HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1988-13552 RESOLUTION NO. 13552
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. ll(a) FOR MARINA GATEWAY
PARCEL 1 LOT SPLIT
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) has
been certified by the California Coastal Commission; and,
WHEREAS, said LCP includes Coastal Development procedures determined
by the Commission to be legally adequate for the issuance of Coastal
Development Permits and the City of Chula Vista has assumed permit authority
of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed Initial Study IS-85-5A and
comments thereon; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on
May 3, 1988, in accordance with said procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as "approving
authority", has reviewed the proposed Marina Gateway Parcel 1 Lot Split.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista as follows:
1. City Council hereby adopts Negative Declaration IS-85-5A
attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and
2. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds, based on the
following findings, that the Marina Gateway Parcel 1 lot split
as proposed, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "B," is
consistent with the intent of the policies of the certified
Chula Vista Local Coastal Program.
Findings:
1. The proposed project consists of the subdivision of
currently developed land. Subject to conditions listed in
the attached resolution, the resulting parcels and on site
developments will conform to the certified Local Bayfront
Coastal Program development criteria.
2. The project site is not located adjacent to any wetland or
coastal resource and the proposed lot split will not
affect any such resource.
3. The proposed lot split involves property located at the
eastern boundary of the coastal zone which does not
provide access to the bay or water frontage, therefore,
the project will not impact water related recreational or
visitor serving marine resources.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Coastal
Development Permit No. ll(a).
Presented by Approved as to form by
Community Development Director t r
WPC 3548H/3395H
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
L..JLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 3rd day of May
19 88 , by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Cox, Moore, McCandliss, Nader
NAYES: Counci ] members None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Malcolm
ABSENT: Counci ]members None
~Chula Vista
ATTEST
~" ' City Clerk ~
'.. fE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
C~TY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove ond foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of
RESOLUTION N0. 13552 ,and thot the some hos not been omended or repeoled.
DATED
City Clerk
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CC-660
Exhibit "B"
CVCP #11(a)
Marina Gateway Parcel #1
Lot Split
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Easements for access (driveway) and parking (20+ spaces to be allotted
from northern parcel to southern parcel) shall run with the land and be
recorded with the final map.
I, P. Michael McDonald, authorized representative for Ratner Development
Company, have read and understand these conditions of approval as required by
the Redevelopment Agency as they pertain to the subdivision of Marina Gateway
Parcel #1 and agree that these conditions be incorporated into Coastal
Development Permit #11(a) for said project.
P. Michael McDonald
WPC 3550H
APPENDIX B
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DZSCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF D~SCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP .INTERESTS ON ALL
APPLICATIONS WHZCH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETZONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY
COUNCZL, PLANNING COlt415SION AND ALL OTHER OFFZCZAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the
application.
Ratner Corporation
Greenwald/McDonald Corporation
Greenwald/McDonald
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the
property involved.
Ratnor Corporation
Greenwald/McDonald Corporation
Greenwald/McDonald
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or
partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 1C)~ of the
shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the
partnership.
Stanley Foster
Bonnet Greenwald
P. Michael McDonald
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit
organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director
of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted'with any member
of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Con~nittees and Council within the past
twelve months? Yes ..... No' × If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, Joint
venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and
county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or
any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary. )
RATNER PROPERTI S
By: Gree ald/M orporation,
A-llO
B M ..... ~
EXHIBIT A
IS-85-5A
ADDENDUM TO IS-85-5
MARINA GATEWAY, BAY BOULEVARD
A. Background
This proposal is part of the Marina Gateway project located along Bay
Boulevard between "I" Street and "L" Street. The total acreage of the overall
project is 17.97 acres. The previous Negative Declaration on the project was
approved with the following mitigation measures being implemented as part of
the project:
The applicant shall submit a traffic analysis for the total Phase 1 and
Phase 2 project and other reasonably foreseeable probable future projects
which demonstrates that a level of service of "C" or better can be
achieved at all appropriate intersections to assure a finding of no
significant environmental impact. This analysis will be subject to
approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. If a level of service "C" cannot
be achieved then this Negative Declaration is not valid for the
consideration of individual projects in the Phase 2 area.
