bay-
front would be designed to meet specific soils and geologic conditions.
The Corps of Engineers project will provide flood protection.
J - FORESTRY AND SOIL RESOURCES
1. Policies. This policy is not applicable to Chula
Vista.
K - LOCATING AND PLANNING NEW DEVELOPMENT
1. Policies. Sections 30244, 30250(a), 30252, and
30253(3)(4) provide criteria for the location of new development.
Generally, new development should be concentrated in areas of existing
development, should provide adequate support facilities including
provision for recreation facilities and for public transit, and
should preserve archaeological or paleontological resources.
2. Existing Conditions. The Chula Vista Bayfront north
of G Street is essentially vacant, but is completely surrounded by
51
_t~7 l
urban development. To the north is the heavy industrial area of the
City of National City, to the east is Interstate 5 and the City of
Chula Vista. Development includes medium and high density uses
between Interstate 5 and Broadway, with strips of commercial develop-
ment adjacent to the arterial roads. To the south is the Rohr Plant
and the SDG$E Power Plant.
3. Bayfront Plan. The Bayfront Plan proposed a mixture
of uses, including visitor, recreational commercial, residential and
industrial. Existing facilities can easily be extended into this
area. A minor archaeological site has been identified and salvaged.
L - COASTAL VISUAL RESOURCES AND SPECIAL COMMUNITIES
1. Policies. Sections 30251 and 30253(5) reduire the
protection of scenic and visual dualities of coastal areas, and the
preservation of special communities.
2. Existing Conditions. The potential visual and
scenic dualities of the Bayfront are not being fully realized.
There is no access into the Bayfront, and the views of the area from
adjacent Interstate 5 are marred by visual blight including bill-
boards, automobile junk yards, and unlandscaped transmission towers.
3. Bayfront Plan. The Plan contains several policies
regarding the form and appearance of the Bayfront area:
• Preserve existing marshlands in a healthy state
to ensure the aesthetic enjoyment of marshes and the wildlife which
inhabit them.
• Change the existing industrial image of the
Bayfront, and develop a new identity consonant with its proposed
public and commercial recreational role.
"1~~9 52
• Improve the visual quality of the shoreline by
promoting both public and private uses which will provide for
proper landscaping and maintenance of shoreline areas.
~ Ensure a harmonious relationship between the
Bay, the marshlands and new development.
• Remove or update structures or conditions which
have a blighting influence on the area.
• Develop a readily understandable and memorable
relationship of the Bayfront (and the areas and elements which
comprise it) to adjoining areas of Chula Vista and to the freeway
and arterial approaches to the Bayfront.
The three major components which comprise the
physical form of the area are: 1) natural resource areas to be
preserved; 2) an open space system including walkways, bicycle ways
and park areas; and 3) development units having common usage and/or
qualities which should be treated as distinctive, but closely inter-
related, visual entities.
In addition, the Plan contains criteria for Gateways
(major entryways), Landscape Buffers, Viewpoints, Land Marks,
Building Heights, and Edges.
M - PUBLIC WORKS
1. Policies. Section 30254 limits the construction or
expansion of public works facilities to the capacity required to
provide service to only those uses permitted by the Coastal Act.
2. Existing Conditions. As noted above, adequate
water, sewerage, and other utility services exist, but will need to
be extended onto the site.
53
- _ ~~~1
3. Bayfront Plan. The major public works project being
proposed as part of this Plan is the extension of Tidelands Avenue
across the Sweetwater Marsh and the Sweetwater River Channel. In
addition, all utilities will have to be extended into the Bayfront.
N - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY FACILITIES
1. Policies. Sections 30255, 30260-30264, 30232 and
30250(b) provide guidelines for industrial facilities, tanker
facilities, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil and gas devel-
opment, refineries, and electrical generating plants.
2. Existing Conditions. The Rohr Corporation facilities
and the SDG~,E Generating Plant represent the two major industrial
and energy facilities.
3. Bayfront Plan. The Plan sets aside 33 acres for new
industrial use immediately adjacent to the Rohr Corporation facili-
ties.
No significant expansion or alteration of the SDG~,E
Generating Plant is anticipated.
Q ~' 1 5 4
SUMMARY OF COASTAL POLICIES
-a
'~ POLICY
v
..o
EXISTING CONDITIONS
BAYFRONT PLAN
A. SHORELINE ACCESS
(§30210,30211,32012)
Development not to interfere
with public right of access;
provision for dedication of
accessways.
B. RECREATION AND VISITOR-
SERVING FACILITIES
(§30212.5,30213,30220-
30223,30250(c))
~ Distribute public facilities;
provide lower cost visitor
facilities; protect oceanfront
areas for coastal recreation;
give priority to commercial
recreation; reserve upland
support areas; locate visitor
facilities at selected points.
C. HOUSING
(§30213)
Protect low and moderate
income housing; new housing
to conform to housing element.
There is minimal public access
to the shoreline. F Street is
the only vertical access and
there is no lateral access.
