Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1989-15227 RESOLUTION NO. 15227 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REQUESTING $33,600 FOR LCP PREPARATION FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY ISLANDS FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista recognizing the problems and issues identified in the application for Coastal Zone Management Grant attached as Attachment A, desires to provide for a planning study contributing to improved coastal planning, decisionmaking, and management capability related to community development and growth; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has developed an application package to deal with these development problems and issues; and the California Coastal Commission, under authority of the Government Code of the State of California, may provide planning and financial assistance for such a program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby requests the Coastal Commission to provide planning and financial assistance under authority of the Government Code of the State of California, not to exceed the amount of $33,600. Such planning assistance is more particularly described in the Work Program that is attached hereto as Attachment B and made a part of this resolution as if fully set forth herein.~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute in the name of the City of Chula Vista, all necessary applications, contracts, and agreements and amendments hereto to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this resolution. Presented by Approved as to form by " ~afson '~gency Art Acting Community Development Director WPC 41 61 H ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~.,tULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of Augustu 19 ..89 , by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore, McCandliss, Nader, Cox NAYES: Counci] members None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None ABSENT: Councilmembers None Moy~a't~the City of Chulo Vista Acting tCity' Cle~ ,TE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, Californio, DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove ond foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of RESOLUTION N0. 3_5227 ,ond thot the some hos not been omendedor repeoled DATED Clerk CC-660 7 ~'~ °1~.S~ ?/89 : ' ATTACHMENT A ' "~ LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 'ft ' ~, APPLICATION FOR FUNDING · <! i, .' .,~i~!c TOTAL WORK PROGRAM :! ..... '~, I'iHame of Aopl~cant: City of'Ch~la Vhta Acting Community mmm e ~4,.+ A(,--etnr: rimrid P, uttai~son Ttt.le.' Develooment Dire;tot A~d<lrefi: 276 Fourth Avenue ;~ Chula Vista, CA 92010 P~qnq: (619) 691-5047 Fiscal Officgrt Lyman Chrls'topher Titlqt Director of Finance Addreslt ~ 276'Fourth Avenue .' ~! Chula Vtsta, CA g2010 phomli (619) 691-5051 _~n~s Requf~d tO C~l~tm Total Work p~ ~t the Dates of AdcOUon 0 $tlbms o~YouP GEieP~I Pla~ ~1~ L~nd Use c(~ulmUon ~ul~n~ )Opmn '$peql ConleRl~n Ho(lm ]hhm(e Safety Safety{scenic Hi gh~ay ~173 ~nded 2113 2/82 11/13 ~1/73 g/14 12/74 11/74 5/74 1~/78, ~0/8% · ~, A~t~ tom (~ mhm~), : ~ 2. ~' ~rk p~Fum rmla~ ~m~ ~o ~o~m ~ p~u~a. " 3. ~u~sm mch~m ~ ~m~mm dmmc~i~__ ~al~e oom~m rmh~ to ~m ~ ~em ones. ~ ~ (~) eovimm or eo~ a~icm~ion ~o ~he Com~ C~ssi~. ~ ~ ~ -- ~ e~f ~th c~ mi~t~m ~ item ~ ~ J aborts to the ~/: :: ,:,~: ,V ~ ~e~cOm ~ 9~0J-3~3 Xttn, B~ V~ Bec~ .. ,. ,~ '~' ~;~" ~ o~ to the ~ss~n's d~ office. ',~ortzld Offlclal "' Signature Oa~e ~"-=c?~. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOCATION SUMMARY . :Gr'Bnt App]iean:~;': :'-'Cttv of Chu]8 VtstB_~C.q~nttv Add~s: ' :':::' "::"~:~ "'276 Fourth Avenue' Zfp Code: 92010 -.~. PN~ect Tftll' ".: South county Z'~lands LCP Pre,a'rat~on': ~u~ ~s~d~ $33,600%00~':~::'V~=R' ~; " '~ Sables and Total Pesonil $e~tces :' 0perat~ng ~pense$ p~fess~onal aHd consu'l'~aA~ Seduces '. .... s67.2o9,~9 Other (tt~ze, u:c ~pa~ate. s.ee~ tf requt~d) . offtC~ ~up; /:.postage - - RZ'V 8/85 INDIRECT COST RATE CERTIFICATION adlinilC[iCion,':eC~.