The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/03/25 (4) Ci ty Pl anni ng Commi SSI Agenda Item for March 25, 1992 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-10: consideration of an amendment to the certified Local Coastal Proqram and Bavfront Specific Plan for 15.25 acres west of Bav Boulevard and south of "F" Street (Laqoon Drive) Rohr corporation A. BACKGROUND An amendment to the certified Chula vista Local Coastal Program is being proposed in order to implement the proposed Rohr Corporate Office/Administration expansion. The amendment will affect the Rohr site only and will allow an increased amount of development on approximately 15.25 acres (see Exhibit A for Vicinity Map and site Location Map). The amendment will increase the maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) on the site from 0.50 to 0.75. It will also increase the maximum permitted building height from 44 feet to 95 feet for a single building meeting certain setback requirements (see Exhibit B for proposed amendment text and graphics). Any project proposing an FAR over 0.50 or a building over 44 feet tall will be required to meet special standards and will be subject to specific city review requirements. The rationale for these changes is included in the discussion section below. A six-week local review period for this amendment began February 22, 1992. A City Council public hearing will be held on April 7, 1992, at which time the Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to Council members. Subsequently, the amendments will be forwarded to the Coastal commission for consideration. The proposed LCP amendment was addressed in Initial Study Case No. IS-92-18 (which was prepared for the overall Rohr F & G Street Master Plan). Based on the findings of that study and mitigation measures which were subsequently incorporated into the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The applicant has accepted all of the stipulated mitigation measures for the project. Approval of this LCP amendment is among the mitigation measures associated with the Rohr Master Plan project. As proposed, the project is inconsistent with the adopted LCP. Approval of the LCP amendments will establish the necessary consistency and fully mitigate the inconsistency impact, as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and: 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no. significant environmental impacts and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program issued on IS-92-18; and 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed LCP Amendment as presented. C. DISCUSSION The proposed LCP Amendment affects a single site located south of Lagoon Drive ("F" Street) and between the SD&AE Railroad right-of-way and the Sweetwater wildlife Refuge ("F&G" Street Marsh). The site is approximately 15.25 acres in size and includes property owned by Rohr (11.51 acres) and the adjacent SDG&E ROW (3.74 acres). A three story, 245,000 sq. ft. office building and two parking structures are currently being constructed on the Rohr parcel. A second office building to accommodate Rohr's administrative and corporate offices is proposed, while the SDG&E ROW is to be utilized as landscaped parking for the office complex. The incorporation of the SDG&E ROW into a project development site as landscaped parking is permitted under the existing provisions of the LCP. The current construction, which includes Building 1 and two parking structures, is consistent with all of the current LCP provisions (see Exhibit A). Development of the second office building will increase the site FAR to approximately 0.75. Additionally, Building 2 is programmed to be 94 feet in height. The proposed LCP amendment is required to accommodate this proposed building. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of these new office buildings is to house corporate and administrative staff functions which are currently distributed throughout the manufacturing facility to the south of the project site. Combining these functions at a single location is intended to increase administrative efficiency and provide greater flexibility for the development/redevelopment of other portions of the Rohr facility. However, the proposed level of development intensity on the site exceeds that permitted by the adopted LCP. Development intensity is regulated by fixing a floor area ratio (FAR) for the site. The current maximum allowed FAR for the site is 0.50 (building floor area may equal 0.50 of the site area). The total proposed development on this site has been calculated to include 500,452 square feet of building floor area for purposes of the FAR standard. This includes Buildings 1 and 2, and the parking structure. This intensity of development requires an FAR of approximately 0.75. If adopted, a 0.75 FAR would permit up to 510,000 square feet of development, which would accommodate the proposed project plus 9,548 square feet to allow a small degree of design flexibility. In order to assure adequate review of an increased intensity project, special review requirements are established for any project which proposes to exceed 0.50 FAR. The 0.75 standard is fixed as the absolute maximum (see Exhibit B - Specific Plan Appendix D for review requirements) . The change in the FAR limit from 0.50 to 0.75 would allow a fifty percent increase in the permitted development intensity of the affected parcels. Although this is a significant increase, several factors suggest that increased intensity at this location could be considered appropriate: 1. Proposal concentrates administrative and office based functions at a single location and allows for conversion of other industrial areas to coastal dependent uses via Rohr Master Plan process. 2. Provides for positive corporate focal point within a generally undistinguished industrially developed area. 3. Allows additional investment by major regional employer encouraging continued contribution to local, regional and state economies. 4. Aesthetically improves visually degraded site, including SDG&E and railroad rights-of-way. 5. Incorporates structured parking which avoids visual and environmental impacts of massive open, at-grade parking areas. 6. Project is within Midbayfront project area, which is to be assessed to fund on-going operations of the Nature Interpretive Center. 7. Improves property and implements a portion of local circulation system to improve public access to coastal resources. 8. Recent conceptual approval of the Midbayfront project by the City Council, which includes significantly increased development intensity and building heights (compared to adopted LCP) on the parcel immediately north of the site. The primary factors which would tend to restrict or limit development intensity would be compatibility with adjacent uses and infrastructure/public service capacities. These issues were evaluated for this project in the environmental documentation prepared for the project and were all found to be insignificant or mitigable to insignificant through implementation of the mitigation requirements. By requiring specific review standards and criteria, the City can maintain the necessary level of control on the project when it exceeds the basic FAR standard, including service thresholds and aesthetic issues. The second aspect of the proposed amendment is an increase in permitted building height from 44 feet to 95 feet. The proposed Building 2 is designed to be 94 feet high. Again, the proposed amendment is intended to accommodate the proposed building with a small degree of flexibility for final design. Increased building height can increase the amount of ground level open space on the site and, if appropriately designed, create an aesthetically pleasing landmark or focal point for the surrounding area. The issues associated with building height are compatibility with adjacent uses, impacts to the wildlife Refuge, and aesthetics. The proposed amendment includes special requirements for site design and review to ensure that the issues are appropriately addressed. The proposed amendment limits the number of buildings exceeding the 44 foot limit to a single building which could function as the landmark/focal point for the overall Rohr facility. In order to minimize potential impacts to adjacent properties, increased setbacks are required for any building which exceeds the 44 foot height standard. The setbacks from Lagoon Drive and the wildlife Refuge are increased to 200 feet and the setback from the SDG&E easement is increased to 50 feet. This assures that any tall building will be located in the central portion of the site, away from adjacent uses. In order to limit the bulk of a tall building, the building footprint is restricted to five percent of the site area. Potential impacts to the wildlife Refuge were evaluated in the environmental documentation and the following measures have been incorporated: The 94-foot high building must utilize non-reflective glass on the west side and bold architectural lines which are readily observable by birds. The glass which was approved for Building 1 will be used on this building. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included on the western side of the proposed 94-foot high building. Ledges facing west should not exceed two inches in width or should be sufficiently sloped to avoid perching. Additionally, the roof crests which are exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials. outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces (windows) of the western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum required for security on the western side of the proposed building. These measures, among others, have been incorporated into the project through the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial study will be submitted under separate cover. other requirements included in the LCP amendment for a project with increased FAR and building height are: a Comprehensive Landscape Plan indicating enhanced landscaping at project edges and within the SDG&E ROW parking area; off-street circulation connections to adjacent industrial and business park uses; compliance with all city-wide infrastructure/ service standards; and, a common, high quality architectural design and construction standard. These requirements will be evaluated in the special review required by the LCP amendment. Exhibit A Vicinity Map Project Location Map :\' ..:~ ~ i ------- .---------- --------- \ ~ ~ ~ , \ - ~ ":::--" ,/./C _~_____/--- , 't1 City of Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Redevelopment AreAs D. m::1 Om o ~ o - " 0 . 7 Q. ~ ~ t: o .- +-' ~ () o ....J +-' () Q) '--' e a.. D--J] O>~ C ::J .- - ~() ..... ::J (13 ..... a..._ C/) C\I d> "0 a:I O>~ C::J .-- ~() ..... ::J (13..... a...- C/) 1- I_U 3^11:IO N008\fl .. - /" ~ ~ o ~ X << '" w .. " o '" IS! ?( ~ ~ o ~ x Ci w < ~ CO '" I_033t:1JS D) 3^ltiO .::V^ d ) ~ , "~'i ~ . 7 ':'> '5 '" >.i. '" j--... p ,5 .... - \ 3 ~ D ~ Exhibit B.l Proposed Modifications to LCP Land Use Plan: pg. 111-8 - new text shown in pg. 111-10 - Special Condition No.4 added pg. III-II - footnote 7 added to Table 2 pg. III-lla - new text shown in interpretive center to be established adjacent to the 100 foot buffer as indicated on the Environmental Management Map, Figure 11. Allocation: 33.8 acres (4.2 percent). Upland Resources. This land use designation includes the remaining upland habitat areas included within the Environmental Management Zone. These are: (1) the Least Tern Reserve; and (2) the upland revegetation zone on Gunpowder Point. No uses are permitted on the Least Tern Reserve except for minor scientific or educational uses. The Upland Revegetation Zone on Gunpowder Point will be accessible to pedestrians but not improved for specific uses except passive recreational uses and minor scientific or educational uses. Allocation: 14.9 acres (1.9 percent). Parks. A series of community or neighborhood parks to be used for recreation would be established throughout the Bayfront. Limited parking would be provided at several of the parks, and all would be linked via a continuous, publicly accessible pedestrian system. Allocation: 38 acres (4.8 percent). DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY The proposed intensity of development is based on height limitations, parking requirements, on-site open space or landscape provisions, traffic capacity, and economic feasibility. The intensity of development consequently varies by land use type. 1. Height Limits. The recommended building heights for the Bayfront are indicated in Figure 5. The prevailing height limit is four stories throughout most of the Bayfront. This limit allows for extensive open space and landscape provisions without exceeding the traffic capacity of the proposed circulation improvements. There are areas in which the height limit varies from prevailing provisions, calling for both lower and taller height recommenda- tions, due to program requirements, environmental management obj ecti ves, or physical form and appearance obj ecti ves. These variances include the following: Gatewavs. To achieve a "gateway," or sense of entry to the Bayfront and relate it to the existing new development along Bay Boulevard, the areas immediately adjacent to the E Street and J Street bridges are recommended to stay between one and two stories. Gunpowder Point Hotel. The permitted height of the hotel structure is six to eight stories. Up to twelve stories will be permitted conditionally if substantial public open space amenities are included in the development program. (See also Environmental Management section and Form and Appearance section.) 111-8 01-111 \, ,', I' " .\ .' \, \. I. -~ .;;.---mn"~m.;.~~f'''~.-- , / \ \ --? '\ \ \ , II I III .' -- - f '\ ' - , , , , \ \ 1\ 1\ I 1\ , .~- .nnmnn...,,,.J.mmn__Lmn:::' ,: III-10 n: L():<(::E Ii w~<t COO m 'i ~>a: Wt- j: :i ~:3g~;S ; \ LL=>a: W\J j. :I:D. jjj ;i (.J...J ~.... ~! ~~~ ~' ~ 0 CJ I] (.JU~ ...JWC 5cc:::!, 9 ::J~ aJ ~ 0 ui ex> m ~ U ~ '" '" (/) ~- '" ox 1-'" X X '" ",I- '" '" (/) .1: CD l- I- , ~'" '" '" (') "'(/) 1< '" '" >, . (/) (/) 0 ~ ~~ . , \ Z 0'" E: c c c u..c :J 0 0 ~ c'" E~ :;:: :;:: oU .- . '6 '6 Em x 0 -0 CCI,g C C c -0> ::E;; 0 0 0 c'- 0 U U U 0- >.. u~ ~u 0; 0; '" a. o~ - ~ -. .;:; .;:; .;:; .$1 Q) (/);;; '" Q) '" 0- a. a. a. ",.0; ex>::! (/) (/) (/) 0._ (/)<( I '* '* * <II '* * * '" Q) (/) E E E :J :J ::> .x!; .!; E x .- '" '" x ::E ::E ~ >. >. - 10... "- c .8 .E 0 CIJ en Ci5 C\J '<t L() '<t o z C g "0""'- c 0 o . U ~ (tj oj "(3 .,.... ~ cj (/)35 (j) I TABLE 2: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY DEVELOPABLE ACRES DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY Subarea I--D Street Fill Residential Commercial--Marine-Related Commercial--Marina 73.5 19.0 15 to 30 du/acre 21.1 FAR 0.25 ;t6.0 NA 40.8 14.03 FAR 0.52 99.0 18.1 15 to 30 du/acre 44.7 FAR 0.5' 15.2 FAR 0.25 21.0 FAR 0.57 Bonus provisions' 26.2 3.1 FAR 0.25 14.2 Per Existing Zoning4 8.9 Bonus provisions3 18.8 18.8 Per Existing Zoning4 Subarea II--GUnpowder Point Commercial--Hotel/Conference Subarea III--Midbayfront Residential Commercial--Office/Park and Specialty Retail Commercial--Highway-Related Industrial Business Park Landscaped Parking Subarea IV--Industrial Area Commercial--Highway-Related Industrial/utilities Landscaped Parking Subarea VI--Outparcels Industrial ------------------------------------------------------------------------ du/acre = Dwelling units per net acre of developable land. FAR = Floor area ratio or ratio of gross building area to net developable land area. NA Not applicable. Marina: An allowance of approximately 6.0 acres site is made for a recreational boating marina or a small commercial marina repair and storage facility. This area does not include upland support facili- ties covered by the marine commercial designation. 2 26.8 acres of upland area are excluded for purposes of establishing permitted FAR. , Bonus provisions: Increased development is proposed on parcels adjacent to the areas where long term provisions are secured to utilize the ROW for parking and parking areas are landscaped per prevailing standards. 4 Existing Zoning: Intensity of use does not vary from existing Chula Vista zoning code. 111-11 Transfer of development rights shall be permitted to allow a FAR of .65 in portions of the office park area north of Marina Parkway with a reduction of FAR on parcels of equal size in the office park area south of Marina Parkway to .35 to maintain an overall FAR of .5. 6 In the event additional land area is gained for development of properties located at the northeast and southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and "J" street by covering adjacent drainage channels, the onsite FAR and setbacks may vary in accordance with Special Condition #3 (Sec. 19.85.01) and Appendix C of the Bayfront Specific Plan. 7. .F .A.J<;otO:75.pe'\rinitted>subje'\ct 'c6n<t;ition#4(Sec.l~.85;Ol}arid Plan: to speCial Appendix D' ............-........--.--.--...... ~~n~~;i~;~f;o~~~~:~~~~i~ III-11a Exhibit B.2 Proposed Modifications to LCP Specific Plan: pg. 22 - Special Condition No. 4 added pg. 23 - footnote 3 added to Table I pg. 24 - 25 - new text shown in Appendix D - added to provide review criteria for Special Condition No. 4 I[ C\J~~ 1-00 00. ~ ,~.. 0... (J) < J: ..J ~.;:: ~>a: ,,0 " <8 - a: \ ga: WI- -IJ:z 8 i ~"O ~zu (I) I ] I 0- 00 -I..J ~5 gaJ ~ I 'I, I, 1\ , \, \, ,J ~- d , I II I! I . \ " t___ , " , , , , , " -I II I ,I I, --~~_ __._::::::"C",,~.-.Jm'_m_~_._._.::::" ~, \, -----~ I 22 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 - - ui x x m co '" '" m i- i- ~ ~ .s .s ~ d '" c: c: en en 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '" Qi '6 '6 '" 2 c: c: en 0 0 I 00. () () '" ... oo~ '" '" d d ~N '" '" z z E~ en en c: c: :0, I I 0 0 E- E :E += ";::C ~ E 8 '6 ro~ :0 :0 c: ~~ E E 0 0 x 'x () () >-u '" '" c;; c;; o~ :::. :::. 'u 'u _0 '" '" en;; 0 :q. a. a. oo::! .... '<I' en en I * * * ~(j) '" * * - c: *<3 '" > ~ '" ~ a. .- ~ '" . . - .s '" . ... ~.c ~ ~ ~ :00> Qi - - cuI " '" 2 2 2 z_ '" '" 0 '<I' '" .c:2 '" ... '" ::'" ~ ~ ~ E E E ,8'<1' :0 :0 :0 ~ 0 E E E ",- 'x 'x 'x ~o. '" '" '" 0:0 :::. :::. :::. 1-'0 ,., >- >- O>~ ~ ~ ~ c::!::: 0 0 0 .~ E - - - ~ en en en .!!! Q.) '" ... '" >a. <( .~ I ... TABLE I DEVELOPMENT INTENSrTY AND SITING Minimum Lot Area (s.f.) Residential Density Front Yards Exterior Side Yards Side Yards Floor- Area Ratio Usable Open Space per Res. d.u. Residential 3,500 15-30 d.u./acre 15 10 400 Commercial: Office Park 7,000 10 10 0.51 Commercial: Highway Related 5,000 [0 0.25 Commercial: Marine Related 3,000 10 0.25 Commercial: Specialty Relaled 10,000 20 10 0.25 Commercial: Hotel 20,000 50 30 0.5 Industrial: BusinessPark 10,000 30 15 20 O.S Industrial:!,General 20,000 20 15 20 0.5 1 Transfer of development r;qhts shall be permitted to a110w a FAR of .65 in portions of the office park north of Marina Parkway with a reduction of FAR on parcels of equal size In the office park area south of Marina Parkway to .35 to maintain an overall FAR of .5. 2In the event additional land area ;s qalned for development of properties loca~ed at the northeast and southeast corners of Bay Boulevard and J Street by coverlnq the adjacent draina e channel, the on-site F.A.R. and setbacks ma var in accordance with s ecial condtion #3 sec. 19.85.01 and a endix C. 3 Special FAR standard for the site between F & G Street Marsh and SDG&E ROW in accordance with Special Condition #4 (Sec. 19.85.01) and Appendix D. TABLE 2 PERMITTED SIGNS (See also Bayfront Sign Program) land Use RESIDENTIAL . . . . . COMMERCIAL: OFFICE PARK . . . . . COMMERCIAL: HIGHWAY RELATED . . . . . COMMERCIAL, MARINA RELATED . . . . . COMMERCIAL, SPECIALTY RETAIL . . . . . COMMERCIAL, HOTEL . . . INDUSTRIAL: BUSINESS PARK . . . . . INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL . . . . . 23 DEVELOPMENT section 19.85 The following provisions shall regulate the lot size, floor area, height, coverage, setback, and useable open space, density, intensity, and physical form of development within the Bayfront area. section 19.85.01 - Building Height The maximum heights of buildings shall be controlled by Map 2, Building Height Controls, and shall be measured in stories or feet, whichever is less: Two-story maximum - 22 feet. Four-story maximum - 44 feet. Five-story maximum - 55 feet. Eight-story maximum - 88 feet. Twelve-story conditional - a maximum of 132 feet, provided that the increase in height above 88 feet can be shown to produce a visually and environmentally superior solution for a visually prominent and resource-sensitive location, and which adheres to the following standards: a. Linear slab or cruciform design shall be avoided in favor of a stepped building form. b. The building shall enclose a south facing public outdoor space. Special Condition #1 - a maximum height of 70 feet is allowed within 400 feet of the intersection of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard in the southwest corner of such intersection. An architectural focal point such as a tower or other vertical form reaching a height of (up to) 70 feet shall be permitted in the office park north of Marina Parkway subject to site and design review to consider and protect public views from Marina Parkway to San Diego Bay. This vertical element will be a visual landmark identifying the core area of the Midbayfront. Special Condition #2 - A maximum height of 44' is allowed in the northwest quadrant of Bay Boulevard and "E" Street, provided that said structure is at least 400' north of "E" Street and does not contain more than 20% of the allowed FAR for the total site. Specific Condition #3 - A maximum building height shall be 45 feet provided specific site development plans are recommended by the Chula Vista Design Review Committee and approved by the Chula vista Redevelopment Agency based on guidelines listed in Appendix C. - 24 - - section 19.85.02 - Residential Density The minimum residential density shall be 15 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum residential density shall be 30 dwelling units per acre, provided, however, that such measurements shall be taken in the aggregate for larger parcels permitting the transfer of unused density on internal developed areas to other portions of the site. - 25 - APPENDIXb GUrDELrN~SJi'QRDEVELOPMENT OJ(. INDUSTRIAL: .BUS!t!ESSPI\RKPRCJP.ER,',I'it.. LOCATED SOUT:fr OFLMOQN DRIVE ("F" STREET) AND WEST OF SDG&EROW . . ~!et:2Z;:{t;v\t~1~~~~\~S~{~:i~!:~~{~~~J}f::f!:J:~~~:f~~~:~~!1U~~:~~ onthefollowingg1.J.idelines: . .' .' .' .. .' ..' 1.Building$~~back.s$hallbe: a.<<ForJjuildings44 feet or less in height: .;. as specified in Table 1 (Section 19.85) - b. . ..<Forbuilding:;;44 .to 95. feet in height: -<fr6mLagooI1Drive:. 200 feet -<from USFWsproperty (F&G Street Marsh): ;'.from SDG&EROW: SO feet . 200!eet ."._u___,,_. 2. BuildingF.}i..R.: i_!i~l~r~Jiit~- 3. DeY<:ilopmentplans s):1.allincl\.1de a Comprehensive Landscapingp;Lan Which iridica'(:asenhanced laridscaping at the project edgesar\dwithiri <tbe SDG&Elj3.ndscaped parking area. . . . . . . 4. Pedestrian or other off-street circulation connections.to >adjacent industrial and business park uses shall be provided. .' . . 5. project shall comply with all City-wide tbresbold standards for infnistructure improvements and pUblic services. 6. All buildings on:--site shall reflect. a common,. bighquality architeQtural design and construction standard. 1 mitigated negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Rohr F & G Street Master Plan PROJECT LOCATION: The site is bounded by F Street) Bay and the existing Rohr building construction at 850 Lagoon Drive) Boulevard, G Street, (Building 1 under ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 567-010-07, 26; 567-022-01, 16, 17, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36; 571-330-17 (portion) PROJECT APPLICANT: Rohr Inc. CASE NO: IS-92-18 DATE: February 12, 1992 A. Proiect Settinq The project area is largely developed with existing Rohr buildings on the west and south sides of the site, and other businesses on the east side of the site. Two major easements traverse the site, the SDG&E ri ght-of -way (for overhead power lines), and the SD&AE Railroad. Rohr is currently developing an office building (Building 1) and associated parking on the west side of the site. West of Building 1 is the F & G Street Marsh, a portion of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildl ife Refuge (NWR). To the north is an approximate 100-acre undeveloped upland parcel (the Midbayfront), and beyond that, the majority of the NWR. East of the site is the I-5 freeway, and to the south the Rohr campus continues. B. Proiect DescriDtion The Master Pl an project plan i nc 1 udes seven buil di ngs tot a 11 i ng 655,000 square feet over 35.2 acres. Elements of the Master Plan are: An LCP amendment over 23 acres, including 455,000 square feet of building area. A separate parking plan (370 spaces in 4.3 acres) for the SDG&E right-of-way. A re-alignment of Bay Boulevard. The vacation of a piece (0.05 acre) of Tidelands Avenue. The vacation of G Street as a public right-of-way. (It will remain a private circulation feature.) Three additional floors are proposed to be added to the south parking garage,. which is currently under construction. Please see the following graphics which visually describe the proposed Master Plan elements. ~~~ -.- ..~~~ city of chula vista planning department CI1Y OF environmental review section CHULA VISTA \ \ ~ \-(€:-- \ . ~ ---------- ---------- ~ \ ~ ~ , ~ . :-----. "-~ ~ ~ .y {ZoJ if #- City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Areas . \ \ 7. .( . . . ..-/ ~ ~ '. ,c \>\J~s ~{.,.('i~~ ~- , ~ Bayfront Redevelopment Arp.~ Om o _ OJ - II 0 . . z <.> z 0: J: o 0: < r - . z "' --' "- 0: W I- "' "' " , - o 8 , " - o '! ~ g ~ 3 g~~::i o ~ ~ - c g g ] ~~~,:; '0__<"> 8 - c g ~ ~ g~~::i ~.. ~ 8 ~ , OON iiJ,.;",:,..: 0_ o ~ ::! ~;o~ :::,.;"'''': :~~ Q"'Z2 . . ~ o ~ . . . w . > w u w o o :: ~,g .( II:~ goi!'.o:: go !~I~ :: ~-g .(" :~ f~~~ o J!.g .:t.:J! fijj o :: .{!.g .( II:Q!'! "'t"';;;c> !~]~ "'''''''0.. ~ ~ , :: ~.g .( II:~ .<:: f~jf : ~ ~ ~ :: J!.g .(..:J! fijj "'...: : ~ ~ g : I - ~ ~ ~ ::: 1 : I ---~ > = 1 0 I I I - : , 0 0 I - ! 0 . .- , : - : , " . ' , . . g :- , . . " 1 0 w ! . : , 0 , ! : ~ : ~ I , I . ~ :i ~ " . , " , , " !i < , , I g ~ g e " , , o. ~ ~ O. 0 q~ g . " N ~. ~,;; ON << g ~~" - Q ZZ ~ 0 Z ~ w !i 0 ~ ~,g !i g . :> 0 ~ ~-g ~ ~-g 1; " 0 . .:;:.. :~ .<... :~ 1; " . .' 0 Z Z -0:",,,,0;: 1:11 ,g>~<-g' " cj w <( " f:jl t~]~ " ~ " ~ t~] z :> ~ ~ ~ .0. "''''''-a. . < <( "- 0 " . 2 a: > c g g "- w w < "' r >- u 0 " w a: ~ U) c ~< .<~ o , , < w . " o II;! ~ I I -----' 3^'<Ja NOO~"'l , - - ! . I I = I 0., B ~ ~ ;;; : I! ~ o ! o , , "I w [)--j ~< !, "'J: :;;0: ~ ~ i ~ 0- I u.~ 11H"lS VI1^'~(] 'I!VAI<Jd o , , '--'= a. ~ <.J w --' m z <( --' a. ; z ~ 0 o ..; to- ~ ~ ~ rr: m::> I ~ () o ~ ~ rr: a <.J I : I i i o I , I : II; '-------- 3NVl-3~'; <: ~ J ffJ ~ t; J <: g L. -Z ~ ~ WJ '^ OJ '" .... ~ o "" "- o t; ~ ~ ~ ::> ~ ~ ~ ! o , e<: g ~ =~l! ~l~~ ~~~ t-'~tt "'~.. Bo~6 U" Z~i.2~ Zi~.: ~l~''-~ ri<5 ':.__,~,~ ~Ed !;].i!.~ 2 _ 3s;;;;i iE~~ ! ~ =,,,~~.<",_o ~:~~~ ~! t~l! ..,," '"-.. .,', ,,: a.E:!l!~1 ~S!:i:.& ~-"':! ai!~ :t~~! t!~~~ ;i~~ ~~. !~m! ii!'~ HH 't' ..,!~! t'I~. Z'~I I!I ~ iHUidiil f:zl il~ ~ ~!.!"'.i !:~JI .1;, !~Zt ~ iili~i J j!~I; iiil f i;: ~ zZi!~f I,'.~.. f '~". i -I' ~ i ~iZlh ! ~i~13 ~ :~!~ ~ !=il -g tlHf; ~ i~:!j J IH~. ~ p;( j . li!:li . l.I8i . !j~.j d l!;< ( ./ ./. ') :/' I ./ , I" I " // / ,,~- i .I I . II .' / /,/ f,' , ~ .. I I , , , i.'. ;',.1, '.,1 ! ) , , -:--~~ 's,V\IQ-HOODY'l - 'I /~1 ",; \',~\ 'i'; " " r I.. .':' .~ .~. . > . . . . . . o . . "', , \ I '-, .' I., \ \ ----- - .. . " <,.-.,; ,... ~~ -: :Wo;~>--f~ 1;1>: ~~.~~ ~g. ~ 8~ 0::1;'" io; j.=l'" ~~ ~ !igr~8g: ~~ h~j ~ 5 ~H~~1i; i; i",H~ ..i~ < .<<.., , .'.;'c..; ~~ . ;;ii~~ j ~i~_~ i', i .:~!H if! 5..'~ I!J." { mm HI iUn !f.. I aiJ~i:r;. lz:ii ti. a. ....2 i~1 ..'!S:~ f I;! I i f!:~if ~!~ ~fl!j . -i f ~ : zw~, J!f! 'hn i !~! ;j i ! !piI;i ! if" # ~I!~! ! :if" ~ t i ::!ll~! r !,j t ,Iz~;~ J f. 5 U . flr"i . fO~ . !Ih- d .Ii .~.. ~~!.U~i dO!' . .!I'd I .I "i ! , I j; . i ~ / !i I 0 )' ~ '0 . " . "~I ./ ,> !H' ',;' , I; !) ~T-- ----- .....,.---- II.., , ,,'.1 "1". '. J.3I31:1J.SU ^ , ~ 1/1 I! \1 :< , f '" r ~ t! 0 v i p. , ;0 , ! ,j , , .'" f ' ' '" ^ 1 :1; UJ . .' ! ~ <j ~ I. HI It.l! ., s . i ..! Ie ~ .. ~ HH ---- " ^ i, . Ii !I! '" i .. '" ~ uul, ,28';i u if HI; g ;!; c :'5 ~I! '" . ..1 r.t UJ 0: ~ H l~i 01 0. c- o J ~i ,h i u '" c ::> 0 0 U I- tli I . ii H! Ili!iijt ;ild ~ 8- . I. ~ . ~ t /Iii/) ~ f j i j~ '" I i~ ~!! f i~iJJ1! .III! 0 j p:: ~ -""--; , ;--i- \ -, ) ~-' ~ E . I .. , .1 t \ l t e ~ .. ^' EXIS TING BUILDINGS EXHIBIT FOR .F. AND .G. S TREE TS LCP AMENDMENT\MASTERPLAN AREA SOULEV ARC SAY DEt,IO BULCIt< 0:: C I FOUR BUt.DtNGS ARE TO BE DEUOLISHED AREAS SHOWN ARE THE BuILDING "FOOTPRINT" z: C Q IS -< .J DEt,IO SO T j' - ~~ DEUO 2()()g() SO F'T I- 111 II! I- CD IS PROPOSED TIDELANDS A VENUE V ACA TION AREA = APPROX 0.05 ACRES PORT DISTRICT TIDELANDS AYE TIDELANDS AVE U S f' III S ROHR CORPORATION /' ~- . ROHR INDUSTRIES ROHR CORPORATiON S D G 2< E $ D G 2. E S D 2. A E RAILROAD S D 1 A E RAILROAD TIDELANDS AVENUE V ACA nON EXHIBIT PROPOSED STREET DEDICATION <TYPICALI TOTAL AREA = APPROX 0.5 ACRES PROPOSED STREET V ACA TION <TYPICALI TOT AL AREA = APPROX 1.3 ACRES INTERSTATE C V R A & S P T C S 0 & A E RAILROAD S 0 G & E w > tt: a aOULEV-'RD 5 RADOS 80THERS RADOS 80THERS z C) C) (!) < --I S 0 & A E RAILROAD S D G & E '" - ,,--=,--20~' BAY BOULEVARD / LAGOON DRIVE DEDIC A nON &. V ACA nON EXHIBIT ROHR I NDUSTRI ES ROHR CORPORATION ROHR INDUSTRIES PROPOSED G STREET VACATION AREA = APPROX 1.0 ACRES ROHR CORPORATION S D G 2< E S D G 2. E S D 2< A E RAILROAD S D 2< A E RAILROAD ROHR INDUSTRIES BAY BOULEVARD /" ~~Oo"/ . -......:.- it INTERSTATE 5 I- W W II: I- <lJ <!I G STREET VACATION EXHIBIT -2- The Rohr Building 1 under construction on the west side of the site and two parking structures were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Rohr Office Complex. This Final EIR (FEIR) was certified by the City Council that it was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Qual ity Act (CEQA). This certified FEIR contains relevant i nformat ion for the proposed Master Plan project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The Master Plan project development would occur over an anticipated period of 5 years, from 1992 to 1997. The anticipated schedule is as follows: Area A: Building 1 Building 2 Area B: Building 1 Area C: Building 1 Area D: Building 1 Area E: Building 1 Buil di ng 2 C. Compatibility with ZoninQ and Plans Completion - 10/15/92 Completion - 6/1/93 Completion - 6/1/93 Completion - 10/1/94 Completion - 10/1/95 Completion - 10/1/97 Completion - 10/1/97 The proposed Master Plan is compatible with the City's land use designations in the Local Coastal Program (LCP), which is the guide to 1 and use and zon i ng for th is port i on of the City. However, the bu il ding height of one of the Master Plan buildings (94 feet) exceed the 44-foot height limit in this area. Also, the floor area ratio (FAR) which establ ishes density, is exceeded in the LcP amendment area of the Master Plan. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fi re/EMS The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fi re stat i on is one mil e away and woul d be associated with a 4 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. -3- The Fire Department requires mitigation measures in order to maintain thei r servi ce capabi 1 it i es. These measures are i dent ifi ed 1 ater in th is report. 2 . Po 1 ice The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84% of Pri ori ty 1 call s withi n 7 mi nutes or 1 ess and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 mi nutes or 1 ess . Pol ice uni ts must respond to 62% of Pri ori ty 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. The Pol ice Department requires adequate access into the site, which is being provided from F Street, 8ay Boulevard, and G Street (which is open only to emergency veh i c 1 es because it is proposed to be a private circulation feature). 3. Traffi c The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requires 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 signal ized intersections. Intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below thei r 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersect ions of arteri a 1 s wi th freeway ramps are exempted from thi s policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. In order to achieve the requirements must implement mitigation measures. later in this report. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. The proposed project is not relevant to this Pol icy, as it refers to parks east of 1-805. However, Rohr will be required to mitigate this impact to a level below significance. Two options for mitigation, among others are to pay a fee to the City to mitigate the loss of a portion of the one-acre park located on the northwest corner of Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive, or to landscape a 300 square foot area on the east side of Bay Boulevard. of the Threshold Policy, Rohr These measures are ident ifi ed 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Pol icy requi res that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consi stent wi th the Drainage Master Pl an (s) and City Engi neeri ng Standards. The proposed project applicant must prepare a hydrological/drainage study to show effectiveness of the proposed drainage facilities. The applicant will work with the City to ensure that Threshold Standards are met. -4- 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Pl an (s) and City Engi neeri ng Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. 7. Water The Thresho 1 d/Standards Pol icy requi res that adequate storage, treatment, and transmi ss i on facil it i es are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project applicant must coordinate with Sweetwater Authority to plan and develop necessary water infrastructure facil it i es. The Ci ty rel i es on Sweetwater Authority for the orderly planning of such facilities. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Specific mitigation measures are required to reduce these effects to a level of less than significant. With implementation of these measures, potentially significant environmental effects will be avoided or reduced to a level below significant. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will thus not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidel ines. Specific mitigation measures have also been set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as Addendum "A". The following impacts have been determined to be potentially significant and are required to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. A discussion of each of these potentially significant impacts from the proposed projects follows. 1. Earth No soil s/geotechni ca 1 i nformat i on exi sts for 20 out of the 35 acre site; until such information is provided, impacts remain unknown and, thus, potentially significant. Though it is not expected, groundwater may be encountered during foundation excavation, posing a potentially significant impact to foundation support, and to water qual ity from this groundwater discharge. 2. Air Rohr maintains that Master Plan area employees would merely be transferred from the adjacent Rohr campus. However, due to the proposed increased dens ity of the site, there may be a net increase in the total number of employees, though this number -5- may be minor. Vehicle emissions from new project-related trips would incrementally contribute to the basinwide (cumulative) significant air quality status, and incrementally exceed the emissions projected by the State Implementation Program Revisions for this air basin. Construction dust would incrementally contribute to regional (cumulative) violations of inhalable dust standards. 3. Water Any increase in Citywide incremental new demand on (cumulative impact). 4. Plant. Animal Life net consumption of water is an the regions scarce water resource Impacts to the off site resources of the F & G Street Marsh and the San Diego Bay could occur from: urban runoff contaminating water quality of the wetland and Bay, intrusion of light from the six-story building and G Street building into the wetland, increased human presence in the vicinity and adjacent to these resources, and upset of the exi st i ng balance of competitors, predators, and prey, and the associated indirect impacts to the Belding's Savannah Sparrow and Light-footed Clapper Rail. 5. Noise Construction of the Area E buildings may create significant noise to the sensitive avian resources of the F & G Street Marsh. The unknown nature of the research uses over the south and west sides of the site is potent i ally sign i fi cant, as some research and/or limited manufacturing may be noise producing. Noise from I-5 may significantly impact employees of the building along Bay Boulevard, or employees in the upper floors (5th and 6th levels) of the six-story structure. 6. Liaht and Glare The sensitive resources of the F & G Street Marsh could be impacted by lighting of the building southeast of the Marsh. -6- 7. Land Use Inconsistencies with the Local Coastal Program, including of the proposed project height (one 94-foot building in a 44-foot height limit) and density (based on Floor Area Ratio) are considered significant. 8. Natural Resources The project construction and operation would incrementally increase the regi ona 1 demand on natural resources (cumulat i ve impact) . 