The existing Bayfront provides
no public recreation or visitor-
serving facilities except for
one small motel, one restaurant,
and one park.
There is no housing in the
Coastal Zone.
The Bayfront Plan includes
provisions for extensive
public access throughout
the Bayfront.
The Bayfront Plan includes
major hotel and motel
facilities, commercial
recreation facilities,
and a complete system of
public parks, walkways,
and bicycle trails.
The Bayfront Plan includes
provision for residential
uses. However, it is
anticipated that if low
cost housing is to be pro-
vided, it will require
Federal assistance.
SUMMARY OF COASTAL POLICIES
(Continued)
-4
~ POLICY EXISTING CONDITIONS
V
~ D. WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES
(§30230,30231,30236)
1. Maintain, restore marine The Bayfront has significant
resources and coastal water marine resources. Under exist-
quality; control discharges. ing conditions little is being
done to protect these resources.
2. Control runoff.
3. Prevent groundwater deple-
tion, interference with
surface flow; encourage
water reclamation.
4. Maintain riparian buffers
~ and limit dams or alter-
ations of streams.
BAYFRONT PLAN
-~_.-
~.~~-
The Bayfront Plan calls Revise
for the preservation of
a majority of the marsh
areas, and compensation
for any marsh areas which
may be filled. All devel-
opment will be separated
from the marshes by buffer
zones. The Plan also
includes measures for the
control of runoff and pro-
tection of marshes.
E. DIKING, DREDGING, FILLING,
SHORELINE STRUCTURES
(30233,30235)
1. Limit diking, dredging, The D Street Fill was created
filling of all coastal in 1969.
waters, especially certain
wetlands; control spoils
disposal.
The Bayfront Plan prohib-
its additional diking,
dredging or filling except
as needed for access.
2. Limit shoreline structures
(seawalls, cliff retaining
walls) .
SUMMARY OF COASTAL POLICIES
(Continued)
'Y
V
POLICY
EXISTING_CONDITIONS
BAYFRONT PLAN
F. COMMERCIAL FISHING AND
RECREATIONAL BOATING
(§30224,30234,30255)
Encourage increased recrea- No boating facilities exist
tional boating use; upgrade and within the Bayfront. (Note:
protect commercial fishing the existing marina is within
facilities; give priority to the Port District.)
coastal-dependent facilities.
No boating facilities
are proposed.
G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
HABITAT AREAS
(30240)
V Protect environmentally sensi-
tive habitat areas; prevent
adverse impacts from develop-
ment adjacent to them.
H. AGRICULTURE
(30241,30242)
Maintain prime agricultural
land and minimize conflicts
by establishing stable
boundaries, limiting con-
versions in urban fringe
areas, limiting land divi-
sion, etc.
The marshes discussed above and
a portion of the D Street Fill
are sensitive habitat areas.
No prime agricultural lands
exist, although a large portion
of the Bayfront is currently
used for agricultural purposes.
The marshes will be pre-
served and enhanced.
The Bayfront Plan does not
include the preservation
of any agricultural uses.
~~
. - _s
Revis
`•0
'~
V POLICY
I. HAZARD AREAS
(830252 (1) and (2))
Minimize risks in geologic,
flood and fire hazard areas;
assure stability and not
require bluff alteratio~~ in
bluff and cliff areas.
SUMMARY OF COASTAL POLI-CIEs
(Continue
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The primary hazard within the
Bayfront is that of seismic
activity.
BAYFRONT PLAN
Adequate soils preparation
and foundation design will
minimize risks.
J. FORESTRY AND SOIL
RESOURCES
(30243)
Protect productivity of timber-
lands; limit conversions and
cn land divisions.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
K. LOCATING AND PLANNING
NEW DEVELOPMENT
(830244,30250,30252,
30253 (3) and (4))
Mitigation for development An archaeological site of The site ;las been salvaged.
affecting archaeological or limited significance has been
paleontological resources. identified on Gunpowder Point.
.Q
V
"~ POLICY
SUbil`IARY OF COASTAL POLICIES
(Continued)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
K. LOCATING AND PLANNING
NEW DEVELOPMENT (Con't)
Locate development in or near
existing developed areas or
in other areas where services
exist and no adverse impacts
result; minimize energy consump-
tion and vehicle miles; be con-
sistent with air quality
standards.
Limit land divisions outside
developed areas.
~^ Maintain access to the coast
tD by providing better transit,
non-auto, and parking oppor-
tunities.
Relate new development to
adequate local and on-site
recreation so as not to over-
load coastal recreation areas.
,~
Urban services are available.
BAYFRONT PLAN
The implementation of the
Bayfront Plan will result
in the concentration of
development in an existing
developed area.
Not applicable.
There is extremely limited
access at present.
Not applicable.
L. VISUAL RESOURCES AND
SPECIAL CONINIUNITIES
0 30251,30253(5))
Protect coastal scenic and Existing visual qualities are
visual qualities; site and degraded by signs, auto junk
design developments to protect yards, and other obstructions.
public views, minimize landform
alteration, be compatible.