~:Such CoBOl musC noC oChe[vile be ~rlaCed ~and some-cl~ies~, will have p~spa~ed a Cos~ ~lloca~ion Plan ~includss~an indigec~ cos~ ga~e. This indigec~ cos~ ga~e govidel ~ a depaE~nenCal.Ea~e based on a percentage o~ digec~ salaries and ~vages. The designa~ed fiscal o~ics~ og any Jurisdiction ~= s pgepaged m Cos~ Xlloca~ion Plan mus~ complete ~.[ceE~i~ica~ionbelow,~l~ indiEec~ costs a~s sho~ on ~he ~ocal [jCoas~al Pgo~m Bud~e~ ~lloca~lon 2u~aEy. Fo~ cities which do nOt~'~e'~s{ 'Allocation Plans buz wish '{include indirect costs in ~heir ~ran~.bud~eu, ma~erials -,4esczibing.the basis rot ~he proposed indirect cos~ gaze must' b~ -,'provided [o the Coastal CommasaLon alon9 with this application. ~ I.~ .L~n"ChHstophe~'.:.'. ,' hereb~ certify ZhaZ the indigec[ , :: ~ Name o2 FLscal, b~ceg,.~ '~E:~'~]~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~', ,.~,~.;,d-~..-,.~-.,,.;~,~,~,~,..j,~:..~[:' :' ".j r'~;.,..,.~:~~ ~ ....':~j~{;,t . - '~ i;:co,~, l~,n~iri.~ in'/~his'~ran{ apmll~atio2 lie conlistenZ ~ zhe COsC'XllOcation"Plan';' lot''<~'''''~he C~t~ of Chula V~sta' which Nile Ol Ju[~ld~c[lon been .I accordance with the provisions ~ Office :C s~lloca~ion Plan and ae~hods ol calculation ~ dspl:~men~ll., 0 {i~[~c~"'eo.~ ..Ztl Con~tine~ In ~he PII~Xll be made available upon the [eques~ o~ ~he ~oaszal Co~ielion ol l~l deSignlee. ~ ~., .- 2igna~ure of Fiscal It D~rector of F~nance -" :',' ~t 1 v : : ilrl ' ATTACHMENT B - . SOUTH COUNTY ISLANDS WORK PROGRAM ~ .. ,.. ,. · ' Introduction f~ The three' COa~tal.'~F~S ~that were recently annexed to the City of Chula Vista !i -from the untncorporated County area known as Montgomery and the City of San · i ' Diego are Jointly referred to as the "South County Islands". At this time. ii:'.the city of Ch,la Vist, is ,ovt,g fo ard ,ith p .,nf.g the So,th Co,nty -. .,L ;,, Islands , so : that all of,:the City's coastal zone will be included in the,/ ) certified Local,Coastal ,. ,, . , ,,.U~;~::., .,.~.. · . ,roxfmately 93 ac~es';' :Individually. L the'~ Palomar/Bay Boulevard Reorganization Site. the West~ Fatvre Street Site.. The location of each area h ~' ~. '.. :'-"' ~ork' Program '. ~".: ~s work .' program "detailed descr~pUon of the 'basic ~sks ~C~denUfied ~n the sfx-}tep process. ~e tasks described here~n comerice with ' ~the preparaUon.of,a land use concept plan, ~denUfhd.as Step 2 tn the ~' plannJng program;~,,Goals and objectives have been developed and the planning ~ ?. hsues on each s~te have been ~dent~fted.:..The goals and objectives that ~ been developed and the s~te specific planning issues that have been ~denUf(ed are.attached.,~'C~ty Council rev~w and ~nput on the goals and obJecUves w~11- C ::':';:':"S~P:~:':~;~?~::DEVELOP'GOAE~':AND O~TZVES*'F'~R" PLANNING PROCESS Aim . "la;'Report to City Council ' .~.': .,:~;~L.~;~" STEP 2 - DEVELOP LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN(S) ~ - - 2a. Report tO City Council [~ t~'/, ~'~' ',~:;; STEP 4 REFINEMENT OF PLAN AND L~AL COASTAL PROGR~ SUBMX~AL - 4a. Agency Workshop :. STEP B PUBL1C HEARXNGS/ADOPTZON BY CX~ .; 6 - PUBLIC ~EARXNGS/CERTZFZCATIOH BY COASTAL C~tlSSZON :Task: ,! DEVELOP LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN (Step 2) .Based on the gOals and objectives developed for the p3anntng process and the 'hsues 1denttried for each site and other dtrectfon gtven by the City Counctl. alternative land use concepts will be prepared. The alternatives may tnclude .vartous combinations and/or arrangerants of land uses and ma~or c~rn.latlnn oatt~rns ~tch ~mplemen~ the ~oals and objectives. Progress wtll be ~ertodtcally revtewed to n~rro~ the focus to t~o or three alternative land use concepts pep stte whlch w111 be drafted tn suff~cle,L ~ct=~~ fe~ Inclusion In a report to, the ,City Council.. Thh report w~11 provtde detatled descr~ptlons ~of the; alte~attves unde~ consideration and generallzea ~.