HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/08/28 (2)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: SUPS-95-02 - Request to construct and operate a
municipal waste trash transfer station and material recovery facility at 187
Mace Street - Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc.
Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc., (formerly Sky Trucking) (Applicant) is requesting approval
of a Special Land Use Permit, SUPS-95-02, to construct and operate a trash transfer station and
material recovery facility at 187 Mace Street in the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) Zone
on approximately 4.7 acres of land (see Exhibit 1). The proposal includes the construction of
a new 63,000 square foot, 30 foot high building. The gross floor area, including existing
buildings will be 75,000 square feet.
An Initial Study, IS-95-14, was completed on this project which resulted in a mitigated negative
declaration. (Attachment 1)
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution SUPS-
95-02 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency deny the application to construct and
operate a trash transfer station at 187 Mace Street. (Attachment 2)
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Under normal circumstances, the Project
would be heard by the Southwest Project Area Committee (PAC) instead of the Planning
Commission. Due to the fact that the PAC does not currently have enough sitting members to
form a quorum, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan makes allowance for projects to be
considered by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency.
1. On July 18, 1996, a public forum was held for the area property owners and business
and residential tenants. The results of this public forum are included in the Discussion
section of this report.
2. At its August 16, 1996 meeting, the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee and
the Citizen's Advisory Committee met and heard presentations on this Project. The
Policy Committee voted 3 to 0 and the Citizen's Advisory Committee voted 16 to 2 to
support staff's recommendation for denial of the Project.
3. On August 26, 1996, the Resource Conservation Commission will consider the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for IS-95-14. A verbal report will be given to the Planning
Commission at the public hearing.
ISSUES:
. Consistency of the Project with the provisions of the Montgomery Specific Plan, the
Southwest Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Page #2, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
. Impact of a municipal solid waste plant and trash truck traffic on the character of the
Montgomery Community.
. Compatibility of the Project with surrounding limited industrial land uses and residential
areas.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics/Existing Uses: At present, the site is being utilized as a semi-
tractor/trailer storage facility, a use existing at this location at the time of annexation of
the Montgomery Community into Chula Vista. A 9,800 square foot warehouse structure
and a 2,400 square foot office building currently stand on the site. Along the eastern
boundary a drainage way has been partially filled in which must be rehabilitated and
brought up to its original capacity and flow.
There are also compelling indications that unlawful (non-permitted) trash accumulation
and transfer activities are currently being conducted at the site. The facility has been
cited by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for allowing about 75 cubic yards of
municipal waste to accumulate on-site in violation of County health codes and State law.
Please note, however, that staff is not recommending denial of this permit request due
to such unlawful actions as this is generally not considered an appropriate reason for
denial. This matter is being mentioned in order to describe the current activities taking
place on the site.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use:
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
R&LI
R&LI
R&LI
R&LI
R&LI
Zoning
IL-P
IL-P
IL-P
IL-P
IL-P
Current Land Use
Truck terminal/trash transfer station
RV parking & industrial storage
Steel, welding, used machinery/indust. storage
Mini storage
Industrial business park
The subject parcel located approximately 800 feet south of Main Street on the east side
of Mace Street and is 4.69 acres in size (see Exhibit 1, Locator Map). There are two
parcels to the south. On the westerly southern parcel, Otay Metal Mart operates a heavy
industrial business where used machinery is sold, steel is fabricated and welding
operations take place. The easterly southern parcel contains a residential unit, but also
appears to be used as a contractor's storage yard.
To the south of these two parcels lies the Otay River Valley, which is designated as Open
Space on the Chula Vista General Plan and as Parks & Open Space in the Montgomery
Specific Plan. Located in the City of San Diego, this area of the Otay River is part of
the proposed Otay River Valley Regional Park, which is a significant feature and plays
Page #3, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
an important role in the future development of the entire southern portion of the City of
Chula Vista.
To the immediate east is a mini storage facility. Approximately 650 feet to the east of
the Project site is the Date Street residential area. To the northeast lies land apparently
used for agricultural purposes as well as several houses which front on Main Street.
The area to the west is occupied by an industrial business park containing various
industrial land uses. To the southwest at the terminus of Mace Street is a temporary
industrial storage facility which was approved through a special use permit (SUPS-96-
05).
3. Proposal: Applicant is proposing to construct and operate a trash transfer station and
materials recovery facility, an Unclassified Use. The use, described in the Operational
Profile (Exhibit 2), will accept municipal waste, sort that waste, recycle those items
which are recyclable, and transport the remaining unrecyclable waste to a landfill. This
work will be done in an enclosed, approximately 60,000 square foot structure.
Approximately 1,000 tons of municipal solid waste is expected to pass through the
facility on a daily basis when operating at maximum capacity. The operation will
initially begin with 500 tons per day. All waste brought into the facility is proposed to
be shipped out the same day.
According to information supplied by the Applicant, the trash transfer station will
generate approximately 300 trips per day by all traffic arriving at and departing from the
facility. Some of the vehicles will be the neighborhood type trash trucks with 8 to 10
ton payloads, while others will be the larger semi-tractor/trailer type trucks with 24 ton
payload capacities. Trash will be cross-loaded from the smaller trucks to the larger
trucks which will then move the trash to landfills outside the region. Exhibit 3 explains
the traffic figures and how they relate with the facilities planned maximum capacity.
4. Analvsis: Staff is recommending denial of this project because it is our opinion that 1)
it is inconsistent with the stated goals, policies and advisory statements of several plans;
and 2) it will have a negative impact on the general welfare of the community,
surrounding land uses and the character of the neighborhood. This is best conveyed
through the required findings:
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
It is staff's opinion that this finding can not be made because the proposed use is not
necessary nor is it desirable. With the existence of a regional land fill and the recent
approval of a similar facility on Maxwell Road, this facility is not necessary. Enough
facilities exist or will exist in more appropriate locations so as to adequately serve the
Page #4, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
community. Also, the proposed use will not contribute tot he general welfare of the
community. The use would place a heavy industrial use in an area planned and zoned
for limited industrial land uses and close to existing residences.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
It is staff's opinion that, if approved, the existence of this facility would be detrimental
to the general welfare of the community. The main reason for this is that staff believes
the proposed use will have a negative impact on the character of the community gi ven
its proximity to residential areas and paths of travel. The Date Street residential area is
approximately 650 feet to the east of the site and other non-conforming residential units
exist in the general vicinity which are closer than Date Street. Trash trucks coming to
and going from the facility would have to travel along Main Street to either 1-5 or 1-805,
thus bring an undesirable type of vehicle into the very heart of the Montgomery
Community, a type of traffic not currently present in large numbers except for normal
trash pickup.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
As described later in this report, the proposed use is an Unclassified Use subject to the
provisions of Chapter 19.54 of the Zoning Ordinance. As such, there are no specific
regulations or conditions outlined for this use which are applicable. Such regulations and
conditions would need to be imposed in a conditional use permit. While the proposed
Project may be able to comply with the City's general "performance standards" relating
to "Dumps," it is staff's opinion that such compliance would not be an adequate basis
for approving the project in light of the other factors discussed in the report.
4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
Applicable Documents: The City's General Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance, The
Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan
General Plan: The Montgomery Specific Plan acts as the general plan for the
Montgomery Community.
"The Montgomery Specific Plan shall constitute an integral component of the
Chula Vista General Plan, and shall be official land use policy of the City. Its
text, graphics, and elements shall be regarded as the comprehensive plan for the
Page #5, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
development, redevelopment, and conservation of the Montgomery Community."
(Part 2, Page 11, Section D.l)
"The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the constitution of City planning within
Montgomery, and shall govern all zoning plans, public works plans, subdivision
plans, transportation plans, development proposals, and capital improvement
programs affecting the community." (Part 2, Page 11, Section D.2)
Zoninf! Ordinance: For lack of another category, the municipal solid waste facility is
being processed as a "Dump," (as listed in Code gI9.54.020.G) which is considered an
"Unclassified Use" that can be considered for location in any zone, subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit. This is the same categorization and process which
was used in the case of the Maxwell Road facility, which is located in an I (General
Industrial) Zone.
An Unclassified Use is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and special
form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as
set forth in the various zones" (gI9.54.01O.A). The purpose of the conditional use
permit review is to "determine that the characteristics of such use shall not be
incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas..." (gI9.54.010.B).
The reason the trash transfer stations is considered incompatible at this location is more
fully explained later on in this report. Briefly, a trash transfer station is considered to be
incompatible not only with the permitted uses in the surrounding area, which are light
or limited industrial and residential land uses, but also with the character of the
Montgomery Community as a whole.
Under different circumstances, this proposal may be appropriate, even in an IL Zone.
For example, if the site were more remote from residential areas, on the periphery of the
IL Zone, not in the heart of the Montgomery Community, and associated with other
similar unclassified land uses, such as the Otay Landfill, an application for a conditional
use permit for a municipal solid waste transfer station may be approved, as was done in
the case of the Maxwell Road site. By contrast to this proposed Project, the Maxwell
Road site is:
. about 1,500 feet, separated by hilly terrain, and located downwind from the
nearest residential area;
. located on the same road as is used by all traffic going to and coming from the
Otay Landfill;
. in the I (General Industrial) Zone and is in the Otay Valley Redevelopment Area;
and
. not in the Montgomery Community.
Page #6, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
The fundamental issue in this section has been to stress that although the proposed use,
as a municipal waste trash transfer station, could be found to be compatible in an I-L
Zone given the correct circumstances, it is staff's opinion that it is incompatible at the
proposed location due primarily to the stated goals, objectives and implementing
programs found in the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Southwest Redevelopment
Plan.
The Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan are applicable to
the future development of the Montgomery Community/Southwest Redevelopment Area,
and both have stated goals that are to guide that development. Based on these goals,
staff has concluded that the proposed Project is not compatible with the future
development pattern of the area.
Montl!omerv Svecific Plan: The Specific Plan identifies this area as "Research & Limited
Industrial." Based on the following goals, policies and guidelines, staff has concluded
that the Project is not desirable at the proposed location and is actually incompatible with
the desired development patterns laid out in the Specific Plan:
.
"II.
SUMMARY
A. Goals
15. Promotion of planned light industrial development within
the Main Street Corridor." (Part 2, page 13)
.
"2.
Land Use and Land Occupancv
A review of the Montgomery Survey indicates that the land use and land
occupancy characteristics of Montgomery could be improved through the
implementation of the following proposals:
g. Notwithstanding the Specific Plans's proposal that Montgomery
remain an industrial center, it is essential that the existing
wrecking yards, junk yards, open storage areas, salvage
operations, batching plants and other marginal or heavy industrial
uses be, to a substantial extent, gradually phased out, or
discontinued." (Planning and Design Proposal E.2.g on page 16)
. "Otay Town is characterized by its pattern of mixed commercial, industrial and
residential land uses. This land use pattern which lacks order, and amenity,
needs substantial improvement. Implementation of the following proposals would
significantly improve Otay Town's land use patterns, spacial relations, and
aesthetic quality.
Page #7, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
1) Heavy industrial and open storage uses should be gradually phased out,
and "clean" manufacturing, scientific, and technological industries should
be encouraged to replace them.
2) The Main Street Area, as delineated on the plan diagram, should be
reserved as a corridor of research and limited industrial uses." (Part 2,
Page 29)
. The proposed Otay River Valley Regional Park is very near the subject parcel.
In recognition of the importance of this park, Goal 17 in Part 2 of the
Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the:
"Encouragement and establishment of an "Otay River Valley Regional
Park."
The site is within the Focussed Planning Area (FPA) of the Otay Valley Regional
Park, but not within the boundaries of the Regional Park itself. Since the
southernmost property line is less than 250 feet from the Park, approval of the
project would limit the options in buffering. This would work against Goal 6 on
page 3 of Part 2 of the Specific Plan which calls for the:
"Creation of physical buffers which ameliorate the adverse effects of
changing land uses along interfaces."
It is staff's position that allowing a trash transfer station in close proximity to the
Regional Park goes against the stated goals of the Montgomery Specific Plan and
good planning practices.
Southwest Redevelovment Plan: The Southwest Redevelopment Plan was created after the
Montgomery Specific Plan. As stated in the Five Year Implementation Plan - Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area:
"The [Southwest Redevelopment] Project area was created in order to 1) eliminate
conditions of blight which negatively impact industrial and commercial
development and 2) to implement the Montgomery Specific Plan." (Page 1,
Section B, Background)
Repeated in the body of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan from the Montgomery
Specific Plan is the following redevelopment plan goal:
"Promotion of planned light industrial development within the Main Street
Corridor." (Compare to Goal 15 in Part 2, page 13 from the Montgomery
Specific Plan, cited earlier in this report.)
Page #8, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
Besides the above, there are a number of "redevelopment actions" to be undertaken in
the Southwest Redevelopment Area. As outlined on page 4:
"The [Redevelopment] Agency proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of
blighting influences, and to strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and
the community through:
"6. The development or redevelopment of land by private enterprises
or public agencies for purposes and uses consistent with the
objectives of this Redevelopment Plan.
Since the Redevelopment Plan is intended to implement the Montgomery Specific Plan,
the proposed land use is also considered by staff to be inconsistent with this document
and therefore an incompatible use.
Section VI.G.8(617), page 19, of the Redevelopment Plan precludes incompatible uses:
"Incomoatible Uses
No use or structure which is by reason of appearance, traffic, smoke, glare,
noise, odor, or similar factors incompatible with the surrounding areas or
structures shall be permitted in any part of the Project Area, except as permitted
by the governing bodies of the City."
The Location: The site on Mace Street is located approximately 650 feet south of Main
Street, within 650 feet of the Date Street residential area and approximately 1,100 feet
from Otay Elementary School. This is considered to be in the heart of the Montgomery
Community/Southwest Redevelopment Area. As such, the proposal to have trash trucks
and semi-tractor/trailers loaded with municipal waste moving along Main Street from 1-5,
1-805 and other primary connectors to Mace Street would be to transport waste into and
through an area of the City which does not presently accommodate such activity, an area
which the City is attempting to upgrade. Introducing this type of traffic is inconsistent
with the type of traffic normally associated with light/limited industrial uses.
Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding land uses were described earlier in this
report. It is acknowledged that several are heavy industrial uses, but these uses have
been in operation since before annexation of the Montgomery area and are considered
to be pre-existing, non-conforming land uses, which will eventually be phased out. The
existing light industrial land uses are conforming.
One of the primary factors arguing for denial of the application is the relative proximity
of residential land uses approximately 650 feet to the east of the project site. This is a
criteria which was used when the City studied various sites when it was considering a
similar facility. Because several of the sites were less than 1,000 feet from residentially
Page #9, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
zoned areas, they were automatically rejected from further consideration. This is
explained in Section 6 of this report, below, titled "Similar Facilities" in the subsection
titled "Criteria Used to In Choosing I 855 Maxwell Road. "
5. Responses to the Notice of Public Hearing:: To date several letters and one petition of
opposition have been received by the Planning Department. The letters are from various
property owners on Mace Street or the residential area around Date Street. The petition
contains 26 signatures from residents who live in the Date Street area. The letters and
petition are attached as Exhibit 4.
In addition to the written responses, at its meeting of August 14, 1996, the Planning
Commission opened the public hearing on this Project and took testimony from those
present on the basis they may not be able to attend the August 28, 1996 hearing. The
draft extract minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit 5.
6. Similar Facilities: Over the last two years, the City has studied various locations with the
purpose in mind to site a materials recovery facility/trash transfer station within the
corporate limits. Initially, fourteen sites were considered, but for various reasons all but
three were rejected. Ultimately, the study resulted in the conditional approval on March
19, 1996 of a special use permit, SUPO-96-0l (see Exhibit 6), for the Maxwell Road site
located just north of Otay Valley Road. This project has since been taken over by
Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Service and City involvement is limited to its regulatory
responsibilities and not as an actual operator of the facility.
As opposed to the Mace Street proposal, the project on Maxwell Road is in an area that
is zoned General Industrial, on the same route as trash trucks currently take to the Otay
Landfill, is about 1,500 feet and downwind from the nearest residential area and is
seperated from that residential area by terrain. These factors, among others, combined
in an acceptable project, at an appropriate location, with few impacts to traffic or
surrounding land uses. The proposal on Mace Street does not meet any of these criteria.
Another transfer station currently operates at 3660 Dalbergia Street in Barrio Logan, San
Diego just north of National City and south of the 1-5/1-15 junction. The operator, EDCO
Disposal Corporation, had applied to the City of San Diego in September 1994 to
reactivate and significantly enlarge a closed waste transfer station. Last November 15,
1995, the San Diego City Council denied the request. The denial was based on that City
Council's desire not to amend their Nondisposal Facility Element and because of appeals
brought by area residents (Protecting Our Barrio) and a concerned group (Backcountry
Against Dumps), which the City Council supported.
Criteria Used to In Choosing I855 Maxwell Road: In the staff report to Council for the
October 4, 1994 meeting, the criteria used in evaluating the sites was described (see
Exhibit 7 for a copy of this staff report).
Page #10, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
7. Public Forum: On July 18, 1996 a public forum was held. Approximately 18 people were
present. Seven of those present were area residents or property owners and all were
opposed to the project.
After a brief introduction by City staff and the Applicant, those having an interest in the
project brought up the following issues of concern:
. Traffic
.. What will be the amounts and types of vehicles?
.. Will the speed limit remain the same if the use is approved?
.. Is there the possibility of street damage from heavier trucks?
Responses:
Exhibit 3 addresses the first question.
Staff: The speed limit on Mace Street is currently 25 MPH. This will
remam.
Traffic Study: The streets in the vicinity of the project are structurally
capable of carrying the proposed types of trucks.
. Odor
.. How will odor be controlled?
Response:
Applicant: If approved, the facility will be outfitted with reverse air flow
machinery and a misting system that will "eat" odors.
. Noise
.. Will there be excess noise generated by the land use or associated truck
traffic?
Response:
Applicant: No more than there is at present.
. Water Availability
.. The current water line is inadequate for the proposed use. Will the
applicant be upgrading the water line if the use is approved?
Response:
Staff: If the project is approved, the applicant will be required to install
a water tank on the project site to make up for the inadequacy of the water
line.
Page #11, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 08/28/96
. The negative image of the neighborhood that will continue to be perpetuated if a
trash transfer station is approved.
Response:
Staff: Image is an important concern and is implied in the Montgomery
Specific Plan (see above references, specifically mention of "land use
patterns, spacial relations, and aesthetic quality" from Part 2, page 29).
. The devaluation of property resulting from such a facility.
Response:
Staff: The negative image, or perception, will also have an affect on
property values, according to some at the public forum. However, staff
has seen no compelling evidence to support this and therefore is not in a
position to make a recommendation based on devaluation of property
values.
Of the above issues, traffic, odor, noise and water availability, among others, are
addressed more fully in the Initial Study, IS-95-14.
8. Conclusion: Given the foregoing information, staff is recommending that the application
be denied.
Attachments
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Initial Study 15-95-14
2. Commission and Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolutions
3. Disclosure Statement
Exhibits
1. Locators, Site Plans, etc.
2. Operational Profile
3 . Average Daily Traffic Trips Snmmary
4. Correspondence
5. Extract of the Minntes from the 8/14/96 Planning Commission Meeting
6. Staff report for SUPO-96-01
(m:\home\planning\martin\maCt:SL\9502pc.rpt)
Attachment 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration
for
Initial Study IS-95-14
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME:
Mace Street Transfer Station
PROJECT LOCATION:
187 Mace Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:
629-130-27
PROJECT APPUCANT:
Mace Street Transfer Station, Incorporated
CASE NO: IS-95-14
DATE: August 16, 1996
A. Proiect Settim!:
The project site consists of 4.72 acres located at 187 Mace Street. The site is currently used as a
trucking terminal. Existing facilities include three small-frame office structures adjacent to Mace Street
and a 9,800 square foot warehouse structure to the east of the frame buildings. The latter has an
adjacent depressed loading dock. Other facilities include: a fuel island, a truck scale, and a truck
washing facility. The existing facilities are to be left in place with the exception of the fuel island and
the most southerly frame structure which interfere with the proposed access to the new facility. Along
the eastern boundary, a drainage area has been partially f1jled in. The Engineering Department is
requiring that fmal improvement plans be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
There are two parcels to the south. On the westerly southern parcel, Otay Metal Mart fabricates steel
and welding operations take place. The easterly southern parcel contains a residential unit, but also
appears to be used as a contractor's storage yard.
To the south of these two parcels lies the Otay River Valley, which is designated as Open Space pn the
Chula Vista General Plan and as Parks and Open Space in the Montgomery Specific Plan. Located in
the City of San Diego, this area of the Otay River is part of the proposed Otay River Regional Park,
which is a significant feature and plays an important role in the future development of the entire
southern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
To the immediate east is a mini storage facility. Approximately 900 feet to the east of the project site
is the Date Street residential area. To the northeast lies land apparently used for agricultural purposes
as well as several houses which front on Main Street.
The area to the west is occupied by an industrial business park containing various land uses. To the
southwest at the terminus of Mace Street is a temporary industrial storage facility which was approved
through a special use permit (SUPS-96-05). ~ted on the north is RV parking and industrial storage.
.-
I
-2-
Adjoining land uses to the south of the property are two parcels: Otay Metal Mart, an industrial
business use where steel is fabricated and welding operations take place; and a parcel containing a
residential unit and a contractors' storage yard. Tpe area to the immediate east is a mini storage
facility. Located on the north is RV parking and industrial storage. To the northeast lies land used for
agricultural uses as well as several houses which front on Main Street.
B. Proiect DescriDtion
Mace Street Transfer Station, Incorporated (Applicant) (formerly known as Sky Trucking) is requesting
approval of a Special Land Use Permit to construct and operate a trash transfer station and material
recovery facility at 187 Mace Street. The proposal includes the construction of a new 63,000 square
.foot, 30 foot high building. There will be two depressed loading pits (pit floor 7"-6" below fmish
floor), one each on the west and east sides of the building accessed by ramps from the north side of the
building. The pits will be separated by a 200 foot wide grade level tipping floor. A 9-ft. high
reinforced concrete push wall will separate the tipping floor from the loading pits. Truck ingress and
egress to and from the tipping floor will be through six 16 ft wide by 28 ft high roll-up doors in the
north wall of the building and two such doors near the center of the south wall.
Transfer ODeration DescriDtion
The facility will receive solid waste from commercial businesses, construction and demolition debris
from construction sites and green waste from landscaping operations. Conventional front or rear
loading packer trucks, trucks with roll-off boxes up to 24-ft long, small dump trucks, and small trucks
with trailers, etc., hauling these wastes will enter the facility through the Mace Street entrance, cross
the scales to be weighed in, and proceed to the transfer building. Some of the vehicles will be the
neighborhood type trash trucks with 8- to 100ton payloads, while others will be the larger semi-
tractor/trailer type trucks with 24-ton payload capacities.
The transfer building is designed such that facility operators have the flexibility to direct these refuse
trucks to the north side of the building where they can be backed up through anyone of six door
openings and have their contents deposited on the tipping floor or to direct them to either the south or
north side of the building where they can drive directly into the building, deposit their loads on the
tipping floor and exit the opposite side.
After the refuse vehicles deposit their contents on the tipping floor, they will exit the building, proceed
to the scales for a final weight check, and exit the facility by way of Mace Street or, in the case of
vehicles with pre-recorded tare weights, will proceed directly to the Mace Street exit.
Once deposited on the tipping floor, the solid waste will be "floor sorted" by facility personnel to
remove, to the extent possible, all recyclable items such as corrugated cardboard, wood, aluminum,
ferrous metals, concrete and asphalt rubble, green waste, etc. This material 'will be loaded into large
semi-truck trailers and shipped to recyclable material processing facilities.
Due to the nature of the material (Le. construction demolition debris, green waste, and commercial
business waste), it is anticipated that approximately 20 percent of the solid waste entering the facility
will be recovered in this manner for reuse. The remaining, non-recoverable material will be loaded into
large volume transfer truck trailers and shipped to a facility-designated landfill.
-3-
The work will be done in an enclosed structure. Approximately 1,000 tones of municipal solid waste
is expected to pass through the facility on a daily basis when operating at maximum capacity. The
operation will initially begin with 500 tons per day. All waste brought into the facility is proposed to
be shipped out the same day. According to infomuition supplied by the applicant, the trash transfer
station will generate approximately 300 trips per day by all traffic arriving at and departing from the
facility .
The hours for the transfer station are proposed to be from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. An estimated 8
employees per shift with 2 shifts are planned. One hundred customers (incoming deposits) per day are
estimated based on 1000 tons of material per day with each customer averaging 10 - 12 tons. There
are an estimated 40 deliveries (outgoing trips) per day based on 1000 tons per day. The service area
is outside Chula Vista but within the greater Southbay based on current Otay landf1ll usage.
Discretionarv Actions
The site is zoned IL-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan). Discretionary actions required for project
approval include a Special Land Use Permit, Design Review, a streambed alteration permit from the
California Department of Fish and Game and possibly a permit from the Aimy Corp of Engineers. A
state solid waste facility permit is also required from the Solid Waste Management Board.
Environmental Controls
At the Planning Department's request, in February 1995 Hans Giroux of Hans Giroux and Associates
reviewed preliminary plans for the proposed construction of a materials recovery facility Itransfer station
at 187 Mace Street. Comments and recommendations on design features to minimize potential nuisances
related to odor, dust and noise from such operations were requested. The result of that request was a
document titled Mace Street Transfer Station Nuisance ImDact Potential.
Recommendations generally covered three main areas:
1. Mechanical ventilation of the MRF/TS structure to disperse as emissions at roof-top instead of
ground level.
2. Installation of a dust control fogging system to which odor counter-reactant (OCR) could be
added for additional odor control, and,
3. Compliance with City of Chula Vista noise standards from operation of any mechanical
equipment and from on-site operations of trucks and materials handling equipment.
These recommendations were accepted by the applicant and incorporated as part of the project design.
A discussion of these and other "environmental controls" or design features incorporated into the project
design follow.
-4-
Dust
Dumping the contents of refuse trucks on the tipping floor and moving the materials to sort for
recyclables can create dust clouds, especially if the contents include dirt or construction and demolition
debris. The negative pressure/roof-top exhaust will remove some of the smallest dust particles, but the
heavier dust may settle out within the building on workers and equipment.
The heavier dust will be controlled through the use of a manually operated "fme misting system" located
above and immediately adjacent to the transfer vehicle loading pits at the east and west sides of the
building. Water is sprayed under very high pressure through nozzles. The tiny water droplets
agglomerate the suspended dust and cause it to settle out faster within the transfer station. Chemicals
will be added to the water for odor control. These chemicals have, in the past, been mainly deodorizing
agents. Dust control may therefore have an odor control benefit with the addition of such odor-reducing
agents. Any evidence of dirt "track-out" onto Mace Street shall be removed by washing or sweeping
at the conclusion of each work day. Implementation of the above described measures and incorporation
of these design features will reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
Odors
Odors will be controlled through (1) the use of "odor eaters" [Le., odor counter-reactants (OCR)]
dispersed through the misting system and (2) the mechanical system which will be designed to provide
complete air changes every 15 minutes.
There are several products available which, when dispersed through a misting system as noted, will
actually eliminate odors as opposed to simply covering them up. The system shall contain provisions
to add an OCR to be activated when refuse odor is detectable beyond the property line. Sufficient on-
site OCR shall be maintained to supply the system for 48 hours at chemical feed levels recommended
by the OCR manufacturer.
The ventilation system will consist of two rows of six roof-mounted, 8,000 cfm exhaust fans located
approximately 20 ft and 60 ft, respectively, from the south building wall. Four of the fans will be
mounted on the low roofs directly above the transfer vehicle loading pits; the other eight will be located
on the high building roof above the tipping floor. Air will be drawn into the building through the north
(3,150 sq. ft.) and south (900 sq ft) door openings and exhausted through the roof by the above noted
fans. The total volume of exhausted air will be approximately 1.44 million CD ft every 15 minutes or
96,000 CD ft per minute (cfm). A fme water mist will be released as required to remove any dust
particles from the air above the loading areas, but will be controlled such that standing water will not
accumulate on the tipping floor. Water from the loading dock will drain into the sanitary sewer.
Implementation of the above described measures and incorporation of these design features will reduce
impacts to below a level of significance.
Noise
Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating equipment, trucks depositing their
contents on the tipping floor, the sorting out of recyclable materials, or the loading of transfer vehicles
is expected to be attenuated by the building structure. Nine-ft. high reinforced concrete push walls will
-5-
surround the entire tipping floor except where door openings occur. These walls are intended to deaden
the sound generated from within the building.
Door openings on the north and south sides of the building are approximately 211 ft and SO ft,
respectively, from the north and south property lines. These distances will further attenuate any noise
generated within the transfer building. .
Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be shielded as required to reduce operating noise to acceptable
levels. The City noise standards must be met. Implementation of the above described measures and
incorporation of these design features will reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
Hazardous Materials
The applicant will be required to prepare a hazardous waste management plan for review and approval
by the Conservation Coordinator at the time of the building permit issuance. Since household hazardous
substances such as paint, aerosol cans, batteries, etc., may be found in solid waste loads which have
been deposited within the transfer building, a prefabricated, fire rated storage cabinet will be provided
for the temporary storage of such materials. This cabinet will be readily accessible to floor sorters in
the event such materials are encountered and will be emptied of its contents on a regular basis which
will not exceed 90 days. The contents will be appropriately disposed of off-site by a licensed hazardous
materials contractor. Hazardous materials will not knowingly be accepted at this facility.
Vectors
The facility will be swept clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day thereby
eliminating nesting and hiding places for vectors. In the event that evidence is found of the existence
of vectors, professional exterminators, under contract with the facility operator, will eliminate them
from the facility site pursuant to the requirements of their service agreement.
Loose Trash
Facility personnel will circulate throughout the entire site on a regular basis plucking up loose and
blowing trash that may have dropped off of trucks entering or exiting the facility thereby keeping the
grounds clean and free of blowing debris.
C. Comuatibilitv with Zoninl! and ~
The site is within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan Area and is within the Montgomery Community
which is governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The parcel is designated Research and Industrial
Manufacturing on the General Plan and is zoned IL-P (Limited Industrial-~ise Plan).
For lack of another category, the project is being processed as a "dump" (in the Code f 19.54.0200)
which is considered an "Unclassified Use" that can be considered for location in any zone, subject to
the issuance of a conditional use permit.
An Unclassified Use is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and special form as to
make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as set forth in the various
-6-
zones" (~19.54.010.A). The purpose of the conditional use permit review is to "determine that the
characteristics of such use shall not be incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas
and for the further purpose of stipulating such conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic
purposes of this title shall be served." (~19.54.01O.B)
Given the performance standards, and mitigation measures of this land use at this location as
. incorporated in the project design and description as well as additional mitigation measures of this
document, there is not substantial evidence that a "fair argument" can be made that there would be a
significant land use conflict bringing about an adverse change in any of the physical conditions within
the area affected by the project. Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defmes "significant effect on
the environment" as a "substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." With the granting of a Special Land
Use Permit for the project, which includes the mitigating project design features described herein and
incorporated as conditions through the other mitigation measures set forth herein, the project could be
compatible with the City's applicable zoning and pl~ and performance standards regarding special land
use permits. However, additional fmdings would need to be made under the City's conditional
use/special land use permit process in order to support the issuance of such a permit. Therefore, there
is a potential land use compatibility issue at a policy level (Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest
Redevelopment Plan, Otay Valley Regional Park Plan) not resulting in a physical change in the
environment.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project as mitigated
will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section
15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Concerns regarding additional truck traffic and potential impacts of the same have been raised by
adjacent residents and property owners. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed use
and determined there will be no additional trips over and above the existing use. (See attached Trash
Transfer Station, Average Dailty Trips Generated.)
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
The proposed land use will be subject to initial and continuous compliance with the performance
standards as specified in the Municipal Code.
Drainal!:e
The preliminary drainage study indicated that impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance and
that fmal improvement plans which include design features such as the use of Enkamat (interlocking
blocks with voids to allow growth of vegetation acceptable to the Resource Agencies) that improve the
flow, decrease the velocity, minimi7.e flooding and increase erosion control protection shall be
incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit.
-7-
Water
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the Sweetwater Authority must provide clearance that there
are adequate water facilities (tank, pipes, etc.) and fire flow to service the project.
Hazardous Waste
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit a Hazardous Waste Management
Plan for the approval of the Conservation Coordinator.
Odor
The operation of the transfer station's mechanical system which will provide complete air changes every
15 minutes, and the use of odor counter reactants dispersed through the misting system in the facility
will mitigate odor impacts to less than significant.
No storage of readily biodegradable material on-site for more than 48 hours, the mechanical ventilation
system being continually operated at one-third or more capacity if any readily biodegradable material
is stored indoors for more than 24 hours.
Noise
The enclosure of the operation within a building structure, including nine foot high reinforced concrete
walls, and shielding the roof mounted mechanical equipment will reduce noise levels to below
significance. Four of the eight roll-up doors remaining normally closed are to be opened only when
the volume of truck traffic requires additional access to prevent truck queuing. .
State and Federal - Permits
Permits will need to be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corp
of Engineers (if required). A state solid waste facility permit is also required from the Solid Waste
Management Board.
ImJ!
The applicant must purchase a mini-street sweeper to keep the grounds free of loose trash.
Dust
Pavement of all travel paths and barriers to any unpaved surfaces is required.
Any evidence of dirt "track-out" onto Mace Street shall be removed by washing or sweeping at the
conclusion of each work day. A misting system for dust control shall be installed capable of
maintaining average dust levels of less than 5 mg/m3 in areas of public or on-site employee exposure.
-s-
G. Mandatory Findinl!s of Sil!Ilificance
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 wildlife species, cause a f'1sh or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, 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.
The site is currently developed as a trucking terminal and used as an unpermitted trash
transfer station. As the California Department of Fish and Game will want to review
whether the reconstruction of the drainage channel on the eastern property line will
impact the quality of the habitat downstream from the project, the applicant will be
required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit and will be required to satisfy the State
Agency should they require any mitigation prior to the issuance of a City grading permit.
It is the opinion of the City that the project does not have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, to reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species
or threaten to eliminate any animal or plant community.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
Compliance with the conditions and/or mitigation that may be required from the
California Department of Fish and Game, the Solid Waste Management Board and
possibly the Army Corp of Engineers, in addition to the mitigation measures stated
herein, shall insure that as long as the project operates, the project will not have the
potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
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.