Not applicable.
Access, both to the area
and to the shoreline, will
be improved.
New development will have
adequate on-site facil-
ities.
The enhancement of scenic
and visual qualities is
an important part of the
Plan.
SUMMARY OF COASTAL POLICIES
(Continued)
..a
N
••o
POLICY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
BAYFRONT PLAN
L. VISUAL RESOURCES AND SPECIAL
COb1~1UNITIES (Con't)
Protect special coastal commun-
ities.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
M. PUBLIC WORKS
(§30254)
1. Sewer and water: limit
capacity, service system,
special district boundaries
to serve development con-
sistent with Coastal Act.
Where capacity is limited,
o reserve portion for essen-
tial uses and recreation.
2. Transportation: design to
serve development, but
maintain rural Highway 1 as
scenic two-lanes. Where
capacity is limited, reserve
portion for essential uses
and recreation.
Public services are adequate and The proposed uses can be
are available. accomr~odated, but services
will need to be extended
into the Bayfront.
Existing circulation system is
inadequate to serve needs of
the Bayfront.
The Plan calls for the
provision of good access.
Recreation access will be
greatly improved.
N. INDUSTRIAL AND ENERGY
FACILITIES
(§30250(b), 30260-30264,
30232, 30255)
1. Tanker Facilities. Not applicable. Not applicable.
r
-~
POLICY
N. INDUSTRIAL AND ENERGY
FACILITIES (Con't)
2. LNG Terminal.
3. Offshore, onshore oil and
gas facilities.
4. Refineries.
5. Power Plants.
SUMMARY OF COASTAL POLICIES
(Continued)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
SDG~E plant.
BAYFRONT PLAN
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
SDG$E plant.
o~
CHAPTER NINE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAYFRONT PLAN
The Bayfront Plan will be implemented through a series of
complex and interrelated public and private programs and actions.
The primary public agencies which will be involved are the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Agency and the City of Chula Vista. Other
agencies include the San Diego Unified Port District, the California
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), the United States Depart-
ment of Transportation, the California Resources Agency, and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers. The private concerns which
will be involved in the implementation program will include property
owners, investors and developers.
9.1
The Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan is an officially desig-
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
nated Redevelopment Project, as provided by the State of California
Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code, Section 33000
et sec. The Bayfront Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 1541 of the
City of Chula Vista on July 9, 1974. The following outline briefly
describes the process which must be followed in adopting a Redevelop-
ment Plan.
A. Prepare preliminary plan - When prepared, the preliminary
plan forms the basis for considering and preparing a
subsequent redevelopment plan for the proposed project
area. The preliminary plan is forwarded to the county
auditor and assessor if tax increment financing is
contemplated, and it must:
- Describe the boundaries of the project area.
- Contain a general statement of the land area uses,
layout of principal streets, population densities,
62
9y7q
and building intensities and standards proposed as
the basis for the redevelopment of the project area.
- Show how the purposes of redevelopment would be
attained by the proposed redevelopment project.
- Show that the proposed redevelopment conforms to
the master or general community plan.
- Describe, generally, the impact of the project upon
residents thereof and upon the surrounding neighbor-
hood.
B. Prepare redevelopment plan - The redevelopment plan must
conform to the city or county general plan and, among
other things, is required to show by diagram and in
general terms:
- The approximate amount of open space to be provided
and street layout.
- Limitations on type, size, height, number, and pro-
posed use of buildings.
- The approximate number of dwelling units.
- The property to be devoted to public purposes and
the nature of such purposes.
In addition to the specific provisions referenced above,
the Health and Safety Code requires that a variety of
broader provisions, dealing with owner participation and
related considerations, be included in the redevelopment
plan.
When completed, the redevelopment plan must be submitted
to the planning commission for review and comment. If
the planning commission does not respond within thirty
days, they are deemed to have approved the plan. When
approved, the plan is submitted to the legislative body,
along with a report containing supplemental information
including an environmental impact report as required by
Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code.
C. Public hearing - Notices must be published in local news-
papers, beginning four weeks in advance of the hearing and,
in addition, mailed notices must be sent to each landowner
and local taxing entity within the proposed project area.
D. Consideration of the plan by the legislative bod - After
holding a public hearing as re erenced a ove, the legis-
lative body may act on the proposed plan. If the planning
commission has recommended against the plan, a two-thirds
vote is required. The ordinance adopting the plan is
forwarded to appropriate taxing officials if tax increment
financing is contemplated.
~~~ ~ 6 3
E. Review and amendment of plan - Section 33348.5 of the
Healt and Sa ety Co e requires agencies in a communit;~
having a population of more than 75,000 to conduct a
biennial public hearing for purposes of reviewing the
plan. Section 33450 of the .Health and Safety Code permits
a redevelopment plan to be amended for purposes that
include the addition or exclusion of land. Notice similar
to that required for adoption of a plan must be given
with respect to both the biennial review and any proposed
plan amendment.