Subsequent to this action the Community Development Department determined
that it would be more appropriate for the Redevelopment Agency to carry out
such a study. Currently, the Engineering Department is preparing a "scope of
work" for the study which will be presented to the Agency in the near future.
B. Project Setting
The project site, which is relatively level, is presently located within
the lO0-year flood plan and characterized by natural grasses and scrub brush.
There are no known earthquake faults in the project vicinity, but the project
site is subject to liquifaction and expansive soils.
Adjacent land uses consist of I-5 freeway to the east across Bay
Boulevard, Rohr Corporation, San Diego Gas and Electric Power Plant and the
San Diego and Arizona Eastern tracks to the west.
C. Project Description
The project site consists of the development of site #4 of the original
Marina Gateway project which was designated for a 22,500 sq. ft. office
building. The current proposal, shown as site #5, is for an office building
with 27,500 sq. ft. of floor area with parking for 93 cars on the 62,400 sq.
ft. project site.
negative eclaration
PROjECT NAME: ~k~rina Gateway Projects
PROjECT LOCATION: East and West-of Bay Boulevard between "I" Street and "L"
Street
PROjECT APPLICANT: Ratner Development Company, a California General Partnership
CASE NO: IS-85-5 DALE: August 17, 1984
A. Project Setting
TIle project consists of seven vacant and individual sites which are
located on both the east and west sides of Bay Boulevard, between "I" Street
and "l" Street (site ~l - 4.32 acres, site #2 - 1.806 acres, site #3 - 1.428
acres, site ~4 - 1.432 acres, site ~5 - 5.51 acres, site #6 - 1.67 acres, site
#7 - 1.801 acres). lhe total acreage of the project amounts to 17.97 acres.
The project sites, which are relatively level, are presently located
within the lO0-year flood plain and are characterized by natural grasses and
scrub brush. There are no known earthquake faults in the project vicinity,
but the project site is subject to liquifaction and expansive soils.
Adjacent land uses consist of I-5 freeway to the east, Rohr Corporation,
San Diego Gas and Electric Power Plant and tile San Diego and Arizona Eastern
tracks to time west. Roilr Credit Union is located to the north and the "L"
Street/I-5 interchange is located to the soutit.
Sites ~2 & ~3 are located north and south of "J" Street, which is
designated as a "Scenic Highway" in the Ci~ula Vista General Plan.
B. Project Description
Tile applicant proposes to construct the project in two phases. Phase 1
consists of the construction of a 102,720 sq. ft. research and development
facility on site #5. Phase 2 consists of the construction of 60,400 sq. ft.
of office/industrial floor space on site #1; a 7,000 sq. ft. restaurant, 800
sq. ft. mini-market, and self-service gas station on site #2; a 122-room
motel on site ~3; a 22,500 sq. ft. office building on site #4; 21,500 sq. ft.
of office/industrial floor space on site #6; and 27,000 sq. ft. of industrial
floor space on site #7. In addition to the proposed structures then will be
appropriate parking facilities and landscaping for each site.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The existing general plan designation are "Thoroughfare Commercial" for
sites ~2 and ~3, "Research and Limited Industrial" for sites #4, ~5, #6, and
#7, and "General Industrial" for site #l. The zoning for the project area is
I (General Industrial ) for sites ~l, ~2, and ~3, and C-V-P {Visitor Commercial
subject to a Precise Plan) for sites #4, #5, #6, and #7. The Bayfront
L city of chula vista planning department (~
'-- environmental review section
i
E. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects
1. The applicant shall submit a traffic analysis for the total Phase 1
and Phase 2 project and other reasonably foresseable probable future
projects which demonstrates that a level of service of "C" or better
can be achieved at all appropriate intersections to assure a finding
of no significant environmental impact. This analysis will be
subject to approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. If a level of
service "C" cannot be achieved then this Negative Declaration is not
valid for the consideration of individual projects in the Phase 2
area.