This project does not have the potential to be individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. The environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study considered
potential cumulative impacts. It was determined that with project specific mitigation
measures regarding water, hazardous waste, trash, noise, solid waste (permits) and
biology (permits), dust and odor impacts would be reduced to below a level of
significance and would not be "cumulatively considerable" in combination with current
and future probable projects result in impacts which could be "cumulatively
considerable. "
-9-
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project subject to design features and mitigation measures incOlporated
herein will not cause substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings either
directly or indirectly to the extent that it will be required to meet all threshold standards,
performance standards and requirements of various City departments and by so doing will
assure that the quality of life is maintained.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Or2anizations
City of Chula Vista:
Roger Daoust, Engineering
John Lippitt, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Steve Thumas, Engineering
Bill Ullrich, Engineering
Kirk Ammerman, Engineering
Garry Williams, Planning
Martin Miller, Planning
Steve Griffm, Planning
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Doug Perry, Fire Marshal
Emmett Horsfall, Fire Department
Captain Zell, Police Department
Mary Jane Diosdado, Police Department
Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Department
Barbara Reid, Planning
Alex Saucedo, Building Department
Glen Googins, City Attorney's Department
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Mark Watton
County of San Diego, Local Enforcement Agency: Ken Calvert
SEC Engineering: Pat Lawrence and Harry Cain
Algert Engineering: Jim Algert
-10-
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan
Sky Trucking, Annual Precision Tightness Tank Test, August 12, 1994 (in compliance
with California Underground Storage Tank Regulations)
Mace Street Transfer Station, Nuisance Impact Potential, Hans Giroux, February 2, 1995
(This study analyzed the potential impacts of: odor, dust and noise)
ReDort of Preliminarv Environmental Site Assessment (phase I-ESA) - 187 Mace Street,
Chula Vista, California by Southern California Soil and Testing Inc. - March 9,
1996
TransDortation and Circulation Studv. Sky Truckinl!/Pacific DisDosal- 187 Mace Street,
Chula Vista, 5/27/96
Hvdrolol!V. Hvdraulics. Main Street, Jim Algert
Channel Bank ImDfovement Plan, (Blueline) Jim Algert
Water ConsumDtion Data, Harry Cain
o~~ hJ2/
Signan@
811t:.~7"
ate
Environmental Review Coordinator
(b:\maa:.nd)
July 19, 1996.
File No. YS-611
TRASH TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS GENERATED
I. ~XISTING USE-SXY TRUCKING
TRUCK COUNT - 183 ONE-WAY TRIPS/DAY - 366 TWO-WAY TRIPS
EMPLOYEE AND PATRONS - 17 X 2 _ 34 TWO-WAY TRIPS
TOTAL DAILY SEY TRtra%lfa TRIPS . 400 TWO-WAY TRIPS
II. PROPOSED USE - PACIFIC DISPOSAL INC.
\ CAPACITY (TONS/DAY):
50\ 1500\
85\1850\
100\11000\
A.
TRASH TRUCK TRIPS
8 TONS/TRIP: 63X2 . 126
TRANSFER TRUCK TRIPS
25 TONS/TRIP: 20X2 - 40
107X2 - 214
125X2 . 250
B.
34X2 - 68
'. 40X2 - 80
Expected transfer station plant capacity is 850 tons/day and
maximum capacity is 1000 tons/day. The trash trucks can carry
up to 12 tons but would average less than 9 tons/trip. The
transfer trucks can carry up to 25 tons/trip. Therefore the
total two-way daily trips at capacity is:
Trash Trucks - 250 two-way trips
Transfer Trucks ---12 two-way trips
TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS
- 330 two-way trips
c. Employees & patrons in passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks
are expected to generate about 70 two-way trips.
TOTAL PROJECT DAILY TRIPS AT CAPACITY. 330 + '70 . 400 TWO-WAY TRIPS
The total number of trips for this project at 100\ facility
capacity (1000 tons/day) is the same number of trips as Sky
Trucking's vehicular trips. The number of heavy truck trips from
Sky Trucking (366) versus the propo8edproject's at the anticipated
daily work rate Of 850 tons/day (214 + 68 - 282) represents a heavy.
vehicle net reduction Of 84 trips (23\-). The comparative heavy
vehicle reduction at full capacity is 36 trips (10').
(M: \1O'f\ElGINEER\ 'lRAFfIC\IIAWDT . FIR)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
~
----~--
._.~-'---- ------
.----
. .'
.
Er,y,rOl1rr.E"'IC. C:".!i..t::...s V
. 3711 ~ong Beocn all
Ni"~ Floor
long Beach. CA 90807
3]0 426-95.44
FAX J 1 0 427.0805
,/
SCS ENGINEERS
.:..
..
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
SKY TRUCKING COMPANY
CHULA VISTA TRANSFER STATION
...
SITE DESCRIPTION
This 4.72: .cre f.cility site islocet.d in south San Diego County.t 187 Mac. Str.et in
the City of Chula Vista. The -L-shaped- site is .cc....d from Mace Street which dead
ends approximately 750 ft. south of the flcility .ntrlnce.
The site is zoned I-L, Umited Industrial, which is consistent with the surrounding property
uses. Currently, the site is being used IS a trucking terminel. Existing f.cilitias include
three small-fr.me office structures adjacent to Maca Straet and I Ilrge metal warehouse
building to the elst of the frlme buildings. The latter hes an adjacent depre..ed loading
dock. Other flcilities include a fuel isllnd and a truck seele. The existing flcilities are to
be left in pllce with the exception of the fuel islsnd and the most sOUtherly frlme
structure which interfere with the proposed acce.. to the new flcility.
TRANSFER BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The proposed transfer building will melsure 230 ft in the .ast-west dir.ction and 160 ft in
the north-south direction 136,800 sq ftl. The building will be primarily of prlHngineered
metel construction with reinforced concrete weill Ilong I portion of the north Ind south
.leVltions. The .ave heights will be approximately 33 ft Ind the ridge will be Ipproxi-
mltely 40 ft lbove grade. c." ....
-;~:-::..
.~ ,. - ,'! ..
There will be two depre...d loading. pita (pit floor 7'-6-~w finish floor): one elch on
the west Ind .Ist aides of the building acce...d by remps from the north aide of the
building. The pita will be ..psrated by a 200 ft wide grade level tipping floor. A 9-ft high
reinforced concrete push wall will sepsrete the tipping floor from the loading pita.
Chicago Cincinnati Kansos City 105 Angeles New York Norfolk
, Ph:-_,!", ,'" So!"'; f.~nc:~cc SeattlE' Tompe Voncou....e.. Be JVmhir:g!On D C
@
c
c
sa INon , -
Truck ingre.. and egr... to and from the tipping floor will be ttv~h aix 16 ft wid. by
28 ft high roll-up doora in the north wall of the building and two such doora nelr the
c.nt.r of the .outh will.
TRANSFER OPERATION DESCRIPTION
-
Th. flcility will r.c.ive .00id walt. from comm.rciel busine..... construction and
demolition d.bria from construction eite., and green waat. from Jandacaping operations.
Conventional front or relr loading pack.r trucks. trucks with roll-off boxes up to 240ft
long. smlll dump trucks. and amlll trucks with trliler.. .tc.. heuling theM wast.s will
enter the flcility through the Mice Street .ntranc.. cro.. the acales to be weighed in, end
proceed to the trensfer building.
The trlnsfer building is d.signed such that facility operetor. heve the fI.xibility to direct
these refuse trucks to the north aide of the building where they can be backed up through
eny one of six door openings, end hey. their contents d.posited on the tipping floor or to
direct them to .ither the south or north aid. of the building where they can drive dir.ctly
into the building. deposit their loads on the tipping floor end exit the opposite aide.
After the refuse vehicles d.posit their contents on the tipping floor, they will.xit the
building. proceed to the aceles for a final weight check. end .xit the fecility by wey of
Mice Street or, in the caM of vehicles with pre-record.d ter. weights, will proceed
directly to the Mlc. Street exit.
Once deposited on the tipping floor. the solid welt. wUl be -floor sort.d- by fecility
lllflonnel to remove. to the extant pouible. .11 recycl.bll It.ms such es old corrugeted
cerdboard (OCC), wood, aluminum. ferrous metela. concrete end esphalt rubble. green
weste. etc. This met.riel will be loaded into transfer vehicles end shipped to recyclabl.
meteriel processing fecilities. .... ...
Due to the nature of the met.riel (i.... construction demolition d.bris. gre.n wllte, end
commlrcill busine.. wllte). it is enticipated that epproximetely 20 perc.nt of the solid
weste .ntitring the fecility will be recowred in this menner for ,.use.
o
2
(.)
u
..
JaINGI'-f-
The remeining. non-r.cover.ble mat.riel will be loed.d Into lerg. volume 1100: cu ycI
capacity) transf.r trail.r. and 8hIppecl to . fecil~.aignet.d lendfill. The.. transf.r
vehicl.s will .nt.r the facility by way of the Mece Street .ntrllnc. using the bypass lene
end .xIt onto Mec. Street .fter atopping.at the acel.. for final w.ight recordation.
. .....
Assuming that a aingl. 8S0F front-end loader can loed one tranaf.r vehicl. 117.S: ton
capacity) .very 1 S minut... the f.cility capacity. using two loading pita. .nd operating at
eo-perc.nt .fficiency (i.... .llowing for personnel br.aks. inciclentel work stoppage, .tc.)
will be approximat.ly 1,260 tons per 10 hour day.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Ibm
Dust. if any is creat.d through the transf.r operations d.scribed below. will be controlled
.through the use of a manually operat.d -fine misting- .yst.m locat.d .bov. and imm.di.
ately adjacent to the tr.nef.r vehicle loeding pits at the .ast .nd w.st aide. of the
building. The misting .yst.m will be operated by facility personnel who will be ob..rving
the loading operations at .11 times. A fine water mist will be re.....d a. required to
remove any dust particles from the .ir .bove the loeding .r..., but will be controlled .uch
that standing wat.r will not accumulate on the tipping floor.
Odor.
Odors will be controlled through C1I the usa of -odor eat.rs- (i.... ocIor count.r.,.actl~1
dispersed through the misting ayst.m and (21 the mechanical .yst.m which will be
deaigned to provide complet. .ir chang.. .very '5 minut.s. .' .".'
Ther. ar. llveral producta .veileble which. when dispersed ttvough . misting syst.m ..
noted. will actUllly .Iiminat. odors as oPPOI~d to simply coverii'lll them up:
'"
The ventiletion .yst.m will consist of two row. of lix roof-mOUntlld, 8.000 cfm exhaust
fens locat.d approxim.t.ly 20 ft.nd 80 ft, respectively. from the south building w.lI.
.'
c
3
.
G
c
scs_-
Four of the fans will be mounted on the low roofs directly above the transfer vehicle
loading piU: the other eight will be located on the high building roof above the tipping
floor. Air will be drawn into the building through the north (3.150 sq ft) and south (900
sq ftl door openings and exhausted throu.gh the roof by the above noted fans. The total
volume of exhausted air will be approximately 1:44 million cu It avery 15 minutes or
96,000 cu ft per minute (cfm).
tmlu
Any noise genersted within the transfar building from operating equipment, trucks
depositing their contents on the tipping floor, the sorting out of recyclable materials, or the
loading of transfer vehicles is 'expected to be attenuated by the building structure. Nine-ft
high reinforced concrete push walls will surround the entire tipping floor except where
door openings occur. These walls are Intended to deaden the sound generated from within
the building.
Door openings on the north and south aides of the building are approximately 211 ft and
80 ft. respectively, from the north and south property lines. These distsnces will further
attenuate any noise generated within the transfer building.
Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be shielded as required to reduce operating noise
to acceptable levels.
H8%.rdou. Materl.l.
The facility will not knowingly accept hazardous materials: however, since household
. hazsrdous substances such as peint, aeroaol cans. betteries, ate., may be found in solid
waste loads which have been deposited within the transfer building. a prefabricated, fire
rated storage cabinet will be provided for the temporary storage of such materials. . This
cabinet will be readily accessible to floor aorters In the avent such materials are encoun-
tered and will be emptied of Its contents on a regular besis which will not axceed 90 days.
The contents will be appropriately disposed of off site by a licensed hazardous materials
contractor.
-
4)
4
.
()
u
.
ICS INOINIRS -
V.etara
The facility will be swapt clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day
thereby eliminating nesting and hiding pa.ces for vectors. In the event that evidence is
found of the existence of vectors. profeaaional axterminators, under contract with the
facility oPerator, will eliminate them from the facility .e purauant to the requirements of
their service agreement.
Loose T....h
Facility personnel will circulate throughout the entire site on a regular basis picking up
loose and blowing trash that may have dropped off of trucks entering oi-exiting the facility
thereby keeping the grounds clean and free of blowing debris.
..
P'
... .......'.
~.:-
~...:. .
:_~(.;,~ ..
--
....... .
......_~ -.,:.':..1-
- -
.- -
-'
./
o
5
..
'I
"
:a
o
"
o
CI)
.~
I!!
hi
~
::!
o
~
-
~
It '"
fit
-t
--..
G
.
om PAOrvooeD TRANSFER 8TA11ON
dili,- _:. SOI1rH IAYRECUON
i
l
.........,. 11........,...........-. . ....1
ARCHITICTa - I.O'HI'" _ GOHITR.CTOR.
_ .. _ ..-r, ........ 1& "_ "'" __ .
-... __ I .--.
, .Ii
fit
C
c:
-t
:I:
. .
~
~'. -
.
c
.
1'1 ...
!I ~~:...
v
III
-....
~I
I
"
. .
" ~.
.----
--.--..-
-.."
>
" ~-
...~: ~,'
.-' 'J.
..~'.:~":,'~. :-
,
. .,~?-.
I..
'.-..-;>'!
a
! "
?-.
APPLICATION CANNOT B1 \~-CEPTED IDn.ESS SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-112 X 11 FOLDER
INITIAL STUDY
F<< Offic:etJ~QnIy ..
rase No.ts- '15'- ~ ....
'DpslAmnl ~()~ Cv
Receipt ~o.I:a/1P}1 ...
DIIe Rec d. . . .
A<,<<ptCd by
Project No. . -.
DpstNo. j,'
CIP No.-
Related % No
~/Jf'{j- .O~ .. .
City of Chula Vista
. Application Forni
A. BACKGROUND
J. ProjectTitle t"SH~P- St:r'p-pt: TrRnAfpr ~t-Rt-inn
2. Project Location (Street address or description) 187 Ha c e
Chula Vista
Street
Assessors Book, Page &. Parcel No. 629-130-27
3. Brief Project Description Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station
( See Attachment)
4.
Name of Applicant Skv Trnrkincr Tn,.
Address 187 Mace Street
City Chula Vista
Nmneof~p~~Agent MArk WA~~nn
Address 412 Crosby Street
City San Die20
Relation to Applicant (' n n a 11 1 ~ an"
6. IndiclIe all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmentp'
Review Coordinator.
s.
Fax# 234-2338
State r: A
Phone 234-8744
Zip Ql Qll
Fax# 234-2338
Phone 234-8744
Zip Q?111
State CA
a.
Pennits or approvals required
'- - ---_.//..
I
_ General Plan Amendment
_ RezonelPrezone
_ Grading Permit
_ Tenlative Parcel Map
_ Site Plan &. Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
.
_ Design Review AWlication
_ Tentative Subd. M~p
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specifk Plan
_ Conditional Use Permit
_ Variance
_ Coastal Development
_ Other Permit
H project is a General Plan Amendment and/or ru.one, please indicate the change in desianation from
to
b. Enclosures or documents (a required by the EnvironmeniaI Review Coordinator).
-.-: Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map
_ Precise Plan
_ Specific Plan
_ Traffic Impact Repon
_ Hazardous Wate Assessment
Arch. Elevl1ioos
- Landscape Plans
= Tentative Subd. Map
_ Improvement Plans
_ Soils Report
_ GeoleCbnical Report
_ Hydrological Study
_ Biological Study
_ Archaeological Study
Noise Assessment
= OIlIer Agency Permit
_ OIlIer
\\7'(' F:'.J.lOME\PLA.''''"ISc:\..~~.E!J\!':1.l.A.93 (Ref. 102:0.93) (Rd. J022.93)
Page 1
( .
7. Indicate other applical'ions for pennits or approvals that are bein&' submitted at this time.
a. Pennits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
_ RezonelPrezone
_ Grading Permit
_ TenWive Parcel Map
_ She Plan II. Arch. Review
. _ Special Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ TenWive Sulld. Map
_ Redevelopment AgenCy OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
~ Conditional Use Permit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
- _ Other Permit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
a.
Land Area: square footage 204.296 or acreage 4.69
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
---.-.:.---
b. Docs the project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structure be
uti1ized?Existino struct"nTP1=: will hiP inrnrpn'l"at-AA .f"+-^ U~A
along with a new building.
2. Complete this section if project is residenti81 or mixed use.
a. Type of 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 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
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 stI\IctUIe
j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structureS
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
1. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or .i!!..dustrial or Jnixed use.
&. Type(s) of land use Tn" 11 C:... To( c.l
c.
Floor area 49, 000 Height of StI\ICttI1'CS(s) 4 3 I -
Type of construction used in the stI\IctUIe E xi s tin II
and metal build in s. New 39,OOOSF
meta W1t concrete wainscot.
b.
Blork
wpc",:~021.A.93 (101. 1WJ.93) (101.101193)
p...z
, )
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orlCntation to adjoining properties
and streets Site access will be from Mace Street. Due to flag shape
of parcel, majority of activity will not be visible to Mace St.
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 2.()
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 8
Number of shifts 2 Total 16
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate 100 Ba sed 0 n
1000 tons Der day with each Clt~tnmer AverAoino 10-12 ~nn~ each.
h. Estimated number of deliveries per day 40 Based on 1000 tons per day
i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate G rea t e r Sou t h b a v are a
based on current Otav landfill UReaOp..
j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings Non e . A II act i v i t Y
inside facility.
k. Hours of operation 6 am to 10 pm
I. Type of exterior lighting High pressure sodium, downward directed.
4. H 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 St1Uctures
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. PROJECf CHARACTERISTICS
1. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APeD)?
Yes. Transfer building will have an oder and dust control
system with a negative air pressure collector for the tipping
floor.
WPc,j"~021.A.93 (lid. 1020.93) (lid. 11122.93)
PI&C3
2. Is any type of grading'or excavation of the property anticipated? No
If yes, complete the following:
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
Onlv inrirl~n~~l Gm^tt".~ fnrwa" ~--.~-8&. 8'8.
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
3. 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.)
( See Attachment ~ )
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
o
S. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these
jo~. Approximately 15 positions. ranRinQ from a ~it~ m~n~ig~
and accountant. ~atlinm~n~ npDra~^r SUDervi~nr ~nrl lahnr
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? Only fuel for loadinR eQuioment ( d; "....1 )
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project?
( See Attachment A )
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of
access or cOMection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extenSion of ,IS, electric. and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. All improvements are; n ~n ..; ~..
Pqe4
wpc:F~011.A.93 (W. 1010.93) (M 1021.93)
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SE1TING
I
.
1. GeololtV
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? N n
(H yes, please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made? Yes (. See At t a c h e d )
(H yes, please attach)
2. HvdrololtV
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? v.. "
(H yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
Yes. Draina e from Main Stre 0
c. Does lUlloff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supp y ~ n e 1 .
lake, reservoir or bay? No
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? N n
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. S tan d a r d des i g n
for industrial site to conform to existing re~ulations.
3. Noise
a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site?
ExistinR industrial uses surround site
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals. schools. single-
family residences)? No.
4. BiololtV
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrob vegetation? No
b. Is the project site in a natural or partially naruraI state? No
c. H yes. has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes No (Please attacb a copy.)
d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate Iocaiion, height, diameter, and
species of trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project.. N 0 n e
WI'C~:~OZI.A.93 (Ilol. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
PaceS
S. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? No
b. Are there any known paleontological resources? No
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
Not on site. Not aware of any permitter near site. Site
does have permitted diesel fuel storage tank.
d. What was the land previously used for? Industrial Truck terminal
Anrl ~r11rk ~nrl trAil~T narkinQ
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all stJUctures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Three block
buildinQs of aoorox. 2440 S.F. one metal buildin~ approx.
9800S.F.,diesel fuel facility, truck scale and parking. area.
b. Describe all stJUctures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
Nonh
South
East
West
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? No If so, how many?
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? Yes
If so, how many and what type? 9. 3 office and 6 yard workers
8. Please provide any other infonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
see attachment A
WJIC:F:~021.AS3 (W.IOJJ.93) (lot 10n.93)
Pop 6
E. CERTIFICA nON
'-)
I, as owner/owner in escrow.
----
or
I, co~~ or J~
4U. Ctf...-
....l!... r?A- W",."o.N
Print name
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and infonnation hezein contained are in all
respects true and correct and that all known infonnation 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.
...
J'j;f ~ r.;a
or
;/aP t1J~\...-
Consultatu or Agent Signature
$-/5-75
Date
.If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
~021.A.93 (10(.1020.93) (!lot 1022.93)
PIC.?
INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Wc..--....,1(.?-
Name of Applicant:
Address: I
City: (? '1'-'<A I ~.;-..
Name of Authorized Representative (if signatory):
Address: ~/2 C4.Ds.", y $;-
City '5A N IJJI...-;
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount
Stale ....
fl'fllu... ~~~..,'
Phone Z3 ~~"?+
Zip 91 '"
-
,
Stale Co..
Phone Z3~~6'>M
Zip 92..,_?
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the Oty of Cbula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("Oty")
and the forenamed applicant for an Initial Study r Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above,
is made with reference 10 the following fll:l5:
Whereas, the Applicant has applied 10 the City for an Initial Study of the type aforereferenced rlnitial
Study") which the City has required 10 be obIained as a condition 10 penniaing the Applicant 10 develop a parcel
of property; and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order 10 process said Initial Study tJuough the various depanmenl5
and before the various boanIs and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and.
Whereas, the pwpose of this agreement is 10 reimburse the Oty for all expenses it will incur in connection
with providing the Processing Services:
Now, therefore, the panies do hereby agree. in elChange for the mutual promises herein contained, as
follows:
I. Applicant's Duty 10 Pay.
The Applicant shall pay.aII of the City's expenses incUJTed in providing Processing Service related 10
applicant's Initial SbJdy, including all of the Oty's direct and ovedIead costs related thereto. This duty of
the Applicant shall be referred 10 herein as die .Applicant's Duty 10 Pay."
A. Applicant's Deposit Duty
As partiaJ performance of the Applicant's Duty 10 Pay, the Applicant shaI1 deposit the amount
aforereferenced rDeposit"). .
I. The City shaI1 charge ill lawful expenses incurretI in providing Processing Services
against the Applicant's DeposiL If, after the c:onc:1usion of processing the Applicant's
Initial Study, any portion of the Deposit remains, the Oty shaI1 return said baJance 10 the
Applicant without inlCra! thereon. If, during the processing of the Applicant's Initial
Study, the 8IIIOWIt of the Deposit becomes edIausted. or is imminendy likely to become
exhausted in the opinkJn of the Oty, upon notice of IItIIC by the City, the Applicant shaI1
forthwidl provide such additional deposit as the Oty shaI1 calculate as IQSOII8bly
Jle("r~"'Y 10 continue 10 provide Processins Services. The duty of the Applicant 10
initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shaI1 be known as the
"Applicant's Deposit Duty".
n. City's Duty
The City shaI1' upon the condilion that the Applicant is not in 1nach of the Applicant's Duty to Pay or the
Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith 10 provide processing services in relation 10 the Applicant's Initial
Study application.
WPC:r.~02IoA.9.I (aG. 10211.9.1) (aG. 11112.9.1)
Pqea
~)
A. The City shall have no liability hereunder to the Applicant for the failure to process the Applicant's
Initial Study application, or for failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study within the time
frame requested by the Applicant or estimated by the City.
B. By execution of this agreement, the Applicant sha1l have no right to direct or otherwise influence
the conduct of the Initial Study for which the applicant has applied. The City sha1l use its
discretion in evaluating the App1icant's Initial Study application withOut regard to the Applicant's
promise to pay for the Processing Setvices, or theexeculim of the AgreemenL
m. Remedies
A. Suspension of Processing
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City sha1l otherwise have at law or equity.
the City has the right to suspend mJlor withhold die processing oldie Initial Study which is the
subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study which may be die subject maau of
any other Permit which Applicant has before the City.
B. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity,
the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action,
and upon instituting litigation to collect same, die prevailing party sha1l be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees had costs.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or pennittecl to be given pursuant 10 this Agreement
must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party sha1l be deemed to
have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United Slates mail,
addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or cettified, with return receipt requested, at
the addresses identified adjacent to die. signatures ol the parties represenlecl.
B. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and constJued in accordance widl the Laws of die State of
California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement sha1l be brought only in the
fedel3l or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if app1icable, the City
of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this agreement, and performance
baeunder, sha1l be the City of OIuIa Vista.
C. Multiple Signatories
If there are multiple sisnatories to this agreement m behaIf of Applicant, each ol,uch signatories
sha1l be jointly and severally liable for die performance of Applicant" duties herein set forth.
D. Signatory Authority
The signatory 10 this agreement hereby wartanta and representa that it is the duly designated agent
for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant 10 execUle this Agreement m
behalf of the App1icanL Signatory shall be personaDy liable for Applicant', Duty 10 Pay and
App1icant's Duty 10 Deposit in die event it has not been authorized 10 execute this Agreement by
the ApplicanL
WPC:F:~OZI.A.93 (W. 1020.93) (W. 10%1.93)
Page 9
(
E. Hold Harmless
Applicant sballdefenc!, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed offICers
and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including
withoutlirnitalion auomeys' fees) .-ising out ofproc:essing Applicant's Initial Study. except only
for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, incum:d by
the City, its OffICers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same
proceed to judgement or not. FIII1her, the Applicant, at its own expense, sball, upon wriUCn
request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents.
or employees. Applicant' s indemnifcatjon of the City sball be limited by any prior or subsequent
declaration by the ApplicanL
F. Administrative Claims Requirements IIId Procedures.
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this apeement, against the City unless a claim
has fnt been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the
City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, as same may from time ID time be amended, the provisions of which arc
inCOlpOrated by the reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedwes used by
the City in the implementalion of same. Upon request by the City, the Applicant shall meet and
confer in good faith with the City for the purpose of RSOlving any dispute over the terms of this
AgreemenL
Now, therefore. the parties hereto, having read and undentood the terms and conditions of this agreement,
do hereby express their consentlD the tenns hereof by setting their hand hereto on the dale set forth adjacent thereto.
City
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
By:
Dated:
Applicant (or authorized representative)
~ IIW~-"-
By:
4P~
By;
Dated: -:5 ~ ( -5--. '75
wpc:F:~02I.""93 (W.InD.93)(IoI: IIm.93) Paae 10
'-
, )
"-,-'
THE CITY OF CBULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Swement of disclosure of cenain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which
will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Plllllling Commission, and all other official bodies.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons have a financial interest in the contract, i.e., C:Oll!rlclor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
All...
2. If any person identified pursuant 10 (1) above is a c:orporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10\\\ of the shares in the c:orporation or oWl\ing any partnership interest in
the partnership. .
:]O~/fII C.JIUi"'~i
S4.-vlJ/t. C-wU,IN>..';-:/
3. If any person identified pursuant 10 (I) above is DOn-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as !rUStee or beneficiaJy or !rUStee of the !rUSt.
"'/14
4. Have you had more than $250 wonb of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Ale
S. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consuJllllts or independent
contractors who you ha.x~ assigned 10 represent you !tefore the City in this matter.
/nA4Jb W..."7'T%vII - ~""c..""AI&-
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 10 . Council
member in the current or preceding election period? Yes ( ] No J>4. If yes, IIate which Council
member(s): .
Pmoa io oIoliDod u: . ADy iIIdividuaI, firm, a>opIJarsbip, joiat _"" ............. IDCiIJ club. fnIolIIII 011"'"-...... COIJIOIIIioa. _Ie.
....... ....m:r, 1)'Ddicato.1bU ODd lID)' _rCOWl!)', oily ODd COWI!)', oily, -"""lily, _ or-'poIiIic:oI ~ or III)' _r puup
or COIIIbiIwio. KIiDa u . 1IIIit. .
Date:
$-(5- "75
CNOD: ADdIIIIdiIioaoI_ u --.y)
~N ('''''U-I''~:'V
Print or type name of COIIIrICIOr/app1ic:am
WPC:F:\HOMElPLANNINGISTOREDIIOZI'''.9J'Ref. IOZO.93)(Ref. 1022.93)
.....11
CueNo. TS-Q5-T4
APPENDIX DI
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L Current Zoninll on site: IL-P Limited Industrial sub;ect to a Precise Plan
North Il-P limited Industrial sub~ect to a Precise Plan
South Il-P limited Industrlal subJect to a Preclse=Plan
~ Il-P limited Industrial subiect.to a Precise Plan
1VeH Il-P.limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
Does the project confonn to the c::urrent zonina' Yes. with the orantino of a Special Use Pennit
n.
General Plan land use designation on lite: Research and Limited Industrial subject to a Precise
Nonh Research and limited Industrial subJect to a PreC1S Plan Plan.
South Research and limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
East Research and limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
VVea Rp~par~h and I imitp-d Industrial subiect to a Precise Plan
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram' Yes. with the granting of a
Speclal Use Permlt .
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an Ina so designated'
Proiect area is in close Droximitv to the Otav River and future Otav Valley ReQional Par
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes' No
(If yes, describe the design techniques beina used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the
route).
m. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the followina: N/ A
School
CaD.citv
Enrollment
Units
Pronosed
0aIeraIiD&
Factors
.Studenls
Generated
Prom Proiect
EJe>-n'.ry
,<
.30
J9
.10
JuDior High
Seaior Hiib
IV, Remarks:
O--~" fI2-I
Director of . a or Rcpmsenwive
Auaust 16. 1996
Date
MC;F:i~IIZ1JI..,.IIII.fJ) (W.103DJIS)
"1
Case No.~
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
:
-
1. Name 01 Proponent: Mace Street Transfer Station, IDe.
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Phone Number 01 Proponent:
Mace Street Transfer Station, IDe.
187 Mace Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911 ..
234-8744
4. Name 01 Proposal: Mace Street Transfer Station
5. Date of Checklist: August 16, 1996
,--....,
.. ....., ........ .......
-y.-.. -- -_.- .1 N.
....... ..,. . ....... ......
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or C C 181 0
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmentaJ 0 0 181 0
plans or policies adopted by agencies
with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or C C 0 181
operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)?
- Pip 1
-aUf
Slpdftant
Impoet
...........
Slpdllcanl
Vnle..
Mid......
Leu than
Slpdftant
Impoet
No
Impad
d) Disrupt or divide the physical 0 0 0 ~
arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
Comments: The applicant must obtain approval of a Special Use Permit and Design
Review application. The applicant needs to obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit
from the California Department of Fish & Game and possibly a permit from the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers as a result of the improvements that are needed to the
channel on the eastern edge of the property. A State Solid Waste Facility Permit is
also required from the Solid Waste Management Board. The City Engineer will
confirm in coordination with the Planning Department that all impacts have been
mitigated to below a level of significance.
The site is within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan Area and is within the
Montgomery Community which is governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The
parcel is designated Research and Industrial Manufacturing on the General Plan and
is zoned IL-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan).
For lack of another category, the project is being processed as a "dump" (in the Code
~ 19.54.020G) which is considered an "Unclassified Use" that can be considered for
location in any zone, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit.
An Unclassified Use is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and
special form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes
of use as set forth in the various zones" (~19.54.010.A). The purpose of the
conditional use permit review is to "determine that the characteristics of such use shall
not be incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas and for the
further purpose of stipulating such conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic
purposes of this title shall be served." (~19.54.010.B)
b:mcc.c:hIr.
Page 2
-""1
SlpUl....
Impod
-""1
SIpUI....
UnJ...
MlU......
Leu......
SIpUI.....
Impoet
No
Imp...
Given the performance standards, and mitigation measures of this land use at this
location as incorporated in the project design and description as well as additional
mitigation measures of this document, there is not sUbstantial evidence that a "fair
argument" can be made that there would be a significant land use conflict bringing
about an adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by
the project. Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines "significant effect on the
environment" as a "substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance."
With the granting of a Special Land Use Permit for the project, which includes the
mitigating project design features described herein and incorporated as conditions
through the other mitigation measures set forth herein, the project could be
compatible with the City's applicable zoning and plans and performance standards
regarding special land use permits. However additional findings would be need to be
made under the City's conditional use/special land use permit process in order to
support the issuance of such a permit. Therefore, there is a potential land use
compatibility issue at a policy level (Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest
Redevelopment Plan, Otay Valley Regional Park Plan) not resulting in a physical
change in the environment.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 181
local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 0 0 181
either directly or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 181
affordable housing?
Comments: The proposed project will not induce growth as it will service the existing
area. Housing will not be displaced as the existing land use is a truck transfer station.
b:'maoe.cbJr.
Poae 3
_1II1y
-l1li7 IlpUI..... lao 111m
Slpllltant VnI... 1IonIII..... No
Imp" MId...... Impad Impad
III. GEOPHYSICAL Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts '
involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction 0 0 0 181
or overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 181
relief features?
d) The destruction, covering or 0 0 0 181
modification of any unique geologic or
physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 181 0
soils, either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of 0 181 0 0
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or
lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to 0 0 181 0
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or
similar hazards?
Comments: The paving of this currently unpaved site could bring about an
insignificant increase in the erosion of soils into the channel to the east of the
property as a result of moving the unsupported fill. The improvements required prior
to issuance of a grading permit as discussed in Section F of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration under drainage mitigate any erosion to a level below significance.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 181 0 0
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
b:a.oc.cbk
Page 4
-...,
_011, IlpIII..... Luolhan
IlpIII..... VId... SIpUI..... No
........ MIIIpIed ........ "'poct
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 181 0
related hazards such as flooding onidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water 0 0 181 0
in any water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 181
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground 0 0 0 181
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of 0 0 0 181
flood waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
b:'mac8.cbk
p.,eS
PotenCIal),
SlpIUI.....
Imp'"
............y
Slplflcant
Val...
Mldpled
Leu.....
SlplUlcanI
Imp'"
No
Impact
Comments: The paving of this site could cause more run-off and as a result an
insignificant increase in the amount of surface water. This is a less than significant
impact. An updated soils study will be needed prior to issuance a grading permit. A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed in March of 1996 by Southern
California Soil - Testing Inc. reviewed features of surface staining of soil, the presence
of petroleum products and subsurface fuel storage tanks. There was no indication that
the degree of surficial contamination and possible subsurface contamination exceeds
that expected for sites that support commercial operations such as the subject site. No
further studies were recommended or appeared to be needed at this time. With the
implementation of Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, drainage, all
changes in the rate and surface runoff will be mitigated to below a level of
significance.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
181
o
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
o
o
o
o
o
181
181
o
o
181
o
o
e) Create a substantial increase in
stationary or non-stationary sources of
air emissions or the deterioration of
ambient air quality?
o
o
o
181
b:'macs.cbk
Pase6
-.rI7
.. -...,.. -r"-'" .......
~ ..... ~r.-'" N.
....... --11 . . ....... ......
Currently, any significant increase of air pollutant emissions is significant because of
an non-attainment condition, however, there will no .increase in trips as a rCSIJlt of this
project. -
The operation of the transfer station's mechanical system which will provide complete
air changes eveI)' 15 minutes, and the use of odor COIInter.reactants (OCR) dispersed
through the misting system in the facility will mitigate odor impacts to less than
significant.
Comments: GirOWt & Associates reviewed a detailed facility description and site
drawings and conducted a site visit to view existing wck terminal operations. Their
obselVations and recommendations are as follows:
· The open doors provide an inlet for air to circu.late in the odor control
system and the odors are processed and exit throu.gh the ceiling exhaust.
· The existing operation shows evidence of dirt "track-out" from wck
terminal traffic. Pavement of all travel paths and barriers to any access of
unpaved SIlrfaceS is recommended.
