Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1988-13718 --- RESOLUTION NO. 13718 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-88-28 AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 34 FOR THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF WATERTANKS AT ROHR INDUSTRIES 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, a public hearing was duly noticed and held on August 2, 1988, in accordance with said procedures; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as "approving authority" has reviewed and considered the information contained in IS-88-28. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City Chula Vista as follows: A. The City Council hereby adopts Negative Declaration IS-88-28 attached hereto as Exhibit A; and B. Based on the following findings, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed demolition and reconstruction of watertanks at Rohr Industries subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth, is consistent with the policies of the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program. FINDINGS: 1. The project site is not located adjacent to the San Diego Bay or any other water-oriented resource, therefore, the project site does not afford the opportunity for public access to any water-related recreational use and is not inconsistent with public access policies of the Coastal Act. State-wide and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed and the proposed project has been found to be in conformance with the public access and public recreational policies in Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code. 2. The proposed project will result in an upgrade of current fire service to the existing Rohr facility and will provide aesthetic enhancement of the watertank area. Landscaping is required as a condition of approval ~d complies with the standards set forth in the Chula Vista Bayfront Local astal Program. 3. The applicant has consulted with the California Regional Water lity Control Board which found that no adverse effects on water quality ,~11 result from the project as proposed. 4. The project is a replacement facility and will not generate any additional vehicle trips to or from the site; therefore, no impact on Bayfront traffic circulation will result from implementation. C. The City Council of the City of Chula vista hereby authorizes the issuance of Coastal Development Permit No. 34 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. Submitted_b~ Approved as to form by Paul G. Desrochers Thomas J. Harron L,~'] Community Development Director City Attorney / 3 ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -~UL /ISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 2nd dOy Of August , 88 , by the following vote, to-wit: fES: Councilmembers Malcolm, Cox, Moore, McCandliss, Nader ~,YES: Councilmembers None BSTAIN: Councilmembers None BSENT: Counc i 1 members None Mo/~the City of Chulo Visto rTEST ~ ~' ~ ~" City Clerk 'ATi : CALIFORNIA ) )UNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. rY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Visto, Colifornio, ) HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove ond foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of RESOLUTION N0. 13718 ,ond thor the some hos not been omended or repeoled .TED City Clerk CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA -~0 ,negative declaration-- EXI i;BiT A 'OJECT NAME: Private Fire Protection Water Tank and Pump House PROJECT LOCATION: North of West "j" Street and West of the SDG&E Easement PROJECT APPLICANT: Rohr Industries, Inc. CASE NO: IS-88-28 DATE: November 25, 1987 A. Project Setting The project site is located within the Rohr Industries property, specifically on the north side of West "J" Street to the west of the SDG&E transmission line easement. The project site is within the Coastal Zone. There are no known substantial geological hazards known to be present. A soils report was completed for the project, which located the water table at about 4-1/2' below the surface level. It is not anticipated that the soil types and ground water land will result in any substantial potential for liquefaction. The soils on the site, with some remedial work, can accommodate the proposed project. There will be 4-5 inches of settlement under the proposed facility on a long-term basis. The project site is within the 500-year flood plain but is not within the lO0-year flood plain nor will it generate any significant increase in runoff and will not alter any existing drainage patterns. The project is located near West "J" Street which is a scenic route on the Scenic Route Element of the General Plan. B. Project Description The project consists of the replacement of two existing 120,000 gallon capacity private fire protection water tanks and pump house with a single 3UO,O00 gallon capacity tank to serve essentially the same purpose. The existing tanks are 26 feet high while the new tank would be 21 feet high. The diameter of the existing tanks is about 35' while the proposed tank is about 60' in diameter. The existing pump house is a lO' x 20 structure which is proposed to be replaced by all' x 9'-6" structure. The tank structure would be built of prestressed concrete at a 70' setback from West "J" Street. The pump house will be constructed of corregated steel panels. city of chula vista planning department CI~'OF environmental review section (~HL!LAt VIS']'A Discretionary permits required for the project include Design Review, Owner Participation Agreement, Coastal Development Permit, and Gra~,ng Permit. