HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 3a - Shinohara MND including the MMRPCity of Chula Vista
VWP-OP SHINOHARA
OWNER, LLC
SHINOHARA BUSINESS
CENTER
PROJECT CASE # IS21-0006
SCH 2022080431
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
RECIRCULATION
McKENNA LANIER GROUP, INC. DBE, WBE, SB Micro
Planning | Environmental | Entitlement Services
30550 Rancho California Road, Suite D406-166
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 519-8887
Attachment #1
1
Attachment #1
2
Page i of 153
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Name of Proponent .................................................................................................. 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................. 1
3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent ........................................................... 1
4. Name of Proposal ..................................................................................................... 1
5. Public Review Period ................................................................................................ 1
6. Case No. .................................................................................................................. 1
7. Project Location ........................................................................................................ 1
8. General Plan Designation ......................................................................................... 1
9. Zoning Designation ................................................................................................... 1
10. Description of the Site and Project: .......................................................................... 2
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................... 2
Drainage ........................................................................................................ 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 3
GRADING DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 4
SITE DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 7
DESIGN REVIEW – DR21-0032 – APPENDIX A .............................................................. 9
CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................. 9
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................... 10
Fire Flow Line .............................................................................................. 10
Traffic Improvements ................................................................................... 11
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the
determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.? ................................................................................ 11
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement) ..................................................................................... 12
13. Appendices: (Found as Separate Documents and Incorporated by Reference into
this IS/MND Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150): .................................. 12
14. Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 13
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS ................................................................... 22
I. AESTHETICS .................................................................................................. 22
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 28
III. AIR QUALITY. ................................................................................................. 30
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 48
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ............................................................................. 55
VI. ENERGY. ........................................................................................................ 57
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .................................................................................. 64
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ................................................................. 70
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................... 79
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................ 87
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................... 93
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 94
XIII. NOISE ............................................................................................................. 95
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................... 106
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 107
XVI. RECREATION ............................................................................................... 110
Attachment #1
3
Page ii of 153
XVII. TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................... 110
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. .............................................................. 115
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................ 116
XX. WILDFIRE. .................................................................................................... 121
XXI. THRESHOLDS .............................................................................................. 122
XXII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: .............................................. 124
XXIII. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................................... 125
XXIV. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES .................................. 125
XXV. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES ........................... 126
XXVI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................... 126
XXVII. DETERMINATION ......................................................................................... 127
XXVIII. CUMULATIVE PROJECT LIST ...................................................................... 127
XXIX. REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 128
15. MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT ................................................. MM-1
II. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Tanoak Court Type A Curb Outlets ..................................................................... 3
Figure 2 - Existing Easements ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 3 - Elevator & Verdura Wall ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 4 - Eastern Property Line ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 5 - Northern Property Line ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 6 - Western Property Line ........................................................................................ 6
Figure 7 - Southern Property Line ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 8 - Fire Service ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 9 - Storm Drain and Other Utilities ......................................................................... 11
Figure 10 - Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 15
Figure 11 - USGS Map ...................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12 - Aerial Project Site ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 13 - Existing Basin Map ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 14 - Site Plan.......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 15 - Grading Plan ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 16 - Preliminary Landscape Plan ........................................................................... 21
Figure 17 - Photos Looking to the South Across the Project Site ...................................... 22
Figure 18 - 1595 Mendocino Drive, Unit 48, as an Example ............................................. 23
Figure 19 - Unit 48 Distances from Project Amenities ....................................................... 23
Figure 20 - Cross Section from North Looking to the South .............................................. 24
Figure 21 - Rendering of Proposed Building North Elevation ............................................ 24
Figure 22 - Locations of the Cross Sections for the Properties to the West ...................... 25
Figure 23 - Cross Section C .............................................................................................. 25
Figure 24 - Cross Section D .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 25 - Cross Section E .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 26 - Westerly Building Elevation ............................................................................. 26
Figure 27 - Exhibit C of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study 39
Figure 28 - Exhibit D of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study 42
Figure 29 - Exhibit E of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study 43
Figure 30 - Figure 2 of the Biology Letter Report .............................................................. 50
Figure 31 - Exhibit E of the Noise Impact Study ................................................................ 99
Figure 32 - Exhibit F of the Noise Impact Study .............................................................. 100
Figure 33 - Exhibit G of the Noise Impact Study ............................................................. 101
Attachment #1
4
Page iii of 153
Figure 34 - Figure 4 of the Otay Valley Ranch Regional Park Concept Plan .................. 109
Figure 35 - The City's Truck Routes ................................................................................ 112
III. LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Building Size ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 2 - Required Parking ................................................................................................. 8
Table 3 - Construction Phasing ......................................................................................... 10
Table 4 - Construction Equipment ..................................................................................... 10
Table 5 - Table 7 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - City of
Chula Vista Air Quality Significance Thresholds .............................................. 35
Table 6 - Table 8 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ........ 35
Table 7 - Table 9 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Estimated Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions .......................... 36
Table 8 - Table 15 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - DPM
Emissions Factors ........................................................................................... 39
Table 9 - Table 16 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Summary of Emission Configurations .............................................................. 41
Table 10 - Table 17 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
General Modeling Assumptions - AERMOD Model ......................................... 41
Table 11 - Table 18 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Carcinogenic Risks & Non-Carcinogenic 3rd Trimester Exposure Scenario
(0.25-years) - 2022 .......................................................................................... 44
Table 12 - Table 19 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Carcinogenic Risks & Non-Carcinogenic Infant Exposure Scenario (2-year) -
2023-2024 ........................................................................................................ 45
Table 13 - Table 20 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Carcinogenic Risks & Non-Carcinogenic Child Exposure Scenario - 2025-2038
......................................................................................................................... 45
Table 14 - Table 21 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Carcinogenic Risks & Non-Carcinogenic Adult Exposure Scenario (16-30 years)
- 2039-2052 ..................................................................................................... 46
Table 15 - Table 22 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risks 30.25 Year Exposure Scenario ...................... 46
Table 16 - Table 1 of Biology Letter Report - Vegetation Communities & Land Cover within
the Study Area ................................................................................................. 50
Table 17 - Table 3 of the CEQA Energy Review - Project Construction Power Cost &
Electricity Usage .............................................................................................. 58
Table 18 - Table 4 of the CEQA Energy Review - Construction Equipment Fuel
Consumption Estimates ................................................................................... 59
Table 19 - Table 5 of the CEQA Energy Review - Construction Worker Fuel Consumption
Estimates ......................................................................................................... 59
Table 20 - Tables 6 & 7 of the CEQA Energy Review - Construction Vendor & Hauling Fuel
Consumption Estimates ................................................................................... 60
Table 21 - Table 8 of the CEQA Energy Review - Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel
Consumption .................................................................................................... 61
Table 22 - Table 9 of the CEQA Energy Review - Project Annual Operational Energy
Demand Summary ........................................................................................... 62
Table 23 - Table 18-1 of the Uniform Building Code ......................................................... 68
Attachment #1
5
Page iv of 153
Table 24 - Table 10 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................... 72
Table 25 - Table 11 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Opening Year Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................ 73
Table 26 - Table 12 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Project Consistency with the City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan ............. 75
Table 27 - Table 13 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Project Consistency with San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan ................... 77
Table 28 - Table 14 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures ............ 79
Table 29 - Table 3 of the Noise Impact Study - Table 3: Reference Sound Level
Measurements for SoundPlan Model Table 3: Reference Sound Level
Measurements for SoundPlan Model - Reference Sound Level Measurements
for SoundPlan Model ....................................................................................... 97
Table 30 - Table 4 of the Noise Impact Study - Roadway Parameters and Vehicle
Distribution ....................................................................................................... 97
Table 31 - Table 5 of the Noise Impact Study - Long-Term Noise Measurement Data ..... 98
Table 32 - Table 6 of the Noise Impact Study - Worst-case Predicted Operational Leq.. 101
Table 33 - Table 7 of the Noise Impact Study - Change in Noise Level Characteristics.. 102
Table 34 - Table 8 of the Noise Impact Study - Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along
Roadways (dBA CNEL) ................................................................................. 103
Table 35 - Table 9 of the Noise Impact Study - Typical Construction Equipment Noise
Levels ............................................................................................................ 104
Table 36 - Table 10 of the Noise Impact Study - Guideline Vibration Damage Potential
Threshold Criteria .......................................................................................... 106
Table 37 - Table 11 of the Noise Impact Study - Vibration Source Levels for Construction
Equipment ...................................................................................................... 106
Table 38 - Table 4-1 of the Local Mobility Analysis - Project Vehicle Miles Traveled
Analysis ......................................................................................................... 114
Table 39 - Table 9 of the CEQA Energy Review - Project Annual Operational Energy
Demand Summary ......................................................................................... 119
Attachment #1
6
Page 1 of 153
RECIRCULATION (IS/MND) – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: VWP-OP Shinohara Owner, LLC
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
Oscar Romero, Project Planner
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5098
oromero@chulavistaca.gov
3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent: Steven Schwarz
VWP-OP Shinohara Owner, LLC
2390 E. Camelback Rd. Ste. 305
Phoenix, AZ 85016
(602) 427-6972
sschwarz@viawestgroup.com
4. Name of Proposal: Shinohara Business Center
5. Public Review Period: Begins on January 27, 2023, & ends at
5:00 pm on February 27, 2023
6. Case No. IS21-0006 – Recirculation
SCH 2022080431
7. Project Location:
The project is located at 517 Shinohara Lane, westerly of Brandywine Avenue, north of Main Street,
at the end of the cul-de-sac on Shinohara Lane, in the City of Chula Vista, California, as shown in
Figures 11 & 12 – USGS Map & Aerial Project Site. The project site is identified on the Imperial
Beach, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle within Township 18 South, Range 1 West,
Sections 18 and 19. It comprises Tax Assessor parcel number – APN 644-040-01.
8. General Plan Designation – IL – Limited Industrial – (0.25 – 0.5 FAR)
The City’s General Plan states, “The Limited Industrial designation is intended for light
manufacturing; warehousing; certain public utilities; auto repair; auto salvage yards; and flexible -
use projects that combine these uses with associated office space.”
9. Zoning Designation – I-L-P – Limited Industrial Precise Plan
Per Title 19 of the Municipal Code – Planning and Zoning, “The purpose of the I-L zone is to
encourage sound limited industrial development by providing and protecting an environment free
from nuisances created by some industrial uses and to ensure the purity of the total environment of
Chula Vista and San Diego County and to protect nearby residential, commercial and industrial uses
from any hazards or nuisances.”
Attachment #1
7
Page 2 of 153
10. Description of the Site and Project:
Environmental Setting
The project area is located within San Diego County within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province. The Peninsular Ranges make up the majority of San Diego County and contain a series
of mountain ranges separated by northwest-trending valleys (California Department of
Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2002). The project area is located within the Otay
River Valley along the north bank of the Otay River.
Modern climate conditions within the project area consist of a Mediterranean climate, with an
average rainfall of nine to ten inches per year, generally from January through March. The project
area is currently undeveloped. Vegetation consists of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-
native grassland, disturbed habitat, and eucalyptus woodland (page 3, Biology Letter Report for
517 Shinohara Lane, Appendix D).
Elevations on the site range from 150 to 255 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The project area
appears to have been graded in 1993 based on aerial imagery. The parcel has a southerly aspect
and slopes to the south with a moderate descent in elevation from the project area’s northern
boundary. The upper half of the project area has been graded to form a pad (most likely in 1993).
However, it appears to have lain fallow and undisturbed since the pad formation (page iii,
Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Shinohara Industrial Project, Appendix E).
The following uses bound the site.
➢ Jabil Packaging Solutions (Plastic Injection Molding) and Crash Champions Collison
Repair on the south
➢ TransAmerican Manufacturing Group (Autoparts), Transpere (Information Technology
Asset Solutions), Curbell Plastics, Inc. (Plastic Wholesaler), and Técnico Corporation
Marine & Industrial Contractors (Shipbuilding and Repair Company) on the east
➢ Multi-family residential – Mendocino Condominiums to the north
➢ Single-family residential to the west
Drainage
Topographically, the site slopes to the south from the northern property boundary, forming three
(3) drainage basins with three (3) discharge locations.
Existing Drainage Basin A comprises the western portion of the site. Runoff drains via overland
flow to an existing concrete swale located at the southern property boundary. The drainage swale
carries flow east to an existing Type F catch basin at the southern property boundary. The catch
basin connects to an existing private storm drainpipe that outlets via the curb outlet onto Main
Street.
Existing Drainage Basin B comprises the eastern portion of the site. Runoff is conveyed via
overland surface flow to an existing concrete drainage channel located at the southeastern corner of
the site. The drainage channel conveys runoff south and outlets via curb outlet onto Main Street.
Flow travels west via concrete curb and gutter from Main Street to an existing curb inlet.
Stormwater is then conveyed south through an existing storm drainpipe and outlets over the
Attachment #1
8
Page 3 of 153
headwall into the Otay River. The Otay River travels west and outlets at the San Diego Bay and,
ultimately, the Pacific Ocean.
Existing Drainage Basin C comprises the northwesterly portion of the site. Runoff is conveyed via
overland surface flow to an existing swale west of the project site. Local surface runof f from the
project site and surrounding properties collects in this area and flows to the south to an existing
concrete drainage channel located in the rear/side yard of an existing single-family residence at the
end of Tanoak Court (Figure 1 – Tanoak Court Type A Curb Outlets). The existing concrete channel
flows to the south and then turns and flows to the west and discharges into Tanoak Court through
two Type-A curb outlets (Preliminary Drainage Study Appendix K).
Project Description
The project is the development of the vacant parcel totaling 9.72 gross acres (APN 644-040-01) and
the vacation of the right-of-way easement (document #1992-0228267 recorded April 20, 1992), the
proposed cul-de-sac bulb of Shinohara Lane that has not yet been built. The cul-de-sac bulb will be
replaced with a modified hammerhead vehicular access easement. Shinohara Lane provides access
to the site. An encumbrance impacts the site, an existing open space easement recorded in June of
1992 in favor of the property to the north. The project has been designed around this private
easement.
Figure 1 - Tanoak Court Type A Curb Outlets
Attachment #1
9
Page 4 of 153
Grading Design
Due to the grade differences between the property and surrounding properties, retaining walls are
planned on the site’s north, south, east, and west sides, with an elevator proposed at the end of
Shinohara Lane to get pedestrians from Shinohara Lane to the building pad area, given the steep
grade of the property. Behind the elevator will be a plantable Verdura retaining wall varying in
exposed retaining wall heights from 0 feet up to 50 feet, wrapping around the eastern driveway
and then along the southerly boundary of the parking area.
Figure 2 - Existing Easements
Figure 3 - Elevator & Verdura Wall
Attachment #1
10
Page 5 of 153
A soil nail wall (retaining wall) wraps around the eastern property line to the northern parking lot
boundary with varying exposed retaining wall heights from 0 feet to 50 feet.
Verdura and soil nail retaining walls will be along the western boundary of varying exposed
retaining wall heights from 0 feet to 31 feet (See Appendix A Sheets AD 1.1 and L1.1 and
Appendix B Sheets C3.0, C4.0, and C6.0).
Figure 4 - Eastern Property Line
Figure 5 - Northern Property Line
Attachment #1
11
Page 6 of 153
A mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall is proposed along the project’s southerly
property line. The base of the proposed wall will be embedded in the native soil , which serves as
the wall’s foundation. Since the proposed wall is adjacent to the existing property line, the wall’s
embedment below the existing ground could be accomplished through two options. Option 1 would
proceed with temporary shoring to allow soil excavation along the property line, construct the
Figure 6 - Western Property Line
Attachment #1
12
Page 7 of 153
foundation, and then the wall and immediately adjacent soils would be brought up to grade. The
wall construction would be continued up to the final elevation instead of temporary shoring.
Option 2 would entail obtaining authorization from the property owners of 505 Main Street (644-
040-24-00) and 515 Main Street (644-040-23-00), so .04 acres of off-site grading of disturbed land
along the southerly boundary can be proposed. Grading off-site along the southerly property line
on the two adjacent properties to the south would allow the same excavation for the wall’s
foundation construction to occur. The excavation for the wall’s footing could be made without
shoring with the additional room and eliminate the need for temporary shoring along the southerly
property line. Once the wall’s foundation is constructed, the adjacent soil will be backfilled and
properly compacted, and the proposed retaining wall will be constructed to its ultimate elevation.
Site Design
Development of the site will include a single, one-story building with a total footprint of 173,432
square feet (Figure 14 – Site Plan).
The building includes:
Building Size (Gross)
Use Type Square-Feet
Warehouse 168,926
Office 4,506
Building Footprint 173,432
Mezzanine/Office 4,724
Total 178,156
Table 1 - Building Size
Figure 7 - Southern Property Line
Attachment #1
13
Page 8 of 153
The project requires discretionary approval for the Design Review – DR21-0032. Hours of
operation are proposed as twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Warehouse distribution uses are proposed to serve the local and subregional San Diego County
area. Approximately 350 new jobs for the community, including management, warehousing, and
driver positions, are proposed. Three shifts are planned, with no more than 200 employees
maximum at a shift. The shifts most likely will consist of the following employee counts.
• 1st shift – 200
• 2nd shift – 50
• 3rd shift – 100
Two hundred parking spaces are provided, and 200 parking spaces are required based on the City’s
parking standards. “Section 19.62.050 – Number of Spaces Required for Designated Uses” of the
Zoning Code states the following:
19.62.050 (6) Business and professional offices: One for each 300 square feet of gross floor
area; minimum of four.
19.62.0505 (31) Wholesale establishments, warehouses, service and maintenance centers, and
communication equipment buildings: One for each one and one-half persons
employed at one time in the normal operation of the establishment, or one for
each 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater.
Required Parking
Use Sq. Ft. or
Employment Requirement Required Spaces Total
Office 4,506 1:300 15 15
Mezzanine 4,724 1:300 16 16
Warehouse by
Employment 200 Largest Shift
200/1.5 133
Warehouse by Sq. Ft. 168,926 1:1,000 169 169
Grand Total 200
Table 2 - Required Parking
Deliveries will be through semi-trailer trucks, utilizing the 25 truck docks. The loading docks will
serve distribution components through vans and small box trucks. The building will not be used for
cold storage or refrigerated warehousing; therefore, Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRUs) trucks
will not be expected at the site. No heavy trucks of three axles or more, except emergency vehicles,
will be permitted beyond the building's docks on the north, west, and south sides.
While the proposed project is for a speculative warehouse-type user, this environmental analysis
assumes a worst-case scenario of a distribution facility. The difference between warehouses and
distribution facilities is that a warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials with local
and regional trips. In comparison, distribution facilities can be used for storage and numerous
fulfillment and distribution services, such as product mixing and packaging. In addition, a
warehouse generally generates five trips per 1,000 square feet of warehouse space. In contrast, a
very busy distribution facility can generate up to 25 trips per 1,000 square feet of distribution
facility space. Distribution facilities can also have a greater mixture of trips with large trucks
traveling great distances and a smaller fleet mix of vehicles making more local trips.
The analysis is based on the project’s Local Mobility Analysis (Appendix O), where an equal
level of detail analysis was conducted for both a warehouse building and a distribution facility.
Attachment #1
14
Page 9 of 153
The warehousing building is calculated to generate 1,088 daily trips with 143 AM peak hour trips
(104 inbound/39 outbound) and 160 PM peak hour trips (60 inbound/100 outbound). The
distribution facility is calculated to generate 4,881 daily trips with 328 AM peak hour trips (125
inbound/203 outbound) and 619 PM peak hour trips (434 inbound/185 outbound). Therefore, this
analysis assumes the worst-case scenario preparing for the possibility of a distribution use in the
future and bases all possible analyses on the distribution facility.
Design Review – DR21-0032 – Appendix A
The warehouse building is of a contemporary single-story concrete tilt-up industrial building
design. The color palette uses white, light gray, and dark gray, with charcoal and blue accent
colors. Elevation changes, pop-outs, and scoring are used to break up the massing of the building.
At the entrances, storefront doors are provided with sectional windows and a shade canopy painted
blue. The maximum height of the building is 43 feet.
Conceptual landscape plans have been provided as part of the design review for the project.
Enhanced paving at the building entries is provided. Parking lot shading has been calculated based
on the growth of the trees at five years, consistent with City requirements. An approximate 51-
foot-tall pedestrian elevator is proposed off Shinohara Lane to get pedestrians from Shinohara
Lane to the building, given the steep grade of the property.
Construction Characteristics
The applicant proposes to commence grading in March 2023. The project is envisioned to take
approximately 18 months to complete. The grading will generally include 133,000 cubic yards of
cut to a maximum depth of 52 feet, 132,000 cubic yards of fill to a maximum depth of 48 feet
with anticipated spoils of 4,000 cubic yards, with 5,000 cubic yards of export in approximately
360 truck trips. Proposed cuts and fills are estimated to be up to 52 feet and 48 feet, respectively,
with proposed new slopes up to approximately 18 feet in height.
The following project grading considerations to be applied as conditions of approval for the
project are also being proposed.
• The contractors, during all construction phases, shall ensure the following:
➢ Construction will only occur during the permissible hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. No
construction is permitted on Federal, state, or City holidays, per Municipal Code
Section 17.24.040(C)(8).
➢ All construction equipment is equipped with the appropriate noise-attenuating devices,
such as mufflers, silencers, and other original equipment.
➢ The equipment staging areas create the greatest distance between the construction-
related noise/vibration sources and the residential (sensitive receptors) nearest the
project site during the construction phases.
➢ That idling equipment will be turned off when not in use.
➢ That equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from
rattling and banging.
Attachment #1
15
Page 10 of 153
Construction Phasing
Phase Name Length of Phase (days)
Grading 28
Building Construction 319
Paving 28
Architectural Coating 28
Table 3 - Construction Phasing
Construction Equipment
Type of
Equipment
Phase
Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating
Grader 1
Excavator 1
Rubber Tired Dozer 1
Earthmover/Tractor/Backhoe/Loader 3 3
Cranes 1
Forklift/Tractor 3
Generator 1
Welder 1
Pavers 2
Rollers 2
Paving Equipment 2
Air Compressors 1
Table 4 - Construction Equipment
Off-Site Improvements
Fire Flow Line
Off-site trenching activities will occur in Main Street for the new fire service and on the adjacent
property at 515 Main Street (644-040-23-00) to bring the proposed private fire service to the
project site with the property owner’s authorization. Alternatively, a separate public water main
extension may be constructed from the existing water main in Main Street, north up Brandywine
Avenue, and then west to the project site in Shinohara Lane.
Figure 8 - Fire Service
Attachment #1
16
Page 11 of 153
In addition, an existing drainage structure will be modified on an adjacent property at 505 Main
Street (644-040-24-00) if authorization is granted.
In Shinohara Lane, water and sewer connections to existing public facilities will also occur.
Traffic Improvements
Two land-use scenarios were analyzed, a warehousing building option and a distribution facility
option. Both scenarios need off-site traffic improvements. These off-site improvements have been
analyzed in this environmental review.
Warehouse Building
At Main Street/Brandywine Avenue, the project would need to restripe the southbound approach
to replace the exclusive southbound thru lane with a shared thru-right lane, improving the
operation.
At Brandywine Avenue/Shinohara Lane, the eastbound approach would need to be restriped to provide
dedicated left and right-turn lanes. Approximately 40 feet of curb-to-curb width is available on the west
leg of Shinohara Lane. Therefore, it is possible to restripe the eastbound approach to provide dedicated
left and right-turn lanes and remove on-street parking on the south side. A right-turn lane of
approximately 100 feet in length is recommended, resulting in an on-street parking removal of four (4)
vehicles on Shinohara Lane.
Distribution Facility
At Main Street/Brandywine Avenue, the project would need to restripe the southbound approach
to replace the exclusive southbound thru lane with a shared thru-right lane and add a second
exclusive eastbound left-turn lane on Main Street.
At Brandywine Avenue/Shinohara Lane, the project needs to signalize the intersection to provide
adequate operations. The eastbound approach would need to be restriped with dedicated left and right-
turn lanes with an overlap phase. The signal will allow a safer maneuver for outbound traffic entering
Brandywine Avenue. Approximately 40 feet of curb-to-curb width is available on the west leg of
Shinohara Lane. Therefore, it is possible to restripe the eastbound approach to provide dedicated
left and right-turn lanes and remove on-street parking on the south side. A right-turn lane of
approximately 100 feet in length is recommended, resulting in an on-street parking removal of four (4)
vehicles on Shinohara Lane.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project
area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 ? If so, is
there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of
Figure 9 - Storm Drain and Other Utilities
Attachment #1
17
Page 12 of 153
impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note: Conducting
consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review,
identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review
process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage
Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions
specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to AB 52 (Gatto, 2014), California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area can request notification of projects in their traditional cultural
territory. No tribes have requested notification from the City of Chula Vista. Therefore AB 52
Tribal Consultation was not held on this project.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, fi nancing approval, or
participation agreement):
A. Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego – Region 9
B. California Department of Fish and Wildlife
C. Fish and Wildlife Service
D. Statewide Construction General Permit
E. Otay Water District
F. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
13. Appendices: (Found as Separate Documents and Incorporated by Reference into this IS/MND
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150):
A. Architectural & Landscape Drawings
B. Civil Grading Plans
C. Shinohara Industrial Center Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study
City of Chula Vista, CA, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, December 5, 2022
D. Biology Letter Report for 517 Shinohara Lane, City of Chula Vista, California, prepared by
Dudek, November 28, 2022
E. Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Shinohara Industrial Project, 517 Shinohara
Lane, Chula Vista, San Diego County, California, prepared by Red Tail Environmental, July
2021
F. Shinohara Industrial Project – CEQA Energy Review, 517 Shinohara Lane, City of Chula Vista,
CA, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC, December 5, 2022
G. Geotechnical Investigation Shinohara Industrial Building 517 Shinohara Lane Industrial
Building Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, July 28, 2021
H. Paleontological Resources Inventory Report for the 517 Shinohara Lane Project, City of Chula
Vista, San Diego County, California, prepared by Dudek, November 28, 2022
I. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessor’s Parcel Number 644-040-01 517 Shinohara
Lane, Chula Vista, CA 91911, prepared by SCS Engineers, July 13, 2021
J. Soil Vapor Survey and Human Health Risk Screening Assessor’s Parcel Number 644-040-01
517 Shinohara Lane, Chula Vista, CA 91911, prepared by SCS Engineers, August 5, 2021
K. Preliminary Drainage Study for Shinohara Business Center, 517 Shinohara Lane Chula Vista,
CA 91911, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, May 20, 2022
L. Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP),
Shinohara Business Center, 644-040-01, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, May 20,
2022
M. Shinohara Industrial Center Project Noise Impact Study City of Chula Vista, CA, prepared by
MD Acoustics, LLC, December 6, 2022
Attachment #1
18
Page 13 of 153
N. City of Chula Vista Preliminary Sewer Study for Shinohara Business Center, VWP-OP
Shinohara Owner, LLC, DR21-0032, 517 Shinohara Lane Chula Vista, CA 91911, prepared by
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, December 14, 2022
O. Local Mobility Analysis Chula Vista Shinohara Chula Vista, California, prepared by Linscott
Law & Greenspan Engineers, December 14, 2022
P. Letter Dated May 8, 2023, Lozeau Drury, LLP, Withdrawal of Comments
Q. Letter Dated February 27, 2023, Lozeau Drury, LLP, Recirculated Mitigated Negative
Declaration for Shinohara Business Center Project, Comment Letter – Bracketed
R. Response to Recirculated Comment Letter 1 – Lozeau Drury, LLP
14. Acronyms:
ADA - American with Disabilities Act
ALUC - Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan
BMP - Best Management Practice
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
CIWMD - California Integrated Waste Management District
CMP - Congestion Management Plan
CUP - Conditional Use Permit
CVFD - Chula Vista Fire Department
CVPD - Chula Vista Police Department
DOSH - Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
DP - Development Plan
DTSC - Department of Toxic Substance Control
DWR - Department of Water Resources
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
EOP - Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP - Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GIS - Geographic Information System
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
GP - General Plan
GPU - General Plan Update
HCM - Highway Capacity Manual
HCP - Habitat Conservation Plan
IS - Initial Study
LHMP - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID - Low Impact Development
LOS - Level of Service
LST - Localized Significance Threshold
METRO - City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater Department
MM - Mitigation Measure
MSCP - Multiple Species Conservation Plan
NCCP - Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OEM - Office of Emergency Services
OSHA - Occupational Health and Safety Administration
OPR - Office of Planning & Research, State
PEIR - Program Environmental Impact Report
Attachment #1
19
Page 14 of 153
PW - Public Works
PWQMP - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
RCP - Regional Comprehensive Plan
RTIP - Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP - Regional Transportation Plan
SANDAG - San Diego Association of Governments
SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH - State Clearinghouse
SDAPCD - San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDG&E - San Diego Gas & Electric
SEIR - Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB - State Water Resources Control Board
SWQMP - Storm Water Quality Management Plan
UBC - Uniform Building Code
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife
USGS - United States Geologic Survey
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
Attachment #1
20
Page 15 of 153
Figure 10 - Vicinity Map
Attachment #1
21
Page 16 of 153
Figure 11 - USGS Map
Attachment #1
22
Page 17 of 153
Figure 12 - Aerial Project Site
Attachment #1
23
Page 18 of 153
Figure 13 - Existing Basin Map
Attachment #1
24
Page 19 of 153
Figure 14 - Site Plan
Attachment #1
25
Page 20 of 153
Figure 15 - Grading Plan
Attachment #1
26
Page 21 of 153
Figure 16 - Preliminary Landscape Plan
Attachment #1
27
Page 22 of 153
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099 – Modernization of
Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill
Projects – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. The project site is undeveloped and zoned for industrial uses in an
existing industrial area known as the Brandywine/Main Distribution Center. Due to the elevations of the
site, which range from 150 to 255 feet above mean sea level (amsl), the only views available are those of
the properties to the north, as they are the only properties that are higher than the subject site.
The properties to the north currently have a view across the property of the Ocean View Hills area to the
south and the residential neighborhood to the west. However, Ocean View Hills and the residential
neighborhood to the west are not designated in the General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 as scenic vistas.
The proposed building will be 43.5 feet tall (at the highest point, 39 feet tall overall) at a pad elevation of
approximately 197.5 feet above the amsl from north to south. The existing condominium building on the
north is at a pad elevation of 257 feet amsl. Therefore, the residents would still see the same northerly
view across the top of the building.
Figure 17 - Photos Looking to the South Across the Project Site
Attachment #1
28
Page 23 of 153
For example, choosing one of the units to the north at 1595 Mendocino Drive, Unit #48, is approximately
33 feet to the property line, 76 feet to the parking stalls, and 127 feet to the building (Figures 18 & 19).
The residents in the noted unit would still have the same view over the building they currently have at
this time.
Figure 18 - 1595 Mendocino Drive, Unit 48, as an Example
Figure 19 - Unit 48 Distances from Project Amenities
Attachment #1
29
Page 24 of 153
The same would hold for all the units to the north. These residents’ views would be over the building
and the same view they enjoy today (Figure 20). Looking down, the residents would see the north
elevation of the building (Figure 21).