· The misting system with an OCR option is "the state of the art" in dust/odor
control.
.
Mitigation meaSllres that have been included in Section F of the Negative Declaration
or have been incorporated into the project plans include:
· That four of the eight roll-up doors remaining normally closed be opened
only when the volume of wck traffic requ.ires additional access to prevent
wck queuing.
· No storage of readily biodegradable material on-site for more than 48 hou.rs,
the mechanical ventilation system being continually operated at one-third or
more capacity if any readily biodegradable material is stored indoors for
more than 24 hou.rs.
· Any evidence of dirt "track-ou.t" onto Mace Street shaD be removed by
washing or sweeping at the conc1u.sion of each workday.
· A misting system for dust controllhall be insta1Ied capable of maintaining
average dust leveJs of less than 5 mglm' in areas of public or on-site
employee exposu.re.
· The system shaD contain provisions to add an OCR to be activated when
remse odor is detectable beyond the property line.
· Sufficient OCR shaD be maintained on-site to mpply the iystem for 48
hou.rs at chemical feed levels recommended by the OCR manufactu.rer.
-
P...7
VI.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUlATION.
Would the proposal fuult In: ".
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from desigu features
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatl'ble uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access
to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
r' .....,
~J ...--,
......
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.....---.,.
.....-
.-
..... ~ ..
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
---
~6-.
......
No
......
o
181
o
181
o
181
o
181
'.
o
181
o
181
o
181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent
of 2400 or more average daily yehicle
trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips.)
Comments: The Traffic Engineering Division has determined that no additional trips
over the current use are expected and that reconstruction of Mace Street and Main
Street are not required as a result of this project. Attached to the mitigated negative
declaration is a detailed break-down of the projected average daily trips (AD1)
expected to be generated currently with the proposed use. Studies supplied by the
applicant and reviewed by the Engineering Department are referenced in Section H,
Documents.
-......
p.... 8
-.a,
~- ._~
.......
r ._~
--~
-
.......
---
" .--w-
.......
No
.......
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal ruult in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive ~es, species of
concern or species that are candidates
for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian
and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation D D D IBI
planning efforts?
Comments: As the pad is already developed and used for a truck terminal, there are
no biologically sensitive resources on site. As there is a mitigation measure requiring
the applicant to reconstruct the adjacent channel, the applicant will be required to
obtain permits from the California Department of Fish &. Game and the Am1y Corps
of Engineers, and to meet any mitigation measures that may be required as a result of
the same.
D
D
D
IBI
D
D
D
IBI
D
D
D
IBI
D
IBI
D
D
D
D
D
IBI
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy D D D IBI
conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a D D D IBI
wasteful and inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral C C C II
resource protection, will this project
impact this protection?
-
"'9
r "-111
r ...., -i.-V- ......
~~ .-.. UIIIMI -. .---- Ife
...... ....... ...... ......
Comments: The proposed project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans, use non-renewable resources and is not desipated for mineral resource
protection.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release. C C C 181
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to: petroleum products,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency COD 181
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or DIBle 0
potential health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources 0 0 0 181
of potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 181
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The applicant must provide a Hazardous Waster Management Plan prior
to issuance of a grading permit The applicant's compliance will mitigate impacts to
below a level of sipificance. Access for fire equipment is also required.
.
:x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 181 C C
b) Exposure of people to severe noise 0 B 0 0
levels?
'-"v ...."
Pap 10
r '''1!J
r ....." ".-.., ...._
-_ . -- UIIeM - -'II.. N.
..... ........ ..... ..... .
Commeuts: Auy DOise geDerated within the transfer building from operating
equipment, trucks depositing their coDtents on the tipping floor, the IOJ'ting out of
recyclable materials, or the loading of transfer vehicles is expected to be attenuated by
the building structure. Nine-ft. high reinforced CODcrete push walls willaurround the
entire tipping flQOr except where door openings occur. These walls are intended to
deaden the sound generated from within the building.
Door opeDings OD the DOrth and south sides of the building are approximately 211 It
and 80 ft, respectively, from the Dorth and south property lines. These distances will
further attenuate any Doise generated within the transfer building,
Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be shielded as required to reduce operating
noise to acceptable levels. The City noise standards must be met. ImpIemeDtatioD of '.
the above descnbed measures and incorporation of theie design features will reduce
impacts to below a level of significance. Four of the eight roll-up doors remaining
normally closed are to be opened only when the volume of truck traffic requires
additional access to prevent truck queuing.
XI. PUBUC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered government services in any of
the following areas:
a) Fire protection? IJ IJ IJ IBI
b) Police protection? IJ IJ IJ IBI
c) Schools? IJ IJ C IBI
d) MainteDance of public facilities, C C IBI C
including roads?
e) Other govemmeDtaI aervices? IJ C IJ IBI
Comments: Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Sweetwater Authority must
provide clearance that there are adequate water facilities (tanks, pipes, etc.) and fire
flow to service the project.
L..a.- ......
.....11
r .~
- - .....
--
-...,
-t.--
-
........
...-
~._-
--
No
--
XII.
Thresholds. WUl the proposal adversely
impact the City~ Threshold Standards?
As descn'bed below, the proposed project does Dot adversely impact any of the
seen Threshold Standards.
D
D
D
181
-
a) Fire,IEMS
D
D
181
D
The Threshold Standards 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 fire station is 2
miles away and would be associated with a 5-minute response time. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: All Fire code requirements must be met including provision by applicant
of required fire flow and provision of a water supply consisting of reservoirs, pressure
tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the
required fire flow.
b) Police D D 181 D
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of
Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response
time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond
to 62.10% of Priority 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 not comply with this Threshold Standard. The
estimated response time for this project for Priority 1 caIJs is 5:43 and 7:19
for Priority 2 calls.
Comments: The Crime Prevention staff of the Police Department state that they will
be able to provide an adequate level of service for this proposed site and there is DO
expected increase in personnel or equipment in order to maintain Police Department
services. Upon project approval, and prior to completion of this project, a security
evaluation by Crime Prevention peJ'lODDel is recnmmended.
-
'.12
-.....q
r "'" ~r.-'" ...-
......... ..... "' .,.. N.
..... ......... ..... .....
C) Traffic D D D IBI
The Threshold Standards require that aD mtersectiODS must operate at a .
Level of Service (LOS) 'C' or better, with the exceptiOD that Level of
Service (LOS) "D" may CImJr durinS the peak two houts of the day at
signalized mtersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a
LOS below their 1987 LOS. No mtersection may reach LOS "E" or "F'
dUMS the averaSe weekday peak hour. IntersectiODS of arterials with
freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Engineerins Department requires that the existinS 6-foot-wide
roadway easement be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista. Alons the frontase of
Mace Street the completion of curb, BUtter, sidewalk and driveway improvements are '.
required as well as the mstallation of street liShtinS.
Concerns regarding additional truck traffic and potential impacts of the same have
been raised by adjacent residents and property owners. The EngineerinS Department
has reviewed the proposed use and determined there will be no additional trips over
and above the existinS use. (See attached Trash Transfer Station, Averase Daily Trips
Generated.)
d) ParksIRecreation
D
D
D
IBI
Comments: The Threshold standard for Parks and Recreation does not apply to this
prOject as the transfer station is not a residential use.
e) Drainage
D
D
IBI
D
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and
volumes not exceed City EngineeMs Standards. Individual projects
will provide Dect'-"IJy improvements consisteDt with the Drainase
Master Planes) and City EngineeMs Standards. The proposed will
comply with this Threshold Standard upon approval of final
improvement plans. .
-....
.....13
r ~"'I1J
r ...., - .---- .......
~_ -,.,... Iw- ~~ .---- No
..... .._~ ~ . . ....... ~
Comments: The preliminlJ)' drainage study ~dicated that impacts can be mitigated
to a level below significance and final improVement plans will be submitted prior to
issuance of a grading permit. If a manufactured system is going to be used for
drainage improvements, the Engineering Department must approve the same.
f) Sewer
D
D
D
II
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide
necessary improvements consistent with Sewer ~aster Plan(s) and
City Engineering Standards. The proposed project complies with
this Threshold Standard.
.
Comments: Following a review of detailed information forwarded by the applicant, it
was determined that no additional sewerage facilities services are needed to meet City
threshold standards.
g) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and
that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
[]
1m
[]
[]
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water
conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
Comments:
There are DO significant impacts to water,
--
Pap 14
-.or
r '-~ -...-.... a-_
~_ A"-d ~ -1 ..... 110
.... "~i . .. .... ....
XIII. UTlLmES AND SERVICE SYSTEM$.
Would the proposal ruuIlln a need for 7Iew -
systems, or substantial alterations to the -
following utilities:
a) Power or natura] gas? 0 0 0 IBI
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 IBI
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 IBI
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 IBI
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 IBI
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 IBI
Comments:
There are no significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
XIV. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open 0 0 0 IBI
to the public or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of 0 0 0 IBI
a scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic D D D B
effect?
d) Create added light or glare IOUrces that D. 0 0 IBI
could increase the level of sty gJow in
an area or cause this project to fail to
comply with Section 19.66.100 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill 0 0 D IBI
light?
-..... Pop 15
r .-'11
r .~ .,.,....--- .......
~~ .,..,. UIIeM . ~~ .---- Ne
...... r-- _ . . ...... ......
Comments: The construction of a trash transfer station and resource recovery facility
in a limited industrial area will not by itself signifi~tIy impact the aesthetic value of
the area.
XV. CULTUJW. RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration [] [] [] I!!I
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in aclverae []' [] [] I!!I
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to [] [] [] I!!I
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing [] [] [] I!!I
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's [] [] [] I!!I
General Plan EIR as an area of high
potential for archeological resourCes?
Comments: The proposed project is located in a previously developed industrial area
of the City and is not expected to impact cultural resources.
~
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will [] [] [] I!!I
the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontologic41 ruourcu?
Comments: The proposed project is located in a previously developed industrial area
of the City and is not expected to impact paleontological resources.
L..A- .....
Pip 16
"
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposaL'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood
or regional parks or other recreatioDaI
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational
opportunities?
c) Interfere with recreation parks &
recreation plaDs or programs?
Comments: The proposed project is Dot resideDtial and will Dot impact recreatioDaI
opportuDities in the area.
p. -~
-1 -- r'lt
....
r' .....,.
~1 --..
-
........
-
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative
Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance. If an ElR is needed, this
section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to [] IBI
degrade the quality of the eDviroumeDt,
substaDtially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threateD to eliminate a
plant or animal commuDity, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
or California histOIy or prehistoI)'?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative DeclaratiOD.
b) Does the project have the potential to D D
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, eDvironmeDtaI goals?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative Dedaration.:
&.0_
- .-....
....
II.
....
[]
IBI
[]
IBI
[]
IBI
.
[]
o
D
II
-......
Poae17
~
r .....,. _17""""
~;;;. .--- IJIIIeu;
.... .........
C) Does the project have impacts that are [) [)
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects,' and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative Declaration.
d) Does the project have environmental [) 0
effect which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative ~laration.
XIX. PROJECf REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
---
- - .-.., II.
.... ....
[) 181
[)
181
.
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
All mitigation measures are either incorporated into the project description or are found
in Section F of the negative declaration.
Project Proponent
\~
Date
-
p... 11
xx. ENVIRONMENTAL FACI'ORS POTENTIALLY AFFECI'ED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated, " as indicated by t!1.e checklist on the following pages.
0 0 .
Land Use and TranSPOrtation/Circulation Public Services
PJanning
0 . 0
Population and BiologicaJ Resources Utilities and Service
Housing Systems
. 0 0
Geophysical Energy and Mineral Aesthetics
Resources
".
. . 0
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
. . 0
Air Quality Noise Recreation
o
Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 0
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on .
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this cue because
the mitigation measures descnbed on an attached sheet have been added to
the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the 0
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
-
- "'19
I find that the proposed. project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the 0
environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descn'bed
on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potenti&ny significant impacts" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACf REPORT is required,.but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
fJ .~
Signa:;rJ
~/'~/"'f
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
,
..~ ....
..... 20
.'!.~"~ ~R~-hi3
DATE: May 18, 1995
'"
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dee & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (Diosdado)
Community Development, R~dev. Economic Dev. only
"e'urrent Planninj, ~l"" .
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Other
FROM:
Ba rba ra Re i d
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-14/FA-~/DQ 140 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-_)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
The Project consists of:
A privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station.
Location:
187 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by June 1. lQqS
S~~?~
~,.~ft
~
Comments:
p
~~
3,",:
.'
.
&
.
Case No. 1~-q$-I.1/
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. What is the distance to die nearest fire lWion? ~ what is die Fire Dep..ti......t'.lItimated
naction time? Two miles. Five minutes.
:
.. WiD the Fue Dep~ment be able 10 provide 11\ 8dequate level of fire ..-.4~I.... for die
proposed facility without 11\ increase in equipment or penannel? Yes
C. Remarks
~~~ r. 7~
Fire Marshal
12/6/94
Date
. .
. .
(
'--
"
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
dress 187 Mace
Pl an File No.
Checker Horsfall Date 5/20/96
TY~I;! Constr.
Occupancy
No. Stpries
Bldg, Area
Th_' following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
' i,
II; ,.'~~XMw<~~n9tiXjgNX~O,NJ! Comments:
j,ll. 'According to Section 903 of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code water tanks on private
:.'i.._.
) w,erty are acce"table for purposes of providing the required fire flow.
fj ~ flow.
ele- ~ted tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required
L. Section 903.3 allows the water supply to consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks,
Because the proposed facility will be provided with a fully automatic fire sprinkler
tern the required fire flow is reduced to 2625 Gallons per '.finute at 20 PSI residual
"r two hours duration.
4. Fire pump/s shall comply with NFPA Standard #20.
5" Water tank shall comply with NFPA Standard #22.
6 Private fire mains shall comply with NFPA Standard #24.
"7.. The fire sprinkler system shall comply with NFPA Standard #13.
FP'~-29
"'
I
'.
"Re. . '(?;I).~~j
"
ROUTING FORM
::
....---. ,.-'
- -
DATE: May 18, 1995
c"
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation ..
4d..-~IN"~tion; ':fl'Q'1i::ce. Pe~%"ItM.Ilt:(!'fI'joslfa2r~J',
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Other
&;J
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-14/FA- 663/DQ 140 )
CheckprintDraft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review or a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-_)
Revie~ of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
The Project consists of:
A privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station.
Location:
187 Mace St.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by , ,]. 4u-1J 'OO/3/T)J. n,_ .._,.../ .~
fJu ~ ~r--- d .
Comments: R..~ ~tP7M:JI r.u/I *
.
-
\ j
\, -
CHULA VISTA POUCE DEPARTMENT
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
DAlE:
M~f 7-C, Ii? 4~ .
b1~1 ~"I t"1vi I"M1.fI~
~ "J....u I ::r...-.v.(;:>..'v.
.J\.T '0..;" t cL,..cb I 5 c... P S.
n-,....r-~' .~_.~
---..... -
TO:
VIA:
MAR 2 3 19~5
PLAN".".'''''
"01"'.....
FROM:
PROJECT: ';L.... CI ~ - I Lf-
~'d ~/f'l~F
...lS2
The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time.
-
..
Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit
crime prevention analysis.
Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
Elevations
Floor Plans
-
Landscape and Lighting Plans
Site Development Plans
Comments:
*- M HT CFs '\1\ --H~/\
Ac0t ~vc\-.l-r:..v. \: 11* /'J'i:fu..r ~ 0.5
I\-lArlY\ t>.-d-;V'~~5, A- T I 'to 7
~~/"OoI~ ~~. ',,\ ~ ~~_"'
- -Z'-l ?I'l~t. \-z.~ \t1 '+M..se.
,11.0.. ~ 1
'2... ~ J:o. ~ , 7 U"U'U;
""".S' L ':"~' , 3 ~." .,1''''''''', ~'T_AI v &I(~< . .
1JLV,~ l' 1 S.fu:vd cl ~ St~"\ '.("CR..,,_ . (~~ct -.f! lc..c....
.$"e1^~/IQ..c. 'S. I A.&r CA...tU1t.'r[ ~ [~~ .
cc: Brookover, SCA
CPTED Routing Form
F'D,q~~ ~-
\,
CBULA VISTA POLICB DBPARTXBBT
CRIXB PRBVBBTIOB UBIT i--
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
--
r
:'J
DATE:
August 31, 1995 ~
Barbara Re~~~Environmen
Brookover,~ a~~:;'ft. irs,
Mary Jane Diosdad~CPS
Initial study: 95-14 187 Mace street
,.
I'
--'-L.
- .,
,
'-' ... 70....._
...:.:;.)
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
PROJECT:
',", ' ~\
~(.. ~ \;I
Investigations
..xL
The police Department an4 the Crime Prevention unit will be
able to provi4e an a4equate level of .ervice for this
propo.e4 .ite.
There i. no expecte4 increa.e in personnel or equipment in
or4er to maintain Police Department .ervice.. .
Please forwar4 a44itional information regar4inq this project
to the Crime Prevention Unit. .
..xL
..xL
Bstimate4 response time for Priority 1 call. to this project:
Grid: 47 3.18% of CFS, 05:43 A.R.T. on P-1 Calls
Bstimate4 response time for Priority 2 call. to this project:
Grid: 47 28.21% of CFS, 07:19 A.R.T. on P-2 Calls
Comments: From 01/01/95 thru 08/28/95 there are 1186 calls for
service within this grid area. 379 of these calls resulted in
crime cases.
Note: The estimated response times listed are above recommended
thresholds, within this project area.
Upon ap~roval, prior to completion of this project, I recommend
a secur1ty evaluation by crime prevention personnel.
Thank you for the opportunity to have input into this project,
if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
691-5127.
cc:
Brookover, CAM
CPTED Routine fo..
PO/cpu 06/93
~
f?e - rouf,nj
,
<
-.
.. -
,-"""". ....-' ,
ROUTING FORM
______-..J...
DATE: May 18, 1995
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, .Engineering (EIR only)
lj..al Rosenberg~.J:ngiQI>~.../n~-(.JOU~~J.i'J
~ogerl>aoust, Engineering (IS/3? EIR/\)
Richard RUdolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Other
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-14/FA- 663/DO 140 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review ot a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
The Project consists of:
A privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station.
Location:
187 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by: ,JlJnp 1. 1 QQ;
Comments:
. .
. .,
(
YS-("'II
Case No. IS.qs -tlf
'--.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
D~fal~ ~IIA-I.JI./~' A.~L ~JlL'!I ~.t6.-~"V'.. ~RI v ~~LIJ OJ: ~a..
TlIP"'olS 7l:> CI/;.AJAI~ . Wt~"""i>~~ ~~ OF ~Al''- ~ .......",II/$"rb ~ 6TPF~.
EXI9:nA/", LC.I\1:rt#(; ~ '1:Jt2Ai 7f> ~ EW~. .
"Are they adequate to serve "the proJect. IJD.
If not, please explain briefly. IIIAJT:J.L ~.,~.,. t!.'--. ,.,-, M, J<r BE '''U'~~. At..So,
S,n=.-SPF~J/&/G. 'nb~(I-lA:~ IM~tnEAA9./'T'!f!!; WILl.. lIP! fZ~Q' JflZJ!:'b 7b A-b~tJATI=.t Y
~ ~~ T7J Q:s...,.,<1n>r....M l:I.eAllJAA::l'!: FAt:./L tT7/1r.<'" ~,.,..,.,,~~ 7D
AAl,T1'dt. se:WEL w'1l,J. N&:.T Bt=. ~rrTEb. f ili.. ?....
at IS the location amI aescnpllon O! eJO.Stlllg-off-slfe aramage ac tIes. "'''I2FAL:.F ~w
~ MAr; ~z=-r- ~ bray 'R/.,PD .A.,b ~A1 ~IJIlFL ~I ~ D'T74.Y
J2.,I/JII=D *
E. Are they adequate to serve the project? Ye6.
If not, please explain briefly. ^{M.
I.
Drainal!e
NO,Nsr ,'" .4 ~ -fvfA~l> F/.L:Jcc RAM. 1-/t!IVe/l$!,
Is the project site within a flood plain? ~ ~f!!A~ <:, 'ft:E.T"" ~1J4.r/trJ.
If so, state which FEMA FIoodway FrequenWioun . 91 _P41 ~~ ~ 511 .
t:I ~MM.~/~,-^^hP~ IAl .
What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? UN'M""'~ MA.'Jl:II!.
A.
B.
C.
D.
D. TranSt>onation
A. What roads provide primary access to the project? MA-'Al Gr.. _~
What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)?
Lf~ A-%:?r (~e-.oII:::.. ~ EEit'C-~~J"-) 'F..tr(9rYN& A~ IJ<E.. ').
. .,
. . .
What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the.primary ~ roads before and
after project completion?
Street Name
MAIIJ ~-.-
Before
ltif.. 31/0
After
f41.~c{D
.
Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Leve1-of-Service (L.O.S.) .C" design ADT
volume? If yes, please specify. ..1JD.
WIC~GISTOREIND22.93 ".. 1021.93)"'. 1020.93)
P.,.. 2
. ,
-
)
YS-bl{
If the A.D.T. or LO.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicab~, explain briefly.
/oJfA.
.
Case No. r~-"fs-/~
. D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? Yt=c.
If not, please explain briefly. "{ IA .
E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to
or in the vicinity of the project site? . ND.
If so, identify: Location A{ I.A .
Cumulative LO.S. A{M .
F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An
equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will
have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that
all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance.
Yes X No
The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of
the proposed project? Yes X No
If yes, please describe. o/A.
H. Is the project co!l~istent with the criteria established in the City's Transponation Phasing Plan,
General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? PJease reference lilY
other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed
project. YF:4,.
1
1.
Is a traffic study required? Yes ><. No
Is there lilY dedication required? Yr;.;;.
If so, please specify. Ex Isr"./i(:' I:? I=E___lVrhi" :;~.4Y r:: ~ ~MEJ..rr"'
'R..='" ~J"')I/~7) T7} -ruF ~/TY ~ CUIJ~ v,___
SHAu...
WPC~022."(Iltf.I021.93)(W.I02O.,,)
PI&" 3
l
I
'- '
YS-~f(
Case No. IS-'1S-f'f
. .
K. Is there any street widening required? No.
If so, please specify. N.IA.
L. Axe there any other street improvements required? Ysc; I Ac.oAlr. ~E ".,~/ MAcE
If so, please specify the general nature !If the necessal)' improvements. S'77i!E1!!:T.
~PL..E--n~M OF c~ (;.r".,,-,:'b I 5/~WALk... AiJD 'bIllVEHI4V 'M~VE-
MEAJ-rr.... A-L$~ IAI~" ~t>>l /Jf: S;'"'YDIC#"'r" '-/~/AI/:-.
.
M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for
existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (please provide a ~rief
explanation). fiiKI.5,:"'/J'/,c &>>"'I7>rr&-a.(<;." YE~.
t==t../nJflE... -"JI' ~.r t.:f;ite:'DA1_ "f?LA.M C.6>UD~c:;.:!po YF<.._
m. Soils
A. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? CI/J~oW'-I .
B. If yes, specify these conditions. "VA.
C. Is a Soils Report necessal)'? YF'.<;. J\ NlU./ ~IL!{; Jl..F~ WIU- SF RE((U/'~h
F~"T1fl:- ~D US~.
IV. Land Form
A. What is the average natural slope of the site? t. ~ %
B. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 51:>" f... ""'~l... <J;I~ ...., ..........~
V. Noise
Axe there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that
a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ","0.
VI. Waste Generation
~ How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be senerated by the proposed pro~ per day?
,~~) Solid "/I'JSt.--,Co,EA-fr IAlF~'T7""I 'PJ!!>...r~. _.or.. _'''~Wll.l...bl<RiO' 6~ 5cwp
'~ Liquid (IJSu~Ir':.r&."'- IIJ~J..-rr~ "Rru'rDFb . ' ~ €:fW~ B(
~ . ~ \. I What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from tfaeiili9c;". rry ~.
,-,,=-, '" \~\Cj", " .
t'\\e",o \'C-~ ~ Se.w,eL> '-'AI~ 1#.l. MA~rr: ~~ w,.,.,~ ~ws ~l.J'7'ZAUA~ ~//'"':J 1'5I'~CLS
~\\a-..C\(..W 77> A 15"~t:.!. 5E.t.ht::6I W/lJe. ~WAl<!T'zlF"''''i.
Axe they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) Ih/V. '~hJ - 7l) ~
~JZu/J..II!O..
WPC:r.~On!l3(11o{.III2U3)(IIcf. 1020.93)
P.4
. .
~
)
Ys- ~I (
.,
,. .
~-
Case No. I5-qS_I<{
vn. National Pollutant DischaTl!e Elimination Svstem t'NPDES) Stonnwater Reauirements
Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES Stonnwater Pennit? YFA.
. Jf"'~_ whkhNPDFS ='!c ~':'.:::::' =.:=~::,:=.
.:~~;=~=~:"'w:,~~':~:~=:~=is
=:~~~"'~F;: ~ TIlE FYI!>'17Nr.- ~V:~1Jr. I'J~~=: ::;::= ~~
,
Will a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? O~/~
>< Yes No
Additional comments N&.JE.
vn. Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other
""'" "'~ ~-"" "----. """ -',~ .:~' :;;.,"':. ~!
6.~~Y>f) =~~'=:=L~~?""-:S~~:----*t~-- ~=-e~
~~j' . ,
~ ~~"~ """'~ <WT>h< ,4';"',-:"(';;. ::==:-===
:".::":" <>"1: a "9'~ "" ,,-:-,.,: ......~~:3 _....,
AJj~ ~-=:~~~~:~~~~;;-
f~\ ~= ~""""~ '""-........ ~ ::~"
\~\ ./:. M~-;;; '''''''''Y'''''' 'is """ A""'<~~"::;_~''''''7JiE
;;;::"'t::. 1.J-.4,..,Alr.. bv-k' I:>.RA,/AIS Tt> TU~ "'~~_t .~:;. ;;:~~
Y~\cgq ~"'~/~L T:>1<;r~EO""" 77I-E <1;'/tnI-€y ~E~ =: ~ b.
~-\fl.'\ .
s
'flll~~
t~~~.
~(#
..
WPC-~D22.93 ".d. I02U3)(W. 1020.93)
~ ~ 'fy\'I
5ff~ ~ ~ r~
-,~\CQ~~~: ~ . >-
.......\...,~ od~OVCUI \ ,.-q
VO'\" /').../IS!?Jf ~.
Date I ()
~ \~-S ~,,~:"'N("'\Jt-av
~'\C.(\\p\\\ \.Q/IQ P.5
-\~c~ ~. I~
!;:;!J~~ -
.
THIS PAGE BLANK
MEMORANDUM
. August 13, 1996
File No. 0790-05-KYI35
TO:
Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
Elizabeth Chopp, Civil Engineer~
MACE STREET TRANSFER STATION SEWER SERVICE
FROM:
SUBJECT:
In response to your inquUy regarding of available sewer capacity for the proposed transfer station
on Mace Street, we compared several similar transfer stations in order to determine the waste
water discharge. We estimated that the expected yearly water use would be approximately 900,000
gallons. Then, subtraCting 10% for evaporation and assuming that the plant would be in operation
260 days per year (5 days per week) the estimotl'd daily wastewater discharge would be 3115 gal.
per day(gpd). Applying a pealc flow factor of 2.5 to the average daily diSCharge results in a pealc
flow of 5.4 gal. per min. (gpm) or 0.012 cubic feet per sec. (cfs).
We concluded that the Date/Faivre Sewer Trunk Line could adequately handle the additional peak
flow that would be generated by the proposed transfer station. The existing sewer flow in the
sewer trunk line at the restrictive section located near Faivre 8Dd 27th Streets (meter site # 133)
is 5.14 cfs while the capacity of the trunk line is 6.05 cfs.
These III1D1bers were used to estimate the available sewer capacity 8Dd should not be used to
determine any user and/or permit fees.
P1ease contact Mario Ingrasci, Assistant Civil Engineer, at 476-5376 ext. 3142 if you have any
further questions.
MJI:mji
<M:\,.. \SewerIMACElraD.mcm)
v
........
-
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
5O!i GARRm AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA 81812.2328
(818)~1413
FAX (818) 425-7488
May 8, 1996
GOYEANlHGIIOARD
GEORGE H. WAnRS. CHA/MIAH .
IMAGARET COOK WELSH. VICE CHAIR
JAMES F. DOIJD. SA.
SUE JARAEn'
8UD POCO<LINGTON
JAMES I. WOI.N~
CAF!Y F. WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
-..sURER
IMAH J. REEVES
SECRETARY
Mr. James Algert
Algert Engineering
428 Broadway
Chura Vista, CA 91910
Subject:
CHULA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED RECYCLE FACILITY
187 MACE STREET
SWA Gen. File: CITY OF CIiULA VISTA (FIRE DEPARTMENT)
Dear Mr. Algert:
The 2125 GPM fire flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a 2-hour duration as required
by the Chula Vista Fire Department is not available on Mace Street to serve the above-
referenced project. As stated in the Authority's letter dated May 24, 1995, (attached),
the maximum available flow on Mace Street is approximately 850 GPM.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Russell Collins at 422.8395, ext. 639.
Very truly yours,
SWEE1WATER AUTHORITY
~J.~~
a:~SL. Smyth
Chief Engineer
JLS:RC:vls
pc: Mr. Emmett Horsfall
City of Chura Vista
Fire Department
447 "F" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
enclosure: as cited
~__\117_.111
A Public Agency,
Serving Natio:'ltJl City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas
SWEETWATER AUTHOR In
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 919'2.2328
(6'9) 420-14'3
FAX (6'9) 425-7469
GOVERNING BOARD
----- -----
BUD POCKL.INGTON. CHAIRMAN
GEORGE H. WATERS. VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE "'ARRETT
EDWIN J STEELE
MARGARET .. WELSH
JAMES 5 WOlNIEWICZ
CAR\' F. WAIGHT
WANOA AVERY
TRUSURER
O'AN J REEVES
SECAETAAY....OMINISTRATIVE AIDE
May 24, 1995
,.. 'r- , .oe-
"";"';'...J 1......,-.);)
. -.. "
.........
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-14
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995
Dear Ms. Reid:
This letter is a reiteration of our original comments dated
January 16, 1995, concerning an Initial study for the subject
project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is a
6-inch water main located on the east side of Mace Street,
adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that
there are two water services to this property. Enclosed is a
copy of 1/4 SEC. 23B map which shows the existing water
facilities.
The required 6750 GPM and the reduced fire flow of 3375 GPM with
a fully automatic fire sprinkler system, noted in the City of
Chula Vista Fire Department's comments, i. Dot available to
provide fire protection for this project. In order for
Sweetwater Authority to deliver 6750 GPM, major system
improvements in excess of one million dollars would be required
at the developer's expense. To deliver 3375 GPM, approximately
3500 lineal feet of 12-inch water main would have to be installed
at the developer's expense in Mace Street, Main Street and
Hilltop Drive. The maximum fire flow that Sweetwater Authority
has available on Main Street by Mace Street is 2750 GPM, with no
system upgrades.
For any of the above alternatives, the developer would be
required to reimburse the developer of Sunny Imports $2,240.14
for water system upgrades in Main Street that were previously
completed. Backflow preventers will be required on all eXisting
and new water services for this site.
A Public Agenq,
Serving Natio"..1' City, Chula Vista and Surrmmdi,,? Area,
Ms. Barbara Reid
city of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Re: WATER AVAILABILITY
187 MACE ST., CHULA VISTA
May 24, 1995
page 2
On Mace Street at Britton Ave., the maximum available fire flow
without any improvements is approximately 850 GPM.
If the owner enters into an agreement with the Authority for
water facility improvements, water service can be obtained at a
pressure ranging from a maximum of 74 p.s.i. to a minimum of 49
p.s.i.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420-1413, ext. 639.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
L'~~
Engineer
JLS:RC:le
enclosure:
photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map
pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. Mark Watton
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, CA 92113
Ms. Carol Gove
Chula Vista Fire Department
476 F Street
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910
k:\l.urfe\lettera'--cewtr.8vl
SWEETWATER AUTHORIT"
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 919'2-2328
(6'9) 420..'4'3
FAX (6'9) 425-7469
GOVERNING 80ARD
Bue POCKLINGTON. CHAIRMAN
GEORGE H. WA TEAS. VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE JAAAETT
EDWIN J. STEELE
MARGARET A. WELSH
JAMES S WOLNIEWICZ
CARY F. WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
OIAN J REEVES
SECAETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE A'OE
January 16, 1995
Ms. Barbara Reid.
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula ViGta, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-14
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995
Dear Ms. Reid:
This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the
subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area.
There is a 6-inch water main located on the east side of Mace
Street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate
that there are two water services to this property. Enclosed is a
copy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map which shows the eXisting water
facilities.
The required 6750 GPM and the reduced fire flow of 3375 GPM with a
fully automatic fire sprinkler system noted in the City Df Chula
Vista Fire Department's Comments is not available to provide fire
protection for this project.
In order for Sweetwater Authority to deliver 6750 GPM, major system
improvements (storage pump station and pipelines) in excess of one
million dollars would be required at the developer's expense.
To deliver 3375 GPM, approximately 3500 lineal feet of 12-inch
water main would have to be installed at the developer's expense in
Mace Street, Main Street and Hilltop Drive.
The maximum fire flow available on Main Street by Mace Street is
2750 GPM with no system upgrades.
On Mace Street at Britton Ave., the maximum available fire flow
without any improvements is approximately 850 GPM.
A Public Agency.
Serving NatioMI City, Chukz Vista and SurroundinS' Areas
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-14
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995
January 16, 1995
For any of the above alternatives, the developer would be required
to reimburse the developer of Sunny Imports $2,240.14 for water
system upgrades in Main Street previously completed.
If the Owner enters into an agreement with the Authority for water
facility improvements, water service can be obtained at a pressure
ranging from a maximum of 74 p.s.i. to a minimum of 49 p.s.i.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420-l413, ext. 639.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~ _.J~
! Ji es L. Smyth
I ief Engineer
JLS:RC: ln
k:\lorelei\wp51\reid.ltr
enclosure:
photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map
pc: Mr. Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. Mark Watton
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, CA 92113
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST oJ" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, PILD.
SIfARON GIlES
PATRICK A. JJDD
PAMElA B. SMITH
lIKE A. SPEYRER
SUPERINTENDENT
USIA S. GIl, PILD.
May 24,1995
Ms. Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
,-
,...;...~~;/ ':' ,'"
-' :'1 iC!('...
" -v..:;
.....,.
.,
" ~. i
-
RE: IS-95-14/ FA-663/ DQ-140
Location: 187 Mace Street
Project: Privately Operated Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study for
the privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station project.
On December 7, 1994, the District responded to the Initial Study for this
project. It was stated that the project is located within the Otay/Montgomery
Schools attendance area, and that both facilities are operating at or near
capacity.