~,evaluattons ~n tams of the goals and objectives. The task ~tll be completed the Ctt Counctl's selection of a preferred alternative for each stte for E,~:,~ detatled eva{uatton and testtrig. · ,/~TESTZNG ~F ~ANDUSE CONCEPT (STEP 3} ~h task h comprhed of the fo~lat~on of a preferred alternatlve land use ~lan for each stte based on tnput from the CIty Council and detatled testtrig fr e ,Task~/;:"?.REFZNE~",:b'~{~RErERREO LAND USE PLAN AND PREPARATION OF L~AL ' , COASTAL PROGRAM SUBHZTTAL(STEP 4) 'The, testtrig 'p~e~%~descr~bed above ~11 most likely 1denSely certa(n /:.refinerants to the plans which could tncrease its vtabtllty or tmp~ve the ~, project. ;, Such' mtnor~-~d~flcattons wtll . be Incorporated to produce the pro DEed Local Coastal Program submittal.; Included ~n thts process wtll be a ~r~shop meettn Ntth/the Ctty Counct1 ~ere suggested programs and pollcfes wtll be tnfom~ly discussed and evaluated. Otrectlon gtven at the workshop ~tll help shape the Local Coastal Program submittal. PUBLIC HEARINGS/ADOPTION BY CITY (STEP task p epa at o, of p,sentat on g ,ph cs a,d othe materfair for publlc heartngs~ the f~nal~zatton of the Local Coastal Program su~tttal ~ and preparation fop the local publlc review p ocess. ?{'T~i~t}:,~PUBLZC HEARZNGS/CERTZFZCATZON (STEP 6) rollo~ng adoptton by the C~ty a second lengthy publlc review and approval proces~ wtll co~ence wtth the Caltfo~n~ Coastal Co~hston. ~e maJort~ of the t~me and budget tn th~s phase of the project w~11 be devoted to meeting .wtth Comtss~on st~ff and responding to their requests fop supplemental ~ ; :., ' . ~.~L,, ITEMIZED BUDGET FOR SOUTH COUNTY ISLANDS PLANNING · STEP mg Consultant $10,000' Economic/Marketing CoHSultant ....~ ~ $8,000 ,Traffic Consultant - $15,000 Environmental Consultant" Coastal Consultant ubtotal STEP 4 000 :;-~g Consul rant STEP ;' Plagntng Consultant g consultant Coastal Consultant iubtotal ) · '. ' ' ,< ~.~. ~,..L~,-:,,.-. ~,,.. ;~'.<- - , ~:' . ~" ~,~,~ ,;,,, . '. :.. .,..~'.~ '.~; LOCATION OF SOUTH COUNTY ISLANDS ~ ..,"~I' l~lqtlltl CITY OF CHULA VISTA · CffrY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 0 4~0" · FIGURE I: JuLY 2,. ~,,~ ~,~ .~..,~.,.~ . PALOMAR/BAY BOULEVARD ,.~,.:;,~ WEST FAIRFIELD ~;?~: ..... : ...... ,, .. '~ ~ MVRE STREET SITE' COUNTY ISLANDS LCP PLANNING PROGRAM GOAL 1. STATE COASTAL ACT POLICIES The first goal of the planning program is to implement the policies of the Coastal Act in each of the planning areas. Each of the sites was reviewed by the Coastal Commission in conjunction with LCP approvals under previous Jurisdictions. The Commission found that because of the developed nature of the sites and their isolation from important coastal resources, the relevant coastal issues were limited. Nonetheless the Coastal ACt policies should be considered as basic guides during the planning process. Objective 1. Provide public access to coastal resources and public recreat'ion opportunities in the coastal environment. Objective 2. Preserve and conserve marine environments and sensitive land'resources including fresh water wetland areas. ObJectiv~ 3. Promote high quality development with special consideration to visual aesthetics inc{uding signing. "Objective 4.' Utilize"th? unique coastal environment for commercial and industrial uses which relate to marine activities or public enjoyment of coastal resources. Goal 2. ECONOMIC BASE OF THE CITY The economy of San Diego County is'becoming increasingly more diversified. In keeping with economic changes which are ~'.'~!underway in the county as a whole, it is the goal of the city to ~'."~'have a l~rge and diversified economic base, while maintaining or increasing the existing sources of employment. The coastal planning ~reas can provide a unique environment for specialized components of the local economy. Objective 5. Identify potential areas for locationof new coastal related light manufacturing and high technology businesses and facilitate their development. Objective 6. ~her~ land is currently occupied by marginal · .~= lr~dustrial uses, encu~rage its replacement by ~igher ective 7. Where land in the bay,font is occupied by marginal industrial uses, encourage selective redevelopment ;.of residential, office, commercial and recreation uses. GOAL 3~RETAZZ COMMERCZA~ DEVELOPMENT establishments in chula vista capture a small fraction of regional or comparison shopping conducted by the residents of the city, the surrounding South Bay, and TiJuana, Mexico. The goal of the city is to improve and increase the retail base of the city, making the city an attractive place to !'shop for comparison and durable goods. The coastal zone is an appropriate location for specialized commercial activities. ' ObJ Promote"'~ommercial development which supports ,.. and integrates with the unique characteristics of the ',=;!