For the properties to the west, the proposed building pad will range in height from approximately 17 feet
lower than the properties to the northwest (Cross-Section E) to approximately 12.5 higher than the
properties to the west (Cross-Section D) and approximately 22 feet higher than the properties to the
southwest (Cross-Section C) (Figures 22 through 25).
Depending on location, the properties westerly have a view of a slope and then of the industrial buildings
to the north. They will now have varying views of the property wall and the top of the west building
elevation, as depicted in Figure 26. So, while the view will change, it is not one of a scenic vista.
Figure 20 - Cross Section from North Looking to the South
Figure 21 - Rendering of Proposed Building North Elevation
Attachment #1
30
Page 25 of 153
Figure 22 - Locations of the Cross Sections for the Properties to the West
Figure 23 - Cross Section C
Attachment #1
31
Page 26 of 153
Per Figure 5-4 –Designated Scenic Roadways of the General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 (page LUT-
16), Main Street is a designated scenic roadway. “Main Street is the southernmost major east/west
connector between I-805 and areas to the east. Main Street currently terminates at Heritage Road. The
designated scenic portion passes near or through the Chula Vista Greenbelt and includes existing and
future segments from Heritage Road to Hunte Parkway. Scenic resources include the Otay Valley
Regional Park and major visitor attractions.” The project will not be visible from Main Street except
intermittently, looking through and beyond the businesses that front Main Street.
Figure 24 - Cross Section D
Figure 25 - Cross Section E
Figure 26 - Westerly Building Elevation
Attachment #1
32
Page 27 of 153
The applicant will develop the project according to the Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements, Title
19 – Planning and Zoning, including buildings, parking, landscaping, lighting features, and other
amenities. The proposed building is of contemporary industrial design with white, light gray, and dark
gray, with charcoal and blue accent colors. (Appendix A). The project will have a less than significant
impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on scenic vistas and will not substantially change the scenic
views.
b) No impact. State scenic highways are designated by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and are recognized as highways that maintain sensitive landscapes or valuable scenic resources
within the highway viewshed. According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Program Mapping System,
no officially designated State Scenic Highways are within the project area. The project includes a Design
Review application, DR21-0032, where the project will be evaluated against the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, Title 19 – Planning and Zoning, and, as designed and conditioned, will have no impact directly,
indirectly, or cumulatively, on scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
c) Less than significant impact with mitigation. The project is in an urban industrial area known as the
Brandywine/Main Distribution Center. The project will not conflict with applicable zoning or other
regulations governing scenic quality. As noted in Response I a) above, views of the site are limited. The
project includes a Design Review application, DR21-0032, and will be evaluated against the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Title 19 – Planning and Zoning. As designed and conditioned, it will have a less than
significant impact with mitigation, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively on public views of the site and
its surroundings.
Construction Impacts
The City does not have specific regulations to mitigate visual construction impacts. However,
construction-related impacts would be short-term and temporary as construction activity would not be
continuous. Visual impacts associated with construction activities include the exposed pad and staging
areas for grading, excavation, and construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be
located on the development site during various stages of construction, within materials storage areas, or
associated with construction debris piles on site. Exposed trenches, roadway bedding, spoils/debris piles,
and steel plates could be visible during street and utility infrastructure improvements. These could
temporarily degrade the development site’s existing visual character, quality, and surroundings during the
construction phase.
The Permittee/Owner will ensure that the pre-construction and/or construction documents include
language that all construction contractors will strictly control the staging of construction equipment and
the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work
area. The construction equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site as far away from the
residential properties as feasible. In addition, the documents shall include language requiring that
construction vehicles shall be kept clean and free of mud and dust prior to leaving the development site,
and streets surrounding the development site shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt and debris.
The City Building division will ensure the language appears on the documents. The City
Engineer/Building Inspectors will ensure that the requirements are maintained out in the field. With
Mitigation Measure MM AES-1, construction impacts are less than significant.
Operational Impacts
The project site is located in an urbanized area that is industrially zoned and is appropriate and permitted
for the project location. The project site is visible from areas to the north. The property is subject to
compliance with the general development and design standards and parameters outlined in Title 19 –
Planning and Zoning. The development and design standards and parameters address development
factors that would influence the visual character/quality of the development site and its surroundings.
Namely, the general development standards address parcel size and coverage, density and intensity,
Attachment #1
33
Page 28 of 153
setbacks, and building height. The design standards address site planning (i.e., site character, land use
buffering, building placement, trash/loading/storage areas, and utility and mechanical equipment),
parking (i.e., project entry), and architectural design (i.e., architectural style, design consistency,
form/mass, roofs, building materials, and colors).
The project will be subject to compliance with general property development and use standards outlined
in Title 19 – Planning and Zoning. These standards are intended to ensure that all development produces
an environment of desirable character that is harmonious with current and future development and
protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties.
The project would not conflict with appropriate zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The project would implement industrial zoning by constructing industrial buildings permitted under the
zoning. The development implements the vision of the Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan for the
subject property.
As previously stated, the project includes a Design Review, DR21-0032, where the project will be
evaluated against the Chula Vista Municipal Code and Title 19 – Planning and Zoning. As designed and
conditioned, the project will have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively,
on the existing visual character.
d) Less than significant impact. The project lighting has been designed per Chula Vista’s Municipal Code
Section 15.26.020 – Outdoor Lighting Zones and Chapter 17.28 – Unnecessary Lights for operational
and security purposes. Lighting is shielded to direct light downward. Glare would be kept to a minimum
as the project setbacks and building materials, and colors would not contribute to substantial amounts of
daytime glare. The Permittee/Owner will ensure that all lighting plans meet the Municipal Code
requirements. The City Planning and Building Departments will review the plans to ensure they are
designed per the Code requirement, and the City Building Inspectors will ensure that the lighting has
been installed per the approved Plans. With the implementation of the City’s lighting standards, the
project would have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on creating new
sources of substantial light or glare.
Mitigation:
MM AES-1: The Permittee/Owner will ensure that the pre-construction and/or construction documents
include language that all construction contractors will strictly control the staging of
construction equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or driven
beyond the limits of the construction work area. The construction equipment shall be parked
and staged within the project site as far away from the residential properties as possible. In
addition, the documents shall include language requiring that construction vehicles shall be
kept clean and free of mud and dust prior to leaving the development site, and streets
surrounding the development site shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt and debris.
The City Building division will ensure the language appears on the documents. The City
Engineer/Building Inspectors will ensure that the requirements are maintained out in the
field.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Attachment #1
34
Page 29 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in the conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Comments:
a) No impact. A review of the Department of Conservation, California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) mapping system has found the project site is listed as Urban and Built-Up Land,
defined as:
URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND (D): Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to
1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial,
institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses,
sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
Attachment #1
35
Page 30 of 153
Therefore, the project would not affect any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, and no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, would occur on farmland.
b) No impact. The property is zoned I-L – Limited Industrial. The purpose of this zone is to encourage
sound limited industrial development by providing and protecting an environment free from nuisances
created by some industrial uses to ensure the purity of the total environment of Chula Vista and San
Diego County and to protect nearby residential, commercial, and industrial uses from any hazards or
nuisances. Agricultural uses are not permitted in the I-L Zone.
As noted in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Vision 2020 General Plan Update Final Environmental
Impact Report, December 2005 (Section 5.7 Agriculture page 277), there are no active Williamson Act
contract properties in the City.
Given that the I-L Zone does not permit agricultural uses and the City has no Williamson Act contracts,
the project will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on zoning for agricultural use or on
a Williamson Act contract.
c) No impact. In Southern California, including San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista, climate and
topography limit forest land types and locations and potential for commercial or industrial timber
utilization. Accordingly, there is no existing or currently proposed zoning of forest land, timberland, or
Timberland Production Zones within the City of Chula Vista. Also, figures released by the State of
California indicate that no “California forest land” ownership, either public or private, is mapped for the
City of Chula Vista. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing zoning for or cause
rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland-zoned Timberland Production. The project will have
no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on forest land.
d) No impact. There is no commercial forestry or timber production within the City of Chula Vista other
than possibly nursery stock production (cultivated rather than wild-harvested). Therefore, the project
would not result in the loss of forest land or forest land conversion to a non-forest use. The project will
have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on the loss of forest land or forest land conversion
to a non-forest use.
e) No impact. The project with the development of the area, as discussed above, will have no impact,
directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on the conversion of Farmland to another use.
There is no commercial forestry or timber production industry within the City of Chula Vista other than
possibly nursery stock production (cultivated rather than wild-harvested). Therefore, the project would
not result in the loss of forest land or forest land conversion to a non-forest use. The project will have
no impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Attachment #1
36
Page 31 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Comments:
The Shinohara Industrial Center Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study City of
Chula Vista, CA, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, December 5, 2022 (Appendix C), indicates the project will
not result in a cumulative net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment.
a) No impact. The project site is located in Chula Vista, San Diego County. It is part of the San Diego Air
Basin (SDAB) under the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). San Diego County
is in nonattainment for federal and state standards for ozone (8-hour) and state standards for ozone (1-
hour), PM10, and PM2.5.0F
1
The SDAPCD prepares air quality plans that include projected emissions inventories and account for
emission reductions strategies to show how the region will achieve the ambient air quality standards by
given deadlines. The applicable air quality plans for San Diego County are the Regional Air Quality
Strategy (RAQS) and the 8‐hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Attainment Plan).1F
2
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between
a proposed project and applicable General Plans and Regional Plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125).
The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the San Diego Regional Air Quality
Strategy (RAQS). Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project
with the RAQS.
This discussion aims to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of
the RAQS and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply
with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the proposed project is
inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or the inclusion of mitigation to
eliminate the inconsistency.
The RAQS relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), including projected growth in the County, mobile, area, and
all other source emissions, to project future emissions and determine strategies necessary for the
reduction of stationary source emissions. Therefore, those projects that propose development consistent
with the City’s General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 are consistent with the RAQS.
1 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District website https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/planning/attainment-status.html
2 Ibid
Attachment #1
37
Page 32 of 153
The project must be consistent with SANDAG’s Regional Growth Forecast and its projection of future
employment and housing growth throughout the region to comply with the RAQS. SANDAG’s Regional
Growth Forecast notes that the City will add 42,107 new jobs between 2016 and 2050.2F
3 The project is
projected to create 350 new jobs, or 0.832%, less than 1%, of the 42,107 new jobs projected by SANDAG
over the next 34 years. As the tenant is unknown at this time, the projection of 350 new jobs may be high,
but it illustrates what may occur on the site and that the project will not result in substantial growth in
employment. These positions would be expected to be filled by Chula Vista residents and others living in
the surrounding area. Because the project is not residential, it would not generate direct population or
housing growth. The employment growth associated with the project would be consistent with
SANDAG’s employment forecast and the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project is consistent with
the RAQS and would have no impact.
b) Less than significant impact. As previously noted, San Diego County is in nonattainment for federal
and state standards for ozone (8-hour) and state standards for ozone (1-hour), PM10, and PM2.5.3F
4
Cumulative projects include local development and general growth within the project area. A list of
projects that could contribute to a cumulative impact with the project is included in Appendix B of the
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C). However, as with most
development, the most significant source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of
the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond
any local projects and would cover an even larger area when wind patterns are considered. Accordingly,
the project’s cumulative air quality analysis must be generic by nature.
For cumulative impacts from the project, the analysis must specifically evaluate the contribution to the
cumulative increase in pollutants for which the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is designated as
nonattainment for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). If the project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less
than-significant project-specific impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative air quality
impact if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or
reasonably foreseeable future projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, the project will
only have a significant cumulative impact if its contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the
cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative
air quality impact).
The project area is out of attainment for O3 for federal standards and O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for state
standards. PM10 and PM2.5 for state standards. Construction and operation of cumulative projects will
further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the SDAB. The construction-related
emissions will be below SCAQMD significance levels utilized by the City and will not significantly impact
air quality. Construction will be short-term and consistent with the size and scale of the project.
Construction of the project will potentially be conducted at the same time and in the same general vicinity
as other major construction projects; however, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects
that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than the criteria levels are not
significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The project does not exceed any of the
thresholds of significance and therefore is not considered to contribute to a significant cumulative impact
on air quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
The RAQS relies on SANDAG growth projections based on population, vehicle trends, and land use
plans developed by the cities and the county to develop their general plans. It is assumed that a project
which conforms to the General Plan and does not have emissions exceeding operational thresholds will
not create a cumulatively considerable net increase in ozone since the emissions were accounted for in
3 SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast appendix-f---regional-growth-forecast-and-scs-land-use-pattern.pdf (sdforward.com)
4 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District website https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/planning/attainment-status.html
Attachment #1
38
Page 33 of 153
the RAQS. According to the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Diagram, the project site has a
land use designation of Limited Industrial (IL). Per the General Plan, the IL designation is intended for
light manufacturing, warehousing; certain public utilities; auto repair; auto salvage yards; and flexible-use
projects that combine these uses with associated office space. The General Plan designation permits a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range of .25 to 0.5, and the project proposes a FAR of 0.41, consistent with the
General Plan FAR. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
for the City of Chula Vista, and the project would be considered consistent with the RAQS.
Furthermore, operational emissions generated by the project would be below the established significance
thresholds for criteria pollutants, as shown in Table 9 – Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria
Air Pollutant Emissions below. The project’s operational emissions would not significantly contribute to
the region’s poor air quality. Cumulative air quality impacts would, therefore, be less than significant.
CO Hot Spot Emissions
CO is a pollutant of significant concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor
vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a
roadway network and indicate potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed
by comparing future CO concentrations without the project and with the project to the state and federal
CO standards.
The SDAB is classified as a state attainment area and a federal maintenance area for CO. Until 2003, no
violations of the state standard for CO had been recorded in the SDAB since 1991, and no violations of
the national standard had been recorded in the SDAB since 1989. The violations in 2003 were likely the
result of massive wildfires that occurred throughout the county. No violations of the state or federal CO
standards have occurred since 2003.
Small-scale, localized concentrations of CO above the state and national standards can occur at
intersections with stagnation points, such as those that occur on major highways and heavily traveled and
congested roadways. Localized high concentrations of CO are called “CO hot spots” and are a concern
at congested intersections, where automobile engines burn fuel less efficiently, and their exhaust contains
more CO.
Localized CO concentration is a direct function of motor vehicle activity at signalized intersections (e.g.,
idling time and traffic flow conditions), particularly during peak commute hours and meteorological
conditions. The SDAB is a CO maintenance area under the federal CAA. The SDAB was previously a
non-attainment area and implemented a 10-year plan to meet and maintain air quality standards.
The SDAB is a CO maintenance area (the western and central part of the SDAB). To determine the
impact of the project’s contribution to the CO concentration of the area, a comparison can be made to
analyses performed by the SCAQMD. As a screening analysis, the SCAQMD conducted CO modeling
for the 2003 AQMP (Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations, SCAQMD 2003) for the
four worst-case intersections in the SCAB: (1) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, (2) Sunset
Boulevard, and Highland Avenue, (3) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard, and (4) Long Beach
Boulevard and Imperial Highway. When the 2003 AQMP was prepared, Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran
Avenue intersection was the most congested in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume
of about 100,000 vehicles per day. Using CO emission factors for 2002, the peak modeled CO 1-hour
concentration was estimated to be 4.6 ppm at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue.
The 2003 AQMP also projected 8-hour CO concentrations at these four intersections for 1997 and from
2002 through 2005. From 2002 through 2005, the maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 3.8 ppm at
the Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue intersection. In 2002, the maximum 8-hour CO concentration
was 3.4 ppm at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue 2002. Therefore, an intersection would need over
200,000 vehicles per day to exceed the 8-hour CO CAAQS (9.0 ppm) or 400,000 vehicles per day to
exceed the 1-hour CO CAAQS (20 ppm).
Attachment #1
39
Page 34 of 153
Accordingly, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 8-hour CO CAAQS if
projected daily traffic would generate less than 200,000 vehicles per day or 1-hour CO CAAQS for less
than 400,000 vehicles per day. The proposed distribution facility project is anticipated to generate
approximately 4,881 vehicle trips per day. The maximum number of cumulative vehicle trips at a nearby
road would be 18,235 vehicles per day on Brandywine Avenue between Shinohara Lane and Main Street
(Linscott, Law, & Greenspan). Therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to increase daily
traffic volumes at any study intersection to more than 200,000 vehicles per day, a CO hotspot is not
anticipated to occur, and associated impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less than significant impact.
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other population groups more sensitive to air pollution
than others due to their exposure. As identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), sensitive
population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-
respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor would be a location where a sensitive
individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residencies, hospitals, schools, etc.
The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project are the single-family residential land uses located
approximately 30 feet to the west and the multi-family residential land use located 40 feet to the north of
the project site.
CalEEMod
The latest version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1) was used to estimate the construction and operation
emissions. The emissions incorporate SDAPCD Rules 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 67.0.1, 1200, and 1210 (as
identified in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C)). Adherence
to these rules is not considered mitigation, as the project is required to incorporate these rules during
construction.
Air Quality Thresholds
The City evaluated project emissions based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The City of Chula Vista is located within the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD); however, the SDAPCD has only established
thresholds for stationary sources and not for CEQA purposes. Therefore, the City chose to use thresholds
from the adjacent district, SCAQMD. The SCAQMD sets forth quantitative emission significance
thresholds below which a project would not significantly impact ambient air quality. It should be noted
that the use of these significance thresholds is conservative, as the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds
were originally based on the South Coast Air Basin’s extreme ozone nonattainment status for the 1-hour
NAAQS, whereas the SDAB was designated as an attainment area for the 1-hour NAAQS. Project-
related air quality impacts estimated in this environmental analysis would be considered significant if any
of the applicable significance thresholds presented below are exceeded.
As discussed above, the City has established thresholds based on the quantitative emission thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. These screening criteria can demonstrate whether a project’s total
emissions would result in a significant impact as defined by CEQA. These daily screening thresholds for
construction and operations are shown in Table 7 below.
Attachment #1
40
Page 35 of 153
Table 7: City of Chula Vista Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (pounds per day) Operation (pounds per day)
VOCs 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
SOx 150 150
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Lead* 3 3
Notes:
Source: SCAQMD 2019.
VOC = volatile organic compound; Nox = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; Sox= sulfur oxides; PM10 =
coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter.
*The phaseout of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to
result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis.
Table 5 - Table 7 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - City of Chula Vista Air
Quality Significance Thresholds
The thresholds listed above and in Table 7 represent screening-level thresholds that can be used to
evaluate whether project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality. Emissions
below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. For nonattainment pollutants,
if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 7, the project could potentially result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase in these pollutants. It would have a significant impact on the ambient air quality.
Temporary Construction Emissions
The construction emissions for the project would not exceed the City’s screening level thresholds during
project construction, as demonstrated in Table 8, and therefore would be considered less than
significant. Construction modeling parameters and assumptions can be found in Section 4.1 of the Air
Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C).
Table 8: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Activity
Pollutant Emissions1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2023 2.14 22.40 21.30 0.05 4.28 2.38
2024 32.10 12.60 17.30 0.03 1.33 0.67
Maximum Daily Emissions 32.10 22.40 21.30 0.05 4.28 2.38
Chula Vista Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
1 Grading phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions required by SDAPCD Rules 52, 54, and 55 to reduce fugitive dust. The
architectural coating phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions required by SDAPCD Rule 67.
Table 6 - Table 8 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Estimated Maximum Daily
Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impact
The most significant potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate
emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during the project’s construction. The Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines and Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in
February 2015. It describes the algorithms, recommended exposure variates, cancer, and noncancer
health values, and the air modeling protocols needed to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) under
the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Hazard identification includes
identifying all substances evaluated for cancer risk and/or noncancer acute, 8-hour, and chronic health
Attachment #1
41
Page 36 of 153
impacts and identifying any multi-pathway substances that present a cancer risk or chronic noncancer
hazard via non-inhalation routes of exposure.
CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation limits unnecessary idling to 5 minutes, requires
all construction fleets to be labeled and reported to CARB, bans Tier 0 equipment, and phases out Tier 1
and 2 equipment, thereby replacing fleets with cleaner equipment, and requires that fleets comply with
Best Available Control Technology requirements.
The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project are the single-family residential land uses located
approximately 30 feet to the west, and the multi-family residential land uses located 40 feet to the north
of the project site.
SDAPCD has not established guidelines for conducting construction health risk assessments.
Additionally, the SCAQMD, the adjacent air quality district to the north, does not require land use
development projects to prepare quantitative construction Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) and
therefore has no guidance on preparing construction HRAs. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-
duty construction equipment and the construction schedule, the project can qualitatively be determined
not to result in a substantial long-term source of toxic air containment emissions and corresponding
individual cancer risk. Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including
diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-
term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during the project's construction.
Operational Emissions
The project’s operations-related criteria air quality impacts have been analyzed using the CalEEMod
model. The operating emissions were based on 2024, which is the anticipated opening year for the project.
The summer and winter emissions created by the project’s long-term operations were calculated, and the
highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 9. Emissions were modeled
according to the parameters and assumptions established in Section 4.2 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C).
Table 9: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2 5.35 0.07 7.75 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.04 0.70 0.59 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile Sources4 20.40 38.10 139.00 0.46 12.30 2.74
Total Emissions 25.79 38.87 147.34 0.46 12.36 2.80
Chula Vista Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage.
4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.
Table 7 - Table 9 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Estimated Daily
Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Table 9 shows that emissions from the project’s operation do not exceed City thresholds. Therefore, the
impact is considered less than significant.
Health Risk Assessment
Diesel Emissions Health Risk Assessment
The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate toxic air contaminant emissions from
diesel truck emissions. According to OEHHA methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics
are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a
Attachment #1
42
Page 37 of 153
person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer,
based on the revised Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment
methodology.4F
5
A health risk assessment requires the completion and interaction of four general steps:
1. Quantify project-generated TAC emissions.
2. Identify nearby ground-level receptor locations that may be affected by the emissions (including
any special sensitive receptor locations such as residences, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes,
and daycare centers).
3. Perform air dispersion modeling analyses to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations at each
receptor location using project TAC emissions and representative meteorological data to define
the transport and dispersion of those emissions in the atmosphere.
4. Characterize and compare the calculated health risks with the applicable health risk significance
thresholds.
Health Risk Assessment Assumptions
Important issues that affect the dispersion modeling include the following: (1) Model Selection, (2) Source
Treatment, (3) Meteorological Data, and (4) Receptor Grid. Each of these issues is addressed below.
Emission Source Estimates – DPM for Motor Vehicles
DPM emissions from the various sources were calculated using information derived from the project
description and mobile source emission factors from the CARB EMFAC20175F
6 emissions factor model.
Truck mix information was obtained from the trip generation via an email provided by Linscott, Law, &
Greenspan Engineers, shown in Appendix C of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact
Study (Appendix C).
Four pieces of information are required to generate the mobile source emissions from the proposed
project:
• Number of vehicle trips for each component of the proposed project;
• Types of vehicles that access the proposed project (passenger car vs. heavy-duty truck and
gasoline vs. diesel);
• The allocation of the vehicle trips to each building that comprises the proposed project; and
• Estimate of the vehicle emission factors for estimating exhaust and idling emissions.
Estimate of Vehicle Trips and Vehicle Types
The provided trip generation information showed that the distribution project would generate
approximately 4,881 (non-passenger car equivalents) vehicle trips per day. Of those vehicle trips, 132 are
4+-axle truck round trips per day (non-passenger car equivalents).6F
7
5 In February 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment updated their "Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk Asse ssments
Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments; however, the updated OEHHA guidance states in the page footers "do
not cite or quote." SCAQMD staff have incorporated the updates into their methodology for SCAQMD's Rules 1401, 1401.1, 1402, and 212, and
have updated their HRA Guidance for permitting; however, they are still in the process of updating the guidance for CEQA analyses (via working
group sessions); however, to be conservative, the new OEHHA guidance was used to assess HRA impacts in this analysis.
6 EMFAC. Emissions Inventory. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/d5580438dbc76e2b15104462781f6de3a552d9e1.
7 Trip Generation Table and email from Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers are provided in Appendix C of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,
and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C). As the 132 trucks were identified as larger truck-trailers, to be conservative, all 132 truck trips
were assumed to be heavy-heavy duty trucks in the HRA modeling.
Attachment #1
43
Page 38 of 153
Estimate of Emission Factors
The DPM emission factors for the various vehicle types were derived from the CARB EMFAC2017
mobile source emission model. The emissions factors were derived for San Diego County. Third-trimester
exposure used opening year (2023) emissions factors, 2-year factors (for infant exposure) reflect years
2023 and 2024, and 14-year average factors (for child exposure during years 2-16) reflect emissions during
the first 14 years of operation (2025 to 2038), the second 14 years of exposure (years 2039-2052) were
used for assessment of exposure during years 16 to 30.
Emissions factors were estimated to establish the emissions generated 1) while the vehicles travel off-site,
2) while traveling links from the entrance to the loading docks, and 3) while idling at the loading dock
during loading or unloading materials. All vehicles were assumed to travel on-site at 10 miles per hour.
Off-site, the speeds along the roads were anticipated to average 35 miles per hour. Delivery vehicles were
assumed to idle for a maximum of 15 minutes per vehicle per day (5 minutes per location: at loading and
truck parking areas), in keeping with the CARB Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), which regulates
truck idling time (CARB 2005). The four different sets of emissions factors used in this assessment are
detailed in Table 15. It should be noted that the DPM emissions on both the gram per mile and gram per
idle hour bases decline beyond 2023 for all vehicle classes and, in particular, the heavy-heavy-duty truck
class (the 4+ axle “big rig” trucks). This decline is due to the CARB emissions requirements on heavy-
duty trucks that call for replacing older trucks with cleaner trucks or installing diesel particulate matter
filters on the truck fleet.
Emission Source Characterization
Each of the emission source types described above also requires geometrical and emission release
specifications in the air dispersion model. Table 15 summarizes the assumptions used to configure the
various emission sources. The following definitions are used to characterize the emission source
geometrical configurations referred to in Table 15:
▪ Point source: A single, identifiable, local source of emissions; it is approximated in the AERMOD air
dispersion model as a mathematical point in the modeling region with a location and emission
characteristics such as the height of release, temperature, etc., for example, a truck idle location where
emissions are sourced from the truck's exhaust stack while the vehicle is stationary.
▪ Line source: A series of volume sources along a path, for example, vehicular traffic volumes along a
roadway.
Exhibit C provides the location of the project buildings, emission source locations, and the locations of
the nearest sensitive receptors (single-family detached residential dwelling units located adjacent to the
project’s western property line, to the north of the project, and along Main Street and the 805 Freeway
on-ramps). Residential receptors are shown as orange triangles labeled 1 through 10. The direction of on-
site and off-site truck travel was obtained from either the site plan and/or based on City truck routes and
the location of the nearest freeways.
Table 15: DPM Emissions Factors1
Vehicle Class
14-Year Average (First 14 years of Operation - 2025-2038)
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)
Light Heavy Duty Truck 2 0.19651 0.03328 0.01504
Medium Heavy Duty Truck 0.03054 0.00525 0.00375
Heavy Heavy Duty Truck 0.06543 0.01159 0.00885
Vehicle Class
14-Year Average (Second 14 years of Operation - 2039-2052)
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)
Attachment #1
44
Page 39 of 153
Table 15: DPM Emissions Factors1
Light Heavy Duty Truck 2 0.15465 0.02840 0.01416
Medium Heavy Duty Truck 0.02499 0.00433 0.00361
Heavy Heavy Duty Truck 0.05351 0.00955 0.00796
Vehicle Class
2-Year Average (2023-2024)
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)
Light Heavy Duty Truck 2 0.27215 0.04243 0.01700
Medium Heavy Duty Truck 0.04108 0.00697 0.00392
Heavy Heavy Duty Truck 0.08755 0.01505 0.01020
Vehicle Class
1-Year Average (Opening Year-2022)
Idling (g/hr) On-Site Travel (g/mi) Off-Site Travel (g/mi)
Light Heavy Duty Truck 2 0.29932 0.04582 0.01781
Medium Heavy Duty Truck 0.31208 0.05278 0.02937
Heavy Heavy Duty Truck 0.30984 0.04653 0.02200
1 Source: EMFAC2017.
Table 8 - Table 15 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - DPM Emissions Factors
Receptor Network
The assessment requires that a network of receptors be specified where the impacts can be computed at
the various locations surrounding the project. Discrete receptors were located at existing sensitive
residential receptors surrounding the proposed project (as detailed above). Discrete receptors are
Figure 27 - Exhibit C of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study
Attachment #1
45
Page 40 of 153
identified as orange triangles and numbered 1 through 10. In addition, the identified sensitive receptor’s
locations were supplemented by the specification of a modeling grid that extended around the proposed
project to identify other potential locations of impact. See Exhibit C for details.
Dispersion Modeling
The next step in the assessment process utilizes the emissions inventory, a mathematical air dispersion
model, and representative meteorological data to calculate impacts at the various receptor locations. The
dispersion model used in this assessment is described below.
Model Selection
To assess air quality and health risk impacts from pollutant emissions from this project, the USEPA
AERMOD Model was applied, an air dispersion model accepted by the SDAPCD for performing health
risk assessment analyses. AERMOD predicts pollutant concentrations from a point, area, volume, line,
and flare sources with variable emissions in terrain from flat to complex, including building downwash
effects from buildings on pollutant dispersion (as applicable). It captures the essential atmospheric
physical processes and provides reasonable estimates over a wide range of meteorological conditions and
modeling scenarios.
General Model Assumptions
A summary of Emission Configurations is shown in Table 15. The basic options used in the dispersion
modeling are summarized in Table 17.
As indicated in Table 16, the analysis considers the effects of building downwash on the dispersion of
emissions from the various sources located on the project’s property. Building downwash occurs when
the aerodynamic turbulence induced by nearby buildings causes pollutants emitted from an elevated
source to be mixed rapidly toward the ground (downwash), resulting in potentially higher ground-level
concentrations than if the buildings were not present. The AERMOD dispersion model contains
algorithms to account for building downwash effects. The required information includes the location of
the emission source, the location of adjacent buildings, and the building geometry in terms of length,
width, and height. The emission source and building locations were taken from the project site plan for
this analysis. The proposed building geometries were estimated from the project plans, assuming a
building height of 40 feet.