The state law gives a Redevelopment Agency broad powers to
implement and enforce the provisions of a Redevelopment Plan. These
include provisions for private participation on a voluntary basis
through the use of participation agreements, provisions for the
acquisition of property through the power of Eminent Domain where a
property owner is unable or unwilling to participate, and finally
provisions for financing the acquisition of property and construction
of public improvements through the use of tax increments.
9.2 THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPb1ENT PROJECT PLAN
The Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan contains several sec-
tions which specifically address the implementation of the Plan.
These include:
9.2.1 Controls
All uses shall comply with the following limitations:
A. General Controls. Unless more restrictive controls
are speci ie erein, the requirements of the codes
and ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, as they
may from time to time be in effect, shall be
followed.
B. Applicability of Land Use Provisions and Buildin
Requirements to Property not to e Acquire T e
land use provisions an building requirements shall
apply to all real property in the Project Area.
64
~~ ~~
C. Variances. Where unnecessary hardships, practical
~iculties or consec{uences inconsistent with the
general purposes of this Plan result from the literal
interpretation and enforcement of the restrictions
and limitations imposed by this Plan, the Redevelop-
ment Agency, upon receipt of a verified application
from the Owner of the property affected, stating
fully the grounds of the application and facts relied
upon, and upon its own further investigation, may
grant adjustments or variances under such conditions
and safeguards as it may determine, consistent with
the general purpose and intent of this Plan, provided
that in no instance will any adjustments or variances
be granted that will change or alter the land uses or
other basic requirements of the Redevelopment Plan.
9.2.2 Redevelopment Techniques
Proposed redevelopment actions in the project area include:
alteration, modernization, general improvement or any
combination thereof (hereinafter called "rehabilitation")
by the owners of certain existing structures; acquisition
of real property by purchase, gift, devise, exchange,
condemnation or other lawful means; relocation of the
occupants presently residing in structures which are
acquired; demolition, removal. or clearance of certain
existing buildings and structures on land acquired by the
Agency; arrangement with proper authorities for the vaca-
tion and realignment of certain streets, alleys, utilities,
and other rights-of-way; reservation of certain areas for
public streets, alleys, rights-of-way, and other public
purposes, installation of public plazas, pedestrianways
and/or pedestrian overpasses, and other necessary site
improvements, facilities, and underground placement of
utility lines and services; formulation of rules for owner
participation, and preference to persons who are engaged
in business in the project area to re-enter in business
within the redeveloped area; sale or lease of all land
acquired by the Agency for reuse in accordance with the
Plan, and such additional conditions as may be imposed by
the Agency in any manner authorized by law in order to
carry out the purposes of redevelopment.
A. Rehabilitation
(1) Description of conditions under which rehabili-
tation will be permitted: Any property which is
not required for public improvements, and which
conforms or can be made to conform to the uses,
rehabilitation standards, and other applicable
controls of this Plan in such a manner as to
meet the objectives of the Plan at a cost which
is determined to be feasible shall be rehabili-
tated by the owner, if he is willing and able to
carry out such rehabilitation.
65
~~~~
(2) Description of conditions under which property
will be acquired for rehabilitation by the
Agency or others: If the owner is unwilling or
unable to so rehabilitate the property, the
Agency may acquire and rehabilitate the prop-
erty, or acquire the property and sell it
subject to rehabilitation by the buyer.
B. Land Acquisition. All real property located in the
Project, except as specifically exempted herein, may
be acquired by the Agency in order to remove sub-
standard conditions, remove blighting influences,
provide land for public improvements of facilities,
promote historic or architectural preservation or
provide land for redevelopment and other plan objec-
tives. The public interest and necessity require the
use of the power of eminent domain by the Agency to
acquire those real properties in the Project which
cannot be acquired by other lawful methods.
The Agency shall not acquire real property to be
retained by an owner pursuant to a participation
agreement if the owner fully performs under the
agreement. The Agency is authorized to acquire
structures without acquiring the land upon which
those structures are located. The Agency is also
authorized to acquire any other interest in real
property less than a fee.
The Agency shall not acquire real property on which
an existing building is to be continued on its
present site and in its present form and use without
the consent of the owner, unless: (1) such building
requires rehabilitation, or (2) the site or lot on
which the building is situated requires modification
in size, shape, or use, or (3) it is necessary to
impose upon such property any of the standards,
restrictions and controls of the Plan and the owner
fails or refuses to participate in the Plan by
executing a participation agreement.
In accordance with the Community Redevelopment Law of
the State of California, the Agency has adopted rules
for owner participation and rules for extension of
reasonable preferences to persons in business.
9.2.3 Land Disposition Supplement
In order to provide adequate safeguards that the process
of redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the Plan,
agreements for the disposition of land by the Agency and
owner participation agreements shall include provisions
recognizing and requiring that:
66
~~
A. The purchase or leasing of land is for redevelopment
and not for speculation and reserving to the Agency
such powers and controls as may be necessary to
prevent transfer, retention, or use of the property
for speculation purposes.