~coastal zone and does not compete with the established ~'commercial'areas of the City. GOAL 4~ !=! HOUSING' AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER =.c~=Traditionally~ Chula Vista has been characterized by single 'family, detached residences and neighborhood-serving uses. It is the goal of the city to accommodate a full diversity of ~'~=~housing types° .... objective 9,'Encourage development of housing where .i.lT!." appropriateservices and sites are available. obJecti .' Encourag. local planning end identity in the seversZ established subareas and ericlaves which include'the LCP planning 8tess. ' ~ Objective 11. Create and maintain buffers which ameliorate "~' :. the adverse effects of changing land uses along interfaces. :.;'~.ObJective 12.i;Zmprove public facilities, including streets, ;;.alleys, drainage ways and infrastructuret and, the planning !~;~Q!:and development of parks ~nd recreational facilities. '.~c/= 'i~ ~; Objectiv~ i3. ~ Revitalize obsolete, redundant or declining Ireas through private-sector/public-sector partnerships, and a balanced program of conservation, rehabilitation and ~ redevelopment. ~,h?~.GOAL 4~;'OPEN SPACE, RRCR[~TO~! ~!D VISUAL QUALITY ;'T~, ChUie Vista contains and is surrounded b,' .4.-~ '~-nnt n~tv~,~ features and landforms ln~~ ;d~ng San Diego Bay. The undeveloped ........ Gpen space and beau~{rul views which are provided by these natural featur-~ ure an important part o[ Chula Vlota's c;:?~rien~c. ~ is the goal of the city to preserve the most ~mn~rt.n= ~-andforms and natural features as part of a recreation 'ien=ed Open space network.. 14.'~Planand implement ,;caste1 ~ne components of'. ~the Chula Vista Greenbelt~ as expressed in ~he Updated Gene~al Plan. " :"Assure that'new development meets or exceed~ -- · a standard of high quality planning and design. is'i'~fluenced in significant ways by activities "' '.'~ which take place in the legion outside its corporate boundary or -- its sphere of ,in[luence. It Is the goal of the city to express its legitimate concerns and participate in regional decision making relative to these activities. Objective 16. ~ consistent with the plans and uses for adjacent properties in'other Jurisdictions and respond to regional planning programs ~ ~D P~TICIPATION ..,j ~c= { The Loca a future;"development and I maintenance of the' City's coastal' zone.. It Is the goal of the , city to inform the publi~ promote public interest and ~;' understanding and solicit co~ents ' f " ' c suit civic educational, , ',,,, p=o~essionaZ o~qanizations~ cittzen8~ members' o~ private ~-: >~,:{'deveZopmen~ co~unity~ and o~he=s in preparing and car=ying ~. .,, · .'PARCEL SPECIFIC PLANNING PROGRAMS ~ An initial evaluation of each of the three parcels has established the basic parameters for its planning. The context for the plannina process consists of the goals and objectives ~ listed above ana the unique characteristics of each site. The ~'1~ l:!Issue Paper for each parcel should be referenced for details ['~."~]regarding the issues listed. The issues listed for each parcel i:?~?'.ishould be;clearly addressed in the LCP designation and special pment.criteria {if any) proposed. Faivre S~reet~ Location'in the Otay River floodplain. Improve site aesthetics and consider gateway location for San Diego Trolley passengers. Respond to regional plans for O~ay River greenbelt/ open space and City of San Diego designation for · i;[ -[..adjacent property. ~,"]' ~,Respond to detailed p~anning studies to be conducted per Montgomery Specific Plan. - Recognize precedent setting for other non-coastal : zone properties in the floodplain. ~'~': '~' ~'!.Palomar/Ba~ Boulevard Reorganization: parcel committed to power plant use. ,'-- Preservation of unique sal= pond marine environment. ~,Preservstion of fresh water wetlands. y of proposed development with preserved ~-~ space and adjacent uses. 3. 