9. Risk of UDset The unknown nature of the research/l imited manufacturing uses poses potentially significant impacts from the possible use of hazardous materials. 10. TransDortation/Circulation Project traffic would significantly (cumulatively) impact the following mitigations and street segments: Intersections E Street/I-5 SB Ramp/Bay Boulevard E Street/I-5 NB Ramp E Street/Broadway F Street/Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive SeQments Bay Boulevard, F Street to E Street E Street, Woodlawn Avenue to Broadway E Street, Woodlawn Avenue to Broadway H Street, Woodlawn Avenue to I-5 11. Public Services Project development could significantly affect the services of the City's Fire Department, would indirectly increase the burden on the School District's capacities, and would directly remove a port i on of a one-acre park located at the northwest corner of Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive. 12. Human Health Possible use of hazardous materials - see No. 10 above. Building in areas containing known contaminated soils and/or groundwater creates a potentially significant human health hazard. -7- F. MitiQation necessarv to avoid siQnificant effects Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures are to be made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Addendum "An). 1. Earth As plans are submitted for the 20-acre port i on of the site, sOils/geotechnical investigations must accompany these plans. Recommendat ions must be incorporated as determi ned appropri ate by the City's Engineering Department. Construction dewatering may be required prior to foundation excavation if the water levels intercept construction areas. Temporary construction dewatering would be implemented in accordance with the 1990 report recommendations (WCC), and comp 1 i ance with the Regi ona 1 Water Quality Control Board directives regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes will be required. 2. Air The project must participate in Rohr's Transportation Control Measure Program, including: ridesharing, and van pool incentives alternate transportation work scheduling for off-peak hours When the City adopts its own emi ss i on reduct i on program (subsequent to SANDAG/APCD Plan adoption), Rohr must implement any additional relevant requirements. Dust control measures as required by APCD (maintaining adequate soil moi sture and removal of soil spillage), and 1 i mi ts in construction hours (allow construction between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and prohibiting construction truck queuing. 3. Water The applicant must implement any water conservation requirements of Sweetwater Authority, and must agree to no new net increase in Citywide water consumption by the payment of any water offset fees, or other conservation program the City has in place at the time of building permit issuance. -8- 4. Plant. Animal Life a. The buffer area between Building 1 and the F & G Street Marsh was required by the Rohr Office Complex FEIR to establish vegetation identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These measures are currently being implemented and monitored. The fence along this buffer must also be extended to the south (Area E), to prevent human access from this area into the Marsh. The fire access road there limits the opportunity to establish vegetation on the Marsh side of these buildings. The USFWS requests that native plants be used throughout the Master Plan area, rather than the proposed heavy use of non-natives. b. The project should continue to be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators. Should this program not be established prior to issuance of the grading permit for any portion of the Master Plan area, Rohr must coordi nate wi th USFWS to determi ne the extent of participation and the necessary timeframe for predator management. The USFWS recommends contracting with the Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control program to provide the predator management services. c. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the project must be of the rapidly bi odegradabl e vari ety and must be approved by the Envi ronmenta 1 Protection Agency for use near wetland areas. d. All 1 andscape chemi ca 1 appl i cat ions must be accompli shed by a person who is a state-certified applicator. e. Open garbage contai ners shoul d be restri cted and all dumpsters must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible. f. The 94-foot building must utilize non-reflective glass on the west side and bold architectural lines which are readily observable by birds. The glass which was approved for Building 1 will be used on this building. g. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included on the western side of the proposed 94-foot building. Ledges facing the west should not exceed two inches in width or should be sufficiently sloped to avoid perching. Additionally, the roof crests which are exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any add it i ona 1 probl em areas shoul d be obtained should heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials. -9- h. Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces (windows) of the western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum required for security on the western side of the proposed building. 5. Noise Biological Monitor must survey the Marsh area subject to potential construction noise; depending on the resources present and their location, the monitor may impose time limitations on construction. Any building with noise-generating uses will be designed to meet state and local noise standards. The Bay Boulevard building and the 5th and 6th floors of the 94-foot building will be designed to meet the City requirement for the interior noise levels. 6. LiQht and Glare The last measure of Section 4 requires that outside lighting be directed away from marsh areas, and that 1 ights be 1 imited to the minimum required for security. 7. Land Use Consistency will be created only by approval of the LCP amendment. 8. Natural Resources Energy efficient building design is required by law. The applicant should additionally include energy efficient lighting and appliances in every building where practically feasible. 9. Risk of UDset If hazardous materials are used for any site use, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be achieved. Achievement of these permits is required prior to issuance of occupancy permits for each buil di ng where such materi a 1 s woul d be used. 10. TransDortation/Circulation The applicant must provide the following physical improvements by the time of project completion (anticipated 1997): E Street/Bay Boulevard/I-5 SB Ramp intersection: Restriping and signal modification -10- E Street/I-5 NB Ramp: Signal modification Bay Boulevard/F Street/Lagoon Drive: Reconstruct intersection In addition to these improvements, the. appl icant must pay a fee to the City which is proportional to the project traffic contribution to other impacted intersections and street segments. This fee will be determined prior to approval of the Development Agreement. 11. Public Services The Fire Department has certain fire prevention/protection requirements. Rohr will coordinate with the Fire Department to determine and implement the exact requirements for each building or area. Other Comments: All proposed areas will be required to meet the requi rements for fi re flow and fi re hydrants in accordance wi th Appendix IlIA and IIIB of the Uniform Fire Code. Any other fire apparatus roads in excess of 150 ft. that dead end are required to have a turn around for fire apparatus. Existing above-ground power 1 ines on Bay Blvd. (west side) must be relocated underground as they present a hazard to fire fighting operations. Mitigation for indirect impacts to schools is achieved typically through payment of school fees or participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. The applicant will be required to provide mitigation to reduce impacts to a level below significant. The determination of the type and amount of mit igat i on necessary wi 11 be made duri ng preparat ion of ei ther the Development Agreement or the owner part i ci pat i on agreement. Mitigation must be accepted by the District's prior to the issuance of building permits. The app 1 i cant must either create a park across the street from the existing City park (the City owns land across the street where this would be possible), or pay a fee to the City (to be negotiated with the Park and Recreation Department) to mitigate the loss of a portion of the City park. 12. Human Health Prior to, or concurrently with submittal of detailed project plans for each area of the Master Plan with known contami nat ion, proof of completion of existing required remediation must occur. Site assessment must occur for other areas of the Master Plan not previously assessed for such contamination, and where the potential exists for human health impacts due to the type and amount of -11- construction necessary. Site assessment procedures and any remediation must follow the procedures outlined in the County of San Diego Site Assessment and Mitigation Manual (January 1992), and Regional Water Quality Control Board Directives. G. FindinQs of InsiQnificant ImDact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildl ife species, cause a fish or wildl ife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal conmunity, 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. With implementation of all biological mitigation measures, the project will not significantly affect natural biological resources. Cultural resources will not be significantly impacted. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-tenn environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. No short term goals woul d be di sadvantaged by project development. Land use proposed by this project is consistent with long term planning goals of the City. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Cumulative impacts to transportation/circulation and natural resources, including water, would occur with project development and for the life of the project. With implementation of mitigation measures, the projects incremental contri but i on to these cumul at i ve impacts would be mitigated. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Human health hazards coul d occur from known contami nated water and soil. Implementation of mitigation measures would avoid these hazards. -12- H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Department Diana Richardson, Community Development Dept. Hans Giroux, Air Quality Consultant Torsten Kruger, Hazardous Materials Consultant Martin Kenney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Starboard Development Corporation 1202 Kettner Blvd. Fifth Floor San Diego, CA 92101 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, chula Vista Municipal Code General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (1989) Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (amended 1989) Rohr Office Complex Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR #90-10) Available for review at City of Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. 3. Initial Studv Thi s envi ronmenta 1 determi nat ion is based on the attached Init i a 1 Study, any comments recei ved on the Init i a 1 Study and any comments received during the publ ic review period for the Negative Decl arat ion. Further i nformat ion regardi ng the envi ronmenta 1 review of this project is available from the chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. jJ~~ ~~ f~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 12/90) WPC 491lH ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROHR MASTER PlAN In accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) would occur upon approval of the proposed project. The MMP consists of defining actual mitigation actions to be taken, moni toring thei r impl ementat i on, defi ni ng the schedul e for thei r occurrence, and verifying their implementation. The following issue areas have mitigation measures which must be implemented: Earth Air Water Plant, Animal Life Light and Glare land Use Natural Resources Ri sk of Upset Transportation/Circulation Public Services Human Health The attached checklist will provide the documentation necessary for the proper implementation of measures. The Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) of the City of chula Vista has the authority to designate the Mitigation compl iance Coordi nator, who wi 11 prepare the imp 1 ementat i on procedures, and who will be responsible for monitoring implementation of measures. The ERC will also have final verification authority for the proper implementation of measures. WPC 4902H MITIGATION MONITORING ANO REPORTING CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: In accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code File No. EIR No. Project Phase EIR Impact Area (Project Design; Vertftcatfon of Completfon Mitigation and Construction; Responsible Number Mftlgation Measure Post Construction) Party or Agency Person Date Conments :~ APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACClPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER FOR OFFICE USE INITIAL STUDY Case No. Deposit Receipt No. Date Rec'd Accepted by Project No. A. BACKGROUND City of Chula Vista Application Form 1. PROJECT TITLE F&G Street Master Plan 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Property bounded by Lagoon Drive, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street and (continued...) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Master Plan for. area between Bay R(,lJlevard and F /.G Streets, See attached. description. 4. Name of Applicant Rohr Industries Inc:. Address Foot of "H" Street, P.O. Box 878 Phone 619-691-2678 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92012-0878 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Starboard Developmpnt rnrrrw~tinn Address 1202 Kettner Blvd., Fifth Floor Phone 619-231-6700 City San Dieqo State CA Zip 92101 Relation to Applicant Develooer/TlJrnkpy Rllildf'r 6. Indicate all permits. or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: ___ General Plan Amendment ~ Design Review Application ___ Public Project ___ Rezone/Prezone ___ Tentative Subd. Hap ___ Annexation --- Precise Plan ~ Grading Permit ___ Redevelopment Agency ___ Specific Plan ___ Tentative Parcel Map ___ O.P.A. ___ Condo Use Permit ~ Site Plan & Arch.Review ___ Redevelopment Agency --- Variance ___ Project Area Committee D.D.A. --- Coastal Development Use Permit -X- Other . . Permit Coastal Development and Building Permit b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ~ Grading Plan Arch. Elevations ___ Parcel Map -2L landscape Plans ___ Precise Plan ___ Tentative Subd. Map ___ Specific Plan ___ Improvement Plans ___ Other Agency Permit -2L Soils Report or Approvals Required ___ Hazardous Waste Assessment ~ Hydrological Study ___ Biological Study ___ Archaeological Survey ___ Noise Assessment xx Traffic Impact Report ..2L Other WPC 9459P -6- Sewer Study Site Plan xx - Reports being submitted separately. B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. land Area: sq. footage 1,531,550 SF or acreage 35.2 acres If land area.to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Total number of structures c. Maximum height of structures d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units e. Gross density (DU/total acres) f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) g. Estimated project population h. Estimated sale or rental price range i. Square footage of structure j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures k. Number of on-site parki~g spaces to be provided 1. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if 'proje~ is commercial or industrial or ~ 1jg. a. Type(s) of 1 and use Office buildinq B-2 occupany b. Floor area See Attachment A Height of structure(s) See Attachm<=nt A c. Type of construction used in the structure Type II FR and Type II NR, per Uniform Building Code 1988 and 1991 (continued...) . d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets Buildinas r Area A) - Main access from "F" Street with curb cuts i't~Otltir>'Jed...) e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 1,910 surface and structured f. Estimated number of employees per shift 2.5E;' , Number of shifts One(l) Total 2,582 g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate ___ h. Estimated number of deliveries per day WPC 9459P -7- i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate Not applicable. j. Type/extent of operations not in .enc10sed buildings None. k. Hours of operation 7:30 am - 5:30 om Mondav throIJQh Fridav. 1. Type of exterior 1 ighting Hiqh intensity discharoe (continued...) 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum . e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces h. Additional project characteristics C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS \ 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (h!drocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. Not applicable. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated Yes. (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? No excavation r<>qIJir<>rl. b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 40,000 cubic yards. c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 11.0 acres d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 0' Average depth of cut 0' Maximum depth of fill 7' Average depth of fi 11 4' . WPC 9459P -8- 3. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent 1 and uses? No. 4. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Normal office space type B-2 occupancy related devices (lights, aIr conditioninq, data systems, UPS systems). Normal office HV AC and electrical (continued. ; .) 5. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) None. 6. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. Construction emolovment opportunities shall be generated in the short term (continued... ) 7. Will highly substances site? No. flanvnable be used or potentially or stored explosive within material s . or the project 8. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 6,380 ADT's. 9. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not 1 imited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; apd pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Improvements include but no limited to the followinq: Imorove "G" Street west of thf": rnilroan trnc.ks to thp. wpc;tprn boundnry of thp prnjf":Ct. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. GeoloQv Has a geology study been conducted on the property? Yes See (If yes, please attach)' Woodward-Clyde Consultants report: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Rohr "F" Street (continued...) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? Yes. See (If yes, please attach) Woodward-Clyde Consultants' report: . Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Rohr "F" Street (continued...) 2. HvdroloQv Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? Yes. (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? Woodward-Clvde Consultants' oeotechnical (continued...) b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? There are no watercourses (continued... ) WPC 9459P -9- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? No. d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No. The proposed proiect desian (continued.. .) 3. e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Subiect to hYdroloay analysis prepared by Rick Engineering and attached herein. Noi se a. Are there any noise sorces in the project vicinity which may impact the project site? No. 4. Bioloov a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? No. b. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property? Yes No (Please attach a copy). c. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location, height, diameter, and species of trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project. No sianificant ve<;1etation located currently on site. 5. Past Use of the land' a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project site? There are no known historical resources on or np;:Ir thp sitp. For c.orrohorritivp. informr.tion <:;pp prlQP<:;' 4 throll[Jh 7 of Woorlwr.rrl- (rontinllprl ) b. Are there any known paleontological resources? See discussion in Woodward-Clyde Consultant's report: "Hazardous Substance Site Assessment. Rohr Industries "F" Street (continued...) c. Have there been any .hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? No. d. What was the land previously used for? See Attachment R WPC 9459P -10- 6. Current land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. See Attachment B. b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North "F" Street (Laqoon Drive) South IIGII Street East Bay Boulevard West U.S. Fish & WilEllife Preserve 7. Soc i a 1 a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) No. b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) No. 8. Please provide any other information which may assist in the. evaluation of the proposed project. A Master Plan phasinq schedule.. is attached as Exhibit "C". WPC 9459P -11- E. CERTIFICATION I, Not applicable Owner/owner in escrow* or I!~ ~ ;/%1 ,V I, Ian M. Gill, Senior Vice President Starboard Development Corp. Aaent for Rohr Industries, Inc, Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects. true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: \1-. Lt-. 'h *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. WPC 9459P -12- LJ STARBOARD STARBOARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 11/20/91 City of Chula Vista Application for Initial study A.2 eastern boundary of U.s. Department of Fish and wildlife "F/G" street Marsh. A.3 This Master Plan Consists of the following components: o 35.2 acre Master Plan Area including LCP Amendment Area and SDG&E Parking Area. o Bay Boulevard re-alignment o Tidelands Avenue vacation o G street vacation The Master Plan, LCP Amendment, and SDG&E Parking Area will be processed concurrently as part of this project. The Master Plan (see attached map) consists of 35.2 acres including seven buildings totaling 655,000 square feet, two parking structures and associated landscape improvements. The LCP Amendment, an element of the Master Plan (see attached map) consists of 23 acres including 455,000 of building square footage, two parking structures and associated landscape improvements. The SDG&E Right of Way, an element of the Master Plan (see attached map) consists of 4.3 acres with 370 parking spaces. The percent landscape is 18% B.3.c code as applicable B.3.d parking facility. Building (Area B) - Main access from Bay Boulevard. Building (Area C) - Main access from Bay Boulevard and "G" street. Building (Area D) - Main access from Bay Boulevard. Buildings (Area E) - Main access from "G" street. 1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD, FIFTH FLOOR, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101~333B [618] 2:316700 r:-AX 1618) 2~31-796~"l B.3.I C.4 C.6 D.1 D.2.a D.2.b D.2.d 5.a 5.b down1ighting limited to the site itself. Lighting on western side of property will be directed away from Refuge and will be shielded to minimize effect of light on wildlife. system yet to be defined. with security and grounds maintenance needs over the long term. Property (No. 8853050Q-SI01) dated May 13, 1988. (Report being submitted separately.) Property (No. 8853050Q-SI01) dated May 13, 1988. (Report being submitted separately.) report cited above states (page 4), .....the stabilized groundwater table at the site appears to range from about elevation +5 to +7 feet.. {MSL}. Examination of the detailed topographic map of the site indicates depth to the groundwater table over most of the site is on the order of six to twelve feet. In the limited areas of the site where groundwater table is likely to be on the order of one to three below the ground surface. For additional information on groundwater table, see page 19 and Figure 2 of Woodward-Clyde Consultants' report: "Hazardous Substance contamination site Assessment, Rohr Industries "F" Street" (No. 8853050Q-SI01) dated May 13, 1988. or drainage improvements on the site. An area of tidal salt marsh ("FIG" Street Marsh) is situated west of the site. The eastern margin of the marsh typically is 100 to 150 feet west of the property boundary. An isolated pocket of non-tidal marsh vegetation (totaling less than one-tenth of an acre) is present in the extreme northwestern corner of the site. incorporates features and safeguards which minimize this potential for siltation both during the construction phase and thereafter for the life of the project. Clyde Consul tants report: "Hazardous Substance Contamination site Assessment, Rohr Industries, "F" Street" (No. 8853030-RP01) dated May 23 1988, which summarizes the history of the site from 1928 to present based on a study of some twenty historic aerial photographs. (No. 8853050Q-RP01) dated May 23, 1988, (being submitted separately) . ----- r-, TIlE CI1Y OF GiLA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE ( i1.TEMENT ;tatement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on ;;1] mattel'$ vhich will require discretionary action On the part of the City Council, Planning Commbslon, and aU o1.l.er ,fficial bodies. The following Information must be disclosed: List the names .of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., COntractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Rohr Industries. I nc., a Delaware Corporation If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of a!l individuals ownin~ more than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or ownini any partnersrJp interest in the partnership. Not applicable. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or t."'1Jstor of the trust. Not applirable. ~----------- Have you had more than $25<J worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes ~ No x * If yes, pl= indicate person(s): Please identiiy each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Ian Gill - Starboard Development Art Spllgrpn - Rohr Tn<jlJstries. Inc. -- ~.....- Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $I,OOO to a Councilmcmber in the CUrrent or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which Councilmemher(s): nQJI is defuuod as: "Any IndJvldud, firm, a>-partMT'shlp, joilll W1It/In, <l:sodalion, social cUdJ. fraJerna1 organit!1lion, rporarum. estal~. tnIst. rt~iwr. syndJcau, thi: and any otho CtJunJy, cily and country, city. munidpaIlly, district or 01110 pcll1lcaJ. bdivlsion, or any other group or <X>mblnation acting a.r a unil.. 'GTE: At1aclr additional pa&e8 as =~~ry) ate: _d~..,-y}h-<- It: /'7v ( IES, INC. . _7,~ ~ ulJJ=---- ::f!\\. Signature of cOI),tractor/applicant * Not to our knowledge. 113IAoDISCLOSE.TXT] El~l1e K. M.{.U;" AM-<-Mal1t. Sg..c.JLet..a.JL3_____ Print or type name of contractorlapplicant ~?-~"'~~:~' . ATTACHMENT "A" Item 3b Height of Floor Area structure (Sa. Feet) (Feet) Area A Building 1 245,000 41 Building 2 125,000 94 Area B Building 1 60,000 44 Area C Building 60,00 44 Area D Building 80,000 44 Area E Building 1 60,000 44 Building 2 20,000 50 November 25, 1991 Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E November 25, 1991 ATTACHMENT "B" Existinq Uses Agricultural activity previously on site. Two (2) warehouse structures with associated office space (approximately 80,000 square feet.) Industrial facility (38,560 square feet). Temporary trailers (15,000 square feet) that would be removed. Vacant. Cogeneration facility, one (1) 11,500 square foot industrial buildingj two (2) 9,900 square feet each industrial buildings. New Uses Corporate office buildings for Rohr Industries including parking structures. Corporate office building and associated surface parking for Rohr Credit Union. Expansion of existing 38,560,000 square foot industrial building with one story, 21,440 square foot shell. Research and development buildings with associated surface parking. Commercial office building with associated surface parking. EXHIBIT "C" ROHR MASTER PLAN PHASING SCHEDULE AREA A: Building 1 Completion - 10/15/92 Building 2 Completion - 6/1/93 AREA B: Building 1 Completion - 6/1/93 AREA c: Building 1 Completion - 10/1/94 AREA D: Building 1 Completion - 10/1/95 AREA E: Building 1 Completion - 10/1/97 Building 2 Completion - 10/1/97 AREA A: Building 1 Building 2 AREA B: Building 1 AREA C: Building 1 AREA D: Building 1 AREA E: Building 1 Building 2 ROHR MASTER PLAN PHASING SCHEDULE Completion - 10/15/92 Completion -- 6/1/93 Completion - 6/1/93 Completion - 10/1/94 Completion 10/1/95 Completion 10/1/97 Completion 10/1/97 YS-5c6 Case No. rs-qZ- Ie:, G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainaae a. Is the project site within a flood plain? NO. If so, state which FEHA Floodway Frequency Boundary t-J/~ , b. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? 5u~!S ","\..Ow TO "pH Gn:z6-E'i (,.l,.~! 'h<:1"E) AND TO"G"~ c. Are they adequate to serve the project? NO. If not, explain briefly. A~ ~~~ =~I?M iYAt~ .s~ hit::> WA-'TJ'12. ~II"'U!!:.---Y_ ___ _w,_ _'_&$Io.!"') It-L o~ -m CDMPL-'( W/Tlf ~ ~()~IC>>4'S. d. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage faci1itieS?~)R"~ A..DwAr...o<-l.6 u,6oQ:N DfZ!Vj;. Wr-n/~ 7Z> 7/ u""_~ "'f ~ "P1f3bc>?AY' ""'" I'<.-r It-!. Go $r/l...EE:r WHIC.H If/..-TIMA-TFt.:T 7:>t5QI~~ 7Z> ~ DIIho e.<IY' e. Are they adequate to serve the project? No. If not, explain briefly. ~ w~;;;"-::.I7 ~r::;;"'~X FLeW ~ /....,Ar~1 DIZ.J\IE II i( ___ __77_ WA~ QvAl.-rry Grf!.UC-Tt,)!ZJ=-~ IN OIZPEIZ. ~ CoMFt-y hit/if ~~ fZCGuLATlo1Js.. 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~kf L/~/V~ AND BoA Y 6ov~vAR1:i . b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? (~5>C> ,4~ c. What is the ADT and estimated project completion? Before A.D.T. ~ 1>/ZIVE. - ~.37D MY BcIJL.Ev'M'D- ~;3S0 L.O.S. l.AhcrN I:0v'~ - I..CS>"A" fSl.-y ~"'uoVA/21)- t..b'7" ~u level of service before and after After ~ Zi/ZlVE. - ~"t~ g".YS:>v~V",,=- IZ.'t3D t A~r>"F( :D/ZII/E.. _ L.b::," Eft 136.y ~()I-Et/PIZD- L-e>S" E " ?~ $6E: NVr1 ) $6..ow. If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly. o/A d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. tJ~~F..:~Zs~NC.t...V~~:~;;~ AND '!<EA{..t(;.#.tMbJ,-roF 77fEt __te. _~_ IN. 0_ ___ 'h#o1Ma:A71E. ~E!G""'-~1i!.ArlED "77i?AF"':tc.. AND -ro M€1i!r'" c"f7Y vI'=' CHvt.-A 115m 71-ffZ/!;fflo'-P S'T;A~. *' f.JC7T1;;: AF77E-rz. IMptZoVEfvfh.!7S W LAWx>,.j 1/1Z/vE AND BA,y SWL.EVAR,i'.:: 1!>Y TIf€ APFt..JCN..rt1 Lev~(..$ -OF-=:Et<:VtCE R:fZ. 13071+ ~T'S WPC 9459P hllu- ~ ItA ". -14- Ys -5DB Case No. ISLfZ-IB e. Are there any intersections at or near the point that will result in an unacceptable level of Service (LOS)?Y'~. If so, identify: location ~AY ~LWA12D t ~ 'l:>t<iV€.. _ LOS IS Cumulative L.O.S. IIE~€VEIZ. "Rl:APIYAY'A'N1::> l!frEfI!(S~r.nDN IMF1<oVCM~ JIr{ZE: / P8P IN 77-fe. ~ Tl> t-1/rtGATE N.6::A.nr/E. Is there any dedication required? y~. ~A1~~ If so, please specify. (..Aj;;coN ~IVE:: A--!r:> 'BA'1' BCUL.E:vA~ An: -'=CJt;;~p' f...t ,1ff::' G~ ft..6.t..L 1>6 Ct.A':15 :r ~:rr I'~$; 1?E.<:;.pw;:C.T1VE':L.Y. fSt 'FI'=/GIEN.T ~1Ck-n0t-l WIt-1-"g€ tI:~fi(,fSl> -n> ~ r:uU.-WIPrH ~~ OF s,&,ID Is there any street widening required? YES. ~~ If so, please specify. LA~ 'P!2CVt4 BAY 13ou(..€:vA"RD. A-f'PL/r^'tr AL'ED f12o~ IV ~ND "6" G~~ TD na::. f'RD~'s W!<b-r-=N FoL/l'.n;:IA.~ Are there any other street improvements required? )'~. If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements, CU/Ze.[.;u-rnET2. <GI=W,A.(..-K. <;:T1Z~.~ /...-I""'HTI...t....=-I~ ETC.. . ,. f J f. g. h. 3. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? /Jo. 4. 5. b. If yes, specify these conditions. /J/A , c. I s a soil s report necess~ry? NO. 1<J=f1:;:fZ:r ?~IDE'D W 1T1f APFl.-ICA-rlor-l. land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? .21. 7Z> 3% b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 5% Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ND. 6. Waste Generation WPC 9459P How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid 13;/00 IA!>/PAY liauid- 5/,b4-DGAu-Dr-ls(D'>.Y 0'1'5' EPV'$) What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site? 84" MEr1V 7/ZAN'6M/,;;sIDr-l MAIN WHICH "BrGEc.-rs ~T A-fip Ft-GWS ~H ro No1Z.nf. Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? Y'~. -15- '. YS-5DE> Case No. I5-4Z-/B 7. Remarks Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other issues. WPC 9459P / /3h~ Date -16- ~ Case No. /.-::,_;:72 -/,5' H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the di stance to the nearest fi re stat i.on? And what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? Max1mum diStance is one mile. Estimated reaction time is four minutes. 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? Yes. 3. Remarks e Fire 7lM~ Marsha 1 12/31/91 Date WPC 9459P -17- Case No. /..:;, - ? 2 - /f H-l. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? ~ . 2. How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park District of this project as shown in the ParksLand Recreation of the General Plan? (If applicable) ~~ 3. What are the current park acreage requir ments in the Park Service District? (If applicable) Service. El ement 4. Is project subject to Parks & Recreation Threshold requirements? _____ If not, please explain. 5. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood ~ Community Parks ~ 6. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Communi ty Parks ~ ~f'S 7. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? ~ 8. To meet City requirements, will applicant be required to: Provide 1 and? Pay a fee? t-<At~ ~~ ~ .q'''''~ . 9. Remarks: - ~ ... I?""~ z. . 'S .Cj't- ~~. Parks an Recreation Director or Representative z ,,?'i~ Date WPC 9459P -18- February 3,1992 TO: Diana Richardson, Contract Environmental Planner FROM: Martin Schmidt, Landscape Architect RE: ROHR MASTER PLAN: 35.2 ACRES, "P' STREET @ BAY BLVD. This is an interesting project that is creating a unique situation. The realignment of Bay Blvd. to the north of "F" Street will be demolishing an existing City Park. In reviewing the submitted documentation, no mention was made of the existing park land use, or the landscaped open space on the northeast comer of the same intersection. In light of the fact that this is an improved and existing park and open space, an analysis will need to be done to determine what the existing acreage is for both sites, and what the remaining acreage would be, if this plan were approved. Because the park is being reduced in size, and the open space has an existing railway track running through the site, this proposed realignment of Bay Blvd. generates an impact so extreme that the park site may not be useable. If this is the case, then Rohr Industries may be responsible for the total cost of the land, including improvements, based on the City's Park Development Fee Schedule. I suggest that you schedule a meeting between the Parks and Recreation Department and Community Development to discuss this issue initially. Based on the what is determined at that meeting, then subsequent meetings with Rohr Industries and Starboard Development representatives will eventually need to be pursued. In any scenario, however, the Parks and Recreation Department will have to be involved in any decision regarding the park, open space and the landscaping at the intersection, because the area is maintained by the Open Space Maintenance District. Please keep me informed and provide as much lead time as possible to schedule and meetings. cc: Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation Jerry Foncerrada, Deputy Director of Parks Joel Chew, Open Space Coordinator CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Add res s ROHR INDUSTRIES MASTER PLAN Plan File No. IS 92-1f8hecker Horsfall Date 12/31/91 Type Constr. ? OccupanCYvarious No. S tori es varioul$ 1 dg. Area various The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. P RO-IJ-l-DE- -AND- -SHOW-.{)N. -P~-AN-;.. --- COMl1ENTS: Area A, Bldg 2: 1. The required fire flow cannot be determined until type of construction is known. 2. The fire department has not received plans for Building 2 for plan check as yet. 3. Building 2 will be required to be fire sprinklered, have a fire standpipe system, and must comply with Chapter 18, Sec. 1807 of the Building Code. In addition a fire pump will be required. Area A, Existing South Parking Structure: 1. Plans have not as yet been checked for the proposed addition to the south parking structure. Area B, Building 1: 1. Fire sprinklers will be required. 2. A fire standpipe system will be required. 3. Fire flow cannot be determined until the type of building construction is determined. 4. Access to the west side of the building is blocked by the proposed center island on Lagoon Drive. Area C, Building 99: 1. The proposed addition to building 99 will require a fire sprinkler system. 2. Fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150' which dead end must be provided with a turn around for fire apparatus. FPB-29 .7' CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET ROHR INDUSTRIES MASTER PLAN (continued) Address Plan File No. Checker Date Type Cons tr. Occupancy No. Stories Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. P ROV-l-DE- .AND. -5-HOW- -oN- i'l-AN-:- - - 3. A property line exists on the access road between building 99 and the proposed building at Area D. A permanent easement for fire access would be required in the event either building is sold to another party. Area D: This proposed 80,000 sq. ft. building will he required to be fire sprinklered and if three or more floors will be required to have a fire standpipe system. Area E. Both buildings will require a fire sprinkler system and again, if three or more floors will require a fire standpipe system. Other comments: All proposed areas will be required to meet the requirements for fire flow and fire hydrants in accordance with Appendix IlIA and IIlB of the Uniform Fire Code. Any other fire apparatus roads in excess of ISO' that dead end are required to have a turn around for fire apparatus. Existing above ground power lines on Bay Blvd. (west side) must be relocated under- ground as they present a hazard to fire fighting operations. FPB-29 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D. LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD GREG R. SANDOVAL SUPERINTENDENT JOHN F_ VUGRIN, Ph_D CHULA V.LoJrA ELEMENTARY SCHOvL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDNIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH December 20, 1991 { 2 L'~l J 91 Ms. Diana Richardson Community Development Dept. City of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Initial study - Rohr Master Plan, LCP Amendment and SDG&E Parking Plan IS-92-18 / FA-555 / DP-894 Bay Blvd./"F" street Dear Ms. Richardson: Thank you for providing a copy of the Initial study for the Rohr Industries Master Plan. commencing in July, 1990, through December of that year, the District provided comments and requested adequate mitigation for a 211,500 square foot office complex at the Rohr facility. We were unaware that further expansion of the Rohr Complex was contemplated, and that the project under consideration was only part of the first phase of a 650,000 square foot master plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not permit a large project to be segmented, as this makes it difficult to assess and quantify cumulative impacts. It is unclear why the first phase of this master plan was reviewed as a separate project. If any additional development is contemplated for the Rohr facility, it should be included in the master plan and analyzed at this time. The magnitude of the proposed project will have significant impacts on elementary facilities in Chula vista. Since amending a Local Coastal Plan constitutes a Legislative Act, Yost v. Thomas (1984 36 Cal.3d 561), based on recent court decisions (Mira, Hart and Murrieta Valley), the City of Chula vista must consider school adequacy and can condition project approval to provide adequate mitigation. The District requests that the City require full mitigation for impacts to school facilities. This could be in the form of participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD), or other form of acceptable full-reimbursement mitigation. Building 1 of Area A (211,500 square feet) did not involve a legislative act, and, therefore, the District was limited to collection of developer fees. Since no permit has been issued for this building, it would seem appropriate, and the applicant has the option, to include Building 1 of Area A in the total project mitigation. December 20, 1991 Ms. Diana Richardson Page 2 RE: Initial study - Rohr Master Plan, LCP Amendment and SDG&E Parking Plan The information provided indicates construction is proposed for vacant land, as well as replacement of existing structures with new and/or expanded facilities. In order to quantify impacts on school facilities, additional data is required. It is unclear from the information submitted whether the total project consists of 655,000 square feet (11/20/91 Starboard Application), or 650,000 square feet (Attachment A of Initial Study). Assuming the total master plan consists of 655,000 square feet, less the 211,500 square feet of Area A, 443,500 square feet remain, not 455,000 as shown on the Starboard Application. It's unclear what is included in the application for an amendment to the LCP. The plan also indicates removal of 15,000 square feet of temporary trailers. Several years ago when these trailers were installed, the District agreed not to charge developer fees since the use was temporary. It was agreed that they would be removed and replaced by permanent structures which would then be sUbject to school mitigation. It should be noted that in calculating square footage for school mitigation, state law does not provide for demolition "credit" for anything other than a single family home, and then only when it is destroyed as the result of a natural disaster and is replaced in kind. As stated above, to adequately quantify impacts this project will have on school facilities, additional data 1S required. The District utilizes a formula for assessing a "fair share" for school impacts to non-residential development. Once the necessary information is provided, this can be calculated. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ~S~~ Kate Shurson Director of Planning and Facilities KS:dp cc: Carl Kadie Tom Silva John Linn Ian M. Gill 4:rohr-mas Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91911-2896 (619) 691-5500 Division of Planning and Facilities DEC 9 91 December 16, 1991 Ms. Diana Richardson City Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Ms.Richardson: Re: Proposed IWhr L.C.P. Amendment/Master Plan IS-92-18/F A-555/DP-894 Thank you for the Notice of Initial Study for the proposed Rohr Master Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment. The proposed expansion of the Rohr Complex will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. As a major business in the south bay area Rohr will offer a wide range of employment opportunities. As indicated in the Initial Study, approximately 2,582 employees are expected to be housed in the new facilities. It is anticipated that many of these new jobs will be filled by individuals moving into the region. The new households will undoubtedly require education services of the district. To mitigate the additional demand on classroom space, the Sweetwater Union High School District will require school impact fees to be paid in accordance with the adopted developer fee program. These fees will be required prior to issuance of building permits. If you have any questions or .require additional information, please feel free to call me at 691-5553. S~~ Thomas Silva Assistant Director of planning TSlml cc: Kate Shurson - Chula Vista City Schools I \, \/ \, \, I \, \1 \/ I I \/ I '>/ I :; . ...i....."" ~ .;-g L .e_ Le .. . oc:: oc 0_ ~- '" 0_ QO 0 -- o _ .~ :: - . - - M. -=:; .......... ...~f M ~ - . ~~ ! f:: L ~.- ~ .;" 2~..I:::o ~~Q M":O 0 M ~e -~ ;;: . M LO ~ -CO 8~,," ~i f~~~ ~ z.::; c~ j-- L. 00 ~Q L .~ ....'f . f:' . .~ ~ e .!~ ~~ e -:5 - -;;L :;; - 0 - a..e _... M- ~>.L ~.. ::11 .. L_ ...:'E -- - ~ "'i~ :: . 0 ....g.....~ I~ e reO ~ _. LO k -~ 5 2 -", L . L L OL (:......0... e 0 . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ 0 110 o ~M L_~ ~ LM e~ ~ ':' :;:i ~.~_ .~M ~j jL~ -. - o. ~~~..... ~ o. M~ L _L 'i~ .....I:.c . g-"i~ ~ ~~ - ~-. ~ . ~ ~ ..v c::j..w 0 i e. f. eL o __ !.i ~ -. z: L os.... ~ . 0............1: _ 0 . -.L L 0 0 -~ ~Oov..... c 0 ....~~ I M . ~ - - c ~... . ~....... ~o;; .- . ~ 0 -:;:: -'- _2 e O~~ ~Oe 00 M. c" .... ~ 0 -- e ;: c e ML - -~g~.....~ L_O - -~ cL. . - .e c. ~.; . ~ -- ~ O. ~ :!iI ~~ -_ 0_ ~ u'U .. E ~ L - -t. ~ ;f~ ~- :.:~~=~ --z: co ~ ~ . ~. c_ -- . ~ .~L - -0 ~u 0_. .. ;:~:I ~L v ~....! ~~. ~.- ~~ - 0_-,;:1_ -. ;;; e_~ ~... '" .... Q.i L ~ a.. 0 c::_ ~~ . .L~ .~ L ~o ':;'0 6.!~ ~~ 101...... ;;; ~- ~ _ L_ ~-- ~-~ :Cl;: ~--. wo "'o~ u". uo_ 0: . L ~ . ..: :c .; . - .; U Q V ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ - Q ~ ~ C)Q \, \ ...... ~ ~ ~ I ~ v - ">/ ~ m I I I ~ e 0 " ~I . ~ I L -; 0 z: . - -. -0 LV L - M~ e 0_ - ~ ~~ ~ go >: - e f - I... QZ A~ L ~ Q ! v VO cQ "':t e L - L L:. 1;;" - ~ 0 -Q 0 :-.= -~ -- ~ ~ -- '0 g~ -L 0_ ~ eM -0- "'- Ve .i E 2Z: . ~- ~ . .. 5':;- ~~ 0 o. 0 I -~ ~ _L ..0;; ':' ~ 1!V . L~ .c _ 1! - of . go~ C-L Ii - - v~ 0 .... o ~ . 8- - o. -.~ L~ .. ~. t:o: .. . f 1:; f - 0 . ec. :. 0 .v .; c_ ~o_ - . . .- cc -~ --. -,z z .. L ~! 22 .~v So . ~ ~ "-- K-g ~~ . v_ i ":0 - ~o ov .v ~~ :::. - .. e-- ~.: It; . ;; .~Q -0 0 - -~ -.. ~1t:i !S~ _ 0 ~~ . . - - - cv_ u_ 0 0 - - c ~ ;; ~ 0 I- I I ! ;; ~ -- - .. .; u .; z " e ~ -- -~ o. v . .- 0 ;. ..: .; . .; .:i ~~ Q ~ -- ~ - Q - ~ - \, \., \, I ">/ "-:./ I ">/ \1 \j I I I I I I I I I \1 .. .... OoU ,.,- -.- .. 0 - ... c .......c::... CO 0 C 0 " . 0 . ...._.z: . ~I - ~ 8- c ~ -.~~ " -- u....:;:IC . -:; " !.~u.! -- "- > - ~ c - O~ .!:;i ;;: 0 -:: - " c > ~ 0 0 ~ -- ~ ~=L ~ 0 ";~ " _0 "" c > rO ~ o " "1 ""0 ~ :: . . " - - " ~ 0 ."- ..c - . ~ .. ~-.......... io 00 - ~ 0 -~ " ~~ili_ & -:;; " r c 0 .- . ~ ! c~ ;; - " - M U L -..._ . c.. 0 ~ =~ 8.- . ':' ....e OIl ~:;. . fO~ . > . - .11 - - 0 ;;~ 1~ ~. .. "'ii 0_ . - 0 =-. o . cf 8- " 0 - c . . " .. Oc -- ;; z. .. OC ~ ~....~~~ .. . ".-.. _v - - 0 ~ - ~ 0 ." ;~~ co- c_ to .. - .. o:!.. ~ o~ OD ... ~ - - 0- _ -. 0 .- . .. ;; ~i .;; . ::=.s~ -~ . -~ --. c~ c" . ~ " ..~ --" 0_ 0 - ~......; ... - . ~- ~.::J ::;-; -0 " -" 0_ " .; .. ............ _0- ro- ..- E ~~ 11& _1! uu g-c"f;;~ ~ 5-. ;_ c ~- - ... 0" ;; 00 .. . -.::. ~L:Dff' ,,-- -- .. -- U 0> .c 0-- ~ occ cc...... .!:. ~ ~. 0 ;;~~ << . uo_ 0 <<~ . ...... "'J:j 0 ~- ~ U :: - ~ _ c -:;''8 11" c j D. ~ -.. . ~- " . D U " . D ~o ~"O .,; ..; ...: .~ m ~ ~ - ~ ;,' =- .\ .. . - . . o U . - .. ~ " - o - Jj . ~.. -. ,,1: -. .,., ~:; . ~c u_ ,; ~ -0 l- e: >"... 0 .- ..- O:;"i ~ ... cr... at ~I-ii~ ........0 --- .. .. 'i ..... vuo..... ~..co 1;- " .. " "~ - "~... 3.....~ ,,0 _ - t .!~Z:; ~..-.- ':~"i :.~ UO-tA .... U L -.....c: :::I 0.._.... .; I ~I c o - t'E _0 ...- . .. ~1! ~ ':;~ Ii':; :::1 ..- .- .. -- co ..: \1 I . - .. .. .. o ~~~k ~o~ f!:f.: OI"'O.c :::I _U - ..,., 0.1: o.a .. .. bei': ~6:"- ~..,=& . ... g J!" ..-. .: ~r. ~ ...... ceo-- 00.. .=: ..::g "0_ ..0... ~5~t5 ...."g.. u ~"~CJo( u>> "'_.. .. '), -.. co ~- i. .D ~. -::: . c> -. g.t;; _"0 --- U~- :::I.~ '2~~ 1:-" 0.. - . .:!~~ ~..>> ..v ....- " - A ... ~-~ ~oo ..; ~I I 0" -. ,., ~~ z.~ ~" ... ,-i- 0." H: ... -~. o o _ z.'i~ -- .... 0-" to t go ;:"ii &~~ ~.- ....- )., c -" "-" .C" -. . U_" ...... ... "- ...0_ o...~_ ,....: ~-;;- -~~- _ "C " . ~.. Q. ~>.':u "0: !~ ~......& ..0 .. ~"'~'i .fj: goc~ :. ~...~f uo_u - - ~ E - .. 8- ~ o .! - - ;; ~ ~ .. :; I>: . .; '\., I I ,.,- CO . " o -- o~ "" "1 i. ".. c .. .!11 ... '- _0 Ot . Ii'- -- -0" v~_ ~ac ...-. .c_ <<~o. ..; ~, '), "0'" _~ c c__ . - -0" A.";c -... o.! ""- .:!' ~ 0 VA z.._ " c &~J ".." ....oc o . -- C.... ~S~ - ~c: ~ 11.-.! I:o:lv ....t. C::COG. --ICM . N N . u ... ~ ~ - .. ~ =- ">1 \, \.1 \ \, \ I ~I I I I I I I I I '>I I \, ~I I ),1 .. .. :t':; 0;; ~ .. C..~ ~ 0 0 0 8-0c ~- ~C & :! ~ i~ ~ ,., 0;; ~ "c ~ ~ ~ -~.. ~ ~ 1! ~~ ~ 0- ~ ~ . .. ~L ~ r i~o 1<;; ~ .~c v c . 8-.- v ~ ~ .; .. r ~ ';; 0 0 n fc: ~ ~O~ E . '; ~ c . V Q...~ U V c ~Ll &~ ~ N E E ~ ~L OC~ K . ~o L ~ 00 f~ ~ . ~-o :: 0 0;; -: ~ u. ~~. . ~ 0;; . ~. ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~. -~- - ~ 0;; . ~ t=~~ ...- -. ~ c 0 0 O~ ~- ;tj.. - ~ ...- ~ ~ ~ g~ ~~ 0 :a~ c OM C f c ~C ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ 0 ~ .. : u ~ ~ ~ OOC ~ - C- ~ 0 L_ 0 M~. -~ M V -~ .0 ~ f V ~ .L . ~ - ~... -..... C_ :c:"'~" . f OM V . ~ ;: ~ -~ 0'" ~ . COO ~ ~ 0 :.- -~ .M f ~ - ~C 0 ~ go... 0 ~ ~ .. ~&.g,g' M ~ C- OO ...- '" ~L ~- t~ - ~ . g .~ 0" .._ L.. L~ r':'! .:,! M_ ~ ~ L ;; f' ~:::;~ .;r 0 JI~~~ . -- C_ ~ ~L V~ L :f ~ LV _ V .. ..c_0":::J ~L CO V.._ ~ -- _C ~ MC :::J)(.O -~ .~ -~ 00- ~ ~~ X_ 0 ~ "'. on. L ... 2. u....... 0 -......-...... t~ _0- ~ . ~ .; ..: Z c L~ .; .; .,; .; ..: .; .; ~;:; _o~ . ..; ..; ~ ~ . '" ~ ,. '>1 '>1 'J J ~I I ~I I I I ~, I \, ">, '\. , 0;; ~ . - .~ cc .~ ~L ~ 0;; ~- ~ .... Mo.MC ~. :!~ ~~ -~ 0_ . - ..c;... ~ C ~ ~ . --'Q>- ... 0 -t::; ~ 0 ... ~ -~v.~ ':;1! p. ~~ ~ ~L -;; 0 0 t~=.2 ::...t ~ ~. ~ ~ i ~ - 0 :: .:: .c...~_ ;; .0. ~~ ~~ ~ ~;::'~lI:j C -~ ;; ~o . 0;; C .- ~ C ~ ~ ~ L -0 ~- .::.... 8.~ 0;; 8- ~ ~ . o;=_~ -c 0 8- .~~ M_O ;; -0 ~ ~c ~gog-= V .. &.~c: f. ~... .. ~I , - . f C ...~ C M .. - f.o . - ~ -- -"" r.c ! ~ .';:c:~ ... M~ N . ... .....O_ICL CI. 'V;: r E.ii . ;; L_ 0.......:2 .MO M_ .j V~ ~ -~ - ...c_ .~ U ~~ ~M .. =t;:'i~ :; LO~ ~g"; . ~ ~c !~ .. ~ .~~ ~L ~ .E OL ~~ . ........ ~M~ ~-'" ~o ~c .: - ~~~ ~8- &:; ! ~o ~ - C~'iL~ - ...~ - i CO ;; ~ -~C -1f! oii ..c:j _M .. 0- O'U . ~~ ~ -~ r ...'E-..u: :::"1 &L ~~ co ,.,,., :.~ - M . ;;'\: D- . .; o...._u .VV ;';g -~ -~OO M_ -=~~~: _CC ~~ ~- ..~ :08- ~~ rI.. ~~ :I ~~. ..... i:~ _M ~~ ~- ~_L r~ M f'f' oC_ ~r LU ~::: ~M L~O ~ 't: ..I" I ~ .- MC .:~~ .:: V~ ill .~ ~ '\:- C~ ...u ~~ C~ cc;;,g"fi~ _c .ooc .I: ...~ ~L __c - _c ... ~o... rco 8-:: ~... ~~ <v~ ~~ 0 ~-o -- ~'; - -~ -~~ "8- r. MM_ ~f ~M . V~ r~ ,:It .. .. .. .; O~ .~ .. .; .; .,; _L O~ .. ~ .,; ~ - N ::: ... '" ~ . '" ~ :. ">1 "'>1 "">1 '>1 -........O....L.L.L..:IIoo ";~ €!! :!..:~:: 'fi~~t't..:~-= -- . .::;~::::::....,OOO:i~ .." ....... wow_I ~.a i ii.... ~-~ ~ --" ~ c~ c c: .~"O c....t to.... ~ ~~ 1:"i '!j . u-- .. ...."- . .-..~ _.....r::: ......::1-- Ie i.:lo~ ..o~...._ ~ ....... 0 ~ &O!.Jr:!:! ... &...o~ ~I::::I ..."i.... 0 .:::- f1: ~ .. -.... _......_~ ~....! :;:..f -::rc:.o. i "'-.""c c_.... ."~- ':~a.,.:; 0.11; 0 .. "'iE .! .. .i~"'. i".~ i ::='> c ~ ............. 0 ...~ -&:~ .-;:;...t~....~ .. u --.I::. .......... M. ~ ;;: =:;~.c~a. ...~O:;;:;: .~ f.~:: = ~ -ito. . ~ - .:. ..CT-;;~""f..~.. c:: ~..:...._>.... Jr: ....... ...,1;;. ;:; ~c:~ "t !o .c ...... "O~a..0I ~ .I::.....o"'c .c CU ...v... ~ C- O -;;."''X.. >>.0....._ .. ....':: .. .. u~~_.... -v i" .... ~- . ~ ~:5.g...o~ il-;!to ...~ 0 ___ +0- t..... c: ~-;=o u 00 e:.... v . ~. .... v.,o .. ~ .. ......-.. A.i........ ~ ~-x...t .....,~ ~;.... ~ u" 0 f. -....;: .: _'8t" f ....- i'"::r f- """'0."'- f'5:= " .... ~ -... a.~ >>.;....... V . A._.... V I!' A."O"'oy "'....0 Q.~ ~~ c B. ~ i'-t ~c: g~.~ ~.;-::: -...~o >!! ~i ....t.i~ j .: i'! ---........ ... 0.- .!.l:c ~...... . - ~__ .. L U ~...."O ..."Oo-::::-::~~c~~~ 'i "':'::0... ~::= .. .........-::.-- ~~~~i..~ ~". .. "'...-_.._1....::.......... "OL.U.l::.IC. v.. .. -_u::r.... .....0'" ... :):i~;;::~.c:: ... ft"""'.. "'1::: .......r:: E . ..D. "'..._ ...~_...., . c c. ... 0 00 .-.... 8oc.0.0:::ll..- tc:..-;... .go_c 'i.oc 8~ ~.I::::I.r::_ 8-~- .....r::..."'....u .. 0 "'''CI__ "0__ . U A..'" 0.0...,... .~. . ] . ..; V ..; ~ ~ E ~i!' 1'~ .v NH ~. ~- . &. f .. ~1' -. .N .~ ~~ .l ~ ,,~ c~ ._~ .- ...l~ o ~ . -. I':.c -~- ~c. ..~ t~c ...&1 - ~ :i - . :! j~ . ~ I ~I I ..; I \1 - ~ c . i ~&~~ _ "~ .c~ ~ ..v -; t fZ " ... t.:..'5_ .=~;& :>....-; &.~::::;u f:;._~ Q.U 0:1 ".. .. . :to.Oc: A:c: 00 .... ...-'" ~~c: :::~:O~!. _ ;IIVO =- ~ Do. . - .!~ ......- . u.c .. :n~" Ie. ::-::O-~ ..D....... ~O _c .. C:::ll. ......""- ..r:: c.._ C"OLO o ~ . .. 1 ~ ...i o. ~ t~ ~~ jj :2 \./ I c.. _0 ~" -~ ~- "~ .c~ ..~" ~. <7_ - ~ ..- "oc &':to.';: f~" ..-& ." .~c ~ <7 ~ - .::: _~o -~- - ~ '" c. &t S:t ::~:r .i- t-t: !lc;; -.. :!: "-1 ..u ~ - ~.. . co ~ cc" _0- -~ ~ ~v -e ~~ E; ~ i " :l G ~ ~ . .~o'; "~ ~ &.~ M f.. . "c u v_ . :;~&' ..1:._0.... ........0 .". ..-. ..... ..r::.c =~t~ ~"""'. . o N \ .. :: i!' .0_ .~~ ~ . - c:~~ - . ~ ~..v .- 0; . -u2 ~::;'::; .~v -~ . .~ ~ "':L~ &._00 fL t Qo~ .. .2-:;t .......:::11 v"~ _-v =i-~E ~ QQ... ..; \1 ~~- ~U. -- . ~~.;: . - ~ ~ &.~u .:;u '5ti~ ~ . . .- ~.;~ "<7 -,,- .~ e ["':::II f.t: .. . .::: A::I ""_ ~. " v~. j3i~ .; .. ::; ~ ~ ~ ,. \ \ I!'.l -~ ~ ::c H- .~ ~ ~. V -" .. ~" t:l~ 'it -.. .v ".~ &"V eLf "0_ ~ N . ."- ~g.:! -~ ooc --. --~ ,.t& .,; .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III. Determination (To be completed by the lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.......[ ] I fi nd that although the proposed project coul d have a signi fi cant effect on the envi ronment, there will not be a si gni fj cant effect in this case because the mitigation lIeasures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Will BE PREPARED................................................... [ )(] I find the proposed project HAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required........[ ] IflnH'''(J 51 ''In Date R~ ~~tLc:f Signature f:'t\tMO)'I ~ IV. SUMMARY OF ISSUES For ~-<'f ~tJ,i~ list all significant or potentially significant impacts identified in the Initial Study checklist form. Eo.rf1...- ! I+-r'r / n4JU ! 6-14A...(. -' No.;/--. J?ux,.Jff'l-4., Do.:t:u; d~, iii ~ ./ '))oi~ } 'pu;], <>j ~ -:J..\~_ .' p~ xrv/i....'O'..' J-Jl/Y1<.CI,./><..J ~ ;1li)-H,1J,'~ . i1('AJd:h~ I YES HAYBE K ;/, ~ )( v. TANCE OF MITIGATION MEASURES St!fH~ i\(.f; ~<;.. Name Title In'" M, G..\4....1- 5'Y\~(',1)A~ ir5h-. c~r . A~.,(\ . h'R. fC'NA;. .\ .~ (. . I I .l-~qL Date WPC 9459P -28- M. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AS 3158) _ It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a 'Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project. ~ It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fees in accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk. ~ ~N 'k-- Environmental Review Coordina or Rh. 5",1992. , Date WPC 9459P -29- DISCUSSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ROHR "F" AND "G" STREET MASTER PLAN 1. Earth An "Update Geotechni ca 1 Invest igat i on for the proposed Rohr Industries Office Complex" (September 7, 1990) was prepared for Area A. This study was used to prepare the Certified Final EIR for the Rohr Office Complex, which is hereby incorporated by reference (pages from this EIR applicable to this Initial Study are attached). A "Report of Confirming Foundation Investigation" (July 3, 1991, attached) was prepared for a port i on of the proposed project area. Other reports or Confi rmi ng Foundat i on Invest igat i on wi 11 be prepared for industrial buildin9s in the Master Plan when they are proposed for development. The six-story office building, and north and south parking garages were included in the 1991 report (as well as the Phase I building a 1 ready under construct ion) . The balance of the lCP amendment area and Master Plan area has no soils or geotechnical analysis. The conclusions of the 1991 report are that the proposed six-story building and parking structures may be supported on spread footings established in properly compacted fill or natural formational soils. Recommendations are included to avoid potential impact, and must be implemented. li quefacat i on potent i a 1 for the si x-story buil di ng and parki ng garage area was considered low by the 1991 report. Based on the 1990 report, the site could be subject to violent ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake; however, thi s hazard is common to southern Cal ifornia, and the effects of shaking can be minimized by structural des ign and construct i on cons i stent wi th current buil di ng codes and engineering practices. Groundwater may be encountered duri ng foundation excavat i on pos i ng a potentially significant impact to foundation support, and to water qua 1 i ty from groundwater di scharge. Construct ion dewateri ng may be required prior to foundation excavation if the water levels intercept construct ion areas. Temporary construction dewateri ng woul d be imp 1 emented in accordance with the 1990 report recommend at ions, and compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB directives. Si nce no soil sjgeotechni ca 1 i nformat i on exi sts for the balance of the LCP Amendment and Master Plan areas, the potential for impacts rema in. As plans are submitted for these area, soi 1 s and subsurface geotechnical investigations must accompany these plans. Recommendations must be implemented as determined appropriately by the City's Engineering Department. 2. Air The Air Quality analysis included in the certified FEIR for the Rohr Office Complex is hereby incorporated by reference. It includes re 1 evant exi st i ng condit ions/background i nformat i on for the project area (pages are attached). Two types of potentially significant impacts would occur with project development: 1) emissions from vehicular traffic, and 2) construction related emissions. Additionally, until actual uses are known for the proposed research and i ndustri al bui 1 di ngs, the potent i a 1 for hazardous emissions exist. Vehicular Traffic The major project-related air quality concern is the emissions from project-related vehicular traffic. Rohr maintains that project area employees would merely be transferred to this site from other areas in the Rohr Campus, antJ thus, no new emi ss ions woul d occur. However, based on the fact that the density of this portion of the Rohr campus is being increased, there does remain a potential for some additional vehicle trips, though the number of net new trips may be minor. Ant new emi ss ions generated woul d incrementally contri bute to the basin-wide (cumulative) violation of clean air standards. The contribution is thus considered significant. Indirect project sources also contribute to this cumulative impact. These impacts include increased fossil fuel combustion in power plants and heaters, boilers, stoves and other energy consumi ng devi ces, and emi ss ions from construction vehicles. Regarding consistency with the local plans (and, thus, the State Implementation Plan revisions - [SIP] 1982), the LCP amendment area exceeds the floor area ratio (FAR) anticipated by the LCP. This results in more trips than projected by the SIP, and thus, more emissions than included in the basin-wide estimates. This is cons idered to incrementa lly burden the a 1 ready regi ona lly (cumulatively) significant basin-wide impacts. Vehicle activity in the parking garages would create emissions that are "trapped", potentially resulting in a carbon monoxide "hot spot". California OSHA requirements include ventilation in each multi-story garage structures. No other mitigation is necessary beyond the state requirements. Construction Related Emissions The clearing of existing on-site uses (demolition, clearing of debri s), the excavation of utility access, the preparat i on of foundations and footings, and building assembly would create temporary emissions of dusts. Typical dust lofting rates from construction -2- activities average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. Much of ths dust is comprised of large particles that are filtered by human breathing passages, and settle out rapidly on nearby surface. Though most of the dust settles out in this manner, the smallest part icl es rem a in suspended throughout thei r travel through the ai r basi n. Construct ion dust is, therefore, on important contri but ion to regional (cumulative) violations of inhalable dust standards. To mitigate the cumulative (significant) vehicular and construction impacts, the project, since it incrementally contributes to these impacts, must implement the following measures: 1. Participate in Rohr's already established Transportation Control Measure program. The program is for Rohr employees and includes: ridesharing and vanpool incentives alternate transportation incentives (trolley transit use) work scheduling for off-peak hour travel When the City adopts its own emi ss i on reduct i on program (subsequent to SANDAG' sand APCD's Pl an adopt i on), then Rohr must implement relevant requirements from this program, as well as their own. 2. Implementation of dust control measures during construction as requi red by the APCD. Such measures i ncl ude ma i nta i ni ng adequate soil moisture as well as removing any soil spillage. 3. Construction and grading plans must 1 imit the hours of construction to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to reduce amounts of construction emissions, and construction truck queuing must be prohibited. 3. Water The certified FEIR for the Rohr Office i nformat i on of the proposed project, reference (relevant pages from Additionally, the City Engineering regarding the proposed project (see form) . The Master Plan area has been hydrologically analyzed in Rick Engineering "Drainage Study, Rohr's Corporate Facil ity" (1990). The project site will drain into two separate areas - the detention basin west of Building I, and the existing drainage system which includes G Street. The Gradi ng Plan shows appropri ate drai nage improvements to accommodate the proposed drainage. Complex contains relevant water and is hereby incorporated by the report are attached). Department submitted comments Engineering Department routing -3- Groundwater in the project area is not considered beneficial for any use other than groundwater recharge. Project construction would incrementally affect groundwater recharge by paving portions of the site not already covered over with urban development. Surface water runoff would correspondingly be incrementally increased. The detention basin on the west side of the existing Rohr building (under construction) will allow for some ground water recharge. Groundwater quality in the project area is poor, with documented areas of contami nat i on by hazardous substances. Section 17 of thi s Di scuss i on reports on the groundwater quality of the project area. Surface water runoff woul d carry with it the oil, grease and other solvents from roads and parking areas associated with the project. The storm drain system and detention basins being constructed for Area A and proposed throughout the Master Plan area are considered adequate to prevent significant impacts from runoff entering into the adjacent F and G Street Marsh of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and the San Diego Bay. Construction impacts could be significant, and could occur from exposed soils entering into the adjacent wetland and Bay envi ronments. To prevent thi s impact, measures requi ri ng a barrier system and berm for the exi st i ng Rohr bu i 1 di ng (under construct ion) are required as part of this project. In summary, maintenance of a barri er system and berm whi ch were placed between the Rohr property and the wetlands must occur. This barrier system and berm must be extended around the southwest side of the wetland when this area (G Street building) is developed. When the drainage diversion system is comp 1 eted, the port i on of the barri er system/berm adjacent to the existing Rohr building may be removed if the drainage requirement for the balance of the site do not specify it. This then requires completion of the study prior to its removal. Regarding water consumption, any increase in net consumption of water in the City of Chul a Vi sta is an incremental demand on the regi ons scarce water resource (cumulative impact). In order to mitigate this impact, the applicant must implement any water conservation requirements of Sweetwater Authority (water district), and must agree to no new net increase in Citywide water consumption by the payment of any water offset fees, or other conservation program the City has in place at the time of building permit issuance. 4., 5. Plant. Animal Life Relevant biological information is contained in the certified FEIR for the Rohr Office Complex and is hereby incorporated by reference (relevant pages attached). The natural biological resources of the project site are 1 imited as most of the site has been altered by urban development and/or degraded by its proximity to such. Thus, no on-site biological resources would -4- be significantly affected by project development. However, impacts to the off-site resources of the F and G Street Marsh and the San Diego Bay could occur: I) urban runoff contami nat i ng water quality of these wetl and and Bay resources, 2) intrusion of light from the six-story building and G Street buildings into the F and G Street Marsh, 3) increased human presence in the vicinity and adjacent to these sensitive resources, and 4) upset of the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey, and the associated indirect impacts to the Bedings Savannah Sparrow and Light-footed Clapper Rail. In order to reduce these impacts to a level below significant, the following measures (excerpted from the incorporated FEIR) must be implemented: a. The buffer area between Building I and the F & G Street Marsh was required by the Rohr Office Complex FEIR to establ ish vegetation identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These measures are currently being implemented and monitored. The fence along this buffer must also be extended to the south (Area E), to prevent human access from thi s area into the Marsh. The fi re access road there 1 imits the opportunity to establ i sh vegetation on the Marsh side of these buil di ngs. The USFWS requests that native plants be used throughout the Master Plan area, rather than the proposed heavy use of non-natives. b. The project should continue to be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators. Should this program not be established prior to issuance of the grading permit for any portion of the Master Plan area, Rohr must coordinate with USFWS to determi ne the extent of part i ci pat ion and the necessary timeframe for predator management. The USFWS recommends contracting with the Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control program to provide the predator management services. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized landscaping areas of the project must be of bi odegradabl e vari ety and must be approved by the Protection Agency for use near wetland areas. d. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who is a state-certified applicator. c. within the the rapidly Environmental -5- e. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Garbage shoul d be haul ed away as often as possible. f. The 94-foot building must utilize non-reflective glass on the west side and bold architectural 1 ines which are readily observable by birds. The glass which was approved for Building 1 will be used on this building. g. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included on the western side of the proposed 94-foot building. Ledges facing the west should not exceed two inches in width, or be sufficiently sloped to prevent perching. Additionally, the roof crests which are exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy incidence of perching be observed on the bUildings or in landscaping materials. h. Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or refl ect i ng faces (wi ndows) of the western si de of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum required for security on the western side of the proposed building. 6. No i se Noi se woul d be created by the project duri ng construct i on, but the long term office and research uses are not expected to generate noise. Vehicular traffic associated with the project will also create noi se. Project area employees on the east side of the site may be exposed to significant noise from 1-5. I. Construction-related noise Noise from construction of the proposed project will be created, however, there are presently no sens it i ve urban receptors of thi s noi se (houses, schools, hospitals, etc.). Even so, construction will be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. As the certified FEIR for the Rohr Office Complex stated (pg. 5-1), the nearest sensitive (biological) receptor is the F and G Street Marsh which will now be blocked by the eXisting Rohr building (Building I - under construction). The buildings proposed for Area E may create significant noise during construction to the sensitive resources of the F & G Street Marsh. The biological monitor must survey the marsh area prior to development of this area, and, depending on the wildl ife resources present, may impose time 1 imitations on construction to avoid the nesting and/or breeding season. 2. Long-term offi ce and research uses - Offi ce and research uses would not generate significant noise. However, limited manufacturing is allowed in this zone and could include -6- noise-generating uses. If such uses were proposed for one of the Master Plan area buildings, the building will be designed to comply with all local and state standards for noise. 3. Vehicular traffic noise - Project-related traffic will largely travel along lagoon Drive, Bay Boulevard to E and H Streets, and to 1-5 from E to H Streets. Again, no sensitive receptors are located along these routes. As stated in the certified FEIR for the Rohr Office Complex (pg. 5-1), "The nearest sensitive receptor is the F & G Street Marsh whi ch is located west of the proposed [now under construction] structure. As all parking and ingress/egress woul d be focused on the eastern half of the site and noise would be blocked by the structure itself, impacts would not be significant." This remains true for the Master Plan area. Consistently, the building proposed south of the F & G Street Marsh would also act to block vehicular noise. 4. Noise from 1-5 - Noise from 1-5 may significantly impact employees of the buildings along Bay Boulevard, or employees in the upper floors (the 5th and 6th levels) of the 6-story structure; otherwise, all buildings will be blocked from the 1-5 noise. These buildings will be designed to meet the City requirement for interior noise levels. 7. liQht and Glare The proposed Master Plan development is an office and research complex. Use of the facility would occur largely during daylight hours and would not require full night time lighting. However, night security 1 ighting would occur. There are presently no urban uses around the site which would be affected by this lighting. The six-story building is not expected to have security lighting from its upper floors. However, the sensitive resources of the F & G Marsh could be impacted by lighting from the building southeast of the Marsh. To reduce this impact to a level below significant, the last measure of Section 5, Animal Resources, requires that outside lighting be directed away from marsh areas, and that 1 ights should be 1 imited to the minimum required for security. 8. land Use The exi st i ng lCP des i gnates the project site for Industri a 1 Busi ness Park over most of the site, and Industrial General along G Street. The lCP Specific Plan allows (among others) for Industrial Business Park: Administrative Commercial, Research and Development Commercial. It allows for Industri a 1 General (among others) : Research and Development Commercial. The types of office and research uses proposed for the project area are consi stent wi th the lCP. The lCP requires a floor area ratio of .50 for Industrial Business Park and Industrial General; with the exception of Area A, the project is -7- consistent with this requirement. The LCP requires a height limit of 44 feet; with the exception of Building 2 (94.5 feet), the site plan is consistent. However, the stated inconsistencies with the LCP are considered significant. Mitigation is required to reduce any environmental impacts created by these inconsistencies (discussed throughout the report in other sections), and to create consistency with the LCP. Consistency is created by amending the LCP, or changing the project. Thi s project proposes amendment to the LCP for these reasons. Thus, mitigation may be achieved by City and Coastal Commission approval of the proposed LCP Amendment. 9. Natural Resources Any development wi 11 increase the rate of use of natural resources including timber, minerals (sand and gravel) and fossil fuels (water was discussed in Section 3). The rate of use depends on the type of development. The proposed Master Plan development would incrementally increase the demand on all these resources. The use of timber and minerals is a one-time use during construction, and mitigation of the use of the resources occurs at the production level with replanting of the timber and conservation of sand and gravel areas. However, the use of foss il fuels for energy wi 11 occur throughout the 1 i fe of the project, and the project contributes to the long-term cumulative impact on these resources. In order to reduce the incremental impact to a level below significant, the development must include energy conserving building design, 1 ighting and appl iances. Such design is required to an extent by law, however, the applicant should include energy efficient lighting and appliances in every building where practically feasible. 10. Risk of Upset Ri sk of upset occurs with the presence of hazardous materi a 1 s. The proposed research and limited manufacturing uses may include such materials, depending on the actual activity of each building. The presence of such materials is considered a potentially significant impact. In order to reduce this potential impact to a level below significant, permits for the use and disposal of such materials is required. Achievement of these permits is required prior to issuance of occupancy permits for each buil di ng in whi ch hazardous materi a 1 s are used. Demolition of existing structures also presents a risk of upset, depending on the materials present in the structure to be demolished. Standard requirements for demolition will avoid this risk; demolition permits are issued by the Building and Housing Department. The appl icant will be subject to Building and Housing Department and Fire Department requirements for demol ition. No other measures for demolition are necessary. -8- 11, 12. PODulation. HousinQ The proposed Master Plan is not directly affecting population or housing as it would be building uses consistent with those anticipated by the LCP. Add it i ona lly, Rohr cl a ims that even though the proposed buildings would be new, the employees would simply be transferred from adjacent older bUildings on the Rohr Campus. Thus, there would not be created a significant demand on housing by this project; at most, there would be an incremental demand pI aced on area housing by new Rohr employees. 