Status of the Chula vista Bayfront Master Plan

Sometimes You Get the Bear; Sometimes the Bear Gets You

On May 18, 2010 the San Diego Board of Port Commissioners, the Chula Vista City Council, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation all met in one grand meeting at 1 pm in the afternoon and one by one unanimously approved a plan for development of the Chula Vista Bayfront.  The approved plan works for many stakeholders - but not Chula Vista residents. Despite the best efforts of Crossroads II to get a plan beneficial to residents, we were unsuccessful.

The original Crossroads was a successful volunteer community organization that worked to enhance the city, while at the same time making sure the quality of life for existing residents was not compromised (1). Crossroads I  disbanded in 1993.  Crossroads II was reincarnated from the original Crossroads 10 years later, in 2003.;

Crossroads II has focused more on redevelopment of the Chula Vista's older west side than new development in the east, but with the same goal as Crossroads I: Work to enhance the city, while at the same time making sure the quality of life for existing residents is not compromised.  Since its 2003 founding, Crossroads II has enjoyed steady growth in our membership, and a fair number of successes towards achieving its goal.  Unfortunately, the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan is one of our failures.

City leaders love to say their goal is to make Chula Vista  a "world-class city."  We agree...and all world class cities have major public "landmark" parks that draw residents and visitors alike.  (Think Central Park in N.Y., Balboa Park and San Diego.)  We approached the Bayfront planning process with a few simple-minded principles that we thought were essential to provide a Bayfront that provided benefits to Chula Vista's residents.  One of these few principles was that the Bayfront is Chula Vista's only opportunity to showcase a grand public park large enough  to serve as a gathering opportunity for the entire city for major civic events.  It could also accommodate cultural places (auditoriums, museums, performance spaces, etc.), much as Balboa Park does.  Such a place is a necessary element of world-class cities.

As planning for the Bayfront proceeded, Port and city planners made it clear that there were huge infrastructure and environmental remediation costs associated with development of the Bayfront, and the only way to cover those costs is to have dense development that would produce sales taxes, developer impact fees, more property tax revenue, and TOT taxes.  These tax revenues could then be used to make payments on the bonds that would be required to finance the infrastructure and environmental remediation.

All well and good.  A super-majority of the Crossroads II Board of Directors was willing to accept high-rise dense development, as long as the density was balanced with a major landmark park.  Because of the sensitivity of the nearby Sweetwater Wildlife Refuge, environmentalists made it clear that buffer zones in which no human intrusion was allowed, were necessary to protect the Refuge.  CII supported protection of the refuge with buffers, but made it clear we did not consider fenced-off no-touch buffer zones park space (2).

Although there were still some issues to resolve regarding connecting the northern and southern parts of the park, we thought we had a deal.  We would accept the dense high-rise development with the understanding that the density would be mitigated by a 40-acre landmark park that would finally give residents of Chula Vista a landmark park...a city-wide gathering place large and varied enough to serve the entire city.  We got the density...but we didn't get the landmark park. 

What residents did get in the approved Bayfront Master Plan was more density, a lot more traffic, lost views of San Diego Bay, more pollution, and 26 more acres of park than we have now on the Bayfront, but with restrictions on its use so draconian that it cannot function as the "landmark" park we envisioned.  These restrictions include construction of a 6 ft. fence separating the park from San Diego Bay, and prohibition of vending machines, amplified sound, group events and activities, and night lighting.   This means, for example, that residents could not enjoy a concert in the park, or Christmas lights in the park during the holidays.  It means that Crossroads II could not hold its Annual Tardeada in this park, because we use a mike (amplified sound).  These restrictions destroy the underlying concept of a landmark park as enjoyed by world-class cities. 

We now have an approved plan for a massively dense high-rise development on our Bayfront porch.  The developers and real estate interests are happy.  They will make lots of money.  The Port District is happy.  They got a plan they think will generate enough revenue to pay for itself, so it doesn't require any revenue from the Port.  The environmentalists are happy.  They got enormous buffer zones and other measures to protect the important wildlife refuge next door.  What about residents?  Residents of Chula Vista get a lot more traffic on I-5 and get their views of the bay blocked by high-rise buildings, and 26 acres of parkland that contain restrictions so draconian, it makes its designation in the plan as a "signature park" laughable.  The Bear got us. 

So, how did this happen?  Essentially, we were unable to overcome the arrayed forces poised against  us.  These forces include:

• An appointed Board of Port Commissioners with no allegiance to the city of Chula Vista or its residents.
• A City Council whose major focus was get "something" - anything - approved on the Bayfront. (You see, it was a major embarrassment for them that Bayfront planning that had begun in 2003 was still not completed by 2010.)
• A powerful environmental organization with no allegiance to Chula Vista that cut a side deal with the City and Port District to obtain what they wanted at the expense of quality of life for Chula Vista's residents.

Approval of the restrictions on use of the park were in the form of a Settlement Agreement between the City/Port and a coalition of environmental organizations led by the Environmental Health Coalition.  In the Settlement Agreement the City and Port agreed to these restrictions on use of the park, and the environmentalists agreed not to sue the City/Port over the Environmental Impact Report, and to actively support the plan.  The Settlement Agreement was presented to and approved by the City Council two weeks before they approved the Plan itself.  These park restrictions were never presented to, reviewed, or acted on by the Bayfront Citizens Advisory Committee, nor were they ever discussed in a public forum.

But it's not over.  The Plan still has to be approved by the California Coastal Commission.   The Crossroads II Board of Directors intends to do its best to get the plan modified to resolve these problems with the public park space before it is presented to the California Coastal Commission. 

The primary contribution of the original Crossroads is the model growth management ordinance that accompanies new development of the then-called "eastern territories."  Because of that growth management plan, eastern Chula Vista has some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the county, maybe even in southern California. 

It was necessary to continually make this distinction because the Port and city planners consistently used the term "open space," to include both the ecological buffers and parks, to intimate there was much more park space in the plan than there actually was.

1. The primary contribution of the original Crossroads is the model growth management ordinance that accompanies new development of the then-called "eastern territories."  Because of that growth management plan, eastern Chula Vista has some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the county, maybe even in southern California. 

2. It was necessary to continually make this distinction because the Port and city planners consistently used the term "open space," to include both the ecological buffers and parks, to intimate there was much more park space in the plan than there actually was.