't .cal ai,'rangemenb o~ uses. Improve substandard development and publio 1 Respond to Cdrrent and p armed uses,on adjacent , properties within the City of San Diego. ~ ~'Utilize benefit of freeway access and visibility. ?'~;- Upgrade appearance and regulate visual environment. ~.- Implement the on-site portion of the Chula Vista _-,i Greenbelt. V~ - Promote public access and enjoyment of coastal FAIVRE STREET SITE ISSUES PAPER Z. Site Description This site is located south of the western end of Fatvre Street, adjacent to the MTDB San Diego Trolley tracks. The Otay River is located ~ tts southern boundary. The site wa~ ~nnexed to the City 11~ December 1985 as a part of the Montgomery Annexation. It is approximately 30 acres in size and is comprised of two complete assessors' parcels and a portion of a third. The two complete parcels are owned bySouthern Pacific Industrial Development Company. The larger parcel (AP~ 622-190-21, 6.42 ac.} takes access from the cul-de-sac at the western end of Faivre Street and is currently used as a truck terminal and trailer storage lot. The smaller parcel (AP~ 622-190-22, 0.97 ac.), located to the south, between the terminal and the Otay River Valley,.is currently vacant. The site also includes a portion of the parcel adjacent to the east (AP~ 622-390-15) owned by H. G. Fenton Materials Company. The entire parcel is 9.88 acres in size, however only the western 1-2 acres is included in the.coastal zone. This parcel is currently vacant and used for storage of materials. The current.truck terminal use of the site is unsightly. It is especially visible from the trolley which runs on elevated tracks directly to the west of the site. The site was previ l included in the County of San Diego's LCP. It was designated for General Impact Industrial Use and zoned M-54 (FP), a manufacturing industrial zone with floodway overlay zone.~,The project area is depicted in white (a part of the so-called'"whitelands") by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The General Plan Update appears to designate the site as Open .Space. Uses Ad~acen~ .. As noted above, the ~TDB San Diego Trolley tracks are adjacent to the project site to the west and the Otay River Valley is adjacent to the south. The majority of the Fenton parcel, and other vacant proper~y, is located east of the site. To the north, a recently developed mini warehouse facility is located on a filled site, six to ten feet higher than the adjacent portion o~ the project site. The trolley tracks and other recent developments nearby are also on sites which have been filled to protect improvements from the floodplain hazard. All ' of the filled sites are located north of Faivre Street. Z%, Planning Zssues The principal pianninq issue concerning this property is its location within the Otay River floodplain. A secondary issue is the unsightly appearance of the current uses on-site. The majority of the coastal zone portion of the eastern parcel is a "wetlands" associated with the Otay River and under the Juvi~diction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers with regard to any grading or filling modi£1catlons. The Coastal Commission found, in its approval 'of the County's LCP, that: the area is isolated away from the coast; basically built-out, with only redevelopment occurring; and, no environmentally sensitive habitats were located on the project site. The two areas of concern were the potential flood hazards and the enhancement of visual resources, including sign controls. The Chula Vista General Plan Update envisions the Otay River Valley as a part of a major open space greenbelt surrounding the urbanized city.