13. TransDortation/Circulation A traffic study was prepared, and is attached, for the proposed Master PI an project (see Final Technical Report, Rohr Office Complex, Phase II, Feb. 1992). The conclusions of this study are that the following intersections and street segments would, at the time of project buildout, be operating over their design capacity resulting in unacceptable Levels of Service. These intersection and street segments would be affected by vehicles associated with development of the entire Master Plan area: Intersections and Street SeQments Project Contribution to Growth in PM Park Hour Traffic Intersection E St./Bay Bl vd. E St.II-5 NB Ramp E St./Broadway Bay Blvd./F St./Lagoon Dr. 39% 32% 7% 44% SeQments Bay Blvd. - E St. to F St. ESt. - 1-5 to Woodlawn ESt. - Woodlawn to Broadway H St. - 1-5 to Woodlawn 27% 1% 1% 1% Any project contribution to an intersection which does not meet Threshold Standards of the City is considered to incrementally contribute to a cumulatively significant impact. Mitigation is necessary to reduce incremental impacts to a level below significant. Feasible mitigation for each intersection and segment is shown below. The appl i cant's respons i bil i ty for each measure is also shown, and consists of either providing the actual physical improvement, or providing a fee (to be determined) which would represent a proport i onal contri but i on to the intersection or segment improvement. Impl ementat i on of mit igat i on measures wi 11 be phased correspondi ngly with Master Plan phased development, and ultimately will be completed by project buildout (anticipated }997) in order to reduce impacts to a level below significance. -9- Intersections & Street Seqments Mitiqation Rea'd Applicant's ResDonsibil itv Intersection E StjBay B1 vd Restriping and Signal Modification Actua 1 Improvement Actua 1 Improvement Fee E StjI-5 NB Ramp Signal Modification E StjBroadway Reconstruct Intersection Bay B1vdjF StjLagaon Dr Reconstruct Intersection Actua 1 Improvement Seqments Bay B1vd-E St to F St Upgrade to Class NA* II Collector E St-I-5 to Woodlawn Upgrade to 4-1ane Fee Major E St.jWood1awn to Broadway Upgrade to 4-1ane Fee Major H StjI-5 to Woodlawn Upgrade to 4-1ane Fee Major * It is the opinion of the City Traffic Engineer that the Bay Boulevard segment will operate satisfactorily at the projected buildout average daily traffic (8200 ADT), especially with the intersection improvements at either end. It is possible to convert the existing class III segment to class II simply by removing parking along the east curb1ine (the west curb1ine already prohibits parking). With removal of curb parking, striping to create 3 continuous lanes could occur. This would increase the roadway capacity from 7500 ADT to 12,500 ADT. Because of the hardshi p created by the removal of curb parki ng, and since the bui1dout ADT is slightly greater than the existing capacity, it is recommended that traffic conditions be monitored, and that parking removal and restriping occur when deemed appropriate by the City Traffic Engineer. 14. Public Services a. Fire Fi re servi ce capabil it i es wi 11 be sign i fi cant1y impacted by the proposed Master Plan (see Fire Department routing form). The Fire Department has certain requirements for each bUilding in order to reduce this impact to a level below insignificant. Rohr will coordinate with the Fire Department to determine and implement the exact requirements for each building or area. -10- Other Comments : All proposed areas wi 11 be requi red to meet the requi rements for fi re fl ow and fi re hydrants in accordance with Appendix IIIA and IIIB of the Uniform Fire Code. Any other fire apparatus roads in excess of 150 ft. that dead end are required to have a turn around for fire apparatus. Existing above-ground power lines on Bay Blvd. (west side) must be relocated underground as they present a hazard to fire fighting operations. b. Pol ice Pol ice service can be maintained as long as access to the Master Plan Area is maintained along G Street, as well as Bay Boulevard and F Street. G Street will be a private street, but will be able to be accessed from Bay Boulevard. c. Schools See 1 etters submitted by Chul a Vi sta El ementary School Di stri ct and Sweetwater Uni on Hi gh School Di stri ct. Both representat i ves of each Di stri ct state that the proposed Master Pl an wi 11 create impacts on school facilities. Any impact on an overburdened District is considered significant. Mitigation is achieved typically through payment of school fees or participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. For the proposed Master Plan project, the applicant will be required to provide mitigation to reduce impacts to a level below significant. The determination of the type and amount of mitigation necessary will be made prior to issuance of bUilding permits. d. Parks Master Plan development includes (and requires for adequate circulation) the improvement of the Bay Blvd./lagoon Drive/F Street intersection, including its relocation a short distance to the west. The relocation will significantly impact an existing one-acre park on the northwest corner of Bay Boulevard/lagoon Drive. This one-acre park is used largely for parking and as a landscaped entry into the Bayfront area. A portion of this park (approximately one-third) will actually be removed for roadway realignment. Mitigation must occur when the intersection improvement occurs, which is anticipated by 1997. Rohr must provide mit igat ion acceptabl e to the City. Two opt ions, among others, for mitigation could include creating parkland on the east side of Bay Boulevard across the street from the existing park (the City owns 300 square feet of 1 and here, or by payment of a fee, to be negotiated with the City at the time plans are finalized for this improvement. - Il- e. Public Facilities The City's General Fund would pay for standard facil ity maintenance including roads. Rohr will be improving Lagoon Drive to City Circulation Element requirements, as well as providing mitigation in the form of other roadway improvements. f. Other Governmental Services This study has addressed impacted governmental issues. 15. Enerav See No.9. 16. Thresholds With adherence to standard engineering implementation of all required Threshold/Standards Policy would be met. and building requirements, and mitigation measures, the 17. Human Health The project itself is not expected to create a human health hazard, unless on-site uses were to generate hazardous emissions. The project is largely office and research uses, however, research or light manufacturing may involve the use of a hazardous material. Anytime a hazardous materi a lis used and di sposed of, its presence creates a potentially significant human health hazard. However, in order to use such materials, the user must obtain permits from the County Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the Air Pollution Control District. Permits requi re the safe use and di sposa I of such materi a Is, mitigating potential impacts to a level below significant. Thus, before use of hazardous materials occurs, the user must obtain relevant permits from state and/or regional permitting agencies. The project site is known to have contami nated groundwater and soi I s in certain locations. Remediation activities are presently occurring in these areas to e I imi nate the contami nat ion, and coordi nat i on for these activities involves the County HMMD and RWQCB. Building in these areas prior to completion of required remediation would create a potentially significant human health hazard. Thus, prior to, or concurrent with submittal of detailed project plans for each area of the Master Plan with known contamination, proof of required remediation completion must occur. Proof would occur by written verification from the appropriate regulatory agency. Additionally, prior to submittal of project plans for areas not previously surveyed for contami nat i on, and if there exi sts a potent i a I for human health impacts due to the type and amount of construction necessary, -12- completion of an assessment of Assessment and Mitigation directives. Implementation of 1 evel below s i gnifi cant. the site must occur, fOllowing the Site Manual (County, 1992), and RWQCB these measures will reduce impacts to a 18. Aesthetics Information regarding aesthetics occurs in the certified FEIR for the Rohr Office Complex, which is incorporated by reference (relevant pages are attached). As stated and shown photographically by that report, views to the site are limited and/or distant from all existing Surrounding land uses. This is due to the adjacent Rohr facilities on the south, the 1-5 freeway on the east, and the undeveloped Mid-bayfront area on the north. Additionally, the existing Rohr bUilding (under construction) on the west, 1 imits views to the site from the west. Deve 1 opment of the Master Pl an area woul d, for the majority of the site, not sUbstantially alter vi sibil ity to or from any area. In fact, redevelopment of some portions of the site (the eastern and southern perimeter) is considered to be an aesthetic improvement. The biggest consideration regarding aesthetics is the 94-foot, six-story bUilding just east of the Rohr building under construction. A high-rise structure is not planned for this area by the LCP, requiring an LCP amendment (see Section 8). Nearby bUilding heights would consist of the 42-foot building under construction, the 44-foot bUilding proposed at the southwest corner of the Master Plan area, and the existing 73-foot Rohr building south of the F & G Street Marsh. This building would be 21 feet taller than the tallest existing bUilding (the 73-foot, building south of the F and G Street Marsh). Its design, however, is slender. By comparison to the Rohr building under construction, it is approximately one-quarter the length of the existing bUilding. A tall slender building usually appears much less massive than lower, bulkier bUildings. Also, its height would act as a contrast, and would break up the monotony of the height of the rest of the 42 to 44-foot buildings. Overall, its presence will be noticeable, but not considered significant. The design of the bUilding will be subject to the Design Review Committee, whose recommendations will be considered. 19. Recreation An offi ce/research park does not place a hi gh demand on recreat i ona 1 opportunit i es, though there is some demand from employees who des i re to recreate during their lunch break or before or after work. Additionally, Rohr claims that the employee of this Master Plan area wi 11 be transferred from the adjacent Rohr campus, and woul d not be new users of facilities. The Master Plan location is ideal for picnicking, walking, running, and bicycling due to its proximity to the bayfront and bayside parks. No significant impact is, therefore, expected to occur to recreational facilities of the City. -13- 20. Cultural Resources The certified FEIR for the Rohr Office Complex stated that no significant impacts would Occur to cultural resources, and rel ied on an archaeological survey prepared for the Mid-bayfront area, including undeveloped portions of the project site. The potential for resources located in the developed portion of the site is low. 21. Mandatorv FindinQs of SiQnificance a. With implementation project will not resources. Cultural of all biological mitigation measures, the significantly affect natural biological resources will not be significantly impacted. b. No short term goals would be disadvantaged by project development. land use proposed by the project is consistent with long term planning goals of the City. c. Cumulative impacts would occur to transportation/circulation and to natural resources, including water. With implementation of mitigation measures, the projects incremental contribution to these cumulative impacts would be mitigated. d. Human health hazards could Occur from known contaminated water and soil. Implementation of mitigation measures would avoid these hazards. WPC 490lH -14- ~ XCf.fPTS ~OM ~ Robe Office Complex Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR # 90-10) SCH # 90010623 Prepared for: City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Coodinator 276 Foruth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 I. Prepared by: Keller Environmental Associates, Ine. (KEA) 1727 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 ~ , February 1991 ~{~ ~ '-.---.--.--- -- -- -- - ~~~~ CITY OF CHUlA VISTA 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 3.1 DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING The following discussion is based on several technical reports prepared for the Rohr project, the latest of which are contained in Appendix B. Rick Engineering completed a report entitled Drainage Study, Rohrs Corporate Facility (May 14, 1990) and Woodward-Clyde Consultants prepared the Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Rohr Industries Office Complex, Southwest Comer of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard (Jul)' 21, ~pl~mB~r%; 1990). EXISTING CONDmONS Drainage I I I I I I I The 11.6-acre project site is located near the eastern shoreline of San Diego Bay, south of the mouth of the Sweetwater River. A salt marsh, the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, exists just west of the site, but the site itself is typically higher in elevation, varying from 8 to 20 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The project site slopes gently to the southwest and approximately 75 percent of the area is covered with vegetation, primarily grasses and small palm trees. There are no drainage facilities onsite, so all runoff flows overland. Runoff from the site flows south to an off-site swale located within the existing Rohr facilities, just north of Building 61 (located southwest of the project site). From this swale, runoff flows west into the "F' & "G" Street Marsh at the southwestern edge of the project. The existing storm drain system in the area includes a 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) located in "G" Street, just south of Building 61, which connects to a 54" RCP that conveys flow into the salt-marsh. An 84" RCP is located in "R" Street that conveys additional storm flows from the existing Rohr facilities into the bay, south of the project site. Both of these facilities are near capacity. 3-1 90-14.00911/09/90 I Ii I I I I I I I I . I , I I r Groundwater The site is located in the coastal plain adjacent to southeast San Diego Bay and within the Lower Sweetwater Hydrographic Sub-unit. Groundwater in this sub-unit is designated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as having existing beneficial uses for municipal, agricultural and industrial service applications. The groundwater underlying the site is beneficial primarily for groundwater recharge applications. Borings to locate and monitor groundwater' were undertaken by Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCygSY) in March 1988 and in March and April of 1989. Groundwater was encountered in all wells and the measured depth to groundwater varied from 5 to 16 feet below the surface. The groundwater gradient flows to the southwest, similar to the existing topography. concentrations ofTrich1oroetlIen~(TCEratlevd~2t6 lOtirnes the RWQCB action level of 5 miCrograms .pet' Ii tet' .(ug/l' fot'ddnking water standards. -':'C_:"':':_:__'_::_:_"'_::_:_":':_:_:.,.:_:_:_,._,-.:.':.:-.,.;.-....-:-::__:_.. -'-";":_"_::"_:'_'::_';':"':""'_::_:"_:.:_:_:....:..:_:_:.1_:_:.:<_:_:...:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:_:_:.:;:.:_":':"_'_:::.:_", _:_'_:::':_:':"':_:_:'_':':':_:':.:.,_:_:.,.:_:.:::.:_:_"':_'_";'_':_:_:'_':_:-:__':_:'__" Soils and Geologic Units and Site Topography Elevations on site vary from 8 to 20 feet MSL and slope gently from the northeast to the southwest. The site is underlain by the Bay Point Formation (a Pleistocene age Marine Terrace deposit) which consists of medium dense to very dense, silty to clean sands with interbeds of silt and clay. A surficial soil is present that consists of a silty sand topsoil layer overlaying a clayey sand to sandy clay residual soil layer. The topsoils were found to be up to 2 feet thick and the residual soils up to 4 feet thick. The sandy portions of the Bay Point Formation soils are suitable for use at finished grade without remedial measures. The clayey portions of the surficial soils are moderately to highly expansive and should not be used at finished grade. The residual soils are also slightly expansive. Excavation can be accomplished with light to heavy ripping using heavy- duty excavating equipment. 3-2 9O-UOO91I/09/90 Soft, unconsolidated, compressible estuarine "bay" deposits appear to encroach across the westerly site boundary near the northwest and southwest corners. Loose, porous slope wash soils may exist in the topograpli.ic low near the center of the southerly site boundary. IMPACTS Drainage Site hydrology poses three potential constraints to on-site development in the Bayfront area: · Flooding of low-lying areas from tidal highs, resulting from extreme barometric lows, combined with wind-driven waves · Flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities · Contribution of contaminated runoff into the sensitive "P' & "G" Street Marsh The site itself is located on relatively elevated land, east of the extremely low-lying marsh. The building pad is proposed for 13.2 feet MSL. Along the western property boundary, a 5 to 6 foot high berm is proposed between the Marsh and the detention basin. The conditions necessary to create on-site flooding include extremely low barometric pressure combined with high velocity wind-driven waves. Given the extreme conditions necessary to generate such flooding, the elevated condition of the site, and the protective benn, this potential impact is considered remote. The existing 42" RCP located near Building 61 in the Rohr facilities is currently operating near capacity. If overtaxed by contributions from the proposed project, flooding could occur. Because the detention basin and flow conveyance facilities have been designed to accommodate the additional flow given the worst-case lOO-year flood event, the potential impact is regarded as less than significant. Development of the site with an office complex would result in paving and otherwise covering a major portion or the eJfiting mftn~~H~H~g ground surface, thereby reducing infiltration and ultimately resulting in increased runoff. Also, the constituents of the runoff would be altered. With the creation of a paved lot, oil, grease, and other solvents from 3-3 90-14.00911/09/90 . ~ q . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . I . automobiles would join storm runoff. If this runoff is uncontrolled and allowed to flow in the existing pattern, this contaminated runoff would enter the sensitive "F' & "G" Street Marsh, which is regarded as-a potentially significant impact. As part of the project, a storm drain system and detention basin is proposed to prevent storm runoff from entering the Marsh. The storm drain system would consist of a series of inlets and pipes to convey all the water from roof drains and parking areas into the proposed detention basin. This basin would be located to the west of the office complex, adjacent to the marsh. Before discharging into the basin, the water would be filtered through a cleansing system consisting of a triple box with baffles serving to trap suspended grease and heavy metal particles. The baffle box and basin would be cleaned tWl.~ each X~~r;!H~gf~1!1gp9 October. During dry weather periods, from May to October, flows would be retained within the detention basin and reduced by evaporation and percolation. During the October maintenance period, the stop gate would be removed and winter storm flows would be conveyed out of the detention basin. An 18" RCP would carry site flows south to the existing 42" RCP near Building 61. The detention basin has been designed to accommodate 2 acre-feet of water, which is the lOO-year storm event. Because the existing 42" RCP is approaching capacity, the conveyance system has also been designed to maintain the water surface elevation in the detention basin equal to, or below, the 100-year hydraulic grade line. This design is intended to allow gradual draining to the existing system, without flooding. As currently proposed, the storm drain system and detention basin would capture all contaminated runoff, remove the grease and heavy metals and divert the runoff away from the Marsh. With implementation of the storm drain system as designed, there would be no adverse impacts to the Marsh from contaminated runoff. Groundwater The presence of groundwater affects both the construction and design of foundations for structures if the foundations are located below groundwater level. Subterranean slabs and 3-4 90.14.009 IJ/09/90 .. iJ I I I I I I , I I t I I I I other foundation elements located below groundwater levels experience buoyant forces which can result in uplift pressures. Special precautionary measures to restrain the slab from lifting must be incorporated into project design. The presence of a high groundwater table also results in saturated soils. Saturated soils, without remediation, fire fiR miy ggY~r~~1Y!iii~$tpYi!1.!:!fgg.~HPP.9r~.iiqm~>1iP~;Jn unacceptable material for building support and fill. ~s::r~:::~:;^~:se~e ::::i~:~ ;:~i:: :It::,t::e::::::\~:C~U::~dC: ::::::: ;: ~~ ~;, h,w"", <be" ;, <h, ."m,'" ." ,~~ : ~::..:= :~ :~:h: ~~~ ~~~Slts. Eased on a prehmmar)' rc.10'l/ of th s .e, :: :::t:;.:: ::::~ ::: ":: ,:'hw,,, ~,' "u,"'~, <om", 'f <he ,'" =:: ::~::: : ;~ ::::::I::~~ the s:~~, the dotentron basin may encroacH 0 s ..s, :h:re: ~,:~::~",'I ,mdi", O'h,~,,,, <h, =, ~uJd "mill" '" '~ ::::: ':: : :;:;:~ :I~~ :~~ encountered dunng gradlllg, then this soil must bo d c 0 ere prior to tIse !IS fill. Two parkfugs~i-uctures: ar(:(:tii-r~ritly proposed,eacg\i.tith one 1~\fe19fbel()\i.t~grade parking with finished floorelevatioliS<of 8.0 and 8.2 feetforthenortherlyandsoutperljparking s\I1,1.5!%~~ .....r~~p.estiyely;............The,}I()i;;\~~rly....p~19Pg......~trw:!lir~i}s .....CiJ.rreA~lipfgp~seq...t~..()e StiPpott~d'<)J1spread'.{)r~iitii:!~6usfOotiU,gs"'f(}:uridedentfielY'iri'..cdmpeten.( Bay..j?oint fO'ma1.:ionalsoils, with a bottOni-of1ootingelevatiori of 5.5 feet (MSL); [J1efqtmit{io.niij...S2ilsdroPiit!~1~ViitiOP!()..t!i~S9g{Pfi~t!g.~{1~~tp()fli9P$()t~p~r$()i1th~I'JY.'. -- _'_'n, _._u__.. Hi-H&1J'!f~>>;mlI*ffiIYJ;!ffiMAg~flg!fi,J;!YHR19#$Y~[*'!~S19.t.gg.mR.f~$~!pl~,~19RS~~9%@~I~f~g~ QmYI~~R!~ln!.p~lfPJi~~$B~i1np$Mg!itgrIgj~E~f~li~~i?9.t.~gEI~iRJi9pl~9~~9{qf~i BQ1i~I9i1f~tI2H,I~9Hrf~prIY!li1illgg1Y~PIQqi1i1RiH!fi'9.gi;iYiiWf?g~If()g{mg~,~9i~~mtp 9~yel9Ppr?iR~r-~ipp~qm~Rti9.fqI!i~B9.q~fI%iRgfq~tiqiig!~.q.n~ip.r.~HBpg!1iP:$I9.~Bf9B9~~9 ~g-yS\Ht%9HP!l~i9ViiggnqhSi~i~.Q~g9QijY~PTIQP.itl!9.QIIp8#MiiUg~f#Yf~IYI1~i)~!r-~t~!!)~ ~2yq2W;#f~r.';r~RIg~t9gfgRYrrgliit~I!ng!~%@pgEmYQn~tI.gg9RqgW~~~i!W~t2i2fiinq ~9~~I;!gqng~Rgn~I~m~8~fll~r9.fi9g~II99$iirf1~~p.tqt\*~P.gii!;gF;~n~~gR!V;~f1YR!1e1;!$ ~tl-.q~gr~i;ili*9HIgrp.1H!t&;J:fR!t~ii~ii;ggllQiil~il!gng.~,~f~i.i~~!1if~St$mtTgl-q$ing~g~ !i15~lgfRI,i;m~~ir~ip9t~'!;j(~~tmif!gV~~~~t!imIlilf~tH~i!fiH~9i 3-5 90-14.1)09 1l/09/90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fourida~lorideSig~ .wiihconsideratioi'!~ing giyen tOY('iriiltiQns inthegioundwatertabIe, aI!,d d~ign,~rj~YB:i'..ffi:.e...a1sqpr9Y11~9JoItC:II!.PQr,l!ry;(;qristffi9ti()n ..de.wa te~i11gif satlJF<ltc:~s()~s~!e ~1i$~iit!.!~!@A~rjijg'..Qi~;4qpstmPHqtii~@y~t~%*~~g~; Soils and Geolo!!ic Units and Site Topography 'f.v.. cQj.)d.e F Construction of the office complex would involve grading to pnpa. (. a flat pat! for smfaC'e parkingA1;~~building~~.'..".. Approximately 11.2 acres would be graded and the i\ .__,:_,.,.,.:.,. remaining 0.4 acre would remain in its natural condition. After grading to prepare the site, elevations would vary between 1G aad 13g~nql~... feet, except in the detention basin where ....:------,-.--,.-,---...,-...--.. elevations would vary between 6 and 12 feet. The building complex would sit at an elevation of 13.2 feet MSL;. ;;;rli:ii!i~tw9PiPi!Qi1g.s!f4Pi-#.r~SWQ41dstliita#el~YaliQ!1{{t$...;.0....... -.-'-.'--"-'---'.-,-,'_.'-',-,'.-,'-',---.-,',----,'.-"'---'-'-"---"-'-"--"-'-"-'-"-'--"-'-'--'-',.-'-.'--'-.-...-._-...-,...,.'-.-..,._-_._-,.,......'..'---.'-'.'-....----'--'.-,.--..-.,'.-,.-..--,-"..-.--'--"-""--,'-,',-,-,'-'-',-.-,'---,,',-,--'-,',-.-,'-'--',-,-,'-'-'-'. ,^. total of 18,500 cubic yards of cut 8Bd fill "Iauld be geaeratcd aad gradiBg ''''ould be balaBcc:d OB site. The ma)(imIJIR depth of cut aBd fill vioIJld be 6 feet, with the averagc depth approximately 2 f-ect. A ~i)tali)f~O,9ggcjIbi~)'a!(!~1f~~t~(lfilI.'.":(@i:IlJ~." ~enerat~dandapprci:ilriJa.teli9;OOO cubiC yal'dsQfimpdrtwould bereqtIiiedtodev61dptheproposedgriides;The miiXimum depth of rut and . fiU would be llJee(imd>7feet,respectiveJy,witb an' average changeiri grade of approximately 2 feet. There is the potential for impacts to the Marsh if surface runoff carries silt and sediment into the marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during the winter months when the heaviest rains occur, and this is considered potentially significant. Also, on-site soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable .41 f!1~~r-Pr~~~RtsgRW~i9ij for structural support, thus, potentially creating significant impacts to structures. As previously discussed, there is the potential that saturated soils may be encountered during grading. Bay deposits have been identified in the westerly site boundary, and loose porous slopewash soils have been identified in the topographic low near the center of the southerly site boundary. 3-6 90-14.1)0911/09/90 MITIGATION MEASURES [ . ~,9~;lf~QI~9mgfl9-eH~g~p.~~9jmH~tP~Rf~P1YI~9!9i!Sfig!9I1g~}i~gm~ypl4!i!Mf~~~ ~RWcg!P~g~;~~9mg~.!~H~~~.~<i!PRM9~pJ~g~qml1p.~~;R9i-!g!~i@n9%9Biit~9~tii~~f~i ~~!9RMmi~tPj;i@PRf9y.@9ii9~Rgr!P!1'i~~!!*i:1-gYitH~!8.n%gr!9g.!e!Y\mRnipfigf!9~9~ ~;nQfn;nxi8l9.ipgiiRfHn;n9Zi;\tim~!i!I~n9RigfiiY9IiR~g~i~ti9fHf%~ Drainage r' L Potential significant impacts to drainage resulting from project construction and operation include contaminated runoff into the "P' & "G" Street Marsh, and potential flooding of low lying areas. Inherent in the project design are measures, listed below, that would ensure that all runoff from the site is captured, cleaned and diverted away from the sensitive "F" & "G" Street Marsh, and that runoff would be detained during storm conditions: 1. L. f' 2. I . 3. minimum storage capacity of 2 acre-feet a cleansing system at the point(s) of discharge into the detention basin to capture grease, heavy metals and other contaminants a regular maintenance schedule to service the cleansing device at the end of the dry season (~!lt9I){iQg October) 4. a conveyance system from the detention basin to the existing Rohr facilities that is capable of delivering flows under the 100-year flood conditions without flooding L AJso, development must comply with all applicable regulationsi.!nsIHqiRgm9~~ established by the Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for storm water discharge. ! . 1 t. Groundwater/Soils and Geologic Units u [ Potentially significant impacts were identified: (1) to the Marsh from grading, and (2) to structures from compressible, expansive, and/or saturated soils. Mitigation measures 4, 51 ~~nqi ttOO-6 would reduce Marsh impacts to a level below s~gnificant. Mitigation measures 1, tmtJ-3 would reduce structural impacts to a level below significant. ... 3-7 9O-UIXI9 11/09/90 L 1. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990) must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department. All recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the applicant. This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and must be included (or referenced to) On the Grading Plan. 2. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas overlain by bay deposits Q!ip!9~r!1PmBF~~Mil$QY~mM:r9~~;~9M~ will require some fonn of subgrade m6dlficaii6iito'hlmprovethesupportcapacity of the existing soils for use in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements. Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-compress saturated bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table; or foundation elements must be designed to extend through these soils into competent bearing formational soils. 3. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to pre-compress saturated bay deposits. ~~ 5) If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan must be implemented, and these must also be included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan. 9i To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier system must be placed between the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This measure must be included on the Grading Plan. 71 To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective benn must be constructed along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. During construction of this benn, the City must retain a biologically trained construction monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the integrity of the wetland. To guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into the wetland, the western slope of the berm must be 3-8 'XJ.14.009 11/09/'XJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting. This measure must be included on the Grading Plan. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project site currently drains via overland flow to the "F' & "G" Street Marsh. With project development and reduction in surface permeability, the amount of flow would increase. The resultant drainage would contain potentially harmful contaminants and would resuJt in potentially significant impacts to the Marsh. As part of the development, a drainage system is proposed to capture, clean, and divert drainage away from the Marsh. This diversion and detention system would mitigate impacts to below a level of significance. SiJt and sediments could enter the Marsh during construction and be carried with site drainage after construction. Recommended measures, including placement of a construction barrier, development of the westerly berm, revegetation of the berm's west side immediately after grading and compliance with all city LCP requirements for grading during the rainy season, must be implemented to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a level less than significant. Saturated, expansive, and/or compressible soils may be encountered, potentially creating impacts to structures. Remedial measures as outlined in the 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report, and as listed in the mitigation measures, would reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. 3-9 90-14.009 11/09/90 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS State of California. Department of Conservation - Office of the Director C1 Comment acknowledged The following is provided as a summary of geologic conditions for the project site. GEOLOGY Existing Conditions The present-day configuration of the southern California coastline can be said to have had its early beginnings during Cretaceous time (120 to 85 million years ago). At that time, the southern California Batholiths intruded into existing Triassic and Jurassic-age strata, causing uplift to the east, and subsidence to the west where the deposition of marine sediments has continued through the last 60 to 80 million years. The project site lies within the San Diego Embayment Graben, a structural block down-dropped between the La Nacion fault zone (two to three miles east of the site), and the "San Diego Bay faults" (one to two miles west of the site). The San Diego Bay faults are generally believed to be a southerly extension of the Rose Canyon fault zone, described below under "Seismicity and Geologic Hazards." The formation of the San Diego Bay is directly related to the downward displacement of the San Diego Embayment Graben. Seismicity and Geologic Hazards The major San Diego and southern California fault systems form a northwest-southeast trending regional structural fabric, generally parallel to the San Andreas fault zone, which extends over land from the Gulf of California to the Bodega Basin north of San Francisco Bay. Structural geologists relate movement along the San Andreas and associated fault zones (at least for the past five million years), to movement along the boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. As a result, the southern California region is subject to significant hazards from moderate to large earthquakes. Ground shaking is a hazard everywhere in California. Fault displacement of the ground is a potential hazard at, and near, faults. Tsunamis, earthquake-induced flooding, and liquefaction are all potential hazards in the San Diego Bay area. The fault zones nearest the site which are mapped as "active" are the Coronado Banks and the Elsinore fault zones. The nearest fault zone currently classified as potentially active is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The California Division of Mines and Geology is currently considering certain segments of this fault zone as active, although this information has not yet been published by the State. 9().N 01/25/91 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The coastal zone of San Diego, including the areas along the periphery of San Diego Bay, is currently assigned to UBC Seismic Zone 3. Based on recent information from the Structural Engineers Association of San Diego, strong consideration is being given to changing coastal San Diego from Zone 3 to Zone 4. Coronado Banks Fault Zone -- , .. ,. The Coronado Banks fault zone is located offshore from San Diego, approximately 10 miles southwest of the project site area. It appears to be part of a discontinuous zone of faulting which includes the Palos Verdes fault near Los Angeles, and which extends southeastward beyond the Mexican border (Greene et al. 1979; Legg and Kennedy 1979). The total length of this fault zone is estimated to be approximately 130 miles and it is likely to be a strike-slip fault. Because of its mapped geologic displacements, one-half of total fault zone length was used as the length of surface rupture in order to estimate a maximum credible earthquake of surface wave magnitude (Ms) 7. Offshore from San Diego, the Coronado Banks fault zone is near an area where the epicenters of numerous local magnitude (ML) microearthquakes (ML 2.0 to 3.4) have been plotted. The Coronado Banks fault zone may be associated with an Ms 6-1/4 earthquake during a typical 100-year period. E]sinore Fault Zone The Elsinore/Laguna Salada fault zone (approximately 40 miles northeast of the project site area) is the nearest likely onshore source of a large earthquake. This fault zone is generally characterized by strike-slip displacement. The total length of the fault zone is approximately 255 miles; however, geologic displacements are relatively discontinuous and sinuous compared to those of the other major active faults. Therefore, it appears likely that the Elsinore fault zone would rupture in shorter segments (as a proportion of total length) than the other major active faults in the region. The general tectonic environment and expression of geologic displacements along the Elsinore fault zone suggest that it may be subject to a maximum credible earthquake of Ms 7-1/2, which would be associated with a length of surface rupture of approximately 80 miles. The epicenters of numerous small earthquakes of ML 3.0 to Ms 5.0 are located near the fault, suggesting that an Ms 7 earthquake is likely to occur on the Elsinore fault zone during a typical lOO-year period. II . . . . Rose Canyon Fault Zone The most significant fault zone near the project site area is the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is currently classified as potentially active. This fault zone has been generally considered to exhibit no geologic displacement in the last 11,000 years (Ziony 1973); however, some small earthquakes and microearthquakes have epicenters on or near traces of the San Diego Bay faults (Hileman 1979; Simons 90-14 01/25/91 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1979). A series o(these earthquakes occurred in 1985 and 1986. Moreover, evidence of displacement on the fault during the last 11,000 years has been reportedly discovered (Abbott 1989) near downtown San Diego, and at a site in Rose Canyon. Consequently, it may be advisable to consider the hypothetical earthquake hazard from the Rose Canyon fault zone. It appears reasonable to conclude that an Ms 6-1/4 earthquake could occur during a typicallOO-year period. Seismic Hazards Ground shaking likely to occur during the anticipated life of the development would affect uses on the site. Bay muds tend to magnify the effects of ground shaking by amplifying the intensity of movement caused by earthquakes. Ground surface accelerations and site period (the frequency of oscillation) would be likely to vary somewhat across the site. Liquefaction is a potential hazard in all areas underlain by water-saturated sandy soils. Within the site vicinity, portions of the fluvial (Qal) deposits encountered in the low-lying areas are considered moderately susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, relatively clean sands were encountered within the formational soils at depths of 11 to 26 feet below existing ground grade. Although considered relatively dense in nature, these clean sands may be susceptible to liquefaction during severe ground shaking. Tsunamis and earthquake-induced flooding are also potential hazards within the San Diego Bay, and a sufficient length of water surface exists within the bay to cause earthquake-induced flooding within low-lying areas. Seismic hazards are potentially significant. However, standard required design criteria and conventional engineering techniques can be implemented to reduce the risk. Some risk would always remain due to the uncertainty of future seismic events. Site-Specific Investigations Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) has prepared two geotechnical reports pertinent to the subject site: a preliminary geotechnical investigation dated May 13, 1988, and a more recent update geotechnical investigation, released July 24, 1990, and revised September 7, 1990. These reports address potential constraints due to seismic and liquefaction hazard. Refer to these reports for additional details on these geologic hazards, and recommendations for mitigation. Any specific design details intended to mitigate potential geologic hazards would be incorporated into the grading plan, as specified by mitigation measures contained in Section 3.1. 