Table 16: Summary of Emission Configurations
Emission Source Type Geometric
Configuration Relevant Assumptions
Off-Site Diesel Truck Traffic Line Sources
Stack release height: 12 feet
Vehicle speed: 35 mph
Length of the line source (Shinohara Ln from project
driveway to Brandywine Ave, Brandywine Ave from
Shinohara Ln to Main St, Main Street from Brandywine Ave
to 805 Fwy, 805 Fwy NB Ramp, & 805 Freeway SB Ramp)
Vehicle types: heavy-heavy-duty diesel delivery trucks
Emission factor: CARB EMFAC2017
On-Site Diesel Truck Traffic Line Sources
Stack release height: 12 feet
Vehicle speed: 10 mph
Length of the line source (distance from the facility entrance
to the loading docks)
Vehicle types: heavy-heavy-duty diesel delivery trucks
Emission factor: CARB EMFAC2017
On-Site Diesel Truck Idling Stack release height: 12 feet
Attachment #1
46
Page 41 of 153
Table 16: Summary of Emission Configurations
Point Sources located
at the loading dock
Stack release characteristics
> Stack diameter: 0.1 meter (0.3 feet)
> Stack velocity: 51.9 mps (170 feet/sec)
> Stack temperature: 366 °k (200° F)
Idle time: 15 minutes per truck per day
Vehicle types: heavy-heavy-duty diesel delivery trucks
Emission factor: CARB EMFAC2017
Table 9 - Table 16 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Summary of Emission
Configurations
Table 17: General Modeling Assumptions – AERMOD Model
Feature Option Selected
Terrain processing AERMAP-generated NED GEOTIFF 30 m
Regulatory dispersion options See Table 15
Land use Rural
Coordinate system UTM Zone 11 North
Building downwash Included in calculations
Receptor height 0 meters above ground (per OEHHA methodology)
Meteorological data SDAPCD Brown Field Municipal Airport Meteorological Data
Table 10 - Table 17 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - General Modeling
Assumptions - AERMOD Model
Meteorological Data
Meteorological data from the Brown Field Municipal Airport station was selected for this modeling
application.7F
8 The meteorological input files were processed using the AERMET program from Lakes
Environmental. They are developed based on the five-year data sets covering 1/1/2009 to 1/2/2014
(Exhibit D shows a Wind Rose for Brown Field Municipal Airport).
8 Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-aermod-meteorological-files
Attachment #1
47
Page 42 of 153
Estimation of Health Risks
Health risks from diesel particulate matter are twofold. First, diesel particulate matter is a carcinogen,
according to the State of California. Second, long-term chronic exposure to diesel particulate matter can
cause health effects on the respiratory system. Each of these health risks is discussed below. Health risk
calculations were based on the most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidance,
as detailed below.
Cancer Risks
According to the Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,
released by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in February 2015 and
formally adopted in March 2015, the residential inhalation dose for long-term cancer risk assessment
should be calculated using the following formula:
[Dose-air (mg/(Kg-day)]*Cancer Potency*[1x10-6] = Potential Cancer Risk
Where:
Cancer Potency Factor = 1.1
Dose-inh = (C¬air * DBR * A * EF * ED *ASF*FAH* 10-6) / AT
Figure 28 - Exhibit D of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Health Risk Impact Study
Attachment #1
48
Page 43 of 153
Where:
DBR [Daily breathing rate (L/kg bodyweight – day)] = 261 for adults, 572 for children, 1,090 for
infants, and 361 for the 3rd trimester per OEHHA guidance.
A [Inhalation absorption factor] = 1
EF [Exposure frequency (days/year)] = 350
ED [Exposure duration (years)] = 30 for adults (for an individual who is an adult at the opening
year), 14 for children (from 2-16 years), 14 for adults (from 16-30 years), 2 for infants, and 1
for 3rd Trimester
ASF [Age sensitivity factor) = 10 for 3rd trimester to 2 years of age, 3 for 2 to 16 years of age, and
1 for 16 to 30 years of age
FAH [Fraction of time spent at home] = 1 for 3rd trimester to 2 years of age, 1 for 2 to 16 years of
age, and 0.73 for 16 to 30 years of age
106 [Micrograms to milligrams conversion]
AT [Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days] = 25,550
The model run results are shown in Appendix C of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk
Impact Study (Appendix C). Exhibit E illustrates the cancer risk in the most affected age group, infants
(0-2 years).
Table 18 shows the cancer risk for the unborn child during the 3rd trimester; Table 19 shows the cancer
risk for infants (0-2 years), Table 20 shows the cancer risk for children ages 2 to 16 years, and Table 21
shows the cancer risk as that child becomes an adult (years 16-30). The highest cancer risk corresponds
to infants (0-2 years) (see Table 19) and is at receptor 5, with a maximum risk of 0.51 in one million. The
highest child cancer risk 2-16 years is also at receptor 5, with a maximum risk of 0.48 in one million.
Therefore, no children or infants are exposed to cancer risks in excess of 10 in a million.
Figure 29 - Exhibit E of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study
Attachment #1
49
Page 44 of 153
Table 18: Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic 3rd Trimester Exposure Scenario (0.25-years) - 2022
Receptor
Maximum
Concentration
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Weight CPF RISK
(per
million)
REL RfD
Index ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.0019 1.9E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.03 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0004
2 0.0035 3.5E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.05 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0007
3 0.0035 3.5E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.05 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0007
4 0.002 2.0E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.03 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0004
5 0.0034 3.4E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.05 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0007
6 0.0029 2.9E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.04 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0006
7 0.0025 2.5E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.03 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0005
8 0.0011 1.1E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.01 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
9 0.0007 6.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.01 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
10 0.0007 6.7E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.01 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
Note: OEHHA 95th percentile exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake:
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Exposure Duration (years) 0.25
Daily Breathing Rate 361
Age Sensitivity Factor 10
Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 1
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 91.25
E= 10X, i.e., E-02 = 10-2
Table 11 - Table 18 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Carcinogenic Risks & Non-
Carcinogenic 3rd Trimester Exposure Scenario (0.25-years) - 2022
Table 19: Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Infant Exposure Scenario (2-year) – 2023-2024
Receptor
Maximum
Concentration
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Weight CPF RISK
(per
million)
REL RfD
Index ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.0006 5.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.18 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
2 0.001 1.0E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.34 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
3 0.001 1.0E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.34 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
4 0.0007 6.6E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.22 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
5 0.0015 1.5E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.51 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0003
6 0.0013 1.3E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.42 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0003
7 0.0011 1.1E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.35 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
8 0.0004 4.0E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.13 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
9 0.0002 2.1E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.07 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000
10 0.0003 2.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.10 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
Note: OEHHA 95th percentile exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake:
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Attachment #1
50
Page 45 of 153
Table 19: Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Infant Exposure Scenario (2-year) – 2023-2024
Receptor
Maximum
Concentration
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Weight CPF RISK
(per
million)
REL RfD
Index ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Exposure Duration (years) 2.00
Daily Breathing Rate 1090
Age Sensitivity Factor 10
Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 1
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 730
E= 10X, i.e., E-02 = 10-2
Table 12 - Table 19 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Carcinogenic Risks & Non-
Carcinogenic Infant Exposure Scenario (2-year) - 2023-2024
Table 20: Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Child Exposure Scenario – 2025-2038
Receptor
Maximum
Concentration
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Weight CPF RISK
(per
million)
REL RfD
Index ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.00042 4.2E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.15 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
2 0.00079 7.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.29 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
3 0.00079 7.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.29 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
4 0.00052 5.2E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.19 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
5 0.00133 1.3E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.48 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0003
6 0.00109 1.1E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.39 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
7 0.00091 9.1E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.33 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
8 0.00033 3.3E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.12 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
9 0.00016 1.6E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.06 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000
10 0.00025 2.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.09 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
Note: OEHHA 95th percentile exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake:
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Exposure Duration (years) 14
Daily Breathing Rate 572
Age Sensitivity Factor 3
Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 1
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 5110
E= 10X, i.e., E-02 = 10-2
Table 13 - Table 20 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Carcinogenic Risks & Non-
Carcinogenic Child Exposure Scenario - 2025-2038
Attachment #1
51
Page 46 of 153
Table 21: Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Adult Exposure Scenario (16-30 years) – 2039-2052
Receptor
Maximum
Concentration
Carcinogenic Hazards Noncarcinogenic Hazards
Weight CPF RISK
(per
million)
REL RfD
Index ID (ug/m3) (mg/m3) Fraction Contaminant (mg/kg/day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg/day)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
1 0.00034 3.4E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.01 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
2 0.00065 6.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.03 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
3 0.00065 6.5E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.03 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
4 0.00044 4.4E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.02 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
5 0.0012 1.2E-06 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.05 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
6 0.00098 9.8E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.04 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
7 0.00081 8.1E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.03 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0002
8 0.00029 2.9E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.01 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0001
9 0.00013 1.3E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.01 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000
10 0.00022 2.2E-07 1.00E+00 DPM 1.1E+00 0.01 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 0.0000
Note: OEHHA 95th percentile exposure factors used to calculate TAC intake:
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350
Exposure Duration (years) 14
Daily Breathing Rate 261
Age Sensitivity Factor 1
Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) 0.73
Averaging Time (cancer) (days) 25550
Averaging Time (non-cancer) (days) 5110
E= 10X, i.e., E-02 = 10-2
Table 14 - Table 21 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Carcinogenic Risks & Non-
Carcinogenic Adult Exposure Scenario (16-30 years) - 2039-2052
Estimated cancer risk was based on a conservative maximum duration that a long-term resident might
live on the property, i.e., 30 years. Based on these conservative assumptions, the 30.25-year cumulative
carcinogenic health risk (3rd trimester [-0.25 to 0 years] + infant [0-2 years] + child [2-16 years] + adult
[16-30 years]) to an individual born during the opening year of the project, and located in the project
vicinity for the entire 30-year duration, is a maximum of 1.08 in a million at receptor location 5, as shown
in Table 22.
Table 22: Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk 30.25-Year Exposure Scenario
Receptor ID Cumulative RISK (per million)
1 0.37
2 0.70
3 0.70
4 0.45
5 1.08
6 0.89
7 0.74
8 0.28
9 0.14
10 0.20
Table 15 - Table 22 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study -
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risks 30.25 Year Exposure Scenario
Attachment #1
52
Page 47 of 153
Therefore, as the residential cancer risk does not exceed 10 in a million, the ongoing operations of the
proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the cancer risk from diesel
emissions created by the proposed project.
Non-Cancer Risks
The equation gives the relationship for non-cancer health effects:
HIDPM = CDPM/RELDPM
Where:
HIDPM = Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.
CDPM = Annual average diesel particulate matter concentration in µg/m3.
RELDPM = Reference Exposure Level (REL) for diesel particulate matter; the diesel
particulate matter concentration at which no adverse health effects are
anticipated.
The non-carcinogenic hazards to adult, child, and infant receptors are also detailed in Tables 18 through
21 columns (j). The RELDPM is 5 µg/m3. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has
established this concentration as protective for the respiratory system. Using the maximum DPM
concentration from the years 2022-2052, the resulting Hazard Index is:
HIDPM = 0.0035/5 = 0.0007
The criterion for significance is a Hazard Index increase of 1.0 or greater. Therefore, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact due to the non-cancer risk from diesel emissions created by
the proposed project.
d) No impact. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project are the single-family residential land
uses located approximately 30 feet to the west and the multi-family residential land use located 40 feet to
the north of the project site. SDAPCD Rule 51, commonly referred to as the public nuisance rule,
prohibits emissions from any source in such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause
injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to public health or damage to property. The potential for an
operation to result in odor complaints from a “considerable” number of persons in the area would be
considered to be a significant, adverse odor impact.
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials
such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process
are short-term in nature. The odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the
odor-producing materials. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during the project's construction,
which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and,
therefore, should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Furthermore,
construction emissions would not exceed the City of Chula Vista thresholds. Due to the short-term nature
and limited amounts of odor-producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors
would occur during the proposed project's construction.
Land uses and industrial operations typically associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses,
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding. The proposed operations include a site-specific warehouse/distribution use that
includes 9,230 square feet of office use and 168,926 square feet of warehouse/distribution use. The
anticipated uses for the proposed industrial use are not typically associated with objectionable odors.
Furthermore, the project will not contribute to any cumulative odor impacts through compliance with
SDAPCD Rule 51, which prohibits emissions from a project that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance,
or annoyance to public health or damage to property, as discussed in Section 6.4. Therefore, this project
Attachment #1
53
Page 48 of 153
will have no impact on emissions (such as those leading to odors), adversely affecting a substantial
number of people.
Health and Equity Impacts
While not a CEQA threshold, the new CalEEMod Version 2022.1 provides information on the existing
pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability that are critical factors in determining the full impact of a project.
CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 creates a score based on the existing pollution burden and population
characteristics to demonstrate the effects of pollution burden. The maximum CES score is 100. A high score
(i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden than other state census tracts. The CES score for the
project area is currently 66.
Additionally, the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) is based on a composite of all HPI indicators and
scores the existing health of a community. The maximum HPI score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than
50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. The HPI for the
existing project area is 57.
The project would not exceed any thresholds of significance as demonstrated in sections 6.1 – Construction
Air Quality Emission Impact and 6.2 – Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact of the Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C). It would also not contribute to a cumulative
impact in the area, as discussed in section 6.5 – Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts. Therefore, the
project would not contribute to worsening the area's health and equity.
Furthermore, the project has implemented programs to improve social equity by encouraging community
input and maintaining community communication through the noticing process for the CEQA review and
hearing process. The complete list of health and equity measures to be implemented can be found in the
CalEEMod output in Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study
(Appendix C). Based on these measures, the project would qualify for the first tier of the CalEEMod Health
and Equity Evaluation Scorecard, the Acorn equity award level.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural Community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
Attachment #1
54
Page 49 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with an established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or another approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
The results of the Biology Letter Report for 517 Shinohara Lane, City of Chula Vista, California, prepared by
Dudek on November 28, 2022 (Appendix D), have found the project will have a less than significant impact
with mitigation on species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species. The Biology Letter Report
is cited here using Section 6 – Project Impacts and Section 7 – Mitigation (pages 9 – 13).
a) Less than significant with mitigation.
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Direct Impacts
The proposed project would impact the entire site. The acreages and mitigation requirements are
summarized in Table 1 below. Urban/developed lands and disturbed habitat provide little native habitat
value and foraging opportunities for wildlife, and impacts to these vegetation communities/land covers
would not be considered significant. No mitigation is required for impacts to eucalyptus woodland,
disturbed habitat, or urban/developed lands in accordance with the requirements in the Habitat Loss
Incidental Take (HLIT) ordinance.
Direct impacts to 0.54 acres of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub and 7.04 acres of non-native grassland
would be considered significant, and mitigation would be required, according to the requirements and
ratios in the HLIT ordinance and Table 5-3 of the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan
(MSCP) (Table 1). Impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover within the Study Area
Habitat Type Tier Acreage Mitigation Ratios1 Required Mitigation (Ac)
Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub II 0.54 1:1 0.54
Eucalyptus woodland IV 0.10 N/A 0
Non-native grassland III 7.04 0.5:1 3.52
Attachment #1
55
Page 50 of 153
Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover within the Study Area
Habitat Type Tier Acreage Mitigation Ratios1 Required Mitigation (Ac)
Disturbed Habitat IV 2.04 N/A 0
Urban/Developed2 IV 0.02 N/A 0
Total -- 9.74 -- 4.06
1. The mitigation ratios range is based on the mitigation location of the mitigation inside the preserve).
2. This acreage represents an existing drainage structure off-site that may be modified on an adjacent property at 505
Main Street (644-040-24-00) if authorization is granted.
Table 16 - Table 1 of Biology Letter Report - Vegetation Communities & Land Cover within the Study Area
Figure 30 - Figure 2 of the Biology Letter Report
Attachment #1
56
Page 51 of 153
Indirect Impacts
The entire site would be impacted so that no short-term indirect impacts would occur to on-site
vegetation communities. Short-term indirect impacts that may affect the small amount of undeveloped
areas adjacent to the project site include dust, invasive plant species, and increased human presence.
Typical construction BMPs will limit the spread of dust. The increased human presence is a potential
short-term indirect impact. During construction, typical BMPs, such as having trash containers on-site, a
demarcated limit of work, and contractor education, will limit the potential for trash and other human
disturbance. The project plans will incorporate methods to control runoff, including a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations. Therefore, short-term indirect impacts to off-site, adjacent vegetation communities are not
considered significant.
The only potential long-term indirect impact is the change in stormwater discharge hydrology
downstream of the project. The project will be designed in accordance with NPDES regulations, and as
such, the project will have no impact on any long-term indirect adverse impacts
Special-Status Plant Species
Direct Impacts
No special-status plants were detected in the project study area during the 2018, 2021, or 2022 surveys.
Additionally, focused rare plant surveys were conducted for rare late-season blooming species, with no
special-status plant species detected on the project site. There are no special-status plant species with a
moderate or high potential to occur within the project study area. Due to the extent of vegetative
disturbance and lack of suitable substrate, special-status plant species are not expected to occur (see
Appendix D of the Biology Letter Report Appendix D). Therefore, no significant direct impacts to
special-status plants are anticipated.
Indirect Impacts
Following the completion of the vegetation mapping in 2018 and the site visit in 2021, no special-status
plant species with moderate to high potential to occur adjacent to the study area. Therefore, indirect
impacts on off-site special-status plant species are not expected.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Direct Impacts
A monarch butterfly was observed nectaring on-site during the July 2021 site visit. While there are
flowering plants, the site lacks this species’ host plant (Asclepias spp.) and suitable overwintering habitat,
and impacts to this special-status species would be less than significant. While burrowing owl has a low
potential to occur and was not detected during site surveys, including the focused burrowing owl survey,
if this species were to occur on-site prior to project activities, impacts to an active nest would be
considered significant, absent mitigation. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant through
the implementation of MM BIO-2.
No other special-status wildlife species were detected during the 2018 or 2021 surveys. The potential for
special-status species to occur in the study area is low due to the disturbed nature of the site (past grading,
presence of invasive species, etc.). The location is surrounded by urban development (Appendix E of the
Biology Letter Report Appendix D). Based on this information, no additional significant direct impacts
to special-status wildlife species are anticipated.
Attachment #1
57
Page 52 of 153
All raptor species and their nests are protected under the California Fish and Game Code, and raptor
species may use the site for foraging. Stands of small ornamental trees are present within the project study
area, and a red-tailed hawk was seen soaring over the site; however, no nests were observed. Although
raptor species have the potential to occur in the study area, lands within the impact footprint are primarily
disturbed. Although raptors are unlikely to nest on the project site, the potential impact to nesting raptors
would be avoided by implementing MM BIO-3.
Indirect Impacts
Most indirect impacts on vegetation communities previously described can also affect special-status
wildlife. Wildlife may also be indirectly affected in the short term by construction-related noise, which
can disrupt normal activities and subject wildlife to higher predation risks. Adverse edge effects can cause
degradation of habitat quality through the invasion of pest species. Nesting birds can be significantly
affected by short-term construction-related noise, resulting in the disruption of foraging, nesting, and
reproductive activities.
The project vicinity supports suitable vegetation for bird nesting, including trees associated with the street
and property landscaping and vegetated areas mapped onsite. The property and surrounding areas have
the potential to support nesting habitat for common raptors (e.g., red-tailed hawk) and songbirds
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Indirect impacts from construction-related noise may occur
to breeding wildlife if construction occurs during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 through September
15). Wildlife would be significantly affected by noise based on suitable habitat in the project vicinity.
Species whose breeding/nesting may be significantly impacted by noise include common raptor species.
This impact would be considered a significant impact absent mitigation. Impacts would be reduced to
less than significant through the implementation of MM BIO-3.
The site is surrounded by development, and wildlife use is limited to urban-adapted wildlife species (see
Response IV d) below and Section 4.5 of the Biology Letter Report (Appendix D)). The site is not located
within a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. Because the site has limited capacity to support wildlife
species and no special-status reptiles, amphibians, or mammals have the potential to occur, no significant
impacts to wildlife from traffic collisions would occur.
The project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
However, as discussed above, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM
BIO-3, the impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.
b) No impact.
No jurisdictional resources were identified within the project impact area. Therefore, there are no direct
or indirect impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
Therefore, the project will have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural Community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) No impact. The project disturbed area does not have any state or federally-protected wetlands.
Therefore, the project will have no adverse impact on state or federally-protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
d) No impact.
Attachment #1
58
Page 53 of 153
Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues
for the immigration and emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability
through the following:
1. Ensuring the continual exchange of genes between populations, which helps maintain genetic
diversity
2. Providing access to adjacent habitat areas, representing additional territory for foraging and
mating
3. Allowing for a greater carrying capacity
4. Providing routes for colonization of habitat lands following local population extinctions or
habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires)
Habitat linkages are patches of native habitat that function to join two larger patches of habitat. They
serve as connections between habitat patches and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation.
Although individual animals may not move through a habitat linkage, the linkage does represent a
potential route for gene flow and long-term dispersal. Habitat linkages may serve as both habitat and
avenues of gene flow for small animals such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be
represented by continuous patches of habitat or nearby habitat “islands” that function as “stepping
stones” for dispersal.
The MSCP defines core and linkage areas as those maintaining ecosystem function and processes,
including large animal movement. Each core area is connected to other core areas or habitat areas outside
the MSCP through common boundaries or habitat linkages. Core areas have multiple connections to help
ensure that the balance in the ecosystem will be maintained. The project site is not located within a
biological core area or biological linkage (see Figure 1-4 of the Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003)).
The Otay River Valley provides a major wildlife corridor for the entire South Bay region (Figure 3). The
Otay River is located approximately 0.25 miles from the project site and is separated entirely by residential
and commercial development and Main Street.
The project site is not expected to provide for wildlife movement or serve as a habitat linkage since it is
not connected to or located near other habitat areas. The project is located within an undeveloped parcel
surrounded by existing, high-density commercial and residential development. Because of regular human
activity and considerable vehicle traffic in and surrounding the project site, predominantly urban-adapted
wildlife species are expected to occur in this area, such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and brush rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.).
There are no wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on site. The project is surrounded by urban
development, has no habitat connectivity, and serves no wildlife movement functions. Therefore, there
are no significant impacts on wildlife corridors or habitat linkages.
e) Less than significant impact. The City does have a Tree Preservation Policy (Policy Number 576-05)
City Council Resolution No. 6192. However, this policy concerns the preservation of street trees, and no
street trees are proposed for removal with the project.
The project site is located within the Development Area of the City Planning Component as identified in
the Subarea Plan of the MSCP. It has not been identified as a strategic preserve area within the City, nor
is it located within a designated conservation area; therefore, the project would not impact the goals and
objectives of the City’s Subarea Plan.
The project will impact native vegetation and wetlands (i.e., maritime succulent scrub; tamarisk scrub),
and as such, the project is subject to conformance with the City’s HLIT Ordinance. The HLIT Ordinance
findings are provided in Tables 2, 3, and 4 of the Biological Letter Report (Appendix D).
Attachment #1
59
Page 54 of 153
Implementation of the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, and the project would have less than significant impact.
f) No impact.
Direct Impact
The project design is consistent with the MSCP Subarea Plan through specific adherence to
mitigation/conveyance requirements for Development Projects Outside of Covered Projects as defined
in the City MSCP Subarea Plan. As noted in Section 1, Introduction of the Biological Technical Report
(Appendix D), the project is located within the Development Area of the City Planning Component as
identified in the Subarea Plan. It has not been identified as a strategic preserve area within the City, nor
is it located within a designated conservation area/preserve. The project site is separated from the Otay
River preserve by Main Street and, therefore, is not subject to the Adjacency Management Issues. Overall,
the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Subarea Plan.
Appendices D and E of the Biological Technical Report (Appendix D) include a list of the plant and
wildlife species observed or potentially occurring on-site that are Covered species under the MSCP and
their conditions of coverage from Table 3-5 of the Subarea Plan.
Indirect Impact
The project design is consistent with the MSCP Subarea Plan through specific adherence to
mitigation/conveyance requirements for Development Projects Outside of Covered Projects as defined
in the City MSCP Subarea Plan. As noted in Section 1.3, Site Description of the Biological Technical
Report (Appendix D), the project site is located within the Development Area of the City Planning
Component as identified in the Subarea Plan. It has not been identified as a strategic preserve area within
the City, nor is it located within a designated conservation area.
Therefore, the project does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or another approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan and has no impact.
Mitigation:
MM BIO-1: Compensatory Uplands Mitigation: Per the HLIT ordinance, 7.58 acres of impacts to
sensitive uplands shall be mitigated at the required mitigation ratios (Table 1). To compensate
for the loss of 0.54 acre of disturbed coastal sage scrub (Tier II) and 7.04 acres of non-native
grassland (Tier III), mitigation would be provided through compensatory upland mitigation.
Compensatory Uplands Mitigation. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit including
clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction permits, the project applicant shall mitigate
direct impacts to 0.54 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat pursuant to the City of Chula Vista
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) and Habitat
Loss Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance. Per the HLIT Ordinance, impacts on coastal sage
scrub shall be mitigated at the ratios identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan Table 5-3.
Considering the project site is located outside of the preserve, coastal sage scrub mitigation
shall be provided through the purchase of credits at the San Miguel Conservation Bank at a
1:1 ratio. The project applicant shall mitigate direct impacts to 7.04 acres of non-native
grassland habitat pursuant to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT
Ordinance. Per the HLIT Ordinance, impacts on non-native grassland shall be mitigated at
the ratios identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan Table 5-3. Considering the project site is
located outside of the preserve, non-native grassland mitigation through the purchase of
credits at the San Miguel Conservation Bank at a 0.5:1 ratio.
Attachment #1
60
Page 55 of 153
The applicant shall secure mitigation credits within the San Miguel Conservation Bank.
Mitigation Credits shall be for habitat of equivalent or higher habitat value than coastal sage
scrub for impacts to coastal sage scrub and equivalent or higher habitat value than non-native
grasslands for non-native grassland impacts, with value determined consistent with the
Subarea Plan tier system (see Subarea Plan Table 5-3). The applicant is required to provide
the City with verification of mitigation credit purchase prior to issuance of any grading permit,
including clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction permit.
MM BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys. Take avoidance surveys are intended to detect
the presence of burrowing owls on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform necessary
take avoidance actions. Take avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl presence, such as
colonizing owls that have recently moved onto the site, migrating owls, resident burrowing
owls changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have not dispersed
(CDFG 2012). Prior to the issuance of any land development permits, including clearing,
grubbing, and grading permits, the Proposed Project applicant or its designee shall retain a
qualified biologist to conduct take avoidance surveys for burrowing owls. The take avoidance
survey(s) can be conducted between 14 days and 24 hours prior to initiating ground
disturbance activities; however, time lapses between project activities may require subsequent
surveys within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. The development of avoidance and
minimization approaches would be informed by monitoring the burrowing owls.
MM BIO-3: Avoidance of Nesting Bird Impacts: To avoid any direct impacts on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the HLIT, MSCP Subregional Plan, or
other local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, removal
of habitat that supports active nests in the proposed project study area should occur outside
of the breeding season of these species (February 1 to September 15), where feasible. If the
removal of habitat must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds within the
proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than
72 hours prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). If more
than 72 hours lapse between the original survey and construction activities that include
vegetation removal on all or a portion of the site, a new survey(s) shall be conducted. If
nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with the HLIT
and applicable state and federal law (e.g., appropriate follow-up surveys, monitoring
schedules, and construction barriers/buffers) shall be prepared and include proposed
measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs is avoided. The report or
mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented to
the satisfaction of the City.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
Attachment #1
61
Page 56 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formally dedicated cemeteries?
Comments:
The Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Shinohara Industrial Project, 517 Shinohara Lane, Chula
Vista, San Diego County, California, prepared by Red Tail Environmental, July 2021 (Appendix E), includes a
cultural and historical resources study and archaeological investigation within the project area. The main goal of
the archaeological investigations was to gather and analyze the information needed to determine if the project
would impact cultural resources.
a) No impact. As defined by CEQA, no historic resources are present within the project area, and project
implementation will not cause an adverse change to a historical resource (page 26 Archaeological
Resources Survey Report (Appendix E)). Therefore, the project will have no impact or cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
b) No impact. The study was negative for cultural resources. No archaeological resources were identified
within the project area during the survey. Archival research indicated that no previously recorded
resources were present within the project area. Research of historic topographic maps and aerial imagery
also indicated that the parcel had not been previously developed. However, it appears to have been graded
and highly disturbed. Due to the lack of archaeological resources and indicators of intact subsurface
deposits observed during the survey effort, the previous grading within the project area, and the negative
Sacred Lands File search, no further archaeological work is recommended (page 26 Archaeological
Resources Survey Report (Appendix E)). Therefore, the project will have no impact on causing a
substantial adverse change on a significant archaeological resource. See Section XVIII – Tribal Cultural
Resources for impacts on tribal cultural resources.
c) Less than significant. No cemeteries or human remains are known to occur on-site. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code §5097.98 and Health and Safety Code §7050.5, in the event of the accidental discovery
or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps
shall be taken:
(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
(A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to
determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within
24 hours.
2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native
American.
3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner
or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or
disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated
grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or
Attachment #1
62
Page 57 of 153
(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall
rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
(A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely
descendent, or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within
24 hours after being notified by the commission.
(B) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
(C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the
descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to
provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Following the requirements of Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Health and Safety Code §7050.5 will
ensure that if human remains are discovered, they will be handled appropriately. Therefore, the project
will have a less than significant impact on human remains.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Comments:
Shinohara Industrial Center Project – CEQA Energy Review, 517 Shinohara Lane City of Chula Vista, CA,
prepared by MD Acoustics LLC, December 5, 2022 (Appendix F), determined the project would not potentially
cause a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during project construction or operation.
a) Less than significant impact.
Construction Energy Demand
The construction schedule is anticipated to begin no earlier than March 2023 and will be completed by
mid-Spring 2024 in one phase.8F
9 Staging of construction vehicles and equipment will occur on-site.
9 The estimated construction timeline was generated based on CalEEMod default construction timelines for each phase of construc tion and a
completion date of mid-spring 2024.
Attachment #1
63
Page 58 of 153
Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates
SDG&E will provide electrical service. This section focuses on the energy implications of the construction
process, specifically the power cost from on-site electricity consumption during the proposed project's
construction. Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017)9F
10, the typical
power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. The project
plans to develop the site with a 168,926 square foot warehouse/distribution space, with 4,506 square feet
of office space and 4,724 square feet of mezzanine space over approximately 18 months. Based on Table
3, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the proposed project construction is
estimated to be approximately $7,439.96. Furthermore, SDG&E’s service rate schedule is approximately
$0.24 per kWh of electricity for the proposed industrial project.10F
11 As shown in Table 3, the total electricity
usage from project construction-related activities is estimated to be approximately 31,392 kWh.
Table 3: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage
Power Cost (per 1,000 square foot of
building per month of construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 178.160 18 7,439.96
Cost per kWh Total Project Construction Electricity
Usage (kWh)
$0.24 31,392
*Assumes the project will be under Schedule TOU-A rate under SDG&E and, to be conservative, uses the lower
anticipated cost per kWh. Source: https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/3-1-
21%20Small%20Commercial%20Total%20Rates%20Table.pdf
Table 17 - Table 3 of the CEQA Energy Review - Project Construction Power Cost & Electricity
Usage
Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates
Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended for project
construction. Fuel consumed by construction equipment was evaluated with the following assumptions:
• Construction schedule of approximately 18 months
• All construction equipment was assumed to run on diesel fuel
• Typical daily use of 8 hours, with some equipment operating from ~6-7 hours
• Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 bhp-hr/day (from CARB’s
2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the
Moyer
Guidelines:(https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf).