= The City of San Diego in its Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan also promotes and encourages the preservation of the Otay River as open space assessable to the public via bicycle, hiking, and equestrian trails. The community plan uses agricultural, floodway, and floodway fringe zones to achieve this objective. It arso permits natural swale floodways, while prohibiting all "channel-type" flood control protection construction in the Otay River Valley. These plans, and public health and safety concerns, suggest that appropriate use for the floodplain area is open space. ' If the ultimate appropriate use for the site is open space, a process to convert ti~e property from its current developed state is necessary. Such a process would need to provide sufficient time for the owner/user to enjoy the useful economic life of the improvements currently installed. During this time the secondary issue of appearance and visual quality needs to be addressed. The current uses of the site are unsightly and very visible, especially from the San Diego Trolley. Because of the relatively low elevation of the site, the interior conditions, as well as the perimeter, are noticed. Adequate screening would need to. include Zrees or tall shrubs, inaddition to standard fencing or walls, and ground level landscaping. A substantial improvement in the appearance of the site is Justified regardless of whether the current use is eventually abeted. ;~though the project site is small and has the unique status of being located. in the coastal zone, the land use designation and special policies, if any, established for it will tend to set a :precedent for other properties in a similar situation (i.e., !:!currently developed and within the Otay River floodplain). No guidance is provided by the updated General Plan or the Specific Plan ["the White Lands' designation '~hindicates that much additional study is required before a permanent land use designation can be assigned to the involved (2/t6/e9) -6- territory"] Because of this, the LCP treatment of this site 'l, should be the result of a careful consideration and evaluation of "'~' the effect that such policies would have were they applied to all property in the Otay River floodplain which is within the City's "- Jurisdiction, ~- PALOMAR/BAY BOULEVARD REORGANIZATION SITE -- ISSUES PAPER ISSUES PAPER I. Site Description The site is approximately 63 acres in size, generally located west of Bay Boulevard, north of Palomar Street, and along the eastern shoreline of San Diego Bay. The City initiated a reorganization of the area on behalf of the propert~ owners and the area was annexed from the City of San Diego in early 1986. The site is comprised of two parcels under two ownerships: SDG&E 8.14 (APJ 617-011-1) acres at the northern end and Western Salt Company 54.96 acres (AP~ 617-011-4). The property is currently used for salt evaporation ponds (Western Salt Co.) and a site for large steel tanks associated with an adjacent power plant (SDG&E). Only a small portion of the Western Salt Company property is "dry land." The dry area is located at the southern end of the project site, adjacent to Bay Boulevard and the existing industrial park. The area was designated Open Space on the City of San Diego's (Heav Industrial) in San Diego's General Plan and was zoned M-2 LCP. However, the City of San Diego s LCP for the Palomar/Bay Boulevard area was not certified by the California Coastal Commission prior to deannexation. The current City of Chula Vista General Plan designation for the site is "Research and Limited Industrial" while the site was pre-zoned is "I-L-P" (Limited Industrial with Precise Plan) at the time of annexation. The existing uses are consistent with these current designations. The General Plan Update designates the entire site "Research & Limited Manufacturing." ~dJacent Uses Adjacent uses to the north and east are under the Jurisdiction of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program. The SDG&E power plant is located adjacent to the SDG&E parcel~ while light industrial uses exist to the east and north (Bay Breeze Industrial Park) of the Western Salt parcel~ on both sides of Bay Boulevard. A SDG&E transmission line right-of-way and a railroad line are also adjacent to the eastern edge of the site, both running parallel to Bay Boulevard. Property to the west is within National City and under the Jurisdiction of the Unified Port District. The zoning designation for this area is