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The ~roposed project is consistent with the General Industrial designation of the property on the General P1 an and Coastal Plan and program and the Industrial Zoning of the property. D, Identification of Environmental Effects 1. The project site is located in an area of adverse soil conditions and high ground water, If specifications of the project soils report are followed, which is a standard development regulation, no significant impacts will result. 2. West "j" Street, which adjoins the property, is designated as a scenic route in the General Plan. Development of the property will be subject to design review and therefore given the tank setback and height and development regulations, no significant impacts on the scenic route are anticipated. The landscaping plans for the property will also be subject to approval of the City's Landscape Architect, E, Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project site does contain some adverse soil conditions which C~ln be mitigated through standard development regulations, There arl known other natural resources or hazards know to exist on the s.~e that will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. 2. The project will com~ly with the scenic route element of the General Plan along with all other long-range goals of the City of Chula Vista. Therefore, no short-term goals will be achieved to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are so minimal that there will be no substantial cumulative environmental impact. 4. The project will not result in the emission of any air or water contaminant, nor any noise or vibration which could adversely effect ~eople. The project will be subject to initial and continuous compliance with the City's performance standards. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Mike Schulman Paul N. Sukos P. O. Box 878 Mail Zone 29-C Chula Vista, CA 92012 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Municipal Code Soils Investigation, Benton Engineering Inc. Project No. 87-5-21A, June 29, 1987 The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~~L ~ RDINATORI~ R LL city of chula vista planning department CF[YOF environmental review section CHUJj~t VlS Exhibit B Rohr Watertank August 2, 1988 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 34 CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall install landscaping materials required by the Redevelopment Agency in Resolution No. 935 dated July 26, 1988. 2. All earthwork shall be conducted and completed between the dates of April 1 and November I in accordance with the regulations of the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program. I, Arthur O. Sellgren, authorized representative for Rohr Industries, have read and understand these conditions of approval as required by the City Council as they pertain to the construction of a 300,000 gallon watertank to be located at the southeast corner of the Rohr Industrial complex and agree that these conditions be incorporated into the project approval. APPL I CANT Arthur O. Sel 1 gren Representative for Rohr Industries / SWEETWATER AUTHORITY 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHUL. A VISTA CAL~IFORNIA 92012-2328 (619) 4204413 GOVERNING BOARD SIDNEY J. COLVIN, CHAIRMAN WAYNE W. SMITH MARGARET A WELSH RY~iq~~~"~* WANDA AVERY TREASURER NO"/1 ? 1987 JoAN s. FO~,LER November 17, 1987 CONTROLLER-SECRETARY p~NRtRG DEPAP, TMERT C~LILA ',/tSTR, CALt~'O~RI~ City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attention: Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator Subject: INITIA~ STUDY - ROHR INDUSTRIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDI~IATOR Dear Mr. Reid: We have reviewed the Notice of Initial Study and find no significant impacts to our agency. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY Richard A. Reynolds Chief Engineer RAR:JEG:ln NLT3:ROHR ROUTING FORM FNOV' '4 98T DATE: November 2, 1987 Current Plng. Engineering Dept. Building Dept. To: A va.ce Pl.g.R. Dao.st Fire Oept. Other FROM: F~ Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: ~ Application for Initial Study (DP-450 /FA- 284 /IS- 88-28 ) F'~ Preliminary Draft EIR (DP__/FB-__/EIR- ) ['~ Review of a Draft EIR (DP__/FB-__/EIR- ) F'~ R~view of Environmental Review Record (FC-__/ERR- ) The project consists of: The project consists of the replacement of two, 120,000 gallon water tank & pump house with a 300,000 gallon water tank, pump house and appurtenant work Location: West of Bay Blvd., North of W. "j" Street' Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 11/9/87 Please submit all time incurred for this document below: Date Person Time 712//:v '~' ,-'-l/k//~ ,.'y,2~.'] /-l-'T. 'L. 2.',',",_~ ,/i /'..V ,h'.T ,',117 /'t,' 7~' .~ i ';1/ ,r',,/:2' ,,>l CI~"TI~, / ~ Y:~., ~) 1~ ~(~/7/OiJ C~y //5 Y:~.( ,:g r~V'27t~.'qT~' x~D~/ ~//57/A/~ 7z.:,~l'<C ~Yll ~/~9JLC>' EN 4 (Rev. 12/82) - 9 - 3. Schools ~-2v}~ " If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? /If so, please describe.) ~ 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity Iper year) rd~.n~ __ Natural Gas {per year) ~y'~/x~- Water (per day) ~.~ ~t-~j.