• Diesel fuel would be the responsibility of the equipment operators/contractors and would be sourced
within the region.
• Project construction represents a “single-event” for diesel fuel demand and would not require an
ongoing or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources during long-term operation.
Using the CalEEMod data input from the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study
(Appendix C), the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single
energy demand. Once construction is completed, their use is completed would cease. CARB’s 2017
Emissions Factors Tables show that aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be
approximately 18.5 bhp-hr-gal. Table 4 shows the results of the analysis of construction equipment.
10 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad : Craftsman Book Company, 2017.
11 Assumes the project will be under Schedule TOU-A rate under SDG&E and, to be conservative, uses the lower anticipated cost per kWh. Source:
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/3-1-21%20Small%20Commercial%20Total%20Rates%20Table.pdf
Attachment #1
64
Page 59 of 153
Table 4: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage
Hours
Horse
power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/day
Total
Fuel
Consump
tion
(gal diesel
fuel)1
Grading
28 Graders 1 8 187 0.41 613 928
28 Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 480 727
28 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 790 1,196
28 Earthmovers/Tractors/Load
ers/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 861 1,304
Building
Construction
319 Cranes 1 7 231 0.29 469 8,086
319 Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 427 7,366
319 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 497 8,575
319 Earthmovers/Tractors/Load
ers/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 754 12,996
319 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 166 2,855
Paving
28 Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 874 1,322
28 Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 760 1,151
28 Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 486 736
Architectural
Coating 28 Air-Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 225 340
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 47,583
Notes:
1 Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp.
(Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf )
2 Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding.
Table 18 - Table 4 of the CEQA Energy Review - Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
As presented in Table 4, project construction activities would consume an estimated 47,583 gallons of
diesel fuel. Project construction would represent a “single-event” diesel fuel demand and would not
require an ongoing or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.
Construction Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light-duty autos (LDA) along area roadways. With
respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 301,454 VMT. Data
regarding project-related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod 2022.1 model defaults.
Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C) using information generated from CARB’s EMFAC model (see
Appendix A of the Energy Review (Appendix F) for details). The aggregate fuel efficiency of 31.67 miles
per gallon (mpg) was used to calculate vehicle miles traveled for construction worker trips. Table 5 shows
that an estimated 9,519 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips.
Table 5: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grading 28 15 12 5,040 31.67 159
Building Construction 319 74.8 12 286,334 31.67 9,041
Paving 28 15 12 5,040 31.67 159
Architectural Coating 28 15 12 5,040 31.67 159
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 9,519
Notes:
1 Assumption for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1 defaults.
Table 19 - Table 5 of the CEQA Energy Review - Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Attachment #1
65
Page 60 of 153
Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates
Tables 6 and 7 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction
and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate
an estimated 88,264 VMT. Data regarding project-related construction worker trips were based on
CalEEMod 2022.1 model defaults.
For the architectural coatings, it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing
coatings and equipment with them in their light-duty vehicles. Therefore, vendors delivering construction
material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy-duty vehicles with an
average fuel consumption of 8.4 mpg for medium heavy-duty trucks and 6.41 mpg for heavy heavy-duty
trucks (see Appendix A of the Energy Review (Appendix F) for details). Tables 6 and 7 show that an
estimated 11,143 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips
Table 6: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1
Phase Number
of Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grading 28 0 63 0 8.40 0
Building Construction 319 29.2 63 71,072 8.40 8,461
Paving 28 0 63 0 8.40 0
Architectural Coating 28 0 63 0 8.40 0
Total Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption 8,461
Notes:
1 The assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1 defaults.
Table 7: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1
Phase Number of
Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grading 28 22.3 20 12,488 6.41 1,948
Building Construction 319 0 20 0 6.41 0
Paving 28 8.4 20 4,704 6.41 734
Architectural Coating 28 0 20 0 6.41 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 2,682
Notes:
1 Assumption for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1 defaults.
Table 20 - Tables 6 & 7 of the CEQA Energy Review - Construction Vendor & Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates
Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Construction equipment over the 18-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations,
California emissions standards, and evidence of related fuel efficiencies. Construction of the proposed
industrial development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project
characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more
energy-intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current
emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in the project's construction
would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.
CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling
to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Additionally, as
required by the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, the
idling times of construction vehicles are limited to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing or
eliminating unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction
equipment. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by
City building officials and/or in response to citizen complaints. Compliance with these measures would
Attachment #1
66
Page 61 of 153
result in more efficient use of construction-related energy and minimize or eliminate wasteful or
unnecessary energy consumption. Idling restrictions and newer engines and equipment would result in
less fuel combustion and energy consumption.
Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards
and 2019 CALGreen Standards. These measures include but are not limited to water-conserving
plumbing, LED lighting, and water-efficient irrigation systems.
Operation Energy Demand
Energy consumption in project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy
consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands
(energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).
Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be the vehicle operation of employees and truck trips.
The site is located in an urbanized area at 517 Shinohara Lane, just east of the 805 Freeway. Furthermore,
there are existing transit services provided by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (SDMTS),
approximately a 0.2-mile walking distance of the proposed project site. The nearest transit service is
SDMTS Routes 703 and 704, with a stop along Auto Park Drive and Oleander Avenue.
Using the CalEEMod output from the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study
(Appendix C), an average trip for autos and light trucks was 9.5 miles 3-axle trucks were assumed to travel
an average of 7.3 miles, and 4-axle trucks were assumed to travel an average of 40 miles11F
12. It was assumed
that vehicles would operate 365 days per year to be conservative. Table 8 shows all vehicles estimated
annual fuel consumption, from autos to heavy-heavy trucks.12F
13 The proposed distribution project would
generate approximately 4,881 trips per day. The vehicle fleet mix was used from the CalEEMod output
from the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C). Table 8 shows that
an estimated 912,487 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year to operate the proposed project.
Table 8: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles2
Average
Trip
(miles)1
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 2,746 9.5 26,088 32.12 812.21 296,458
Light Truck Automobile 312 9.5 2,960 26.41 112.06 40,902
Light Truck Automobile 898 9.5 8,533 26.62 320.55 117,001
Medium Truck Automobile 599 9.5 5,691 20.43 278.54 101,667
Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 121 9.5 1,151 11.46 100.43 36,657
Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 31 9.5 293 11.86 24.69 9,014
Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 42 7.3 308 8.39 36.66 13.382
Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 132 40.0 5,280 6.48 814.81 297,407
Total 4,881 -- 50,303 17.97 2,499.96 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 912,487
Notes:
1 Based on the size of the site and relative location, heavy-heavy truck trips were assumed to be regional, and all other trips were assumed to l.
2 Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding.
Table 21 - Table 8 of the CEQA Energy Review - Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Trip generation and VMT generated by the project are consistent with similar warehouse/distribution
uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected in the (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic
Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). The project does not propose uses or operations
12 CalEEMod default distance for H-W (home-work) or C-W (commercial-work) is 9.5 miles; 7.3 miles for H-O (home-other) or C-O (commercial-
other), 40 miles is a conservative estimate for the 132 4-axle truck trips estimated for the project.
13 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for the opening year (2024). See Appendix A of the CEQA Energy
Review (Appendix F) for EMFAC output.
Attachment #1
67
Page 62 of 153
that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and
wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Furthermore, California consumed approximately 4.2 billion
gallons of diesel and 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015.13F
14
14F
15 Therefore, the increase in fuel
consumption from the project is insignificant compared to the state’s demand. Therefore, project
transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise
unnecessary.
Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas)
Building operation and site maintenance (including landscape maintenance) would result in the
consumption of electricity and natural gas (provided by SDG&E). The project’s operation would involve
energy for heating, cooling, and equipment operation. These facilities would comply with all applicable
California Energy Efficiency Standards and 2019 CALGreen Standards.
The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output from the Air
Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C) in Table 9.
Table 9: Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1
Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 2,613,095
Total 2,613,095
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 776,770
Parking Lot 149,963
Total 926,733
Notes:
1 Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1 annual output in the Shinohara Industrial Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health
Risk Impact Study (Appendix C).
Table 22 - Table 9 of the CEQA Energy Review - Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary
As shown in Table 9, the estimated electricity demand for the project is approximately 926,733 kWh per
year. In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of San Diego consumed approximately 11,658
million kWh of electricity.15F
16 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the project is
approximately 2,613,095 kBTU per year. In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of San Diego
consumed approximately 202 million therms of gas.16F
17 Therefore, the project’s increase in electricity and
natural gas demand is insignificant compared to the County’s 2020 non-residential sector demand.
Energy use in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed
by uses that are independent of the construction of the building, such as plug-in appliances. In California,
the California Building Standards Code Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment,
mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting. Non-building energy use or “plug-in” energy use
can be subdivided by specific end-use (refrigeration, cooking, appliances, etc.).
Furthermore, the project energy demands would be comparable to other industrial projects of similar
scale and configuration. Therefore, the project facilities’ energy demands, and consumption would not
be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
As supported by the preceding analyses, neither construction nor operation of the project would result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption or wasteful use of energy resources. The project
does not include any unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use
of equipment that would be more energy-intensive than is used for similar activities and is an industrial
project that is not proposing any additional features that would require a larger energy demand than other
14 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics
15 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics
16 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
17 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
Attachment #1
68
Page 63 of 153
industrial projects of similar scale and configuration. As the project is consistent with the existing General
Plan land use designation, the energy demands of the project are anticipated to be accommodated within
the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. Therefore, the project would not cause or
result in the need for additional energy-producing or transmission facilities. The project would not engage
in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservation goals within California.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact.
b) No impact.
Plan Consistency
Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in a developed area. Access
to/from the project site is from the existing roads of Shinohara Lane and Brandywine Avenue. These
roads exist, so the project would not interfere with nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans
or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because SANDAG is not planning for
intermodal facilities in the project area.
Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the
applicant must comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy-
efficient buildings and appliances and utility energy efficiency programs implemented by SDG&E.
Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or
exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part
11 (CALGreen). CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ
building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills,
use LED lighting, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials.
As shown in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C) – Section 7.3
– Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency, the project is also consistent with the reduction strategies of the
City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan (CAP).
Site Conditions for Renewable Energy Sources
The on-site renewable energy sources considered but deemed infeasible include the following.
Geothermal energy, the use of heat naturally present in shallow soil or groundwater or rock to provide
building heating/cooling and to heat water, requires the installation of a heat exchanger consisting of a
network of below-ground pipes to convey heated or cooled air to a building. The presence of natural-
occurring methane and hydrogen sulfide gases in the soil beneath the project site and the project area,
associated with underlying and nearby oil and gas fields, requires the implementation of a Gas Mitigation
and Monitoring System to ensure subsurface gases do not pose significant health or safety risk and makes
the construction and operation of a heat exchanger for project buildings infeasible. Installation of a heat
exchanger would also require additional excavation compared to the project, which could increase impacts
on paleontological resources.
Although methane is a renewable-derived biogas, it is not available on the project site in commercially
viable quantities or form (i.e., a form that could be used without further treatment), and its extraction and
treatment for energy purposes would result in secondary impacts.
Wind power represents variable-energy, or intermittent, resources generally used to augment, but not
replace, natural gas-fired energy power generation since the reliability of energy availability and
transmission is necessary to meet demand, which is constant. The City of Chula Vista Code requires that
Electrical Generating Facilities (including wind renewables) be located 1,000 feet away from residential
communities. The subject property is 812 feet by 515 feet, with residential communities located 30 feet
Attachment #1
69
Page 64 of 153
to the west and 40 feet to the north. Therefore, as the 1,000-foot separation requirements could not be
met at the project site, wind power could not be used to augment energy at this location.
Concerning other on-site renewable energy sources, because of the project’s location, there are no local
sources of energy from the following sources: biodiesel, biomass hydroelectric and small hydro, digester
gas, fuel cells, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, ocean thermal, ocean wave, and tidal current
technologies, or multi-fuel facilities using renewable fuels.
Future Renewable Energy Usage
The project will include a pre-installed conduit and an engineered roof for future solar energy panels. At
this time, the tenants are unknown, so the feasibility of installing rooftop solar at the time of the
completion of warehouse construction and beginning of operation (anticipated build-out year is 2024)
will depend on the tenant’s needs. Factors evaluated will include the cost of the solar system, tax
incentives, rebates, or incentives from the electricity provider, how much power the system will produce,
and the utility cost of electricity.
Additionally, while natural gas lines would be connected to the project, future tenants may decide not to
use natural gas and only power the project with electricity. As shown in Table 2, 31.3% of the power
provided by SDG&E was from renewable sources in 2019, which would further renewable energy usage
for the project.
Therefore, the project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Attachment #1
70
Page 65 of 153
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Comments:
The Geotechnical Investigation Shinohara Industrial Building 517 Shinohara Lane Industrial Building Chula
Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, July 28, 2021 (Appendix G), found no soil or geologic
conditions that would preclude the development of the property as presently proposed, provided that the
recommendations of the report are followed (page 8).
a)
i) Less than significant impact. A review of the referenced geologic materials and Geocon’s
knowledge of the general area indicates that the site is not underlain by active, potentially active, or
inactive faults. However, a strand of the potentially active La Nacion Fault is mapped approximately
400 feet east of the site. An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault
showing evidence of activity within the last 11,700 years. The closest active fault is the Newport
Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault zone, located approximately eight miles west of the site. The site is not
located within the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (pages 4 -5 Geotechnical Investigation
(Appendix G)).
Considerations important in seismic design include the frequency and duration of motion and the soil
conditions underlying the site. The seismic design of structures should be evaluated in accordance with
the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the local agency (page 6
Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G)).
Surface Ground Rupture
Surface ground rupture associated with ground shaking represents primary or direct seismic hazards
to structures. The risk associated with ground rupture hazard is low due to the absence of active faults
at the subject site (page 6 Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G)).
Compliance with the Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix G) and the California Building
Code will ensure risks will be minimal associated with primary surface ground rupture and ground
shaking. The project will have a less than significant effect, directly or indirectly.
ii) Less than significant impact. See Section VII a) i) above.
iii) No impact. Seismic disturbances, when compounded with liquefaction, can be very destructive.
Liquefaction is when strong earthquake shaking causes sediment layers saturated with groundwater
to lose strength and behave as a fluid. This sub-surface process can lead to near-surface or surface
Attachment #1
71
Page 66 of 153
ground failure resulting in property damage and structural failure. If surface ground failure does occur,
it is usually expressed as lateral spreading, flow failures, ground oscillation, and/or general loss of
bearing strength. Sand boils (injections of fluidized sediment) can commonly accompany these
different types of failure.
As noted in Section VII a) i) above, there are no known active faults in the project site area. A review
of Figure 9-7 – Geologic Hazards of the General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 (page E-55) indicates
that the property is not within a liquefaction area. According to the Geotechnical Investigation Report
(Appendix G) (page 7), due to the lack of a permanent, near-surface groundwater table and the dense
nature of the underlying geologic units on the property, liquefaction potential for the site is considered
very low.
Given the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G) findings, implementing existing state and local
laws and regulations concerning soil liquefaction and ground failure will ensure the project will have
no impact related to liquefaction and ground failure directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
iv) Less than significant. A review of Figure 9-7 – Geologic Hazards of the General Plan Chula Vista
Vision 2020 (page E-55) found that the project site was not in a landslide hazard area or an area of
steep slopes. The project will include cuts and fills estimated to be up to 50 feet, with new slopes
approximately ten feet in height. Retaining walls will be required along the site's perimeter to reach
the pad grade. Retaining walls are proposed to include soil nail walls and mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) walls.
The Geotechnical Investigation did not observe evidence of previous or incipient slope instability at
the site during the study. Published geologic mapping indicates landslides are not present on or
immediately adjacent to the site (page 7 Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix G)).
Impacts related to landsliding and slope failure would be less than significant, directly, indirectly,
or cumulatively through compliance with the Geotechnical Investigation and the California Building
Code.
b) Less than significant. Project construction would be subject to local and state codes and erosion control
and grading requirements. Because construction activities would disturb one or more acres, the project
must adhere to the NPDES Construction General Permit provisions. Construction activities subject to
this permit include clearing, grading, and other soil disturbances, such as stockpiling and excavating. The
NPDES Construction General Permit requires implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan
(SWPPP), including temporary project construction features (i.e., BMPs) designed to prevent erosion and
protect the quality of stormwater runoff. Sediment-control BMPs may include stabilized construction
entrances, straw wattles on earthen embankments, sediment filters on existing inlets, or the equivalent.
In addition, grading activities would be required to conform to the most current version of the California
Building Code, the City Code, the approved grading plans, and BMP’s engineering practices. The project
must also comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rules 50 (Visible Emissions), 51
(Nuisance), and 55 (Fugitive Dust), as noted under Section III – Air Quality and on page 9 of the Air
Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C). Compliance with these federal,
regional, and local requirements would reduce the potential for both on-site and off-site erosion effects
to accepted levels during project construction.
Upon completion of construction activities, ground surfaces would be stabilized by project structures,
paving, and landscaping. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be
less than significant, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
Attachment #1
72
Page 67 of 153
c) Less than significant.
Landslides
A landslide is a movement of surface material down a slope. As noted in Section VII a) iv) above, impacts
related to landsliding and slope failure would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively
through compliance with the Geotechnical Investigation and the California Building Code.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spread refers to landslides that commonly form on gentle slopes with rapid fluid-like flow
movement, like water. Per the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G), the proposed structures or
facilities are expected to withstand predicted ground softening and/or vertical and lateral ground
spreading/displacements to an acceptable level of risk. However, due to the height of the mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) walls, some settlement/lateral wall movement will occur. The movement could
result in cracking in flatwork and pavement placed within the reinforced and retained zones of the wall.
Buildings or other improvements planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could also experience
this type of damage. Therefore, the Geotechnical Investigation lays out recommendations to limit the risk
of lateral spreading. Adherence to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G)
and the California Building Code will ensure that lateral spreading risks are less than significant, directly,
indirectly, and cumulatively.
Subsidence
Subsidence is the sinking of the land surface. Evidence of subsidence includes ground cracking and
damage to roadways, aqueducts, and structures. Subsidence caused by excessive groundwater pumping is
a common occurrence in areas of California where groundwater is pumped for agricultural and municipal
wells. Some shrinkage and subsidence are expected during the project grading activities as the pad is
prepared for the project. Adherence to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation
(Appendix G) will ensure that the project site meets all City Code requirements, and the effect of
subsidence will be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is when strong earthquake shaking causes sediment layers saturated with groundwater to
lose strength and behave as a fluid. This sub-surface process can lead to near-surface or surface ground
failure resulting in property damage and structural failure. If surface ground failure does occur, it is usually
expressed as lateral spreading, flow failures, ground oscillation, and/or general loss of bearing strength.
Sand boils (injections of fluidized sediment) can commonly accompany these different types of failure.
As noted in Response VII a) iii) above, Figure 9-7 – Geologic Hazards of the General Plan Chula Vista
Vision 2020 (page E-55) indicates that the property is not within a liquefaction area, and the project will
have no impact related to liquefaction.
Collapsible Soils
Collapsible Soils are low-density, silty to very fine-grained, predominantly granular soils containing minute
pores and voids. When saturated, these soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of
cementation, causing substantial, rapid settlement under even relatively light loads. A rise in the
groundwater table or an increase in surface water infiltration, combined with the weight of a building or
structure, can cause rapid settlement and consequent cracking of foundations and walls. Collapsible soils
generally result from rapid deposition close to the source of the sediment where the materials have not
been sufficiently moistened to form a compact soil.
Attachment #1
73
Page 68 of 153
Soils encountered at the site are underlain by Tertiary San Diego Formation capped with Very Old Paralic
Deposits, terrace deposits, alluvium, topsoil, previously placed fill, and undocumented fill. Adherence to
the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G) will ensure that the project site
meets all City Code requirements, and the effect of project grading will be less than significant, directly,
indirectly, and cumulatively.
d) Less than significant.
Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes;
the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semi-arid areas
with seasonal soil moisture changes experience a much higher frequency of problems from expansive
soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.
Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building code read as follows:
TABLE 18-1-B – CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOILS
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0 – 20 Very Low
21 – 50 Low
51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Above 130 Very High
Table 23 - Table 18-1 of the Uniform Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Volume 2, Chapter 18, Division 1 Section 1803.2 mandates that
special foundation design consideration is employed if the soil expansion Index is 20 or greater in
accordance with Table 18-1-B. The methodology and scope for a geotechnical investigation are described
in UBC Section 1803 and require an assessment of various factors, such as slope stability, soil strength,
load-bearing soils' adequacy, compressible or expansive presence of soils, and the liquefaction potential.
The required content of the geotechnical report includes recommendations for foundation type and
design criteria. These recommendations can include foundation design provisions intended to mitigate
the effects of expansive soils, liquefaction, and differential settlement. In general, mitigation can be
accomplished by combining ground modification techniques (i.e., stone columns, reinforcing nails and
anchors, deep soil mixing, etc.), selecting an appropriate foundation type and configuration, and using
appropriate building/structural foundation systems. Section 1804.5 Excavation, Grading, and Fill require
preparing a geotechnical report on where a building will be constructed on compacted fill.
The International Building Code (IBC) replaced earlier regional building codes (including the Uniform
Building Code) in 2000 and established consistent construction guidelines for the nation. In 2006, the
IBC was incorporated into the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) and currently applies to all structures
being constructed in California. Therefore, the national model codes are incorporated by reference into
the building codes of local municipalities. The CBC includes building design and construction criteria that
consider the state’s seismic conditions.
The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be both “non-expansive” (expansion index
[EI] of 20 and less) and “expansive” (EI greater than 20) as defined by the 2019 California Building Code
(CBC) Section 1803.5.3. It is expected that the majority of the soils that will be encountered in remedial
grading and cut areas will have “low” expansion potential. Portions of the topsoil possess a “medium” to
“high” expansion potential (EI of 51 or greater) Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G, page 9).
By adhering to state and local seismic and structural regulations (i.e., California Seismic Hazards Mapping
Act, California Building Code, and Chula Vista Municipal Code), the impacts of expansive soils will be
less than significant directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
e) No impact. Not applicable as the City of Chula Vista provides sewer to the project area, and the project
must connect to the sewer. No impact.
Attachment #1
74
Page 69 of 153
f) Less than significant with mitigation. The Paleontological Resources Inventory Report, prepared by
Dudek, on November 28, 2022 (Appendix H), found that with the implementation of mitigation
measures, project-related impacts on paleontological resources will be reduced to a level that is less than
significant with mitigation.
Per CEQA guidelines, Dudek performed a paleontological resources inventory project site. The inventory
consisted of a San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) records search, a review of geological
mapping and geological and paleontological literature, and intensive pedestrian surveys of the project site.
The results of the paleontological records search were negative for paleontological resources within the
project site; however, the SDNHM reported fossil localities nearby from the same geological units that
underlie the project site. Fragmentary, fossilized exoskeletal remains were documented during the
supplemental pedestrian survey (Figures 3 – 5 of the Paleontological Resources Inventory Report
(Appendix H)). N. Scott Rugh, an expert in invertebrate fossil identification, identified the exoskeletal
material as likely belonging to the crab, Randallia sp. (Rugh. Pers. Comm. 2020) (Paleontological
Resources Inventory Report page 1(Appendix H)).
As the project site has never been developed, there is a potential to encounter intact subsurface
paleontological resources. As such, a paleontological monitoring program, which includes the preparation
and implementation of a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP), is necessary to
reduce impacts on any potential paleontological resources onsite.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce any project-related impacts on
paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant (pages 7 - 9 Paleontological Resources
Inventory Report (Appendix H)).
Mitigation:
MM PAL-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Permittee/Owner shall provide written
confirmation to the City that a qualified paleontologist has prepared a Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) and has been retained to carry out the
PRIMP. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an MS or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques and
has expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy. The PRIMP shall be
consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines and contain
the following components:
• Introduction to the project, including project location, description of grading
activities that potentially may impact paleontological resources, and underlying
geologic units.
• Description of the relevant laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards pertinent to
the project and potential paleontological resources.
• Requirements for the qualified paleontologist to attend the pre-construction meeting
and provide worker environmental awareness training at the pre-construction
meeting and at the job site the day grading is to be initiated. In addition, the qualified
paleontologist shall inform the grading contractor and City Engineer of the
paleontological monitoring program methodologies.
• Identification of where paleontological monitoring of excavations impacting the San
Diego Formation, Very Old Paralic Deposits, and Old Alluvial Floodplain Deposits
are required within the project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical
reports.
Attachment #1
75
Page 70 of 153
• Procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring (including necessary monitoring
equipment), methods for treating fossil discoveries, fossil recovery procedures, and
sediment sampling for microvertebrate fossils, including the following requirements:
➢ A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting
of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately to highly sensitive geologic
units (e.g., San Diego Formation, very old paralic deposits, and old alluvial
floodplain deposits) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological
monitor is defined as an individual who has experience collecting and salvaging
fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist. Monitoring is not required during excavation within low
resource sensitivity geological units (e.g., young alluvial flood-plain deposits) if
determined to be present within the project site.
➢ Paleontological monitoring is not required in areas underlain by artificial fill
unless grading activities are anticipated to extend beneath the veneer of the fill
and impact underlying geological units with moderate to high paleontological
sensitivity (e.g., San Diego Formation, Very Old Paralic Deposits, and/or Old
Alluvial Floodplain Deposits).
➢ If fossils are discovered, the qualified paleontologist and/or paleontological
monitor shall recover them. The paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading within 50 feet of the
resource to allow recovery of fossil remains. Because of the potential for the
recovery of small fossil remains, it may be necessary in certain instances, and at
the discretion of the qualified paleontologist, to set up a screen-washing
operation on the project site. Alternatively, sediment samples can be collected
and processed off-site.
• Paleontological reporting, and collections management:
➢ Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, maps, and
the final paleontological monitoring report discussed below, shall be deposited
in a scientific institution with paleontological collections, such as the San Diego
Natural History Museum within 90 days of completion of monitoring unless the
City and the qualified paleontologist determine the extent of fossils recovered
will require more preparation, stabilization, and/or curatorial time. Any curation
costs shall be paid for by the applicant.
➢ A final paleontological monitoring report shall be completed. This report shall
include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected,
and significance of recovered fossils, and shall be submitted to the designated
scientific institution within 90 days of the completion of monitoring unless the
City and the qualified paleontologist determine the extent of fossils recovered
will require more preparation, stabilization, and/or curatorial time.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
Attachment #1
76
Page 71 of 153
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases?
Comments:
The Shinohara Industrial Center Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study City of
Chula Vista, CA, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, December 5, 2022 (Appendix C), indicates the project will
not result in greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
a) Less than significant impact.
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance
The City has adopted no Greenhouse (GHG) emission thresholds for land development projects. The City
of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan does not establish GHG emission thresholds. The San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is considered the most appropriate agency with special knowledge
in the subject area as the City is located within the SDAPCD jurisdiction. However, the SDAPCD has not
issued guidance for assessing GHG impacts from land use development projects. In the absence of a
threshold of significance for GHG emissions and as has been done with previous projects in the City, the
project is evaluated based on the recommendation from the next closest air district, the South Coast
AQMD.
This analysis follows guidance from the South Coast AQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance
Thresholds (SCAQMD 2008). South Coast AQMD’s thresholds are a tiered approach; projects may be
determined to be less than significant under each tier or require further analysis under subsequent tiers. As
identified in the Working Group meeting in September 2010, the five tiers are:
• Tier 1 evaluates whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
• Tier 2 determines whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a
project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have significant
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose but must be consistent. A
project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project’s operational
emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the
project is less than significant:
- All land-use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
- Based on land use types: residential is 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial is 1,400 MTCO2e
per year, mixed-use is 3,000 MTCO2e per year, and industrial is 10,000 MTCO2e
• Tier 4 has the following options:
- Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this percentage
is currently undefined
- Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
- Option 3: The year 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and
employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans
- Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve the target significance threshold.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 thresholds are based on planning consistency. This approach, referred to in the CEQA
Guidelines as “tiering,” allows agencies to rely on programmatic analysis of GHG emissions to determine
Attachment #1
77
Page 72 of 153
that subsequent development consistent with the regional plan would result in incremental GHG emissions
contribution representing a less than significant contribution to cumulative effects.
Tier 3 significance screening levels from SCAQMD guidance are based on the concept of establishing a
90 percent GHG emission market capture rate. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent
of total emissions from new development projects would be subject to CEQA analysis and mitigation. The
market capture rate of 90 percent was developed to capture a substantial fraction of GHG emissions from
new development projects while excluding small projects that will, in the aggregate, contribute a relatively
small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This market capture rate approach is based on
guidance from the CAPCOA report CEQA & Climate Change, dated January 2008 (CAPCOA 2008).
Following the rationale presented in the CAPCOA Guidance, the aggregate emissions from all projects
with individual annual emissions equal to or less than the identified screening levels for a 90 percent market
capture rate would not impede the achievement of the statewide GHG emissions reduction targets.
Tier 4 and Tier 5 interim thresholds are intended to demonstrate project consistency with the AB 32 goal
of achieving 1990 emission levels by 2020 and the SB 32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030.
Therefore, due to the project’s proposed industrial use, this analysis utilizes SCAQMD’s Tier 3 industrial
threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year and then, per SCAQMD’s Tier 2 thresholds assessed in compliance
with applicable plans, policies, regulations, and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional,
or local plan to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. As a land-use development project, the most directly
applicable adopted regulatory plan to reduce GHG emissions is the SANDAG’s Regional Plan, designed
to achieve regional GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors as required by SB 375
and the state’s long-term climate goals. This analysis also considers consistency with regulations and
requirements adopted by the Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP.
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
The greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in
Table 10. The emissions are from all phases of construction. Construction-related emissions are amortized
over 30 years in conjunction with the project’s operational emissions, as recommended by the Association
of Environmental Professionals (AEP 2016).17F
18
The total construction emissions amortized over 30 years are estimated at 21.70 metric tons of CO2e per
year. Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C).
Table 10: Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Metric Tons Per Year
Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e (MT)
2023 0.00 395.00 395.00 0.02 0.02 401.00
2024 0.00 254.00 253.00 0.01 0.01 258.00
Total 0.00 649.00 649.00 0.03 0.03 659.00
Amortized Construction Emissions 21.97
Notes:
1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide).
2. The emissions are averaged over 30 years.
* CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C))
Table 24 - Table 10 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Estimated Annual
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
18 https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf.
Attachment #1
78
Page 73 of 153
Operational Greenhouse Gas Impact
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project. Table 11 shows that the total for the project’s
emissions (baseline emissions without credit for any reductions from sustainable design and/or regulatory
requirements) would be 9,293.88 metric tons of CO2e per year.
Table 11: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Area Sources2 0.00 2.60 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61
Energy Usage3 0.00 386.00 386.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 387.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 7,684.00 7,684.00 0.43 0.69 11.00 7,911.00
Solid Waste5 14.90 0.00 14.90 1.49 0.00 0.00 52.30
Water6 13.10 76.30 89.40 1.34 0.03 0.00 133.00
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 786.00 786.00
Subtotal
Emissions 28.00 8,148.90 8,176.90 3.29 0.72 797.00 9,271.91
Amortized Construction Emissions 21.97
Total Emissions 9,293.88
Threshold 10,000
Exceeds Threshold No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment.