90-14 01/25/91 32 BIOLOGY j L The following information is summarized from a study prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS) describing the existing biological conditions on the site and the potential impacts associated with development of the proposed office complex. The complete report is contained in Appendix C. {' ! The site was surveyed six times between July and September, 1989, and again in July and August, 1990, by biologists from PSBS. The site surveys were focused on verifying a previous vegetation map (Sanders, 1989), and examining the current status of the wetlands. In addition to these field investigations, data collected during previous studies of the site and surrounding area were utilized to provide seasonal information regarding distribution and use patterns of the various sensitive species known to occur within the study area. Primary among these other studies are two biological technical reports prepared for the Chula Vista Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 (PSBS, 1990a and 1990b). Other surveys are listed in Appendix C. Ii " ; , . f' EXISTING CONDmONS [' ~. [ The site has a long history of agricultural use. Much of the wetland area around the "F' & "G" Street Marsh has been filled in the recent past. Dumping of trash has been common practice in the area and vegetable fields were historically treated with pesticides. Recent studies have identified the presence of residual low concentrations of DDT and DDE in the surface soils of the site (Woodward-Clyde, 1990). The remnant fields currently support stands of Russian Thistle and Five-hook Bassia. Trash dumping continues to occur in areas along "P' Street; however, a recently installed guard-rail along "P' Street has limited this action somewhat. I !,- Botanical Resources B e [ 1m,' Ii , Vegetation The historically high levels of agricultural use has resulted in disturbance of the majority of the uplands within the Rohr site. Naturally vegetated lantJs of the site are limited to the existing brackish marsh and small riparian grove along the western boundary of the site. 3-10 9O-14JXJ701/24/91 . , o 200 , f I [ t: ~f~j~;~if,f&:~J~~I{~~} ,.~~~{Th~~;f#.t ~0y~i~{';~fi-:;~~f4~~!.:.~ .-~.....~t ". -.: - -.' ,.,J'.' ....-' ,"~.:?::T'~ ~ '~:~~~~~i~ I~:~~~~-;:;~.~~~{f;~l- I. '..'.' . 1;". ;,:,~z ",' . -- - . ~- - '...'> .:{\~ . .;::'..,,, ~-~:-:~<::~~:::''';.;.''."'.,..... -,..:..':~~ '"l'!~(~d c~;::~i ~t~E,.. ij , ,", ,-,,,,,,>,'..o,.-,c.~.-, . "f<.'flJ!:. -t;>f~'- ' -,~~ 'Ii I "i',:",,;k~z:ij~:i;~i{ ~~. <'.~.~__ .~_::::~:;:i- :::::~<i\i;>,::i~i~:;i;:::: ....:.:-: \:; ~. . ..~ji.~ I ':.;:\\\i"::\':W~,;jli;;!:::~:;~:{ij~ .,.,,,;:..:;:\f!!!Af;H~~ ~ FAr@l~i:t~~.- ',',""'",, , "", , ,',"'" ,,);;ir.-1~U " "i-."........,/\.-,,;: ' '~kt)E.I.Z.-.), ',."",". , '.' ..'~~JI) ,u.'.~.;:..::,::::;~w~;;::: :. _t . :l :.ir~~;Li('~:~~jff,{~rt~l~~%tf~f~~,1~t.f~~~If.i~t;'i~f~\i*tktl.~~,\igtf~fJ~lH1~ ~Wj:t,:,ft#il~i:~ '-1'-1 f ',' ",,-,;,,", " " ,.,' j""",-- o', '. .[' ,. .j,"'...., h ' , 1'1 r-4..c' ,: ~~~ .J-; .;: .' U;:,=:-,~..:j :.~3</~"0 F"l VEGETATION CD SENSITIVERESOURCESj-- !.'I" ,: "I- .-'.. l.-" b0J Disturbed Yield!; l!:iI Blending's Savannah Sparrow :",T .,,' "\ en",,:: ' ~ UIbanittdAJeas [!] Soulbw<:stcrnSpinyRusb ~ j,!"..., .---:.- ~ ::<hs:.:..m ~ CAlifOrnia~liIC~~~=:-~::;'~~~'f' ~r'[:;:::::~~O IUlIII Willow RipariaD Grove 400 Feet ";.! . I' ".' I "::"L , J i' I' i t L ! . ; L ,. f> 1 , I L r 'l--, 1,.- D Do', .'f; . I t: ~-,. Vegetation and Sensitive Itesources ~. ;;: .', Figure 3-1 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I ,. I Adjacent to the western edge of the property lies the coastal salt marsh of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh (Figure 3-1). Although the previous agricultural use of the site is not a direct benefit to most of the marsh species, the presence of weedy plants along the wetland periphery indirectly benefits marsh species by allowing unrestricted movement between foraging areas, by providing a buffer from human-associated activities and by providing many species with forage (seeds) and cover. Disturbed Fields The predominant vegetation within the Rohr parcel consists of disturbed fields dominated by weedy plant taxa including Russian-Thistle (Salsola australis) and Five-hook Bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia), Short-pod Mustard (Brassicageniculata), and Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Also present are several exotic grasses including bromes (Bromus spp.), Slender Oats (Avena barbata), and Bermuda-Grass (Cynodon dactylon) which occurs extensively along the lower portions of the site. Riparian Grove A small grove (0.14 acre) of young Sandbar Willows (Salix hindsiana) occurs at the far southwestern corner of the site and straddles the boundary between the Rohr property and the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. This stand is quite young and may be expanding based on previous reports which mapped its location approximately 100 feet west of the Rohr property line (Silnders, 1989). While the dense growth of the grove precludes most understory plants, species associateD with the fringes of this vegetation include Tree Tobacco (Nicotianaglauca), Bermuda Grass, Saltgrass. Curly Dock and Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca grand iflora ). Brackish Marsh Brackish Marsh occurs within a small swale at the northwestern corner of the site. This area, formerly a portion of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh, was historically isolated by the deposition of fill and is now fed by freshwater runoff from the adjacent fields and fill area. This area supports such alkaline tolerant species as Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus acUfus) , Saltgrass (Distich lis spicata) and Curly Dock (Rumex crispus). Also present in this drainage swale is an abundance of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnson 3-11 9O-I4.00701/24/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I Grass(Sorghum halepense). Other species such as Cocklebur (Xanthium strnmarium), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), Sea-blight (Suaeda califomica), Goosefoot (Chenopodium mumle), and Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) are also represented in this area. This area has retained the wetland soil characteristics associated with its salt marsh origin and vegetation diversity appears to be limited both by competition for primary space as well as soil salinities. Coastal Salt Marsh The "F' & "G" Street Marsh located just west of the property boundary is dominated primarily by Pickleweed (Salicomia virginica), but also include a diverse assemblage of subordinate elements including Annual Pickleweed and Glasswort (Salicomia bigelovii and S. subtenninalis), Arrow-grass (Triglochin maritima), Saltwort (Batis man'tima), and Sea- lavender (Limonium califomicum), At higher elevations, unvegetated salt panes are common. Vegetated areas in these locales include Salt-cedar (Monanthochloe littoralis), Saltgrass, Alkali-weed (Cressa trnxillensis), Sea-blight and Alkali-heath (Frankenia salina). Numerous tidal channels meander through the adjacent marshlands, both increasing the complexity of the dominating mid-marsh habitats and providing unique resources for fish and invertebrate fauna. Along the channel meanders and in low-lying bench areas near the larger tidal channels, vegetation is dominated by Cord grass (Sparrina foliosa). Within the upper fringes of this marsh the uncommon California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa) occurs. Flora Fifty-one plant taxa were observed on the Rohr property area (see Appendix C, Table 1). Of these, 36 are non-native weeds, and an additional 9 are opportunistic natives typically associated with disturbed or successional habitats. The large number of non-native plants is due to the extensive prior agricultural use and the high level of disturbance which has occurred in the area, The sensitive Southwestern Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa) are also present, Sensitive plants are discussed in more detail in the Sensitive Biological Resources section of this report. 3-12 9O-UOO701/24/91 i! I' [ ,- I Ii r , - L r' f' L [ L U n b; I >~ ;:~; I;: ill Zoological Resources General Wildlife Habitat The primary wildlife habitat occurring on the Rohr site is disturbed fields. Minor elements of Brackish Marsh and Willow Riparian Scrub overlap the western boundary from the National Wildlife Refuge. Also considered in the proposed site development were the Coastal Salt Marsh habitats of the adjacent "F' & "G" Street Marsh as the proposed development may result in off-site impacts. Disturbed Fields Disturbed uplands occupy over 99 percent of the site. These areas are typically characterized by dense weedy vegetation and narrow dirt roadways. Weed abatement activities occur on an infrequent basis as ordered by tbe Chula Vista Fire Department. The fields are occupied by an abundance of rodents and lagomorphs including the California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae), Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and Brush Rabbit (S. bachmani). Raptors were observed to forage extensively over the open fields with the predominant use being by the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). This pattern of heavy raptor use was observed throughout the Midbayfront region (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). Seed-eating birds, including numerous finches (Carduelis and Carpodacus spp.), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), and a variety of sparrows, make use of the fields while insect gleaners utilize the fields, shrubs and trees. The few scattered Acacia and palm trees and tall shrubs are important structural elements in the upland habitats which provide singing, foraging, and sentry points to numerous avian species. Brackish Marsh These marshlands exhibit several characteristics similar to those of the salt marshes; however, the wildlife species making use of these areas differ sufficiently from that of the classical salt marsh areas to warrant separate consideration._ The Brackish Marsh areas of the Rohr property are limited in extent and support extremely short-lived seasonal surface 3-13 90-14.00701/24/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I water. These areas are visited during the rainy season by herons and egrets, Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius plzoeniceus) and song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Because brackish marshes do not receive regular tidal flushing, they lack the macro-invertebrates and fish found in the salt marsh habitats. Most of the vertebrate species utilizing these areas rely on the seasonal productivity of marshes. Mammals found in association with these areas are similar to those observed or expected in and around the salt marshes. These include the Raccoon, California Ground Squirrel, and a variety of smalI rodents. Stands of Saltgrass occurring in this wetland harbor the sensitive Wandering Skipper (Panoquina errans). Riparian Grove The small grove of Sandbar Willow located at the southwestern site boundary supports limited wildlife activities. These trees a~e densely growing seedlings and clonal divisions typically associated with emerging riparian habitats. The smalI size, low stature and monospecific nature of this area limits its value as a distinct community, During the course of the survey, avifauna detected in this grove were limited to Song Sparrows, House Finches, and Lesser Goldfinches. An unidentified medium-sized mammal was also present in the thicket. As this grove matures it would be expected to attract substantialIy more use by wildlife. Coastal Salt Marsh Coastal Salt Marsh wildlife habitat is coincident with the distribution of salt marsh vegetation (Figure 3-1). Characteristic species of these habitats include the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, which occurs as two resident pairs in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh, the Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmarus), the Marbled Godwit (Limosafedoa), the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) and the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). Along the fringes of the marshlands, terrestrial mammals including the Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spennoplzilus beeclzeyi), and Botta's Pocket Gopher (Tlzomomys bottae) forage on the lush marsh plants; also present in these areas is the sensitive Wandering Skipper Butterfly (Panoquina errans). Restricted circulation at the "F' & "G" Street Marsh plays a great role in limiting the diversity and productivity of this marsh relative to other marshes in the Sweetwater Marsh complex; however, this area does provide supporting refuge, foraging grounds and spawning 3-14 9O.U{)()701/24/91 grounds for numerous species more typically associated with open water or shoreline areas of the bay and coastal areas. The tidal channels, creeks, and even frequently exposed portions of the marshes are utilized as spawning areas and nursery grounds by numerous coastal fish and invertebrates. A diverse and abundant community of resident invertebrates persists in the salt marsh habitats as well. Most notable are the concentrations of California Horn Snails (Cerithidea californica), Fiddler Crabs (Uca crenulata) and Yellow Shore Crabs (Hemigrapsis oregonensis ). I L Resident bivalves and tidal channel polychaetes (marine worms) and crustaceans are generally restricted to the tidal channels near Marina Parkway. Fauna , L Amphibians r' , Only a handful of amphibians are expected to make use of the Rohr site and these would be restricted to the wetland areas on the western boundary of the site. They include the common Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla), Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps spp.) and Western Toad (Bufo boreas). Because of the marine influence of the wetlands on the site, amphibian activities are expected to be extremely low. No sensitive amphibians are expected to occur on the property. L n Reptiles ,^ Five reptilian species have been noted on the Rohr property (see Appendix C, Table 2). These include such common species as the Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus), the Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and the Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus). The high degree of disturbance would be expected to limit the potential for other species. No sensitive reptiles would be expected to occur on the Rohr site. D ~ L n 3-15 9O-UOO701/24/91 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I , I ~ Fifty-seven avian species have been observed or reported from the Rohr property (see Appendix C, Table 2). In addition, a host of other birds which would not be expected to make use of the site have been observed as fly-overs or within the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Some of these birds reflect migratory movements of passerines and/or incidental transitory occupancy by other species. A variety of the species noted are all but extirpated from the Chula Vista Bayfront region, although they occur more frequently at interior locations. Eleven rap tors, and four species of owl have been recorded in the northern Chula Vista Bayfront in recent years (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990a). Of these, nine raptors and all four owls have been observed to forage over the Rohr site at one time or another. There has been an apparent decline in usage of the area by several of these species over the past few years. Notably, these include the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Red- shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Black-shouldered Kite (Elan us caeruleus) and American Kestrel (Falco spa/Verius) (Merkel, pers. obs.). These declines are probably related to the reduction of prey (including Desert Cottontail, California Ground Squirrel, and Pocket Gophers) associated with the more frequent and intense management of field habitats in the Bayfront. There has been an increase in the activities of the endangered Peregrine Falcon, an event undoubtedly related to the 1989 successful nesting of the species on the Coronado Bridge, the first in San Diego County for over 40 years, Other raptorial birds have maintained an apparently stable level of incidental occurrence in the Bayfront region as migratory movements and wide' home ranges carry them over the Rohr site. Raptor nesting in and around the Bayfront is limited to that of the common Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), the American Kestrel, the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularis) and possibly the Red-shouldered Hawk; however, none of these raptors nests on the Rohr site. Also nesting in the area are Common Ravens (CONUS carax), Scrub Jays (Apheiocoma coerulescens) and Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus); three semi-raptor-like species which constitute important predators in the area. Burrowing Owls have been known to nest on the steep banks of the northern Bayfront, throughout the disturbed lands on Gunpowder Point, and on the "D" Street Fill. Efforts to eradicate owl nesting on the "D" Street Fill, 3-16 9O-U.OO701/24/91 r' I I f i r' I: 1... r' l. r' . , L [ ! ' U E i" [ near the California Least Tern Nesting Colony, have been fairly successful, and currently nesting burrowing owls are a fairly uncommon sight in the Bayfront (E. Lichtwardt, K Merkel, pers. obs.). This species is, however, more commonly seen on the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve Island. Several sensitive birds occur in the Bayfront but do not occur on the Rohr site. Where potential for impacts to these species exist, the species are discussed. Breeding pairs of the state-listed Belding's Savannah Sparrow are known to be present within the "P" & "G" Street Marsh. Also of concern are potential impacts to marshlands where the re-establishment of Light-footed Clapper Rail populations might be possible. These and other sensitive avian species are discussed separately within the text of the Sensitive Biological Resources Section of this report. Avian flight activities in the area have been investigated previously (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b) and the results of that study have been incorporated into the current study. Prom October 1989 through April 1990, an intensive field study was conducted to determine the levels and patterns of avian flight activities over the Chula Vista Midbayfront __ including the project site (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This study focused on the movements of waterbirds and raptors within the region. The study documented extremely low levels of flight activities within the Rohr parcel for all shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl and terns. On the average, the numbers of birds within these groups which were observed to pass through the study site fell well below one bird flight per hour for all elevation ranges combined. Por gulls, an average of over 330 flights per hour crossed the site, of which between 12 and 24 occurred at levels below 50 feet and could potentially be affected by the proposed project. Raptor activities were predominantly present along "F' Street and within the fields located on the site. More restricted use of the site was made by the Northern Harrier which foraged widely over the Bayfront. Other raptor activities were more or less incidental to the site, as has been previously discussed. Mammals Fourteen mammalian species were detected on the site (see Appendix C, Table 2). Of these, all are common to San Diego County. Notable among the native species are the 3-17 9O-UJJ0701/24/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I infrequent occurrences of large mammals such as the Coyote (Canis latrans) and the Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). In addition to the native species occurring on or in the vicinity of the site, five introduced or domesticated species also occupy various areas within the Bayfront and its immediate vicinity. These include the naturalized Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginianus), the human-associated Black Rat (Rattus rattus) and House Mouse (Mus musculus), and the Domestic Dog (Canis [amiliam) and House Cat (Felis domesticus). The introduced species tend to be the most destructive of the mammalian predators. These species account for the majority of the mammalian predation on avian nest colonies, sites, young, and adult birds throughout the Chula Vista Bayfront area. No sensitive mammals are expected to inhabit the project area. Sensitive BioIo~cal Resources Sensitive Habitats Coastal Salt Marsh While Coastal Saltmarsh communities do not occur on the Rohr site, the presence of such areas within the watershed of the property is a concern, Such habitats are naturally limited, highly productive ecological systems which persist at the interface of marine and terrestrial systems in sheltered bays and estuaries. The pattern of intermittent drying and saltwater inundation creates a situation favoring hOlophytic (requiring saline soil) vascular plants tolerant of frequent inundation and soil anoxia (absence of oxygen). Such conditions also favor marine algae and invertebrates resistant to stresses due to the intermittent drying. The regular tidal exchanges of nutrient rich seawater promotes high primary productivity and provides the basis for an important detrital based food web. The salt marshes of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh are home or provide important habitat to several sensitive species including a state-listed endangered species (Belding's Savannah Sparrow). In addition to playing host to sensitive species, saltmarsh communities provide important nursery grounds and foraging areas for a host of other organisms including fish, terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and birds. These areas are important to the continued survival of several non-nesting migratory bird species as well, providing food, shelter and resting habitats. 3-18 90-14.00701/24/91 i [ r' L r ~ L: f' , , . i L L L... U f1 Li r !t-,,. I These coastal wetlands have suffered a tremendous decline in the recent past due to both direct and indirect impacts. Development and agricultural pressures have lead to the filling of such areas, marine development has led to the dredging of these areas, and watershed development has led to the introduction of numerous contaminants, modified the erosion and accretion patterns, and greatly altered the freshwater hydrologic character of most coastal wetlands. It is estimated that over 75 percent of the coastal wetlands in California have already been lost and the future of the remaining wetlands is tenuous at best (Marcus, 1989). Due to the high value of these systems and the rapid losses they have undergone, almost any impacts to these systems would be considered significant. In addition, in most cases such impacts would be subject to permitting requirements of various federal, state and local entities outside of the CEQA review process. Brackish Marsh These habitats are frequently associated with estuarine or drainage systems which receive freshwater input but which maintain an alkaline condition due to either saline soils or evaporative concentration of runoff which is rich in salts or alkalide minerals. Within the potential impact area (both on and off site), these areas are limited in quantity to a small swale supporting 0.16 acre of highly degraded habitat which has been heavily infested with Bermuda and Johnson grasses. With the tremendous coastal development which has occurred over the past several years, many of these area have been lost or highly modified. Unlike the larger brackish marsh located north of "P' Street, this marsh supports no substantial seasonal surface water and receives only a limited amount of seasonal use by avifauna. It does, however, exhibit high potential for enhancement and could be improved by the activities within the adjacent NWR. Riparian Grove Riparian wetlands are a naturally limited habitat which has been heavily impacted by agriculture, urbanization and hydrologic development. Tho:se areas tend to be extremely productive and support a high faunal diversity. 3-19 90-14.00701/24/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I On the Rohr site, riparian habitat is represented by a small portion (0.007 acre) of a recently emergent willow grove which extends onto the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh for a total size of 0.14 acre. Plants, though dense, appear to be stunted by limited water availability and lower fringes of the grove support a variety of dead trees with an understory of newly emergent Sandbar Willows. These trees were most probably killed by saltwater intrusion during recent (1986-present) drought conditions. This grove is of low stature and lacks a diverse faunal association. Sensitive Plants Prior disturbances of the majority of the area is probably the reason for a lower rare plant density. Table 3 (see Appendix C) lists sensitive plants known in the region. Plants marked with an asterisk indicate those that might have been found on site prior to disturbance. Currently, the only plants considered to be sensitive that occur on the site are Southwestern Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight. The status of these species follows. Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus) Listing: Status: CNPS List 4 Apparently stable. R-E-D Code 1-2-2 State/Fed. Status -- None A small population of spiny rush is found within the small swale located at the northwestern boundary of the Rohr property near "F' Street. While this stand represents the largest stand of Juncus within the Chula Vista Bayfront, it is of negligible size relative to other wetlands found throughout the plant's range. Populations of this size are not generally considered to be significant or of consequence to the overall survival of the species; however, Rohr Industries have committed to maintaining this population in its current state. California Sea-bli~ht (Suaeda esteroa) Listing: Status: CNPS List 4 R-E-D Code 1-1-1 Declining. More information needed, State/Fed. Status -- None Suaeda esteroa seems to be presently expanding into peripheral upland areas adjacent to undisturbed areas of Sweetwater Marsh. The population on the Rohr site is fairly small and is not independently significant; however, this population could be enhanced through careful management. 3-20 90-14.00701/24/91 Sensitive Wildlife r i , Few sensitive animals occur or have the potential for occurring within the project boundaries; however, sensitive animals which occur outside the boundaries may be affected by development of the project. For this reason, sensitive wildlife from the surrounding area are discussed, with their sensitivity status and on-site status, in Appendix C, Table 4. Species warranting additional consideration are discussed below. Agency listings include the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the San Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee. f L [ [; Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) Listing: L f' Status: CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered USFWS (1986) - Endangered SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern Everett (1979) - Threatened The Light-footed Clapper Rail is one of the most endangered birds in the United States with only 277 pairs found in a 1984 survey of California marshes (Zembal and Massey 1985). Recent estimates for the Sweetwater Marsh complex are 5 pairs. This federally-listed endangered bird occurs in the "E" Street and Sweetwater marshes. It is likely that this bird will begin to be found in Yener Pond as well, due to the continuing conversion to saltmarsh. The "F" & "Goo Street Marsh has been historically utilized by this species; but several recent investigations have failed to locate any birds in this area. The degraded conditions and high level of disturbance at this site may preclude the presence of this species. L California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) [' Listing: Status: ~. ~ ~ rr b CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered, Fully Protected USFWS (1986) - Endangered Everett (1979) - Threatened Breeding colonies are limited in extent, and fledgling rates are highly variable and recently very low, primarily due to heavy predation from domestic cats, dogs, horses, ravens, crows, and small raptors. Off-road vehicles have also had deleterious effects on the nesting areas. This species forages over the open water along the Chula Vista Bayfront and nests on the "D" Street Fill area. Formerly, the Least Tern was a fairly common forager over Vener Pond; however, this pond is returning to salt marsh and the birds are now infrequent here. The bird is only an infrequent forager within the tidal channels of the "F' & "GOO Street Marsh and does not utilize the site. r .. E. 3-21 9<!-UOO701/N/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Listing: Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986) Everett (1979) - Declining Remsen (1980) - 2nd Priority This raptor has declined as a breeder in southern California due to loss of habitat. Status: The Northern Harrier frequently forages over the site but does not nest on site or within the immediate area. Pere~rine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Listing: CDFG (1988) - Endangered USFWS (1986) - Endangered This falcon has declined as a breeder in California due largely to the use of DDT. Status: Since DDT has been banned, their number has increased in California (Cade 1982). Peregrines have been observed on the site as migrants. A pair of Peregrines nested this year under the Coronado Bridge and may forage as far south as the site and the salt works. These falcons are often associated with bodies of water; the presence of the Sweetwater Marsh complex and San Diego Bay mudflat areas may attract them to the site as a foraging ground. Lon~-hilled Curlew (Numenius americanus) Listing: Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986) USFWS (1986) - Category II This species is considered down in numbers by many observers; however. it is still a fairly common wintering species along the coast in San Diego County. Status: Found in low numbers within all of the saltmarsh habitats of the bayfront, this large marshbird is infrequently observed in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh -- possibly as a result of lower productivity and higher disturbance levels than the other bayfront wetlands. BeJdin~'s Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi). Listing: CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered USFWS (1986) - Category II SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern Everett (1979) - Threatened The 1986 census estimated 2,274 pairs in 27 marshes in southern California. Eight marshes have populations of 100 pairs or more, comprising 75 percent of the total. The upper marsh habitat is rare in southern California, being the easiest to fill and claim for land uses. Extirpations have occurred in at least three locations in the last 10 years. Sixty-three percent of the marshes Status: 3-22 90-I4.007 01/24/91 contammg 40 percent of the individuals are in private ownership. Development proposals exist for several of these marshes; continued planned restoration activities and public acquisition are needed. r' One hundred forty-five pairs are known from the Sweetwater Marsh complex (Zembal et aL 1988); up from 74 pairs found in 1977. With only 2.4 percent of the total marsh area' considered, Sweetwater Marsh hosts a density of 2.3 pairs per hectare and 5.2 percent of the state's total number of Belding's Savannah Sparrows. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow inhabits salt marsh areas below the confluence of Nestor Creek and the Otay River. It has also been observed on sparsely vegetated levees within Western Saltworks. [j [' Surveys conducted in the spring of 1990 place the resident "F' & "G" Street Marsh population at two pairs (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This is below the site's presumed carrying capacity; it is believed that disturbance and predation are the principal factors limiting population levels at this location. ! IMPAcrs ( , t_ Development of the project would result in the construction of a three-story office complex and surface parking to cover the majority of the site. The project applicants have incorporated a number of measures into the project to minimize biological impacts and enhance the quality of buffers between the project and sensitive wetland areas. These incJude (Sadler 1990): f' i, · Control of runoff and sediment during the construction of the project i.W4 over its life [ L · Enhancement of the weedy buffer area . Expansion of wetlands along the western boundary of the site in conjunction with site drainage improvements u i. Where these proposed measures serve to reduce impacts associated with the project, they are specified in the mitigation section. Specific measures proposed by the project applicant incJude Mitigation Recommendations No.1 through No.5. The following impact analysis assumes implementation of all proposed measures. U L L, 3-23 90-1.1.00707/01/91 i I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I Drainage and Water Quality Impacts The proposed project would modify the existing drainage patterns within the Rohr property in a manner that would divert surface drainage from the site away from the various wetland areas located to the west. Instead, this drainage would be directed through a series of filters and a vegetated swale prior to directing discharge into existing storm drains. The amount of runoff flowing into the "F" & G" Street Marsh from the project is relatively inconsequential; however it constitutes the major surface watershed for the brackish and riparian wetlands present both on site and within the adjacent refuge lands, Decreased Freshwater Input It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in a decrease in surface water discharge from the site to all existing wetland areas. This discharge is currently very minor due to the loose and highly permeable soils found on the site, the small drainage basin, and the lack of well-defined drainage courses. On- and off-site potentially disrupted watershed basins for the various wetlands include 9.3 acres to the 0.14 acre wiIlow riparian grove; 3.3 acres to the 0.16 acre brackish marsh; and, 2.1 acres to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Impacts to the watershed of the brackish marsh and "F' & "G" Street Marsh are expected to be minor due to their limited contribution freshwater input makes relative to groundwater and tidal sources. The loss of seasonal freshwater input to the riparian grove would be expected to result in a reduction in extent and vigor of this grove, but would be unlikely to result in the complete elimination of this stand. The losses and degradation anticipated could include from 0.05 to the entire 0.14 acre, including 0,007 acre of direct grading losses. Loss of the amount of riparian grove on site (0.007 acre) would not be considered a significant impact. Impacts to the portion of the 0.14 acre wiIlow riparian grove on NWR would, however, constitute a significant adverse effect. Contaminant Dischar~e Identified with the development of residential, commercial, or other human high use areas, is a corresponding increase in the presence of automobiles, fertilizers, pesticides and other human-associated practices and products. Features such as irrigation and development- related impermeable surfaces create additional amounts of freshwater runoff, thus providing effective means to transport any human-associated byproducts. 