MT-OS-CZ-UPD (Manufacturing ,-Tidelands - Open SpaCo - Coastal Zone - Unified Port District) ,"and its current use is salt ponds. The property to the south is within the City of San Diego and zoned M-2 (Heavy Industrial). It is currently utilized for industrial laboratories and salt of w. ioh st...sociat.d with the Western S. lt Compan (2/16/89) -8- ~'qli"I I' qWa,m, qus :The California Coastal Commission has deferred certification of this portion of the City of San Diego's LCP because of the industrial zoning. The Commission expressed a desire to see this . area incorporated into a greenbelt/open space use which extends up the Otay River Valley (similar in concept to the Chula Vista . Greenbelt).; Certification of the LOP is contingent on providing appropriate zoning for these uses. The property owner (Western Salt Co.) objected to a city-sponsored zone change to an -- agricultural zone which was proposed in raspones to the Commission's direction. The City of San Diego withdrew the zon3 change proposal and directed the landowner to prepare a specific plan for all of his holdings in the area. This plan is due to be submitted by August 1989 for processing through the City and potentially to the Coastal Commission, after approval by the City. In the interim, all projects in the area must go to the State Commission for approval because the LOP is not certified. IZ. Planning Issues The current uses of the site are consistent with their current designations in"planning documents, the characteristics of the site, and current adjacent land uses. This consistency may change after th~ specific plan and LCP certification process is completed by the City of San Diego. The submerged nature of most Of the Western Salt property and its environmental sensitivity preclude development. The SDG&E property is currently developed with utility facilities associated with the adjacent electrical generating plant. This use is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Coastal Resource C__onslderations The principal coastal resource of the project site is the salt pond area. The area consists Of shallow, diked ponds which are used to produce salt by solar evaporation, The ponds and dikes have proven to be suitable habitat for many bird species, providing resting,!nesting and specialized feeding areas for ...!.local and migratory.aquatic birds, Because of thi~abit~ function, the Por~ ~astsr Plan provides /for a continuation of salt production activities on similar, adjacent property in the South Bay. This activity provides for salt production, maintains bird habitat, and provides open space and vistas which enhance the appearance of the area. The plan also suggests that reutilization ~ ,ome salt ponds marxculture could be considered. The Coastal Commission's direction to the City of San Diego in regard to industrial zoning i. in the area reinforces this position. =.'THe~ ~onsidersti0ns, combined with the pattern of ownership and !;:~use~strongly suggest that the current uses are appropriate and f;fshould be maintained. !,:",::2:, e/89 ,, -9- WEST FAIRFIELD SITE ISSUES PAPERE acres in ~izc un~ 4s characterized by m Jumbled arrangement of incompatible .land uses. The site is generally bounded by Palomar Street on the north, Bay Boulevard on the west, Main Street on the south, and I-5 on the east. The area was annexed to the City of Chula Vista as a part of the Montgomery Annexation on December 31, 1985. A land use survey completed in 1986 found the area to contain 39 single family homes and a duplex.-In addition, approximately of the area was in industrial uses, 17% was commercial, and 22% was vacant. The land uses determined in the 1986 survey were recently update via a windshield survey and are depicted in the Current Use exhibit.