3 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage.
4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.
5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills.
6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used to transport water and process wastewater.
7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30-year amortization rate.
Table 25 - Table 11 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Opening Year Project
Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Therefore, as the project’s total emissions (Construction and Operation) would not exceed the SCAQMD
draft Tier 3 industrial threshold of 10,000 MT of CO2e per year, impacts are considered less than
significant.
b) Less than significant impact. The project could potentially conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project’s GHG impacts are
evaluated by assessing the project’s consistency with applicable statewide, regional, and local GHG
reduction plans and strategies.
The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) encourages lead agencies to use programmatic mitigation
plans and tier programs when performing individual project analyses. The City has adopted the City of
Chula Vista CAP, which encourages and requires applicable projects to implement energy efficiency
measures. In addition, the California Climate Action Report (CAT) Report provides recommendations
for specific emission reduction strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets
established in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. The 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan provides
measures to achieve AB 32 targets statewide. On a regional level, the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) Regional Plan contains measures to achieve Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
reductions required under SB 375. Thus, if the project complies with these plans, policies, regulations,
and requirements, it will have a less than significant impact because it would be consistent with the
overarching state, regional, and local plans for GHG reduction.
A consistency analysis is provided below and describes the project’s compliance with, or exceedance of,
performance-based standards included in the regulations outlined in the applicable portions of the City
of Chula Vista CAP, 2008 and 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, and SANDAG’s Regional Plan.
Attachment #1
79
Page 74 of 153
City of Chula Vista CAP Consistency Analysis
The focus of the City’s updated CAP included promoting energy- and water-efficient buildings, smart
growth, clean transit, zero-waste policies, and increased local energy generation and water resources. Table
12 summarizes reduction strategies from the CAP and evaluates project consistency with each strategy.
As shown in Table 12, as many of the CAP reduction strategies would be implemented directly by the
City, they do not apply to individual development projects. The project would be consistent with all
applicable CAP reduction strategies; therefore, the project would not conflict with the CAP.
Table 12: Project Consistency with the City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
Category Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Water Conservation & Reuse
Water Education and Enforcement Expand education and enforcement targeting
landscape water waste.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to expand education or
enforcement targeting landscaping water
waste.
Water Efficiency Upgrades
Update the City’s Landscape Water
Conservation Ordinance to promote more
water-wise landscaping designs.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to update the City’s
Landscape Water Conservation
Ordinance.
Require water-saving retrofits in existing
buildings at a specific point in time.
Not applicable. The project does not
include reusing existing buildings and
would not impede efforts to require
water-saving retrofits in existing
buildings.
Water Reuse Plan & System Installations
Develop a Water Reuse Master Plan to
maximize the use of stormwater, graywater,
and onsite water reclamation.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to develop a Water Reuse
Master Plan. The project t will comply
with the City’s landscape ordinance.
Streamline complex graywater system’s
permit review.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to streamline permit
reviews for graywater systems.
Waste Reduction
Zero Waste Plan
Develop a Zero Waste Plan to supplement
statewide green waste, recycling, and plastic
bag ban efforts.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to develop a Zero Waste
Plan. The project will include on-site
recycling storage.
Renewable & Energy Efficient
Energy Education & Enforcement
Expand education targeting key community
segments and facilitating energy performance
disclosure.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to expand energy
education and performance disclosure.
Leverage the building inspection process to
distribute energy-related information and to
deter unpermitted, low-performing energy
improvements.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to distribute energy-
related information
Clean Energy Sources
Incorporate Solar Photovoltaic into all new
residential and commercial buildings.
Not applicable. The project is industrial
and would not impede efforts to adopt
pre-wiring standards or develop a solar
photovoltaic requirement in residential
and commercial buildings.
Provide more grid-delivered clean energy
through Community Choice Aggregation or
other mechanism.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to provide grid-delivered
clean energy.
Energy Efficiency Upgrades
Expand the City’s “cool roof” standards to
include re-roofs and western areas.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to revise the City’s “cool
roof” standards to include re-roofs and
western areas. The project will include
cool roofs in compliance with Title 24
standards.
Facilitate more energy upgrades in the
community through incentives, permit
streamlining and education.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to facilitate energy
upgrades in the community.
Attachment #1
80
Page 75 of 153
Table 12: Project Consistency with the City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
Category Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Require energy-savings retrofits in existing
buildings at a specific point in time.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to require energy savings
retrofits in existing buildings.
Robust Urban Forests
Plant more shade trees to save energy,
address heat island issues, and improve air
quality.
Consistent. The project will be required
to plant shade trees within the parking
lot, along the project perimeter, etc., as
per specifications identified within the
City's Municipal Code for industrial uses.
Smart Growth & Transportation
Complete Streets & Neighborhoods
Incorporate “Complete Streets” principles
into municipal capital projects and plans.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to improve municipal
capital projects and plans.
Encourage higher density and mixed-use
development in Smart Growth areas,
especially around trolley stations and other
transit nodes.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to construct additional
high-density and mixed-use development
in Smart Growth areas.
Transportation Demand Management
Utilize bike facilities, transit access/passes
and other Transportation Demand
Management and congestion management
offerings.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to develop
Transportation Demand Management
and congestion management offerings.
Furthermore, the project site is located
close to existing transit stops, with stops
located as close as approximately 0.9
miles south of the project site.
Expand bike-sharing, car-sharing, and other
“last mile” transportation options.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to develop
Transportation Demand Management
and congestion management offerings.
The project will include a minimum of
ten (10) bicycle parking stalls.
Furthermore, the project site is located
close to existing transit stops, with stops
located as close as approximately 0.2
miles south of the project site.
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness
Support the installation of more local
alternative fueling stations.
Not applicable. The project would not
impede efforts to install more local
alternative fueling stations.
Designate preferred parking for alternative
fuel vehicles.
Consistent. The project will include 21
Clean Air Vehicle parking stalls and 18
electric vehicle charging stalls.
Design all new residential and commercial
buildings to be “Electric Vehicle Ready.”
Not applicable. The project is not a
residential or commercial use; however, it
would be designed to comply with 2019
CalGreen requirements for electric
vehicle charging equipment provisions.
Notes:
1 Source: Chula Vista Climate Action Plan, September 2017.
Table 26 - Table 12 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Project Consistency with the
City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
Consistency with SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
Regarding consistency with SANDAG’s Regional Plan, the project would include site design elements,
and Project Design Features (PDFs) developed to support the policy objectives of the RTP and SB 375.
Table 13 illustrates the project’s consistency with all applicable goals and policies of the Regional Plan
(SANDAG 2021).
Attachment #1
81
Page 76 of 153
Table 13: Project Consistency with San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan1
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
The Regional Plan - Policy Objectives
Mobility Choices
Provide safe, secure, healthy, affordable, and
convenient travel choices between the places
where people live, work and play.
Consistent. The project is located near
MTS bus route 703/704 and Interstate
805.
Mobility Choices
Take advantage of new technologies to make the
transportation system more efficient and
environmentally friendly.
Not applicable. The project would not
impair SANDAG’s ability to employ new
technologies to make travel more reliable
and convenient.
Habitat and Open Space Preservation
Focus growth in areas that are already urbanized,
allowing the region to set aside and restore more
open space in our less developed areas.
Consistent. The project is surrounded
by existing industrial development and
would be located close to major urban
centers. Furthermore, the project would
also be a source of employment.
Habitat and Open Space Preservation Protect and restore our region’s urban canyons,
coastlines, beaches, and water resources.
Not Applicable. The project would not
impair the ability of SANDAG to protect
and restore urban canyons, coastlines,
beaches, and water resources.
Furthermore, the project is located in an
already developed area.
Regional Economic Prosperity
Invest in transportation projects that provide
access for all communities to a variety of jobs
with competitive wages.
Not Applicable. The project would not
impair the ability of SANDAG to invest
in transportation projects available to all
members of the Community.
Regional Economic Prosperity
Build infrastructure that makes the movement
of freight in our community more efficient and
environmentally friendly.
Consistent. The project proposes the
development of the site with a
warehouse/distribution building close to
other industrial uses and near Interstate
805.
Partnerships/Collaboration
Collaborate with Native American tribes,
Mexico, military bases, neighboring counties,
infrastructure providers, the private sector, and
local communities to design a transportation
system that connects to the mega‐region and
national network, works for everyone, and
fosters a high quality of life for all.
Not Applicable. The project would not
impair the ability of SANDAG to
provide transportation choices to better
connect the San Diego region with
Mexico, neighboring counties, and tribal
nations.
Partnerships/Collaboration
As we plan for our region, recognize the vital
economic, environmental, cultural, and
community linkages between the San Diego
region and Baja California.
Not Applicable. The project would not
impair the ability of SANDAG to
provide transportation choices to
connect the San Diego region with
Mexico better.
Healthy and Complete Communities Create great places for everyone to live, work,
and play.
Consistent. According to the City of
Chula Vista General Plan Land Use
Diagram, the project is an industrial
project with a current land use
designation of Limited Industrial (IL).
The project is near MTS bus route
703/704 and Interstate 805 and is
surrounded by existing industrial uses.
Healthy and Complete Communities
Connect communities through a variety of
transportation choices that promote healthy
lifestyles, including walking and biking.
Consistent. The project is an industrial
and self-storage project located near
MTS bus route 703/704 and Interstate
805. Existing industrial uses also
surround the project site.
Environmental Stewardship
Make transportation investments that result in
cleaner air, environmental protection,
conservation, efficiency, and sustainable living.
Consistent. The project is an industrial
and self-storage project located near
MTS bus route 703/704 and Interstate
805.
Environmental Stewardship Support energy programs that promote
sustainability.
Consistent. The project would comply
with the current building standards.
Sustainable Communities Strategy - Strategies
Attachment #1
82
Page 77 of 153
Table 13: Project Consistency with San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan1
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
Strategy Number 1
Focus housing and job growth in urbanized
areas where there is existing and planned
transportation infrastructure, including transit.
Consistent. The project would be
located close to major urban centers as it
is situated near MTS bus route 703/704
and Interstate 805 and is surrounded by
existing industrial development.
Furthermore, the project would also be a
source of employment.
Strategy Number 2
Protect the environment and help ensure the
success of smart growth land-use policies by
preserving sensitive habitat, open space, cultural
resources, and farmland.
Consistent. The project would be
located close to major urban centers as it
is situated near MTS bus route 703/704
and Interstate 805 and is surrounded by
existing industrial development.
Strategy Number 3
Invest in a transportation network that gives
people transportation choices and reduces
greenhouse gas emissions.
Consistent. The project is an industrial
and self-storage project located near
MTS bus route 703/704 and Interstate
805.
Strategy Number 4 Address the housing needs of all economic
segments of the population.
Not Applicable. The project would not
impair the ability of SANDAG to
address the housing needs of all
economic segments of the population.
Strategy Number 5 Implement the Regional Plan through incentives
and collaboration.
Not Applicable. The project would not
impair the ability of SANDAG to
implement the Regional Transportation
Plan through incentives and
collaborations.
Notes:
MTS = San Diego Metropolitan Transit System; SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments.
1 Source: SANDAG, 2021.
Table 27 - Table 13 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Project Consistency with San
Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
As shown in Table 13, the project is consistent with all applicable Regional Plan Policy Objectives or
Strategies. Impacts would be less than significant.
CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008.
The Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The
Scoping Plan “proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas
emissions in California. The plan will improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify
our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (California Air Resources
Board, 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.
In November 2017, CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates,
and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the
State’s climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG
limit. In addition, Chapter 4 provides a broader description of the many actions and proposals being
explored across the sectors, including the natural resources sector, to achieve the State’s mid and long-
term climate goals.
Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG
emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a
low-carbon economy. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the
Initial Scoping Plan and First Update while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective
strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards
innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and
public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies requiring direct GHG
reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary and mobile sources. These policies include the use of
Attachment #1
83
Page 78 of 153
lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and-Trade Program, which constrains and reduces
emissions at covered sources.
As the latest 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable
strategies of the 2008 and 2017 Plan are assessed in Table 14. As shown in Table 14, the project is
consistent with the applicable strategies, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Table 14: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1
2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement
adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-
emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel, and vehicle technology
programs with long-term climate change goals.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance
standards; pursue additional efficiency, including new technologies, policy,
and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy
efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.
Consistent. The project will be compliant with the
current Title 24 standards.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency
measures.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy-duty vehicle
efficiency measures.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices to
reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of
buildings.
Consistent. The California Green Building Standards
Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part
of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR.
Part 11 establishes voluntary standards that are
mandatory in the 2019 edition of the Code on planning
and design for sustainable site development, energy
efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material
conservation, and internal air contaminants. The project
will be subject to these mandatory standards.
High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high
global warming potential gases.
Consistent. CARB identified five measures that reduce
HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial
refrigeration systems; vehicles that access the project
are required to comply with the measures that will
comply with the strategy.
Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste
diversion, composting, and commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste.
Consistent. The state is currently developing a
regulation to reduce methane emissions from municipal
solid waste landfills. The project will be required to
comply with City programs, such as any City recycling
and waste reduction programs, which comply with the
75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.
Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to
move and treat water.
Consistent. The project will comply with all applicable
City ordinances and CAL Green requirements.
2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended Action
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further, increase GHG stringency on all
light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero-emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million
zero-emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Attachment #1
84
Page 79 of 153
Table 14: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1
2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to
a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20
percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero-
emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up
to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in
2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-
NOX standard.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last-Mile Delivery: New regulation that
would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment
of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last-
mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5
percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing
to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.
Consistent. These are CARB-enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project are required to comply
with the standards, and the project will comply with the
strategy.
Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for statewide energy
efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative
doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas
end uses by 2030.
Consistent. The project will be compliant with the
current Title 24 standards.
By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill
reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Consistent. The project will be required to comply
with City programs, such as any City recycling and waste
reduction programs, which comply with the 75 percent
reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.
Notes:
1 Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008 and 2017)
Table 28 - Table 14 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study - Project Consistency with
CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures
Therefore, the project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
Attachment #1
85
Page 80 of 153
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
Comments:
a) Less than significant with mitigation.
Construction
Various hazardous substances and wastes would be transported, stored, used, and generated during
construction. These would include fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, and storage
containers and applicators containing such materials. The handling of hazardous materials would be a
temporary activity and coincide with the short-term construction phase of the project. It is expected that
only the amounts of hazardous materials needed will be kept on-site, and any handling of such materials
will be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Accident prevention and containment are the
responsibility of the construction contractors, and provisions to properly manage hazardous substances
and wastes are typically included in construction specifications. Hazardous materials shall not be disposed
of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or surface water. A totally enclosed
containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage,
other solid debris, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials, shall be removed to a
waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials.
The County of San Diego Vector Control Program (VCP) is responsible for protecting public health
through the surveillance and control of mosquitoes that are vectors for human diseases, including the
West Nile virus. The VCP requires the project to be constructed in a manner to minimize possible
mosquito breeding sources. Mitigation measure MM HAZ-1 has been applied to ensure the construction
process does not create breeding sources for mosquitos, a hazard to humans.
Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction-related materials, including
but not limited to requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD), San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, and San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials
regulations, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. In addition, the
Attachment #1
86
Page 81 of 153
implementation of the SWQMP, which contains construction BMPs for handling hazardous materials,
such as requiring stockpiles and other sources of pollutants to be covered when there is a chance of rain.
With the implementation of applicable health and safety laws and the BMPs of the SWQMP, impacts
related to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant with mitigation,
directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
Operation
The building’s future occupant(s) is not yet identified. However, the project is designed to house a
warehouse/distribution occupant, and hazardous materials could be transported and used during daily
operations. State and federal Community-Right-to-Know laws allow the public access to information
about the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws are in place requiring businesses
to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies a building on the
project site and handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety
Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) will require a Chula Vista Fire Department permit to register the
business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law. This law requires immediate reporting
to the Hazardous Materials Division of the County of San Diego’s Environmental Health and Quality
Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of
hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. The plan must include pre-
emergency planning of emergency response procedures, notifications, coordination of affected
government agencies and responsible parties, training, and follow-up.
In addition, any business handling at any one time greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid,
or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185), to file
a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures
and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of
hazardous material. The HMBEP intends to satisfy federal and state Community Right-To-Know laws
and provide detailed information for emergency responders.
If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the project, the business owners and operators
would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use,
storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above).
The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project are the single-family residential land uses located 30
feet to the west, and the multi-family residential land uses located 40 feet to the north of the project site.
All tenants will prepare and submit an acceptable Business Plan and Risk Management Prevention
Program to the County Department of Environmental Health, as applicable, and obtain all other
necessary licenses and permits per General Plan Policy EE 20.3. San Diego County Environmental Health
calls this Plan the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP contains detailed information
on the storage of hazardous materials at regulated facilities. The purpose of the HMBP is to prevent or
minimize damage to public health, safety, and the environment, from a release or threatened release of a
hazardous material. The HMBP also provides emergency response personnel with adequate information
to help them better prepare and respond to chemical-related incidents at regulated facilities.
In addition to the above, the proposed land use will also have the typical use of commercially available
cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available
substances. The project's operation would be required to comply with relevant federal, state, and local
health and safety laws intended to minimize the health risk to the public associated with hazardous
materials. Lastly, the project would implement the Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality
Management Plan (PDP SWQMP), which includes structural BMPs that ensure compliance with pollutant
control requirements. With mandatory regulatory compliance, potentially hazardous materials impacts
associated with the long-term operation of the project are determined to be less than significant,
directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
Attachment #1
87
Page 82 of 153
b) Less than significant. Accidents involving hazardous materials would not be significant to the public
or the environment when handled as required and discussed under Section IX a) above.
Construction
The transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials on the project site during construction will be
handled according to all regulations to ensure the risk is less than significant, directly, indirectly, or
cumulatively.
Operation
The project site would operate as a warehouse/distribution center upon buildout. Based on the
operational characteristics of warehouse/distribution centers, hazardous materials could be used during a
future occupant’s daily operations. However, as discussed above under Section IX a) above, the project
applicant must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the transport,
handling, and usage of hazardous materials. Accordingly, impacts associated with the accidental release of
hazardous materials would be less than significant during the long-term operation of the project,
directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
c) No impact. There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project site (City of Chula Vista CVMapper,
accessed February 6, 2022). Valle Lindo Elementary School is located approximately .28 miles to the
north. Therefore, if the project emits hazardous emissions or handles hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste in accordance with all rules and regulations, it will have no impact on a
school or proposed school within one-quarter mile of the project.
d) Less than significant with mitigation. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessor’s Parcel
Number 644-040-01 517 Shinohara Lane, Chula Vista, CA 91911, prepared by SCS Engineers, July 13,
2021 (Appendix I), included a search of regulatory databases, including the California EPA’s Regulated
Site Portal, the San Diego RWQCB’s Geotracker database, and Department of Toxic Substance Control’s
(DTSC’s) EnviroStor database (EDR). In addition, the Soil Vapor Survey and Human Health Risk
Screening Assessor’s Parcel Number 644-040-01 517 Shinohara Lane, Chula Vista, CA 91911, prepared
by SCS Engineers, August 5, 2021 (Appendix J), provides laboratory results of soil vapor sampling
supporting the conclusions and recommendations provided in the Phase I ESA. The project site is not
included on any hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Based on SCS’s off-site source survey, it was noted that several facilities in the site vicinity were reported
to have had releases of hazardous materials/waste or petroleum products. It is SCS’s opinion that, with
the exception noted below, there are no recognized environmental conditions at the site due to the known
and reported releases of hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products from an off-site source. The
judgment is based on one or more of the following: the reported regulatory status (e.g., case closed), the
media affected (e.g., soil contamination only), the distance from the site, the direction from the site with
respect to the reported groundwater flow direction, and information obtained through a review of County
of San Diego Department of Environmental Health files (pages 26 - 27 Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (Appendix I)).
The exception is the Omar Rendering facility located at 1886 Auto Park Place (approximately 1,500 feet
to the east). In May 1996, groundwater was found to be impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
at the property located adjacent to the east of the site at the Brandywine Distribution Center at 1670 &
1690 Brandywine Avenue. Groundwater results indicated VOCs above laboratory reporting limits,
primarily with trichloroethene (TCE) at 720 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and also with tetrachloroethene
(PCE) at 56 ug/L and methylene chloride (MEC) at 79 ug/L in MW-04.
Attachment #1
88
Page 83 of 153
It was determined that the adjacent property to the east that was sampled (the Brandywine Distribution
Center at 1690 Brandywine Avenue) was not the source of the pollutants and that the likely source was
the former Omar Rendering facility located at 1886 Auto Park Place, a property that stored hazardous
waste in evaporation ponds from 1959 to 1978, which were situated to the east and cross- to up-gradient
of the Brandywine Distribution Center.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) closed the case administratively in 2017, noting
the Brandywine Distribution Center was not the source of the contamination. The samples collected at
the property suggest a potential threat to indoor air. The RWQCB recommended more recent
groundwater data.
Omar Rendering facility is approximately 1,500 feet to the east and crosses up-gradient of the site and
began remediation circa 1980, removing the waste ponds and their disposal at a permitted location. In
1981, the impacted soil beneath the waste ponds was placed in a lined and capped waste cell in the
northwest corner of the property. Subsequently, the waste cell has been maintained and monitored by the
RWQCB.
In January 2021, during the most recent sampling event at the former Omar Rendering facility, the
monitoring well closest to the project site, well MW-18, situated approximately 1,500 feet to the east of
the project site, indicated results for TCE at 4.3 ug/L. No additional recent well data was available for
wells closer to the site to indicate whether or not the TCE plume may still be in the immediate vicinity of
or beneath the project site.
Based on the concentrations of VOCs at the east adjacent property indicated in 1996 (up to 720 ug/L
TCE), the cross- to up-gradient position of the source with respect to the groundwater flow direction to
the project site (southwest), that the presence of TCE was reported to be present in the monitoring well
closest to the project site from the source in the most recent groundwater monitoring report from January
2021, and that no additional, more recent data is available to indicate whether or not the TCE plume may
still be in the immediate vicinity of or beneath the project site, the Phase I ESA reported that there is a
low to moderate likelihood that a recognized environmental condition exists at the project site in
connection with the former release from the Omar Rendering facility (pages 26 - 27 Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix I)). Nevertheless, an additional assessment (e.g., soil vapor
sampling) was taken to evaluate the potentially associated releases.
SCS performed an assessment consisting of sampling four soil vapor probes and collecting five soil vapor
samples to assess possible vapor intrusion impacts to the project site from an unauthorized release of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the Omar Rendering facility. The VOCs benzene, m,p-xylenes,
and trichloroethene (TCE) were present in soil vapor beneath the project site. Because VOCs were
reported above the laboratory reporting limits in the soil vapor samples collected from the site, a vapor
intrusion risk screening (VIRS) was conducted to assess the potential for Significant18F
19 vapor intrusion
risk posed to the future industrial occupants at the site due to the upward migration of VOCs in soil
vapor.
After applying the Department of Toxic Substances Control, (DTSC) attenuation factor of 0.0005 for
future commercial/industrial land use to the maximum reported concentrations of the constituents
reported to be present beneath the site (TCE, benzene, and m,p-xylenes), the maximum theoretical
concentrations of VOCs in indoor air at the site are below the commercial/industrial screening levels
(DTSC- Modified Screening Levels or EPA Regional Screening Levels). Therefore, SCS recommends no
further action for the site based on the potential for soil vapor intrusion (pages 7 - 8 Soil Vapor Survey
and Human Health Risk Screening (Appendix J)).
19 For the purposes of this assessment, significant is defined as greater than one in 1,000,000 excess lifetime cancer risk or a hazard index of
greater than 1.
Attachment #1
89
Page 84 of 153
The San Diego County Environmental Health and Quality (DEHQ) recommends preparing a Soil
Management Plan to manage any impacted soil encountered during grading and a Community Health and
Safety Plan. If contamination remains at the site after grading, DEHQ recommends that a human health
risk assessment be conducted after grading and before construction. DEHQ further recommends
regulatory oversight of these activities through DEHQ, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control. DEHQ staff oversight can be provided through
the Voluntary Assistance Program. Mitigation measures, MM HAZ-2 through MM HAZ-7, have been
applied to the project to comply with the DEHQ recommendations.
The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. With the inclusion of a mitigation measure concerning the export of soil from the
site, the project’s impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, directly, indirectly, and
cumulatively.
e) No impact. The project is in Area 2 of the Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP). It is not within the noise contours of the ALUCP. The project will include graded pads ranging
in height from 197 to 200 average mean sea level (amsl), with the building at 43 feet. The project will have
no impact on an airport land use plan, nor would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area
f) No impact. The City of Chula Vista does not have an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. However, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department has the following scenarios that
require disaster preparedness: wildfire, earthquakes, flood, terrorism, and tsunami. The only scenario with
an evacuation route map is the tsunami scenario. The evacuation routes are along the coast and direct
evacuees inland. According to the tsunami evacuation map, a tsunami would not affect the project site.
Project access will have access off Shinohara Lane. The road is an existing street within the City’s
established street system. The project will not significantly alter the road or the current circulation pattern
in the area.
Construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic. However, even temporary changes to the
existing roadway network require the approval of the City and notification to all emergency responders.
The project provides adequate emergency vehicle access, including street widths and vertical clearance.
Implementing federal, state, and local laws and regulations in the project’s construction would result in
no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.
g) Less than significant. Figure 9-9 – Wildland Fire Hazards Map of the General Plan Chula Vista Vision
2020 (page E-61) indicates that the property is not in an area of High or Very High Wildland Fire Hazard.
The CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer also demonstrates that the property is not in a Very High
Fire Severity Zone of local responsibility. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact
directly, indirectly, and cumulatively on the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Mitigation:
MM HAZ-1: The following notes shall be added to all construction drawings ensuring that the contractors
are aware not to create construction-related depressions created by grading activities and
vehicle tires resulting in depressions that will hold standing water. In addition, the contractors
shall ensure that drainage areas and other structures do not create a potential mosquito
breeding source (any area capable of accumulating and holding at least ½ inch of water for
more than 96 hours can support mosquito breeding and development).
Vector Control Notes:
Attachment #1
90
Page 85 of 153
1. The contractor shall ensure construction-related depressions created by grading
activities and vehicle tires do not result in depression that will hold standing water.
2. The contractor shall ensure that drainage areas and other drainage structures do not
create a potential mosquito breeding source. Any area capable of accumulating and
holding at least ½ inch of water for more than 96 hours can support mosquito
breeding and development.
MM HAZ-2: Prior to grading permit issuance, the Permittee/Owner shall have the soils engineer prepare
a Limited Soil Management Plan/Community Health and Safety Plan (CHSP) for submittal
and approval by the Department of Environmental Hto include, at a minimum, the following
elements:
• Summary/map/tables of previous results
• A discussion of whether proposed grading activities may extend below the anticipated
current or historic groundwater level depths, and if so, environmental oversight that will
be conducted to screen soil for possible impacts from staining, odors, or vapors
potentially deriving from impacted groundwater that may be originating from the
upgradient former Omar Rendering facility at 1886 Auto Park Place (approximately 1,500
feet east of the subject property)
• A section will be included to address groundwater or seepage problems that may be
encountered during grading or construction, particularly on properly managing any
generated effluent from dewatering that may be necessary.
• A stipulation that any soil export from construction/grading needs to be tested and
characterized for proper disposal
• A section on how to handle currently unknown discoveries
• A brief CHSP section, including the stipulation that public notices be posted on the
construction project fencing prior to the start of grading
MM HAZ-3: Due to the previous detections of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents and VOCs in soil
vapor samples previously collected at the site, the grading plans shall include a note indicating
that in the event that soil is to be transported off the site, the soil proposed for export is to
be tested for the identified constituents of concern (CoCs) for the site including Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs, as well as Title 22 that are commonly analyzed for soil
screening purposes, o the soil can be characterized for proper disposal. The Building
Department will ensure the note is on the plans prior to grading permit issuance.
If soils are to be exported, the soils engineer will evaluate the soil sample analytical data for
the soil proposed for export and assist in the proper characterization, transport, and disposal
of the soil to be exported. The receiving facility may require additional laboratory analysis
beyond what is described above. Any regulated waste exported from the site shall be disposed
of at a properly licensed facility. Completed signed waste manifests shall be provided for each
truckload exported to document proper disposal.
MM HAZ-4: The grading plans shall include the following information on what to do in the event of an
“Unexpected Discovery of Releases During Construction.” The Building Department will
ensure the note is on the plans prior to grading permit issuance.
If previously unidentified constituents of concern (CoC)-impacted soil are observed during
grading operations through the obvious indications of staining and/or odors, the
Permittee/Owner and general contractor shall contact the soils engineer to assess the soils
further. The soils will be segregated from non-impacted soil by field screening with a
Attachment #1
91
Page 86 of 153
photoionization detector (PID) and/or x-ray fluorescence (XRF) meter, visual and olfactory
observations, and ultimately by confirmation sampling. The existing data from previous
assessments will assist in identifying the initial areas and depths to excavate CoC-bearing soil.
If the results of the prior soil samples and confirmation sampling indicate the CoC-impacted
soil has been removed or is demonstrated to be below the human health-risk-based screening
levels for commercial/industrial users, then the remaining soil in that area will be considered
non-impacted. If the confirmation sampling indicates CoC-impacted soil is still present, then
additional rounds of excavation and confirmation sampling will be conducted until all the
CoC-impacted soil has been removed. Excavation of non-impacted soil will continue to be
monitored in case isolated pockets of CoCs not previously identified are present.
Additional assessment and confirmation samples will be collected and analyzed to evaluate
the significance of any discovered releases and the need to mitigate the condition beyond the
actions described in the Soil Management Plan (SMP) and Community Health and Safety Plan
(CHSP). Should conditions be encountered that vary significantly from those described or
that cannot be addressed by the mitigation criteria proposed herein, the DEH will be
contacted and consulted regarding assessment and/or mitigation.
MM HAZ-5: Prior to grading permit issuance, the Permittee/Owner shall post notices around the site
perimeter in accordance with the requirements of the DEHQ Site Assessment and Mitigation
Manual, notifying the public of health and potential safety issues associated with the
excavation. City Inspectors will ensure the notices are posted during inspections.
MM HAZ-6: The Grading Contractor shall be responsible for fugitive dust monitoring during grading
operations.
Fugitive dust control methods must be followed to limit potential exposure to adjacent
properties. It will be the responsibility of the grading contractor to conduct excavation and
grading activities in accordance with Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which was promulgated
by the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and dated December 24,
2009.
The following dust control methods should be implemented during excavation and grading
activities:
• Dust emissions will be controlled by spraying with water to reduce dust emissions as
excavation, grading, stockpiling, and loading activities are conducted.
• If visual observations indicate dust emission into the atmosphere beyond the property
line, dust suppression efforts will be increased. If visual observations indicate dust
emission into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating
more than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period, excavation activities will be stopped until
further dust suppression measures can be implemented.