3-24 90-14.00701/24/91 , ' [ r I I. !' L l' f L r i " U r,',' U I 'I /C" t'" ,; I) Gasoline and petroleum residues, particularly from automobiles, are associated with streets and parking areas. These products are typically derived from a slow and regular process of vehicle emission and engine dripping composed of the less toxic fractions of fuels, as the more toxic fractions vaporize very quickly. Nevertheless, the potential level of disturbance caused by such chemicals draining into the Marsh is considerable. The fact that these chemicals are not easily broken down, and further, that they are not water soluble, allows these products to persist in a more-or-less original state as they are transported by freshwater runoff to downstream wetlands and waterways. Once in the wetlands, these pollutants can have a wide range of effects upon resident organisms. These effects range from behavioral responses such as emigration from, lack of immigration to, or modified utilization of polluted areas; to reduction of growth rates and reproductive success, increased susceptibility to parasitism or disease, and in the extreme case, death of respective organisms, species, and/or replacement of representative dominant species by more pollutant resistant species. Hydrocarbons have been identified as effective inhibitors of chemoreceptors (nerve endings or sense organs sensitive to chemical stimuli) which may further inhibit an organism's abilities to locate food, detect predators, or identify potential mates. The use of fertilizers and pesticides by local residents also holds potential for altering the diversity and abundance of the organisms occupying the Marsh. Fertilizers supply one or more nutrient sources which are normalJy limiting to maximum plant growth; typically nitrogen (in the form of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, or urea), phosphorus (in the form of phosphate), sulfate, "B" vitamins and trace metals. The consequences of these excessive nutrients entering wetlands or waterways wilJ be an accelerated eutrophication (the process of producing an environment that favors plant over animal life) of the system. Under minimal input conditions, there would be a promotion of the growth of plants in excess of that which would be possible under the normally nitrogen-limited conditions prevailing within the wetlands (Zedler, Williams and Boland, 1986). In an extreme case, oxygen levels in the water can be so reduced that the result is a massive die-off of the fish and invertebrates. The large amounts of decaying organisms also promote excessive bacteria growth which further unbalances a marsh habitat. Another possible consequence of the influx of excessive nutrients into the Marsh is that it may allow plant species, which normally would be unablli to compete with the normal environmental dominants, the ability to out-compete and displace resident species. A 3-25 9O-14JJ0701/24/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I change in the flora would result in the alteration of the representative fauna inhabiting the wetlands. Many organisms are intricately tied to a particular plant for food, shelter, or to fulfill requirements for reproduction. Loss of a particular plant or suite of plants may therefore foster the elimination of the expected fauna of an undisturbed wetland system. Influx of pesticides into wetlands or waterways through freshwater runoff can also have devastating effects on the Marsh community. The effects can be manifested in the outright death of organisms or impacts such as loss of reproductive success. While the historic examples of DDT on avian reproduction are unlikely to be repeated, they remain classic examples of potential hazards. Despite these concerns, the fertilizers and pesticides used today are generally safer in terms of their consequences to untargeted species, and application methods have advanced to the point that their use by qualified horticulturists allow them to be used more safely than in past years. Used properly, there is generally low likelihood of such compounds reaching the wetlands and waterways in quantities which could prove significantly deleterious to wildlife, or to the point where the balance within the marsh might be upset. Sediment Accretion and Erosion As indicated, the proposed project would alter the existing drainage patterns and surface flow volumes on the Rohr parcel. These changes could potentially lead to increased erosion within the uplands and deposition of sediments within the lower wetland basins. While sedimentation and erosion are natural occurrences and even required for the development of coastal wetland systems, the rate of sedimentation experienced by coastal systems has been drastically altered by human activity, Agricultural activities, urbanization, stream channelization, and construction activities have all served to increase erosion and sediment transport rates throughout the drainage basins feeding coastal wetlands. This . increased rate of erosion has led to a corresponding increase in sedimentation rate within alluvial portions of the drainage system. These areas are characteristically the wetlands. Deposition of sediments within coastal wetland areas has been identified as a critical problem in numerous portions of southern California, including the nearby Tijuana Estuary (Zedler et at., 1986). Even the Sweetwater Marsh has been heavily impacted by sediments transported from upstream areas. Most recently, the joint 1-5/SR-54 freeway/flood control 3-26 9O-U.00701/24/91 I I r , r' f' Ii f ~ f. ~ f L [ i., B n ~ ~" ~' .,;: .. channel project has introduced heavy sediment loads into the river and the marsh system (Merkel, pers. obs.). Both gradual and rapid sediment depositional patterns are active in most areas. Construction Impacts The construction phase of the proposed project has the potential for the greatest impact to' the natural systems, is likely to lead to the most rapid changes in sediment transport, and has the highest potential for effecting a change in the local water quality as it relates to biological resources. Such changes have already been discussed and include increased potential for changes in the pattern of erosion and deposition and potential for both elevated turbidity levels in the bay and releases of toxins from the construction area into the surrounding wetlands. The project applicants have proposed the implementation of silt fencing, sandbagging, and erection of a protective berm with a suitable capacity to hold site runoff. The drainage swale is to be constructed early in the site grading to serve as a large capacity desiltation basin. These measures would function to control sedimentation and erosion resulting from natural rainfall events. In the event that substantial construction de-watering is required, however, containment of silts and suspended sediments would be required. It is unknown whether these measures would be capable of adequately controlling sedimentation from these sources, although suitable control capabilities exist through partitioned basins and stand-pipe drains. For this reason, impacts of the project on sedimentation and erosion are considered to be significant and mitigable. Wildlife Resource Impacts The proposed project would alter the character of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh region in a variety of ways, including increasing human presence in the area and converting habitat areas. Approximately 11.5 acres of disturbed open field habitat would be converted to 9.4 acres of urbanized land and 2.1 acres of enhanced upland and wetland habitats. The 800- foot long and 42-foot high structure would be located on the project site. This building would be isolated from the majority of the existing wetlands by a minimum 100-foot buffer zone, and would be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the.boundary of the NWR (the "F' 3-27 90-14.00701/14/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I & "G" Street Marsh). For most of its length, the building would be over 200 feet from the eastern boundary of the Marsh. Avian Fli~ht Patterns Because of the proximity to areas of high waterbird use, disruption of flight patterns was considered to be a major concern associated with the development of the open lands of the Bayfront. Prior investigation in an adjacent parcel addressed this issue and determined that development of a higher intensity than is proposed for the project site would not result in significant adverse impacts to avian flight patterns (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b) with the exception of rapt or activity and broadly defined gull flight corridors. In the case of raptors, building placement is considered secondary to the loss of foraging habitat usage which would result from development of the site and general human encroachment. This point is discussed below. Because of the overriding issue of habitat unsuitability for raptors under developed site conditions, impacts to raptor flight activities are not considered to be significant. For gulls, flight patterns appear to be regional in nature and not specific to any set corridors. Further, numerous studies have cited the structure avoidance behavior of gulls wherein they tend to fly around or rise over impediments. Collisions with structures by this group have been reported to be extremely low. Under the currently proposed project, gull flights would also be little affected. Although reported collisions with structures have been extremely low, the use of reflective glass on large windows and the resultant resemblance of the glass to open sky or water can lead to inflation in the mortality of numerous bird groups, including a host of waterbirds, Because of this, sites located adjacent to highly reflective water with structure orientation towards the west, could encourage collision impacts if reflective glass were used on the buildings. In the absence of such reflective materials in the proposed project, collision impacts would be insignificant. 3-28 9O-14.(J()701/14/91 r f' I L , . , , ]' L [ . ' u u ! i .1\.", ~ Human/Pet Presence ImDacts The construction and continued presence of the proposed project could result in a variety of negative impacts on the quality of the adjacent NWR and could decrease the use of the area by both resident and migratory avifauna. Development of the area would reduce the shoreline buffer zone and make the wildlife area more prone to the long-term impacts associated with habitat dynamics. Large stands of habitat can withstand minor disturbance and still sustain a population which is large, healthy, and diverse enough to ensure the long-term survival of the species in the area. Deleterious edge effects and fragmentation caused by roads and development in such areas can make some species much more vulnerable to local extinction (Soule & Wilcox, 1980). wn9HgI1...,j~mj$cf~s9gm~~q...]I1~t!B~~j$c~IT...9i%1....BH,!IgiITg~H,9B9t~f~~~9~i;iU~lp,r9j~S~! the presence of a large number of people in the area could eventually lead to site degradation by humans and human associated animals, primarily domestic dogs and cats, which inevitably find their way over, through, and under even well-tended and mended fences. In similar habitats on Delaware Bay researchers found that only 30 percent of the shorebirds present remained undisturbed on a beach when human activity was allowed (Burger, 1986). Dogs not only flush birds along shorelines, but are also prone to swimming or wading to otherwise isolated nesting areas and can accidentally or intentionally destroy nests. Secretive rails are very sensitive to human presence and, if not killed, will leave a site if disturbed regularly. Such is likely to have been the case at the "F" & "G" Street Marsh (Jorgensen, pers. comm. 1988). In the bayfront, it is not uncommon to see persons with multiple dogs turn their animals loose to chase birds. Feral dogs and apparently abandoned animals are also quite common in the area. Domestic cats have been found to be major predators in some suburban residential areas. One study estimated that domestic cats in Britain account for over 70 million deaths to small vertebrates annually (Churcher and Lawton, 1989), thirty to fifty percent of which are birds. Although the proposed development would not result in the direct increase in domestic animals associated with residential development, human activities, including providing food and shelter for wandering and/or homeless animals, ~tm9mS! tend to result in increased densities of domesticated animals. Adverse effects of the increased densities of these animals could include losses of small shorebirds, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, and 3-29 90-14.00701/24/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I r I juveniles of all species from the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Indirect impacts of enhanced pet and human associated predator attraction to the area are considered significant. The increase in human activities on the site would be expected to lead to little if any disturbance of existing wetland habitat usage, however it could potentially affect the values of future enhancement efforts on the eastern boundary of the NWR. As designed, the project has limited access on the western side of the proposed building to low lying patio areas within the central portion of the building, These patios are to be buffered from direct view of the adjacent marsh lands by mounds supporting native scrub vegetation. Properly implemented, this design would provide suitable buffering of wetland habitats from human disturbance associated with the proposed project. The potential impacts of increased human activities normally associated with a project in such a sensitive environment are considered to be adequately mitigated by the proposed project design. A beneficial impact is that it is probable that the presence of the professional center project would decrease the amount of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation. megal off-road vehicle use of the project area would also be eliminated with site development. AJteration of Predator/Competition/Prey Re~imes Of primary concern for this issue is the generation of food and/or trash which will attract opportunistic scavengers, such as Common Ravens, a variety of gulls, European Starling, Black Rats and Virginia Opossum; all of which are known as aggressive predators/ competitors. Their increased presence could adversely impact the more sensitive species in the area. The effects of non-native plants used in landscaping designs may also serve to attract predatory or competing birds and mammals; however, the landscape materials proposed for the project (Wallace, Roberts and Todd, 1990 as cited in Sadler, 1990), are considered to be compatible with the region and of minimal concern with respect to providing predator habitats. The proposed office building itself, however, would be located adjacent to the buffer zone for the NWR and would have the potential for creating both real and perceived threats of predation. Such structures may provide suitable hunting perches and nest sites for avian 3-30 9O-J4.00701/24/91 I l r I: , l. , ' ! I, !' t L {: L Ii E r ~" lili predators such as the American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, and Common Raven. All of these species have keen vision and are effective hunters both from perches and on the wing (D. Grout, pers. comm.). Under the project development plan, the proposed 42-foot high building encroaches as close as 50 feet to the NWR, with a set-back from existing sensitive wetlands of approximately 250 feet. In the case of coastal locations such as the Chula Vista Bayfront, it has been suggested that buildings of 4 stories or higher provide effective predator perches for Peregrine Falcons which normally opt to hunt from the highest available structures (P. Bloom, pers. comm.). In the case of the project proposed 4& 44-foot building, however, Peregrine Falcons are not expected to be among the raptors using it as a primary perch as they would probably focus on the existing nearby, and higher, Building 61 (approximately 73 feet). Regardless of the issue of real threat, the proposed structure was also evaluated as a perceived threat that would result in avoidance of the area by birds frequently sought by avian predators. Habituation (development of tolerance through prolonged exposure) to predators and predator-like objects has been demonstrated in some avian species (Schleidt, 1961 and Hinde 1954a, 1954b as cited in Morse 1980), but in other instances, birds confronted with changing stimuli or new stimuli tend to be slower to habituate or in some instances wrongly habituate and are more readily preyed upon. The results of non- habituation to unreal threats can also have serious consequences on prey species. A species which spends much of its time reacting to "ghost-predators" is re-allocating time that could be spent on other behavioral requirements. Morse (1980:133) noted that: A prey species that must spend most of its time foraging, as often happens during winter or the breeding season, could be excluded from an area even if it was rarely taken by the predator. Harassment by the predator [or a "ghost-predator"] could have an effect on the size of the prey population similar to that which would be caused by actual predation, although the predator population would gain nothing. Shalter (1975, 1978) has examined the habituation of members of the family galliformes (e.g., coots and rails) and flycatchers in the field and has determined that habituation results where stimuli are static in position. The threshold beyond which birds will significantly alter their use patterns as a result of building placement and assogated stimuli is highly variable. Types of structures, extent and type of associated human activities, and the avian species 3-31 9().UOO701/U/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I considered, all play key roles in determining the impacts of building placement. Some "human resistant" birds such as Killdeer, Mallards and a host of gulls may not vacate the area under even the most intense development. Other birds, which are highly sensitive to human intrusion, may completely disappear from the area with even minor development. Still others may modify their behavior in proximity to the structures to a degree resulting in detrimental effects. Belding's Savannah Sparrows have been found to readily abandon egg incubation when nests are approached (A. White, 1985 pers. comm.). The effects of buildings, bridges, or other large structures in the absence of human activities have not been well studied, however, there is indication that these features may play important roles in bird behavior. The general lack of avian nesting adjacent to the Rohr Building 61 bordering the "F' & "G" Street Marsh is believed to be the result of both real and perceived threats of predation; however, in the absence of any predator controls in this area, these factors are not readily separable. Based on the information available, and an examination of "height:bird distance" ratios for nine large bayfront structures, an attempt was made to identify patterns of avian use in the vicinity of structures. The lack of pre-structure bird utilization and behavior data, the wide diversity of habitats adjacent to the structures, and the lack of control over non-structure associated disturbances all limit the applicability of this comparison. For lack of more comparable examples with both pre-project and post-project quantitative data, however, this information has been used in this analysis and prior analyses (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990a). Figure 3 in Appendix C identifies the results of the site examinations conducted. The results of this study indicated that for tall buildings (e.g., over 50 feet), a constant 0.6 height:distance ratio appeared to hold true. When buildings were lower in stature (e.g., 30- 50 feet), the patterns appeared to breakdown and structure encroachment was less of a factor in determining bird usage. Gulls and more disturbance tolerant species were found to uniformly range closer than would be dictated by strict adherence to the extrapolated ratio, and some more intolerant species would engage in active behaviors (i.e" foraging, display) within this range; however, few observations were made of species engaged in such non-wary behaviors as loafing. 3-32 9O-I4J}()701/24/91 , ' Applying the 0.6 height:distance ratio to the proposed project indicated that perceived threats might be expected within the swale and buffer zones of the project site as well as low utility uplands of the NWR, but these threats would not be expected to extend into the sensitive wetland areas (see Figure 3-2). The extent to which the proposed development would manifest true predator threats is difficult to determine, but is of high concern due to the potential for losses of endangered species from the NWR marshlands. For these reasons, impacts of the project on the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey are considered to be significant. \ Alteration of Habitat Use Areas ( \ , The proposed project would result in the elimination of approximately 11.6 acres of overgrown fallow agricultural fields. This area would be replaced by approximately 9,5 acres of developed lands and 2.1 acres of native succulent sage scrub and seasonal freshwater wetlands. , ' i L,' ( , There is expected to be a decrease in open field associated species and an increase in urban affiliates such as House Sparrows and Rock Doves (domestic pigeons). Such conversions could result in both losses of prey species and encroachment impacts to foraging raptors. Due to the limited extent of similar coastal habitats, and the high diversity and numbers of raptors utilizing the undeveloped areas of the Chula Vista Bayfront, the loss of the site for rapt or foraging would be considered an incremental adverse effect of the project. By itself, this loss would not be considered significant due to the existing availability of the remainder of the Bayfront uplands which support high raptor use. The development of this area would, however, incrementally contribute to the significant cumulative erosion of these resource values. L [ Threatened and Endangered Species L I While the Rohr property does not support any federal- or state-listed endangered species, those which occur in the vicinity and have the potential for being impacted by the proposed project have been considered in this analysis. The Light-footed Clapper Rail, California Least Tern, and Peregrine Falcon, all carry both federal- and state-listed endangered species status. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is state-listed as endangered but does not carry federal threatened or endangered status. The following section serves as a summary of n,i LJ L E", " " 3-33 90-14.007 OI/2~/91 I' ( I r t \ , ' L. f' L C ~ , u [ > ~ expected impacts to these species. Detailed analysis should be reviewed in other portions of this report. California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) The California Least Tern occurs seasonally within the Chula Vista Bayfront and is a nesting species on the "D" Street Fill north of the Rohr property, and on the Chula Vista Wildlife Island south of the Rohr site. This species forages along the shallows of the San Diego Bay shoreline and (infrequently) has been known to forage into the marshlands of the "P' & "G" Street Marsh. This species is opportunistic in nature and is resistant to disturbance away from the nest site. This species is not expected to be impacted by the proposed project. Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) The Light-footed Clapper Rail is a resident of the "E" Street and Sweetwater Marshes and was historically a resident of the "P' & "G" Street Marsh. This species is rather secretive in nature and tends to avoid areas of high or even moderate levels of human activity. Nesting is typically accomplished in areas of high marsh hummocks or low lying upland fringes. Nests are often susceptible to flooding and mammalian and reptilian predation. Adults and young alike are susceptible to avian predation. During periods of extreme tides, Clapper Rails are forced into upland fringes or onto floating/emergent debris where disturbance and predation threats are magnified. Because the Clapper Rail is not currently a resident within the "P' & "G" Street Marsh, the effects of increased predator abundance resulting from the proposed project would not be expected to lead to direct impacts to this species. Instead, an indirect result of the project would be to further reduce the potential for ever re-establishing Clapper Rails in the "P' & "G" Street Marsh. This impact is considered to be significant and mitigable. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) The Peregrine Falcon is a skilled avian predator which tends to hunt from high perches and, primarily, takes birds in flight. This species is fairly tolerant of human activities and has been successfully introduced into urban areas--preying primarily on pigeons. During 1989, the first successful San Diego County nesting in a 47 year period occurred on the Coronado 3-34 9fJ-l4.00701/24/91 I I I I I I I It I I I I I I I , I Bridge. Marshland and expansive mudflat areas found in south San Diego Bay attract peregrines due to the abundance of waterbirds. Due to the relatively low stature of the proposed development, it would not be expected to provide perching sites or potential nesting habitat for this species. The loss of open field habitat resulting from the proposed project would not be expected to substantially affect this species. For this reason, no significant impacts to this species are anticipated. Beldinj1's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus) The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is a resident bird of all of the salicornia dominated salt marshes found within the Chula Vista Bayfront. Two pairs were found to be active in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh during the 1990 breeding season, This number is well below the carrying capacity of the habitat and it is expected that disturbance and predation are the principal factors acting to limit population size in this area. This species, like the Clapper Rail, has been characterized as being relatively secretive in nature and rather susceptible to human and pet impacts. Approaches to the nest site may lead to nest abandonment or accidental nest damage (A. White, pers. comm. 1985, Zembal et ai. 1988). Also similar to the Light-footed Clapper Rail, the Belding's Savannah is susceptible to predation at or near the nest by mammals, reptiles, and wading birds such as the Great Blue Heron. The proposed project would be expected to have significant impacts on this species through the enhancement of predator activities, including those of domestic cats. This impact is mitigable. Construction Impacts The construction of the proposed project will involve substantial earthwork, de-watering, and building construction. This project is expected to generate considerable noise and increased human activities for an extended period of time. While evidence suggests that continuous or repetitive noise has little effect on avian activities (Pacific Southwest Biological Services 1987a, b, and c; Dooling 1982; Dooling et at. 1971; Awbrey et at. 1980; Awbrey pers. comm. 1986), inconsistent noise or noise associated with visual stimuli may have cumulative impacts on avian behavior. 3-35 9O.I4.00701/24/91 Human activities within the development area are likely to be extremely high during the construction phases, Limiting work areas under such conditions is often times difficult and "wandering" contractors may cause substantial damage without recognizing their impacts. This is especially true during avian nesting seasons when birds are establishing nests through the actual fledgling of young. r I MITIGATION MEASURES Potential impacts of the proposed project have been identified in the preceding section. Many of these impacts may be lessened or mitigated to a level of less than significant through the project design itself. Some of these measures (1-5) have already been discussed or proposed through a variety of interactions between the developer, the City and the EIR consultants. These are stated below where they are of value in off-setting or minimizing potential for impacts of the proposed project. I , ' C. Potentially significant impacts resulting from project construction and/or operation include: L . - , \ . i, tl . [ . L · Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent NWR lands (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measure No.7). · Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff (mitigated through the incorporated project design element of silt and grease traps [Mitigation Nos. 2 and 3] and through Mitigation Measure Nos. 11 and 12). Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the drainage system (mitigable through the incorporated project design element [Mitigation Nos. 2, 3 and 4] of silt and grease traps and the desiltation basin, construction of the applicant-proposed berm, and presence of a ''biologically aware" construction monitor [Mitigation Measure No.6]). Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and human presence (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measure Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13 and 17). Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16). An incremental contribution to cumulative losses to raptor foraging areas (no mitigation proposed)." 3-36 90-14.00702/01/91 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I , I . An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-establishment in the "P' & "G" Street Marsh (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17). . Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow (mitigabIe through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 13). Recommendations: 1. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub vegetation between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer must be isolated from human intrusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities occurring on the patio areas. 2. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple- chambered. 3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning to be conducted in late September or early October and as needed through the winter and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing, as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must be conducted, possibly through the mitigation monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required. 4. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading phase would assist in this measure. In addition, construction de-watering should be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so that clear water is released from the site through the regular desiltation basins. 5. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be from the lists provided by the developer. Should species substitutions be desired, these must be submitted to the City landscape architect for review. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limoniwn or Carpobrotm species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Waslzingtonia or Cortaderia, must be restricted from use. 3-37 9O-UOO701/24/91 t : , -' f' , , L [ , l 10. L. I u i, L 6. A "biologicaIly aware" construction monitor must be present for all phases of grading and instaIlation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed through the City and would report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning or Community Development Department if construction activities fail to met the conditions outlined or should unforeseen problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of the construction activities. This monitor must continue monitoring on a reduced basis during actual outside building construction. 7. Re-establishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site drainage swale must be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and direct impacts of the project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove straddling the NWR border. Management of the riparian grove to retain wildlife resources must be coordinated with the National Wildlife Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types must be included in the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species used in this habitat area. 8. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through vegetation barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet encroachment must be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western property boundary. 9. The project should be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as weIl as wild animal predators. This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan should include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should include management of predators within the adjacent NWR as weIl as the proposed development areas. A fuIl time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront, or by other funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers should have training in predator control and should possess the necessary skiIls, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators. It is recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection of the entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the boundaries of the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and the San Diego Bay. The jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in this board are the City of Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District, 3-38 9O-UOO702/01/91 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I , I the Bayfront Conservancy Trust, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, Rohr Industries, and the owner of the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula Vista Investors). 11. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas. 12. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who is a state-certified applicator. 13. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the multi-jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program and mitigation programs for the project. 14. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible. 15. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a suitable substitute are recommended. 16. No extraneous ledges upon which rap tors could perch or nest can be included on the western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west should not exceed two inches in width, Additionally, the roof crests which are exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials. 17. Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum required for security on the western side of the building. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE To minimize the disturbance factors associated with construction, the project applicant has proposed a variety of measures to control construction associated disturbances including silt fences, work area delineation, desiltation basins, and construction monitors to control human activities and ensure implementation of other mitigation measures. The inclusion of the above recommendations would mitigate the expected impacts of proposed project 3-39 9O-UJ)070I/24/91 " I construction and operation, and human encroachment to a level of less than significant at the project level if properly implemented and well-enforced, These recommendations would also mitigate the potential impacts of the project to drainage and water quality, as these issues relate to biological resources. One significant cumulative impact remains which is the incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat. No mitigation is possible for this impact. " ) ~... , L r , l U L '> [7' i .. 3-40 90-14.00701/24/91 r ! r \ : r i I! ! . L f L [ 1. u 011, ~, ", r i~ fIT iJ 33 AESTIIETICS/VISUAL OUAlITY EXISTING CONDmONS The project site for Rohr Industries is located within the City of Chula Vista approximately 1,400 feet from the coastline of the San Diego Bay. A small area of tidal wetlands is included within the southwestern boundary of the site. The project area consists of a relatively flat and uniform upland that is currently undeveloped but has been historically used for agriculture. Because of the relatively open nature of the project area, the project locale can be seen from numerous off-site locations (see Figure 3-3). Current vegetative cover includes tumbleweeds and immature palm trees (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). The project site is located within the Midbayfront subarea of the Chu]a Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP) (refer to land use section and existing certified LCP [1985]). The surrounding landscapes are diversified in character and include the San Diego Bay and open space to the west and north, respectively, and industrial warehouses (Rohr) to the south (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). Immediately adjacent to the eastern site boundary are transmission towers, railroad tracks, a parking lot and additional Rohr buildings; further to the east is a mix of urban residential/commercial uses across Interstate 5 (1-5). Several restaurants are located to the northeast, along Bay Boulevard, which have open to partially obstructed views of the project site (see Figure 3-4, photograph B) including the Soup Exchange, El Torito, and Anthony's, Elevation and existing vegetation contribute to the visual buffer between these uses and the project site. The proposed project site is visible from a number of public viewing locations including 1-5, Bay Boulevard, Bayside Park, "F' Street, the Chula Vista Nature Interpretative Center, a small city park at "F' Street and Bay Boulevard, as well as a number of dispersed residential development. The project site is currently visible from the northern end of Bayside Park, located to the southwest, at a distance of approximately 0.5 mile from the site (see Figure 3-5, photograph C). Views of the site are possible from along 1-5 southbound between 24th Street and "E" Street (see Figure 3-5, photograph D). Unobstructed views are also possible from the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center located approximately 0.7 mile from the site (see Figure 3-6, photograph E). 