B. T'he land shall be build upon and/or improved in con-
formity with the development standards of the Plan
and the Declaration of Restrictions.
C. All developers and owner partiicipants shall submit
preliminary architectural plans, site and landscape
plans, and final plans, including landscaping and
sign plans, and specifications of the improvements
proposed to be constructed on the land for archi-
tectural review and approval by the Agency in order
to ensure that development and construction will be
carried out in a manner which will effectuate the
purposes of the Plan. As a part of such plans and
specifications, developers and, if required by the
Agency, owner participants shall submit time sched-
ules for the commencement and completion of such
improvements. All such plans and schedules shall be
submitted within the time specified in the respective
agreements with such developers and owner partici-
pants.
D. By and for the contracting parties, their heirs,
executors, administrators, and assigns, there shall
be no discrimination against or segregation of any
person or group of persons on account of race, creed,
color, national origin, or ancestry in the sale,
lease, sublease, transfer, use occupancy, tenure, or
enjoyment of the premises therein described, nor
shall the contracting parties, or any persons claiming
under or through them, establish or permit any such
practice or practices of discrimination or segrega-
tion with reference to the selection, location,
number, use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sub-
lessees, or vendees in the premises described.
E. Duration of this Plan: Except for the nondiscrimin-
ation and nonsegregation provisions which shall run
in perpetuity, the provisions of this Plan shall be
effective and the provisions of other documents
formulated pursuant to this Plan may be made effec-
tive for 25 years from the date of adoption of this
Plan by the City Council.
9.2.4 Methods for Financing the Project
A. General Description of the Proposed Financing Methods.
The Agency is authorized to finance this Project with
~,,~ ~ ~ 6 7
financial assistance from the City, State of Califor-
nia, Federal Government, property tax increments,
interest income, Agency bonds, or any other available
source.
Loans for survey and planning and for the operating
capital for nominal administration of this Project
are to be made by the City until adequate tax incre-
ments or other funds are available or sufficiently
assured to repay the loans and to permit borrowing
adequate working capital from sources other than the
City. The City as it is able will also supply
additional assistance through City loans and grants
for various public facilities.
As available, gas tax funds from the State of Cali-
fornia and the County of San Diego will be used for
the street system. As available, federal loans and
grants will be used to finance portions of Project
costs.
The Agency is authorized to issue bonds if appropriate
and feasible in an amount sufficient to finance all
or any part of the Project.
The Agency is authorized to obtain advances, borrow
funds or create indebtedness in carrying out this
Plan. The principal and interest on such advances,
funds, and indebtedness may be paid from tax incre-
ments or any other funds available to the Agency.
B. Tax Increments. All taxes levied upon taxable prop-
erty within the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment
Project each year by or for the benefit of the State
of California, County of San Diego, City of Chula
Vista, any district, or other public corporation
(hereinafter sometimes called "Taxing Agencies")
after the effective date of the ordinance approving
this Redevelopment Plan, shall be divided as follows:
(1) That portion of the taxes which would be produced
by the rate upon which the tax is levied each
year by or for each of said taxing agencies upon
the total sum of the assessed value of the
taxable property in the Redevelopment Project as
shown upon the assessment roll used in connection
with the taxation of such property by such
taxing agency, last equalized prior to the
effective date of such ordinance, shall be
allocated to and when collected shall be paid
into the funds of the respective taxing agencies
as taxes by or for said taxing agencies on all
~t~~C~ 68
other property are paid (for the purpose of
allocating taxes levied by or for any taxing
agency or agencies which did not include the
territory of the Project on the effective date
of such ordinance but to which such territory is
annexed or otherwise included after such effec-
tive date, the assessment roll last equalized on
the effective date of said ordinance shall be
used in determining the assessed valuation of
the taxable property in the Project on said
effective date); and,
(2) That portion of said levied taxes each year in
excess of such amount shall be allocated to and
when collected shall be paid into a special fund
of the Agency to pay the principal of and
interest on bonds, loans, monies advanced to, or
indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed,
or otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance
or refinance, in whole or in part, this Redevelop-
ment Project. Unless and until the total
assessed value of the taxable property in the
Project exceeds the total assessed value of the
taxable property in the Project as shown by the
last equalized assessment roll referred to in
paragraph (1) hereof, all of the taxes levied
and collected upon the taxable property in the
Project shall be paid into the funds of the
respective taxing agencies. When said bonds,
loans, advances and indebtedness, if any, and
interest thereon, have been paid, all monies
thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable
property in the Project shall be paid into the
funds of the respective taxing agencies as taxes
on all other property are paid.
The portion of taxes mentioned in paragraph (2) above
are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of and
interest on the advance of monies, or making of
loans, or the incurring of any indebtedness (whether
funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) by the
Agency to finance or refinance the Project in whole
or in part.