• If stockpiles of potentially impacted soil that might be discovered during grading are left
overnight, the grading contractor must spray them with a soil binding agent such as M-
Binder to further reduce dust emissions or cover stockpiles with plastic sheeting.
• Use of track-out grates or gravel beds at each egress point, wheel-washing at each egress
during muddy conditions, soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or
seeding; and for outbound transport trucks: using secured tarps or cargo covering,
watering, or treating of transported material.
Attachment #1
92
Page 87 of 153
• If necessary, a street sweeper certified to meet the most current South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1186 requirements will be used to remove any track-out/carry-
out dust in the roadway.
Non-compliance will be noted by complaints to the City and/or San Diego APCD, and the
Grading Contractor will be notified to correct it immediately.
MM HAZ-7: Upon completion of grading, the Permittee/Owner will have the soils engineer prepare a
Property Closure Report (PCR) for DEHQ approval based on the findings of the above
scope of services. The PCR will cover the various areas investigated at the site, including field
observations, as well as any soil sampling, excavation, field screening, sampling activities, soil
waste characterization, and soil reuse activities (if any). Unanticipated discovery of hazardous
substances during mass excavation will also be reported, if encountered, and mitigated prior
to the completion of the PCR. The PCR will include any laboratory reports, chain-of-custody
records, soil sample locations, tabulated analytical results, any waste manifests, and
appropriate support documentation. The PCR will be peer-reviewed and signed by
appropriately licensed professionals. The work conducted at the site will be overseen by a
professional geologist as required by the state.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Attachment #1
93
Page 88 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Comments:
The analysis for this Section, Section X, is based upon the information found in the Preliminary Drainage Study
for Shinohara Business Center, 517 Shinohara Lane Chula Vista, CA 91911, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter &
Associates, May 20, 2022 (Appendix K), and the Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality
Management Plan (SWQMP), Shinohara Business Center, 644-040-01, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter &
Associates, May 20, 2022 (Appendix L).
a) Less than significant impact.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The project site is located in the San Diego Bay Watershed, comprising three (3) smaller watersheds. The
project is situated in the smaller Otay River Watershed that discharges into San Diego Bay. As part of
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. On May 8,
2013, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (RWQCB), adopted an
updated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-
2013-0001, as Amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 (MS4 Permit). In the City of Chula Vista,
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES permitting
program and develops NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial
pollutant discharges, including construction activities.
The two basic types of NPDES permits issued are individual and general permits. An individual permit is
a permit specifically tailored to a particular facility. Once a facility submits the appropriate application(s),
the permitting authority develops a permit based on the information contained in the application (e.g.,
type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving water quality). The authority issues the permit to the facility
for a specific time period (not to exceed five years) with a requirement that the facility reapplies before
the expiration date.
The General Construction Permit requires that construction sites with 1.0 acre or greater soil disturbance
or less than 1.0 acre, but part of a greater common plan of development, apply for coverage for discharges
under the General Construction Permit. By submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage, developing
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to address construction site pollutants, the General Construction permit requirements are met. Since the
project is greater than one acre, these requirements are in place. The applicant shall abide by all the
provisions outlined in the RWQCB NPDES general permit for construction activities.
Jurisdictional Runoff Program (JRMP)
The City of Chula Vista has prepared the Jurisdictional Runoff Program (JRMP) San Diego Region (pages
ES-1 – ES-4) to describe the specific runoff management programs and activities implemented to comply
with the requirements of the Municipal Permit. The JRMP includes information and regulations applicable
to construction activities and industrial facilities that are applicable to this project.
Attachment #1
94
Page 89 of 153
Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP)
Topographically, the site slopes to the south from the northern property boundary, forming two (2)
drainage basins with two (2) discharge locations.
Existing Drainage Basin A comprises the western portion of the site. Runoff drains via overland flow to
an existing concrete swale located at the southern property boundary. The drainage swale carries flow east
to an existing Type F catch basin at the southern property boundary. The catch basin connects to an
existing private storm drainpipe that outlets via the curb outlet onto Main Street.
Existing Drainage Basin B comprises the eastern portion of the site. Runoff is conveyed via overland
surface flow to an existing concrete drainage channel located at the southeastern corner of the site. The
drainage channel conveys runoff south and outlets via curb outlet onto Main Street (Figure 13 – Existing
Basin Map). Flow travels west via concrete curb and gutter from Main Street to an existing curb inlet.
Stormwater is then conveyed south through an existing storm drainpipe and outlets over the headwall
into the Otay River. The Otay River travels west and outlets at the San Diego Bay and, ultimately, the
Pacific Ocean.
Existing Drainage Basin C comprises the northwesterly portion of the site. Runoff is conveyed via
overland surface flow to an existing swale west of the project site. Local surface runoff from the project
site and surrounding properties collects in this area and flows to the south to an existing concrete drainage
channel located in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence at the end of Tanoak Court. The
existing concrete channel flows to the south and then turns and flows to the west and discharges into
Tanoak Court through two existing Type A curb outlets (Figure 1 – Tanoak Court Type A Curb Outlets).
Drainage improvements will include catch basins, curb inlets, and storm drainpipes. A proprietary
Modular Wetland System is proposed for stormwater treatment. An underground detention vault is
proposed for peak flow attenuation (Form I-3B Storm Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix L)).
Conclusion
The project must comply with the City of Chula Vista’s NPDES Permit, SWPPP requirements,
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program, Municipal Code Section 14.20 – Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control, and Chapter 15.04 – Excavation, Grading, Clearing, Grubbing and Fills, and the
PDP SWQMP. Therefore, the project will be designed for compliance with existing federal, state, and
local water quality laws and regulations pertaining to water quality standards, ensuring a less than
significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on water quality and discharge.
b) Less than significant impact.
According to the San Diego County Water Authority’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP),
which provides water to the Otay Water District who provides water to the project, the Authority will be
able to meet demands for water up to the year 2045. The Otay Water District does not pump groundwater
for distribution within its boundaries.
Per the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G, page 4), groundwater was not encountered during the
investigation. The project’s construction would create a less pervious area, approximately 64,809 square
feet, where 423,779 square feet currently exist.
According to the PDP SWQMP, the project would include areas where stormwater will flow from
impervious to pervious areas. The project would comply with the conditions set forth by the San Diego
RWQCB NPDES permitting program. Additionally, the construction of stormwater facilities and the
implementation of the PDP SWQMP will ensure that adverse project impacts on groundwater supplies
will be less than significant.
Attachment #1
95
Page 90 of 153
c)
i. Less than significant impact. Project construction would be subject to local and state codes and
erosion control and grading requirements. Because construction activities would disturb one or more
acres, the project must adhere to the NPDES Construction General Permit provisions to prevent
sediment from leaving the project site. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing,
grading, and other soil disturbances, such as stockpiling and excavating. The NPDES Construction
General Permit requires implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP), including
temporary project construction features (i.e., BMPs) designed to prevent erosion and sediment,
leaving the project site protecting the quality of stormwater runoff. Sediment-control BMPs may
include stabilized construction entrances, straw wattles on earthen embankments, sediment filters on
existing inlets, or the equivalent.
Pursuant to the General Construction Permit, construction sites with 1.0 acre or greater soil
disturbance or less than 1.0 acre but part of a greater common plan of development must apply for
coverage for discharges under the General Construction Permit. By submitting a Notice of Intent
(NOI) for coverage, developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address construction site pollutants, the General Construction
permit requirements are met. Since the project is greater than one acre, these requirements are in
place. The applicant shall abide by all the provisions outlined in the RWQCB NPDES general permit
for construction activities.
In conformance with PDP SWQMP, the project is required to implement structural and non-
structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to retain and treat pollutants of concern (in dry-weather
runoff and first-flush stormwater runoff) and minimize hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOCs),
both during and post-construction.
In addition, grading activities would be required to conform to the most current version of the
California Building Code, the City Code, the approved grading plans, and best management
engineering practices. The project must also comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Rules 50 (Visible Emissions), 51 (Nuisance), and 55 (Fugitive Dust), as noted under Section III – Air
Quality and on page 9 of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix
C). Compliance with these federal, regional, and local requirements would reduce the potential for
both on-site and off-site erosion effects to accepted levels during project construction.
For project operation, ground surfaces would be stabilized by project structures, paving, and
landscaping upon completion of construction activities. Therefore, impacts associated with soil
erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
ii) Less than significant impact. The design and implementation of these facilities will be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer to ensure compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal
standards.
Implementation of the required NPDES and PDP SWQMP requirements discussed above, and other
applicable requirements will ensure that drainage and stormwater runoff will not create or contribute
to water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the project will have a less than
significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
iii) Less than significant impact. Implementation of the required NPDES and PDP SWQMP
requirements discussed above, and other applicable requirements will ensure that runoff water will
not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. These regulations will
Attachment #1
96
Page 91 of 153
also ensure the project will not provide additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the project
will directly, indirectly, and cumulatively have a less than significant impact.
v) Less than significant impact. Flood flows will be redirected. As noted in the Preliminary Drainage
Study (Appendix K), topographically, the site slopes to the south from the northern property
boundary, forming three (3) drainage basins with three (3) discharge locations.
Existing Drainage Basin A comprises the western portion of the site. Runoff drains via overland flow
to an existing concrete swale located at the southern property boundary. The drainage swale carries
flow east to an existing Type F catch basin at the southern property boundary. The catch basin
connects to an existing private storm drainpipe that outlets via the curb outlet onto Main Street.
Existing Drainage Basin B comprises the eastern portion of the site. Runoff is conveyed via overland
surface flow to an existing concrete drainage channel located at the southeastern corner of the site.
The drainage channel conveys runoff south and outlets via curb outlet onto Main Street.
Flow travels west via concrete curb and gutter from Main Street to an existing curb inlet. Stormwater
is then conveyed south through an existing storm drainpipe and outlets over the headwall into the
Otay River. The Otay River travels west and outlets at the San Diego Bay and, ultimately, the Pacific
Ocean.
Existing Drainage Basin C comprises the northwesterly portion of the site. Runoff is conveyed via
overland surface flow to an existing swale west of the project site. Local surface runoff from the
project site and surrounding properties collects in this area and flows to the south to an existing
concrete drainage channel located in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence at the end of
Tanoak Court. The existing concrete channel flows to the south and then turns and flows to the west
and discharges into Tanoak Court through two existing Type-A curb outlets (Figure 1 – Tanoak Court
Type A Curb Outlets).
The proposed site will consist of two (2) major drainage basins with two (2) discharge locations that
match the existing drainage discharge points and pre-project peak flow rates for Existing Drainage
Basins A and B. The proposed project’s area in the northwesterly corner of the project site that
comprised Existing Drainage Basin C is proposed to be included in Proposed Drainage Basin A. This
design will enable the proposed project to collect and convey runoff from this location to the project’s
peak flow detention facility and stormwater treatment and no longer discharge runoff on an existing
single-family residential property. While the size of Proposed Drainage Basin A is larger than the size
of Existing Drainage Basin A when comparing areas, the proposed project will provide peak flow
detention, so the peak flow runoff rate from this basin for the post-project condition will be equal to
or less than the pre-project condition.
Stormwater runoff from a majority of the proposed development (DMA-A) is routed to a series of
BMPs, including a Contech CDS pretreatment unit, a StormTrap underground detention vault, and a
BioClean Modular Wetland System (MWS). The underground detention vault has been designed to
meet 100-year peak flow detention requirements. The Modular Wetland System is designed as a
proprietary biofiltration BMP for stormwater treatment. Outflows from the detention vault and MWS
are discharged through a proposed storm drainpipe to the existing Type F catch basin at the southern
property boundary. Stormwater is then conveyed through the neighboring property to the south
through an existing private storm drain and outlets onto Main Street as in existing conditions.
Stormwater runoff from the proposed driveway (DMA-B) will be drained to a Modular Wetland
System for stormwater treatment. The MWS will be designed with a 3-foot-wide curb inlet opening
and a 1-inch local curb depression to capture the required water quality flow. Runoff that exceeds the
water quality flow rate or capacity of the MWS will flow by the MWS and drain to the existing concrete
drainage channel at the southeast corner of the project site. Outflows from the MWS will be pumped
Attachment #1
97
Page 92 of 153
to a proposed curb outlet along the southern property boundary and discharged to the existing
concrete drainage channel. As in existing conditions, the concrete drainage channel discharges onto
Main Street via the curb outlet. The characteristic of existing stormwater flows through the
neighboring property will not change as a result of the proposed project.
Runoff from the cut slope at the northwest portion of the project site will be conveyed via the
proposed brow ditch to the existing Type F catch basin at the southern property boundary. This area
(DMA-C) is considered a Self-Mitigating DMA per Chapter 5.2.1 of the City of Chula Vista BMP
Design Manual.
All project site runoff is discharged onto Main Street as in existing conditions. Flow travels west via
concrete curb and gutter from Main Street to an existing curb inlet. Stormwater is then conveyed
south through an existing storm drain and outlets over the headwall into the Otay River. The Otay
River travels west and outlets at the San Diego Bay and, ultimately, the Pacific Ocean. The Otay River
is considered an exempt river reach per the Watershed Management Area Analysis (WMAA).
Therefore, the project is exempt from hydromodification management requirements because the
project directly discharges into an exempt river reach via a hardened conveyance (a combination of a
private and public storm drain system).
The underground detention vault has been designed to provide flow control in the form of volume
reduction and peak flow attenuation. The vault has been modified to include a low-flow and mid-
flow orifice outlet and an overflow weir to control peak flows. The required water quality treatment
flow is diverted to the downstream Modular Wetland System in accordance with Worksheet B.5-5 of
the City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual. Overflow relief for the 100-year storm event is provided
with a partition weir installed within the vault and discharged directly to the existing Type F catch
basin at the southern property boundary (pages 5 – 7 Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix K)).
The project will be required to comply with all applicable water quality standards. The project will be
connected to the sewer system and on-site/off-site stormwater conveyance system to further
minimize potential water quality degradation. Therefore, the project will not create or contribute
runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The impacts will be less than significant,
directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
d) No impact. The project site is located within a minimal flood hazard zone (Zone X) as mapped by FEMA
(FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C2156G and 06073C2157G).
Tsunamis, long-wavelength seismic sea waves generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom
during submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity, conceivably could have adverse effects on
the coastal areas of Chula Vista. However, because the City is adjacent to a relatively protected part of
San Diego Bay, the potential for significant wave damage is considered low. In the unlikely event of the
development of noticeable seiches, it is conceivable that local areas adjacent to the Otay Lakes and the
San Diego Bay could be impacted by wave activity (page E-57 General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020).
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department has a disaster preparedness scenario for tsunamis, and it is the
only scenario with an evacuation route map. The evacuation routes are along the coast and direct evacuees
inland. According to the tsunami evacuation map, a tsunami would not affect the project site.
The project location, as well as compliance with existing federal, state, and local flood hazard laws and
regulations pertaining to the project’s design, will ensure no impact on flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
e) Less than significant impact. As described throughout this section, Section X, the project is required
to comply with the City of Chula Vista’s NPDES Permit, SWPPP requirements, Jurisdictional Runoff
Attachment #1
98
Page 93 of 153
Management Program, Municipal Code Section 14.20 – Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control, and Chapter 15.04 – Excavation, Grading, Clearing, Grubbing and Fills, and the PDP SWQMP.
Therefore, the project will be designed to comply with existing federal, state, and local water quality laws
and regulations pertaining to water quality standards, ensuring a less than significant impact, directly,
indirectly, or cumulatively, on the water quality control and groundwater management plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. The project site is in an urbanized area currently Zoned and designated
in the General Plan for industrial uses. The project will take its access from a driveway off Shinohara Lane
in the Brandywine/Main Distribution Center as permitted at this location and under this zone. The
following uses bound the site.
➢ Jabil Packaging Solutions (Plastic Injection Molding) and Crash Champions Collison Repair on
the south
➢ TransAmerican Manufacturing Group (Autoparts), Transpere (Information Technology Asset
Solutions), Curbell Plastics, Inc. (Plastic Wholesaler), and Técnico Corporation Marine &
Industrial Contractors (Shipbuilding and Repair Company) on the east
➢ Multi-family residential – Mendocino Condominiums to the north
➢ Single-family residential to the west
The project would utilize the existing roadway network. It would not result in improvements that would
physically divide an existing community or otherwise impact circulation on public roads surrounding the
site. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively to an
established community.
b) Less than significant impact. The City has designated the property as IL – Limited Industrial in the
City’s General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020. This designation is consistent with policies and regulations
established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. In particular, the following Land Use Objectives and
Policies:
LUT-1: Provide a balance of residential and non-residential development throughout the City that
achieves a vibrant development pattern, enhances the character of the City, and meets the
present and future needs of all residents and businesses.
Policies: LUT 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.12
LUT-6: Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with one another.
Attachment #1
99
Page 94 of 153
Policies: 6.1, 6.2, and 6.8
LUT-10: Create attractive street environments that complement private and public properties, create
attractive public rights-of-way, and provide visual interest for residents and visitors.
Policies: 10.1, 10.4, and 10.5
LUT-11: Ensure that buildings and related site improvements for public and private development are
well-designed and compatible with surrounding properties and districts.
Policies: 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5
The project provides a non-residential use fulfilling one of the last open Limited Industrial opportunities
in the area. The proposed building is designed for warehouse/distribution uses to serve the local and
subregional San Diego County area providing approximately 350 new jobs for the community, including
management, warehousing, and driver positions.
The building is well-designed and will be compatible with the surrounding area. The warehouse building
is of a contemporary single-story concrete tilt-up industrial building design. The color palette uses white,
light gray, and dark gray, with charcoal and blue accent colors. Elevation changes, pop-outs, and scoring
are used to break up the massing of the building. At the entrances, storefront doors are provided with
sectional windows and a shade canopy painted blue. The maximum height of the building is 43 feet.
The loading docks have been placed on the eastern side of the building to provide a more compatible
environment with the housing to the west and north. Therefore, the operational portion of the facility
will take place on the eastern side of the building, with only employee parking on the north and west sides.
Both Verdura and soil nail retaining walls will be along the western boundary of varying exposed retaining
wall heights from 0 feet to 30 feet (See Appendix A Sheets AS 1.1 and L1.1 and Appendix B Sheets C3.0,
C4.0, and C6.0). These walls will be well designed and, in the case of the Verdura wall, planted to provide
a compatible and pleasing environment.
Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively to any land use
plans or zoning.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
Comments:
Attachment #1
100
Page 95 of 153
a) No impact. According to the California Geological Survey Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) Mineral Land Classification system and Figure 9-4 – MRZ-2 Area Map General Plan Chula
Vista Vision 2020 (page E-29), the project site is located on the northern side of Main Street, just outside
of the Regionally Significant MRZ-2 Aggregate Resource Area on the south side of Main Street. The
project site is not designated as a mineral resource area. The project site is not known to have mineral
resources; therefore, the project’s implementation will have no impact on mineral resources directly,
indirectly, or cumulatively.
b) No impact. The project site is not delineated for mineral resources on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land-use plans. Therefore, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively
on the availability of important mineral resources.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
The Shinohara Industrial Center Project Noise Impact Study City of Chula Vista, CA, prepared by MD
Acoustics, LLC, December 6, 2022 (Appendix M), analyzed the project’s noise impact and found the project’s
noise impact on the surrounding environment to be less than significant.
a) Less than significant impact.
Study Method and Procedure
The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used for this assessment.
Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria
Attachment #1
101
Page 96 of 153
Noise measurements are taken to determine the existing noise levels. A noise receiver or receptor is any
location in the noise analysis in which noise might produce an impact. The following criteria are used to select
measurement locations and receptors:
• Locations expected to receive the highest noise impacts, such as the first row of houses
• Locations that are acoustically representative and equivalent to the area of concern
• Human land usage
• Sites clear of major obstruction and contamination
MD Acoustics, LLC conducted the sound level measurements in accordance with Federal Highway
Transportation (FHWA) and Caltrans (TeNS) technical noise specifications. All measurement equipment
meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983
identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). The following gives a brief description of the Caltrans Technical Noise
Supplement procedures for sound level measurements:
• Microphones for sound level meters were placed 5 feet above the ground for all measurements
• Sound level meters were calibrated (Larson Davis CAL 200) before and after each measurement
• Following the calibration of equipment, a windscreen was placed over the microphone
• Frequency weighting was set on “A” and slow response
• Results of the long-term noise measurements were recorded on field data sheets
• During any short-term noise measurements, any noise contaminations such as barking dogs,
local traffic, lawnmowers, or aircraft flyovers were noted
• Temperature and sky conditions were observed and documented
Noise Measurement Locations
Noise monitoring locations were selected based on the nearest sensitive receptors relative to the proposed
on-site noise sources. Three (3) long-term 24-hour noise measurements were conducted at or near the project
site and are illustrated in Exhibit E. Appendix A of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M) includes photos,
a field sheet, and measured noise data.
Stationary Noise Modeling
SoundPLAN (SP) acoustical modeling software was utilized to model future worst‐case stationary noise
impacts to the adjacent land uses. SP can evaluate multiple stationary noise source impacts at various receiver
locations. SP’s software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law and reference equipment noise
level data) to calculate noise level projections. The software allows the user to input specific noise sources,
spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations.
The future worst-case noise level projections were modeled using referenced sound level data for the
various stationary on-site sources (parking spaces, truck loading dock with an idling semi-truck, and truck
climbing over the entrance ramp). The model assumes approximately 221 parking spaces and 25 loading
docks on the east side of the building. The site's topography is also included, which involves the elevations
for noise sources and receivers and the project retaining and screening walls. The project retaining and
screening walls include a six (6) foot-tall wall on the northwest corner of the site, as shown in detail in
Appendix F Concept Grading of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M) for the project.
Each idling truck was located at the loading docks 10 feet over the ground and calibrated to 74 dBA sound
power level. The idling time was set to 5 minutes every hour. Also, each idling truck includes a reverse
siren running for 5 minutes every hour. The access ramp was modeled with 20 heavy trucks passing by
every hour. In addition, the parking lot was modeled with one car movement per parking space per hour.
Finally, typical HVAC equipment was included as a point source over the roof of the office areas.
Although the HVAC equipment was not defined, it was included as an example. The reference sound
Attachment #1
102
Page 97 of 153
level data is provided in Appendix B of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M), and the model sources
summary is in Table 3.
Table 3: Reference Sound Level Measurements for SoundPlan Model
Source Source Type Reference Level (Lw dBA) Descriptor
Idling Trucks Point Source 74 10 ft
Reverse Sirens Point Source 100 3 ft
Truck driving up the ramp Line Source 91 20 trucks per hr
Parking Area (SP Parking Tool) 77 1 car per hr
HVAC equipment Point 80 2 rooftop units
Table 29 - Table 3 of the Noise Impact Study - Table 3: Reference Sound Level Measurements for SoundPlan Model
Table 3: Reference Sound Level Measurements for SoundPlan Model - Reference Sound Level Measurements for
SoundPlan Model
The SP model assumes that all noise sources are operating simultaneously (worst-case scenario) when in
actuality, the noise will be intermittent and lower in noise level. SP modeling inputs and outputs are
provided in Appendix C of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).
FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Traffic noise from vehicular traffic was projected using a computer program replicating the FHWA
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model predicts a noise level increment
of 3 dB per doubling the traffic volume. Roadway volumes and percentages correspond to the project’s
traffic scoping agreement as prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, The City’s traffic counts,
and roadway classification.
The traffic study approach considers two scenarios; warehouse use and distribution facility use. Therefore,
both noise impacts are presented. The warehouse use would generate 1,088 daily trips, and the distribution
use would generate 4,881 daily trips. The referenced traffic data was screened out of VMT analysis, and
no further analysis is required. The traffic data is included in Appendix D of the Noise Impact Study
(Appendix M).
Table 4 indicates the roadway parameters and vehicle distribution utilized for this study.
Table 4: Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution
Roadway Segment Existin
g ADT1
Existing
Plus
Project
ADT
Warehouse
Existing Plus
Project ADT
Distribution
Cumulative
Warehouse
Cumulative
Distribution
Speed
(MPH)
Site
Conditions
Brandywine
Ave
Shinohara Ln
to Main St 7,500 8,500 12,500 15,200 18,235 35 Hard
Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix)2
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7 AM to 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.42
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 1.84
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.74
Notes:
1 Traffic counts provided by LL&G Engineers. This model takes the total ADT and uses the vehicle distribution mix for the calculations.
2. Vehicle mix distribution per SANDAG.
Table 30 - Table 4 of the Noise Impact Study - Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution
FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
The construction noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction
Noise Model (RNCM), together with several key construction parameters. Key inputs include distance to the
sensitive receiver, equipment usage, % usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site.
Attachment #1
103
Page 98 of 153
The project was analyzed based on the different construction phases, grading, building, paving, and
architectural coating. Construction noise is expected to be loudest during the grading, concrete, and building
phases of construction. The construction noise calculation output worksheet is located in Appendix E of the
Noise Impact Study (Appendix M). The following assumptions relevant to short-term construction noise
impacts were used:
• It is estimated that construction will be carried out over 18 months. Daily construction hours are
expected to be during allowable daytime hours per the City’s Municipal Code. The model
includes key inputs like distance to the sensitive receiver, equipment type, and 40% usage factor.
Construction noise is expected to be the loudest during the grading, concrete, and building
phases.
Existing Noise Environment
Three (3) 24-hour ambient noise measurements were conducted at the project site. Noise measurements
were taken to determine the existing ambient noise levels. Noise data indicate that the industrial facility
along the south property line and traffic from surrounding streets and highways are the primary sources
of noise impacting the site and the surrounding area.
Long-Term Noise Measurement Results
The quietest hour of the day was selected, assuming the project will run 24 hours as a worst-case scenario, to
compare the equivalent ambient levels with the operational noise levels. The quietest levels from the long-
term noise data for each location are presented in Table 5.
Noise data indicates that the equivalent noise level Leq for the quietest ambient noise levels (worst-case)
measured ranges from 43 to 59 dBA at the project site. Measurement location LT-1 represents industrial land
use, and LT-2 & LT-3 represent residential uses. Additional field notes and photographs are provided in
Appendix A of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).
For this evaluation, MD Acoustics LLC has utilized the quietest level measured Leq and has compared the
project’s projected noise levels to this level.
Future Noise Environmental Impacts
This assessment analyzes future noise impacts as a result of the project. The analysis details the estimated
exterior noise levels. Stationary noise impacts are analyzed from the on-site noise sources such as truck
movement and parking lot.
Table 5: Long-Term Noise Measurement Data1
Date Location Adjacent
Land use Label1 Leq (dBA)
7/2/2021 South Industrial LT-1 59
7/2/2021 West Residential LT-2 44
7/2/2021 North Residential LT-3 43
Notes:
1. Long-term noise monitoring locations (LT1, LT2, & LT3) are illustrated in Exhibit E.
Table 31 - Table 5 of the Noise Impact Study - Long-Term Noise Measurement Data
Attachment #1
104
Page 99 of 153
Operational Noise Impacts
Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Sources
Sensitive receptors that may be affected by project operational noise include residential uses to the north and
west. The worst-case stationary noise was modeled using SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software.
For this study, project activities are assumed to be continuously operational when the noise is intermittent in
reality. As a worst-case scenario, the project evaluates the loading dock noise for twenty (25) trucks distributed
over loading docks on the east side of the building. In addition, the entrance ramp assumes 20 heavy trucks
passing by every hour. Figure 31 shows the site plan with the layout. The project assumes that the industrial
facilities will be running for 24 hours.
A total of four (4) receptors were modeled to evaluate the proposed project’s operational impact. A receptor is
denoted by a yellow dot (Exhibit E below). All yellow dots represent either a property line or a sensitive receptor,
such as a sensitive outdoor area (courtyard, patio, backyard, etc.).
This study compares the project’s operational noise levels to two (2) different noise assessment scenarios: 1)
Project Only operational noise level projections, 2) Project plus ambient noise level projections for the quietest
hour of the day.
Figure 31 - Exhibit E of the Noise Impact Study
Attachment #1
105
Page 100 of 153
Project Operational Noise Levels
Exhibit F shows the “project only” operational noise levels at the site and illustrates how the noise will propagate
at the property lines and/or sensitive receptor area. Operational noise levels at the adjacent uses are anticipated
to range between 30 dBA to 41 dBA Leq (depending on the location). The model also considered the elevation
differences between the project site and the adjacent residential land uses. Exhibit G shows the 3D rendering
of the project site situation relative to the surrounding land uses.
Figure 32 - Exhibit F of the Noise Impact Study
Attachment #1
106
Page 101 of 153
Project Plus Ambient Operational Noise Levels
Table 6 demonstrates the project plus the ambient noise levels. Project plus ambient noise level
projections are anticipated to range between 44 to 59 dBA Leq depending on location.
Table 6: Worst-case Predicted Operational Leq
Receptor
1 Floor
Existing Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)3
Total
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
Daytime (7
AM – 10 PM)
Stationary
Noise Limit
(dBA, Leq)4
Nighttime
(10PM –
7AM)
Stationary
Noise Limit
(dBA, Leq)4
Change in
Noise Level
as Result of
Project
1 1 59 30 59 70 70 0
2 1 44 33 44 55 45 0
3 1 43 41 45 55 45 2
4 1 43 38 44 55 45 1
Notes:
1. Receptors 1 & 5 represent industrial, and receptors 2 thru 4 represent single-family residential.
2. Existing ambient taken as 24-hour measurement.
3. See Exhibit F for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.
4. Per the City of Chula Vista municipal code 19.68.030(B)(4), if the Ambient level exceeds the limit, the ambient becomes the limit.
Table 32 - Table 6 of the Noise Impact Study - Worst-case Predicted Operational Leq
As shown in Table 6, the project will meet the City’s standard of 45 dBA Leq for residential nighttime operation
and 70 dBA for industrial limits.
Table 7 provides the characteristics associated with changes in noise levels.
Figure 33 - Exhibit G of the Noise Impact Study
Attachment #1
107
Page 102 of 153
Table 7: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1
Changes in Intensity Level, dBA Changes in Apparent Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm
Table 33 - Table 7 of the Noise Impact Study - Change in Noise Level Characteristics
In a worst-case scenario, the change in noise level at receivers would fall within the “Not Perceptible” to “Just
perceptible” acoustic characteristic for all receiver locations.
Noise Impacts to On/Off-Site Receptors Due to Project Maintenance Equipment
Project maintenance activities such as parking lot sweeper machines and/or landscaping machinery should
not be used before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. or according to Section 17.24.040(C)(8).
Noise Impacts to On/Off-Site Receptors Due to Project-Generated Traffic
A worst-case project-generated traffic noise level was modeled utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise
Prediction Model - FHWA-RD-77-108. Traffic noise levels were calculated 50 feet from the centerline of
the analyzed roadway. The modeling is theoretical and does not consider any existing barriers, structures,
and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels. Therefore, the levels are shown for
comparative purposes only to show the difference with and without project conditions. In addition, the
noise contours for 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL were calculated. The potential off-site noise impacts caused
by an increase in traffic from the operation of the proposed project on the nearby roadways were
calculated for the following scenarios:
Existing Year (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions.