~ Many uses are visually unattractive and dilapidated vehicles, materials, and structures are evident. The commercial Uses at both the north ~nd south ends of the site appear to be more recently constructed and in the best condition. Several other isolated parcels are .also in good condition but the general impression of the area is haphazard and not attractive. Multiple landowners, one major, some minor and several individual, control the numerous parcels which comprise the site. The pattern of parcelization and ownership is presented in the Ownership exhibit. The most prominent landowner is Western Salt Company. Two parcels fronting Industrial Boulevard have signs advertising land for sale or "build to suit" by commercial real estate brokers. This area has long been designated for light industrial use in both th~ Chula Vista and San Diego County General Plans. The assortment of existing uses could Just as easily support a residential, commercial or mixed-use designation. The seemingl~ random pattern of uses, multiple'ownerships, and the sub-standard condition of many properties in the area suggests that either a buy-out of minor landowners by a major developer or redevelopment would be the most feasible approach to improving the area. A._.dJacen~ Uses/Desiqnation~ The adjacent use to the east is the I-S freeway. To the north, across Palomar Street, business park/commercial uses are located in buildings which appear to be fairly new and in good condition. Property to the west and south is within the city San Diego (see discussion of non-certification of LCP for Palomar/Bay Boulevard site). The area east of Bay Boulevard is developed with industrial/storage lot uses similar to those within the project site. The area west of Bay Boulevard and to the south is devoted to salt evaporation uses. Swiss Park, a commercial recreation use is located adjacent to the freeway, south of Main Street. II. Planning Issues The primary planning'issue for this site is the existing inconsistent and incompatible pattern of land use. A second major issue is generally low level of both Dublic and private facilities in the area. Throughout the central portion of the site, no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks exist and some of the streets are unimproved and eroding. Given the ownership pattern, the facility issue may be very difficult to address. Individual, small projects which may be proposed by private developers will not have the resources to provide area-wide improvements. The coordination of site specific improvements by scattered small projects in order to achieve an overall imFrovement will be an administrative challenge for the City. Further, there is no assurance that even a majority of the properties will privately ,redevelop in the foreseeable future. Physical Site.Constraints/Opportunities The site has'no'real physical constraints except the low level infrastructure improvements noted above. Given the nature of many of the industrial uses, hazardous materials have undoubtedly been used and perhaps been disposed of i~ the area. Although such materials are not expected to represent a permanent constraint, studies prior to future development in the area will need to address the issue. The primary opportunities for the site are its freeway access and visibility. North and south bound access to I-5 is available at both Palomar Street and Main Street. The block which fronts on Palomar Street has especially good visibility from major traffic routes. The interior of the site is less visible from I-5 because it is at a higher elevation than the freeway and the alignment of Industrial Boulevard as a frontage road creates a setback from the top of the slope adjacent to the freeway. A development concept which proposed abandonment of Industrial Boulevard could alleviate this constraint. Coastal Resource ConsiderationA The Coastal Commission, in its approval of the County's LCP, concluded that the area was: isolated away from the coast; basically built-out, with only redevelopment occurring; and, ~,L~'~':resources -including sign controls. However, the policies of ~i~=~,.the Coastal Act, including the encouragement of public coastal ,'~ [,"~access and exposure, will be considered in the review of the ~':proposed LCP for this area. The Coastal Commission's objection ,.;'(2/16/89) -11- g in the Cit~' o[ san Diego'e LCP may not be ~ 'relevant to the parcels adjacent to this site and east of Bay Boulevard which are not environmentally sensitive.