As mentioned in our letter, State law currently provides for a developer fee
of $.28 for non-residential area to be charged to assist in financing facilities
needed to serve growth. Since this project is a renovation of an existing
building, fees will only be charged on new square footage.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
M'~ -"
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
c:'Ninward:fHn8n'a02
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Af1h Avenue
Chula Vllta, Callfo,nla 1111111-28115
(5111) 5111-5SOO
Division of Planning and Facilities
-
'i
~
. . -, .~
! ...,
1"-
r'
',(' , -,
May 22, 1995
f-I.-:.''>
,".' ... ~
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Environmental Section
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Reid:
Re: IS-95-14/FA-663/DQ-140
The above subject project will nave an Impact on the Sweetwater Union High
School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government
Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to Issuance of building permit.
S.";?; ~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/ml
TOM GARIBAY
DIRECTOR
(111) ....-2212
FAX: (118) 218-046'
lOCATION CODE SSO
.
<!Inuttftl nf ~~1t JBi~Bn
F:. ~-'r:-,\/_~
----.& ...:.:W
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Dtc 29 1994
PLANNiNG COUNTY ENGINEER
COUNTY AIRPORTS
COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSIT SERVICES
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FlOOD CONTROL
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
SOUD WASTE
SS5S OVERLAND AVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 12'23.'215
December 29, 1994
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Attn: Douglas D. Reid
Dear MJ:". Reid:
'INITIAL STUDY FOR TRANSFER STATION AT 187 MACE STREET
The County of San Diego is in receipt of the Notice of Initial
Study for a proposed municipal solid waste transfer station and
associated material recovery facility to be located at 187 Mace
Street in Chula Vista. The County appreciates the opportunity to
review this initial study and after review is recommending that an
Environmental Impact Review (EIR) be prepared prior to approval of
the proposed facility. There are a number of reasons the County
believes an EIR should be prepared. These are listed below with
the impacts considered to be of concern.
1. Air Ouality
The County believes that an assessment of air quality should be
completed regarding the proposed project. Current Otay Landfill
usage suggests an average tons per day (TPD) from the proposed
service area (Greater Southbay) of approximately 913 tons. This
divided by the average eight tons per load that conventional trash
collection vehicles hold would equal 228 round trips per day. If
each collection vehicle makes two disposal trips to the facility,
that would equal 456 round trips per day. The addition of transfer
trucks brings the ADT still higher. That level of traffic could
result in significant air quality impacts.
2. Odors
The Initial Study states that the transfer building will
incorporate odor and dust control. Recent composition studies show
that only 37 percent of solid waste is composed of paper. Further,
a composting study done by Madison, Wisconsin in 1993 found
that the average household disposed of 211 pounds of food annually
o ~onrllCyded~
Mr. Reid
-2-
December 29, 1994
(see attachment). Even if one assumes, as the study did, that 50
percent of that food goes down the garbage disposal, that would
still leave several million pounds of food disposed each year in
the Greater Southbay area. It has been the County's experience
that these amounts of food products can produce offensive odors.
Also, a review of the area found that there are residential units
within approximately a half-mile and directly downwind of the
proposed facility. Consequently, the County believes that an EIR
level review needs to be completed regarding the potential for
odors at the facility.
3. Noise
The County recognizes that the area immediately surrounding the
proposed facility is zoned for industrial uses and therefore has a
certain built-in noise level. However, the County believes that
noise from the increased truck traffic would not necessarily be
incremental in nature. While it would be accurate to say that
heavy trucks now operate from the site, it seems reasonable to
assume that many of the trucks only impact the surrounding area
once or twice per day. Under the proposed project, collection
trucks could be accessing the site several times a day and noise
will be further intensified by the addition of transfer trucks.
The County believes that these circumstances can lead to unknown
and potentially cumulative impacts that require a more in-depth
review.
4. T.raffic
The County has several concerns regarding the proposed project's
traffic impacts.
A. First, the projected ACT appears to be
underestimated. Page 1 of Attachment A states that
an average of 500 TPD will yield a total of 84
collection vehicle ACTs, while 1,000 TPD will yield
an ACT of 168. As pointed out in Number 1 above,
the county believes that the actual ACT would be
approximately 456 per day without a Passenger Car
Equivalent (PCE) factored in. If the standard PCE
mUltiplier of 2 is added to account for the extra
impacts related to the collection vehicles' weight, ~
the actual ACT would become approximately 913.
Further, since the average trash collection vehicle
holds approximately 8 tons and. the proposed
transfer vehicles hold 25 tons, it would seem
reasonable to assume that there would be three
times as many collection vehicle trips as transfer
vehicle trips. However, the Initial study offers a
ratio of approximately 2:1 by stating that 1,000
Mr. Reid
-3-
December 29, 1994
TPD would yield 168 collection vehicle trips and 80
transfer vehicle trips. Given the aPParent
discrepancies regarding these figures, the County
would recOmmend that a traffic study be included as
part of an EIR.
B. Secondly, the Plot Plan distributed with the
Initial Study show a distance of approximately 200
feet from the entrance of the site to the scale.
Given an approximate length of 30 feet for trash
collection vehicles, a maximum of 6 trucks could be
in line for the scale before the trucks are backed
up onto Mace Street. Since trash trucks often tend
to come in waves, a waiting area which accommodates
only 6 collection vehicles seems unrealistic. This
would be further compounded if a transfer Vehicle
were attempting to enter the facility and not have
enough room to avoid waiting in line.
C. Third, a review of the project area shows a school
in relatively close proximity of the project site,
on the north side of Main Street and residential
uses to the east. The County recommends, given the
closeness of these uses, that a traffic study done
for the project discuss impacts to these apparently
incompatible Uses.
s. Hvdroloav
A review of the Project Location Map for the site shows that the
southern area of the property appears to be within the 100 year
flood lines of inundation for the Otay River and the proposed
facility will apparently be built up to the souhern property
boundary. Given that, there would seem to he questions regarding
the safety of the Otay River if a flood occurs and inundates a
portion of the building. Also, based upon the location map
distributed with the Notice of Initial Study, the facility, as
proposed, would be only 600 feet from the Otay River floodway at
its nearest point. Given these two factors, it seems reasonable to
expect that hydrological studies be conducted as part of the ErR.
6. Land Use
The County also believes that a discussion regarding land use
should also be included in the environmental document. This belief
is based upon the relative proximity of residential uses, a school
and parks to the proposed project site. It would seem reasonable
to question whether the proposed activity is compatible with
activities associated with residential use and what the impacts to
those uses might be.
Mr. Reid
-4-
December 29, 1994
7. Other Considerations
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that
environmental assessments for a project be done at the earliest
possible opportunity. Given that the purpose of the proposed
transfer station is to transport solid waste to a disposal
facility, it is reasonable to expect that environmental studies
done regarding the project should assess impacts upon the area
surrounding the receiving landfill. The County would therefore
recommend that an EIR be required in order to assess the various
alternatives for waste disposal and include both truck-haul and
rail-haul methods unless they are specifically ruled out in the
EIR. In either case, the minimum requirement should be a
discussion of various options available due to the construction of
the transfer station. The environmental document should also
discuss questions regarding the potential for shared responsibility
with other jurisdictions using the landfill.
Conclusions
Given the number of concerns raised by the Initial study, the
County believes that an EIR should be required prior to any
approval for construction of the transfer facility. There appears
to be a number of questions that remain unanswered and that number
appears to be sufficient enough to require the preparation of a
comprehensive environmental document. The County therefore
recommends that the City of Chula Vista require a full EIR prior to
project approval.
The County would be appreciative if you would include the County's
Solid Waste Division in the distribution of any future materials
regarding this project. If you have any questions, please call Jon
Rollin at (619) 974-2709.
Very truly yours,
~&-~ ae.
J A. MILLER, Acting Deputy Director
D artment of Public Works
JAM:JR:cg
Attachment
, ~
D4 02:41
.
Compas Investments, Incorporated
'qST COMMERC I I'lL
6196619214 P.02
.
..... ........~..'''<:rJ ......,...._
...........~.......,_.,~ ........ ::;:... .:t.'..:t>:it""",.r' .n...., _...~
h"~':,",--
.......~~I;""~
Deccmber27,1994
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review coordinator
276 Founh Ave,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~.
RE: Mace St. transfer Station
Case No. IS-94-15
Dear Mr. Reid:
1 am the property owner of parcel No. 629-130-30-00 located on the S.E comer of Main
and Mace St.
The proposed use jf approved, will have an irreperable negative impact for the community
of ChuJa Vista with additional potential adverse Environmental issues.
Please Keep me posted on this review as affects the development potential of my property.
Sincerely,
,€
'.
"
::tr.=2I:b.".
-
,. ,1'I'fIIW...........,.1.rlL~....~
~~o. ~,~ ~ Pc.
1 -':'r'..._uaua~~'~r"-' 0"', ,...no.... -..~ .~~~_~ ~t
~.c..~, ~
(619) 661-6467 ~ ~~O\,'t
TOTAL P.02
24S1S Pueo de Iu Amwi;u, Sullo I, Clay Mua, CA 92173
. ,
-
A Division of I.R.E. Enterprises, Inc.
f\:: ...~ ,-~ r.-~". .
-_''"'"-!\t_~.......~
....-
Dre S 0 1994
PLANNiNG
-
-
International Real Estate
December 27, 1994
VIA FAX #69l-Sl7l
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Mace st. Transfer Station
Case No. IS-94-1S
Dear Mr. Reid:
I was recently made aware of the above referenced proposed project.
As a property owner (3648 Main st.), I am concerned about the
potential adverse impact this project would have in the community,
not the least of which is traffic.
Please put my name and address on your list for additional mailings
and public hearings concerning this project.
Sincerely,
INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTAT
~~
Michael
MAV:clb
(J Industrial! Commercial Properties - Sales & Leasing! Property Management (J
2320 Paseo de las Americas, 1/200, Otay Mesa, CA 92173, (619) 661-6681, FAX (619) 661-6685
'~. .iJf.
,
,
II D~n'-t 7hJ1I7 ~u,. Iria+~,. "
January 27, 1995
"/.~:',..:.
Chula Vista Planning Department
Attn: Martin Miller
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
J, r
1"1."
RE: PACIFIC DISPOSAL C.U.P. STATUS
Dear Mr. Miller
Our citizen's group has been following Pacific Disposal's plans to build a mixed Waste
transfer station in Chula Vista. It is our understanding that they have submitted an
application for a Conditional Use Permit.
We are requesting to be notified, in a timely manner, of all upcoming public meetings
regarding this CUP. Please send notices to:
DoMa Tisdale
Backcountry Against Dumps
P.O. Box 1275
Boulevard, CA 91905
My phone number is 766-4170 and my fax is 766-4922. Thank you for your assistance.
Sin~91ly, __
~ /c.;cIJ--
DOMa Tisdale,
President
DONNA TISDALE
P.O. BOX 1275
BOULEVARD, CA 91905
(619) 766-4170. FAX: (619) 766-4922
~~ i'.c. C'C'A,ce
DIANE RICHARDS
1783 BUCKMAN SPRINGS RD.
CAMPO, CA 91906
(619) 478-9195
t.:'""t:.,."--- .-......._._...._..~_.,.----:-.-.. .-"-'. ......- ._.....-..-.i- ~...
; ....\ _' >d'.~':...:'t:~~~ .' ~'''''~':.';~.:\ . J ' ,.'I''r----.'
...... 'j :- '," . ........." .. III... ,_.....,.._-~.__..___~_..., ." . ~.. 't
~"''''';:~ C,,,,,- ;"'''' .. ,t >~~'...~-~~~~t:~}.t:?~1~jEsl
MACEINDUST~'Z:.~~~T!~i,-,;~-- ...... \
_3~1 Via Mcrcedo. Sul~ 16, La Mesa, CA 919011 .~~,..~;r>~.,~.~:;-.~;:{.. ,;~.: 1
"(619) 66().19S2, fax (619) 661).61.2.~...};.<,.;-;.;';.,,<~, ..". ., . II
,', ~. ':" .~~ I.
-.. y~'i' " ..;'~. .;~ - ~
. ~
J
~
-
~ '.. -
. .
.~"-.;;:~.~~'.;-'~.. "\..,..
,
- ..
~
..
'~,: '
. ,.
.
,'.. ..-....i..;.....
. .
.
"
"
January 5, 1995
"
"
-'",
, .
..
--... .--
.' ,
'.
'<'-1.
-.....c...
.
,
Environmental Review CoordiIllltor
Douglas D. Reid
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vi~ta. California 91912
.r _' --..>
.. .~- .-. .-: ~ .
, .':,). ::'.: ;;:';~,', ,:,,~~':". /
,\:;::"L-.ii-:,l. _."-:--.~~" - ' '-
- ".j,'..
. 'Li':~- "'~.'.:
" "..).~
;_.,;f
.'
,
,
'.-;;:
}
RE: Proposed project type" Municipal Solid waste transfer and associat;:d reco\'t:J"); racility: ,'.
Proposed property location "187 Mace St., Chula Vista, CA"
, ~ '.- ,
.t
-~
.~
':,-
j :\ .~. ::\,; .. - ~ . ;
Dew Mr. Reid: .. . c.\ >.; r \"'. ','.. ;
III rt;;,ponse to the lcncr of "Notice of Initial Study" on thearove referenced project, 1 have listed sOme .....:-;;
com:em,: I have for this type of use in this area. As per our telephone conversatior" ducto the time'. .....:.: .,..
constraints of receiving the notice on December 27, at 4;00PM, }'OU indicated tl-:8t J.s).ould fax you this. .~.: . ',.
letter loday, and it would be reviewed. J would appreciate the opportudt). to follow up.y.ith /I completc: ,.'. . . J
packa~c if necessary. .' ,..;;;..":.\i(>-' ,- ~.~
...... .~, ,-~~'._ . .~';-!"ao-~ _.-.::-:'~~ ," .~
To give $Om\' b~ck~round on us, we own the property directi}' acro~s the 1trec1'from tbi$ proposed' ':::6.><'~'. ~
project, 170 &1 gO M;sce St., respective!)', We built our IndUsLoiaJ (-enters ana have kept a :1iands On~ .; ? .~
al1ituJe to Prorcr1)' Munai:cment. Our buildiRg and driveways are kCpt clcafl, and ,inSood repair., There' '.~
are apl'roximatel)' 70 tenants in our building, elso a Caretaker who lives On Site. ',' ~<:;;;:5"i.::j<~.. ..d '..
. ..' . ,: .....'\: .... '. :':'_~Y.';;~!f'~:~~r:'c:~f:' .,:~
We have had some experience with a similar ~ope of business, as IS being proposed.H. O.Feirton owns . ::')i"~
property adjacent to ours. it is cum:ntly leased to Pacific Dlsposaf, this property iSwidera (:UP, ~incc:~'i;';,,' ,:;;
1990, Pacific Disposal has been using this property for the storaae of 1011 off eontair1m.and ~c1es.,.Y ..:.':!
which is what their CUP allows. But in actuality, this type ofbusincss in\'olves much mOrt dum what is' ..:,-;
stated. We have lost tenants, and deal with tenant ~aints ~oncemingtbe ~Odor;.~?JolseLeV~l~i""o',~ '\' :~
of the roll ofT con!~inen and tnlcks.. The roll Qff cOht8inm arc CIJ:Ipty. but there is ~ ~s'!due left. ~m . . .' ,.'. _
whatever they ca..'Tied that is very. offensive, as arc the "1lies. that are attracted by tpis residue 4150, the 2'..>' .
Noise from the trucks re\'Ving engines to lift the roll off containers orrjs appalling. Anil please .: :',<;~{:: ,,\.... .,
acknowledge, that if you ban 8 truck, it Will need maintenance, which is not aUowed under Lig1lt ~'37~~~ ;. i.
industrial Zonina, or under a CUP. ]h. poposed project will be even worse due to 1ht amplinideo(thC'
~J<<\.. ..- ,\ \ ~>~i.'?~~;.;i.~\;.~i;i'~J,;'~~~;]~i~;
- _~'_ - , '. ... iI' ~~ ~1';,1'~' ......~:;. ~....":: ~ - "_:~-!-~~: -~.... ~
, .
. - _. . - . "~.""'_. '. -. ,. :',,,.,
I - < ~ h1:~3 El"E6C6142 C-t.1 PKOi-E"HE!;..-, ';.,', 'c'"""'.;:',.:.;:",..,..,, A>AC"L c.tJ,:j.... .',
I~~::- .',.. ~;,,- ":'L~cg;-;~~~~~~~~~~e:~n,
. .... -. ". ,,-.', ........."..,--~->. .......' ',,, 1;r,.
:r/ ,;" ';'1;'" """"'" be -. "'" .in -"1nJT~""'= d~ j.;...';;.,;;;.;~~ ~~if 1\
. , The trafficcrented by the Trucks will a'eIIte a .bottI~ ,,~c." 1III".ti'!lI, with truckI baclced op 0Il1hc".;,& .... r<:' ,
I SITC'rt. Th~ must be a "In &. Out" dri\o-e\lt'BY access to lCduce the risk cl' potentia) accidents and 1I1Iffic', ,"
jams. Mace Street is a small street, and is DOt wide enough to handle "~/Nmn True! fl'llffic."Thm is, .,.,
No Traffic Light on Main Street. This type of Large TniCk Traffic ..iU ~ potential. acQdc.ots at ~ -:,. '.....
;:"~Rd~b~~_ AJ~~.!~!iE!ir~~~~;r'~
whenever It rains due to Pacific Disposal, and SIcy TrucHng If you increase the' vol~ of trucks. OD::' ~ . .
Mace Street. who i6 going to send the street sweeper every day to handle this J'roblem?AlSo, ~ have <; '~c~;
clocked 1M trucks from Pacific Disposal goini 4SMiJes an hour 0"- MaceSt Jrnagw:a ~J,:~'iL.;'r;.; . .
thorouehfau. . : '.' \':":.f::~:;':""':,:.~:~.g, /.'
. ':C' ,~":,~...,, .'~ :~: , -~/':~:~'~-:~~;;r~.~~'~~~:,;~:>:':.. ,;
Thll Propost4 proj~l.t Itttds II Noise Study. 'fhf accumulatioll of Trucks slowing J(.'\\'I1, 5pecdinE up, . .
Tl'\"\ing their engines for Wlloadillg containers, compacting wB3te, wiU be incredible. We 8relllread}' .
expericncing tJjC'se same problems \\ith Pacicfic Disposal. just Dot orth~ ma8nitudc..); f .
~. -' ,,, "?,.,
. - ~,.~'. ..,-";. .
' - " '. . , . :~
\Iru.oe StrC'CI dtX's n(\t h.we enough street lightina to handle tbese hO\lt$ of opctation. The Truckswi)1 be; ,>,';
leaving before 6:00AM eY'ery morning. And \\111 DOt shut down operation u!lul after JO:OOPM. . '.' "1
Guaranletd. } "~:-., ~
.-' -f _ ~- - -. ;.' '-" '.. ..'7~.:.:, -.;'2
. Th,' Water Main do'wn Mace Street is 8 6" Cast Iron Dead End Mair\.' Due to it being Cast Iron. it is,'fj,
Corroded and does not e\'en flow 6". The proposed project is to add 6O,O(){)Sf of Building:' . J" .-~ :,,:.... '~"1
Without repJilCint this Water Main, it is putting lit rid the lire! P'ot~ctiOllof our Dl)jlding and othcr.,:< -t
huildings vn Mace Street. ." ~...t' ..:;-~.' ~
:, j . ~.... ...:..... r",,-., :!, .
.-. j":.,;...~-'!~-...-,:,:. - .". '#';ii>"'~'
''.' ;.- ..,t'J/:: ....
, ':. '. .' . ", - :,"-:.', -",
Jn dosing, this ~rell is W1It'.d Li,IIt lnd~iIIl. The C!~ COWlcil has beel1 tzying to upgrad~ ~s areato;:.;;.}~]
be more 1IC.>lhl1JCaJly pleasing The subject Propcrt)'I~ III the Southwest RedC'vdo.>prncnt DiS!rict To 'f,.";.;-1
allow this t}.pe of project is against the zoning. and \\ill not accomplish what tl\( Cit}. Council fiaSSCI .k "-, '<{~"i
forth for thi~ area. A project of this magnitudt' should be developed furlher ouiin an Uoinrol])Or8ted ......; ,} ,..,:1
area. II is our wish that a in-depth Emiromental Study be completed. inc1uding Noise, Tnffic Volwne ':":"<:;". .;}
includina ~ngt'sti~n problem due to no traffic ~~t &. driveway entrance. Odor. WIter Supply;.Otr ',,-~'>';>.,;;:a
street parking, lot SIlt f"r Proposed 60.vOSF Bwldu1g, and health reas.ons (rllere b rn.idtDtlaJ JaouIlDg . ....s .."
adjaceJII to this PWIJ\:I1)) '. . ..c .-"_ . . . r.t. -;" """:';~;:;~~""'<yJ')i"!~>";,;J', ....-:.... '.. . :,{
This t}~ of property use will be a ~"Lsance;~rDur t~:IInU' an~~.~~':p~~tfu)~~5!~~:%~~'.._..., 1
prOpl'l't}. fOI rcnta1 and resale. ~"/..," ,.:~:...... ,'. .,~'. ~ ',~'1:'..~it~~~~~'...if\?':f~!'-'i'./...' _ . .
,-.. ..... ,..;;" ,} :ff.:c..';', , ,'",,-,- '..~ '1";~"~'" . "" #;1.
.. "" -... ~.. botter .flb< .....~ ..~~,;;, ..;;Sa~;'<'~;l-';;; '...~
from th" propo5Cd project, please give our con~~~: :our ~~t. ~D~~~ ~~!~..if:~{'t~t:~:rC,{~~ ,;
S. . ' -'-.: .'~,:: .' _';~"'r';"":'",,,,:..it4!.-;<.,.<:;~:tf:"~~,r ,
ID.....lv . . ~ "".. ,. ...~.. ". ,..... ..~_ . .0.>" '" "..
-~~". .... '. ..... :, . >:; '...: """,.'c. .:....~'.. :_'_ '.,' ,
~. oIS' .... .. -' "..-:. ':-:':~-::~', 7\::"':~in'"":~;;;.,:...~.~j~.,::. '.,
~ :~<~~ "f"~ '1; >:~-~". t. ?...~ ....~16<~.. t"~~....,~.$-""'~'~.J'<,' ..;...r ,i
- . ~'" :: ~1c'" ':~""<-~}':':;'::'~":':'~':~"P,::~'>:":".;,-i/~ .~
- - >,~' _ '\ ..~ '1...--" ""'~', " ~ .~~...~~,~~~~...'-"-?-~~-' . ~_~",_,.:~.,. ~
VhiIlllL.Kr.....'er.PA__ ~.- -..... '0'. ...... .,' -. !..".~';-_."'.....,. '""'.t."
-... -...... . --- -,. ".F .'C -',..~:..'~ ',>'" ';;:di~:z ~;~.:i..."~:.lf,c'"'i!;,..
MaceJndustrialCentet . - ,.... . .....,< , , ~~.. "':''1iM'._ "~"".'.",.
. : 1>. .~~;,. -. \ :: ! " .;..........,.'\;...~}1#< /' ~";:~.:r~'~r., i
---- . , ..' .(.... '... . '>c._:. '<._ .' ,~,,",,-~~,~~;y(.: ::.'_'~",~.;..~
. " .. ~,: .. ..",," ,... .... '..:~' ~-.'~ -;..<;';J;,,;-;-,^::,' ;~;"~." \.
l
,
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION STUDY
SKY TRUCKlNGlPACIFIC DISPOSAL
187 MACE STREET, CHULA VISTA
Pacific Disposal, Inc. proposes to construct a facility for materials recovery and waste
transfer at 187 Mace Street, Chula Vista. ThIs operation would supplant the present use
of the project, Sky Trocklng. The purpose of this study Is to define the change In truck
uNge of Main Street due to the change In use of the site.
Sky Trocklng Is a year-round truck and material transfer operation. Dally logs and fuel
records are available for that operation which have been summarized In Table III.
Records show a seasonal variation In truck trips. both light trucks and saml's. The
heavier use Is In the spring, summer and fall. The average use for eight months Is
approximately 45% more than for the winter months. The tabulated values are a
weighted average to reflect year-round ADT. The project usage Is taken from the CUP
Initial study and truck load averages were fumlshad by Pacific Disposal. A one-day tramc
count was perfonned on Febroary 8,1996 and was supervised by Algert Engineering.
The results of that survey are tabulated In Tables I and II.
The tabulated values In Table III show that In tenns of total tramc. the project will have
negligible effect on overall traffic on Main Street. both for light and heavy vehicle. When
truck loading Is factored In, the project will lessen the existing use. The heavily loaded
truck use will be 165 per day at 100% project capacity. The existing heavily loaded truck
trips Is 183 per day. This analysis Is bese.d on the maximum capacity of the facility of
1000 TPD. If the facility Is used at a more realistic level of 85% of capacity, the heavily
loaded trucks will decrease by 23% from the present usage. The overall truck usage
would decrease 11 % from present uNge. Measured as ton-trips, (num~r of trips x
average gross vehicle weight) the existing uNge Is 8034 ton-trips per day and the project
usage at 85% capacity Is 8146 ton-trips per .day (considering only semrs and trash-
trucks). Therefore, although the existing facility contributes approximately 18" of the
total heavy vehicle usage on Main Street. the project at 85% of capacity Is expected to
reduce that usage to approximately 18% In lenns of truck trips and to approximately
13.5" of existing usage In lenns on ton-trlps.
"
.
.
~.1.1-' ,
.~_._._..- -
.
\
)
'--'
. TAlLE I
TlAmc CIUIT InDY
Mil ITIEET/IIILLTCIP
~.
WI 2 I l1li1" ... _CYCUI ~ U SALLE
PlCIe-," AXEL AXEL lUlU
TIIUCICJ TIIUCICJ
A.I. 6100-6:15 !II I I " 2 0 4 0 0 59
6.1'-6130 '" 2 2 5 2 0 4 I 0 "
6130-6:41 60 6 0 5 I 1 I 0 0 74
6141-7100 90 2 I 9 2 0 7 0 I "4
7100-7115 79 0 2 7 2 0 2 1 0 '"
7115-7130 ". 2 2 6 4 0 4 0 1 117
7130-7141 141 I 4 4 0 0 I 0 0 '"
7.41-..00 165 5 2 7 2 0 4 0 0 110
':00-':15 116 11 1 2 5 0 5 0 0 ZD6
..15-':30 '" 10 I . 2 0 4 0 0 '"
..30-':41 114 4 5 7 , , I , 0 '"
..41-9.00 '30 9 5 '0 0 0 5 0 0 157
':00-'1 I' 97 5 2 . I 0 2 0 0 111
'115-':30 151 . 5 . 0 I 5 0 0 15.
9:30-'141 241 , . 6 , 0 4 , 0 270
9.41- 10.00 '07 12 0 6 , 0 4 0 0 1JD
10:00-10:15 147 , , 5 I 0 2 0 0 Ie
10.15-10:30 '" 2 , ' . 0 0 4 0 0 '"
10.30-10141 '" 6 0 . , I 2 0 0 152
10.41-11:00 137 7 2 II 0 0 4 0 0 161
11 .00-11:15 '" 2 4 6 2 , I 0 0 ,~
11:15-11:30 '" 4 2 7 2 2 4 , 0 176
11:30- I 1:41 1sa 5 5 10 , I 6 0 , 11S
11:41-12.00 '16 0 2 7 0 0 I 0 0 '"
P.I_ 1ZI00-'2:15 I. 5 2 9 I , 5 0 0 215
12.15-'2130 176 10 , 7 I , I 0 2 20'
'2:30-12.41 '''' . 0 6 2 0 2 0 0 '"
'2.45-1:00 179 7 0 7 2 0 4 0 0 19'
1:00-1:15 ,.7 . 6 5 . 2 I 0 , I2D
1:15-1:30 '" . 2 , , 1 I 0 0 115
113CI-1I45 '" 9 I I 10 0 2 0 0 181
1145-2100 '" 7 4 5 0 0 4 0 0 ,.
2100-2115 171 5 , 6 4 , 1 0 0 '"
2115-2130 '10 6 I 5 6 , 2 0 0 2IIJ
2130-2141 '10 6 5 6 I 0 2 0 0 2IIJ
2145-5100 211 , I 10 2 2 1 0 0 D4
1100-1115 212 5 2 2 2 , 1 0 1 1916
5115-1130 222 2 2 , 0 , , 0 1 DO
1130-1141 ISI 5 2 I 2 0 1 0 0 169
1145-6100 a1 2 , 2 0 0 0 0 0 D6 "
4100-'115 JCD . 2 I I 0 0 0 0 117
411'-6130 ,. 4 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 '"
4:50-6145 '" 1 0 I 1 1 0 0 . -
4145-5100 20S 6 2 0 1 , 0 0 0 "5
5115-5130 "5 5 2 4 , 0 0 0 0 JS7
5115-5130 261 7 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 176
'130-5145 2Z5 5 5 . , 0 0 0 0 M4
5145-6100 212 2 I I , 4 0 0 0 2Z5
6100-6115 I2D 5 2 ;"., 0 0 0 0 0 121
./
6115-6130 199 5 5 " 5 0 0 0 0 2Z5
mAL IISJ4 266 120 2M 17 17 122 5 . "'"
\
i(
'. TAlLE II
TlAFnC IXUIT 11\1)'
Mil ITIHT/IILLTII'
.ITIIIIIIID"
CAli 2 3 _"I IUSEI IIIITIIICTCLII ....., LA IALLE .IIED mAL
PlCIe-UPS AXEL AXEL ILCIM
TIIICICI TIIICICI
.... 6100-61 I' 65 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 69
6.I,-6ISO 73 Z I 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
61SO-614' 11' 1 2 6 1 0 2 0 0 127
614'-7100 165 1 1 , 0 2 3 0 0 '"
7100-7115 ' 140 1 2 6 I 0 3 0 0 153
711,-71SO 1711 3 I , 4 0 4 0 0 117
71SO-714' Z34 4 I , 3 2 3 0 0 ZSZ
714,-.,00 soo 0 Z 4 0 I 0 0 0 S07
..00-1.1' 174 7 , 10 I 0 I 0 0 ZD3
I.I,-I.SO 154 9 , , 2 I 4 0 0 171
I,SO-I,45 103 I , 9 2 0 , 0 0 121
114'-9,00 197 7 , . 2 0 2 0 0 219
9,00-9115 114 7 4 9 1 I 6 0 0 142
9,15-9,SO 151 10 Z , 0 0 1 0 0 ,.
9,SO-9,45 142 . , 6 2 0 6 0 0 167
9,45-10.00 ,,. , 0 , 0 1 1 0 0 121
10,00-10,15 176 7 , 9 1 0 , 0 0 201
10115-101SO 99 , , , 0 0 2 0 0 1IZ
10,3CI-IO,45 135 4 Z , 1 0 , 0 0 150
10,45-1"00 152 7 4 I 0 0 4 0 0 175
11,00-1"'5 167 Z I 7 I 0 3 0 0 ,.,
''''5-''130 143 3 4 10 0 I 4 0 0 165
,"SO-,"45 I. , I 7 I I 2 0 I 1as
1I145-IZ.00 161 6 I 9 0 0 6 0 1 1114
.... 1Z.00-12,15 ,. 10 0 , Z I 1 0 0 '"
1Z,15-12,30 111 I Z 7 0 0 , 0 0 201
1Z.SO-1Z.45 '" 7 I 6 2 1 4 0 1 ,.
12.4'-"00 171 , 0 , 1 0 I 0 0 1113
1.00-"15 161 10 0 . 4 I I 0 0 1as
1115-"30 190 5 0 2 1 2 4 0 0 Z04
"30-1145 165 , I 7 4 I 2 0 0 115
1.45-2,00 150 7 Z 6 3 0 4 0 0 172
2,00-2115 175 1Z I 7 4 I 3 0 0 ZD3
Z,I5-ZISO 165 4 I , 0 1 3 0 0 '"
2,SO-Z.45 155 12 2 I 3 0 I 0 0 174
ZI45-'IOO 190 7 Z 7 I I 0 0 0 ZOI
3100-'115 2,. 4 I 2 I 0 0 1 0 ZZ7
3,'5-3ISO ,., 10 0 , 2 0 0 0 0 '"
,.SO-,.45 174 9 2 , 2 0 1 0 0 '"
'145-4100 176 7 , , 1 0 0 0 0 192 ,
,
4.00-4115 140 , 3 1 1 1 0 I 0 Z5Z
4115'4,SO 131 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 147
4ISO.4145 '" , 1 1 2 2 . 0 1 lID
4145-,.00 I. 4 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 191
,.00-5115 ,. , ,0 , 2 0 D. 0 0 191
'115-,.SO Z09 9 Z 2 2 2 0 0 0 Z26
,.SO-'I45 110 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 191
'145-6.00 ,.. , 1 .1 0 0 D. 0 0 175
6,00-6.15 173 1 1';/" 1 0 0 0 0 179
6,15-6,SO 136 0 1 , , 0 0 0 0 '"
0
mAL 1219 m 17 249 66 ZS 104 Z , 9OZ7
P.U.'I/ Lflht
Cera _I'.
m
1M'/)'
, ,......
(4)
...)
..
I'..
'AILE III
__, Of IXIITIIG AlII __ nuac WEAGE Of MIl ITIEET
1M")'
_I'.
(Z)
Lllht
,,...
(J)
'ot.I VeIIlcl_
1 'otal
,. ..I.tl.. _
I. Pecfflc _..... " '6153
I. Ity '.....1.. ,Z 71 NI6
I. '.1.1. . . NI6
I. _... 'I '7 NI6
roul " 30 95 . . NI6
I. Project UOOI Cepeclty) '00 '6753
40 40 US US '616
(1) Indl""t_ 1_' IItllht . 30.000 ,
(Z) Indl""hI I..... IItllht . 10.000 ,
(3) Indl""t_ I..... IItllht . 33.000 ,
(4) Indl""tH ...... IItllht . 53.000 ,
D.5 1 of 'otal IIthlcl_
S.' 1 of 'I'11III_1 'a/11\1Cb/111H1
".5 "of '......,..I.a/11\1Cb/111H1
z.s " of ,......,... 'a/1~
'7.' " of ,......,..1 'a/11\1Cb/111H1
D.5 " of 'ot.1 VeIIlcl_
".6 1 of '''''''''1 'a/11\1Cb/111H1
lot., ,he project _ end _lotI.. _ ... for . iI4 !lour dIy. ' file traffIc _ ,. for . 'Z.S !lour doyt,. ,.,.1011.
'or .....1... """,,,,"H. till. ohauld not dl.tort thoH ....It., ......... It ......Id be notlll that _I _I.t'"
end project ',,*t ... po..... 251 1_ _ _ .......
'17 1Ioce:
EIAL Anolyo'"
S Axl. "Ipo 5 Axl. ,.Ipo 'otal aAL
..I.tl.. _ ..tIIoInI: . 6Z '. '71._
..,.tl.. _ _tIIoInI, . 6Z '. '71._
'001 Project _ ..tIIoInI: '25 40 '.....900 ,-
'001 Project _ _tIIoInI: '25 40 '._.900
lot.: Project...,. _Iclpotlll .t t_ _ '001 of copoclty.
.
-:.;..,--
. . 1151116/1996 14: 19 6196915171
'~r ~,
~ . . .:lEU- /itG,1/rl , ..
/) . I .' --r:/-.r
. '-<<('...~"'~ ~.... 6ct;J.J. ~..