The fol 1 owing are standard development requirements:
2. Recommendations included in the soils investigation submitted 'by the
applicant shall be incorporated intoI the proposed project prior to
development.
3. The project shall be raised one foot above the existing lO0-year
flood plain level or satisfy the Building Department requirements for
structure fl ood-proofing.
4. An acoustical analysis shall be prepare8 prior to development of the
proposed motel which demonstrates compliance with the City of Chula
Vista and the State of California Interior Noise Standards.
F. Findings of Insignificant ImpaCt
1. The project is void of any significant natural or manmade resources,
although there are several natural hazards such as liquifaction,
expansive soils and ground water. The effects of these hazards can
be mitigated to a level of insignificance through implementation of
standard development requirements.
2. Potentially significant impacts can be mitigated through standard
development requirements in addition to the submission of a traffic
analysis which must assure that non-significant traffic impacts will
result. No cumulative impacts on natural or manmade resources is
anticipated. The project is in conformance with the Local Coastal
Plan and therefore, complies with the General Plan.
3. Visual impacts due the project's industrial nature and its location
adjacent to "O" Street (a "Scenic Highway") will be avoided through
precise plan review by the Design I~eview Committee and there are no
impacts anticipated to occur which could interact to create a
substantial cumulative effect on the environmental.
4. Due to required mitigation, no significant traffic impacts will
result from project implementation. No significant emissions are
expected to occur nor will any hazardous substance be emitted into
the atmosphere as a result of project implementation.
FOR OFFICE USE
Case No. /~'~ ~St~
Fee~ ~//y6~"~r9
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. ~Jj~_
Date Rec'd ~_?( ~
City of Chula Vista Accepted by ~'~/
Application Fo~ Project No. ~ ~_6
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE Marina Gateway Project
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) West and East of...
Bay Blvd. West~ between "~" Street & "L" Street
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 571-170-8,9,10; 571-250-8~ 571-330-14,15
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Gradinq and drainaqe plan for the construction
of a lo0,o00 sq. ft. industrial and office buildinq on site #5 and
master plan for remaininq sites and project.
4. Name of Applicant Ratnet Development Co., A Calif. General Partnership
Address 2635 Camino Del Rio South Phone L619} 296-5665
City San Diego State CA Zip 92108
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Tat L. Wai - HCH & Associates
Address 4877 Viewridge Avenue Phone 278-5750 ..
City San Diego State CA Zip 92t23
Relation to Applicant Consulatant Civil Engineer
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision X Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map 'Annexation
Precise Plan '~ Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan × Tentative Parcel Map X Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit X Site Plan & Arch. Review "
Variance X Other ST. VAC.
b. Enclosures or documents Ias required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map . X Arch. Elevations __ Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan X Landscape Plans __Hydrological Study
Site Plan .X Photos of Site & · __ Biological Study
Parcel Map "' Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map ' Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans X Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or ~X Soils Report ' Other
Approvals Required
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
Region
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
None
j. Hours of operation 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
k. Type of exterior lighting pole type not to exceed 20' in heiqht
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
None
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:) Applies to site 5 only.
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? 'O-
h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 27.200
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 7.0 ~ AC
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut -O-
Average depth 6f cut -O-
Maximum depth of fill 6.5 Ft.
Average depth of fill 2.5 Ft.
i
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. Storm drains will be connected with existing dra'ns from Bay
Blvd. West routed underground through the pr2perty and emptying into the
3. Noise existing conc. channel.
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? No
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or~partially natural state?
Partially natural state site had been disturbed with the construction of
Highway 5 Bay Blvd. West and the S.D. and Arizona Lastern railroad.
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
{if any) will be removed by the project.
Trees on the site ..
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? No
~ b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
~ or near the project site? No
~ 6. Current Land Use
~ a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
: project site. Vacant land
,I/ E. CERTIFICATION
Ratner Development Company.