The Agency is authorized to make such pledges as to
specific advances, loans and indebtedness as appro-
priate in carrying the Project.
9.2.5 Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners
and Tenants
A. General. These rules are promulgated to implement
the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the
~~~~ 69
Bayfront Redevelopment Project regarding partici-
pation and the exercise of preferences by owners,
operators of businesses, and tenants in the Project.
These rules set forth the procedures governing such
preferences and participation.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
("Agency") desires participation in development of
the project area by as many owners and tenants as
possible. In view of the pattern of land assembly
and integrated development envisioned by the Redevelop-
ment Plan, persons and firms doing business in the
Project area will be encouraged to take advantage of
their participation and preference opportunities.
Specific attention will be focused upon the parti-
cipation of owners of buildings that have historical
and architectural merit .and which are structurally
sound and can be renovated feasibly in accordance
with the Plan.
Participation opportunities are necessarily subject
to and limited by factors such as the following:
(1) The elimination and/or modification of some land
uses.
(2) The realignment and abandonment of some streets.
(3) The ability of participants to finance the
proposed development.
(4) The reduction of the total number of individual
parcels in the Project area.
(S) Change in orientation and character of the area.
(6) The building has historical and/or architectural
qualities that will enhance the Redevelopment
Plan.
B. Participation by Owners of Real Property
(1) Partici ation in the Same Location. In appro-
priate circumstances w ere suc would foster the
unified and integrated development contemplated
by the Redevelopment Plan, an owner may parti-
cipate in substantially the same location by
retaining all or portions of his property and
purchasing other property if needed and avail-
able for development in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan.
4~7q ~o
Conflicting desires among participants for
particular sites or land uses will be resolved
by the conformity of a participation proposal
with the intent and purpose of the Redevelopment
Plan.
The final decisions concerning land acquisition
by the Agency will be based upon the conditions
existing at the time the Agency purchases
property or enters into participation agreements.
(Z) Participation in a Different Location. In some
instances, the Agency will buy the land and
improvements at fair market value, and offer
parcels of cleared land for purchase by owner-
participants prior to offering for sale to the
general public. Property sold to owner-partici-
pants will be made available at fair value for
the uses designated in the Redevelopment Plan.
C. Participation by Tenants. Pursuant to these rules,
nonproperty owners wit~re tenants engaged in business
or residing in the Project area will be given oppor-
tunities to remain or to obtain reasonable preferences
to reenter within the redevelopment area if they
otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the
Plan.
(1) Tenant Participation as Owners. Tenants will be
given reasonable preference to purchase and
develop real property in the Project area prior
to offering for sale to the general public.
Property sold to such tenants will be made
available at fair value for the uses designated
in the Plan.
(2) Preferences for Business Tenants as Tenants.
Business tenants who desire to reenter the
Redevelopment Project area as tenants will
receive reasonable preferences to locate in the
Project area in accordance with the prescribed
uses of the Plan.
D. Procedure for Becoming a Participant
(1) Procedure for Participation as Business Owner,
Residential Owner or Business Tenant. Every
person interested in becoming a participant as a
business owner or tenant must submit to the
Agency a statement indicating such interest. A
form for this purpose may be obtained from the
Agency on request.
gy~9 71
The Agency may disregard Statements of Interest
submitted after the end of the thirty (30) day
period immediately following the date of the
publication o:E the ordinance of the City Council
adopting the Redevelopment Plan.
The Agency will notify each person who submits
a Statement of Interest of the time within
which he must submit his proposal for parti-
cipation.
Opportunity will be given to discuss proposals
with the Agency staff and to make necessary
adjustments. The Agency will make every effort
to meet the desires of every person desiring to
participate in-the Project.
(2) Partici ation A reement. Each owner or tenant
who has su mitte an acceptable proposal for
owner or tenant participation will be required
to enter into a participation agreement with
the Agency. Each agreement will contain provi-
sions necessary to insure that the participation
proposal will be carried out, and that the sub-
ject property will be developed or used in
accordance with the conditions, restrictions,
rules and regulations of the Redevelopment
Plan and the agreement.
The agreement will specifically mention the
following:
(a) Parking facilities per the requirements of
the City of Chula Vista and/or provisions
for Public Transit (if any) shall be appli-
cable to the owner/participant in the same
manner and degree as they affect a new
purchaser/developer in the project.
(b) The owner/participant will be assessed by
a Special Assessment District (if any) in
the same proportion or ratio as that of a
new developer for the purpose of maintaining
common areas, parking areas, and other
public project facilities.
Each agreement will, furthermore, require the
participant to join in the recordation of such
documents as the Agency will require in order
to insure such development. The agreement will
also provide that a successor in interest of
the original participant may become a parti-
cipant with the approval of the Agency.
~G~'7 d 7 2
Participation agreements will be effective only
if approved by the Members of the Agency.
E. Amendment of Owner Partici ation Rules. The Agency
may amen these Rules at any meeting eld after
their adoption. Any amendments after the filing of
statements of intent shall be made only after notice
to the persons who have filed such statements. Such
notice shall be by mail posted at least fourteen (14)
days before the date of the meeting at which the
proposed amendment will be considered.