3-41 9O-UOO8 OI/N/91 ( i ~ Rohr BuiIdin~ I I L r I! r . , A Southern view of site from ifF" Street. r'" L f' , , 1 L C t- O D B. Southwest view from nearby restaurant. I." [' ~: iiiJ Figure 3-4 1 U r i , L {" , . r' L. r' , . r L [J , i L n u 1 :t,," IT,..:"., ~ With respect to residential areas, the project site can be seen from the Jade Bay mobile home park, the Park Regency Apartments and from a condominium complex located along Woodlawn Avenue. Views from both the Jade Bay mobile home park and the upper stories of the unnamed condominiums; located along Woodlawn Avenue approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the site, are intermittent in nature. Apartment windows with southern exposures on third and fourth story levels would have the best possible views towards the site (see Figure 3-6, photograph F and Figure 3-7, photograph G). Existing views from the Park Regency Apartments, approximately 0.3 mile east of the site, are partially obstructed by existing buildings, vegetation, the elevation of 1-5 and a bordering stand of eucalyptus trees along the freeway. Due to the proximity of the project site to the San Diego Bay, some views toward the site are of high scenic interest. Views to the site from restaurants, a hotel and a small public park to the northeast are open. Distant views to the San Diego Bay from these locations are also generally open. Views to the north from the site are unobstructed (see Figure 3-7, photograph H). Intervening industrial buildings, warehouses, and 1-5 partially obstruct views from south and east of the site, and those structures dominate the landscape character in these directions. IMPACfS Project Visual Characteristics The office complex is proposed to be a total of 245,000 square feet, and a height of 42 feet. The height and square footage of the office building for this site are in conformance with the density, square footage, and height standards set by the City of Chula Vista LCP. Exterior construction materials will include plaster and stone with earthtone colors. No reflective glass will be used on the west face of the building. Glass specifications for the other sides of the building have not been determined. In the interest of protecting the 0.4 acre area of the tidal wetlands (located on the southwest portion of the site) from polluted surface water runoff, the office building is proposed to be placed between the marsh area and the project parking lot. In addition, a dirt berm and fence are proposed between the building and the NWR to J.imit human encroachment into the NWR. The berm is proposed to be approximately 5 to 6 feet high and would extend 3-42 9O-UOO8 01/24/91 , , i ( . r r t , - i {.., G. Southwest view from condominiums located at Chuln VlSta StreetjWoodlawn Avenue. !: I u [] , L 6 U r t. H. Northwest view toward San Diego Bay from project site. III Figure 3-7 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I , I the entire length of the site's west boundary. The proposed fence is 6 feet high, chain link in construction and would be positioned near the toe of the west-facing slope of the berm. A water retention basin would be provided between the building and the marsh buffer. The buffer area would be landscaped with upland coastal sage scrub. The parking lot is proposed to be east of the building, adjacent to the existing transmission towers, and would provide 730 spaces. (Rohr Industries has estimated a need for 705 parking spaces for its employees - see Traffic Section.) Exterior lighting would consist of high intensity discharge down-lighting and would be limited to illuminating the project site only. Lighting on the western boundary of the site would be directed away from the natural tidal wetlands to minimize the effect of light on the wildlife. Landscaping planned for most of the site includes scrubs, groundcover and canopy trees. The parking area would be divided into four separate "rooms" of landscaped areas to help reduce its elongated appearance. Along the western boundary in the vicinity of the berm, landscaping would be made up of upland coastal scrub to blend with the natural environment. Along "F' Street, landscaping would consist primarily of trees to reduce visibility to the site. All landscaping for the project would be in conformance with the City of Chula Vista Landscaping Manua!. "F' Street is defined as a "gateway" to the Bayfront area, and is therefore an area of high visitation and visual importance. Proposed improvements to "F' Street include two entrances for ingress and egress, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights and a bike lane. Rohr Industries would be responsible for upgrading the southern half of "F" Street from the centerline to the site boundary, Road improvements are required for conformance with Class I Collector Road standards as well as standards set in the LCP Circulation Element (Section 19.86.01). Visual Sensitivity The visual effects of the proposed project depend upon the degree to which the project complements the existing Rohr facilities and proposed Midbayfront development in terms of architectural design and materials, and whether the project would have any adverse effects on existing scenic views from public viewing locales and residential neighborhoods. The building by itself, could result in an adverse visual impact due to its size and form; 3-43 90-l4.008 01/24/91 i [ l I L. , , ~ \ l L u P L ? L, [, , , however, the existence of other large buildings in the area reduce the significance of the proposed project. The proposed building is 42 feet (in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's height regulations) as compared with the adjacent existing Rohr building height (Building 61) of 73 feet. In addition, the proposed earthtones would blend with the visual characteristics of the existing Rohr building. The proposed project consequently would be complementary to the existing development and would contribute to the cumulative visual change of the area from undeveloped land to industrialjbusiness park development. The proposed project would be visible from the northern end of Bayside Park (located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the site). The primary scenic amenity of the park is San Diego Bay, while the area immediately to the east is existing vacant, disturbed land. The proposed office building would be partially obstructed by the existing Rohr buildings to the south, and views beyond the site are already currently developed. Given the planned landscaping and visual characteristics of the area, views from Bayside Park to the site would be altered, but impacts are not considered significant. Views range from open to partially obstructed along 1-5 between 24th Street and "E" street. While the proposed facilities would be visible to southbound travellers, the project would not block any existing scenic views. In addition, the presence of the existing Rohr building to the south, and the transmission towers to the east would result in the new structure blending with existing facilities, Further, planned landscaping would effectively screen views of the site to southbound freeway travellers. Visual impacts are considered neither adverse nor significant. From the small public park, Days Inn Hotel, Soup Exchange, El Torito and Anthony's restaurants just northeast of the site, open views of the site and partially obstructed views of the San Diego Bay are possible. The proposed building and landscaping would obstruct Bay views from portions of these locations, however, due to the small amount of the views that would actually be affected, no significant change in the existing views would occur. Thus, project level impacts to these types of viewers are not considered significant. From the Jade Bay mobile home park and adjacent unnamed condominiums located approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the site, the proposed project would be visible; but the new building would be substantially smaller in scale than thel existing Rohr buildings to the east and south. In addition, proposed landscaping along "F" Street would further buffer the 3-44 90-1-1.008 01/2-1/91 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX - PHASE II TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Preoared ill City of Chula Vista Preoared lU JHK & Associates 8989 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 335 San Diego, California 92108 February 1992 T ABLE OF CONTENTS ~ 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1-1 1-1 2-1 2-1 2-6 2-7 3-1 3-1 3-1 4-1 4-1 4-6 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-6 Background Report Organization and Scope 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Setting Planned Improvements Roadway Level of Service Standards 3. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TRAFFIC Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Intersection Capacity Analysis 4. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Year 1997 Land Use and Traffic Data Buildout Land Use and Traffic Data 5. TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIS Intersection Traffic Conditions Street Segment Traffic Conditions Parking Analysis 6. MITIGA TION 6-1 6-1 6-9 Intersection Mitigation Sueet Segment 1fitigation APPENDIX A - Intersection Capacity Analysis: Existing Conditions APPENDIX B - Intersection Capacity Analysis: 1997 No Project APPENDIX C - Intersection Capacity Analysis: 1997 With Project APPENDIX D - Intersection Capacity Analysis: 1997 With Project and Mitigation Fi!!ure 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 4-1 5-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 LIST OF FIGURES Project Location Project Site Plan Study Area Existing Year 1991 ADT Existing Street Oassifications Existing Year 1991 Intersection Lane Geometry Trip Distribution Buildout Street Network and ADT Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures E Street/Bay Boulevard/l-5 SB Ramp Intersection Mitigation E Street/I-5 NB Ramp Intersection Mitigation E Street/Broadway Intersection Mitigation F Street/Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive Intersection Mitigation .f.a.u 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 3-2 3-5 4-5 5-3 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 Table 3-1 3-2 3-3 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 6-1 6-2 LIST OF TABLES fiu. Roadway Capacity and Level of Service Standards Existing Year 1991 Roadway Segment Levels of Service Existing Year 1991 Intersection Levels of Service Existing Project Site Trip Generation Future Project Site Trip Generation Net Project Site Trip Generation Year 1997 Intersection Levels of Service Buildout Street Segment Levels of Service Project Contribution to Daily Street Segment Traffic Parking Analysis Year 19m Intersection Levels of Service With Mitigation Project Contribution to P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Traffic 3-3 3-4 3-7 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-2 5-4&5 5-7 5-8 6-7 6-8 1. INTRODUCTION The pwpose of this study is to analyze existing and future traffic and circulation conditions adjacent to the proposed Rohr Industries office complex. This introduction describes the proposed development and outlines the contents of this traffic analysis report. BACKGROUND The project site is located in the City of Chula Vista, California in the southwest corner of the intersection of Bay Boulevard, and "F" Street/Lagoon Drive. The project includes several office and industrial buildings to be built as part of a Master Plan for the Rohr Industries office complex. REPORT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE This report begins with a description and analysis of existing traffic conditions. Land use and trip generation for the proposed project is then presented, followed by a description of the trip distribution procedures. Future conditions are then discussed, and the report concludes with recommendations for mitigation measures along roadways in the area of the project site. 1-1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Rohr Office Complex Project is located in the Chula Vista Bayfront as illustrated in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2 shows the project site which is bounded to the north by "F" Street, to the east by Bay Boulevard, to the south by existing Rohr facilities, and to the west by wetlands. In addition to the development shown in Figure 2-2, the project also includes vacation of land on "G" Street, Tidelands Avenue, and in the Bay Boulevardt'F' Street/Lagoon Drive intersection area. No traffic impacts are considered to occur as a result of these dedications of land. PROJECT SETTING The study area and proposed circulation system surrounding this project, shown on Figure 2-3, is within the Mid-Bayfront Planning Area between "E" Street and "H" Street. Study area intersections include "E", "F", and "H" Streets with Bay Boulevard, "En and "H" Street at 1-5, Woodlawn Avenue at "En Street, and Broadway at "E" and "F" Streets. The intersection of Woodlawn Avenue and "F" Street was also studied, but only to determine the need for signalization. Figure 2-4 shows average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the existing network in the study area. The volumes shown were taken from the City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts dated December 18, 1991. Most of the traffic generated by the project from locations outside Chula Vista will access the site via the 1-5/"E" Street interchange. "F" Street will provide the primary access to the site for trips originating in Chula Vista. A roadway construction project is currently underway to improve the "E" Street interchange with 1-5 and to provide access between "E" Street and SR 54. The completion of this project is assumed for the analysis of existing traffic conditions. Interstate 5 Interstate 5 (1-5) is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the Bayfront area. It extends southward to the California-Mexico Border and to the north through downtown San Diego, providing interstate travel through California, Oregon and Washington. An interchange between 1- 5 and State Route (SR) 54 is currently under construction just north of the 1-5/"En Street interchange. When this interchange is completed, the existing interchange configuration and traffic volumes will be altered substantially. These improvements are described in the discussion of planned improvements. 2-1 ::;::'~~:;:~~*~'::~~~:~:)~;:nmntM'ML""ttMMj?:nmmt@;{@iiWw:::;'''';'':''W,:"""tmrw,;,t@;}''''''A8i{'@;:'Y;;WDW81BWriiif&1tliliW",I@,tHllil1 ..... N NATIONAL CITY on .!!! '" OJ :;; .5 '" ~ '" '" Ie <IJ '" '" <= ~ "" 'OS "" ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX . PHASE II ' Traffic Impact Analysis . .........'.'..................---.--,-.,-.-"....-...-...-.-.-.-,.,-..,'..,',............-.....-,..-,..-...-,.. " '" U> (\) o 0.. ~ :IJ (\) '< ,,)e ~efi ~ on o '" .!!! '" OJ ~ .. .5 ....... .. ...... '.W"~':~"_' .. :.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.;.:.:.:. ,:,:,;,:rr,:::,:,:,:::::;;:::'"::,:::,,.:.:.:......... """',~~;~Ilg.~~! '.","::,'}'i;!"""""""" Iiiiiiiiiiii1ii~lilg;~;iill~111 ......-.-.-.-....,......-.-...-................;.:.:.:.;.:.;.;.;.........,-,-,...,...,.............,-..........-...-.-.-.-............._._....'../{{;~tt::::r::f/:~::;::{::;:}:i::/:;:;:?;;:fH{{ftlt?:tttt;It{f{{}t}:~;/I::f:rrW:r:rr:rr:~:t:}J}@:::::@t:::tl'~::;'::::",:,:,;,;,,:,::,:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::,:;,;::,,-,-:-;. """"fIi"""'" ,.,.:.,. .:.:.,., .... .-.. ,.,-:.,. -"'.'.': .,.,.,., :.,.,-,. .... ..... ..., ._....-. W.'_ ... ....- -.-.....- .......- ....- .,:,:,:,: :,:,:,':: ....,' ,.... .-..- -......., ...... ..... ,:,:,:::. ;:":":: .......: .. _.,.,-,- ....... .... ...., ....-...: .......- -'.'- .... "-'- ..,.. ......- .,-,-,-,- ,.,.,.;. '-.-'-. .... ...... ..' 2-2 '" Ii; - '" II ;> '" -= ..c : U ~ ... 0 i ;., i , - I U I 2-3 " z II] w 0: I- Z . II] -< . :J ..J o D.. ..; Z II: ~ W w II: I- . :r CI) ~ o -< u a: ~ ~ . < . . ~ ~ ~; ,~ ~i ~ ~~J ~" 1 a:::::i g~~::i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~11~;-~'i ~ i . ~" 1 ~ i . g~~:! g~~::i :::i~:! ; i ; "'<< .. lSIorizz ..; f,it f,i! f,i! f,i! f,!! f,it ~ ~ f~ r j~ r j~ r r. r r~'r j. r ~ I all ~~Il J~I, i~ll i~ll J~ll ; ~ od U ci ..I ..: g; < / i <- I J^'YO NOOO...' nO' . . ! ! , . ' , ~ . aH ~D----i1 'H , ; '<I III 'i ~~ = c III i ! - . . .. f t: .' ------'+ City of Chula Vista ------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,- - - - - - -- - - -- 12 ~ '" '" .!!! "S ~ o 1! CI} .!!! ~ .E.; CI} '" .!!! .!!! 1! .!!! .s ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX PHASE II Traffic Impact Analysis ------------ '" " <: ~ <<: ~ '" '0 o ~ r-------- I I I '" " <: '" ,. <( <: ,. oB o ~ --- :.,-,-,-,-,.:::::-:",.:-" Figure 2-3 ' STUDY AREA 2-4 '" '" ,. "0 '" 2 CI) E Street F Street G Street H Street I Street J Street ... N LEGEND . Key Intersection Study Area Boundary , ,.."'..'11 ..,-_..-...,.._,;::::::','::::-:::-:::,:;:,:-.:.:-:....-""---'--"---'--"--'--"....", .... :"-';::::::;:'::??\::::\::i::.,::.,':;.::.:"';.::.::';;:'!:':..-:-ii':;-:::,'.i:::'..::.::::f!::';;!i::!;:!!:::::' ;:::::! :-"::::::::::-:-;-;"-:':,:::-:-,-:-:-,-:,:,:,:-:-,,:,:::.:-:.:. :.;.: ......-,-...-,-.-,-.,- -.. . . :::",::.<<::;::':::'{:'::::::::::):;;::: , )\ .,',.-.,'--,--',--'--,--'-,,"-,,----,- -",'_. ::;::::;::::::;;\\':;:::)={'\=:;, :{:;: . .., "hAA' ," .... . '-"""'/'-:"-:':-C-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-;-;';-;';-;":_:'::,:,';_:.; City of Chula Vista M@l1HttMtttfMMffUSU11BUMUitEJtl:tt?tEili:'t1MtJi@mmWWtttmrrlMmtt@HJ:ttMmi@wmHiltMfJSggfItmrl1mWKtlltllrif@lmtmnt 6.4 3.4 ~::'~ I 4.3 "E '" ~ .!! .!! J! :> ~ ~ ~ '" .s Q1j .................. ................. ................. -:~.:.:.:.:.:........ 141.0 Source: City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts (Traffic How Report, December 18. 1991). ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX PHASE II . Traffic Impact Anal)'sis ' 144.0 6.3 138,0 135.0 27.4 26.8 ..... N E Street F Street G Street H Street I Street J Street LEGEND XXX Average Daily Traffic (in thousands) .-............. -.................................~. ,()))))t(,.,.(Ir..~gij6ig~I)ii"."'.""" 11~~IIII.i~~il t\~~~Q~P!MJ:t..Y:TR4Et\~Q 2-5 -- .._..........,-..,-..,._--_._-:-'-'-'-'...-...-...-,'.-...-...-.._-.-.-.----:--'_._--:-._'.................._._.. .. ..--.--.-,....'.-.'_._'_.__......-...-.-..,-.-,...,.....-.-.-.-.-.-..,...-.-.-.-.-...........................-...-._...... .-......-.-.-...-.-.-.-.-.........._..'..........-:.,.,.,.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:-:.;.:.:::.;::::,:::...:...... .. :> ~ oq; ~ ,!!! "tj o ~ 9.2 .. :;, ~ oq; ~ '" '6 o ~ 27.8 27.8 '" ~ "tj '" e Q3 "E" Street "E" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its current western tenninus at Bay Boulevard to an interchange at 1- 805. In the study area, "E" Street is designated a four-lane Major Road in the City's General Plan. "F" Street "F" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its current terminus in the tidelands area west of Bay Boulevard to Hilltop Drive in the middle of Chula Vista. The Circulation Element of the General Plan designates "P" Street as a Class I Collector between Broadway and Marina Parkway. "H" Street "H" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its current tenninus at the Rohr Industries gate to east of Interstate 805. The portion of "H" Street in the study area is designated as a six-lane major road between Bay Boulevard and Broadway in the General Plan. Bay Boulevard Bay Boulevard is a two-lane collector street with a north-south orientation. Currently Bay Boulevard begins at the 1-5/"E" Street intersection and continues south along the Bayfront through Chula Vista. It is designated as a Class II Collector in the General Plan. Broadway Broadway is a four-lane collector street with a north-south orientation. It extends from the National City limits south to the south San Diego city limits. Broadway is a major element in the west Chula Vista circulation network. Broadway provides continuous north-south travel just east of 1-5. Broadway is designated as a four-lane major road in the General Plan within the study area between "E" Street and "H" Streeet PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Planned improvements to the transportation network include reconfiguration of the northern portion of the 1-5 interchange at "E" Street and completion of State Route (SR) 54 north of "E" Street. A realignment of the intersection of Bay Boulevard, "P' Street, and Lagoon Drive is also under design. 2-6 State Route 54 State Route 54 is currently under construction and will provide a major link between 1-5 and 1-805 and areas east of 1-805. "E" Street currently carries a relatively high amount of through traffic between 1-5 and 1-805, and the completion of SR 54 is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on "E" Street by approximately 15 percent. "E" Street/I-5 Interchange Reconfiguration A construction project is currently underway to reconstruct the southbound ramps on 1-5 at "E" Street. The southbound off-ramp would be realigned to end at the existing intersection of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard. The existing southbound on-ramp would remain in place, and an additional loop ramp from westbound "E" Street to southbound 1-5 would be added in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. This reconfiguration would eliminate left turns at the existing southbound on-ramp from westbound "E" Street. Bay Boulevard would remain as the south (northbound) approach to the newly constructed intersection, but access to Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street would not be provided at this intersection. Additional improvements to the northbound ramps at the "E" Street and 1-5 interchange will coincide with completion of the SR 54 and 1-5 interchange. A direct ramp from SR 54 to the southbound 1-5 ramp will merge with the southbound 1-5 to "E" Street ramp, and the northbound ramp from "E" Street will diverge and connect with the northbound 1-5 to eastbound SR 54 ramp. This will provide direct access to SR 54 from "E" Street without requiring merges on the freeway. The "E" Street/I-5 interchange reconfiguration has been assumed to be in place for the analysis of existing traffic conditions. Bay Boulevard/F Street/Lagoon Drive Intersection Realignment This project is currently under design. Proposed improvements include relocating the intersection slightly to the west and widening of Lagoon Drive to a width of 78 feet west of Bay Boulevard. This intersection will require a signal to operate adequately upon full occupancy of Phase I of the Rohr Office Complex development, and signalization was assumed for the analysis for existing traffic conditions. ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Analysis of study area roadways and intersections was carried out using the following guidelines for levels of service: . Intersections were considered to operate adequately if Level of Service D or better was maintained during the peak hours. 2-7 . For planning analysis of street segments, roadway conditions were considered to be adequate if Level of Service C or better was maintained on an Average Daily Traffic basis. Where the standards described above were not met, mitigation was considered to be necessary. 2-8 3. ANAL YSIS OF EXISTING TRAFFIC This chapter presents the existing traffic operational conditions and Levels of Service (LOS) of all project area major intersections and roadway segments. The impacts of the project will be directly detennined from the comparison between the existing and future Levels of Service. ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Detennination of the LOS of roadway segments involves the comparison of the Average Daily Traffic volume to the LOS C capacities. Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 sununarize the existing network volumes (by segment) and the LOS capacities by roadway class, respectively. City standards call for the use of LOS C capacities as the analysis base. For each facility, a ratio of the existing volume and LOS C capacity is calculated and used to detennine the actual LOS based on Tabid-I. It is important to understand that the volume to capacity ratio at LOS C capacity simply yields an indication of the roadway's capacity in relation to the City's standards. The V/C ratio is not a direct indication of the physical traffic carrying capabilities of the roadway. Table 3-2 sununarizes the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes, roadway class and desired segment capacities of the facilities in the project area. The corresponding LOS for each facility is also presented in this table. INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Turning movement counts for the major intersections in the study area were conducted to detennine the existing volumes at these intersections. For the intersections along E Street, existing turning movements were assumed to include the impact of the 1-5/SR 54 improvements which are now under construction. The turning movements were based on the Rohr Office Complex Phase I Traffic Impact Analysis (IHK & Associates, April 1991). The turning movements at all other locations were based on counts conducted by IHK & Associates in the Fall of 1991. Figure 3-2 illustrates the intersection lane configurations used for the capacity analysis. 3-1 City of Chula Vista . , . J . \ \. --~--- . -e! !'!I II) ~. .S! 51 .!!! II) f! . ~ ~I .s; . I . I . / i . I . ....III...lllI... \ \ . \ . \ .11) , ~ ..!!! I ~ is i . s I ~ ~ " .. '_...II.,lIlmlH..lltl..... I. III II . ! ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX PHASE II Traffic Impact Analysis I i -----~---------1---~~~~~---- ~I s ~. ~ ~, ; ~I ~ ~. = 151 i ~. I F Street G Street .. " ~ -..: ~ .!J! "<J o ~ INI s = ! I I i ~ H Street 1llUIIIINlUllllUHlI WUlUlIIIINIUIHIIlIUHINlIN"IIHINlIIIIHIIIIUHIIIIHIUIIIIIIIIIIIHIHI I Street :..,s ~i ,,= <u= ei ClJ5 5 J Street 1.1l1l1l1l1l1l11l1I1l1l1I1l1l1I1l1U11I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1II1II1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .. N LEGEND HUIIIIIUlIIol Four Lane Major - - - -. Class I Collector -.-. Class II Collector Class III Collector Figure 3.1 EXISTING STREET CLASSIF1CATIONS 3-2 fIB Table 3-1 ROADWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Level of Service Functional Class A B C D E Freeway (8 LN) 64,000 99,200 130,560 153,600 160,000 Freeway (6 LN) 48,000 74,400 97,920 115,200 120,000 Freeway (4 LN) 32,000 49,600 65,280 76,800 80,000 Expressway (6 LN) 52,500 61,300 70,000 78,800 87,500 Prime Arterial (6 LN) 37,500 43,800 50,000 56,300 62,500 Major Street (6 LN) 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Major Street (4 LN) 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 Class I Collector 16,500 19,300 22,000 24,800 27,500 Class II Collector 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 Class ill Collector 5,600 6,600 7,500 8,400 9,400 Notes: 1. Levels of Service are not applied to residential streets since their primary purpose is to serve adjacent property and not to carry through traffic. 2. Levels of Service nonnally apply to facilities which carry through traffic between major trip generators and attractors. Source: City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards, SANDAG Guidelines, JHK & Associates. 3-3 LOS Cl Planning Level V/C2 Actual Capacity ADT Existin2 Conditions Ratio LOS 12,300 22,000 0.56 A 27,400 22,000 1.25 E 26,800 22,000 1.22 E Table 3-2 EXISTING YEAR 1991 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Street Segment "E" Street Bay Blvd./I-5 1-5/Woodlawn Ave. Woodlawn Ave./Broadway "P" Street West of Bay Boulevard Bay Blvd./Woodlawn Ave. Woodlawn Ave./Broadway 4,300 6,300 9,200 22,000 22,000 22,000 0.20 0.29 0.42 "H" Street Bay Blvd../I-5 1-5/Broadway 6,500 27,800 22,000 22,000 0.30 1.26 Bav Boulevard "E" St./"P" St. "P" St./"H" St. 6,400 3,900 3,300 7,500 7,500 7,500 0.85 0.52 0.44 "H" St.!"]" St. Notes: 1. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions as a minimum for all Circulation Element facilities. 2, The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the actual (functional) capacity of the roadway. Source: Existing ADT data was derived from City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts (December 18, 1991). 3-4 A A A A F B A A City of Chula Vista ~ N ~ '" " c: !Ii "" ~ '" '0 o ~ ~ F Street ~ OJ " c: !Ii "" ~ B o ~ "E ~ '" ~ OJ ::s ~ ~ ~ "- ~ '" .s CQ H Street ~----- ~~ '" ~ J)! ~ ~ .s I Street "- '" " "b '" e CQ J Street LEGEND . Key Intersection ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX PHASE II Traffic Impact Analysis ,-:.;.;.,-;----.:-,-,-:-;-:.:,.-'.,-,'-.,,;'-.--.-:.;.;.'-"-'-'-'-";':';-"'-"'-'-':"-'-'--',-,-,--',--',-.',--',--'.-,',-,',-'" ..-_...........-,..-..:.....-,-..,-,..-.._'....,...-..:.'_..'.......-,.,-.._-,._....'--,.,-,..--,_..'.-.-..,'--,--'.'-','--,'.-,',-,'---'-'.'.",',-,-,--'.'-',-.',--'--.'-'.'-',',',---,----'-.-'-..'--,',-,',',-,---.,-,.'-", ',:,:::::;::::..::,:::,:::::;:;:::,:;,::,::::::;:;::-::;::":::::;:;:;:;:;:::::::'::::::;:::;':'::::;:;:::;':';::::=::;:::;:::;':':':::';";"';:"":':';:';:::::'::,:,;,:,;-";;:;::",,:::,>:,,;-;,,-.'-'-'-,,. ':: ..:_:.'-::,;::: '::_-,:::"-:: :.... :-::':"";:;:""':':'::-:-":::_-:"':-;'-:;-:",::>;':':::::;::"::'::::'-:):::,::}:::-::::<:'::-:';::;:':/;,;" , , EXISTINGYEAR1991,' , ,,' , INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY,' ,',' , 3-5 Figure 3-2 "'fB' .."--.-.-"'.-.-.----,........ ". .'..'.....-.-"'-..-..-.-.-.-.-..-... ..- -------...._-.. .,-. --....-,..-'.'.'-,.--,-,...-,".-.-..-,- .--. '-'--.-'.-.-..'-'.--.-.-.,.,.'-.- .','. -.-.---."...-.-.-'..-.....---.---.-.-.... .. . ...-..-. , ,.. --. '.'.','--.'-,:-:-'-:--.'-'.'-'.-,..-..:,-. -,.' --.--.--.----......------.. .. .:-'-'.---,-.:-':--','---,--,,-,,-:.--:-'.'-'.'.,-:.,.-,:: ,.' .--...---.....-..,. ., ...--.--......-.-----.._.-...-.---.----.... .-- .-...--...-.-.--......-..---.-...-...-..-.-.---.-.-.- ...... .------ ------- ..----.. .--. .'.'-..-.-.'-'..--.---........ "'-'--'-"'--"'---""'-"-"-'--'-".'-'.".- -'--.' ....-----.----.--- ...--.--..... .. -. .,.._.--'-'_.-....--,......... '.-. '.'....-.---"-..-..-.--,...-...,.. ....'.-..-....-....-..-,.,-.....-..-.---.-.-.. ..----.--.----.--.------... ':;',:.,:-,:,;:,:,,:::;::>:-,:,_::::;:::::::/,):;-, .... :': --.--------.--------------.. . .,.,_._._._"_....-..--,....-.--.-..- .. ..-.-'.'..-.-...-.-.".-.---.--..---.-....- -'-'" .. ---.--------.----.----. . ----...,---.,..'v.... _. .. ------...-.-.--.----.._.... -.' . ...--.- .... .---------..--.----. '-'-'-'--"'-'-'-'-- '.' --.._,-:--.;.:-:.;':.;.:-:-,,:-;.._;-,..-;':-;.:':.;....,-,. Levels of Service for the study area intersections, based on the respective volumes and capacities, were detennined using the operational analysis procedure for signalized intersections as outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. This technique uses 1800 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) as the maximum saturation volume of an intersection. This saturation volume is adjusted to account for lane width, on street parking, pedestrians, traffic composition (i.e. % trucks) and shared lane movements (i.e. through and right turn movements originating from the same lane). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3-3, supporting data for this table can be found in the Appendices. 3-6 Table 3-3 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE YEAR 1991 CONDITIONS Intersection "E" St/I-5 SB Ramps/Bay Blvd "E" St/I-5 NB Ramps "E" St/Woodlawn Ave "E" St/Broadway "F' St/Bay Blvd/Lagoon Dr "F' St/Broadway "H" St/Bay Blvd "H" St/I-5 SB Ramps "H" St/I-5 NB Ramps Level of Service A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour C C B C D B B B B E C B D D B B C C 3-7 4. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Project Traffic impacts were analyzed in terms of two scenarios: buildout traffic conditions and traffic conditions at full occupancy of the project Full occupancy of the project was assumed to occur in 1997 based on project phasing plans. The trip generation and distribution of these two scenarios of traffic is described in this chapter. YEAR 1997 LAND USE AND TRAFFIC DATA The analysis of 1997 conditions was conducted using the following assumptions: . Existing traffic was assumed to grow by 2% per year from 1991 to 1997. This growth was assumed to take into account traffic generated by proposed developments in the area such as Scripps Hospital and the expansion of the Chula Vista Mall as well as growth in miscellaneous smaller projects and through traffic. . In addition to the 2% per year growth, the traffic expected to be generated by the Rohr Office Complex - Phase I Development was added as part of the total 1997 traffic forecast. . Trip generation for the project site was conducted by detennining the future trip generation of the project site and subtracting out the estimated trip generation of existing buildings on the site. This analysis is documented in Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3. Trip generation rates were based on San Diee:o Traffic Generators, January 1990. In order to be consistent with the Rohr Office Complex - Phase I analysis, the corporate headquarters trip generation rate was used for the office components of the development. If the site were ever to revert to multiple ownership, an increase in traffic would be expected and a traffic impact study would be recommended. . Trip distribution for project traffic was based on the traffic impact analysis for the Rohr Office Complex - Phase I Traffic Impact Analysis as shown in Figure 4-1. 4-1 z o ..... E-o < E-oCZ: z~ ~z ~~ g." Og. ...J..... ~cz: .....;;..E-o ...,;.~~ .. CI E-o --..... .c.....CI) <U E-o~E-o Cl)U <~ =..... g.O cz:CZ: =g. 0" cz:z ..... E-o CI) ..... ;.< ~ ... " ::::I..:.c ... \I) o==CIr. .Q OJ =.. =~=~ o ... ~..\111; ~ .. 0 = 0.. """ ."= " 0,,_ ... =- ~ CO " =- :=0 =- " " ~g "" " - ~" "'/ "", aI 0'. "= " =- ... ~ "/ ~:g =-= " " =~.. \I) oea:::lic. .Q Q,I 0'. -=-=" " ... o ... ~.:ar:; ~ ... 0 = 0". 6~~=~ =- ~ CO " =- :=0 -< ... " ~ g "" " - ~"", CO"", Q,J 0'. =-=~ ~ "/ ~~g =-= ..."'/ - '" ~~ "''' .- 0 ".- ...-- CO .. ~~; .. = " CO " Q" ,,~ N'" .- . ",,,, ~ " '" ;;J ... " CO ..J !/ o o ~ o ~ o o tI< o o ~ o o 1 :; u 'I:: bO -< < ~ o ..,. tI< ;f 8 - tI< .,., co< 00 - co< ..,. tI< o r- ~ tI< .,., - ~ ...: on s s -- -- .,., 00 o 8 o 00 " !!I o J: ~ ~ o '" r- tI< 1'! r- '" tI< co< - '" - '" tI< ~ ..,. '" tI< - 00 o '" ...: on o '00 .,., 00 '" ] '" " -0 .s u o o ~ o ~ o o tI< o o ~ o J Q ~ ..,. - - '00 '" .,., tI< o co< o '" [0 - ~I '" ~ .,., co< 00 '" tI< ~ 00 co< co< co< ~I ~I ~ ~ ] '" " -0 .s 00 .,., '" ~I E " E-o :::: " ~ f " oS .... o i ... I '" .. 8 g ,[!j ~ '" '0; ... '" ~ ~ a .5 u <= .... g - ~ f .E o t>: " oS ,5 ii -0 " U .5 ~ ;< < ] . .. ~- '" .. - .9 ~~ ~ ~ :.8 o IJ <-0 ~~ V) .. ~ u bO .. :a '3 .c 8 <= 'Ci .::: N , 7 is go ~ .. v) ~~ti " " " o .c'~ V)~e - N ... z o - .... ....< zCZ:: ~~ :::;z g.~ oe,:, ...;Ig. ~- <'I;;;,CZ:: , ~.... ""'Q~ ~_.... ..0-- oc V1 E-~.... <U ::c~ g.'" o CZ::cz:: ::cg. O~ CZ::cz:: ;:J .... ;:J "" "" '" " 5 ::1= ~ o ._ ,Q..:o:'" ;CCr-- O~ "" =..:.c; ~ ... 0 ~ 00;: 5~Q.::.. =.... ..:0: .. " Q. :; Q. "" " ~5 ,Q " .... ..:0:,"'" " ... cu 0.... "- '" Q...... ..:0: '"I ~~g Q.:: "" " g~; ~ ..Q Q,J Q"i: ;Q.::.. o "" =..::.c ... fI) '" "0 .. 0::1.2- " " '" 0,QQ.::.. ::.=: ... .. " c. :; ...: "" " ~ 5 ,Q " .... ..:0: '" "'I " ... ~ O"i: c.::.. ... '"I ~:g c.:C "''''1 - ... ~;S "''' .- 0 '".- .. - ~ '" " ....10. : :::~" '" " ~c ..-:- ...... r;j~ ~ .. '" ~ "" " .. oJ ~I $ - '" - ~ o - 00 00 - ~ '" - '" - '" '" - ~ ~ 00 00 ~ '" - o '" "i - ...: .; ~ ;; - ~ '" '" - '" " u c::: ... o ...: 00 '" ~ o - o '" ~ '" - '" - 00 ~ ~ o '" ~ '" - ~ ....; "' ~ - 0- - o 8 g " u if: o :g "' " "0 ..s "" u '" ..,. '" - ~ ?'1 00 '" ~ ~ '" 00 ..,. ~ ~ '" '" ~ - - o 00 ..,. ...: .; o ~ - 00 o 8 g ~5 .c E ~.E" "' " " > <>:8 o - 00 '" ~ o - o '" ~ ..,. - o - '" '" ~ ~ 8 - ~ '" - o ::b ...: .; o ~ - ~ 00 o 8 o 00 '" '" ~ ?'1 - - ~ '" - '" ~ ~ o ~ - - '" '" ...: .; o ~ - ~ 00 o o "1- - - :g "' " "0 ..s ~ '" - - :::: " gj .c C. " -5 ... o 'g ... ] .- "' " o u 8 .~ ] - o '" '" - ::b ~ o - ~I ~I ::3 '" .~ "' ... ';;j " .. 13 .. '" .5 " c::: ... ~ .... ~ i!: 1: o <>: " -5 ('1 , ...,. '" - ..... '" '" - - ..,. - '" ~ ~ .s "E "0 " <J .s "' .. :< ...: ] g= c ~ .$2 i~ ~ ;a :8 ~.g ~1 V) c ~ " u 01) c '" '3 "" " u c::: ... o o::i go ~ .. '" ~~ti " "" o .c.~ Cl)b8 - N 0. ~I ~I ~I - ..... '" '" - '" ,..; ...: .; ~ ;; - ~~ " " if: o ~ r-. Table 4-3 ROHR PHASE II DEVELOPMENT NET PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION Number of Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Scenario Daily Total In Out Total In Out Future Project Site 3,912 571 514 57 565 64 501 Existing Project Site 958 122 98 24 167 53 114 Net Project Site Trip Generation 2,954 449 416 33 398 11 387 4-4 City of Chula Vista ...... N E Street co 75%t '" c: ~ <( ~ ,!!1 "tj 0 15% ~ F Street - "E ~ '" .92 Q) '" ~ 0 ~ CQ ~ .!!! ..s; G Street lO%t Q) '" c: ~ <( ~ ,!!1 "tj 0 ~ HStreet ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX . PHASE II Traffic Impact Analysis ..,....