;r:... -0 ~.B-:/a.r~ .::.... c;n.~~n~'~, ~ 8"~~f/TIWCoIc..
,'. lI1 Aot a WAY
;6te-r/R...,.... _IZS'..~~..::. ~~":~I:o ~~lI7IM.O~
_ t.~xt? __ _.. '. _. . . _ . . . II.' L.l~"rt".
CI1Y 0' CH.I.A VISTA PAaE 113
is. - ~(\
. . .0.
- .
.' e_
~r.ro..*'"~~.~ TJC'!,p:r,'';. .....
... .. --. ' ..., . -, . -' ~ L..:n..DQP
I tt:o'" ~y 7r''''~ _ -~ ' <;
:.. .'c;:a.o.~'.'~ArY'J' L..rlol-
rl - '.
.. ~.I.~~ ... .... '41f:J fI~rj.-'~, -......
.. __I'-f'Sc. ~_1c>> ~.z:;! ..-r~c: "":'"~ ~~c:r.
~. . . ,_ ..' ~'-1..:r A- ~'\!;6vE" \
""L"'l'? ~
.~\4~c.. ~~ ~~r ~"t1~~^~'?r" ~40H~
-
._ \.... ..' "!J ~ ~E'tl ":.-r" ^ f1T ~. 'i-<:>'
-==-
.. .: t...~ ~,,,c..t"'_~" I~T"~~"( -:-OIolUC.
r~ L~ ':~.. J.~ --;~-~"
Lri
.-
...
...
.
...... .....-
.. - . .. -
-0. ".
.
.... .'_" .__.. .0.... . _
... . ._.. .
... .
-
./
-;~.
--
. --
_'0
. . '0
I)
/ " 2
S :s 'Z. G;.
~359 8"
ht.-OH ~<;c /2tD1<l11..1 } Wro@ 'S"/n=' -/o72..CP$..
H.P=- 5o/)..{SLt:.., L.P.--7!).D' L= IG,ot7D'(f)4t..t.dZ.oAOI3AS.,IJ)
,
lo-/O'7~" I
" 'B-I.9C '~, 'c,V tlYI?,w~<#'I-II'Ifll,4V"'7d.
187 HAc€> ;5r.) c, V.
"
,
......1 !fA
- :. I. ~.
" 7;. = 0,'1 ( ~, .-v
. Ie- ~ (I.~ L ') o.38t'
.
.
c-.4Ht" .. "I-I#<' /2" Q S
;;;)' IV.... -;-- = . J n (vo:;; 12.<5 CFS,
L\I>
(!1~ Ufvt,,( Y'SM 1,A.Jf7:;J.JJ'1"/ /p...a.c~c...."
2-)
C4f'A~'TY d'F c.r(--A/..J~ oFF GJI..sr ./t
I "T" / ,
I-ON, &iT'"' w,ON{ - 7 J IOjO -= "Z4.~ ) v~n.;=- 7~
.,', A(1(C)~ = II!;S,(=', ) 5..4'1 A == /OO$.r.H,N.
:5" I.ZS'?.. .) p... "3'),~ ~ r= ~.4.~' ). n= 0.0'33 HAX.,
Yo ' CB~ ,o3-.0~!"
,', QC.A.f. -= l~fir'Js/L -/~Z2..c..FS HINfMvl-1,. /
Vf Ol?.. fl.,,!'" c:.FS W(!! ',0
L~PAC.lry I...JPYrfZfD4;...r ~ D~AJ~77ZtDJ-4 /S, ~1Zt!:XnDZ-)' "f
~,ul..,/ NrA.Joil.. ClV=:>'lFwc..J t....J1~ Oc..c...utL CE Q '''~ - l'
.- ~
hJO F. B. hTlLQ,n, == o.-s; 7 / J-/,N ___
5,TE: 15 /.A.J/"T"1'NAJ JuOS.o.N i3AS'.--j.J ~e..tcrt. c?l?IY I2IVe:n. IS
E5Sc=.--ru-r/A<...<-'I /'tPJJ1cc:::J,...l;-.J ,.4AJ.D itn: ,vArvM"1- c.;.,<,4,vIJa=L. IS
CAP,q13t-G: cr T741:-',uC. A~~/~^",~ FLow J GSI'<ZZ.JA-U-'I SH~
QUANi7rl~ AI VDl Y (...ovJ I (,....,:: ~ CD~C(Do..Jl"fl.Arz.oAJ,
,', .5.::>..... tr. Dr v tD'LS'o-vh fA--L-H f2-h4.':> iJA'SIN /,S Aca:p,-,J9t.E.
I r;;; . )?.., t.. A Tf7,.[/t>!:() t! y O,e.c-Lo G .., 1:- TO f 0 o-F- S L rE"" !
.' '....
BASIN A IS Na'trrte::<u_'/ A"J.:J we>m1L'1 ?u~T<-i>0 aF (.l-;>'?~...:r'l A~{.
,J
\\ (),t..AI,A.J~ NA~~ 1-0 HACE:' Sr, :
A.:... t.77 Ac.. .F C.f; 0.9 .) L. ,=3,O"/Trl. ';:;l1..J-{,AJ. ~.
(l NC.,t.0\S~ Vv~ ""h> V.lv....j c;. '"\J to 90,) :. Q _ 4. ~ ~F5 10 t-1',4C
.. \'
BA.S,o'J 2> F='<-OVV\ OV-<::'\.. 3A~I'- Ar p,2.~r;.~,.Ji
Lv""'-';,€:) o.3Ac.,\ e;......o.9 J L.=. 3.0"/'t.t..--)
-
TO D/l..A'NAC.~
Q ,. o.e CF's
100_. --
.. .
t~AS(/0 c.. YrLANS Ac,l.<)"~ "f7t1<: 5o"-'tTt<'\'f.L'( Lor L, '-J~~,,-,~
~ AV;r):(c.!."" ?IW/~'1...'Y. Do.J~ '(.;' (,\.JC.ILQ;}.!S.;::..i) (-(VINC- of
fl2.-0..:re:"t:.~A/L81. III S PK.at",,~~ t& !.Jr V~Lr- 77t/4-r j)"44IA",.fI~
...
% 77'tE j},z..,.e.'/o.J/\r,r:;: Cih.J(!.5E. ,J.'( Tltt::: 5.:;....r-r<<..^l)r P/t~P"'11r-y
C::OIL~1..: A= 2.S" Ac..) c.~o,q) L: ~.c>''j'hl,
lLNc..LL~~':::-
~
v:...... ~
I), "V
~ r.....v,l'-',&. '::..
'2.7 Cf:.
Lot ;:"v
Q,~" :;. C:,~8C.FS
-
,-, ., J) _.-:-:> ._i r-
.--::::
I~
",,-
~
-
\
SKY IiZuct::lA
;(Yt?~LOG f /-tYtJ'1;4<.JUc.r-.I
/ 8'7 H.vG'~T c, J/,
r
10 -10- 9.r-
7f
~t='/...i !l: 31<Y T/Z.vCKJNC (A/I"'~.).
~w,s.(2 Q,oo ,VJ'1"1-I
'- w.~, e QS"o
LV'T4 j,1 :0.0>>
(Q.C:;~' F.i3.).
VI ::. o.o~s;
€AIl.n/ AND ;2v/~)l3<..E:"
~~~ ~"t:Jc $l-OPc (tYP.).
~ f2.1::.'-AT"'ViiZL..y U}...J/~ ,CoM/;4""nD~
W 1$13 w: C!hfAl,v€l.. &iT1>H
Ctf;4.N~t:L. c5~770Aj (HIN.).
('.. to I
, I rP
vi E"'w U p.5 Tl2E:;4.H Q AI L Y /[...
~,
~W.~.Q.QI.O
\.... w.".;,. C? Q S"\} (",,~ .035"2
(2.Z.' F.?..)
w ~ \1\::. .ObS;
0<5>00 ~C>o
X'><.><'-"c:: """.......,.
..
, '
<5' e: c..{t..<>d.....J
/ " ,
=-G.
,
G 175" So-..,rJ./ 6F-N.~.
(HAr't.. AS A6uVE),
Ut"tN-\.tLL ~LV"-;'"
-----
~-~.~._~-"'..~ .
--,....,...- .
. _.._H
-'1 -T-
.---4--I~-
,~, '="l"
~j b1; -. B
::.:: ''-'-'-:-:-'!f,~ I
, '=" Q;
-A~
ToP ~'f'"''
~._~--
f'.:....E...
!: U
piC','::r
!
c
-+:-: -"
S:CEV'EII.
CLOSED-CELL BLOCK
:0'..
~
"
'c.,
,-"
1
i
-,;,...-..-
. '.~,- : . . . - -. .
END VIEW
~Cjt
- - '.'.~!, -. - - - - --
.~~i_:::::-::
-A
TOPVIEW
SlOE VIEW
ESEARCH & DESIGN
Ice 1980, Nicolon has initiated
j participated in a wide range of
earch projects to evaluate the
10rmance of Armorflex, including
following:
Tetratech model tests - California,
U,S.A,
Leylstad field trials, Netherlands -
Rijkswaterstaat Directorate of the
Zuiderzee Project, 1982,
.'
"'lIIurllt:X ClUCK ;:,peCIIICHllons II YPJE.'lI values) -
r- minal
Gross
l :;1Crele I Specilie Compressive ; ~nSions Area;; i Block Weighl" Open
__lock Weight Strength Maximum \... n, Block Area
Class Ilbs.leu.lI. Ibs./Jq. in. Absorplion A B C .q,1I ! Ibs. Ib'./Jq,lI. '"
S-Class 305 I 130,150 4000 12 Jbs.lCu_ ft. 130 11.6 475 0,98 31.36 32.37 20
Open Cell 50S 130.150 4000 12lbs.lcu_ ft 13,0 11.6 60 098 45.52 45.53 20
S.Class 455 130.150 4000 121bs leu ft 130 11.6 4.75 098 3g.45 40.45 10
Closed Cell 555 130.150 4000 12lbs./cu ft 130 11.6 60 098 53.61 54-62 10
40 130,150 4000 121bs leu II 174 15,5 4.75 1.77 62,71 35,40 20
fOpen~ 50 130.150 4000- ~4bS ' ~5.5. . 6.0 1.77 81.94 46.53 20
'~II \ 60 130'150 4000 12 fbs/eu, It 17,4 15,5 75 177 99,113 56.64 20
70 130,150 4000 12lbs/eu, II, 17,4 15.5 9,0' 177 120.138 68,78 20
45, 130'150 4000 12lbs./eu, It 17.4 15,5 4.75 1,77 78,89 43.50 10
Closed 55 130.150 4000 12lbs./eu, It. 17,4 15,5 6,0 1.77 94,108 53,61 10
Cell 75 130,150 4000 12lbs./eu, II, 17.4 15.5 7.5 1.77 120,138 68,78 10
85 130,150 4000 12lbs/eu, ft. 17.4 15.5 9.0- 1,77 145'167 82.95 10
-r
. Block height may vary by approximately 0.5" based on local manufacturer's capabilities.
.. Block weight may va~ by 2% based on t~e spe~ific gravity ~f Iocafly available aggregate material..
3. Wave Attack Tests, Report No.
M1910 - Delft Hydraulics
Laboratory, 1982.
4. Hartel Canal Trials - Rotterdam
Public Works Department and Delft
Soil Mechanics Laboratory,
5, River Waal Breakwaters, Arnhem -
Rijkswaterstaat, 1983,
6, "Design of Reinforced Grass Water-
ways," CIRIA Report 116,1987
7, "Minimizing Embankment Damage
During Overtopping Flows," FHWA
Report-RD-88-181 prepared by
Simons, U and Associates, Inc.,
November 1988,
8, "Hydraulic Stability of Articulated
Concrete Block Revetment
Systems During Overtopping Flow,"
FHWA RepoJI-FlD-89-199 prepared
by Simons,"U and Associates, Inc"
JulyA989,
~/
Research Proven Performance
Nicolon has carried out extensive
research into wave and open channel
flow conditions on Armorflex in the
UriitedStates and the Netherlands. .
Design manuals and computer pro-
grams are available to assist in the
proper Armorflex block selection for
your hydraulic conditions. Design rec-
ommendations can thus be made on
the basis of specific research data
and sound engineering principles,
GEOPRODUCTS COMPANY
ARMORFLEX@
P.O. 80)(441, 7367 Noche Tapatia. Rancho Santa Fe. CA 92067
Tel: 619156-3050 FAX: 619 756-0284
JIM FISH, PH.D,
EROSION CONTROL' SLOPE STABILIZATION PRODUCTS
. ARMORFLEX
. ARMORFORM
. ARMORLOC
. ,~_".z::--~'~
. GEOBLOCK
. GEOWEB
. GEOTEXTlLES
. ....t:yc:;'!t!N~ WAil ~
Cellular Concrete Block
Revetment System
GEOPRODUCTS COMPANY
P.o, 80'" .di~ 1
,1'Uj-08-199S 17:24 r,J..DQIJX & RSSOC.
~ ;;;;;<;;.;;,;;;';'c;;;.l._~
F' . ~~'I~;
AU9Ust 8, 1995
city of Chula vista
Attn: Barbara Reid, Planning Dept.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Mace Street Transfer station
Dear Barbara,
In February, 1995, at your request, we reviewed the preliminar\
plans for the proposed construction of a municipal solid wast>~
(MSW) materials recovery facility/transfer station (MRF/TS at l~'
Mace Street in Chula vista. We were requested to co_ent on aLe'
reco_end design features to minimize potential nuisances relatec
to odor, dust and noise from such operations. A copy of O','~'
initial evaluation is attached for reference.
OUr reco_endations covered three' areas as follows:
1. Mechanical ventilation of the MRF/TS structure to disperse G~
much of any emissions at roof-toP instead of ground level.
2. Installation of a dust control fogging system to which od;:
counter-reactant (OCR) could be added for aclditional od;;;~'
control, and,
3.
Compliance
operation
operations
with city of Chula Vista noise standards fre:
of any mechanical equipment and from on-si~_
of trucks and materials hanclling equipment.
Subsequent to our evaluation, we reoeived a more detailed faciliv
description and si te drawings from Mr. Pat Lawrence of sc.:
Engineers. We also conducted a site visit on AU9Ust 4, 1995 L
view existing truck terminal operations.
our observations and recommendations are as follows:
1. The building orientation relative to prevailing winds wL'
minimize odor escape through the access doors.
/77# Sky PM! arcJt:. Suite 2/0. JniDe, c.JiIimIja 927/4 . PboDe (7/4) 8JI-8009 - FLr (7/4) 8JJ-80;.
,AUG-08-1995 17:24
r, I ROUX & ASSOC.
P,C:
-2-
2. The ventilation rate ("negative pressure") is a little weak
when all eight (8) doors are open. Not every door need be open
all the time such that partial door closure is reco_ended wher:
possible.
3. The existing operation shows evidence of dirt "track-out" frc::,
truck terminal traffic. Pavement of all travel paths anc
barriers to any aocess of unpaved surfaces is reco_ended.
4. The misting system with an OCR option is the state of the arT.
in dust/odor control. We would recommend that its proposed Uf;C
"as required" be given more quantitative standards.
5. Noise control will be achieved by compliance with the municipal
code and by the site design itself. We believe that the nature
of the operation, the distance between source and receiver a!")':'
the intervening structures between the proposed HRF/TS wiL
preclude any noise nuisance potential.
OUr recolllllendations for any specific permit conditions are a:._
follows:
1. Four (4) of eight (8) roll-up door6 shall remain normal]'
cl05ed and will be opened only when the volume of truck traffi:
requires additional access to prevent truck queuing.
2. No readily biodegradable material shall remain stored on-sit~
for more than 48 hours awaiting disposal.
3. All rOll-up doors shall be completely closed on days when trs
MRF/TS is not operating.
4. The mechanical ventilation system shall be continually operat: "
at one-third or more capacity if any readily biodegrada!:2
material is stored indoors for more than 24 hours.
5. All travel paths, parking, container storage, and truck/traiL,
staging areas shall be paved with asphaltic or other concrete
and project operations shall be barred from access to a,,\
residual unpaved areas on the project site. Any evidence o!
dirt "track-out" onto Hace Street shall be removed by washi~~
or sweeping at the conclusion of each workday.
6. A misting system for dust control shall be installeCS capable c.t
maintaining average dust levels of 1es6 than 5 mg/m' ~n area,'
Of public or on-site employe. exposure. The system shall
. AUG-0B-l995 17: 25
r; I Raux & ASSOC.
p, [,
(
-3-
contain provisions to add an odor counter reactant (OCR) to be
activated when refuse odor is detectable beyond the propert;'
line. Sufficient OCR shall be maintained on-site to supply the
syste. for 48 hours at cbemical feed levels recommended by tr.e
OCR manufacturer.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclose6
materials.
Sincerely,
., .
{~b,~
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux , Associates
HDG:ai
Initial IJIPact Bvaluation
(Subaitted PebrUary 2, 1995)
FlLG-0B-l995 17: 2S
GIROUX & ~C.
P.05
l
IIACE S'J.'RBE'1' TRAMS!'D STATIOJI
JlUISAIICB IJIPACT PO'l'BII'1'IAL
~
Odor is a common characteristic of refuse handling and disposal.
Refuse odor formation is a complex process whicb depends on the
nature of material underqoing preliminary decomposition as well as
the environaental factors that affect cbemical or biological
process rates. Factors affecting the reaction rate include
moisture, temperature, acidity, oxygen supply, and several other
rate-controlling Hchani5111S. No two containers Of refuse typically
have an identical mix of waste, and certainly do not have the
identical set of odor-formation physical and chemical parameters.
The normal process of odor formation is for amino acids to begin
decomposition very quickly. Nitro-organic and sUlfocorganic
compounds typically create the most offensive odors during early
stages of decomposition becsuse they are formed in sufficient
quantity and the buman odor recognition threshold is very low for
these materials. Uncooked animal tissue and bioloqical waste are
thus the most offensive odorants in typical KSII. During early
stages of refuse decomposition, IIOSt biochemical processes occur in
an oxyqen-sufficient state (aerobic) which 'lenerally is not
conducive to strong odor fOr1llStion. In certain instances, oxygen
can be depleted and anaerobic processes may beqin. Anaerobic decay
often =eates hydrogen sulfide with its rotten egg odor. as well as
forming volatile organic acids that have a sickly sweet oeSor
character. A bag of wet graas clippings, for example, may begin to
compost soon after being cut with rapid beat formation and oXYgen
depletion that quiCkly leads to a musty &1IIell. If those SUle
clippInqs are aerated by bein9 dispersed uon9 other material, odor
will be minimal as 10n9 as tbe process remains aerobic.
In addition to a very complex cbaracter of refuse odor, people's
odor sensitivity/acuity varies from person to person and even by
time Of day in the sUle person. Odor quantification attellpts to
overcome this problem by using a qroup of people in any odor
evaluation (called an "oeSor penel") aneS assignin'l the odor
threshold to that concentration of odorant wben one-half of the
panel can detect the odor. Odor strength is quantified by
measuring hOW much dilution with clean air is required to reach the
threshold. The dilution ratio is called the nUllber of "odor units"
in the air sample, or the "dilution to threshold" (D/T) ratio.
Thus, if one cuDic foot of air with. recognizable odor requires 99
cuDic feet of additional clean air to dilute the sample enou'lb for
one half of the odor panel to no lonqer detect the odorant, the air
sample would contain 100 odor units, or it would be a 100 D/T
sl1lllple.
~. . :;t..~
n_ - .___.. .....-...r:"::' '.':;"-~Wi~_~s.. '.,&.,I..E~'J:lCI''''' '.i\J~.Y--.:::--
'leneration exceeding 90 dB at 3 feet wIthout a propa'lation
!)arrier between tbe source and the receiver.
h'
TOTA.. P.05
AUG-08-1995 17:26
r; I ROUX & ASSOC.
p.e~
-2-
At 2-4 DIT, odor is still very faint and people are often not
consciously aware of any nuisance. At 5-7 DIT, odor begins to
intrude into human consciousness and people with qood olfactory
acuity can often recoqnize the type of odor beinq encountered. If
the odor is unpleasant, 5-7 D/T is qenerally the threshold at which
people may beqin to complain about the odor. At 10 D/T, the
complaint frequency begins to increase noticeably. The nuisance
rule in the California Health and Safety code as used by the San
Dieqo APeD in its nuisance rule (Rule 51) defines odor nuisance as
one that irritates or annoys "any considerable number of people".
At 10 D/T, the considerable nWllber of people criterion is generally
considered to be met. For example, the South Coast AQHD in its
"CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (1993) specifies a 10 D/T level as the
odor threshold constituting a potentially siqnificant impact.
Thus, a reasonable target level for minimizing odor impacts is 5
D/T, and a siqnificant impact would occur if an odor level exceeds
10 D/T. These threshold levels are the recommended significance
criteria used to evaluate odor impact potential.
Any odorant released into the atmosphere undergoes natural dilution
by turbulent processes during transport from the source to the
recei ver. strong winds, a rapid decrease of temperature with
elevation and a large source-to-receptor separation maximizes the
dilution and minimizes the downwind odor level. Weak winds, an
increase of temperature with height Can inversion) and a small
distance separation between source and receptor maximizes impact
potential.
Potential odors from operation of the KRF/TS will result from three
primary sources, i.e.,
.
Tipping floor and processing lines ror municipal solid
waste recycling
storage of residuals (non-recyclables) awaiting disposal
Handling of yard waste .aterials
.
.
Each activity has aomewhat different odor characteristics. Given
further the imprecision in quantifying odor and its associated
nuisance potential, determining the size of the odor impact
"envelope" around a MRF is difficult. Environmental dOCUlllentatlon
for several proposed MRFs in southern California contend that odor
impact potential is negligible. The contention is based on project
design characteristics and on odor monitoring experience at several
existing MRFS. '
AUG-08-1995 17:27
1;1 ROUX & ASSOC.
P.c
(,
-3-
Odor strenqths from refuse handling have been studied at a number
of facilities. Odors on the tipping floor of a large transfer
station were measured to be 20 D/T at 30 feet from the do~wind
edge of the facility. (TRC Environmental Cons., Odor Study for
Monroe, WA Transfer station, 1991.) This measurement is consistent
with our observations of a MRF tipping floor in Anaheim, CA which
found odor levels of 5 D/T with peaks of 15 D/T directly downwind
of the facility (08/25/92). Under .ore stable weather conditions,
odor levels were estimated to be up to three times higher.
However, the peaks were aS$ociated with yard waste that was
beginning to compost on site. Tripling the more typical 5 D/T
level observed from the refuse tipping and sorting brings the
observation very close to the Monroe observations.
An odor strength of 20 D/T was therefore used as a basis for
evaluating impact potential for the proposed Chula vista MRF/TS.
Emissions were assumed to derive either from a dispersed, ground-
level source (a tipping floor with multiple door openings), or froltl
a roof-top ventilation system.
The EPA first-level computer dispersion model SCREEN was used to
compare roof-top versus qround-level odor dilution. For a qround-
level emissions source, the dispersion model predicts that it would
require 300 meters (around 1,000 feet) to reduce the 20 D/T odor to
the 10 D/T significance threshold level. If, however, the same
amount of odorant is released from a roof-top vent on a large
building, the peak qround level odor concentration is only 16
percent (3.2 D/T for the above example) of a ground level release.
These calculations support the conclusion that a semi-enclosed MRf
structure with a roof-top exhaust air ventilation system would have
a less than significant odor impact. Even with minor leakage a~
ground level where trucks enter and leave, the negative pres sur. ,
and roof-top discharge of ventilation air would maintain odor
levels of less than 10 D/T beyond the project property line.
The data suggests that the MRF/TS would not create a significant
odor impact if the roof-top ventilation system maintains adequate
exhaust velocity/negative pressure to capture the bulk of any
odorous emissions. Final design and sizing of the system to
accommodate odor control has not been completed. If the truck
access/exit ramp and door is 'in the lee of the building (facin9
away from the prevailin9 onshore winds, we believe that en average
inflow velocity of 1 foot per second would adequately capture most
potential odor release. Unless the applicant can demonstrat"
otherwise, we believe that fan sizing (Cl"K) should .eet the
following criterion:
CFM - opening size (sq. ft.) X 60
-_..
AUG-08-1995 17:28
GIROUX & ASSOC.
P,I2J
-I
-4-
JZ!W",
PuIIIping the contents of refuse trucks on the tipping floor and
moving the materials to sort for" recyolables can create dust
clouds, espeoially if the contents include dirt or construction and
demolition debris. The negative pressure/roof-top exhaust will
remove some of the smallest dust particles, but the heavier dust
will .ettle out within the building on workers and equipment.
The current state of the art in transfer station dust control is
through a water mist system. Water is sprayed under very high
pressure (= 1000 psi) through nebulizing nozzles. The tiny water
droplets agglomerate the suspended dust and cause it to settle out
faster within the transfer station. Chemicals can be added to the
water for odor control. These chemicals have, in the past, been
mainly deodorizing agents such as pine or citrus concentrates. A
number of proprietary odor counter-reactants have been marketed in
the last few years. Dust control may therefore have an odor
control benefit with the addition of such odor-reducing agents.
liaise
Noise levels from trucks accessing the site will not be
substantially different than from the historic use of the site as
a truck terlllinal. Any noise impact differences, would be due to on-
site noise generation.
"New" on-site noise sources would be from waste unloading or
loading acti vi ties, or from lIIechanical equipment associated wit:.
nuisance abatement. Loading/unloading is primarilY associated wit;:
hydraulic 5ystems to dump the packer trucks and to load thE.
residuals disposal trailers. Some engine acceleration 110 often
associated with operation of the hydraulics.
Peak noise levels of 90 em have been measured within transfer
stations with average levels of 80 dB. Attenuation by the solid
walls of a transfer station is 40 dB, such that peaks would be Onlt'
marginally detectable and averages not at all with the existing
baCkqround noise environment. Audibility would only occur along
the side of the buildinq with the truck access opening. 1f there
is a direct line of sight from the equipment to an off-site
receiver, attenuation by spherical spreading would produce nois~
levels of 70 dB peak/60 dB averaqe. However, beeause trucks wiI]
qenerally not dump their loads immediately adjacent to the access/
egress door, their direct line of eiqht to any off-site receive~
may be blocked even in the direction of the door itself. Averag~
AUG-08-1995 17:29
, r, IROUX & RSSOC.
(,
p.e~
-5-
levels at 500 feet with partial blockage or intermittent exposure
would be perhaps 50 dB. This is consistent with daytime standards
for the city ot Chula Vista. While. it is highly preferable that
the access opening not face any off-site, noise sensitive uses, we
would not anticipate that noise standards would bel violated even if
it did.
Mechanical equipment noise may derive from the proposed exhaust fan
used for building ventilation. If the tan is mounted on the roor,
noise may propagate treely in all directions unless the fan hOusing
is partially enclosed. Calculation was made of the spreading loss
between the equipment and the nearest residence at 600 feet from
the source. The sum of the spreading 10$S plus the standard (using
45 dB a$ the most stringent standard) is the allowable upper bOund
on fan noise expressed as tollOWS:
45 dB (standard) + 46 dB (spreading loss)
_ 91 dB (maximum noise generation at J feet)
If the fan noise is rated at 90 dB or less at 3 feet, it will mee~
the standard even if mounted outsil;le. If the fan exceeds this
performance standard, it will require partial enclosure or that it
be mounted inside the bui1dinc;J.
Vibration
Vibration from the proposed operations likely will not b~
perceptible beyond the building envelope. There are no vibratio~
sensitive residences or industrial production processes that would
be eXposed to any perceptible project-generated ground vibration.
Rec..............ations:
1. Ventilation systelllS shall be sized to maintain an average
inflow of 1 foot per second on any building openings.
~. A water mist dust control system shall be installed with the
option to add deodorants or odor counter-reactants to the
water, if necessary.
3. Mechanical equipment mounted outdoors shall not have nois"
generation exceeding 90 dB at 3 feet without a propagatio~
barrier between the source and the receiver.
TOTAL c.
MAR-08-BS 10.08 FROM.SO CAL ~OIL TESTINC
/~ ~
IC.SIB 2~ 4717
"
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY,
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
(pHASB I - ESA)
187 MACB STREET
CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA
SUB:Mu 1.1:,1.) TO:
SKY TRUCKING
412 CROSBY STREBT
SAN DIEC30, CAUFORNIA 92113
SUBMITTED BY:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVERDALB STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959
PACE 2/23
MAR-eS-&S le.'8 FROM.SO CAL ~IL TaBTINC
:, (
~ ~ '" SOutHERN CAUFORNIk .
"" ,.' SOIL&TESI1NG.INC.
, "
.,.,..' QSC RmnIoIeStnol, SulDIoto, C4 92110
P.O. Box 600627. Su Dit&o. CA '21~
61~3Z1.FAX619-2e0-4717
ID..'. 12.. -'-"'7
PACII 3/123
~'
March 9, 1996
Sky 'I'Iuckini
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, California 92113
SCS&T 9613010
Report No. 1
SUBJECI':
Report of Prdiminary Environmental Site Assessment (phaSe I . ESA),
187 Mace Street, Otula Vista, California.
Gentlemen:
In xesponse to the request of Mr. James Algert of Algert Engineering and our I\upvsal
No. 965054, we have perf'onncd a PrcIimi1Iaty EnviR>nmental Site Assusmcnt (Phase I.
ESA) of the subject property to assess the potential pmznce of hazardousltoxic maIcria1s.
Our study was Iimitai to a site RCOIUI2issanc:e and a MView of &Ya11abIe information.
Sudac:clsubsurface sampling or lISting of soil, water, or other e...blileOUS materlals was
not within the scope of this study.
We urge you to read the entire report and to contact the IDIdeISi:ncd with any questions
'" or concerns you may have pertaining to this report.
:. .
A Phase I ESA comprises a number of individual elements Wh030 basic natu~ and exrent
are dctemlinecl in accordance with the Slandatd of care applicable to Phase I ESA$. The
standard of care is commonly defined IS the care applied by the onfinary practitioner at
the time and in the area wh=e the ESA was performed. We believe that we have
...~.. ....... ....-
--.-.. .,' - '.' ..... ',.
MAR-0B-BB 10.10 FROM.BO CAL ~OIL TEBTING
, I
'-
ID.B1B 21>'" 4717
PAGE
4/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
complied with the applicable standard of care and that we have complied as well with
Phase I SA practices and service scope elements n:commended by the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Note that our servica intentionally did not include
any inquiries with respect 10 asbestos, radon, methane, wetlands or any other ancil1aIy
hazardous materials or conditions.
The accompanying report is an instrument of service of SCS&T. The report summarizes
our findings and ICIates our opinions with respect to the potential for hazardous mawials
to exist at the site at levels liIce1y to warrant mitigation pursuant 10 cune:nt guidelines
regulated by the County of San Diego and/or the State of California. Note that our
findings and opinions are based on information that we obtained on given dates, through
records xeview, site review, and ICIated activities. It is possible that other information
existS or subsequently has become known, just as it i$ possible for conditions we observed
to have changed after our obsexvation. For these and associated reasons, SCS&T and
many of its peers routinely advise clients for ESA sczvic:es that it would be a. mistake to
place unmerited faith in findings and opinions conveyed via SA repons. SCS&T cannot
under any circumstances warrant or guarantee that not finding indicators of any particular
hazardous material means that this particular hazardous material or any other hazardous
materials do not exist on the site. Additional xe.search, Including invasive teSting, can
reduce the risks, but no techniques now commonly employed can eliminate these risks
altogether. SCS&T will be pleased to provide more information in this regard.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN,CALIFORNIA SOIl: AND TE$TI~O" INC.
:
Curtis R. Burdett CEO '1090
CRB:crb
cc: (4) Submitted
I. TSSTINC
ID.BIB 115111 ( 7
PACE 10/23
MAR-IIB-BS III.tt FRDM,SD CAI.
'~'
'.. ,;.'
" .
( .,"
......:..
)
SOUl1!ERN CAlJfcwul.-
son. " TESTING, INC.
6'210 RmnIoIeS.-,Su Diop,CA 92120
20. Bat eQ06Z7. Sa DiosIt. CA 911~
619~32I,FAX61~17
REPORT OF PRELIMINAltY ENVIRONMENTAL SIIE ASSESSMENT
EXISTING COMMERCIAL SrrE
187 MACE STREET
CHVLA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This report is an instrll!lltnt of service of SCS&T. 1110 ~r:t ~ts the results of a
Phase I Environmental Silb Assessment (ESA) of tho subject site. pro. .iled for Sky
TIucking. The services performed included limited rcsean:h. a 1CViow of $pCCific:d
Iistings, and a site ttCODII8iS$81'lce.
A Phase I :fSA is conducted to pennit fOImlltation of an opinion as to the potential for
hazardous materials to exist at a site at levcJs Iibly 10 wanant mitigation pursuant to
ItIuJaliODS 'of tho County of San Diqo Huardous Materials Mane&ement Division and
defined by the California Code of Regulations. OpiniODS Jelative to the ba2:ardous
maIeriaIs potential giVCII in this rtpOIt &Ie based upon information derived nom the most
recent site ~n~issance and from other activities cIe$cribed b=dn. The cUc:nt Is
herewith advised !hat the conditions observed by SCS&T lIe subject to change. Certain
, indicators of the presence of Jwaxdous materia1s ~y have been ~t at the time of the
mOst recent silb reconnaissance and may subsequently have bec:ome observable. In a
similar manner. the r=rch effort conducted for a Phase I ESA is limiled. Accordingly.
it is possible that SCS&T's researcb. while fully appropriate for a PI1asc I :fSA. failed to
indicate the existence of jjllponant information sout'OCS. Assuming such SO\lJCeS actuaIly
-.. -... .-.--.. '-'.--."
MAR~eS-SB 1e.11 FROM.SO CAL SOIL TESTING
ID.BIS 2f'1..0 4717
PAGE &/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996 .
Page No. 2
exist, their information could not have been considered in the formulation of SCS&T's
findinp and opinions.
In essence, a Phase I ESA is a sexvice whose basic elements arc dctc.rmined by the
$l3ndard of care p~vailing at the time the sc.rvicewas rendered in the atea where it was
xeodercd. Because stan<jards of care can be identified only through relIQspective inquiry,
SCS&T hl$ assumed that the standard of care is articulated by American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 51517.
Problems have arisen in the past because people IUId organizations have assumed,
improperly, that they could rely on a Phase I ESA IepOIt developed for another party. So
there is no confusion in this respect, recognize that Sky Trucking is the only intended
beneficiaIy of this report. Reliance on this report by any party other than Sky Trucking
could possibly result in reliance on assumptions whose extent and natute would distort the
meaning and impact of the findings and opinions related herein, in turn resulting in
misinterpretation of these findings and opinions and unwise actions based on those
misinterpretations. SCS&T'S findings and opinions presented in this report may not be
relied on by any party except Sky Trocking. With the consent of our client, SCS&T is
available to contract with other parties to develop findings and opinions related 'specifically
to such other parties' unique risk management concerns.
The guidelines used to define "hazardous materials" were obtained from the California
Code of Regulations. For the purposes of this report. the wvicinityw of the site is defined
as PlOpertiCS located within an ~ximate one ha1f-~iJe to, ono-~n.dius of the site.