By: Greenwald/McDonald & Compan
By: Bennet B. Greenwald
Owner
Consultant or Agent* .'
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: 7/25/84
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
3. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary
Jr. Hi gh ~/~
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics ·
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
5. Energy Consumption
Provide ~he estimated consumpfio~ by ~he proposed p~oject of the foilre,ring
SOUrCeS: ' '
ElectP~d~y (pep year)
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day) -
6. Remarks:
rector of Pl'anni ng or,__ ~ ati ve Date
- ll -
' ~ Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil ~onditions on the project
site? yZ S
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
_~,~'O/L,.
·
c. Is a soils report necessary?
?
5. Land Form
a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a no~se analysis be required
of the applicant?
- ,: Case No.~
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
· Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
i '
CO X -118.3 =
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 :
NOx (NO2) X 20.0 =
Particulates X 1.5 :
Sulfur X .78 =
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
· . Solid Liquid
[Vhat is the location and si~ of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site?
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?-
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any'possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project ar~a.)
Cit~ Enginee~ or Representative Date
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CASE NO. Z[S~-~
Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all significant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL NO
1. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to any substantial
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
1 i quefacti on?
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure?
A significant modification of any unique
geological features?
Exposure of people or property to significant
geologic hazards? 2o
2. Soils
a.Does the project s'ite contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off-site?
A significant amount of siltation?
3. Ground Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources? ~I_
YES POTENTIAL
7. Air Quality
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source?
b. Could the project result in:
A significant emission of odors, fumes,
or smoke?
Emissions which could degrade the ambient
air quality?
Exacerbation or a violation of any National
or State ambient air quality standard?
-.
Interference with the maintenance of
standard air quality?
The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or
regional ly?
A violation of the revised regional air
quality strategies (RAQS)?
8. Water Quality
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water
quality or public water supplies?
9. Noise
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby
mobile or stationary sources?
b. Could the project directly or indirectly
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels?
YES POTENTIAL
b.Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan?
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at variance with prevailing community
standards
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public?
Will the proposal result in a new light
source or glare? . ..
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site? .
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area?
The substantial demand for additional housing
or affect existing housing?
15. Community Infrastructure
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate
support for the community or this project?
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the following services?
Fire Protection
Police Protection
Schools
Parks or Recreational Facilities
Maintenance of Public Facilities
Including Roads
YES POTENTIAL NO
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition? ~
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ~
/
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level? ~
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? (A short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatively brief, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connec-
tion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects. )
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
K. DETERMINATION
~ On the basis of'this initial study:
It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
'the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to
the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
X It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
' ' although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been
ADDED to the project and a~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION is ~
hereby forwarded to the decision making authority'for
consideration and adoption.
It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant
'effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL I~PACT REPORT is
required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
It is found that further information will 'be necessary to
'determine any environmental significance resulting from the
project and the technical information listed below is required
prior to any determination.
Envi ~nm~l~Revi ew Coordinator Dat~
WPC O169P
L
CHECKLIST FOR COUNCIL AGENDA STATEHENT
Are you aware:;of
:.abstained from:VOti on item
0 OT ER GROUPS/INDIVIDUALS y names
: F H
relevant groups/individuals, not 1 isted below, in the spaces provided, '. For 'each group
A. Is item has group - their input sent copy of
>.-, .- of interest reviewed described :.~-A-113 befOr~
to group? item? in A-113? Council me,
:~[a."",,Commission on'Aging Y N Y N* Y N*
~ b. ' ' .... Y N* Y N*
,, c.~ .... Y N* Y . N*
d. Y N* Y N* , Y N
f · -- - Y N* Y N*
RELEVANT CITY DEPTS: ....
OTHERS:
a. Chamber of Commerce Y N Y N* Y N* Y N
b. School District Y N Y N* Y N* Y
d, Y N* Y N* Y N
e. Y N* Y ~* Y N
f- Y N* Y N* Y N
4, For any "N*" circled above, please describe why not:
(continued on other side)
A-112