-..-...-...--.-.-..-.,...,.--..-..-,.....-..--...-',...,...... '" Q) ~ ~ .!!! ..s; I Street '" !g " '" e CQ J Street LEGEND xx % Percentage of Project ~ Generated Traffic '.'-'."-'--,',-,'--,---,'-'.'.-.'.',"--,--',-,',-,',',:-,':.::;',. Figure4~1 ..... TRIP DlSTRlBUTH)~ ... ... . ... 4-5 .....u .',----.."",...""",,--,. BUILDOUT LAND USE AND TRAFFIC DATA The Buildout Scenario was based on the analysis conducted for the Rohr Office Complex - Phase I Development. However, the additional traffic generated by the Phase IT development was added to the Buildout Traffic forecasts to detennine the impact of the Phase IT Project. This analysis was based on Average Daily Traffic according to the City of Chula Vista's standards for roadway segments. 4-6 5. TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIS Presented in this chapter are the analysis for the traffic conditions in 1997 with and without the project. Also presented is analysis of buildout with project impacts. The intersection geometrics used for the analysis are those that currently exist, with adjustments to these geometrics were only made to account for on-going roadway improvement projects. INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The results of the intersection capacity analysis for 1997 conditions (with and without the proposed project) are shown in Table 5-1. The need for mitigation measures is indicated for the following intersections which will not achieve Level of Service D in either the A.M. or P.M. peak hours. . "E" Street/Bay BoulevardlI-5 SB Ramps . "E" Street/I-5 NB Ramps . "E" Street/Broadway . Bay Boulevard/'P' Stree!/Lagoon Drive Proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the following chapter. Although not shown in Table 5-1, signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of "F" Street and Woodlawn Avenue. This intersection is not expected to warrant a traffic signal under 1997 conditions with the project and no mitigation is necessary at this location. STREET SEGMENT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Figure 5-1 shows Average Daily Traffic forecasts for Buildout Traffic Conditions with the proposed project. Also shown in Figure 5-1 are the proposed Circulation Element Street classifications. Table 5-2 shows that Buildout Traffic levels can be accommodated by the proposed street classifications. However, a comparison to the existing street segment classification map shown in Figure 3-1 indicates the need for upgrading the following street segments: . Bay Boulevard, E Street to "P' Street . "E" Street, 1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue . "E" Street, Woodlawn Avenue to Broadway . "H" Street, 1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue 5-1 Table 5-1 YEAR 1997 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection "E" St/l-5 SB Ramps/Bay Blvd "E" St/l-5 NB Ramps "E" St/Woodlawn Ave "E" St/Broadway "F' St/Bay Blvd/Lagoon Dr "F' St/Broadway "H" St/Bay Blvd "H" St/l-5 SB Ramps "H" St/l-5 NB Ramps Level of Service Without Project A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour With Project A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour C C C C D B B B B F C C D D B B C D C C B C F B B B B F E B E F B B C D 5-2 City of Chula Vista r.~AM_- i I . ~ I i 8.3 \ \ 7.1 \ ~ . ~------- --~- - ~ 7.0 i ~ Project 1! . ~ Slte- ~I It) ~ ..!. .:! ~ 51 J!! s a:a ~ % ~i ~ s a:a, ~ I \ i \ " " " ~ " ~ 7.1 ~ i ~ . 9.8 i IIIIN.....!...IM...) 1111111 ~ \ ~ \ - , "'~ \ ~ [i . ~~ \ (U :: . It) 0.. ~ \ .!!! nJ i . .s .S = , '" 0..,; = r.,;,. (Us ..! ~.5 . c: - ~ , - ~ i \ ,. " \. i '.....NlIltHIIIII.... ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX PHASE II Traffic Impact Analysis ...... N ! ;; 26.5 ~ <= <:tr t II HIIINlNlNlHlUlNlNUIIIIIIU&UUlMlNlININIIIIIIIIII.S- _ _ .. .:r~8"f.. - - - - , = ~I 22.0 !! c. = ~I ;; <( ii ~i I ,,!!!. i "I " ~. ! _ _ _ _ _ _ .1. _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .L.....f.~~.!....._._ " 12.4 ~ ;; ;; ;; ~ I 11.5 GStreet i ~ ;; I " ~ H Street HIDINHllUlllmUII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIUIIIII'IIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHI 36.1 ! ! co '" c: ~ <( ~ '" 'is o ~ I Street ! ",,, !g~ "0= nJ: ei CQ" ~ JStreet ........MI&IIHIUIIlIIWUIIUUlIUUIIllIUIUUlHIlUIUl - - - - - - - - - . " i LEGEND 1liliiii..1111111 Four Lane Major Class I Collector Class II Collector Class III Collector Average Daily Traffic (in thousands) - - - -. -.-- xx.x Figure 5-1 BUILDOUT STREET NETWORK AND AVERAGE DAlLYTRAFF1C fIB 5-3 ... I: I: >'''''CI'CI ~o ;S~==._~ ~.- o=.~ >< Z Z Z >< >< Z 'CI .. ::I >. '" 'CI OC~<:7'",.>;= ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ 8 u - - ;;;- ~ cz:: < < < < u < ...:: ~ V1 "" ~~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ..... ~ (<) N \D .,., \D ...,. 00 t- ('1 V1 ...;I ~ ;;;- ~i ...,. ..... ..... 0 .,., ~ ..". ...,. 00 ..... ~ .,., .,., ~ ('1 ...;I N. q ..... N ~ 0 0 <'I .... 00 t- r-: N \D N r-: . ..... N N 01) Z '" ~ ..". , ..0 :::; .,., '" e,:, ~<J~ E- ~ ~.~.- \D \D \D 0 \D \D t- V1 ..... ~ ~ N ~ \D t- ._ 0 N. N N ~ N N ...,. .... 'CI'- N ..... ..... W 'CIg. ~ < cz:: .... ...<'1 V1 U 00 .,., .,., 00 ...,. .,., 00 E- ('1 ...,. ...,. (<) ~ \D ..... ;:J 0 t- oo "l ..... t-. ~ 0 \l5 \l5 \l5 0 \D ..... .,., Q ..... N N ...;I - ;:J ~ .,.... OJ:) ~...... ul:-...::I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- ~.C:; o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V11:..OC'CI. q q o. q o. 0 0 o I: .3 co.:: N N N 0 0 0 N OC OC::l ..... ..... ..... (<) ('1 ('1 N ...;IS:: u~ 0 g g ... .., .., 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ... ... ... ~ <~ ... ... 13E ... ... ! ~ ~id' ..,.., "3 ~ "'..... ~.., !J!J -0::1 jj!J jjjj 0 '" ~~ !J ~o C/)C/) C/)C/) C/)C/) ~ g'g ""8~ C/) -~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ... .,.,0 00 ~ .s... '" '" .,., ~P:i .- '" ~ ~~ ~~ E-~ OIJ .s .; ~ ~ .~ - u ~ :.::I .- '" ~ u ->> <is os g - ~ .., C "0 .s ~ os g ..... .., 0 - ij3 .., >> = = ..c - c - .- >>"'0'0 ~o ..... u 0 OS ~s~==._~ .+:1 0 [;- Q,}.- 0;:': OS = '0...=...."''0 Z Z Z >- - .S! U ::I "" OC 0 0'..'- = u - O'-Q,} ~O .~ OS 03 cz:: SCZ:: I:Q ~ U U u = :e 0 ~ - =; .S .+:1 u U '" .. a c - 9 <E u .E ;;;- < < " '" '-' cz:: S .0' .., 03 - ~ ::I .- a .13 OIJ V1 ~~ - - u C " .- os "" <'I r-- ('1 0 .s '" '" " 0 .,.., .,.., ('1 0-, os .s ..c ::I os g. F: ..... V1 '" .E 0 ...;I os cJ .., "" ~ '" 0 ;> '0 ;;;- ~i - c ~ en .+:1 .. ...,. 0-, 0-, .S! os = ~ 0-, ...,. 0 00 - .., 0 u = ...;I "t ...,. 00 0 :e .s ...;I :.a - - <'I' ~ ..0 c ..... - .s V) = .... - - ('1 0 0 os , u - - V) 0 z = c 0 U ~ OIJ .S! " c '-' c - ~ .~ :::; .+:1 :e <'I r: - . e,:, ~'<j ~ "0 " - II) & os '" ~ ~.~.- ~ ...,. \0 0 .., >> .; V1 0 ..c os ] ~ - \0 c<) ._ 0 ...,. <'I U - ~ ..0 .... '0'-.... .s "0 os ~ 'Og. en os c E- ~ -< 0 .~ 0 s """ .... '" cz:: .... " " s .... <E -< ..c -<'I - ::I '" f@ ..... U 0 V) .,.., 0-, '" 0 .13 E- V) ('1 ('1 .,.., a .... c ;:J o. 0 V) q P.. -< - .- 0 - N ~ \0 en .u S - - ('1 os S os '" Q - [;- '" -0 ...;I ;; 0 <t: u .- - u ;:J os ~ .., - .s .., I:Q ::I '" ~ =.II >.= ..c os c .s u u 0 u=-'" 0 0 0 0 ~ .9 .- Q,}.~ o. 0 0 0 0 ..... "0 V1C;>OC'O. q 0 o. o. 0 0 " C C Q,} 0.- N 0 ~ '" .S! o OC...;l .- <'I 0 0 u os ...;1_ oc = <'I <'I ('1 ...,. U .D - <;:: os g. u~ 'E .~ ""@ .., .s E- .g C - .- ~ C ~ 0 0 - 0 0 0 C .Q. .- - - - ~ '0 ~ r~. " .., " ;> ._ 0 a';: .;: ~ .;: '" .., [;- a os ..c iII u i) c ~ .... i) ~ E- ""3~ os ! "3 - r-i ('1 ~o..:g ~~ ~ 0 os CJ:)iII-g -g~ CJ:) iII .9'8 0,; .... ~ . ....0 00 :r: V)O 0 rr.os~ ~~ os.,.., : iII iII,,", ""'~ Z The project's contribution to traffic increases is identified in Table 5-3 for street segments where improvements have been identified. In cases where traffic is forecasted to decrease between 1991 and Buildout Conditions, the project's contribution has been defined as the contribution to total Buildout Traffic. Mitigation is discussed further in the following chapter. PARKING ANALYSIS Table 5-4 summarizes parking supply and demand for the project site based on the proposed site plan and the City's parking standards. A shortage of 143 parking spaces is expected to occur if the site is developed as proposed. Potential solutions to this expected shortage include revision to the site plan or a requirement by the city that the owner of the site provide space for additional parking if it becomes necessary. 5-6 Table 5-3 PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO DAILY TRAFFIC ON STREET SEGMENTS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED General Plan Project Buildout Increase in Contribution Existing Traffic Traffic, to Increase in (1991) With 1991 to Project Traffic, 1991 Street Se,:ments Traffic Proiect Buildout Traffic to Buildout Bay Blvd., E St to F St 9,800 8,254 1 2,216 27%1 ESt, 1-5 to Woodlawn Ave 27,400 26,490 1 296 1%1 ESt, Woodlawn Ave to Broadway 33,600 22,031 1 266 1%1 H St, 1-5 to Woodlawn Ave 27,800 36,089 8,289 30 1% 1 Traffic is forecasted to decrease between 1991 and Buildout conditions and the project's contribution is calculated compared to total Buildout Traffic, rather than the traffic increase from 1991 to Buildout 5-7 Table 5-4 PARKING ANALYSIS Parking Ratio per 1,000 sq.ft of Size DeveloDmentI Spaces Spaces Ami Land Use (so. ft.) Reouired Provided A Office 370,000 3.3 1221 1095 B Office 60,000 3.3 198 185 C Industrial 60,000 1.25 75 57 D R&D 80,000 3.3 264 116 E Industrial 11 ,000 1.25 14 83 Office 85,000 3.3 281 F ----- 0 76 SDG&E ----- Q. 298 Total 2,053 1,910 1 Source: City of Chula Vista Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. 5-8 6. MITIGATION Chapter 5 of this report identified roadways and intersections which would not operate within the City's standards for Levels of Service under either 1997 or adopted General Plan Buildout conditions. This chapter proposes mitigation measures which could be implemented to bring the affected roadways and intersections into conformance with City standards. INTERSECTION MITIGATION Figure 6-1 shows a summary of mitigation measures proposed for intersections in the study area. More detailed descriptions of proposed mitigation measures are shown in Figures 6-2, through 6-5. Proposed intersection mitigation measures include the following: . "E" Street/Bay Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramp: Restriping of the northbound approach to provide a left/right lane and a right turn lane and installation of a right turn arrow for northbound right turns. . "E" Street/l-5 Northbound Ramps: Installation of a right turn arrow for northbound right turns. . "E" Street/Broadway: Widening of the northbound approach to provide two left turn lanes. (Figure 6-4 also shows a double left turn lane for the southbound approach because it would probably be logical to provide consistent northbound and southbound sections, although this is not technically required for project mitigation.) . "F' Street! Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive: Widening to provide a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane on the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches. It should be noted that widening of the "F' Street bridge will not be required for this project. However, the project will contribute traffic to the bridge, and consideration should be given to inclusion of this project in any assessments which may be required for bridge widening in the future. If the proposed mitigation measures are implemented, all intersections in the study area would be expected to operate at Level of Service D or better and, therefore, meet the city's standards for peak hour intersection operations. Table 6-1 documents the expected intersection Levels of Service with and without mitigation. Table 6-2 shows the project's contribution to total traffic growth between 1991 and 1997. 6-1 City of Chula Vista ~ ...... N Add Northbound Right Turn Arrow Restripe Northbound Lanes and Add Northbound Right Turn Arrow E Street Signalize Intersection and Add Right Turn Lanes on Northbound, Southbound and Westbound Approaches ~ co '" ~ <( ~ ,!!1 "0 o ~ '\ Add Northbound Left Turn Lane F Street "E ~ '" ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ '" .!!! '" ..s; CQ G Street Q) '" c: ~ <( ~ ~ o ~ H Street '" .S! ~ ~ .!!! ..s; I Street ~ "0 '" e CQ JStreet ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX . PHASE II . Traffic Impact Analysis ..-..'-'.-.,.....-..-.,.,-..-.-'..-.,...---.-.--,-,.,-..-.--..-'......-,...,..-,.....-.--.'...'..-.,.,.,.. ...... ... ... ..... Figure 6~ 1./. -"""-'-'-'-"'-"-"-"--'-"""-'-"'-'---"--'--...__......,,-.---.-.'_._'_.,.-,.,-.-.-.-.-.-_._-_._-.'-...-.-.--...--.--..-.,-.-.-.-.-...-...-....,..........,-....'...,....... ,.-..-...-'" ............"....----......___,....................__..._,__,_n.'_,..,____,___._,_.__,_._,_,_._,._,._,. "')::::::::::::::"::::::::::::::::::::::::;::,:,:::::::=,';:;:;::'::::::::::::::'::';':::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::;::';:;';:;;:;,;:::,:::,:::::::::::;;,:;:,:;:,:,:",:,::',::':::,:,'::::" . ..SUMMARYOFPRO.-OSED.< .. . . MITlGATIONMEAStJRES.. . ..-:.:.,'_.,..'.-.....-:-:-::."...-...-._...".,,-,-,_.--..-.,-.-",.".,'-.--.----- ..._......-...-.....-......_..._._-......-.-..--........-.-.-.--.,..,.,.....----------,-.... ........................................................................................fJI............................ .--.... ..... .... .. ...-..............'........-----..-............ .. --...-.-.,"-..,.,..,...-.--., ".,-,.,-,------_..,. .. .-..,.,...-.-.--.--..,-.-.-,-..----..,-,-...-..--.-.-.--.. -'. ...............-'...'....------...,....----- .. .-.-.........................---...,......-- ..,-. .--.........--..--.--......----..-...--... .. ._--. . . . ......- . .... -.--- .. --- ..'-.-............'.......---.-"."......... .. .--...-.-.-.-.-.....-..--.-.-........-....--.- ,.. .. .... ...........----..... .. ...-.-.-'..-..'---.----.-.---.--.-.-.........-,.".'--'--' ~... . .. ...... .. .--- . .. .". .'.----.-..........-'---.---........--..-....-.' .... ..... .. ..----..... .. '.-.-'-..----.-.'.'.-.-.-......-"."......-.- ... ..---,.-...-.--.........-..-.-.-.......--,.-.-... . . .. ...... -. ... -.-- .... -- .-..-.................-....--..--..".".----- .. -- ...--- ..._,,---..-....... ,.. ........-....---..---..._..._-.'..,'..,..._-.--.._..._',.,'..,',..-,-_..--'.--....,', -'.-. . ........--........-...-...,..,....--- ... --..-.........----..-..........--............ "" .......--.-......--............-..-....... .. ... .............. .-.--.-... -- .'......,..,-,....,.,-,..,--"."."..,.._,.. " .............-..--..,-..,-......._.-.-.-,-.',-,'.'-'-'-'._-,--,-. .-.--....-.......-........-....."......- ,'. . ..--. ..-......- . ........--..,-,,-,--._,. ..................-..........-..".". , """"'-"'--"'"""'---"-"",,",'-- ---'. ..---..----.-.-.-.-.-.,.-,..-,.....-.-..,..,-,.,-,-....,.-.---..-.,.- .'-'-' ......-...---...-.-..---,-".,.... , . ......,-.-.-...-.-.-.-...-,-,..-,---.--'--.'-.-...-- ':'.' ........--..-...'."..--.. ... ......--.....--...,. . "---.. . 6-2 City of Chula Vista mhrmmmm~tm{fHMMH&rBJltitmU@>>Am@.%rtWti@ttmtJ1gtH#lfMf~tt?{{i;ttlg@gfiMlgtt%Nifqitmffilim~1Tii~1%Wit.mtBtt~1Z{@@lli:1tltfitt1fa 1-5 S8 Ramp ...... N ~ l l Install Right Turn Arrow I 1- t( t ~ --------- Restripe to Allow Right Turns Existing Access Drive(Future Marina Parkway} 'C ~ IV > .. :i o m ,., IV m I'--~ r E Street ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX · PHASE II " Traffic Impact Analysis .. ~~~-~~- 6-3 City of Chula Vista mm&ffgttEftfittfniliMI1K1i1fiMlil_14l%wkfu~1fft%tl~1@Jm~%lI1t.J:;*;fdrffif&l$lli-I;t;:kjfullmtflKtKtEtJl@mflf{tilglKfiM~jH1ru'gfJE10Xf@ ...... N Install Right Turn Arrow I f- 0(\ --------- --------- 0( --------- )0 --------- )0 I E Street / 1-5 NB Ramp ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX " PHASE II . Traffic Impact Analysis . """"""'-'-'-'-""""-"""'----""-"-'-"'-"'..'..----.-,'-"-".,. ......................_-......... ~-~~~ 6-4 -- .... .-....-.---............-.-..---- ....--.............. ...... ...,...... oc - '" ;> oc "5 .c U .... o >-, - u If~ L 1. .OL - ..... .'1:8 --- I I I I I I - G> G> ~ - I/) W ~ --- ~ +-- .......= - - - - ------ - -- - G 1=/ ~z --- --- --- n - - --- I I I I I I I I I I I I - G> e - I/) W L +-- --- --- +-- f=/ --- I I I I I I 6-5 --- >- ; ,'1:8 i E III >- 01 ,OL ~ 'C 01 o ~ III I:: o :;: '6 I:: o U OJ I:: :;: '" >< W ..... ::;:}:::;:;;: 111'iillijiii'11il I:: o :;: 01 .E' - :E 'C GI '" o Co o "- II.. Mt .;:;;;;{}~tf;:::)::;:H II lIJ@{#}{::: ::::{{jf/If};:} ::;;t::::. ::~::::::~: j:}::::??'\j::r:':;:: {IIJf{Iit~[{r~{)t ,:,:,:,:,,,,:;:::,::(::::::,;,:,::';':':'::':-:'" I~ Ii ~ ~ ...;I g. .,.. ~ ~ ... ::J "" ::J - ~ "" ~ ~- ;: --= """'~- 0::: rJj t~ =~= --:':: ......... cz::g..... '" .~ .... - ~ City of Chula Vista jiHim@@mimMHif@ltmlEHmHntMi&:m~&0=ffik~fWJ%1:1tiitill_;~%'*2M&f&mita;'5.f$.$iMr&mim~t1ftftttltitlW@@iiftlm~iiJlml1ili!1-~t3 <> ;0 .... ." <> <> ;" ... ... t- .... .... .... .... .... Proposed Curbline with Current a .,"'.> V~.Do; . ~ j ~ " C .. ...:i " ..:0: = ...... N 1 l i Widen Roadwa 10' to Provide Mitigation 34' '0( ~ 12' 10' ~ LU '0( 12' 78' 54' 12' ~ r- 10' Install Traffic 22' t Signal ~ O' lagoon Drive F Street Proposed Curbline with Current 1 I i r City of Chula Vista Design 1:1' ;;: no 'E t- 01 '" > = Widen Roadwa ~ no ~ 10' to Provide 0 .... ".! Mitigation aI .... .... .... .... >- ~ ~ ~ c:: c:: '" '" .... aI ~ c:: ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX PHASE II . Traffic Impact Anal)'sis . ..-.-..-.---..,-",......-. '......_- -.-..-........-.-:--,-:;,..;.;.:.;.:-;.""",:::,'::,':.;.:.;,:.,',-,',::"-;:,.;,,.;:....,..... ...........,-................. ........-.........._.... :'::::::':::'::'::;';-;':';';';':':.:.:::::::':::':.:.:';".;.".;.:::':::',::;,:,.;.:.:::::::,,::,,::,,:::,:,:':':;'"':::::::':::'::.:::::.':""".'...':'.";'::;':'::':':';:::::';::';::""":':".:'::::::',::';',',':":':.:';.::::':':""":':"':':.:':::":';':':'::;:"::::::';::.>:::::;':"'::,:,:::,:.::,~:,:;:::'_._'. illll';llrllli'JI~11111 ....bRIVEP1{(jPO$EDMITIGATIOillf)................. ...............fiI.... ...,.....-,..-.-.-.--...-...-.-.--.- '.-._,. .-.-.-,-.-,-....-.-.-'-.-.-.-.-...... ....-., .:,:-,.,-,-:-,-:-,-,.:-:.:.:,:.:,:,:, :.;-':. '-'-'-'.:.:.:.:.:-:,;.:.:.:.:.:.,::,: :':':.:' :':"':"::';';'::':"":"':""::': :':c'::' ,-,.:.,,:.,.:...:.:.:':.:.:.:.:..::-. -.:.:':'. ..............-.......-.-.-.-.....- -...-. ,:::,,::;::::,:::,:::,:,:::,,::,,:,:: ,::';:,: ...................................................................................i 6-6 Table 6-1 YEAR 1997 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH MITIGATION Level of Service Without Mitigation With Mitigation AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Ilmu: Ilmu: Ilmu: Ilmu: "E" StII-5 SB RamplBay Blvd C F C D "E" StII-5 NB Ramps C E D D "E" St/Broadway C E C D "F' St/Bay Blvd/Lagoon Dr F F D D 6-7 Table 6-2 PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO 1997 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC AT INTERSECTIONS WITH MITIGATION PROPOSED Project 1997 Increase in Contribution Existing Traffic Traffic to Increase in (1991) With 1991 to Project Traffic, 1991 Intersection Traffic Proiect .l.2..2.1 Traffic to 1997 "E" St/I-5 SB RamplBay Blvd 1805 2610 805 314 39% "E" St/I-5 NB Ramps 2931 3846 915 297 32% "E" St/Broadway 3781 4328 547 37 7% "F' St/Bay Blvd/Lagoon Dr 1350 2248 898 398 44% 6-8 It should be noted that the project contributes only a minor portion of traffic to the "E" Street/Broadway intersection. However, some improvements will be needed at this intersection in order to maintain Level of Service D operations at the full development of the project site. Therefore, it is recommended that this intersection be improved when necessary by the City and that the City and the site owner come to an agreement as to the share of cost of the proposed improvements which should be contributed as project mitigation. STREET SEGMENT MITIGATION In Chapter 5, an analysis was conducted of street segment traffic conditions. This analysis was based on adopted General Plan Buildout conditions plus project traffic. Street segments were identified where improvements to the existing roadway would be required to meet the City's standards for Average Daily Traffic levels. Based on this analysis the following roadway improvements were indicated: . Improvement of Bay Boulevard from "E" Street to "F" Street to a Class II Collector. . Improvement of"E" Street, from 1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue to a Four Lane Major Street. . Improvement of"E" Street, from Woodlawn Avenue to Broadway to a Four Lane Major Street. . Improvement of"H" Street, between 1-5 and Woodlawn Avenue to a Four Lane Major Street. None of the above improvements are considered necessary to avoid a significant traffic impact caused by the project. Rather, it is recommended that the street segments listed above be monitored by the City and that improvements be made as necessary. The City may wish to require a fee from the owner of the site to help offset the cost of street segment improvements. However, it should be noted that in the case of the "E" Street and "H" Street improvements, the project contribution is very small (I %). In the case of the Bay Boulevard improvement, the effective cross-section of a Class II collector street could be achieved by removal of parking with no widening required and very little cost involved. Therefore, it may be considered more desirable for the City and the owner of the site to consider the Bay Boulevard improvement as a low-cost improvement which will be entirely the responsibility of the City. 6-9 ~/. .'. f~" -"" -,' "h.:!O Fri;w.; I{odd RICK ENCIN1<:E[{INC COrv!P/\NY S:III j)i,'!,,, Cdilol"Jli:\ lJ21)(1.2.':;l)f> i(,Il)1 291 ()7l1! FAX: (bill) 2lJ 1.416:'1 February 20, 1992 Ms. Diana Guass Richardson c/o City of Chula vista 263 Fig Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Dear Diana: As discussed in our meeting yesterday afternoon, the purpose of this letter is to clarify Rick Engineering Company's "Drainage Study for Rohr Corporate Facility" dated May 14, 1990. The purpose of this report was to provide a feasibility study for storm drainage for the Rohr Building #1 site (15.5 acre site). To determine a feasible method to drain the Building #1 site, we had to analyze the surrounding drainage basins. The 15.5 acre Building #1 site and the "RISI Parcel" (southwest corner of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard) were considered as one basin in the analysis. The Bay Boulevard Parcels east of the 15.5 acre site and south of the "RISI Parcel", as well as a portion of Rohr property south of the 15.5 acre site were analyzed as a second basin (the "G" Street system). These two basins were delineated on the exhibits included in the referenced study. It is important to note here that the 35 acre "F-G Street" LCP Amendment Area includes the 15.5 acre Building #1 site as well as approximately 20 acres of the "G" Street basin analyzed in the study. We can infer from the study (Page 5 and Appendices A and B) that the "F-G Street" LCP Amendment Area has adequate drainage facilities. Finally, because runoff from the "RISI Parcel", Lagoon Drive, and the 15.5 acre Building #1 site is detained, the remainder of the "F-G Street" LCP Amendment Area has capacity to drain to the "G" Street pipe system. I hope this explanation is helpful in relating the study to this specific area. Sincerely, RI~K,ENGINEERING COMPANY v~\~ d 4jJft, John D. Goddard, Jr. Ms. Diana Guass f ;hardson February 20, 1992 Page 2 cc: Al deBerardinis - Starboard Development Pam Buchan - City of ChuIa vista DRAINAGE STUDY FOR ROHR'S CORPORATE FACILITY Prepared for: Rohr Industries Job NUmber 11325 May 14, 1990 '>.)~1 '- --~-~---------.. (\~< ~ . Dennis C. Bowl' ~ M.S. RCE 32838; Expir ~~/94 Prepared By: RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 (619) 291-0707 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . 1 Figure 1: Vicinity Map 2 Hydrologic Criteria and Methodology Explanation of the Rational Method 3 4 Hydrologic Results . . . . . . . . 5 APPENDICES A. Rational Method Computer Output 100-year Storm Event B. Pressure Analysis 100-year Storm Event System 200 without proposed site "'" MAP POCKETS 1. Alternative I 2. Alternative II 3. Rational Method Drainage Map f: Ii.._ INTRODUCTION This report presents a feasibility study for the drainage of Rohr Industries' proposed corporate building wi thin Chula vista's Mid-Bay Front area. The project site is located south of F street, west of Bay Boulevard, north of existing Rohr facilities, and east of the San Diego Bay in the City of Chula Vista (see Figure 1). Currently, the site is flat with approximately 75% vegetative cover consisting of annual grasses. Runoff from the site flows overland to a swale north of Building 61 located within the existing Rohr facilities. Runoff then flows west to a salt marsh at the project's western boundary. ."./. Proposed conditions will consist of a corporate building and a parking lot on the 15. 5-acre site. Drainage of the site is a major concern, due to the nearby salt marsh. Two alternatives have been proposed to drain the site. The first alternative requires discharging runoff from the proposed site to the existing 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain system. This system is located along G street between Bay Boulevard and Marina Parkway. A portion of the the runoff currently flowing in this system will be re-routed to an 84-inch RCP storm drain system. This 84-inch system is located within the Rohr property, south of H street (see Map Pocket 1). IF" i: The second alternative requires on-site detention of the lOO-year discharge from the proposed project. This detention facility will decrease the proposed lOO-year discharge within the 42-inch RCP storm drain system along G street to levels at or below current conditions (see Map Pocket 2). i..; 1 HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY Desiqn storm: Land Use: Soil Type: Runoff Coefficients: 'n," Rainfall Intensity: r , L IDO-year storm event. Industrial development. soil types used for this analysis were determined to be hydrologic soil group "D" as outlined in the Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey for San Dieqo County. The runoff coefficients or "c" values used in this study were based on criteria presented in the City of Chula Vista Drainage Design Manual. A coefficient of 0.9 was used for the analysis. The rainfall intensity used in this analysis was based on the criteria presented in the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Drainage Design Manuals. 3 EXPLANATION OF THE RATIONAL METHOD COMPUTER PROGRAM Hydrology for this study uses a computerized version of the Rational Method. The computerized Rational Method Program is a computer-aided design program where the user develops a node-link model of the watershed. This program can estimate conduit sizes needed to accommodate design storm discharges. The node-link model is developed by creating independent node- link models of individual interior watersheds and linking them together at various confluence points. The program allows up to five streams to confluence at anyone time. Stream entries for the confluence must be made sequentially until all streams are entered. The program has the capability of performing calculations for eight hydrologic processes. These processes are assigned code numbers which appear in the printed results. The code numbers and their meanings are as follows: CODE 1 : CODE 2 : CODE 3 : CODE 4 : CODE 5: CODE 6: CODE 7 : CODE 8: , , L Confluence analysis at a node Initial sub-area analysis Pipeflow travel time (computer estimated pipe size) Pipeflow travel time (user specifies pipe size) Trapezoidal channel travel time street flow analysis through a sub-area User specified information at a node Addition of sub-area runoff to mainline 4 HYDROLOGIC RESULTS The existing 84-inch RCP storm drain system along H street (Alternative I) will not have sufficient capacity to convey any increased runoff caused by diversion as described above. A proposed system from G street to the 84-inch RCP would function under pressure and cause flooding within the Rohr property. The only feasible way to drain the site is through the existing storm drain system along G street (Alternative II). This storm drain system operates under pressure for the lOa-year storm. In order to drain the proposed site, an on-site detention basin is required to attenuate the lOa-year peak discharge and maintain adequate capacity within the existing G Street system. ,~iJ'! The lOa-year hydraulic grade line (HGL) was calculated for this system under current conditions. The analysis indicates the system is in pressure flow with the HGL below the existing ground surface. By maintaining the water surface elevation in the detention basin equal to or below the HGL in the 42-inch RCP, the proposed site can be drained to the existing system without flooding the existing Rohr property. The rational method computer output is located in Appendix A and the pressure analysis is located in Appendix B. The Rational Method Drainage Map is located in Map Pocket 3. ;" The results of a preliminary detention analysis indicated that the storage volume required for the on-site basin was approximately 2 acre-feet. This basin will detain runoff entering the salt marsh during a IDa-year storm event keeping flows at current levels. ! , ,- 5 The storm drain system within the project site consists of a series of inlets and pipes which convey all the water from roof drains and parking areas to the proposed detention pond. This pond is located between the proposed building and the salt marsh. Before discharging into the pond, the water is filtered through a cleansing system consisting of a triple box with baffles. This system will trap suspended grease and heavy metal particles. The cleansing system will require annual maintenance each October. Maintenance will consist of mechanically draining the basin. Winter flows will be conveyed out of the detention area by an la-inch RCP and discharged into the existing G street storm drain system. The existing system will then discharge runoff into the salt marsh. !,j;: Dry weather flows will be retained within the basin by the use of a stop gate. This stop gate will be placed within the la-inch RCP headwall at the southern end of the basin in May and removed in October as part of the maintenance program for the site. This mechanism will prevent dry weather flows from entering the salt marsh. All flows that are retained will be reduced by evaporation and percolation. Historical data for eighty years of record indicate a mean total monthly precipitation for this area of San Diego of less than one-half of an inch per month. The low precipitation and warmer temperatures during these months will provide a sufficient evaporation rate to prevent a wetland area from forming in this pond. 6 SEWER STUDY FOR "F" AND "GH STREETS MASTER PLAN AND LCP AMENDMENT - "G" STREET BASIN PREPARED FOR: ROHR INDUSTRIES Job Number 11679 December 4, 1991 I I L_ Prepared By: SAN RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 562D FRIARS ROAD DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110-2596 (619) 291-0707 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PEAKING FACTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CRITERIA FOR VERIFYING ADEQUACY OF EXISTING GRAVITY SYSTEM.......3 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS CALCULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 SEWAGE FLOW CALCULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 _ 6 ,~ APPENDICES A. ADS METERED SEWER FLOW AND CALCULATION OF AVERAGE DAILY FLOW. B. CVDS 18 C. CITY OF SAN DIEGO SEWAGE DESIGN MANUAL (FIGURE 2) GENERATION RATES. D. NORMAL DEPTH AND VELOCITY FOR CIRCULAR PIPES CALCULATIONS. MAP POCKETS 1. WEST AND PORTION OF EAST BASIN SEWER STUDY MAP. 2. PORTION OF EAST BASIN SEWER STUDY MAP. ~ ...~ INTRODUCTION THIS REPORT PRESENTS A STUDY OF THE IMPACT TO THE EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM IN BAY BOULEVARD AND "G" STREET BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES BOUNDED BY LAGOON DRIVE, BAY BOULEVARD, "G" STREET AND THE "F"j"G" STREETS MARSH. ROHR INDUSTRIES ARE PROPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT AS "F" AND "G" STREETS MASTER PLAN AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT APPROVED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (L.C.P.) AS AMENDED APRIL 1989. THE SEWAGE BASIN CONSISTS OF TWO MAJOR SUB-BASINS THAT CONFLUENCE AT A METERING FACILITY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF "GO! STREET AND THE SD&AE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT. THE AFFLUENT FROM THE METERING FACILITY IS DISCHARGED INTO A 78" RCP METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT INTERCEPTOR SEWER. ONE BASIN (WEST BASIN) LIES WEST OF THE SD&AE RAILROAD IN THE CHULA VISTA BAY FRONT (MAP POCKET 1). THIS BASIN FLOWS TO A PUMP STATION IN "G" STREET APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET WEST OF THE METERING FACILITY. THE PUMP STATION AFFLUENT IS PUMPED EASTERLY UP "GO! STREET TO MANHOLE CONFLUENCE WITH THE SECOND BASIN PRIOR TO ENTERING THE METERING FACILITY. THE SECOND BASIN (EAST BASIN) LIES EAST OF THE SD&AE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (MAP POCKETS 1 AND 2). THIS BASIN GRAVITY FLOWS TO THE MANHOLE CONFLUENCE UPSTREAM OF THE METERING FACILITY. i. r f I t- Loi 1 - ANALYSIS PROCEDURE THEORETICAL AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS (ADF) WERE DETERMINED FOR THE WEST AND EAST BASINS AND SUB-BASINS, WITH ONE WEST SUB-BASIN METERED FLOW PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. THESE FLOW RATES WERE COMPARED TO AND ADJUSTED (ONLY EXISTING THEORETICAL FLOWS WERE ADJUSTED) BY A WEIGHTED ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, TO EQUAL METERED ADF THROUGH THE SEWER METERING FACILITY. THE METERED ADF IS CALCULATED IN APPENDIX "A", FROM DATA SUPPLIED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. A PEAKING FACTOR WAS THEN APPLIED TO THE ADJUSTED ADF TO DETERMINE IF THE EXISTING GRAVITY SYSTEMS IN BAY BOULEVARD AND "G" STREET MEET CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGN CRITERIA. RESULTS PEAK FLOW NORMAL DEPTH CALCULATIONS INDICATE THAT THE EXISTING GRAVITY SYSTEMS, LINES A, B, D, F, AND G, HAVE CAPACITY. PEAK FLOW VELOCITY CALCULATIONS INDICATE THAT THE EASTERN PORTION OF LINE A, AND LINE C, F AND G HAVE VELOCITIES WITHIN ALLOWABLE PARAMETERS. CALCULATIONS INDICATE THAT THE WESTERN PORTION OF LINE A AND LINED HAVE VELOCITIES LESS THAN THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE OF 2 FEET PER SECOND. ,- 2 PEAKING FACTORS THE PEAKING FACTORS USED IN THIS STUDY RELATE PEAK FLOW TO AVERAGE FLOW AND VARIES BASED ON THE POPULATION SERVED: REFERENCE TO C.V.D.S. 18 (APPENDIX B). CRITERIA FOR VERIFYING ADEQUACY OF EXISTING GRAVITY SYSTEM THE FOLLOWING DESIGN CRITERIA WAS USED TO ANALYZE THE EXISTING SYSTEMS. A) THE ALLOWABLE DEPTH OF FLOW TO DIAMETER (D/d) RATIOS FOR PEAK FLOWS WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: PIPE SIZE ALLOWABLE Did 12 INCHES AND LESS GREATER THAN 12 INCHES .50 .75 B) "n" FACTORS FOR VITRIFIED CLAY PIPES: PIPE SIZE IIntl < 21" .013 ::0: 21" .012 C) THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOW VELOCITY = 2 FEET/SECOND. MINIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOW VELOCITY = 12 FEET/SECOND. THE , . D) SEWAGE GENERATION RATE = 80 GAL/POP/DAY E) LAND USE DENSITIES WERE TAKEN FROM THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBDIVISION MANUAL AND THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO SEWER DESIGN MANUAL, FIGURE 2, (APPENDIX C). r L 3 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS CALCULATIONS ADF FOR METERING FACILITY (APPENDIX A) = 2.285 MGD 2.285 MGD = 3.535 CFS TAKE PEAK DESIGN FLOWS AND DIVIDE BY PEAK/AVG RATIO TO GET ADF LINE "B" (PG 5) .36 PEAK FACTOR = .15 CFS LINE liE" (PG 6) 9.57 PEAK FACTOR = 6.55 CFS LINE "A" (PG 5) .44 PEAK FACTOR .19 CFS (NOT TO BE ADJUSTED) 6.89 CFS LINE "A" + ADJUSTED LINE "E" AND "B" SHOULD EQUAL METERED ADF ADJUST THE TWO LINES ("E" & "B") ACCORDINGLY 6.89 - 3.54 = 3.35 CFS (DIFFERENCE) WEIGHTED ADJUSTMENT FACTORS: .15/(.15+6.55) = .0224 (3.35) = .075 (LINE B) 6.55/(.15+6.55) = .9776 (3.35) = 3.275 (LINE E) NEW ADJUSTED VALVES ARE LINE "B" = .15 - .075 = .075 CFS LINE "E" = 6.55 - 3.275 = 3.275 MULTIPLY BY NEW PEAK FACTOR FOR PEAK DESIGN LINE 2 FLOW (PDF) . ~ LINE "8" PDF = .075 (2.66) = 2D CFS (SEE PG 5) LINE "E" PDF = 3.275 (1.60) = 5.24 CFS (SEE PG 6) CHECK .19 + 0.75 + 3.275 = 3.54 CFS ~ ADF 3.535 CFS :~ -- 4 MIEMO~A!NIIDiUJM FROM: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION MARTIN MILLER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~ MARCH 25, 1991 ~ PCS-91-01 - RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SALT CREEK I CONDOMINIUMS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 25, 1992 TO: DATE: SUBJ: Staff recommends the following conditions be added to the conditions of approval for PCS-91-01. These conditions should appear as items 27 and 28 under Section B, Recommendation: 27. Automatic garage door openers shall be installed in all units, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 28. Address numbers shall be placed on both the front and garage sides of each unit to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.