:. -
:
SCOPE OF SERVICE
The scope of our services included the following:
KAR~09-9B 10.12 FROK,SO CAL Q~'L TESTING
'--
ID.SIB 2p.... ,~717
PAGE 7/23
SCS&T 9613010
Match 9, 1996
'--.'
Page No.3
1) Performing a visual teCOnnaissance of the exterior areas of the property for the
presence of noticeable gasoline, petroleum products, or other obvious toxic
materials.
2) Identifying properties within a close proximity to reveal any uses that may be
significantly hazardous to tho subject site. Available governmental records were
reviewed for infonnation conc:e:rn1ng the p.operty or neighboring si=s.
3) Contacting various pertinent governmental agencies, reviewing applicable lists,
tiles, etC., with regards to uy specific information peJ1aining to the subject site.
-- FEDERAL SOURCES
- National Priority List (NPL)
CERCLtS (CC)
NFRAP (NF)
Federal Facilities (PF)
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
Site EnfO%CCtrlent Tracking SyStem (SE)
- Enforcement DocIcct System (DOCKET/CDEI'S)
RCRA
Resource Conservation Recovery Information Systems (RCRIS)
Superfund Liens (LJENS)
- Federal Enforcement Dockets (FD)
, '
:
--CALIFORNIA STATE SOURCES
_ Annual Work Plan (BP) (previously known as Bond Expenditute Plan)
CALSITES (previously known as Abandoned Sitos Program
.
Information System)
Hazardous Waste ud Substance Sites List (CORTESE)
- Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (L 1)
Solid Waste Infonnation System ($5)
MAR~ea-ee le.13 FROM.BO CAt ~IL TEBTING
'-
tD.Ble 2 4717
, SCS&T9613010
March 9, 1996
- ABl803 Follow-Up Program
- California Depaxtment of Conservation
- Division of Oil and Gas
..
REGIONAL SOURCFS
- Underground TanIc Listing (LUSTS)
- Toxic Relea" (NT)
- Toxic PiIS Cleanup Act (rCPCA)
- Solid Waste Test Program (SWAT')
_ Spills, Leaks, InVe$tigation and Cleanup (SUe)
- Well Investigation Proct,.ram WIP (ABl803)
. Hazardous Waste Information System (HWIS)
e. SAN DIEGO COUNTY 'RMMD LISTINGS
- HE 58 Listing
- HE 17 Listing
_ Environmental Assessment Listing
.. OPERA 1'TNG 'PERMITS
- RCRA Generators (RN)
- RCRA-TSD Facilities (ID)
SARA TItle m, $ectipn313 (SA) .
. . - ..
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees (NC)
- PCB Handlers DatabaSe (PB)
Permit ComP?ance System (PC)
AIRS Facility System (AF)
Section Seven Tracking System (PE)
FIFRAfJ'SCA Trackin& System (FT)
Fcdml Facilities Information System (PSIS)
PAGE 8/23
Page No.4
SCS&T 9613010
MAR-.0B-B8 10,13 FROM,SO CAL f'- 'L TESTING
l
Page No. 5
..
ID.8IB 2B'" '717
PAGE
B/23
March 9, 1996
Chemicals in Commerce Information System (CI)
- FINDS EP A Facility Index System (FN)
- Hazardous Waste Information System (HW)
- Underground Storage 'I)nks (U1)
OTHER SOURC~c;
- San Diego County Agricu1tutal Commission
- Restricted and Non-Restricted Permit Review
- San Diego Gas and Electric (SOO&S)
- San Diego County Air Quality Management District
- Fite Department
Building Department
Wa1er and Sewer Agencies
4) Analyzing available published maps, photoif3.Phs or published material
pertaining to the subject site or immediate localized area.
..
City of Chula Vista
- Sewer and Irn.inage Maps
San Diego County
- Aerial Photognphs
- Topogyaphic Maps
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
- Aeri~ Photog~hs . '
Unitecl'Swes Geological Survey (USGS)
- Topogyaphic Maps
Sanborn Pire Insurance Maps
*.
..
..
..
5) Evaluation of existing hydrogeological information, including the direction of
eround water flow and water table levels where available.
MAR~0B-B6 10.14 FROM.SO CAL SOIL TESTING
ID.61B 2E11/1 4717
PAGE 10/23
SCS&T 9613010
'-
March 9, 1996
Pagc No.. 6
6) Revicwing any ather pertincnt data (soils, geotechnical, environmental, ctc.)
provided by client, pertaining to the subject site potential far hazardo.us mater:ial
contaminatian.
7) Perfarming an assessment as to whether present or past owners ar tenants havc
stared, treated, or discharged hazardous materials o.r wastc.
8) Reviewing the site awnership and site tenant informatian to help identify past
awners 01" tenants that may have used hazazdaus materials.
LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT
It shauld be nated that the scope af a preliminary environmental'site assessment nannaily
does nat include analysis far asbestos, ndOD, lead paint, methane gas or other ancillary
hazardous material stUdies within any existing on-site structures or exteriar o.f ptOpCrty.
The findings and opinions conveyed via this ESA report are based on information obtained
from a variety of sources enumerated herein, and which SCS&T believes are reliable.
Nanetheless, SCS&T can nat and does nat guarantee the authenticity ar reliability of the
infannatian it has received.
This report is no.t a comprehensive Site characterizatio.ti ~d mould no.t be construed as
such. Thc opinions presented in this report are based on findings derived from a sitc
reconnaissance, a IeView af specified regulatory' records and historical sources, and
comments madc by intcrViewees. SCS&T has found indicators that suRest that haz:udous
materials =dst at the site at levels likdy to warrant mitiption; the mitiptian measures
cunently utilized includc proper handling and disposal of ha2:ardous materials and lor
hazardaus waste.
MAR-.0S-SS 10.14 FROM.SO CAL 8.D.IL TESTING ID.SIS 2S0,_ 4717
. SCS&T 9613010 l March 9, 1996
PAGE 11/23
Page No.7
Phase I ESAs, by their very nature, are limited. SCS&T has endeavored to meet what
it believes is the applicable aundard of care and, in so doing, is obliged to advise our
client of Phase I ESA limitations. SCS&T believes that providini information about
limitations is essential to help the client identify and thereby manage its risks. These risks ·
can be mitigated-but they cannot be eliminated-through additional raearch. SCS&T will
on request advise our client of the additional research opponunities available. their impact
on risk, and their cost.
LIMITING CONDmONS
The ESA was limited both by access to portions of the site and by the availability of
lovemmental records and other applicable,information sources.
FINDINGS
ON-SITE SURVEY
Site DescrIption
The project site is an I.rshaped parcel of land located adjacent to and east of Mace Sueer
in the City of Chula Vista.. The site is identified as Parc:cl3 of farcel Map 5114; the,
Assessor's Parcel Number is 629~130-27 and the size is 4.69 acres. The. site haS
approximately 175 feet of frontage along Mace Street and ranges up to approximately 660
feet deep; the eastern Ploperty line is approximately 440 feet long. The site is bounded
, on the north and south by developed commercial property and on the cast by an unlined
drainage channel with slopes up to approximately 10 feet high; a self-storage facility is
across the channel to the east. The site curxently supports several structures that have been
utilized in the existing and pi'evi.oU$ commercial operations at the site; these structures
MAR-~B-BB 1..1& FROM,SO CAL SOIL TESTING
ID.BIB 2B. 4717
PAGE 12/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996 .
)
Page No.8
include three block or block and stucco buildings, a small stucco building, a metal
building, a conc:tete loading dock and ramp, a truck scaIe, a fuel island, assorted concrete
walls, and sevet3l concrew stabs (both with and without overhangs). Most of the portion
of the site that is not occupied by buildings is covered with gravel and used for truck and
trailer storage. The site is genet3lly void of vegelation I:ItCept for landscaping on the front
portion of the lot (near Mace Street) and for a few small weeds that have been allowed to
grow in scattered locations. .
A site visit andobsezvation was perfonned to determine the existing Sl.lbject site
conditions. The purpose of the visit was to observe for any indication of the presence of
obviOl1S hazardous material contamination. The results of the site reconnaissance revealed
that automobile parts, tires, and pettOleum products associa.tecI with the existing trUCking
opentions at the site are presetlt on-site. The hazardous wasteS generated from the
existing commerciaI operations at the site are currently stored in 55-gallon drums on the
northeastern portion of the site. In addition, it should be noted that one 12,OOO-gallon
underground fuel storage tank associated with the truCking operation is present.
OFF-SlTE. SURVEY
In addition to the on-site reconnaissance, Iepresentatives of SCS&T obServed adjacent
properties while located on public thoroughfares. Observations were made in an effort to
assess if facilities andlor stnIctures are loca~ on these.pro~ and, if so, if they are
opented by entities wh~ Dames suggest that thcy'might use. store, generate; tceat, or
dispose of ha2:ardous materials in the coutse of their business. Numerous businesses
within the one-mile search radius of the property utilize, store, generate, or transpOn
hazardous material.
MAR-0B-BS 10.1& FROM.SO CAL.D~lL TESTING
....
ID.SIS 2P"4?1?
PAGE
13/23
SCS&.T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No.9
RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDmONS
Information obtained indicates that some recognized environmental conditions presently
~ist on and in the vicinity of the $ite. (A IeC:Oguizcd environmental condition is defined
as the presence or 1ikc1y ~c:e of any hazardous substances or petroleum productS on
a ~.operty W1der conditions that indicate an cisting release, a past release, or a material
1hn:at of a release of any hazardous substances or pc:Uo1eum products into structu= on
the 1'10~ty or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. 'Ibe term
includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance
with Jaws). The site reconnaissance revealed that some petroleum products, motor vehicle
partS, and tires associated with the existing trucking facility at the site are present at the
site and that a 12,OOO-gaIlon underground fuel (diesel) storage tank is present at the site.
Another fuel storage tank (a l00C>-gallon unleaded tank) was apparently removed in 1986.
In addition, the $ite reconnaissance and review of available information indicated that
hazardous materials andlor petroleum products are used, generated, stored, treated, or
disposed of at the subject $ite and on close-proximity sites (within one mile of the site).
It should be noted that the subject site is listed as an environmental concern on one of the
Regional sources (the Toxic Re1c:ascs list) and is listed on two of the Operating Permits
lists (HazaTdous Waste Information System and Underground StoIaiC Tanks).
Available information indicates that the facility at the subject site fa.iIed an integrity test
in the past but apparently a site ~ssment was petfonned, the l000-gallon unleaded
gasoline was properly removed, and the case was closed, in 1989. Other than the 1000-
pIlon fuel tank, there is no information to necessarily suggest that these on~site so~
or close-proximity sites 'have significantly adversely impicted the subject prOPc;rty tliough .
there is some indication that some surficial contamination may have occumd. Portions
of the site's surface are stained with petroleum products and there is a possibility that some
minor leabge may be associated with the commercial operations at the site, including, but
not nece~sarily limited to, fueling and servicini of the vehicles.
March 9, 1996
ID.BIB 2B0 4717
)
PACE
14/23
MAR-0B-SS 10.IB FROM. SO CALSOIL TESTINC
SCS&T 9613010
Page No. 10
Based on such factors as the distance to thc close-proximity sites, thc topographic relief,
and the elevation diffcrences. thc likelihood of these off-site sources affecting the site is
considered low to moderate. This is considered normal for commercial locales such as
that at and near the subject site.
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC S~a uNG AND SOn. DESCRIPTION: The project site is located in the
Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by
Quaternary-age sedimentary materials identified as stream temcc deposits. The deposits
generally consist of brown to grayish-brown, medium dense to dense sands and sandy silts,
and sandy gravels_ Underlying the Quaterl)ary-age materials, at an undetermined depth,
are the yellowish-brown sandy silts and silty finc sands of the Pliocene-age San Diego
Fonnation.
GROUNDWATER: A reView of the State of California Department of Water Resources
Hydrologic Data indicates the subject site is loc:a!ed within the Otay Hydrologic Subunit
of the Otay Hydrologic Unit within thc San Diego Drainage Province.
Depth to groundwater in this area may be at several tens of feet; however, perched
groundwater may be encountered at shallower depths.
..
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
Aerial photographs were reviewed at the San Diego County offices and included the years
1928, 1970, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1989. United States Department of Agriculture
photographs were reviewed for the year 1953. A summary of the aerial photograph
review is presented below.
HAR-8s-aB tm.t7 FROM.SO CAL
(
IL TESTING ID.BIB 2Br '717
PAGE
1&/23
SCS&T 9613010 .
March 9, 1996
Page No. 11
A review of the 1928 aerial photographs indicates the subject site and much of the
SUIrounding property were vacant, undeveloped property or agricultunl property. Mace
Street was present along the western boundaIy and the small tributary drainage channel to
the OlaY River was present along the eastern boundary.
A review of the 1953 photo&r8Phs indicated that the site and most of the adjacent property
were use6 for agricultural purposes. Several small structures were observed in the general
vicinity and on the western portion of the site. In addition, some structures which appear
to be greenhouses were also observed on the western portion of the site. The eastern
portion of the site appeared to be vacant land,
A review of the 1970 photographs revealed conditions similar to 1953 but increased
development in the surrounding area had occurred.
A review of the 1973 photographs revealed the presence of the existing small structures
on the western portion of the site and the presence of another structure to the east (possibly
one of the remaining greenhouses) that has sincc been removed. Xt appears that the eastern
portion of the site was in the pIQCe$S of being prepared for development on the 1973
photographs.
A review of the photopphs for sueceeding yeatS (1978, 1983, and 1989) indicared that
the site 3ppaiently continued to be used for commercial purposes and that the sunounding
area has gradually been in~g1y d~oped for commercial uses.
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW
The 1958 and the 1972 editions of the County of San Diego 200-scale maps were
reviewed. , A review of these maps indicated similar information as that seen on the aerial
photographs. The 1904 edition of the United States Geological Survey San Diego
MAR~eB-BB 10.17 FROM.SO CAL 'OIL TESTING
ID.SIS 2r' 4717
i
PAGE IS/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9. 1996
Page No. 12
Quadrangle (IS-minute series). the 1953 edition of the United States Geological Survey
San Ysidro Quadrangle (7.S-minute series), and the 1967 edition of the United States
Geological Survey ImperlaJ. Beach Quadrangle (7.5-minute series) topographic maps were
reviewed and also indicated similar information.
ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW
Applicable governmental records were reviewed as part of OU1' scope of services. A
computerized record search was performed by BBL Information Retrieval in February
1996. A copy of the report by BBL is pxesented as Appendix A. In general, the results
of the review of available governmental records indicate the presence of several businesses
within the search radius (one mile) that use, perate, store. treat. or dispose of hazardous
materials andlor petroleum products.
Based upon the aforementioned reviewed information, there is no indication that anyon-
site business or close proximity business has resulted in significant on-site contamination,
other than the lOoo-gallon fuel tank that has been removed. Available infonnation
indicates that the facility at the subject site failed an integrity test in the past and that a site
assessment was perfonned and that the case was closed in 1989. However. as noted
previously, the subject site is listed as an environmental concern on one of the Regional
sources (the Toxic Releases list) and is listed on two of the Openting Pc:nnits lists
(Haw'dous Waste Information System and Underground Storage Tanks).
CITY AND COUNTY DIRECTORIES REVIEW
A representative of SCS&T reviewed the Haines Directory and the Polk Directory
available at the City of San Diego Library to obtain information ab~t previous occupants
of the site and adjacent properties. These directories were reviewed at intcl:Va1s to attempt
to identify past OCC1.Ipants of the site and adjacent PIOperties whose COlpOrate names
MAR-1ZIS-SS 11110 IS FROM.SO CAL - -'L TESTING
I...
ID.S1S 2'-- '717
PAGE 17/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9. 1996
Page No. 13
suggest activities typically associated with the use, generation, storage, ttcatment, or
disposal of hazardous materiaJs.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIR. QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
The San Diego County Air Quality Management District was con13Cted for records
pertaining to possible releases of hazardous substances to the atmospbere.
WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT,
The City of Chula Vista Water and Sewer Department and the County of San Diego
Health Department was contacted to obtain infonnation regarding the source of water and
method of sewage disposal at the site in order to help dctcnnine if on-site effluent disposal
may have contributed to possible site contamination. No infonnation was found to suggest
that effluent disposal at the site has been the source of pDSSlole surface or subsurface
contamination.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION
The San Dieio County AirlcultuJal Commission was contacted for records pertaining to
pesticide usage. No record for use of pesticides or non-restricted chemical products would
apparently be available for review. It should be noted that these teCOrds arc typically kept
. .
only for two or three years, and therefore. would not be applicable to the projcc:t site.
MAR~09-96 10,16 FROM,SO CAL IL TESTING
ID.619 2f 1"717
PAGE 19/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 14
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC'
No tranSformers were observed at the site and no stains or other features indicative of
significant contamination were observed. Previous conversations with SDG&B indicate
no probable record of site PCB contamination. SDG&B has indiMltrrl that individual
te$ting of ~y tnnsformers would usually be requ~ to detennine whether PCBs are
pxesent wilhiit the uansformers. It is their opinion that the probability of the ~M SI' "C'" of
PCBs is ~tfmcany very low. It is also our understaDding that in the .m1ibty oc:cunence
of site contamination as the result of PCB contamination, it would be the ICSpOnsibility and
liability of SDG&E.
REGIONAL WILDCAT MAP
A review of the Regional Wildcat Map for wells driUcd for oiVps in San Diego County
did not indicate any wells listed in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were reviewed at the City of San Diego Library in an
attempt to help detennine whether the site or adjacent property was identified as having
undeJiround fuel tuIks or being used for industrial putpOses:
"
CONCLUSIONS
SCS&T has perl'ormed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the subject site.
SCS&T has endeavored to perl'orm this Phase I ESA in substantial conformance with the
MAR-08-86 10,18 FROM.5D CAt.' It. TE5TING
ID.BI8 26'" ~717
PAGE 18/23
SCS&T 9613010
l
March 9, 1996
Page No. 15
scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E 1527-93. Based on our agreed-upon scope of
services, the following conclusions are presented.
1) The site appears to have been used for agricultural and commercial purposes since at
least 1953. These uses have included ~ouses, storage, and trucking.
2) A site reconnaissance revealed the presence of featureS indicative of surficial and
possible subsurface contamination at the site. These features include surface staining,
the presence of petroleum products, and subsurface fuel ston.ge tanks. There is no
indication 'that the degree of sutficial contaminalion and possible subsutface
contamination ~ceeds that expected for sites that support CQmmercial operations such
as at the subject site.
3) A review of governmental agency lists and records indicates:
a) Records indicate a listing of one cunent 12,000-ga11on underground storage tanlcs
for the subject site; a l00Q-gallon unleaded fuel tank previously was present at
the site but was apparently removed in the late 19805.
b) Records indicate the presence of on-site businesses and close proximity
businesses which are identified as using, storing, generating, or disposing of
hUardous materials. The current trucking operation apparently disposes of waste
oil and mixed oil, de&teasing sludge, and used oil filters. At this time, there is
,.no indie&:bon that, other than the l000-gallo~ ~ that has been removed, these
.'
sourCes have significantly 'adversely impacWf the subject site. Based ,on the
distance to the clo~pIOximity sites, the stratigraphic conditions, dninage
. gradients and elevations, the probability of on-site contamination from these off-
site sources should be considered to be low to modemte. OvCl:alI, the adjacent
. (l-miIe.radius) businesses should be considered similar to other commercial use
areas and this risk is considered nonna!.
HAR-eS-S& 18.gG FROM-SD CAL SOIL TSBTINC
IDISIS 2SB 4717
PAC. a0/23
SCSckT 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 16
It should be noted that the above summaries are based solely upon a review of available
ret:Ords and a limi~ site recoMaissance. It must be ret:Ognized that a prelimilW)l site
assessment (ESA) is not a comprehensive site invcstiption. An E$A solely conveys an
opinion of the site's potential for- being contaminated by huardous materials. ESAs are
not performed to ascertain thai a site is n-H"'rily free Dr contamination. The limited
preliminary natun: and scope of this report precludes any definite determination of the
possible extent or site contamination. At this time, based upon our limi~ investigation,
the potential for site contamination appears 10 be limited to that described within this
report. However, it should be no~ that then: is always the possibility of conwniniWon
from unknown or undc=ted sources which may unknowingly contribute to site
contamination.
:
MAR-0B-BS 10.20 FROM,SO CAL SOIL TESTING
ID,BI8 280 4717
PAGE 21/23
SCS&T 9613010
l
March 9, 1996
Page No. 17
LIMITATIONS
TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a
property can, however, occur with the p"s~ge of time. whelher they be due to nawral
proces~s or the work of man on this or adjacent propenies. In addition, changes in the
Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the
findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control.
Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a
review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with thallevel of care and
skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession cunently practicing under simiJar
conditions and in the same loca1ity. The client recognizes that conditions often change and
that our conclusions are based on obServations and available information. We shall not
be responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts of information
either incorrect, concealed. withheld. or not fully disclosed from other SOUICe$. Our
services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no wananty of any
kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work
performed ~r to be performed by us. or bY' our ProPosal for Consulting or Oth~ se:m~,
or by our furoishing of oral or written tep01'tS or findings.
MAR-~8-88 10,21 FROM.SO CAL SOIL TESTING
. -
ID.SI8 2S!,0 4717
I
PAGE 22/23
SCS&.T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 18
REFERENCES
Aerial Graphics, Aerial Foto-Map Book, S~ Diego County, 1982, 1984-85, 1986-87,
Sheet G-17, Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate).
BBL, 1995, Environmental Rec:oId S~h for the Mace Street Project, 187 Mace Street,
Chula Vista, California, dated February 21, 1996 (contains list of sources used).
California Department of Conservation, 1989, Regional Wildcat Map
Lenska Aerial Images, 1994, The Thomas Guide, Commercial Edition, Page1330, Scale:
1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate)
San Diego County, 1958, 200-ScaIe Map, Sheet 154-1749.
San Diego County, 1972, 200-ScaIe Map, Sheet 154-1749.
San Diego County, 1928, Aerial Photograph xxx
San Diego County, 1970, Aerial Photographs 10-4 &. 10-5
San Diego County, 1973, Aerial Photographs 21-5 &. 21-6
Sail Diego County, 1978, Aerial Photographs 27C-24 &. 25.
San Diego County, 1983, Aerial Photographs 567 &. 568
San Diego County, 1989, Aerial Photograph 34-189 &. 34-191
San Dieio Gas and Electric, Environmental Department
ID.BIB 2BIII '1717
PACE 23/23
MAR7~B-SB 1111.21 FROH,SO CAL I'~'~L TESTINC
"
SCS&T 9613010
l
,-'
Page No. 19
March 9, 1996
Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 1991, Report of Pre1iminary Environmental Site
Assessment, Pacific Non-FClIOU$ Recycling, 199 1/2 Mace Street, Chula Vista.
California, Project No. 9113017, dated November 5, 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial Photographs, AXN-3M-43 & 44
U.S. Geological Survey, 1904, 15 Minute Topographic Maps, San Diego Quadrangle
U.S. Geological Survey, 1953,7 1/2 Minute Topographic Maps, San Ysidro Quadrangle
U.S. Geological Survey, 1967,71/2 Minute Topographic Maps, Imperial Beach
Quadrangle
:
Attachment 2
Commission
and
Draft Redevelopment Agency
Resolutions
RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-95-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENY A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE
STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on November 18, 1994 by Mr. Mark Watton on behalf of Mace Street
Transfer Station, Inc, (formerly Sky Trucking) ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a special use permit to construct and operate
a municipal solid waste transfer station and materials recovery facility ("Project") in the IL-P Zoning
District at 187 Mace Street ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said special use
permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least 20 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely August 14, 1996
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter continued to August 28, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was reopened on August 28, 1996 where the Planning Commission took
additional public testimony and then closed the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
recommends denial of the project in accordance with the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency
Resolution and the findings contained therein,
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant and the Redevelopment
Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this day 28th day of August 1996 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Frank Tarantino, Chair
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(m:\home\planning\martin\macest\9502pc. res)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENYING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT
187 MACE STREET
1. RECITALS
A, Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and commonly known as 187 Mace Street ("Project Site"); and,
B, Project Applicant
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use pennit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 18, 1994 by Mr. Mark
Watton on behalf of Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc. (formerly Sky Trucking)
("Applicant"); and
C. Project Description; Application for Special Use Pennit
WHEREAS, said application requested approval of a special use permit to
construct and operate a municipal solid waste transfer station and materials
recovery facility ("Project") in the IL-P Zoning District at Project Site; and
D, Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission open the advertised public hearing on
August 14, 1996 and continued it to August 28, 1996 after taking testimony from
those present on the basis that they may not be able to attend the August 28, 1996
continued hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reopened the advertised public hearing on
the Project on August 28, 1996, took additional public testimony and then closed
the public hearing after which they voted _-_ to recommend that the
Redevelopment Agency deny the Project in accordance with Planning Commission
Resolution SUPS-95-02; and,
(m:\homc\planning\martin\macest\9502ra.res)
Resolution No,
Page #2
E, Notice of Public Hearing
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on
said special use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least IO days prior to the hearing; and
F. Place of Public Hearing
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
September 17, 1996 at 6:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby
find, determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on August 28, 1996 and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
hereby DENIES the special use permit based on the following findings and all other reports,
evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use.
IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The following findings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs
the issuance of special use permits, The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista is unable to make findings in support of the Project as required by the City's rules
and regulations for the issuance of special use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets
forth, instead, the evidentiary basis denial of the proposed Project:
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that whereas a trash transfer facility
sited at an appropriate location would provide a desirable service for the
community, this proposal would duplicate services already provided by the Otay
Landfill and will duplicate the project approved pursuant to SUPO-96-0l, thus
(m:\homc\planning\martin\maccst\9502ra. res)
Resolution No.
Page #3
rendering it redundant and not needed by the Montgomery Community, In
addition, approval of the Project would introduce trash truck traffic onto the main
thoroughfare serving the Montgomery Community, an undesirable characteristic
of the proposed land use, These factors are contrary to established policy and
sound planning principles, and are likely to have an adverse impact on the
Montgomery Community's character and general well being,
2, That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the of the use and its
incompatibility with adjacent uses, including the introduction of trash truck traffic
into the area and through the Montgomery Community, the proximity of
residential areas approximately 650 feet from the site, and the potential for
negative impacts related to noise and odors from a trash transfer operation, and
the negative impact on community character if the Project were approved would
be detrimental to the general welfare to property, improvements and the populace
in the area.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the proposed use is an Unclassified
Use pursuant to Chapter 19,54, but that said proposed use will not comply with
Chapter 19,54 of the Zoning Ordinance in that such use is not compatible with
the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas, and that there are no specific
regulations or conditions outlined for this use which are applicable,
Notwithstanding this fact, it may be possible for subject use to comply with
performance standards except that the Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that
this is not an adequate basis for approval of this Project as the other issues argue
against approval.
4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of SUPS-95-02 would have an adverse affect on the General Plan,
the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan in that the
proposed use does not implement the goals, objectives, policies and suggestions,
nor is it consistent with the criteria specified in said plans. Such adverse impacts
are more specifically set forth in the staff report presented on this matter, which
such report is incorporated herein in support of this finding,
(m:\home\p!anning\martin\macest\9502ra. res)
Resolution No,
Page #4
THIS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS
3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1996,
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Ann Moore
Acting City Attorney
(m:\home\planning\rnartin\macest\9502ra. res)
Attachment 3
Disclosure Statement
THE ~ _ (OF CHUlA VISTA DISCLOSURE S,. _. 'EMENT
You arc required to file a Slalemenl of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial intercsts, payments, or campaign
contrihutions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodics, The following information must be disclosed:
1. Ust the namcs of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the suhject of the application or the
contract, e.g" owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier,
,.;1,.
2, If any person' identified pursuant 10 (I) above is a corporation or partnership. list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership,
\10"1111 Cq(l-/.-Io,)'i.::r
~Al'ld~ t.-r,tA.-I,.,:-e..y
I
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) 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 benenciary or !ruSlor of the trust.
NII'I
,
4,
Have you had more than S250 worth of bu.~incs.~ transacted with any me~er of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillees, and Council within the pasl Iwelve months? Ycs_ Nor=- If yes, please inllicate person(s):
5,
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultanls, or Independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this maller,
;1h~ ~'77V1II - t!aV~<-7>tN_
6,
Have you and/or your officers or agenls, in the aggregate, contributed more than SI,OOO to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Ycs_ No~ If ycs, stale which Councilmember(s):
, , , (NOTE:
Signature 0 co or/applicant
,[;'i,v C01'-t-1.v~~'7
. Print or type name of contractor/applicant
Date: 11- W ~ j'Pj'
. f!!!!!!! is deftlled as: "AllY ;",Ii,,;dua~ finn. cO-f'lJrt1lmllip, joiN muun, u.s.frJCitJlinfl. wci41 club, frolcma/ orgall;zotiml, corporation, tskJlt, trwt, reaiVf:f, l)'fuliCdlt,
this DIu! OIlY other COUIU)'. cUy QluJ COU/ltry, ci/y mUflicipa/ity, distriCf. or OIlier political subdivWOII, eN allY OIlier ~p or combillat;oll acting tIS . waiL"
Exhibit 1
Locator Map
and
Site Plan
,
~
D:JIDJIJ
I I
MAIN STREET
Ii
....
m
w
u
<
:E
PROJECT
LOCATION
-
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~~, Mace St. Transfer Station PROJECT DESCRlPl1ON,
C) SPECIAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 187 Mace Street Request: A privately operated municipal solid
ADDRESS,
waste transfer and materials recovery faciliiy
SCALE, FILE NUMBER, in the IlP zone,
NORTH No Scale SUPS-95-02 Related case: 15-95- 14
'........,....i."'~..-...I_i..
?N1 'NOI1V19 ~V1!Ill3:nllC; ~
"""'.....,...."" --... ~
.'.
---
, <
j 11
\ \
I ~
SNOIl ?3S
n._
t ~"
I
!
I
,
,
!
i
,
1
II
Ii
\
l=~
i'H1 "
! u_ ,
r
3
I
.
"".L~
-"=:.:r-z_= ~ t> If' ~
~.1.tfIt'.1."1'19CJ "1't'J."GI-NO~WG ,~~; I
S~EEjNlgN~ S::>S'_ .. ;
I!
1
!
I
,
,
!
i
,L
! I I
"e
,~
I,
I
I
!
.'
r
3
I
l-
n:
<:
u
Exhibit 2
Operational Profile
ATTAtVf,. NT I
\
ses ENGINEERS -
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
SKY TRUCKING COMPANY
CHULA VISTA TRANSFER STATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
This 4,72:t acre facility site is located in south San Diego County at 187 Mace Street in
the City of Chula Vista. The "L-shaped" site is accessed from Mace Street which dead
ends approximately 750 ft. south of the facility entrance.
The site is zoned I.L, Limited Industrial, which is consistent with the surrounding property
uses, Currently, the site is being used as a trucking terminal. Existing facilities include
three small.frame office structures adjacent to Mace Street and a large metal warehouse
building to the east of the frame buildings, The latter has an adjacent depressed loading
dock, Other facilities include a fuel island and a truck scale, The existing facilities are to
be left in place with the exception of the fuel island and the most southerly frame
structure which interfere with the proposed access to the new facility,
TRANSFER BUILDING DESCRIPTION .
The proposed transfer building will measure 230 ft in the east.west direction and 160 ft in
the north.south direction (36,800 sq ft). The building will be primarily of pre-engineered
metal construction with reinforced concrete walls along a portion of the north and south
elevations. The eave heights will be approximately 33 ft and the ridge will be approxi-
.
mately 40 ft above grade.
There will be two depressed loading pits (pit floor 7'-6" below finish floor); one each on
the west and east sides of the building accessed by ramps from the north side of the
building. The pits will be separated by a ,200 ft wide grade level tipping floor. A 9-ft high
reinforced concrete push wall will separate the tipping floor from the loading pits.
@
1
~.
ses ENGINEERS -
The remaining, non-recoverable material will be loaded into large volume (100:t cu yd
capacity) transfer Jrailers and shipped to a facility-designated landfill. Thesa transfer
vahicles will enter the facility by way of the Mace Street entrance using tha bypass lane
and exit onto Mace Street after stopping at the scales for final weight recordation.
.
Assuming that a single 950F front-end loader can load one transfer vehicle (17.5:t ton
capacity) every 15 minutes, the facility capacity, using two loading pits, and operating at
90-percent efficiency (i.e., allowing for personnel breaks, incidental work stoppage, etc.)
will be approximately 1,260 tons per 10 hour day.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
QJW
Dust, if any is created through the transfer operations described below, will be controlled
through the use of a manually operated "fine misting" system located above and immedi-
ately adjacent to the transfer vehicle loading pits at the east and west sides of the
building. The misting system will be operated by facility personnel who will be observing
the loading operations at all times. A fine water mist will be released as required to
remove any dust particles from the air above the loading areas, but will be controlled such
that standing water will not accumulate on the tipping floor.
~
Odors will be controlled through (1) the use of "odor eaters" (Le,. odor counter-reactants)
dispersed through the misting system and (2) the machanical system which will be
designed to provide complete air changes every 15 minutes.
There are several products available' which, when dispersed through a misting system as
noted, will actually eliminate odors as opposed to simply covering them up.
The ventilation system will consist of two rows of six roof-mounted, 8,000 cfm exhaust
'ana located approximately 20 ft and 60 ft, raspectively, 'rom the south building wall.
o
@
3
(
SCS ENGINEERS -
Vector.
The facility will be swept clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day
thereby eliminating nesting and hiding places for vectors. In the event that evidence is
found of the existence of vectors, professional exterminators, under contract with the
.
facility operator, will eliminate, them from the facility site pursuant to the requirements of
their service agreement.
Loose Trash
Facility personnel will circulate throughout the entire site on a regular basis picking up
loose and blowing trash that may have dropped off of trucks entering or exiting the facility
thereby keeping the grounds clean and free of blowing debris,
.
@
5
Exhibit 3
Average Daily Traffic Trips Summary
TRASH TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS GENERATED
July 19, 1996
File No. YS-611
I. EXISTING USE-SKY TRUCKING
TRUCK COUNT = 183 ONE-WAY TRIPS/DAY = 366 TWO-WAY TRIPS
EMPLOYEE AND PATRONS = 17 X 2 = 34 TWO-WAY TRIPS
TOTAL DAILY SKY TRUCKING TRIPS . 400 TWO-WAY TRIPS
II. PROPOSED USE - PACIFIC DISPOSAL INC.
% CAPACITY (TONS/DAY):
50% (500)
85%(850)
1.00%(1000)
A.
TRASH TRUCK TRIPS
8 TONS/TRIP: 63X2 = 126
TRANSFER TRUCK TRIPS
25 TONS/TRIP: 20X2 = 40
107X2 = 214
125X2 = 250
B.
34X2 = 68
40X2 = 80
Expected transfer station plant capacity is 850 tons/day and
maximum capacity is 1000 tons/day. The trash trucks can carry
up to 12 tons but would average less than 9 tons/trip. The
transfer trucks can carry up to 25 tons/trip. Therefore the
total two-way daily trips at capacity is:
Trash Trucks = 250 two-way trips
Transfer Trucks =~ two-way trips
TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS
= 330 two-way trips
C. Employees & patrons in passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks
are expected to generate about 70 two-way trips.