~~~~ 7 3
CHAPTER TEN
T~~E SOUTHERN AND INLAND PARCELS
Southern Parcel
The southern parcel is located south of L Street and west of
Interstate Route 5. Th
covered by the Bayfront
90 acres. The majority
SDG$E generating plant.
acres) which is used as
acres) which is vacant.
is area is within the Coastal Zone but is not
Plan. The entire area contains approximately
of this area (65 acres) is part of the
In addition, there is a small area (4
part of the salt works, and an area (21
The entire area is designated for industrial use on the General
Plan and is zoned I (Industrial). No change in these designations
is proposed.
It is anticipated that the SDG~E facility will remain in opera-
tion on a permanent basis, while the salt works will continue until
1983. The vacant industrial land is located between Bay Boulevard
and Interstate 5 and does not have any direct Bay frontage. It
would be undesirable to locate any visitor-serving facilities here
because of the proximity of the freeway and the generating plant.
In addition, no uses should be located on this property which would
economically compete with the Bayfront.
Inland Parcel
The Inland Parcel is located north of C Street and west of
Broadway (National Avenue). This area contains approximately
~~'~~ 74
80 acres. A major portion of this area will be used for Route 54
and the Sweetwater River Channel, and the remainder for indus-
trial purposes.
The property is designated for research and limited indus-
trial uses on the General Plan and is zoned F-1 (Floodway) and 1-
L-F (Light industrial with a flood plan combining zone).
This area is not coastal related and no change in the
existing designations are anticipated.
Q~/~ 75
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BAYFRONT PLANNING PROCESS
July, 1970 Survey on future of Bayfront distributed to 2,102
households, 410 businesses, and 354 interested
persons.
January, 1971 Public Hearing. City Council imposed building
moratorium on Bayfront pending further planning
studies.
March, 1971 Comments received from Chula Vista Chamber of
Commerce.
April, 1971 City entered into Joint Powers Agreement with
San Diego Unified Port District and retained
Sedway/Cooke Consultants to prepare Bayfront
Plans.
November, 1971 Comments received from South Bay Citizens
Planning Committee.
December, 1971 Comments received from Chula Vista Garden Club,
South Bay Economic Council, Chula Vista Chamber
of Commerce, National City Chamber of Commerce,
and Youth Commission.
January, 1972 Public Review Session and Joint Public Hearin
held by Planning Commission, Environmental
Control Commission, and Chamber of Commerce
Bayfront Study Task Force.
May, 1972
June, 1972
July, 1972
August, 1972
September-December, 1972
October, 1972
Comments received from California Garden Club.
Comments received from South Bay Citizens Planning
Committee and Chula Vista League of Women Voters.
Public Hearing. Planning Commission reviewed
land use options for Bayfront.
Public Hearing. City Council reviewed land use
options for Bayfront and selected recreational/
commercial option.
Planning Commission and City Council held public
study sessions.
Public Hearing. City Council formed Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency.
A-1
g~~q
January, 1973 Comments received from Chula Vista League of
Women Voters.
May, 1973 City Council received and referred to Planning
Commission final Sedway/Cooke Consultants Study.
September, 1973 Public Hearing. Planning Commission reviewed
Bayfront Plan.
October, 1973 Public Hearing. Planning Commission recommended
approval of EIR, adopted Resolution 46PCM-73-20,
recommending General Plan Amendment for Bayfront,
and adopted Resolution 46PC2-73-N, recommending
rezoning of Bayfront.
November, 1973 Public Hearing. Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 46PCM-73-24 recommending adoption of
Specific Plan for Bayfront.
November-Decmeber, 1973 Public Hearing. City Council held several public
hearings on Planning Commission's recommendations.
January, 1974 Public Hearing. City Council certified the EIR,
adopted Resolution 467145 amending General Plan
for Bayfront, and adopted Resolution 467146
establishing the Specific Plan for the Bayfront.
February, 1974 City Council held second reading of Ordinance
1524 and rezoned the Bayfront.
March-April, 1974 Public Hearings. City Council amended Specific
Plan to realign Tidelands Avenue to a more
environmentally sensitive alignment.
May, 1974 City Council decided to implement Bayfront Plan
as a Redevelopment Plan.
June, 1974 Redevelopment Agency staff met with Bayfront
Property owners.
July, 1974 Public Hearings. City Council adopted Ordinance
461541 establishing the Bayfront Development
Project Plan.
October, 1976 Public Hearing. Redevelopment Agency reviewed
and accepted report for the~Bayfront Redevelop-
ment area.
October, 1978 Public Hearing. Redevelopment Agency reviewed
draft LCP.
November, 1978 Public Hearing. Redevelopment Agency reviewed
and accepted the report for the Bayfront
Redevelopment Area.
A-2
9y?~
February, 1979 Public Hearing. Joint public hearing of
Redevelopment Agency and City Council. Resolve
to submit LCP.