Existing Year (Plus Project Warehouse use): This scenario refers to the existing year + project traffic noise
conditions for a warehouse building use.
Existing Year (Plus Project Distribution use): This scenario refers to the existing year + project traffic noise
conditions for a distribution facility use.
Cumulative (Plus Project Warehouse use): This scenario refers to existing year + cumulative traffic + project
traffic noise conditions for a warehouse building use.
Cumulative (Plus Project Distribution use): This scenario refers to existing year + cumulative traffic + project
traffic noise conditions for a distribution facility use.
Table 8 compares the without and with project scenarios and shows the change in traffic noise levels due
to the proposed project. It takes a change of 3 dB or more to hear a perceptible difference. As
demonstrated in Table 8, the project is anticipated to change the noise by 2 dBA CNEL in the worst-case
scenario.
Although there is an increase in traffic noise levels, the impact is considered less than significant as the
noise levels at or near any existing proposed sensitive receptor would be 67.7. dBA CNEL or less, and
the change in noise level is 4 dBA or less.
Attachment #1
108
Page 103 of 153
Table 8 – Existing Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL)
Existing Without Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
at 50 Ft
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL 60 dBA CNEL
55
dBA
CNEL
Brandywine
Ave Shinohara Ln to Main St 63.9 12 39 122 385
Existing With Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
at 50 Ft
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment Project Use 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL 60 dBA CNEL
55
dBA
CNEL
Brandywine
Ave Shinohara Ln to Main St Warehouse 64.4 14 44 138 437
Brandywine
Ave Shinohara Ln to Main St Distribution 66.1 20 64 203 642
Cumulative Projects Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
at 50 Ft
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment Project Use 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60
dBA
CNEL
55
dBA
CNEL
Brandywine
Ave Shinohara Ln to Main St Warehouse 66.9 25 78 247 781
Brandywine
Ave Shinohara Ln to Main St Distribution 67.47 30 94 296 937
Change in Existing Noise Levels as a Result of Project
CNEL at 50 Feet dBA2
Roadway1 Segment Project Use
Existing
Without
Project
Cumulative
Project
Change
in
Noise
Level
Potential
Significant
Impact
Brandywine
Ave Shinohara Ln to Main St Warehouse 63.9 66.9 3.0 No
Brandywine
Ave Shinohara Ln to Main St Distribution 63.9 67.47 3.8 No
Notes:
1 Exterior noise levels calculated at 5 feet above ground level.
2 Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway. No sensitive receptors are located within 50 ft from the
roadway centerline.
Table 34 - Table 8 of the Noise Impact Study - Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL)
Construction Noise Impact
The degree of construction noise may vary for different project site areas and vary depending on the
construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different
construction phases.
Construction Noise
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise-generated
characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1
Type Lmax (dBA) at 50 Feet
Backhoe 80
Truck 88
Concrete Mixer 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Attachment #1
109
Page 104 of 153
Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels1
Type Lmax (dBA) at 50 Feet
Pump 76
Saw, Electric 76
Air Compressor 81
Generator 81
Paver 89
Roller 74
Notes:
1 Referenced Noise Levels from FTA noise and vibration manual.
Table 35 - Table 9 of the Noise Impact Study - Typical Construction Equipment
Noise Levels
Construction noise is considered a short-term impact, and it is considered exempt from the exterior noise
standard per City’s code 19.68.060(C)(2). Construction is anticipated to occur during daytime hours (7
AM to 10 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 10 PM Saturdays and Sundays) as defined in Section
17.24.040(C)(8) of the City’s Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic
increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the project vicinity. Furthermore, noise
reduction measures are provided to reduce construction noise further. The project is considered to have
no impact for construction noise. However, construction noise level projections are provided.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of
full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be the
loudest during the grading phase. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes
the use of 2-earthmovers, 1-grader, 1-dozer, 1-excavators, and 1-backhoes operating at 293 feet from the
nearest sensitive receptor, located adjacent to the west property line. As construction equipment will move
around the project site during the workday, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor is taken from
the center of the project site in order to average the work area where the noise will be produced.
Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unmitigated noise levels at 293 feet
have the potential to reach 70 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for
the other construction phases would be lower, approximately 65 dBA. It shall be noted that the
construction activities will take place over the allowable hours (7 AM to 10 PM on weekdays and 8 AM
to 10 PM Saturdays and Sundays) and might have the potential to reach higher noise levels at the property
lines. The louder level at property lines due to construction activities is exempt from the noise ordinance
limits per 19.68.060(C)(2) of the Municipal Code.
Construction Noise Reduction Policies
Construction operations must follow the City’s General Plan and the Noise Ordinance, which states that
construction, repair, or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To further
ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following best management
practices/policies shall be taken and will be applied as conditions of approval:
1. Construction shall occur during the permissible hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays) as defined in Section 17.24.040(C)(8) of the City’s
Municipal Code.
2. During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with
appropriate noise-attenuating devices.
3. The contractor shall locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
Attachment #1
110
Page 105 of 153
4. Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
5. Equipment shall be maintained to secure vehicles and their loads from rattling and banging.
During the operation and construction of the project, the project will have a less than significant impact
on the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project.
dBA = A-weighted sound level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter
network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the
sound in a manner similar to the human ear's response. A numerical method of rating human judgment
of loudness.
Leq = Equivalent Sound Level – the sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample
period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average
noise level during the sample period.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level – the average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a
24-hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to
10:00 p.m. and after the addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and
after 10:00 p.m.
b) Less than significant impact.
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The project's
construction would not require equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial
construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a bulldozer.
A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25
feet, which is perceptible but below any risk of architectural damage.
The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and
distance is as follows:
PPVequipment = PPVref (100/Drec)n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 100ft.
Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground)
The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual
in Table 10 (below) provide general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from
vibratory impacts.
Table 10: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
Attachment #1
111
Page 106 of 153
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, Sept. 2013.
Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include
impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Table 36 - Table 10 of the Noise Impact Study - Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Table 11 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. The data provides a
reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.
Table 11: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment1
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105
0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
1 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.
Table 37 - Table 11 of the Noise Impact Study - Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
A large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.006 PPV (in/sec) which may be perceptible for short periods
during grading along property lines of the project site but is below any threshold of damage, considering
the adjacent residential to the west are at a distance of 293-feet from the project site’s center. At 30 feet
from the property line, the vibration level is about 0.073 in/sec PPV. A vibration level of this scale may
be perceptible for short periods of time but is below any threshold of damage. The project will be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
PPV – The maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity is known as the peak particle velocity
(PPV), typically given in inches per second.
RMS – Known as the root mean squared (RMS), can denote vibration amplitude.
VdB – A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.
c) No impact. The project is in Area 2 of the Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP). It is not within the noise contours of the ALUCP. The project will have no impact on exposing
people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the project:
Attachment #1
112
Page 107 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of road
or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. The project will not induce unplanned growth as it is consistent with the
City’s General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 policies for industrial development. The City has designated
the property as IL – Limited Industrial in the City’s General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020. This
designation is consistent with policies and regulations established in the General Plan and Zoning Code.
The City’s General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 establishes the City’s development potential to
accommodate the City’s growth. As proposed, the project will help accommodate that growth but will
not induce it.
SANDAG’s Regional Growth Forecast notes that the City will add 42,107 new jobs between 2016 and
2050.19F
20 The project is projected to create 350 new jobs, or .832%, less than 1%, of the 42,107 new jobs
projected by SANDAG over the next 34 years. As the tenant is unknown at this time, the projection of
350 new jobs may be high, but it illustrates what may occur on the site and that the project will not result
in substantial growth in employment.
The development of the site will result in industrial buildings. The project site is located on existing streets,
and utilities and public facilities are all available in the immediate area. No new road or utility infrastructure
is required. Therefore, project-related impacts are expected to be less than significant, directly,
indirectly, or cumulatively.
b) No impact. The project site is vacant and will not displace any persons or require the construction of
replacement housing. In addition, the project site is Zoned IL – Limited Industrial. Therefore, there is
no impact on housing directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
20 SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast appendix-f---regional-growth-forecast-and-scs-land-use-pattern.pdf (sdforward.com)
Attachment #1
113
Page 108 of 153
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Comments:
a)
i) Less than significant impact. The project site would be served by the Chula Vista Fire Department
(CVFD), which has ten (10) fire stations and approximately 170 personnel (City of Chula Vista 2021).
As part of standard development practices, prior to construction, project plans will be reviewed by
the CVFD, and the project will be required to incorporate the CVFD’s recommendations into the
final project design. The CVFD review and approval of plans would ensure that the project complies
with the California Fire Code (24 CCR, Part 9). The project applicant will be required to install fire
alarms and sprinklers to improve safety and emergency response.
The project will be required to pay development impact fees (DIF) related to fire protection. The fire
protection facility DIF fees are determined based on the City’s Master Fee Schedule. These fees would
provide funding for capital improvements such as land, equipment purchases, and fire station
construction.
Operations of the project would involve the development of an industrial building. Project
construction could result in additional emergency calls to this location. Still, it is not anticipated to
increase the overall demand for fire protection and services to the degree that new or improved
facilities would be required. Implementation of the project would not result in a substantially increased
demand for fire protection services. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection would be less
than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
ii) Less than significant impact. The project will be served by Chula Vista Police Department
(CVPD), currently employing approximately 270 sworn officers (City of Chula Vista 2021). The
project will be required to pay a development impact fee (DIF) related to police services. The police
protection facility DIF fees are determined based on the City’s Master Fee Schedule. These fees would
provide funding for capital improvements for police services. Project construction could result in
additional enforcement calls and emergency responses to this location. Still, it is not anticipated to
increase the overall demand for law enforcement personnel and services in the project area such that
new or improved facilities would be required. The CVPD has a goal to meet all Priority 1 Emergency
calls (life-threatening) within six (6) minutes and all Priority 2 Emergency calls (urgent calls) within
7.5 minutes.
The project would involve the development of an industrial building. Project construction could result
in additional enforcement calls and emergency responses to this location. Still, it is not anticipated to
increase the demand for law enforcement personnel and services such that new or improved facilities
would be required. Therefore, the implementation of the project would not substantially increase the
demand for police protection services. Therefore, impacts associated with police protection would be
less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
Attachment #1
114
Page 109 of 153
iii) No impact. The project is in the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) and the Chula
Vista Elementary School district (CVESD). The project would not directly or indirectly increase the
population. Construction and operational workers would come from the local labor pool or commute
from the San Diego region. The project would not substantially increase enrollment at schools. The
project is required to pay the state-mandated school fees in place when development occurs. These
fees are designed to mitigate impacts on schools by providing funds to construct new facilities. The
Building Division collects the fees from the Permittee/Owner at the request for occupancy. By
implementing all regulations and City and School Districts’ policies for development projects, the
project will have no impacts associated with schools directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
iv) No impact. The project will add new residents to the area, and thus use of parks is not anticipated
to increase because of the project. Construction and operational workers would come from the local
labor pool or commute from the San Diego region. Therefore, the project would not result in a
substantial increase in demand on parks or create adverse physical impacts on parks, and no impact
will occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
v) No Impact. The project would not increase the population as construction and operational workers
would come from the local labor pool or commute from the San Diego region. The project would
not increase enrollment at schools or patronage at parks, libraries, community centers, trails, or other
public facilities.
A review of the City’s General Plan and the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan makes it clear
that no trails are proposed through or adjacent to the project site, as noted in Figure 34.
Therefore, no impacts on other public facilities would occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Figure 34 - Figure 4 of the Otay Valley Ranch Regional Park Concept Plan
Attachment #1
115
Page 110 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. The project would not result in population growth, as construction and
operational workers would come from the local labor pool or commute from the San Diego region. It is
not anticipated that people would relocate to the City due to the construction or operation of the project.
Therefore, the project is not expected to cause any substantial physical deterioration to nearby recreational
facilities. Workers from the project may use the local parks during breaks and lunches, but their use will
be minimal. Therefore, no significant increased usage of existing neighborhoods, regional parks, or other
recreational facilities is expected to occur due to the project, and a less than significant impact would
arise directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
b) No Impact. The project will consist of a warehouse/distribution building that does not include
recreational facilities. The project will not increase the area’s population and require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, the project will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or
cumulatively on the requirement for additional recreational facilities.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Attachment #1
116
Page 111 of 153
Comments:
The Local Mobility Analysis Chula Vista Shinohara, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers,
December 14, 2022 (Appendix O), has found the project will have a less than significant impact on
transportation.
a) Less than significant impact.
GENERAL PLAN CHULA VISTA VISION 2020 – CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The project is located at 517 Shinohara Lane and will take access from a driveway at the terminus of
Shinohara Lane. Roadways that the project may impact are listed here.
Olympic Parkway is classified as a six (6) Lane Prime in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use
and Transportation Element. It is currently constructed as a six-lane divided roadway. Sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the roadway. Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway.
Curbside parking is not permitted. The posted speed limit is 45 mph west of Brandywine Avenue and 50
mph east of Brandywine Avenue.
Shinohara Lane is a non-classified roadway in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Element. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway with a curb-to-curb
width of approximately 40 feet. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway, and bike lanes are
not provided. Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. There is no posted speed limit.
Main Street is classified as a six (6) Lane Prime in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Element. It is currently constructed as a six-lane divided roadway. Sidewalks are provided
on both sides of the roadway. Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway. Curbside
parking is not permitted. The posted speed limit west of I-805 northbound ramps is 40 mph. Between I-
805's northbound ramps and Brandywine Avenue, the speed limit is 45 mph and 50 mph east of
Brandywine Avenue.
Main Court is a non-classified roadway in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Element. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway. Sidewalks are not
provided on either side of the roadway. Bike lanes are not provided. Curbside parking is not permitted.
There is no posted speed limit.
Oleander Avenue is a non-classified roadway in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Element. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway. Sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the roadway. Bike lanes are not provided on either side of the roadway. Curbside
parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Brandywine Avenue is classified as a Class I Collector in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use
and Transportation Element. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway between
Olympic Parkway and Sonora Drive. Brandywine Avenue is built between Sonora Drive and Mendocino
Drive as a two-lane undivided roadway with a two-way left-turn lane. It is constructed as a four-lane
undivided roadway with a two-way left-turn lane between Mendocino Drive and Main Street. Sidewalks
are provided on both sides of the roadway. Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway.
Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway between Olympic Boulevard and Mendocino
Drive. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Auto Park Place is a non-classified roadway in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Element. It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway with a two-way left-
turn lane. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway, and bike lanes are not provided. Curbside
parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. There is no posted speed limit.
Attachment #1
117
Page 112 of 153
These roadways are consistent with the General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 – Circulation Element.
Trucks
As noted in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element, page LUT-81,
“Chula Vista has designated select roadways as truck routes to provide for the regulated movement of trucks throughout the
City. This is intended to route truck traffic to those streets where neighborhood intrusion, noise, and other potential impacts
are minimized. Roadways providing access to the freeways and major activity centers are the most likely candidates for truck
route designation. The designation of truck routes does not prevent trucks from using any other streets to make deliveries or
for other reasons, as defined in the Vehicle Code of the State of California.”
The City will encourage future tenants to instruct truck drivers to turn south off Shinohara Lane onto
Brandywine Avenue to get to the closest Truck Route, Main Street, thereby avoiding residential areas to
the north on Brandywine Avenue.
The project will not cause a conflict with the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and
Transportation Elements.
Figure 35 - The City's Truck Routes
Attachment #1
118
Page 113 of 153
CHULA VISTA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Pedestrian Mobility
Shinohara Lane – Within the study area, Shinohara Lane currently provides contiguous sidewalks on the
north side only.
Brandywine Avenue – Within the study area, Brandywine Avenue currently provides contiguous
sidewalks on both sides.
The nearest signalized intersection is less than ½ mile south of the project site, at the Main
Street/Brandywine Avenue intersection, and provides a controlled crossing location with pedestrian push
buttons and crosswalks.
Main Street – Within the study area, Main Street currently provides contiguous sidewalks on the north
side and non-contiguous sidewalks on the south side. Signalized intersections are less than ½ mile apart
along Main Street and provide a controlled crossing location with pedestrian push buttons and crosswalks.
Based on the City of Chula Vista Active Transportation Plan, no sidewalk improvements are planned
within ½ mile of the project site. The project will generate minimal walking trips.
Bicycle Mobility
A bicycle network inventory was conducted for the study area. Based on the City of Chula Vista General
Plan review, a Class II bike lane is provided along Main Street and Brandywine Avenue within the study
area. There are currently no bike lanes or bike routes on Shinohara Lane within the study area.
Based on the City of Chula Vista Active Transportation Plan, a Class IV Cycle Track is planned to be
constructed on Brandywine Avenue between Palomar Street and Main Street and Olympic Parkway east
of Brandywine Avenue. The project is also proposing ten (10) bicycle parking stalls on-site.
Transit Mobility
The nearest bus stop is approximately 1/5 mile (approximately 5 minutes of walk time) from the project
site at the Main Street/Brandywine Avenue intersection. There are multiple bus stops along Main Street
and Brandywine Avenue. These stops are served by MTS bus route 704, which runs from the E Street
Transit Center to the Palomar Street Transit Center. MTS bus route 704 runs along 3rd Avenue, Naples
Street, Brandywine Avenue, Main Street, and Orange Avenue. Weekday service begins at 5:22 a.m. with
30-minute headways and ends at 9:53 p.m. Saturday service begins at 5:51 a.m. with 1-hour headways and
ends at 9:19 p.m. Sunday service begins at 7:22 a.m. with 1-hour headways ends at 6:54 p.m. Appendix G
of the Local Mobility Analysis (Appendix O) contains the bus route schedule and map.
OTHER PLANS
City Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
A review of the interactive GIS Map of City CIP Projects accessed on December 14, 2021, indicates that
Main Street was designed for widening on the south side between Nirvana Avenue and Heritage Road to
a six-lane major as part of the 2015/16 program with the buildout of streets and pavement occurring in
2020. No other CIP projects are proposed in the project area, and the project will not conflict with this
program.
Attachment #1
119
Page 114 of 153
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) & Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) meets the federal congestion management
provisions through existing SANDAG planning and performance monitoring activities, such as the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and other multimodal performance monitoring efforts. Federal
congestion management provisions are more flexible and utilize the RTP as the primary tool to solve
congestion. The RTP includes identifying and evaluating anticipated performance and expected benefits
of appropriate congestion management strategies (demand management, operational improvements,
transit improvements, systems management improvements, etc.). Since the City and SANDAG work
together for consistency between the City’s General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020 and SANDAG’s 2014
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Chula
Vista Vision 2020, it is also consistent with the CMP and RTP.
SUMMARY
As designed and conditioned, the project will not conflict with any of the above-noted plans, ordinances,
or policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
It will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
b) Less than significant impact. Per the City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines:
“Industrial Employment projects located within a VMT-efficient area may be presumed to have a less
than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. A VMT-efficient area for industrial
employment projects is any area with an average VMT/Employee at or below the baseline regional
average for the census tract it is located within.”
The project is located in a VMT-efficient area (at or below the base year average VMT/employee) based
on the applicable location-based screening map produced by SANDAG. The baseline average regional
VMT/employee is 18.9 per the SANDAG Series 14 (Year 2016) ABM2+ data.
The project’s VMT analysis follows the City’s guidelines for industrial land uses, which only references
the SANDAG’s screening map, not VMT per capita. For industrial projects under “per employee
measurements,” the project would be expected to generate 15.32 VMT/employee. Per the City’s
Transportation Study Guidelines (June 202, Updated January 2022), the project would not require a VMT
analysis, and the project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Table 4–1 shows the
VMT analysis results. Appendix B of the Local Mobility Analysis (Appendix O) includes the two
SANDAG screening maps.
TABLE 4–1
PROJECT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
VMT per Employee
Geography VMT per Employee Exceeds Threshold?
San Diego Region 18.9 --
Significance Threshold for Industrial Employment
(at Regional Average VMT) 18.9 --
Project Site
Chula Vista Shinohara 15.32 No
Source: SANDAG VMT Employee Screening Tool for the City of Chula Vista
Table 38 - Table 4-1 of the Local Mobility Analysis - Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
c) Less than significant impact. The project site takes access via a driveway at the terminus of Shinohara
Lane. The driveway will be constructed in compliance with recommended roadway classifications and
respective cross-sections in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Vision 20 or as directed by
the City. The City Engineer will review the project site plan for sight distance at the access point with
respect to standard Caltrans and City sight distance standards. In addition, further review will take place
Attachment #1
120
Page 115 of 153
at the time of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans. Signing/striping will be
implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.
In addition, Linscott Law & Greenspan (LL&G) performed a field survey (not an engineering survey) to
determine whether or not the minimum required intersection sight distances can be achieved for drivers
turning left from Shinohara Lane. Per the AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Street Manual, the
point of observation for their review is offset 14.5 feet from the edge of the traveled way. The driver’s
eyes are measured at 3.5 feet from the ground surface, and the object to be observed is also 3.5 feet from
the ground. The location of the object to be observed is located in the middle of the travel lane.
Based on the proposed traffic control, the appropriate sight distance formula would reflect the left turn
from the minor road with stop control and represent the appropriate constraint on drivers leaving the
project site. The formula below has variables that are dependent on the design speed of the major road
(Vmajor) and expected maneuver time (tg) pertaining to each specific turning movement.
Per the above guidelines, the intersection distance for both left and right approaches of the minor leg
needs to be determined for vehicles turning left out of Shinohara Lane. Looking left from the driveway,
the minimum required intersection sight distance is 540 feet, and looking right from the driveway towards
the westbound approach, the sight distance is 592 feet. Based on field observations, sight distance
requirements are met for both southbound (540 feet) and northbound (592 feet) approaches (Appendix
O, page 29).
Truck-turning template analyses were conducted as part of the civil engineering plan preparation. These
analyses show that trucks can be accommodated at the Brandywine Avenue intersections at Main Street
and Shinohara Lane and the project driveway without creating traffic hazards.
The project will have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on creating or
increasing hazards or incompatible uses with the above provisions.
d) Less than significant impact. The project site takes access via a driveway at the terminus of Shinohara
Lane. Emergency access to the site will be provided during the development's construction and
operational phases. As designed, the project will be reviewed for both on-site and off-site safety hazards
by Engineering and Fire to ensure adequate emergency access. The project will have less than significant
impact on emergency access, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
Attachment #1
121
Page 116 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Comments:
a)
i) Less than significant impact. Due to the lack of cultural resources within the project area and the
previous amounts of disturbance from earlier grading activities, the potential of intact subsurface
resources within the project area is low. Archaeological and Native American monitoring during
construction and grading activities is not recommended. (page iii - iv Archaeological Resources Survey
Report (Appendix E)). Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on causing a
substantial adverse change to a significant archaeological resource. See Section V – Cultural Resources
for impacts on cultural resources.
ii) Less than significant impact. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1
(Assembly Bill 52), California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area can request notification of projects in their traditional cultural territory. No tribes have
requested notification from the City of Chula Vista.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
Attachment #1
122
Page 117 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact.
Water
The Otay Water District will provide potable water to the project site via an existing 12-inch potable main
within Shinohara Lane. On September 9, 2021, the Otay Water District provided a “Will Serve Letter”;
therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the need to relocate or construct
new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
Wastewater
The project will connect to the existing 8-inch sewer easement between 690 Brandywine Avenue and 515
Main Street, connecting a 10-inch diameter sewer along Main Street, a tributary to the Main Street Sewer
Basin.
The project’s anticipated average dry weather flow (ADWF) is estimated to be 14,000 gallons per day
(gpd). This estimated ADWF is computed using a sewer generation rate of 80 gpd per 1,000 square feet
of building square footage for industrial land use from Table 3-2 of the City’s May 2014 final Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan. (175,000 SF/1,000 SF x 80 gpd/1,000 SF).
Per the letter dated August 30, 2021, from the Department of Engineering & Capital Projects, the City
currently has wastewater treatment capacity rights in the City of San Diego Metro (“Metro”) system. The
letter goes on to state, “The City’s current treatment capacity rights in the Metro system (20.864 mgd) are
adequate to support the City’s projected build-out flows based on the current wastewater generation per
equivalent dwelling unit and anticipated growth (City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversite
Committee 2020 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2020).” Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact on the need to relocate or construct new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Attachment #1
123
Page 118 of 153
Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section X – Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed site will consist of two (2) major
drainage basins with two (2) discharge locations to mimic existing conditions. The site grading and onsite
storm drain system have been designed to avoid drainage diversion.
The proposed site will consist of two (2) major drainage basins with two (2) discharge locations that match
the existing drainage discharge points and pre-project peak flow rates for Existing Drainage Basins A and
B. The proposed project’s area in the northwesterly corner of the project site that comprised Existing
Drainage Basin C is proposed to be included in Proposed Drainage Basin A. This design will enable the
proposed project to collect and convey runoff from this location to the project’s peak flow detention
facility and stormwater treatment and no longer discharge runoff on an existing single-family residential
property. While the size of Proposed Drainage Basin A is larger than the size of Existing Drainage Basin
A when comparing areas, the proposed project will provide peak flow detention, so the peak flow runoff
rate from this basin for the post-project condition will be equal to or less than the pre-project condition.
Stormwater runoff from a majority of the proposed development (DMA-A) is routed to a series of BMPs,
including a Contech CDS pretreatment unit, a StormTrap underground detention vault, and a BioClean
Modular Wetland System (MWS). The underground detention vault has been designed to meet 100-year
peak flow detention requirements. The Modular Wetland System is designed as a proprietary biofiltration
BMP for stormwater treatment. Outflows from the detention vault and MWS are discharged through a
proposed storm drainpipe to the existing Type F catch basin at the southern property boundary.
Stormwater is then conveyed through the neighboring property to the south through an existing private
storm drain and outlets onto Main Street as in existing conditions.
Stormwater runoff from the proposed driveway (DMA-B) will be drained to a Modular Wetland System
for stormwater treatment. The MWS will be designed with a 3-foot-wide curb inlet opening and a 1-inch
local curb depression to capture the required water quality flow. Runoff that exceeds the water quality
flow rate or capacity of the MWS will flow by the MWS and drain to the existing concrete drainage channel
at the southeast corner of the project site. Outflows from the MWS will be pumped to a proposed curb
outlet along the southern property boundary and discharged to the existing concrete drainage channel. As
in existing conditions, the concrete drainage channel discharges onto Main Street via the curb outlet. The
characteristic of existing stormwater flows through the neighboring property will not change as a result
of the proposed project.
Runoff from the cut slope at the northwest portion of the project site will be conveyed via the proposed
brow ditch to the existing Type F catch basin at the southern property boundary. This area (DMA-C) is
considered a Self-Mitigating DMA per Chapter 5.2.1 of the City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual.
All project site runoff is discharged onto Main Street as in existing conditions. Flow travels west via
concrete curb and gutter from Main Street to an existing curb inlet. Stormwater is then conveyed south
through an existing storm drain and outlets over the headwall into the Otay River. The Otay River travels
west and outlets at the San Diego Bay and, ultimately, the Pacific Ocean. The Otay River is considered an
exempt river reach per the Watershed Management Area Analysis (WMAA). Therefore, the project is
exempt from hydromodification management requirements because the project directly discharges into
an exempt river reach via a hardened conveyance (a combination of a private and public storm drain
system).
The underground detention vault has been designed to provide flow control in the form of volume
reduction and peak flow attenuation. The vault has been modified to include a low-flow and mid-flow
orifice outlet and an overflow weir to control peak flows. The required water quality treatment flow is
diverted to the downstream Modular Wetland System in accordance with Worksheet B.5-5 of the City of
Chula Vista BMP Design Manual. Overflow relief for the 100-year storm event is provided with a partition
Attachment #1
124
Page 119 of 153
weir installed within the vault and discharged directly to the existing Type F catch basin at the southern
property boundary (pages 5 – 7 Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix K)).
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the need to relocate or construct
new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
Electric Power, Natural Gas & Telecommunications
The project will connect to existing electric and natural gas facilities through San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E). On June 29, 2021, SDG&E provided a “Will Serve” for the project.
The annual natural gas and electricity demands have been provided per the CalEEMod output from the
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (Appendix C). They are provided in Table
9 of the CEQA Energy Review (Appendix F).
Table 9: Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1
Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 2,613,095
Total 2,613,095
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 776,770
Parking Lot 149,963
Total 926,733
Notes:
1 Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1 annual output in the Shinohara Industrial Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health
Risk Impact Study (Appendix C).
Table 39 - Table 9 of the CEQA Energy Review - Project Annual Operational Energy Demand
Summary
As shown in Table 9, the estimated electricity demand for the project is approximately 926,733 kWh per
year. In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of San Diego consumed approximately 11,658
million kWh of electricity.20F
21 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the project is
approximately 2,613,095 kBTU per year. In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of San Diego
consumed approximately 202 million therms of gas.21F
22 Therefore, the project’s increase in electricity and
natural gas demand is insignificant compared to the County’s 2020 non-residential sector demand.
Telecommunications will be provided via AT&T. The project would have a less than significant impact
on the need to relocate or construct new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Internet and Cable Facilities
Cox Communications will provide internet and cable services to the project. Cox has cable facilities
located in the area that can be extended to the project. Cox will coordinate system design changes required
to extend their system to the project. Cox Communications provided a “Will Serve” letter for the project
on October 4, 2021.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the need to relocate or construct
new or expanded internet or cable facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
21 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
22 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
Attachment #1
125
Page 120 of 153
b) Less than significant impact. The Otay Water District (OWD) supplies potable water to the project
site and its region. As discussed in the San Diego County 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP),
adequate water supplies are projected to be available to meet Otay Water District’s estimated water
demand through 2045 under normal, historic single-dry, and historic multiple-dry year conditions (pages
ES-6 and ES-7). OWD forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of
SANDAG, which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover
the geographic area within OWD’s service area. The water use projections utilized in the San Diego
County 2020 UWMP were based on the site’s existing industrial land use designation on the City’s Land
Use Map. OWD will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The project will have a less
than significant impact.
Less than significant impact. The project’s anticipated average dry weather flow (ADWF) is estimated
to be 14,000 gallons per day (gpd). This estimated ADWF is computed using a sewer generation rate of
80 gpd per 1,000 square feet of building square footage for industrial land use from Table 3-2 of the City’s
May 2014 final Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. (175,000 SF/1,000 SF x 80 gpd/1,000 SF).
Under existing conditions, City currently has 20.86 million gallons per day (mgd) of allocated wastewater
treatment capacity rights in the Metro system and generates about 16 mgd. The City could reach 22 mgd
in the next decade based on current trends. The City is exploring options for increasing capacity at this
time (City of Chula Vista Water Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study – Accessed December 15, 2021).
Implementation of the project would utilize approximately 1% of the treatment capacity. Accordingly,
sufficient capacity to treat wastewater generated by the project and existing commitments exist. The
project would not require new or expanded wastewater facilities (such as conveyance lines, treatment
facilities, or lift stations). However, as previously stated, the City is aware that additional capacity will be
needed in the next ten years. Because there is adequate capacity at the existing treatment facility to serve
the project’s projected sewer demand, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less than significant impact. Implementation of the project would generate an incremental increase in
solid waste volumes requiring off-site disposal during short-term construction and long-term operational
activities.