TOTAL PROJECT DAILY TRIPS AT CAPACITY: 330 + 70 . 400 TWO-WAY TRIPS
The total number of trips for this project at 1.00% facility
capacity (1000 tons/day) is the same number of trips as Sky
Trucking's vehicular trips. The number of heavy truck trips from
Sky Trucking (366) versus the proposed project's at the anticipated
daily work rate of 850 tons/day (21.4 + 68 = 282) represents a heavy.
vehicle net reduction of 84 trips (23%). The comparative heavy
vehicle reduction at full capacity is 36 trips (10%).
(H:IHOMEIENGINEERITRAFFICIMACEADT.FXR)
Exhibit 4
Correspondence
F: ~~ .~~ ~- ," >' -~ .~
July 8, 1996
Case No: SUPS-95-02/IS-95-14
187 Mace Street
Chula Vista,Ca 91911
"'I 0 -,
'..) ~ _..J 1 ~;~t~
'oJ ""~,
p! t,:\I'., '-'"
;..., II',; 'I!";\.~
To: Martin Miller
Associate Planner, Planning Dep.
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Mr. Miller
This letter is in response to the notice received, dated June
10, 1996, regarding a special use permit for 187 Mace Street
for a trash transfer station.
The concerns that we would like to address are as followed.
#1. As the proposing states approximately 156 trips per day
of trash trucks will transfer their loads. This breaks
down to approximately to one truck per every 3.7 minutes,
using a an eight hour day. The average trash truck takes
from 12 to 15 minutes to unload its load at the County
Dump located in Chula Vista, causing a back-up of several
trucks at the dump site, the fear is that this will cause
a buck-up on Mace Street causing a blockage on a public
street of trucks awaiting their turn to unload and of the
blocking of driveways to other business in the area.
#2. The additional trash that often fly off of loaded, and
overloaded trucks that use the Mace Street, who will be
responsible for the trash scattered along the street per
day. The trucks also drip liquid from the loads that are
compressed, the liquid is a mix of every thing you can
think of and also dripped allover the road. Where is the
waste liquid from the site after the load is dumped
going, the sewer, or in the ground.
#3. What kind of odor control will there be. With 1,000 tons
of trash per day, and 156 trucks driving up and down the
street spreading it around the area. It will smell like
the County Dump. What will it do to surrounding property
values.
#4. What about pest control, flies, gnats, roaches, mice,
rats and the animals that feed on them, birds, snakes and
other pests.
#5. This area on Mace Street is a mixture of both
commercially and residents with young children.
Rogelioy & Virginia Oropeza
135 Mace Street
Chula Vista Ca 91911
~
Wesley & Jennifer Breedlove
1653 Sombrero Way
San Diego, Ca 92154
Business OWners
163 e re
{,t;L~ 4. .
Sam & Gloria Perry
163 Mace Street
.~:x/~l
Evelyn Breedlove
465 Parkway
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Property OWner
163 Mace Street
g~
Ricardo & Catalina Mariscal
125 Mace Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91911
~pcvut /J-1~
~~
KROEGER FAMILY PROPERTIES
MACE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
3691 Via Mercado, Suite 16, La Mesa, CA 91941
(619) 660-1952, FAX 660-6142
July 8, 1996
R::CJ:"IVEO
.J1JL. 1 '~i 13~
City ofChula Vista
Planning Department
Martin Miller
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
PI ^ \",.'"
_1-:) J '.I... ~,)
RE: Case No, SUPS-95-02/IS-95-14, Special Use Permit site address-187 Mace St.
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to you concerning the "Notice of Public Hearing" I've received on the above referenced site,
Previously, on December 27, 1994, we received a "Notice of Initial Study" for the same proposed facility, At
that time I wrote a letter to Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator listing concerns we had for this
type of use in an incorporated area. And frankly, I am surprised that the Environmental Review Coordinator
finds no significant environmental impacts, Unfortunately, the impact this type of facility would have on the
community where the proposed site is located is significant,
This proposed site is in a Light Industrial Zone, There are industrial buildings on this street, and also some
residential. Our building is located at 170/180 Mace Street across the street from the proposed waste transfer
site, We have approximately 70 tenants in our building, also a caretaker who lives On Site, We maintain a
"Hands On" approach to our building, and in fact, do all our own Property Management, We strive to keep our
property clean and in good repair, Our tenant concerns are of utmost importance to us, Some of our tenants
work up to 18 hour days to keep their business going in today's economy, In effect, our tenants are "on-site"
more than "off-site", It is very important for them to maintain peaceful occupancy, and a safe and healthy
environment to work in, It is our believe, and our tenants', that if this waste/transfer station is allowed, that their
environment would be compromised,
We have had some experience with a similar type of business, as is being proposed, The property adjacent to
ours is owned by H,G, Fenton, and is currently leased to Pacific Disposal, this property is under a C.U,P, The
use of this property is for the storage of roll off containers, and vehicles, which is allowed under the C.U,P,
What is not stated under the C.U,P. is the "Odor" and Noise Level" of the roll off containers and trucks, Even
though the containers are empty, the residue left in them gives off an offensive odor, and flies and other insects
are attracted by this residue, Our tenants have become inundated by the flies and odors, and have expressed
concern for their health, If this is occurring from the left-over residue, what willi ,000 tons of actual waste per
day cause? What are the restrictions for the time allowance after the waste has been dumped out and is waiting
to be sorted? In addition, the noise from the trucks revving engines to lift the roll off containers becomes
unbearable, In addition, trucks always need repair and maintenance, which is not allowed under Light IndustriaI
Zoning,
F\ u. V\. V\. I h ~ C b /lV1 vy\ I 55 I D V\
Clt\1 o-f' Clu\iA UI<;tlt)
(A~QJ f /'/96
~ O~\ -l~t~ r\ro(fos'<.L 6V\. --(~<SL
" S,L d WCLS-J.~ -tyu,,1A. sr~ Y 0V'\d
, :-,: c-fV\ ~--l~v- \ C( L ~ e CD c) e y \ {Cot c'\ \ i \ ~
;-;; {J,tJ 1,^~1 L-r ZOV\~ ,
~ =0-C(S~#," Sup Cf5-0d-,/IS Cj'Q_jLI
Woe.... -l\.\...Q. 'f-eS\(J.Q.V\,~~ o..'('ou.,ct
-ChIS pr-o.2)"2.ci $\~€...
.aciJrd> CAR-€.. ctJ~~~~~~:~\" HOf"s-qL
IOj 1:.r/lUlVV'. Gv,inelly 6ac.htCi
?..J... . ',..-z:-' v
3331 o:.tv-c=-/t1CIf i-;.:ec . ~
J3)t d,;,c..s-I. 1cV IMJ"- LI~;-u< ~,
~;- 3 J ~ !1-LDC A $' c. ~ g:f<J1fl~l.d fl/24M:aJ
o340-A\(ecusl- ci {[)lC)t1 €~lAVef.
3335 A\'vZ)(Q ~+, tv (ja!ld~!1~~ _ 1
3.33/ a~^---".;:z+ !tf; 7~~
33~3 f}tuoca ~-f ~ lih e&c!-~, tiMIJt.1~
'?7fc/ II(V~q ~r ~V,:/ 7?[~ ~~
i I I
' i '
P.O. Box 3066
Chula Vista, Ca 91909
August 5, 1996
'-.
Martin Miller
Planning Dppt.
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
! "~
, ': (J '.
... . !3.~i.:
p' ,.
L''iiv'"
lylJ,
Dear Mr. Miller;
I wish to express to you my strong opposition to the proposed
recycling plant on Mace Street.
I own eight houses in Broderick's Otay Acres which is located to
the east and down wind of the proposed plant. These houses are all
tenant occupied with young families for the most part. We are
concerned about the dust and traffic hazards that will be generated
by the stream of trash trucks that will be using Main Street. There
is no safe way to move that much garbage so close to residences.
Such a plant should be located near the dump or in the dump, and
not so close to where people live and breathe.
I own the houses at 150-154-156-158 Date St. which are almost
directly downwind from the plant. I also own the houses at 371-375
Palm Ave., and the houses at 1845-1851 Rios Ave.
Thank you,
r~ , t>---
~------
Charles B. Tutton
(619) 420-7080
AU9' 12 '96 9:07
FRF ' ITA PAYEA
FAX '4277151
P. 2
;;L of ;z.
P O'T ~ IF' A- (. <. 0 (.,) e'";;> I AJ ,It tz. Gf:" ,'"'be-,(J""I A '-
/oJ e 16-11 'ao;i. ~ O"J:;;, () (L, ~l..b (...I 6""0"7-(;) -Pfttl-i:;
I
JJ Elf- (L (J N Iii". {6~ t.J t:" c AJ -n I.l (L I-f Ih. ".) E 1't?J?:J
h A IN S"7'7r-en..-r: --" Ve-t?-J.> ,c;.HI 0 12- e;1) tne) ,
Yo '^'- I-/-,q.,; E A- "b,fAJ' ~() CL S e)<. P '-0 OS ( V c:
'5" I fZ.<. A It ~,J ,tJfllTI N c;.. ;--D fI.,. P P t:.-J
-P(..i.,/T (,.J G- (/ I.A. fl- I-J-H4 ~ l..u .::r E p.c..o 1> y;,
/"J 0 c.c.. '-- 'J)
It P P fiZ. E. c , IT- I?;?;- yo fA. If- A...".-c ,(.)"77'0 ~
-rz> IH IS' hilI' iE~ .
.::3A..J9...<J.L j:J?- f-
1'- If I ;4,,-,- r-o f' l::Ie.
C!-ht. ,-14' V;5'(;q C,f-<.i='
,
, 9 ~ 911 - ~-~ 0 y
ec', ~~cd.-
..~:--~~~~V';-..-..__......"
~UG-22-96 THU 10:02 ~M B~D~INC.
619 766 4922
p.02
II D~n'-t 7hl1l7 ""1" ....+el" "
August 21, 1996
VIA FAX &: CERTIFIED MAIL
Martin Miller, Associate PlaMer
Planning Dept., Public Services Bldg.
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: CASE NO. SUPS-95-0ZlIS-95-14 MACE STREET TRANSFER STATION
PLEASE READ THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD AT THE BEARING
Dear Mr, Miller,
On advice ftom our attorney, to protect our legal position, our citizens' group is sending
this letter stating our position for Ihe record, We strongly oppose the Mitigated Negative
Declaration finding of no significant environmental impacts ftom the proposed trash
transfer station to be located at 187 Mace Street, Out objection is due to the very real
potential for waste to be hauled ftom Mace Street to Ihe proposed Campo Landfill, on the
Campo Indian Reservation. This action win put al risk the Campo/Cottonwood Creek
Sole Source Aquifer. Our federally designated aquifer is the only supply of water for the
roral communities (people CltId livestoc/c) surrounding the Campo Reservation. We have
been fighting this landfill, and the threat it poses to our water supply, since 1989.
Attached, is a copy of a letter ftom Pacific Disposal, Inc., to Mayor Tim Nader, dated
September 13, 1994, The letter, signed by Jorge HoUand, President of Pacific Disposal,
Inc" discusses the site at 187 Mace Street, the fact that they ar& funding it and they ha~
a contract with Mid.American Waste Systems, Inc, for disposal at their Campo landfill.
On August 2, 1995, I sat in a courtroom downtown and listened as Jorge Holland pleaded
guilty to insurance fraud, was ordered to pay SIS,OOO, given 120 days in custody of the
Sheriff' and 3 years probation. This is not the kind of person we want associated with such
a controversial landfill in our midst.
We are aware that Pacific Disposal was purchased by SanifiJI which has since merged with
USA Waste, one of the most aggressive companies around. But, it is still, concern to us
that Jorge Holland is somehow involved in the Mace Street tiacility, EapeciaIIy with the
continued involvement of Mr, Mark Watton who must be a close fiiend u he sat in the
courtroom with Holland when he pleaded guilty to insurance bud.
DONNA TISDALE
P.O. BOX 1275
BOULEVARD, CA 91905
(619) 766-4170 e FAX: (619) 766-4922
DIANE RICHARDS
1783 BUCKMAN SPRINGS RD,
CAMPO, CA 91906
(619) 478-9195
AUG-22-96 _ T"~"U J 6; 63 AM BAD ~ I HC.
"
6019 711::>60 492~
P.04
~....
PACIFIC DISPOSAL, INC.
1991/2 Mace Streel
Chula Vista, CA 92011
(619) 221.8060
Fax: (619) 476.0768
Mr, Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista. Ca, 91910
September 13, 1994
Mr. Mayor '
We at Padflc Disposal, Ine, thank you for the opportunity to present to the City Council
our proposed transfer station plans,
I. Site
.
. We have IQ("lIted a site lit 187 Mace Street in the City .of ChuJa Vista. This site is in nil
industrial area encompa~sing 4.75 acres,
2. Facility
The facility will 40.00Q,sC) ft, in size under roo(.,,;th room, for expansion for a MRF
sIMian, This radlit!' \\i)( hnve the capadt~, to hnndle 300,000 tOilS per year,
3, Funding
Pacific DisposnI. Inc, is fully funded for the completion of this project.
4, Dump Sites ,
We have a CQntract with Mid.American Waste Systems for their Campo. Ca, l:mdflll and
have an agreement \\ith Southwest Disposal for 1000 tons per day at their Somerton Az,
landfill,
5, Pricing
We believe' we can Rchieve R lipping' fee for the City of ChuIa Vista's wilSte of 542,50 per
ton all inclusive, This fee is based on both Mid.Al11ericans Call1po site Rnd Southwest's
JandflJl in Arizona,
6,Operatlonal start.up
We project that we' ,,;11 be In operation 18 months front Ihl' d,~yof approval of land tI't
bv the City of Chula Vist:!,
AUG-22-96 THU le,e4 AM BAD. INC.
~
~
.t i!~_.
i t:..'I"\
'i~J
t ......:-....,
.1 ........
.
"
<
~
V)
>-
~
~
~
"Q
=
..
r;
'"
&.
,!2
"Q
o
w
=
~
,-
r)
"Q
..
V
:0
"Q
o
..
c..
E
o
.::::
.
-
~
ti
E
"
~
..
~
;;
E
u \I:)
..
.. C\
.. C\
~ .....
,
::1 vi
~ ~
~ ~
is
01)
c
'-
1::
e.
a:
619 766 4922
p.e6
>-
C-
O
..,
..
U
C.
N
..,.
'< .' ..E"'~.!.~'''''' ...J ~" ,~... ."., .~...
c:. ,;:;IC ..c ....c:-e~....~,,- ....r;...c:!'~..- eeJ"".. -O...eol:&:;~-
_EwS ....!~ -..g,-t'.r:. :::...~! .. o:i;'" III_O...;V":
-et1"= "-,:"1~':; .S-t~ ;:'::'I:rJ[CI1. 1 f'I!1j::E ";::9-52501
.'W ._ _0- :lite. " ~.. >- :;)p" E:._'-" fD"'GQ. ...._..
........U.-CIII Co MO"e-.
:;1t!1 .,!z a: 0 ~~ :;.!~ ";;15 '1 ~~ ~- ~ e'5 ..:I 1.1 Ii: A.. !'s~~ ~_.
II . .... II tt .. c: C ..J .. - . - .. :I S:I III 0 "'Q _ II ~ ..,
m ... 0 - "-5. Co" to=; ~ :1.3 !f! .. c:J Ji: ~ c;J' .., 8 -= :.::: II. CJ .., lit ., ~j ~'
j4.."p... ... ..-....I:...t5 ~.:E BJ'" <.. " '-:_11::='0_" ..
II: .,.1:.J: .,.. .., .. ...... -..." .., . >0 ... - .... 0
II .,..... 6#. '- 0 c = 0 :..-.. ... 0 .... & ... e ~.. . uj.z: I: IMI .,,::: ~-.:I ~ .,., .s 10
L.='''= 0"""">"0"""'- 0.... J:~.g~. .c....:;:; r:~_ - ~Ih
I&o.sli.s .. :-1.5 ""E;:!!,c8~.! ~ .: ;="" Ej I!.. ;:'1"': :'.0 ..tl-!i=e:!"';;
C-j' c:,,_E"5._ ..,_ "'>:.,;'1!:"~'- ~.". 0 fro...
15~"'" ~ o;w'i:Q.ECltc..~... ..o."".......w"'Eci5 gc:c!Eo;f~~.....,~~
..~ou "Q w U ~"'""::J ~c!tt.O... '~..ucQ. <nw
~~~e-S~i~I~8i~ii1E .ii~1:~~~~III~f"l~js:~~~
,,'" .u (1j"'-I!" "Ec..ose~,~~..t:~E'" .c!t'.....i;t:J;,- ""II
,Q!! ig: ";:'..;o!! ,,11~.. ~1..~ E.~! ""... S "8e- E .~~i! ~..: 1\ to
UOO_b ~c~~.._u~~c~ ~v. u~o~ . 0< ~____._~
~
u
~
"'B
..c
,::1
:e
c:
IJ e..... ~ . .. ~ It v...... I:: ..i" " . C .. -v ~"'O ~ "I Q .. iii'
.. .." E ~ E'-';: ... 'I! e e .. v ..:: g-- '0; u " .. ... .c 'ii c " ~
~ \Wo.....:: ~=~: U.,E oM = f.;....t] ~.~.;o
." 11"":1 u.5 - 0_'_"". i 'c.c .s i: c. ... 0;;.. c:" 0 to. 0
~ ~:~-~~R ~~~.IE~~~-~ .~~c~ ~.- 0
en ~ ~~ ~ :&~ ~.5-:S<= 5~.!!". S ~ ~~ g @';~ ::1; ~
~ ~~.g~~~~3~~1J~1~gc= 'C~Zc~: 3-~i~
-t! .e:!"CilI".-~IItIII"."''''-::E-!:::J8. ~....c=~.Ct ::J'I;Q.cc
..c - 0.... e IS Ii) c...- .... U 50 IP w"O = u .... .
,- ~.~"'.~t~~...:P~o!,,!~ <.....::"". ~~"g
!i:! " . '" - "0.... - iI': ... .-....- 41') c: " ..... 111... . 0 'f; ...... .
S c.c"....",.l!o.......}..e e 0- """Jj s" .._..~..
I: 0"" ~ :,.g d -.;, !J " 1/1 g" .:&.! 0 S \0':0 ~ i i w ~ == ~ D.~ E .t':-
· .. "I) _. .. II:: ._ " .. _ _ 0'-
'" '~~ "....;; ~ ,~ ~..s .. ,!'h ~::J R ~l ~1 c." E.,; .. .. -.:: .. ~ - . u ():t
I " 0"8 u" ... "<<> .~.. ......d~..~.. ..J"
.. Co =' S.s:.. ~ '.i:J '" ~.D .... III ... c: · _ t) III :s 0'" '. .c t'''''G
, "8: St... -'! f.~~~~:5~.!!.!~"D.t':.! r;:~~:!! ~ u,= ~': ~.'i!.
r:-d._; = i.-" Q.E-'" J::tn ot-';=. e..E'K.I S:;;::I ~c..!C=. ~:-_
i.9 ~=g,;:'si A8::ii ~'i-58:;o ~~~'v<J %..!So
~
II
:I
..
..
-
.
-
II
E
:I
J
alit CS:~E:1~
"'~~ ='S1"~'~
j '" '" c.l
. 5." 'E'~]E8!!.
~ '::5 ;,!~:!;!.E:t~iI
8._... E ,,":!; -"it
g-c "='E..cc
~ .- '5~1....!!11fi,l..~
-'~ . '1.".8 ~'S;J.~
"" : 5:: 6~ ~:.s~i
'" "". r::: i 8 E "c .s
U !:H~u58;=
!.~.!I;;~!II e- 5-~
= K~h ; d"D.,..
"'.I.-f..!:" -.....
= .." e.2o-'~ :!,! II!
"" =:!:ii E i ~...;..
'V .f,e:o; e .E= !!'~
1" .-:n.s ~'~ 8 'r~h
~ ~::t ':J=i . ,,8-
.5 i '1 ::J!,-= ~.-!! ,E
.- ~ ii .~r8"''-j';6i.s
~ E! 1"!! 0 .u ~..
I!vj.-'e"i ,,- i tU
1'1'\ __ r::J~3 S~1~~-~.
~ ~ II ill ~]"i:2 !;>'-Ec
E = c:: -;,: ;!:&,-:g.c
..E... i ~"u
.~l:PJi!~
.... . __ t:;1i.!liEJ5d
....... ~ ~1t i,!'vj1.
· ... i i~iil~,~i
-= -. I I-;{" ~S6.e
.- :-,. ~ . 1: i..! I.EJ I
:E Q jtliiti~1
r
/~
fI)
CI)
.
Exhibit 5
Extract of the Minutes from
the 8/14/96
Planning Commission Meeting
Exceq>t from Draft Planninl! Commission Minutes of 8/14/96
ITEM 2,
PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A MUNICIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER AND MATERIAL
RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - Sky Trucking (Continued
from 7-10-96) (To be continued to meeting of August 28, 1996)
Mr, Lee informed the Commissioners that staff was working on the environmental analysis, the
Agency meeting had been rescheduled, and staff requested continuation of SUPS-96-02 to the
August 28 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that again the public hearing should be
opened for those who wanted to speak and could not return on August 28, and then the item
should be continued to the meeting of August 28,
Chair Tarantino opened the public hearing, He noted that anyone who spoke at that meeting
would defer their chance to speak on the 28th.
Mike Kelley, 3749 Festival Ct., was opposed to the trash plant. There were already a lot of
trucks in the neighborhood, It was less than three blocks from his house; Otay Elementary
School nearby, noise, pollution, blocking of streets, U-turns already out of control; 156 more
trucks trips daily; if low on fuel, the trucks would go to the nearby gas station to refuel.
Thought the trucks were killing their property values, There had been diesel spills from the gas
station down to Main Street. Fire Department puts sand on it. A motorcyclist had gotten into
the diesel fuel and had an accident. Main Street will be even more dangerous,
Frederick G. Payea, Jr., 1641 Hilltop Dr., opposed because plant would be close to residential
neighborhood, Why not locate it near the dump on Main Street. It would bring odors, vermin,
rats, rodents, flies,
R. L. Boyd, 1575 Hilltop Dr., reiterated other comments; concerned about diesel fumes;
parking across the street; three schools within five block area of plant; children's safety;
extremely dangerous; that part of C.V. is being made into a slum with this action; already have
two half-way houses in the area. It's enough, Time to change things.
Patty Diaz, 231 Date St., concerned that traffic is already bad from Nelson Sloan and Laidlaw;
new bus lane in front of their business on Mace; 40 mph traffic on Main; pollution,
Ulysses Gonzales, 1605 Hilltop Dr., said that placing the project would be detrimental to the
community, There were three schools in the area and there would be more traffic, there had
been a shooting on Hilltop in his driveway. Hilltop was very close to main and that traffic
would eventually go up Hilltop. He would not want his children walking down any street with
trash trucks, etc" that could possibly harm them, He thought it was a bad plan, He thought
it should be placed near the dump on Main Street past 1-805,
Ana Maldonado, 169 Date St., was concerned about the traffic, speed of traffic, proximity of
schools, flies, the water already smells, and the project would not be good for the community.
PC Minutes
-5-
August 14, 1996
Fausto Maldonado, 169 Date St., said he was opposed to this plan, He could see why they
were having problems with the environmental plan, The speakers had talked about their
concerns with the children, The river could be affected, They had been promised a park behind
them, They had seen no evidence of that. The traffic was bad, There should be a stop sign
on the exit from Date onto Main, because Main became a hill between Melrose and Hilltop and
the trucks and cars go very fast. On Date and Otay Valley Road, there had been dozens of
accidents because they don't see the post. That had never been changed. The field was not
developed, and could be a two-way road, They did not even have a sidewalk, He was
concerned that Otay Elementary School would be too close to the plant. He thought it would
be better as a park, or somewhere for the children to play,
B. Rosie Bystrak, 24 Tourmaline St., stated that her back yard faced Main Street. They have
a problem at night when they hear the semi trucks that honk to warn people they were going
through the light because they couldn't stop, She has also heard the screech and bang when
someone did not stop, She wanted to know where the trash would come from, where it would
go, why must it stop there if it was a transfer, It was in close proximity to their neighborhood,
They already have mice and bugs, a sulfur smell when it is humid and hazed. To have a dump
site would make it worse. She wanted some explanations. She wanted her neighborhood
protected,
John Arinas, 375 Date Street, lives east of the site, and said he had not gotten notice until the
first of August. He had collected signatures but would bring more to the next meeting. People
in the area of Date and Palm were not aware of it, They had questions regarding health,
environment, rodents, With the amphitheater, the water park, and the whitewater, he did not
think this trash site would not be appropriate, The recycling place made it easier to put this
trash place in, He believed the transfer should be east by the trash dump site. If the City
wanted this community as promised to them when they aMexed to the City in 1986, he believed
the City should at least put in their streets, sidewalks, and parks, It seemed like they had to
band together to resist the trash site, They had not received any paperwork until the last minute.
He was definitely opposed,
Sal Lukey, 1636 Jasper Ave., asked if on the 28th she could ask questions and to whom,
Chair Tarantino informed her she would have an opportunity to speak during the public hearing,
and staff or the applicant could answer her questions,
Assistant Planning Director Lee pointed out that Martin Miller was the project planner and
anyone who had questions before the 28th could call Martin at 691-5101 and he would try to
answer their questions, Or if they needed research that staff could assist on, staff would try to
accommodate them, He noted that the staff report would be ready on Thursday, August 22,
If anyone would like a copy, they could call Nancy Ripley at the same number and leave a
message to get a copy mailed or to pick up a copy,
PC Minutes
-6-
August 14, 1996
Ms. Bystrak returned to the podium to ask if notices had to not have to go to all residents, She
made copies and passed the word around, She asked staff to let the people know the distance
for mail-out.
Mr, Lee said that under State law, the City was obligated to notify within 300 feet of the
property boundaries of an application. By City policy, that notification area had been expanded
to 1,000 feet on large-scale projects, Assessor parcel numbers were used for verification of
ownership and residence, Both are notified in accordance with the assessor's records. In
addition, in this case, there was a public forum held in July, The purpose of those forums was
to have the applicant propose on a more informal basis to the public and give them a chance to
ask questions. City staff are there to inform people of the process that would take place in the
notification.
Ms, Bystrak said that in the vicinity where this building was to be built, she thought the closest
house may be 1,000 feet. Mr. Lee said Date Avenue was approximately 650 feet to the east end
of the property, Everyone on Date Avenue should be on the mailing list,
Ms, Bystrak said that those north of Main Street would not have gotten any kind of notice, u-
Haul had gotten a notice, but anybody else beyond that point would not have gotten any, These
were neighbors who lived just behind the area, She was concerned and had passed the word
along,
Mr. Arinas said that on Date Avenue there were only four houses connected to Date Street,
where nobody had gotten notice, There were no houses around Mace. He thought the
notification should be changed.
Chair Tarantino noted that they could comment at the meeting of August 28,
Mr. Maldonado said that regardless of what anybody said regarding the distance, once the plant
was there everyone beyond 1,000 feet would know, They couldn't rely on luck to be at the
meeting, They had to rely on people's good will to do something right,
MSC (Davis/WilIett) 5-0 (Ray excused; Tuchscher not yet arrived) to continue the public
hearing to August 28, 1996.
Exhibit 6
Staff Report for SUPO-96-01
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8 CVY.J:;
Meeting Date 3/19/96
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACllITY/TRASH
TRANSFER STATION (MRF/TTS) AT 1855 MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN
THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
RESOLUTION Adopting Initial Environmental Study/Negative
Declaration IS-95-28, Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Making Findings under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment
Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum, and
Approving a Special Land Use Permit for the Establishment of a
Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station at 1855 Maxwell
Road within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area
REVIEWED BY:
RESOLUTION Approving Plans and Entering into an Owner
Participation Agreement with John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corporation
for the Development of a Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer
Station at 1855 Maxwell Road within the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area
Community Development Director l_S .
Executive Director ~ '$!.,
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No XI
Council Referral Number:
SUBMITTED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1995, the City Council determined it'wanted to explore the feasibility of developing a
materials recovery facility/trash transfer station (MRF/TTS) facility within the City in order to
reduce trash tipping fees. Staff investigated 14 sites throughout the City. In consideration
of locational advantages and site availability, staff and the Council narrowed down the list of
properties to three: 1855 Maxwell Road, 894 Energy Way, and 900 Bay Boulevard. The
property located at 1855 Maxwell Road was ultimately selected as the most desirable site,
The proposed facility will include an 85,600 square foot building on a 10.8 acre site. Trash
dumping and sorting activities will take place inside of the building, although some limited
activities will take place in the yard area as well.
The proposed site is currently owned by R. E. Hazard Contracting Company and is used as
a storage yard. The site is located within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area
and is zoned I-P (General Industrial/Precise Plan). Development of an MRF/TTS facility here
will require a Special Land Use permit pursuant to the Otay Valley Road Implementation
Plan/Design Manual Addendum and City zoning ordinance.
The Redevelopment Plan also requires the developers to enter into an Owner Participation
Agreement (OPA) with the Agency in order to proceed with the project.
.3-1
Page 2, Item ~.b
Meeting Date 03/19/96
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Agency: (1) adopt the Initial Environmental Study/Negatlve
Declaration IS-95-28; (2) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (3) Mak~
Findings under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design
Manual Addendum, (4) approve a S~ial Land Use Permit for the development of a MRFrrTS
facility at 1855 Maxwell Road; and,~ approve an Owner Participation Agreement with John
Sexton Sand & Gravel Corporation for development of a trash transfer facility at 1855
Maxwell Road.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee (DRC)
discussed proposed plans for the MRFrrTS on January 29, 1996 and February 12, 1996 (see
Minutes, Attachment A), The DRC expressed concerns over the height of the structure,
materials, and articulation of the facade and fencing, The DRC again met on March 11, 1995
and approved the project as revised pursuant to six conditions which have been made a part
of the Owner Participation Agreement.
The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee considered the proposed facility at their Special
Meeting of March 18, 1996. The recommendation(s) of the PAC will be presented orally to
the Agency,
On Wednesday, February 21, 1996, staff conducted a field trip to Orange County to visit two
similar facilities currently in operation. Members of the DRC and PAC were invited to attend.
Don Palumbo, of the PAC and two representatives of John Burnham and Company, manager
of the industrial park in Design Court, attended the field trip.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed MRFrrTS facility will be developed on the southerly 10.8 acres of the Hazard
site on Maxwell Road (see Locator Map, Exhibit 1). The building will include 85,600 square
feet with a maximum height of 40 feet., The structure will house offices, a tipping floor,
hopper loadout, a materials recovery/sorting belt system, a storage area, shop, loading dock,
and product loadout. The grounds will also accommodate scales for weighing incoming and
outgoing vehicles, a resident drop-off area, and a yard waste processing area, Hazard will
continue to use the remaining 7 acres of their property to the north of the facility for outdoor
storage of construction materials.
Operations of the MRFrrTS facility include the transporting, weighing, and tipping of refuse
by residents and trash collection firms, and the sorting, separation, bailing, loading, and
transporting of the sorted refuse materials,
The applicant has proposed hours of operation from Monday through Friday, 5:00 a.m. to
11 :00 p.m. and Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. As a condition of approval of a
Special Permit, staff recommends the following hours of operation:
maxwell.ra4 (March 14, 1996 (1:53 pm])
6 - ,).-
Page 3, Item ~h
Meeting Date 03/19/96
Monday through Friday
5:00 a,m, to 10:00 p.m, (with no deliveries
before 6:30 a.m.)
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p,m, (with no deliveries
before 7:30 a.m.)
Saturday and Sunday
The recommended hours of operation will preclude the collection of solid waste any earlier
than it is currently collected in order not to disturb residents. These hours may be modified
by the Zoning Administrator upon request by the operator of the facility based upon
operational efficiencies and community compatibility.
Special Permit
The overall goal of the Redevelopment Plan is the elimination of blight in the project area and
the furtherance of the area's orderly growth and economic development. Toward those ends,
the MRF/TTS will provide residents and trash hauling firms with competitive rates and a
choice of dumping facilities. The facility will assist the City in meeting State mandated AB
939 recycling goals. The MRF/TTS will also reduce the amount of illegal dumping currently
taking place in the Otay Valley area by reducing dumping fees and providing more hours of
operation including Sundays.
The project site and surrounding sites are zoned I-P (General Industrial/Precise Plan). The
nearest residential properties are located in Robinhood Point, approximately 2000 feet from
the Hazard property,
The current zoning category and Redevelopment Plan allow a trash transfer facility as a
conditional land use with an I-P zone which requires a Special Permit within the
Redevelopment Project Area.
An Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration IS-95-28 (Attachment B) was prepared
for the project which identified a number of environmental impacts that would be potentially
significant if mitigation were not imposed. Based on the findings of the Initial Environmental
Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The project will not result in any
impacts on the environment that would be considered significant after mitigation is
implemented. Environmental resources that were found to be potentially impacted by the
project include: geologic resources, water resources, air quality, transportation/circulation,
energy, hazards, noise, public services, utilities, aesthetics, and cultural resources.
Odor, noise, and transportation/circulation are addressed in the Initial Study, IS-95-28.
However, a brief discussion of each issue is presented below.
Odor: The collected materials most likely to produce objectionable odors at the facility will
be inside the building for a maximum of 48 hours. To ensure as little odor as possible escapes
the building, the Applicant is required to install an air discharge system to capture odors.
Such a system should eliminate the vast majority of offensive odors from the air. The
applicant must also comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations,
including those relating to prohibiting the formation of odor nuisances.
maxwell.ra4 (March 14, 199611:53 pm))
.,3-3
Page 4, Item :) t)..<!,p
Meeting Date 03/19/96
Noise: It is estimated that the MRF/TTS will generate approximately 435 ADTs more than are
currently flowing on Otay Valley Road once it is fully operational. This will result in an
imperceptible increase in the noise generation along Otay Valley Road and is not considered
a significant noise impact.
Noise levels generated by the operation of the MRF/TTS will be from the heavy equipment and
large trucks operating on the property, Given this activity, however, the Initial Study has
indicated, on page 33, that "operations will be characteristic of industrial operations and will
be able to meet the exterior noise performance standards specified in the Zoning Code (i.e.,
not exceeding 70 to 80 dBA at adjacent property boundaries), , This is due to sound
attenuation provided by the structure that will contain the majority of facility operations.
Operations should not result in significant adverse noise impacts on adjacent land uses."
Sound attenuation includes turning the building such that the structure is at a 90 angle to the
southern property line with the southeast corner being approximately 70 feet further away
from the southwest corner, The effect is that the eastern elevation is directed more towards
the northeast than directly east. In addition, a solid wall is required to be built along the
southern property line.
Transportation/Circulation: The project will primarily affect three transportation corridors:
1-805, Otay Valley Road, and Maxwell Road, Since the project is located on the route to the
Otay Landfill, no significant increase is expected in the number of trash trucks that would
normally be traveling to the landfill. The main impact will come from semi-tractor/trailers
traveling to and from the MRF/TTS. These trucks will be taking trash from the transfer station
to less costly landfills located elsewhere in the region and beyond. As stated on page 35 in
IS-95-28 "Landfill destinations include local, regional, and remote locations throughout greater
southern California and Arizona."