~ 6. Remarks: Director ~Pla~ni.g 'or~epreSentative Date -8- Case No. f~-ga> CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: _ North i~ South /~_~.]~ _ ~/z~n. East _2~y.,,~ West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/IO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) -10- -- ,o. tS 88-Z.8 G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? YEs./T [~ &ullttfAI l:ttE FLOOD 8OUMD~Y - ~oM~ b. ~fil the projec~ be subject .to any existing flooding hazards? c. ~ the project crea~e any ~fiOod~ng hazards? ~, d. What ~s ~he location and description o~ existing on-s~te drainage facilities? M~- ~JE~T ~lt& ~OT ~EM~ ~M~51~NIF~, IMC~EAS~ IM ~UMOFF AND ~F~ MO~ A~EAR Tb ALT~ e. re t ey a~quate to serve the project? f.~hat js the location and description of existing off-rite drainage fadl~ties? ~ g. APe they adequate to serve the project? ~A ~, 2. TPansportat~on a. What roads provide primary access to the project? EXISTING ~AF~IC r e e a c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. /q~ L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -ll Case No. FS ~,~" ' 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazardsi)/k//~f/<A/D~//J - Liquefaction? ~EPO~T ~ID ~T ~D~ Landslide or slippage? - ~ b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? . y~. b, If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c, ~s a se~s ~epo~ necessaFy. - rov',d a 5. L6nd Fo~m a. ~ha~ ~s ~he average na~u~a~ s~ope o~ ~he s~e? b. ~ha~ ~s ~he maximum n~a~ s~ope of ~he s~e? FLAT 6. No~se A~e ~he~e an~ ~aff~c-~e~ed no~se ~eve~s ~mpac~n~ ~he s~e ~ha~ ~e s~gni~c~n~ enough ~o ~us~ tha~ ~ no~se ena~s~s be ~equ~ed of th~ applicant? ../. - 12 - _ 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 CO OT X 118.3 = 0 Hydrocarbons 0 X 18.3 = 0 NOX (NO2) C) X 20.0 = Particulates (~) X 1.5 : Sulfur C) X .78 = 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid 0 Liquid C) What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site?/L/A- Pk~I~C~ W/Z]~ /({0~ ~EAYE~?~?"~Z Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?A/A 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 area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures C i ty ~ sentati ve ' U - 14 - EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. 15/S> - I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES POTENTIAL 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? 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? 2. Soils a.Does the project s~te 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 ~vater resources? - 15 - YES POTENTIAL ~ b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? 4. Drainage a. Is the project si~b,~e~.~ inundation? b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in amount of surface water in any water body? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? 5. Resources Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources ~,~hich can be economically extracted? The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? 6. Land Form Could the project result in a substantial change, in topography or ground surface relief features? - 16 - 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 regionally? 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 wa~er 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? - 17 - YES POTENTIAL lO. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemic species? ll. Cultural ReSources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resource? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses viithin the potential impact area? 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use Circulation Scenic Highways Conservation Housing Noise Park and Recreation Open Space Safety Seismic Safety Public Facilities - 18 - 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 - 19 - YES POTENTIAL 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? 17. Utilities Could the project result in a need for new systems or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas Communications systems Water Sewer or septic tanks Solid waste & disposal 18. Human Heal th Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result .in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-rene~able natural resources? - 20 - YES POTENT"' 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances lincluding, 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 relatiyely 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 vie~.~ed 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? - 21 J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: Project Proponent Date /sf/Y - 22 - K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: ~tt is recommended that the decision making authority find that he 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. 