According to the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan 5-Year Review Report 2017,
approved in January 2018, solid waste from Chula Vista is landfilled at the Otay Landfill (Closure Date
2030). After the closure of the Otay Landfill, the project site area will be served by the Sycamore Landfill
(Closure Date: 2054, with plans to extend the date of closure through expansion). The two landfills have
131.1 million cubic yards of remaining capacity. Therefore, the region has more than adequate landfill
capacity to serve the City of Chula Vista’s disposal needs for the foreseeable future. The project would
not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or excess of local infrastructure capacity, or
otherwise, impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the impacts would be less
than significant.
d) Less than significant impact. All land uses that generate waste must coordinate with the City’s
contracted waste hauler to collect solid waste on a standard schedule established in applicable local,
regional, and state programs. Additionally, all development within the City must comply with applicable
state requirements for recycling and waste reduction and other local and federal solid waste disposal
standards, thereby ensuring that the solid waste sent to landfills is reduced according to existing
regulations. Therefore, impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste are considered less than significant, directly,
indirectly, or cumulatively.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Attachment #1
126
Page 121 of 153
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk, or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
on the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Comments:
a) No impact. The City of Chula Vista does not have an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. However, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department has the following scenarios that
require disaster preparedness: wildfire, earthquakes, flood, terrorism, and tsunami. The only scenario with
an evacuation route map is the tsunami scenario. The evacuation routes are along the coast and direct
evacuees inland. According to the tsunami evacuation map, a tsunami would not affect the project site.
A driveway will provide project access at the terminus of Shinohara Lane. The road is an existing street
within the City’s established street system. The project will not significantly alter the road or the current
circulation pattern in the area.
Construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic. However, even temporary changes to the
existing roadway network require the approval of the City and notification to all emergency responders.
The project provides adequate emergency vehicle access, including street widths and vertical clearance.
Implementing federal, state, and local laws and regulations in the project’s construction would result in
no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.
b) No impact. A review of Figure 9-7 – Geologic Hazards of the General Plan Chula Vista Vision 2020
(page E-55) found that the project site was not in a landslide hazard area or an area of steep slopes.
However, steep slopes and retaining walls will be created. All walls will be designed and constructed per
the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and the California Building Code. The project’s
landscape plan and maintenance will create a defensible space, changing the existing natural slope
conditions to a defendable slope conditions. The project will have no impact on exposing project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled wildfire spread.
c) No impact. The project will not require installing or maintaining associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or result
Attachment #1
127
Page 122 of 153
in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts. The project is in an industrial park area and is zoned and
planned for industrial uses.
d) No impact. The project will not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The
project will include a graded pad for the buildings with retaining walls. All walls will be designed and
constructed per the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and the California Building
Code. The project’s landscape plan and maintenance will create a defensible space, changing the existing
natural slope conditions to a defendable slope conditions. The project will have no impact on exposing
people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,
because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. THRESHOLDS:
Will the proposal adversely impact the City’s
Threshold Standards?
A. Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30,
2000, GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the City will not fall below the city-
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
0BB) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of “Priority
One” emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and
maintain an average response time to all “Priority
One” emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of “Priority Two” urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all “Priority Two” calls of 7.5
minutes or less.
C) Fire and Emergency Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the
City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured
annually).
D) Traffic
Attachment #1
128
Page 123 of 153
Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections
must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) “C” or better,
with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) “D” may
occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized
intersections. Signalized intersections west of I-805 are
not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No
intersection may reach LOS “E” or “F” during the
average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials
with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard.
E) Parks and Recreation Areas
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities /1,000 population east of I-805.
F) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that stormwater flows
and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards.
G) Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards.
H) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in
whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the
City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
Comments:
A. No impact. Although the project is east of Interstate 805, it is an industrial project which would not
create a demand on or for libraries. See Section XV – Public Services v) Other public facilities.
B. No impact. See Section XV – Public Services ii) Police protection.
Attachment #1
129
Page 124 of 153
C. No impact. See Section XV – Public Service i) Fire protection.
D. No impact. Per the Local Mobility Analysis Chula Vista Shinohara, prepared by Linscott Law &
Greenspan Engineers, March 8, 2022 (Appendix O), the project does meet the LOS D or better during
the AM and PM peak hours, the threshold per the recent City of Chula Vista Transportation Study
Guidelines of determining a project’s substantial traffic effect. See Section XVII – Transportation.
E. No impact. Although the project is east of Interstate 805, it is an industrial project which would not
create a demand on or for parks and recreation facilities. See Section XV – Public Services iv) Parks and
Section XVI – Recreation.
F. Less than significant impact. See Sections X – Hydrology and Water Quality and XIX – Utilities and
Service Systems.
G. Less than significant impact. See Section XIX – Utilities and Service Systems.
H. Less than significant impact. See Sections X – Hydrology and Water Quality and XIX – Utilities and
Service Systems.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
a) Less than significant with mitigation.
Attachment #1
130
Page 125 of 153
Implementation of the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal with the implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM
BIO-3. As described in Section IV – Biological Resources, the project impacts on special-status plants
and wildlife with the implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 would be less than significant
with mitigation.
The project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California's history or
prehistory. It will have a less than significant impact with mitigation as described in Sections V –
Cultural Resources, Section VII – Geology and Soils f) Paleontological, and Section XVIII – Tribal
Cultural Resources. The project would not impact any known historic, archaeological, paleontological, or
tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, it is possible that paleontological resources would be encountered
at subsurface levels during ground-disturbing construction activities. To reduce potential adverse effects
to post-review discoveries during project implementation, procedures for inadvertent discovery of
resources will be implemented through MM PAL-1.
b) Less than significant with mitigation. The project cumulatively adds to the impacts of aesthetics, air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emission, hazards & hazardous
materials, hydrology/water quality, noise, paleontological resources, public services, recreation,
transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems. However, the project is consistent
with the City’s General Plan Vision 2020 land use designation and, therefore, will not impact population
and housing as it was planned and analyzed under the General Plan EIR. Through the project design
features, proposed mitigation measures, and consistency with the General Plan, cumulative impacts are
less than significant with mitigation. Cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project are
less than significant with mitigation incorporated (MM AES-1, MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-
3, MM PAL-1, and MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-7). The project does not have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
c) Less than significant impact with mitigation. Direct and indirect environmental effects on human
beings were analyzed in the following sections: aesthetics, air quality, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse
gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, noise,
population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities/services systems. As found
in the discussion of each relevant section, there are no potential impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to
less-than-significant levels. Furthermore, the project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local policies and regulations. The project would not result in environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, and impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation. With the implementation of MM AES-1 and MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-7, impacts
can be mitigated to less than significant.
XXIII. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:
An Initial Study (IS) conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed Shinohara Business
Center (project) may have potentially significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures (MMs)
have been incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. This Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
XXIV. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
No project revisions are proposed, and the mitigation measures are called out in each section above where
they are required.
Attachment #1
131
Page 126 of 153
XXV. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES:
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read,
understood, and have their respective company’s authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below shall indicate the Applicant’s and/or Operator’s desire that the
Project be held in abeyance without approval.
Steven Schwarz
VWP-OP Shinohara Owner, LLC
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative
Signature of Authorized Representative Date
XXVI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture &
Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology &
Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population & Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities &
Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Attachment #1
132
Page 127 of 153
XXVII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed
to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
Oscar Romero
Senior Planner
City of Chula Vista
Date
XXVIII. CUMULATIVE PROJECT LIST:
1. Project Site – DR21-0032 – To develop a 178,156 square-foot single-story industrial building for
warehousing and office uses on a vacant 9.72-acre parcel. Hours of operation are proposed as a 24-
hour operation, seven days a week, with 3 varying shifts. The subject site is zoned ILP (Limited
Industrial Precise Plan) and a General Plan designation of IL (Limited Industrial). The project will
include one entitlement for a Design Review DR21-0032 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration with
Mitigation Measures and Reporting Program IS21-0006, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista.
2. 1810 Main Court – In-N-Out Restaurant.
3. 1891 Nirvana Avenue – Cannabis Dispensary – Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a
storefront retail cannabis business within an existing 3,221 sq. ft. industrial building on a 1.05-acre
site located within the General Industrial (I) zone.
4. NWC Heritage/Santa Maya – Escaya Industrial – Design Review Permit to allow the construction of
three industrial shell buildings. The site is in the Otay Ranch Village 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
and has a zoning designation of Industrial (I) and a General Plan designation of Limited Industrial
(IL).
5. 1855 Maxwell Road – CV School district Vehicle Repair Shop – Design Review to construct a
proposed one-story, 15,500 sq. ft. building for vehicle repair of school buses and office space for the
Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Attachment #1
133
Page 128 of 153
6. 821 Main Street – Nirvana Business Park – DR21-0024 for the review of the site plan and the three
proposed warehouse buildings, and the self-storage building. Building 1 is proposed as 59,044 square
feet, Building 2 is proposed as 44,592 square feet, Building 3 is proposed as three-stories 140,802
square feet for self-storage, and building 4 is proposed as 50,030 square feet. A Tentative Parcel Map
– TPM21-0003 is also proposed to subdivide the 13.31-acre property into four (4) parcels, one for
each of the buildings. The four parcels' public right-of-way is provided via a private access easement
to Nirvana Avenue.
7. 750 Main Street – Maxwell @ Main – Development of 8.21 gross-acre site within the Auto Park East
Specific Plan. The project includes a Design Review, a Tentative Tract Map (seven lots), and a Notice
of Exemption (under the Auto Park East Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration. The site is
General Plan designated IL – Limited Industrial and Zoned (ILP) Limited Industrial and is located
within the Auto Park East Specific Plan. The seven commercial buildings proposed are as follows:
• Building A – a 2,551-square-foot drive-through restaurant
• Building B – a 2,164-square-foot drive-through restaurant
• Building C – a 4,446-square-foot retail car wash
• Building D – a 2,400-square-foot drive-through restaurant
• Building E – a gasoline station with a 4,620-square-foot convenience store (with a type 20
off-site beer and wine license) and a 4,596-square-foot canopy covering eight dispensers
• Building F– a 2,221-square-foot drive-through restaurant
• Building G – a 16,89- square-foot collision (auto-repair) facility
8. 1875 Auto Park Avenue – Mossy Chrysler Dodge Ram & Jeep Chula Vista Showroom & Sales Office
– DR20-0025 – Design Review for a two-story, 54,400 square foot building and a detached 1,200
square foot carwash for a Mossy automobile dealership with automotive repair services and associated
carwash on approximately 6.51 acres within the Auto Park North Specific Plan.
9. 670 Main Street – BMW – DR17-0031 – Design Review consideration of a two-story, 37,600 sq. ft.
building for a BMW auto dealership with auto repair/service and associated carwash on approximately
4.2 acres.
10. 1880 Auto Park Place – Automotive Repair – DR19- 0025 – Design Review consideration of a 27,
821 square-foot building with a 4, 185 square-foot covered entryway for supportive uses to include a
vehicle collision and automotive repair facility.
XXIX. REFERENCES:
Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Airport Land Use Commission San Diego
County, Adopted January 25, 2010
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Timberland Conservation Program
CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer – Accessed February 6, 2022
CalTrans Scenic Highways – Accessed February 5, 2022
City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program 2011
City of Chula Vistas Maps (GIS) CVMapper, Accessed December 12, 2021
City of Chula Vista GIS Map of City CIP Projects, Accessed on December 14, 2021
Attachment #1
134
Page 129 of 153
City of Chula Vista Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program, June 2015, updated January 2017, and
January 2018
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 14 – Watercourses
➢ Chapter 14.20 – Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 15 – Buildings and Construction
➢ Chapter 15.04 – Excavation, Grading, Clearing, Grubbing and Fills
➢ Chapter 15.26 – Energy Code
▪ Section 15.26.020 – Outdoor Lighting Zones
▪ Outdoor Lighting Zones Map
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 17 – Environmental Quality
➢ Chapter 17.28 – Unnecessary Lights
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19 – Planning and Zoning
▪ Section 19.62.120 – Parking Areas – Lighting Arrangements
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 21 – Historic Preservation
City of Chula Vista General Plan Vision 2020 as amended July 13, 2021
City of Chula Vista General Plan Vision 2020 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report,
December 2005
Tree Preservation Policy (Policy Number 576-05) – Accessed December 16, 2021
City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan, May 2014
City of Chula Vista Water Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study – Accessed December 15, 2021
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Accessed February 5, 2022
FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address website, accessed February 7, 2022
San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan 5-Year Review Report 2017, approved in January 2018
– Accessed December 15, 2021
San Diego County 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, San Diego County Water Authority, adopted March
2021
Attachment #1
135
Page MM-1 of 153
MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
15. MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
1. Project Case Number(s): Design Review – DR21-0032
Environmental Review – IS21-0006
SCH 2022080431
2. Project Title: Shinohara Business Center
3. Lead Agency: City of Chula Vista
Oscar Romero, Project Planner
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5098
oromero@chulavistaca.gov
4. Project Sponsor: Steven Schwarz
VWP-OP Shinohara Owner, LLC
2390 E. Camelback Rd. Ste. 305
Phoenix, AZ 85016
(602) 427-6972
sschwarz@viawestgroup.com
5. Project Location:
The project is located at 517 Shinohara Lane, westerly of Brandywine Avenue, north of Main Street, at the end of the cul-de-sac on Shinohara Lane, in the City of Chula Vista,
California. The project site is identified on the Imperial Beach, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle within Township 18 South, Range 1 West, Sections 18 and 19. It comprises
Tax Assessor parcel number – APN 644-040-01.
Attachment #1
136
Page MM-2 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
AESTHETICS
MM AES-1: The Permittee/Owner will ensure that the pre-
construction and/or construction documents
include language that all construction
contractors will strictly control the staging of
construction equipment and the cleanliness of
construction equipment stored or driven
beyond the limits of the construction work
area. The construction equipment shall be
parked and staged within the project site as far
away from the residential properties as
possible. In addition, the documents shall
include language requiring that construction
vehicles shall be kept clean and free of mud
and dust prior to leaving the development site,
and streets surrounding the development site
shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt
and debris. The City Building division will
ensure the language appears on the
documents. The City Engineer/Building
Inspectors will ensure that the requirements
are maintained out in the field.
Permittee/Owner Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
Permittee/Owner
shall provide
evidence on pre-
construction and
construction
documents to the
Building Division
satisfaction.
The City
Engineer/Building
Inspectors will
ensure that the
requirements are
maintained out in
the field.
REMARKS:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: Compensatory Uplands Mitigation: Per the
HLIT ordinance, 7.58 acres of impacts to
sensitive uplands shall be mitigated at the
required mitigation ratios (Table 1). To
compensate for the loss of 0.54 acre of
disturbed coastal sage scrub (Tier II) and 7.04
acres of non-native grassland (Tier III),
mitigation would be provided through
compensatory upland mitigation.
Permittee/Owner Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
Permittee/Owner
shall provide
evidence to the
Planning Division
Attachment #1
137
Page MM-3 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
Compensatory Uplands Mitigation. Prior
to the issuance of any grading permit including
clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction
permits, the project applicant shall mitigate
direct impacts to 0.54 acres of coastal sage
scrub habitat pursuant to the City of Chula
Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) and
Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HLIT)
Ordinance. Per the HLIT Ordinance, impacts
on coastal sage scrub shall be mitigated at the
ratios identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan
Table 5-3. Considering the project site is
located outside of the preserve, coastal sage
scrub mitigation shall be provided through the
purchase of credits at the San Miguel
Conservation Bank at a 1:1 ratio. The project
applicant shall mitigate direct impacts to 7.04
acres of non-native grassland habitat pursuant
to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
and HLIT Ordinance. Per the HLIT
Ordinance, impacts on non-native grassland
shall be mitigated at the ratios identified in the
MSCP Subarea Plan Table 5-3. Considering
the project site is located outside of the
preserve, non-native grassland mitigation
through the purchase of credits at the San
Miguel Conservation Bank at a 0.5:1 ratio.
The applicant shall secure mitigation credits
within the San Miguel Conservation Bank.
Mitigation Credits shall be for habitat of
equivalent or higher habitat value than coastal
sage scrub for impacts to coastal sage scrub and
Attachment #1
138
Page MM-4 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
equivalent or higher habitat value than non-
native grasslands for non-native grassland
impacts, with value determined consistent with
the Subarea Plan tier system (see Subarea Plan
Table 5-3). The applicant is required to provide
the City with verification of mitigation credit
purchase prior to issuance of any grading
permit, including clearing, grubbing, grading,
and construction permit.
REMARKS:
MM BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys.
Take avoidance surveys are intended to detect
the presence of burrowing owls on a project
site at a fixed period in time and inform
necessary take avoidance actions. Take
avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl
presence, such as colonizing owls that have
recently moved onto the site, migrating owls,
resident burrowing owls changing burrow use,
or young of the year that are still present and
have not dispersed (CDFG 2012). Prior to the
issuance of any land development permits,
including clearing, grubbing, and grading
permits, the Proposed Project applicant or its
designee shall retain a qualified biologist to
conduct take avoidance surveys for burrowing
owls. The take avoidance survey(s) can be
conducted between 14 days and 24 hours prior
to initiating ground disturbance activities;
however, time lapses between project activities
may require subsequent surveys within 24
hours prior to ground disturbance. The
development of avoidance and minimization
Permittee/Owner
Prior to Issuance of
Land Development
Permits including
Grading
Submit the results
of the pre-
construction survey
to the Planning
Division for review
and approval
Attachment #1
139
Page MM-5 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
approaches would be informed by monitoring
the burrowing owls.
REMARKS:
MM BIO-3: Avoidance of Nesting Bird Impacts: To
avoid any direct impacts on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in the HLIT, MSCP Subregional
Plan, or other local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS,
removal of habitat that supports active nests in
the proposed project study area should occur
outside of the breeding season of these species
(February 1 to September 15), where feasible.
If the removal of habitat must occur during the
nesting season, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction survey to
determine the presence or absence of nesting
birds within the proposed area of disturbance.
The pre-construction survey shall be
conducted no more than 72 hours prior to the
start of construction activities (including
removal of vegetation). If more than 72 hours
lapse between the original survey and
construction activities that include vegetation
removal on all or a portion of the site, a new
survey(s) shall be conducted. If nesting birds
are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan
in conformance with the HLIT and applicable
state and federal law (e.g., appropriate follow-
up surveys, monitoring schedules, and
construction barriers/buffers) shall be
prepared and include proposed measures to be
Permittee/Owner
Prior to Issuance of
Land Development
Permits including
Grading
Submit the results
of the pre-
construction survey
to the Planning
Division for review
and approval
Attachment #1
140
Page MM-6 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
implemented to ensure that take of birds or
eggs is avoided. The report or mitigation plan
shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval and implemented to the satisfaction
of the City.
REMARKS:
GEOLOGY & SOILS
MM PAL-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
Permittee/Owner shall provide written
confirmation to the City that a qualified
paleontologist has prepared a Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) and has been retained to carry out
the PRIMP. A qualified paleontologist is
defined as an individual with an MS or Ph.D.
in paleontology or geology who is familiar with
paleontological procedures and techniques
and has expertise in local geology, stratigraphy,
and biostratigraphy. The PRIMP shall be
consistent with the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines and
contain the following components:
• Introduction to the project,
including project location,
description of grading activities
that potentially may impact
paleontological resources, and
underlying geologic units.
• Description of the relevant laws,
ordinances, regulations, and
Permittee/Owner
Prior to any
ground-disturbing
activities (grubbing,
clearing, grading,
etc.)
Provide the
Planning Division
verification that a
qualified Project
Paleontologist has
been retained and
PRIMP has been
prepared.
Attachment #1
141
Page MM-7 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
standards pertinent to the project
and potential paleontological
resources.
• Requirements for the qualified
paleontologist to attend the pre-
construction meeting and provide
worker environmental awareness
training at the pre-construction
meeting and at the job site the day
grading is to be initiated. In
addition, the qualified
paleontologist shall inform the
grading contractor and City
Engineer of the paleontological
monitoring program
methodologies.
• Identification of where
paleontological monitoring of
excavations impacting the San
Diego Formation, very old paralic
deposits (Lindavista Formation),
and old alluvial floodplain deposits
are required within the project site
based on construction plans
and/or geotechnical reports.
• Procedures for adequate
paleontological monitoring
(including necessary monitoring
equipment), methods for treating
fossil discoveries, fossil recovery
procedures, and sediment sampling
Attachment #1
142
Page MM-8 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
for microvertebrate fossils,
including the following
requirements:
➢ A paleontological monitor shall
be on-site at all times during the
original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments of
moderately to highly sensitive
geologic units (e.g., San Diego
Formation, very old paralic
deposits, and old alluvial
floodplain deposits) to inspect
cuts for contained fossils. (A
paleontological monitor is
defined as an individual who has
experience collecting and
salvaging fossil materials.) The
paleontological monitor shall
work under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist.
Monitoring is not required
during excavation within low
resource sensitivity geological
units (e.g., young alluvial flood-
plain deposits) if determined to
be present within the project
site.
➢ Paleontological monitoring is
not required in areas underlain
by artificial fill unless grading
activities are anticipated to
extend beneath the veneer of
the fill and impact underlying
Attachment #1
143
Page MM-9 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
geological units with moderate
to high paleontological
sensitivity (e.g., San Diego
Formation, very old paralic
deposits [Lindavista
Formation], and/or old alluvial
floodplain deposits).
➢ If fossils are discovered, the
qualified paleontologist and/or
paleontological monitor shall
recover them. The
paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall
be allowed to temporarily direct,
divert, or halt grading within 50
feet of the resource to allow
recovery of fossil remains.
Because of the potential for the
recovery of small fossil remains,
it may be necessary in certain
instances, and at the discretion
of the qualified paleontologist,
to set up a screen-washing
operation on the project site.
Alternatively, sediment samples
can be collected and processed
off-site.
• Paleontological reporting, and
collections management:
➢ Prepared fossils along with
copies of all pertinent field
notes, photos, maps, and the
final paleontological monitoring
report discussed below shall be
Attachment #1
144
Page MM-10 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
deposited in a scientific
institution with paleontological
collections such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum
within 90 days of completion of
monitoring unless the City and
the qualified paleontologist
determine the extent of fossils
recovered will require more
preparation, stabilization,
and/or curatorial time. Any
curation costs shall be paid for
by the applicant.
➢ A final paleontological
monitoring report shall be
completed. This report shall
include discussions of the
methods used, stratigraphy
exposed, fossils collected, and
significance of recovered fossils,
and shall be submitted to the
designated scientific institution
within 90 days of the
completion of monitoring
unless the City and the qualified
paleontologist determine the
extent of fossils recovered will
require more preparation,
stabilization, and/or curatorial
time.
Attachment #1
145
Page MM-11 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
REMARKS:
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: The following notes shall be added to all
construction drawings ensuring that the
contractors are aware not to create
construction-related depressions created by
grading activities and vehicle tires resulting in
depressions that will hold standing water. In
addition, the contractors shall ensure that
drainage areas and other structures do not
create a potential mosquito breeding source
(any area capable of accumulating and holding
at least ½ inch of water for more than 96 hours
can support mosquito breeding and
development).
Vector Control Notes:
3. The contractor shall ensure
construction-related depressions
created by grading activities and
vehicle tires do not result in
depression that will hold standing
water.
4. The contractor shall ensure that
drainage areas and other drainage
structures do not create a potential
mosquito breeding source. Any area
capable of accumulating and holding
at least ½ inch of water for more than
96 hours can support mosquito
breeding and development.
Permittee/Owner Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
City Building
Department or City
Engineer shall
ensure that the
notes are on the
plans.
Attachment #1
146
Page MM-12 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
REMARKS:
MM HAZ-2: Prior to grading permit issuance, the
Permittee/Owner shall have the soils engineer
prepare a Limited Soil Management
Plan/Community Health and Safety Plan
(CHSP) for submittal and approval by the
Department of Environmental Hto include, at
a minimum, the following elements:
• Summary/map/tables of previous
results
• A discussion of whether proposed
grading activities may extend below
the anticipated current or historic
groundwater level depths, and if so,
environmental oversight that will
be conducted to screen soil for
possible impacts from staining,
odors, or vapors potentially
deriving from impacted
groundwater that may be
originating from the upgradient
former Omar Rendering facility at
1886 Auto Park Place
(approximately 1,500 feet east of
the subject property)
• A section will be included to
address groundwater or seepage
problems that may be encountered
during grading or construction,
particularly on properly managing
Permittee/Owner
& Soils Engineer
Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
Approval by the
Department of
Environmental H
Attachment #1
147
Page MM-13 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
any generated effluent from
dewatering that may be necessary.
• A stipulation that any soil export
from construction/grading needs
to be tested and characterized for
proper disposal
• A section on how to handle
currently unknown discoveries
• A brief CHSP section, including
the stipulation that public notices
be posted on the construction
project fencing prior to the start of
grading
REMARKS:
MM HAZ-3: Due to the previous detections of petroleum
hydrocarbon constituents and VOCs in soil
vapor samples previously collected at the site,
the grading plans shall include a note
indicating that in the event that soil is to be
transported off the site, the soil proposed for
export is to be tested for the identified
constituents of concern (CoCs) for the site
including Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and
VOCs, as well as Title 22 that are commonly
analyzed for soil screening purposes, o the soil
can be characterized for proper disposal. The
Building Department will ensure the note is on
the plans prior to grading permit issuance.
If soils are to be exported, the soils engineer
will evaluate the soil sample analytical data for
the soil proposed for export and assist in the
Permittee/Owner
&
Civil Engineer
Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
Building
Department Shall
Ensure the Note is
on the Plans
Attachment #1
148
Page MM-14 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
proper characterization, transport, and
disposal of the soil to be exported. The
receiving facility may require additional
laboratory analysis beyond what is described
above. Any regulated waste exported from the
site shall be disposed of at a properly licensed
facility. Completed signed waste manifests
shall be provided for each truckload exported
to document proper disposal.
REMARKS:
MM HAZ-4: The grading plans shall include the following
information on what to do in the event of an
“Unexpected Discovery of Releases During
Construction.” The Building Department will
ensure the note is on the plans prior to grading
permit issuance.
If previously unidentified constituents of
concern (CoC)-impacted soil are observed
during grading operations through the obvious
indications of staining and/or odors, the
Permittee/Owner and general contractor shall
contact the soils engineer to assess the soils
further. The soils will be segregated from non-
impacted soil by field screening with a
photoionization detector (PID) and/or x-ray
fluorescence (XRF) meter, visual and olfactory
observations, and ultimately by confirmation
sampling. The existing data from previous
assessments will assist in identifying the initial
areas and depths to excavate CoC-bearing soil.
If the results of the prior soil samples and
Permittee/Owner
&
Civil Engineer
Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
Building
Department Shall
Ensure the Note is
on the Plans
Attachment #1
149
Page MM-15 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
confirmation sampling indicate the CoC-
impacted soil has been removed or is
demonstrated to be below the human health-
risk-based screening levels for
commercial/industrial users, then the
remaining soil in that area will be considered
non-impacted. If the confirmation sampling
indicates CoC-impacted soil is still present,
then additional rounds of excavation and
confirmation sampling will be conducted until
all the CoC-impacted soil has been removed.
Excavation of non-impacted soil will continue
to be monitored in case isolated pockets of
CoCs not previously identified are present.
Additional assessment and confirmation
samples will be collected and analyzed to
evaluate the significance of any discovered
releases and the need to mitigate the condition
beyond the actions described in the Soil
Management Plan (SMP) and Community
Health and Safety Plan (CHSP). Should
conditions be encountered that vary
significantly from those described or that
cannot be addressed by the mitigation criteria
proposed herein, the DEH will be contacted
and consulted regarding assessment and/or
mitigation.
REMARKS:
MM HAZ-5: Prior to grading permit issuance, the
Permittee/Owner shall post notices around
the site perimeter in accordance with the
requirements of the DEHQ Site Assessment
Permittee/Owner Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
City Inspectors will
Ensure the Notices
are Posted During
Inspections
Attachment #1
150
Page MM-16 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
and Mitigation Manual, notifying the public of
health and potential safety issues associated
with the excavation. City Inspectors will
ensure the notices are posted during
inspections.
REMARKS:
MM HAZ-6: The Grading Contractor shall be responsible
for fugitive dust monitoring during grading
operations.
Fugitive dust control methods must be
followed to limit potential exposure to
adjacent properties. It will be the responsibility
of the grading contractor to conduct
excavation and grading activities in accordance
with Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which
was promulgated by the County of San Diego
Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and
dated December 24, 2009.
The following dust control methods should be
implemented during excavation and grading
activities:
• Dust emissions will be controlled by
spraying with water to reduce dust
emissions as excavation, grading,
stockpiling, and loading activities are
conducted.
• If visual observations indicate dust
emission into the atmosphere beyond
Grading
Contractor
During Grading
Operations
Complaints to San
Diego APCD or the
City which will
Notify the Grading
Contractor for
Immediate
Compliance
Attachment #1
151
Page MM-17 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
the property line, dust suppression
efforts will be increased. If visual
observations indicate dust emission
into the atmosphere beyond the
property line for a period or periods
aggregating more than 3 minutes in any
60-minute period, excavation activities
will be stopped until further dust
suppression measures can be
implemented.
• If stockpiles of potentially impacted
soil that might be discovered during
grading are left overnight, the grading
contractor must spray them with a soil
binding agent such as M-Binder to
further reduce dust emissions or cover
stockpiles with plastic sheeting.
• Use of track-out grates or gravel beds
at each egress point, wheel-washing at
each egress during muddy conditions,
soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers,
geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; and
for outbound transport trucks: using
secured tarps or cargo covering,
watering, or treating of transported
material.
• If necessary, a street sweeper certified
to meet the most current South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule
1186 requirements will be used to
Attachment #1
152
Page MM-18 of 153
SHINOHARA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
remove any track-out/carry-out dust in
the roadway.
Non-compliance will be noted by complaints to
the City and/or San Diego APCD, and the
Grading Contractor will be notified to correct
it immediately.
REMARKS:
MM HAZ-7: Upon completion of grading, the
Permittee/Owner will have the soils engineer
prepare a Property Closure Report (PCR) for
DEHQ approval based on the findings of the
above scope of services. The PCR will cover
the various areas investigated at the site,
including field observations, as well as any soil
sampling, excavation, field screening, sampling
activities, soil waste characterization, and soil
reuse activities (if any). Unanticipated
discovery of hazardous substances during
mass excavation will also be reported, if
encountered, and mitigated prior to the
completion of the PCR. The PCR will include
any laboratory reports, chain-of-custody
records, soil sample locations, tabulated
analytical results, any waste manifests, and
appropriate support documentation. The PCR
will be peer-reviewed and signed by
appropriately licensed professionals. The work
conducted at the site will be overseen by a
professional geologist as required by the state.
Permittee/Owner
&
Soils Engineers
Completion of
Grading
Submit PCR Report
to DEH for
Approval
REMARKS:
Attachment #1
153