9`~ ~q
A- 3
APPENDIX B
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Because of the many different governmental agencies involved
in the Bayfront project or related projects, it has been necessary
to coordinate many different activities. It is important to note
that, while there has not always been complete agreement between
all of the agencies involved, many compromises have been reached
and many issues have been resolved. As the Bayfront and related
projects continue to move towards implementation, it will be
necessary to continue the coordination which has occurred in the
past. The following highlights are examples of the wide range of
coordination which has occurred.
March, 1974
Chula Vista City Council adopted resolution endorsing the
Sweetwater River Flood Control Project under consideration by the
USACE.
July, 1974
Staff meeting with representatives of state and federal
wildlife services regarding Sweetwater Marsh.
November, 1974
San Diego Unified Port District entered into agreement with
CalTrans for design and construction of Tidelands Avenue bridge
across Sweetwater River.
B-1
~~t?q
February and March, 1975
San Diego Unified Port District considered and adopted
Bayfront Plan.
March, 1975
Additional meetings with State Department of Fish and Game.
March, 1975
iJational City, Chula Vista, and San Diego Unified Port
District adopt joint resolution urging that federal plans for
establishment of wildlife preserve and preservation of Sweetwater
Marsh be coordinated with local plans.
April, 1975
Sweetwater River Flood Control Project is reformulated
and changed from a single purpose project to a multi-purpose
project.
April through August, 1975
Continued negotiations between local agencies, USACE, and
state and federal wildlife services regarding acquisition and
preservation of Sweetwater Marsh.
October, 1975
Draft of expanded EIR for Bayfront Project released for
public review.
December, 1975
Chula Vista met with Regional Coastal Commission staff to
establish program for review of Bayfront Plan.
B-2
~~~1
January, 1976
Chula Vista City Council adopted resolution supporting
Sweetwater River Flood Control Project and related mitigation
measures, including acc{uisition of Sweetwater Marsh.
January and February, 1976
Sweetwater River Flood Control Project delayed due to lack
of funds.
February, 1976
Joint presentation by staff to Redevelopment Agency and
Regional Coastal Commission regarding conflicts between Bayfront
Plan and Coastal Plans.
February, 1976
United States Coast Guard clarifies "Navigable Waters"
within Bayfront Project.
Nlarch. 1976
Report on conversion of agricultural lands prepared by
Regional Coastal Commission and Redevelopment Agency forwarded to
State Coastal Commission.
March. 1976
Additional meetings with wildlife services.
March, 1976
Funds released for EIS on Sweetwater River Flood Control
Project.
~~~~ B-3
March, 1976
Department of Fish and Game responds to Draft F:IR on Bayfront
Plan.
July, 1976
USACE responds to Draft EIR.
July through September, 1976
Meetings with USACE regarding provision of recreation facili-
ties in conjunction with Flood Control Project.
September, 1976
Chula Vista protests continued conflicts between federal
agencies.
January through May, 1977
Additional comments received on Draft EIR for Bayfront
Plan. Comments received from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Department of Interior, L'. S. Department of Defense, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, State Department of Fish and Game, Air
Resources Board, Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Unified
Port District, and National City.
April, 1977
Chula Vista solicited comments on Bayfront Plan and promo-
tional brochures as rec{uired by Section 306 of Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act. Notices sent to Federal Power Commission,
Army Carps of Engineers, USAF Regional Civil Engineer, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection
B-4
~- ~ 7q
Agency, Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Federal Energy Administra-
tion, General Services Administration, Soil Conservation Service,
Health Education and Welfare, Department of Justice, Department of
Interior, Department of Commerce Maritime Administration, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service, President's Council on Environ-
ment Quality, U.S. Energy Research and Redevelopment Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration.
June, 1977
Further discussion with Regional and State Coastal Commission
regarding Tidelands Avenue, agricultural conversion, drainage,
and marsh preservation.
August, 1977
Staff discussions with CalTrans and Federal Highway Adminis-
tration.
September, 1977
Staff meetings with National ?Marine Fisheries, U.S. l~ish and
Wildlife Service, CalTrans, and Federal Highway Administration.
December, 1977
Further meetings with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CalTrans,
Federal Highway Administration, and California Department of Fish
and Game. Meeting held in Laguna Niguel.
January, 1978
Coordinating meeting with L'. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
gy~q B-5
CalTrans, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Diego County Flood
Control District, City of National City, California Coastal Com-
mission, California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego Unified
Port District, and the Federal Highway Administration. Meeting
held in Laguna Niguel.
February. 1978
Further review between City and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Meeting held in Sacramento.
April, 1978
Chula Vista, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CalTrans, Federal
Highway Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Meeting held in Los Angeles.
October, 1978
Review meeting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chula
Vista, California Coastal Commission, California Department of
Fish and Game, Gruen Gruen and Associates. Meeting held in San
Francisco.
January, 1979
Meeting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
B-6
q~7q~