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 MITIGATID~ MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED 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)~IPACT 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. EnvironmentSReview CoordinaTor Date f ' ' · %¢PC O169P Section $V: NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Under certain circumstances, additional material may be required prior to --Issuance of a coastal development penntt. For example, where offers of public ,ccess or open space dedication are required pursuant to the Local Coastal Program, preliminary title reports, land surveys, legal descriptions, subordination agreements, and other agreements may be required prior to tssuance of the penntt. Section V: AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE Z hereby auttcrize P~ul N. Sackos to act as my agent or representative a:~d to bl nd me in all ~atters concerning this application. Rohr. Industries, Inc. Signature of applicant(s) Section VI: CERTIFICATION 1. I hereby certify that I have read this completed application and that, to the best of nXY knowledge, the information in this application and all _. attached appendices and exhibits are complete and correct. I understand that any willful misstatements or omissions of required information or of any information subsequently requested by the City of Chula Vista maY be grounds for denial of the penntt application, for suspension or revocation of a permit issued on the basis of these or subsequent representations, or for seeking of such further relief as may be proper for the City of Chula Vista. 2. I hereby certify that I have read and understand the Standard Conditions for Approved Permits contained in Section IV.C of the BaYfront Specific Plan/Coastal Development Application Permit Procedures Manual. 3. I heroby authorize representatives of the City of Chula Vista to conduct site inspections on my property. Unless arranged otherwise, these site inspections shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and S:OO p.m. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 16 Meeting Date 8/2/88 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Considering Coastal Development Permit Application No. 34 for the construction of a 300,000 gallon water storage tank Resolution/ST/2( Authorizing issuance of Coastal Development Permit No. 34 \ SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director ~1 REVIEWED BY: City Managerg~..~ (4/5ths Vote: YES__No X ) Rohr Industries has submitted a Coastal Development Permit application for the construction of a 300,000 gallon water storage tank and the demolition of two existing, wooden storage tanks. Negative Declaration IS-88-28 was issued for this project. The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposal and the Redevelopment Agency approved the project subject to conditions. The project is located within the non-appealable ~.a of the Coastal Zone and requires Coastal Development Permit review. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing and consider public testimony; and, 2. Adopt the attached resolution: a. Adopting Negative Declaration IS-88-28; and b. Issuing Coastal Development Permit No. 34 subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B of the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to demolish two existing watertanks and a pumphouse and replace them with a single, larger tank and pumphouse. The existing tanks are older, wooden, above-ground units that are 26 feet high and 35 feet in diameter. They are located in the southeast section of Rohr's Industrial site close to the "J~' Street/Bay Boulevard Street intersection. The new replacement tank will be located within the vicinity of the existing tanks about 70 feet north of "J" Street. It will be 22.5 feet high and 50 feet ..i,n diameter and constructed of concrete. Its capacity will be 300,000 gallons, ich exceeds the combined 240,000 gallon capacity of the older tanks. Page 2, Item 16 Meeting Date 8/2/88 The project is very visible due to its scale and prominent location adjacent I~- the "J" Street entry into the Bayfront. This entry is designated as a ~teway" to the City in the Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program; therefore, appropriate landscaping has been required as a condition of permit approval. FINDINGS: Based on the following findings, the proposed demolition of existing watertanks and construction of a 300,000 gallon concrete tank, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B of the attached resolution, is found to be consistent with the policies of the certified Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program: 1. The project site is not located adjacent to the San Diego Bay or any other water-oriented resource, therefore, the project site does not afford the opportunity for public access to any water-related recreational use and is not inconsistent with public access policies of the Coastal Act. State-wide and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed and the proposed project has been found to be in conformance with the public access and public recreational policies in Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code. 2. The proposed project will result in an upgrade of current fire service to the existing Rohr facility and will provide aesthetic enhancement of the watertank area. Landscaping is required as a condition of approval and ~mplies with the standards set forth in the Chula Vista Bayfront Local stal Program. 3. The applicant has consulted with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board which found that no adverse effects on water quality will result from the project as proposed. 4. The project is a replacement facility and will not generate any additional vehicle trips to or from the site; therefore, no impact on Bayfront traffic circulation will result from implementation. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. ~Ci,,';/C-~ncil of Chula Vista, C&Hfornia Dated