IS-95-28 lists the number of average daily trips (ADT) at 942 or:
376 collection trucks
218 transfer trailer trucks
38 materials trucks
150 self-haul vehicles
160 emplovee/visitors
942 ADT
Since the improvements currently being completed on Otay Valley Road took into account
heavy truck traffic to and from the landfill, no improvements are needed along that road.
However, improvements will be required on Maxwell Road to bring that street up to standard.
This is a Municipal Code requirement and not a mitigation measure. No mitigation measures
are required for the transportation/circulation issues.
As a result of the public review period on the Initial Study which ran from November 15, 1995
to December 15, 1995, letters of comment were received from the following
agencies/organizations: County of San Diego Public Works Department, CalTrans, Sky
Trucking, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. It should be noted that the
City is not obligated under CEQA to provide individual responses to comments. But because
the Integrated Waste Management Board has significant permitting authority over the project,
specific responses to their comments were prepared and are attached to the Initial Study.
Staff has carefully reviewed the comments and has determined that none of the issues raised
maxweU.ra4 (March .14, 1"996 [1 :53 pm])
.3-+
Page 5, Item ~~.;-b
Meeting Date 03/19/96
in the comments change any of the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with
respect to the significance of impacts or the level, of mitigation required. Clarifications
provided in the response letter to the Integrated Waste Management Board resolve many of
the substantive issues raised in that comment, as well as some of the other comments. It
should also be noted that staff has discussed the comments from CalTrans with their staff,
explaining the results of the City's analysis, CalTrans staff has agreed that no additional
traffic study need be performed for the project.
Since the Mitigated Negative Declaration requires mitigations to be imposed on the project,
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must also be adopted. The MMRP
lists the specific measures required to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures listed
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Staff has concluded that the project at the proposed location is appropriate given the
surrounding land uses, proximity to the landfill, the proposed site improvements, and the
relatively few adverse environmental impacts from the project.
Recommendations
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project required an Initial
Study. It is recommended that the Agency review and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS-95-28, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C).
It is also recommended that the Agency make the following findings pursuant to the
Redevelopment Plan and approve the request for a Special Land Use Permit for the
construction and operation of a materials recovery facility and trash transfer station at 1855
Maxwell Road, subject to the conditions contained in the OPA (Attachment D).
Findinas:
A. The proposed project does not constitute a substantial detriment to the Project Area
or adjacent areas in that it is compatible with surrounding uses.
B. The proposed project generally promotes the orderly physical and economic
development of the Project Area in that it will contribute to the local economy by
providing competitive waste disposal facilities and services which should result in user
costs savings. In addition, the building will meet design standards comparable to other
jndustrial developments along Otay Valley Road, and will put 10 acres of under utilized
property in use.
C. The proposed project is generally consistent with the townscape/planning and urban
design objectives of the Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum (see
Attachment E), and contributes to the amenity of the Project Area in that the project
must implement any requirement related to design, setback, landscaping, exterior
structural alterations, etc. as required by the Implementation Plan/Design Manual
Addendum to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan.
maxwell.ra4 (March 14, 1996 [1:53 pmJl
-3 -5
Page 6, Item 3 a.. ~
Meeting Date 03/19/96
Owner Participation Aqreement
The OPA between the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and John Sexton Sand & Gravel
Corporation is attached (as Attachment D) for review by the Agency. This document, as
required by the Redevelopment Plan for all major projects, formally approves the prOposal.
Through the OPA, the Developer agrees to:
· Include non-discrimination clauses in all leases and/or deeds conveying an
interest in the property.
· Not to protest formation of a Special Assessment District by the City
(Developer can protest amount of assessment).
. Maintain the property in first class condition.
· Develop the property in accordance with approved plans and conditions.
· Operate the property in accordance with authorized land uses.
· This Agreement is in effect for the duration of the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Plan (Year 2023) or until redevelopment of the site occurs.
Staff recommends approval the OPA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed facility, including machinery, is estimated to be valued at $10 million which will
generate $100,000 in tax increment funds to the Agency in the first year of completion.
The proposed facility will generate approximately 59 jobs at the beginning of operation with
the potential to increase to 100 new job~. It will also help to reduce trash tipping fees by
offering comparable and competitive facilities to the County landfill.
Under a separate agreement with Sexton, the City has agreed to reimburse the developer for
expenses incurred under certain circumstances should the City not go forward with the
project, The amount that would be owed Sexton under this agreement through March 30,
1996 is $280,000. This figure includes $190,000 for out-of-pocket expenses and $90,000
for management fees.
maxwerr.ra4 (March 14, 1996 (1:53 pm]J
~-~
Exhibit 1:
Attachment A:
Attachment B.:
Attachment C:
Attachment 0:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Page 7, Item 3 tt oJ f:,
Meeting Date 03/19/96
Locator Map
Minutes - Design Review Committee meetings of 1/29/96 and 2/12/96
Letter from Don Palumbo, Gold Coast Engineering, with Petition from
Property Owners
Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-95-28
Response Comment Letters
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Owner Participation Agreement
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation
Plan/Design Manual Addendum, May 1985
Supplemental Noise Data
[88\C:\WP51 \AGEt-ICY\RA4S\MRF-TTS,RA41
maxweU.ra4 (March 14, 1996 (1:53 pm])
,3-7
This page blank.
.3 ---?
"'I
~
00
a,
o
o
~
a.
- EXHIBIT I
~
3=
>-
(!J
a:
w
z
w
b
z
(!J
CD
W
Q
XI
CoM
<( Q)
::!E 5
Z.2I
011..
~
o
o
-I
I-
o
W
-:I
o
a:
Co
m
i!
(J)
s
~
....c:z
This page blank.
,/)
e:;r-;. . .
ATTACHMENT "A"
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mondav. Januarv 29. 1996
4:30 p.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT:
Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez,
Members Duncanson and Kelly.
Principal Planner Steve Griffin
Assistant Planner Ann Pedder-Pease
Conservation Coordinator Michael Meacham
MEMBERS PRESENT:
B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design
review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked
that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for
the tape when speaking.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Spethman-Kelly) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the
November 27, 1995 meeting as presented.
D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECT
I.
DRC-96-20
Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility
1855 Maxwell Road
Materials Recovery Facility & Trash Transfer Station
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Ann Pedder-Pease presented the project which consists of a 76,000 sq.
ft. materials recovery facility and trash transfer station along with 7,500 sq. ft. of office
space, a yard waste processing area and a variety of outdoor storage and staging areas.
Included is parking for 87 cars, including 2 handicapped spaces, a public dropoff area
for sorted recyclables and a small, landscaped, outdoor seating area. She pointed out to
the committee that the intent concerning the circulation was to bring all the large trucks
through the outside perimeter, having most of the trucks leaving on the north side of the
site, keeping them separated from the pedestrians, vehicles, and self-haul trucks which
would be using the facility as a community resource. Ms. Pedder-Pease added it was
really necessary to make this project public friendly. She felt that, while this might be
hard to achieve for such a large-scale project, the applicant did an excellent job to make
this project human scale.
.3
,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
2
JANUARY 29. 1996
Committee Ouestions of Staff
Member Pat Kelly asked about traffic in relation to the landfill. Michael Meacham
pointed out that traffic wouldn't be much different than what is going out toward the
landfill now, and stated that the size and the expectation of this facility is that, at such
a time as the landfill closes, the facility would ultimately have the potential to replace it.
Ms. Kelly asked about the use of the facility. Mr. Meacham explained that he would not
describe it as more than a recycling facility, but he thinks it is designed to be equally a
recovery facility, and feels it compliments the City's programs, which are source
separation oriented.
Chairman Speth man asked Mr. Meacham if this facility will be adequate to meet future
needs. Mr. Meacham stated that the capacity of this facility could easily handle
projected growth over the next 20 years.
Member Kelly, looking at page 6 of the Environmental Review Study, was concerned
about the location of the facility in relation to residential areas and school sites. Mr.
Meacham indicated he believes that the State Dept. of Public Resources currently states
that a solid waste transfer station or landfUl cannot be within 1,000 ft. of a daycare
center, school, human hospital, or residence. Member Kelly was also concerned about
the odor the surrounding residents would be subject to. Mr. Meacham pointed out the
difference between the old facilities vs. the new facilities; the new facilities are totally
enclosed and have a negative air flow. Because of the negative air flow odors are not
detectable.
Chairman Speth man asked about staging and wondered if there was a study as to what
the impact is going to be. Michael Meacham stated that trucks usually spend typically
25-35 minutes in a landfill. At the transfer station the time is typically 15-25 minutes,
so therefore time spent in the yard is' shorter than at the landfill. Principal Planner Steve
Griffin pointed out that'the trucks waiting outside would be covered or enclosed until
they entered the building, and this is a requirement of the operation. David Vladic,
representing the applicant, pointed out that six trucks can be serviced at one time and the
time that Mr. Meacham pointed out, (15 minutes) is the total time the truck is on the
property.
Committee Concerns/Ouestions of Ap,plicant
Chairman Speth man asked Mr. Vladic if he agreed with staff recommendations. Mr.
Vladic told the committee that he agreed with everything they need to do as stated in the
staff report.
Member Rodriguez was concerned about the circulation, and questioned the entry and
loop road. He also asked about the yard waste processing area and questioned the
translucent panels used on the building. Mr. Vladic responded by explaining the traffic
flow for self-haulers, and transfer trucks. He pointed out that 90% of trucks will go out
the north exit. What they were trying to do for safety reasons is to keep the larger
Jf
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
3
JANUARY 29. 1996
trucks separated from the smaller vehicles, Mr. Vladic .:xplained that they will have
spotters working the site to direct and keep traffic moving in the direction that has been
laid out. Mr. Vladic continued and addressed the yard waste processing area. All that
would happen in this area is bringing the material in, shredding wood and green waste,
making it into smaller volume and loading it into a larger vehicle and taking it off site.
In reference to the concerns about building materials, Mr. Vladic pointed out that the
main reason they had gone with translucent panels was to cut out direct sun light but
preserve natural lighting in the building. He felt it also gives a different look to the
building and adds to the elevations of the structure. He also mentioned that the bottom
of the building is concrete.
Chairman Spethman asked about the ability of the translucent materials to hoid up over
time. Mark Ballew, representing the architect, explained that this type of material
carries the same guarantee as the metal panels, which is about 20 years. He went over
briefly the different colors and textures of the building materials.
Member Duncanson expressed concern about the circulation and the landscaping along
the west elevation.. Mr. Vladic again explained the entry of vehicles, the drop-off
services and the exit flow of traffic. As for the landscaping issue, Mr. Vladic stated
there was low growing plant materials in this area.
Member Kelly brought up the issue of the west elevation. She felt this elevation was
too plain and lacked articulation. Assistant Planner Pedder-Pease pointed out a large
landscape node that would incorporate some berming that would be used as a screening
method. She also noted that there are a number of mature eucalyptus trees which also
provide screening. Chairman Spethman pointed out that the committee should be looking
at this building architecturally to stand on its own, not to look to camouflage it with
landscaping.
Member Rodriguez asked why a more solid, permanent building material wasn't chosen
for a building that is planned to stay for a number of years, and asked whether the
material fit in with the surrounding area. Mr. Vladic indicated that he felt that the
material is compatible with the surrounding buildings and that for a metal building, it is
attractive.
Chairman Spethman asked if the applicant was asking for a deviation from the current
Design Manual. Principal Planner Steve Griffin addressed the committee, noting that a
few years ago, the issue of the aesthetics of metal buildings was brought up. It was
decided at that time it is possible to build a metal building that looks as good as any non-
prefabricated building. Mr. Griffin stated that simply the fact that this building is metal
should not necessarily lead the committee to reject the concept altogether. Mr. Griffin
also pointed out that staff usually doesn't want to simply screen a building or accept less
architecture just because then can screen with landscaping. He stated that in this case,
the screening was for not only a building but a service yard area. If there were normal
landscape treatment there, you would be seeing a lot of the truck activity which would
detract from the overall appearance. Mr. Griffin felt that in this case, the use of a
screening element up front would conc:eal the activity up to a certain height. He
S
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
4
JANUARY 29. 1996
indicated there is 40 ft. of landscaping that could be treated in any fashion. Mr. Griffin
also pointed out that staff is requiring a 6 ft. high decorative wall along the south
property line. Mr. Vladic indicated that he would be more than willing to work with
staff in reference to the west elevation and the landscape along Maxwell Road.
Member Kelly asked if there were any roof top equipment. Mr. Vladic stated that the
only thing that will be on the roof is ventilators, and skylights which are flush with the
building roof.
Public InDut
Don Palumbo of Gold Coast Engineering stated that he filed a protest letter today, along
with a petition from property owners in the area opposing the project. Mr. Palumbo and
his partner own the property to the south of the project. He indicated that they have
been working with the City for about 5-7 years, have kept active in city politics and
development of the project area. He does not want a "dump" in his back yard. He
stated that he doesn't mind the architecture, elevations, colors, and the trees, but does
have a little problem with the 50 ft. building height request. Mr. Palumbo stressed his
concerns with the dumping of garbage inside on a concrete slab, air quality, odor, noise,
bacteria, trash being blown around the site, rodent and pest control and the overall heath
problems this project could cause his employees. He also feels that this project will
lower his property value and would make it hard for him to sell. Mr. Palumbo does feel
land use is a big issue. He commented that he couldn't understand why the City seemed
to be rushing this project through. He also wanted to make note of a Senate Bill that did
not pass which requires such a site to be 2,000 ft. away from any residential area. He
pointed out that the Bill is coming back for a second vote and, if passed, would virtually
eliminate this project.
Principal Planner Steve Griffin inteIjected that the duty of the Design Review Committee
is to look at design issues, aesthetic compatibility and, for this project the height issue.
The location of this facility is an issue to be dealt by the Project Area Committee (pAC),
which is scheduled to meet on February 5, 1996. The Redevelopment Agency meeting
is scheduled for February 20th. He alerted the public speakers that there would be plenty
of opportunity to forward all the land use concerns to the PAC and on to the Agency.
Mr. Griffin also pointed out to the Committee that the selection of this site had been on-
going about two years, with various hearings along the way, so staff does not consider
this as rushing the project through.
Michael Meacham, responded to the concern of waste being dumped on the concrete
floor. He stated that the city's permit will enforce State requirements, that all waste
from this facility has to be removed from the concrete floor every day at the end of
operations and the floor cleaned. There will be no remaining waste on the facility
anyvlhere at the end of every day.
John Barns, who owns the property at 796 Energy Way, indicated his property is less
than 100 yards from the project site. Mr. Barns pointed out to the committee a similar
site at 175 Mace Street where there is a smaller version of what they are trying to do
6
DESIGN REVIEW COMM~TTEE
5
JANUARY 29. 1996
with this project. He indicated that in a period of just 18 months there was increase in
smell, flies etc at that site. Mr. Barns expressed concern about diesel smoke, trash,
odors, flies, rodents and his employees' health. He also believes the property value will
go down. He highly opposes the project.
Bob Gunthorp is a property owner near the project site. He indicated that he too shares
the same concerns mentioned by property owners in the area.
Committee Summation
The Design Review Committee members were not comfortable with the proposed
building materials, mainly the translucent material. It was felt that the material would
not keep its color, and could not be easily maintained. Chairman Spethman would like
the applicant to provide a noise study indicating the sound attenuation characteristics of
the materials proposed and other members requested the specs on the materials. The
Committee members were not comfortable with the building height increase and were
concerned about the "lack of articulation and relief, particularly on the west elevation.
They asked for II more detailed landscape plan, including the size of species used.
Members questioned fencing along Maxwell Road. Mr. Griffin stated that fencing will
be solid and decorative, and materials and design will be approved by staff prior to
building permits. Members also noted that they would like the applicant to key onto
some details of the yard waste processing area which could be approved at staff level.
MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve IS-95-28.
MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to continue DRC-96-20 to the meeting of February
12, 1996.
E. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 6:25 p.m.
7
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mondav. Februarv 12. 1996
4:30 p.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez,
Members Duncanson and Kelly.
STAFF PRESENT:
Principal Planner Steve Griffin
Assistant Planner Ann pedder-Pease
Conservation Coordinator Michael Meacham
~ INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Spethman made'an opening statement explaining the design
review process and the committee's responsibilities. He asked
that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for
the tape when speaking.
~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (SpethmanJRodriguez) (4-0) to approve the minutes of
December 11,1995 and January 29, 1996.
D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECT
I.
DRC-96-20
Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility
1855 Maxwell Road
Materials Recovery Facility & Trash Transfer Station
Chairman Michael Spethman opened the meeting to any members of the public who
wished to speak' on this specific issue.
Mr. Don Palumbo of Gold Coast Engineering reminded the Committee of his concerns
and mentioned the signed petitions that he had submitted. He mentioned to the
Committee that he did meet with Mr. Michael Meacham and Mr. George Krempl to get
a little more information on the project and to get a feel for what the City's position on
the project is. Mr. Palumbo made note that he still opposes the project and feels that it
is inconsistent with the Redevelopment Area guidelines.
i'
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
2
FEBRUARY 12, 1996
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Ann Pedder Pease pointed out the concerns of the Committee from the
previous meeting. She stated that the Committee was not comfortable with the proposed
building materials, mainly the translucent panels. It was felt that the panels would not
keep their color, and could not be easily maintained, The Committee also requested
specs and a noise study indicating the sound attenuation characteristics of the materials
proposed. Ms. Pedder Pease stated that the members were not comfortable with the
building height increase and were concerned about the lack of articulation and relief,
particularly on the west elevation. Ms. Pedder Pease indicated that the Committee asked
for a more detailed landscape plan, including the size of species used. Ms. Pedder
Pease reminded the Committee of their concern about the details of the fencing proposal
and their request to see precisely what might be considered for fencing along Maxwell
Road. She also noted that the members wanted the applicant to key onto some details
of the yard waste processing area.
Assistant Planner Pedder Pease addressed each issue and pointed out the revised plan
showing more detail about the circulation around the yard waste area. She indicated
that the west elevation had been enhanced with additional landscaping. Ms. Pedder
Pease made note to the Committee that the applicant discussed and considered whether
it was feasible to look at other materials, but are intending to continue with their previous
material selection. As far as the height issue is concerned, the applicant has lowered
the proposed maximum height from 50' to 40,' which is actually the top of the doghouse
ventilating area, and brings the overall building height down to 35'. Ms. Pedder Pease
pointed to the revised site plan which shows additional buffering on the east elevation
with more specific plant materials. She indicated that with the exception of the fencing
details, the applicant has addressed .most of the concerns expressed by the Committee,
including showing elevations along Maxwell Road with the much enhanced landscaping.
Ap'plicants Presentation
Mr. Dave Vladic addressed the Committee with an overview of the concerns that had
previously been expressed. He mentioned that the height of the building had been
lowered and went over the revised plan addressing the yard waste processing area. He
also mentioned the revised landscaping, and states that the plan now shows more detail.
Mr. Vladic pointed out to the Committee the fencing, which would be PVC coated, the
stucco columns, and the extra panels that were added. He made note of the stucco which
had been added to the facade to break up the west elevation. Mr. Vladic mentioned to
the Committee that a representative from Butler Mfg. was present to address concerns
with the building materials.
Mr. Tom Waldren of Butler Mfg. gave some background information about the company
he represents, stated that they are very involved in transfer stations, and handed out some
literature to the Committee members. He went on to address some of the issues
previously brought up by the members. Mr. Waldren went over the durability issue.
9
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
3
FEBRUARY 12, 1996
He stated that Butler roofs are renowned for their durability and pointed out the MR24
roof system, which has a 20 year warranty, He mentioned that the wall panels are
synthetic stucco fmish on a metal panel. Mr. Waldren stated that the material is very
durable, has a IO year warranty, and is very successful. He indicated that the light
panels have a UV protective coating, (tevlar), which keeps the panels from yellowing.
Committee Concerns/Ouestions
Chair Michael Spethman asked Mr. Waldren if they ever had to replace panels and asked
how the panels were cleaned. Mr. Waldren stated they have not replaced panels, and
they do carry a 5 year warranty. He said the panels are usually cleaned by the rain, and
graffiti or spray paint usually come off very easily. Mr. Waldren made note that the
panels are not graffiti proof, but are graffiti resistant.
Member Pat Kelly asked about insulation and the noise attenuation. Mr. Vladic
mentioned that there was insulation in the roof only. As far as the noise attenuation,
Mr. Vladic went over the noise study and pointed out the dB levels. Principal Planner
Steve Griffin also went over the dB levels and compared them to City standards. Mr.
Griffin indicated to the Committee that if they were not comfortable with the comparison
noise study, they could request another study and add this as a condition before permits
are pulled,
Member John Rodriguez was concerned about the fencing around the property. He
indicated that the plans show no detail of a fencing solution. Mr. Vladic indicated that
there would be a solid wall on the s~uth, with PVC-caated fencing around the remaining
sides, Staff indicated that the Design Manual states that a solid wall would be required
along street frontage, Le. Maxwell Road. Member Rodriguez stated to the applicant
that he was still not comfortable with the building being metal, and that he does not care
for the translucent panels.
Member Richard Duncanson shared concern on the durability of the building materials.
Member Kelly was satisfied with the building as it is, but expressed concern on the
fencing issue. She also would like to see less of the metal siding.
Committee Summation
The Design Review Committee members were not completely satisfied with the overall
presentation of the project. They felt that a lot of their concerns were not addressed and
asked the applicant to come back with solutions to the items of concern to the
Committee. The Committee remained unconvinced that the translucent panels are the
only way to provide diffused, shadow-free natural light. The members still have some
concern that the panels appear temporary and will quickly discolor and deteriorate. It
was also noted that the. finish and ribbing pattern of the metal skin may not be considered
/0
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
4
FEBRUARY 12, 1996
entirely consistent with the design standards of buildings, other than temporary storage
buildings, in the immediate vicinity. The Committee asked the applicant to continue to
explore other aesthetic solutions. It was indicated that no design detail had been offered
for the concrete push wall. The members would like to see a detail of that proposal and
suggested a textured, exposed aggregate or scored concrete. The Committee members
also mentioned the connection detail between the concrete push wall and the prefabricated
metal structure, and would like to see some detailing of this. The Committee remained
very concerned about the details of the fencing proposal and would like to see precisely
what might be considered for both the fencing and gates along Maxwell Road. They
asked that a detailed fencing proposal be submitted to them for review and approval.
The Members also agreed that a comprehensive signage proposal should be included in
the next submittal for review and approval,
MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve continuance of DRC-96-20 to the next
regularly scheduled meeting of February 26, 1996.
E. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 6:15 p.m.
-----/
i,1 ...'
Maureen Wentz, Record ~
"\,
,-
I
\
,
"-
;I
This page blank.
/~,
ATTACHMENT "B"
'.
1C91 Nirvana Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911
(619) 421-1151
Mailing add",os: P.O. Box 1109, Bonita, CA 91908-1109. FAX (619) 421-1506
January 24,1996
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn:
Design Review Committee
Subject
Case Number DRC-96-20
Material Recovery Fadlity and Trash Transfer Station
Proposed Location - 1855 Maxwell Road
GentlemeIl:
Gold Coast Engineering Inc. is located immediately adjacent to the southerly
property line of the proposed facility. As OWIletS of Gold Coast Engineering, we are
extremely concerned about all the environmental Issues which will effect not only
the sUe itself, but also the surrounding properties. We J1'e also very concerned
about the reduced value of our multi-million dollar project and the value of all
properties within the Otay Valley Road project area.
Further, the proposed project is in complete disagreement with the "Otay Valley
Road Development Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual
Addendum", dated May 1985. When we selectEd the area for location of our
business, and the related acquisition of property and building our facilities, we
believed that the goals of the implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum met
the objective we envisioned for our company_
In addition, there is an Assembly Bill. number 961, in the California Legislature
which would virtually eliminate this site as a candidate for the project. We have
been informed that the Bill recently failed to piIBSbut is going to a second hearing.
13
~
......... .....,. ~,.. ........ 'It_n' ."....... I ,..,.....
.~
January 24, 1996
City of Chula Vista
Page Two
We are primarily concerned about:
· Air quality - airborne particles and bacteria and nauseous odor
· Noise
· Trash being blown about the site and adjoining properties.
· Rodent and pest control
· The proposed 50 feet building height.
Obviously the ideal location for this operation is on the county land fill10cated one
half mile from the proposed site. As tax-paying, environmentally-sensitive citizens,
it is impossible to understand why the City of Chula VISta and the City and/or
County of San Diego cannot work together and locate this facility, if required, on the
present landfill.
The City of Chula Vista has spent considerable effort guiding the development of
the Otay Valley Road project into a first class industrial and con:u:nerdal area..
Locating the proposed project in the middle of the Otay Valley Road project is not
consistent with the objectives of a first class IndUS1rlaJ Park. In addition, the
proposed project wID undoubtedly reduce the value of adjacent properties.
We are available to discuss this matler. in further detail, if needed.
Sincerely,
//& ,?
Donald R. Palumbo
President
cti;
Char1ea Sutherland
Vice President
DRP/aw
~.~
~~
If
........ ......,.. ......,.. ........ ..nn. ........... __...
lIS
IJ) "
,j &
fi :;:
.a i J
jil ....
11;1
o I!! e I!!
8:j;;a. III
-
o J ~ .E
~ a:
Ii "tI ~ JD ~
:>
::J Ii Qj
Jfi
Cat. 18
j r~
I ' ~ I!!
"0
.!12 I!! ~
iii m
actt
-i Iii .
.~ I Iii J.. \\J
i !!
III :
i
2: .
~ .
lIS
C. :
E
8
.
~
CD \I"'
- .
m ~
0 '"
I I
- ...
....T _r-T ",... .-... "L.'" ......... . rr...
,
~--
.
&:N&:II:GY WAY
- ...
CHULA. VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C!J =." Chufd VItIa MaNriaIs /IIOJECI'DESCIII'IIONI
. Ia-..ary JacIhr DESIGN REVIEW
&L 1.55 -.-U IcNIcI R.tquut: PIopolCl! a 75,900 ~. ft. moNrial ftICOOety facility.
--. fU~
NO_RTH .. No IcaIe ,.. DRC~96.20 . .
It, .
r'T -("",T ac I'"""T""~' ,........"..1 rCT
~~ ~~~~ ~-- ~~~~~~. --~
~tate of QCalifurnia
,...-...""
j
?ETE WILsaN
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTa 95814
ATTACHMENT "0"
ur......\-..-
December 18, 1995
, O[~HorMUH
COMMlI~~~lR1t.1[NI
r-
OE.C l 1 ~
-
9TIll038
LEE GRISSOM
DrRECTon
JOE MONACO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
Subject: CHULA VISTA MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SCH #:
Dear JOE MONACO:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above. named proposed Negative
Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now
closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is (are) enclosed, On
the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse
has checked the agencies that have commented, Please review the Notice of
Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete, If the comment
package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately.
Remember to refer to the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so
that we may respond promptly,
..,.'
~lease note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code
equired that:
"a responsible, agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which
are required to be carried out or approved by the agency,"
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their
comments with specific documentation.
These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should
you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency at your earliest convenience.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact at (916) 445-0613 if you
have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
,.-; ".
/') t"'; ....,., /',
/tA. f-(1) ,..!'~"/ t///~' ~ . "/.;
,,/ viflf/'/:':;"/i/( . "" i~"<-,{J.'/<:.;;::'"",:~, '
I" .
ANTERO A. RIVAS PLATA
Chief, State Clearinghouse
._~lclosures
cc: Resources Agency
~tl
"" ....,...,. .."" "
ST ~TE OF CALIFORNIA ~ 8USINESS, TRANGPORTATKJN AND HOUSiNG ACENCY
PETIZ WflSON, GO\flWmr
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Q)
DISTRICT t t, P.O. BOX 8~06. SMI DIEGO, 9216e-S4Q6
(6\9) 1586-e424 iDD NUfltn~'
(1$1(1) 6Sa~OO2
.
December "T, 1995
Mr. Chris Belsky
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Straat
Sacramento, CA 95814
11-S0-805
~ 365
L _
/ l'-/J-7~
D~e Me. "",,>y, 8
Draft EIR for the Chul.~!LM<!teJlals Racovery Facility
Caltrans District 11 comments are as follows:
. Page 38 - A -detailed traffic Impact Study needs to be prepared according to
Caltrans policies for the Interstate Route 805 (1-805)fOtay Valley Road interchange.
. Previous traffic studies by the City of Chula Vista indicate that the 1-805/Otay Valley
Road ramp intersections would be operating at or beyond capacity in the near
future.
o' The Traffic Impact Study will naed to show existing, plus project, plus all known
previously approved developments in the area impacting the 1-805lOtay Valley
Road interchange.
. Average daily traffic, turn movements, intersection lane volumes and Highway
Capacity Manual signalized intersection analyses as well as normal background
growth should be projected for year 2015 traffic.
Our contact person for Traffic Operations Is Fred Yazdan, (619) 688-6881. For 1-805
our contact person is John Kempf. Project Engineer, (619) 688-6.994.
Sincerely,
-;L.~
~ BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
BO/LS;vc
. !JEt 8
?
b1
l'\IIOI.I~. _ . .(,;OrnPleuon ,\lIPpll'lI~m"":;'J)OCU1!fi.,!~~~
.\fuill~.- .~ l~ngl;l~;~-;~~Strccl~~;~'. ---,.,--::--;, ;..-~~ 9[6/445-0613
ProJ-ct : [hula Vista Materials ~e~~ ..y . __Hity
L.IOdA&~y; _ City of (hula Vista
SueclAddrus: 276 Fourth Avenue
(hula VistiJ
---. ~\:;,-Mjff:;;;-';;:.: - .--. ----1
SCH'
951 i lJJ
City:
Joe Monaco
(619) 691-5016
Dieqo
Zip
ContloctPc~;
,;!qlO
Phon~:
County: ~an
-----------------------------------------
Prol-et Location
CouNy: San Oieqo
Cm...Strow: Otav VAllev Road/Maxwell
Asu:nor-s Parcd No.
Within 2 Miles: SII.IC Hwy II: 1-805
AiJporu; Rr-own Fielr!
Cily!Ncarcsl Communil)': ~!!~ta
Road ZipCode; 91911 TotdAaa: 10
Section: Twp._R.."c:_Base;_
WIICTWIYS: Otav River
R.i!.....y$: Schools: Valle Lindo flem.
I)oeument T...,.
--------------------------~--------------
CEQA:
ONOP
o Early Cons
9Nc,ee..:
o DraflEIR
OSupplemenl/Su~
o EIR(PrioT SCH No.)
Oou.~
NEPA:
o NOt 011*:
OEA
ODrar.EJS
DFONSI
o loinl Doo;wnmt
o F&naJ DocumenI
0"""
-----------------------------------------
Loc.' Action Type,
OexnmlPlanUpdatc
o Ccn<:ral Plan Amcndoncnt
o <xncralPlan EJemcnt
o CommuniI)' Plan
OSpecirw=PIan
o Masin Plan
o PI&Mcd Unit Dc~lopmcllt
DSilCPtan
II/!i'
O'~
B~
o Land Diyuion(SubdiYuioc\,
Pan:cJ Map. Tr.a Map. CIC:.)
O-"nncuOOrt
o RcdcYdopncnt
OCoasuJ PumiI
0"""
o.v_lop_nt Type
-----------------------------------------
o Rcsidenlial:
DOfr,cc:
OCotIUT"ICfCial:
Olndusuial:
o Educalion.al
DR<<rcoLionaI
U'IiJ, Acru
$17/1_- Acru- ~u
5q/l-===' Acr~s~ ~u-==-
$qft._Ac,u_ ~u_
-----------------------------------------
Iransfer
ProJ-et 1..-_ Ot-.cu_.-. In Docu...._nt
~AcsWticJVisua1
o AJTi<;1lIIW11! Und
fiAirQualiIy
o Archeol9,ic:.a1IHi5lDrical
OCOIIIW2'.one
fiD..i"",clAbsorpUon
.0 EcOf'lDll\ic/Jobf;
o Fiscal
o Flood P1ainJF\ooclina
o FOR$I LandlFiR Huard
o GeoIo,icJSeismie
;;)Mincrall
1) NoU.
o Pop.iI_ionIHousiJIcBaI_
GPublicSctviecriFaciJilieI
o Recre.atioNPark.s
o WalQ Facilities: Tp
OTranspoctalion: Type
o Minin,: M,wrtll
OPo-.-: Type
o Was", Trearmenc T,pe
o Hauidou. Waste: Type
~Ocber:Materials KeCoverV/lraSn
iSd>ooWlhoi~""
SeplieS)'IkmI
Scwa-Capa:ky
l!ISoiJ&:>sionlCompao;tionlQradina
e9 Solid Wille
OToxK/Hau.rdow
mTntflC/C'1mIlaUon
OVqcwion
UGD_
W4lI1_
f9w~QualUy
f!:J WIlleS SUWZrKitoundwa&er
o WcdandJRipman
OWilc!liCc
!f!"""""""""'"
~=\lCEIr<<tl
0"""
Pr._nt LaIHI UeeIZonlngIQ_r.1 Plan U_
light Industrial
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
ProJect o.lKfiptlOlt
Materials Recovery Facility and Trash Transfer Station that wi1l handle
approximate1y 1.500 tons of waste per day. Materials will be sorted and recycled.
Non-recylc1ble materials will be consolidated and transfered to a landfill.
SUit Clearinghouse Conl.act:
..~._.'--~----
MI. Chris Bclsk)"
(916) 44S-06J)
SU"Rai'..",,,oc .1L-A.~
[)cpt Reo.ic..noAlc~; /.l-- P
A"",> ""...sm 1 J- /1
SCH COMPLIANCE 1J,...~
Please DOte SCU Number oa ~I Com_als
95111038
Pie. rorward late eomlDCDts directly 10 the
Lead A&ea<:y
AQMDlAPCDJ:/- CR=u=,.1LtJ..%J
Project Senl to the following State Agencies
~--
,.. Boating
7\'" C...... Comm
- c.uw Consv
= CoIotado Rvr Bel
- ""'-'....
JL Fim.. ""'" ....s:
_DcI&aProtc:clion
_F-.y
........-
=Rcclamalian
_IKDC
..,lL DWR
_OES
Bua Trusp Bous
-.......
=CHP /
...1L CaI...... I
_ TransPbnning
_ Housiac4 ~I
lleall. &: Welfare
_Driaking H2O
_McdicaIW~
SlakIC_..r S\U
_ GcncraJ Sm'ica
>< CaJ/EPA
_ARB
....l5...... CA Waslc Mgmt Bel
_ SWRC8; GWtCs
_ SWRC8: Delli
_SWRC8: WtrQualiCy
Z~~~~
_ DTSCICTC -r
Yllu'AdllCOrrttIioas
_ Coacctions
ladcpcadcal Com..
_En<rr:YComm
.J:. NAIIC
_PUC
Santa Mn .....
IS<a",!.an<kComm
_T.............
_0Ih<r.
~ 7/
'", -.""""
)
State of Califo~rla
California Environmental
Protection Agency
MEMORANDUM
e _
I J-/I.J~9..5
To:
Chris Belsky Date: December 13, 1995
State Clearinghouse
1400 lOth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Joe Monaco
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
DEC 13 ...
From:
U\A.. '
annie H. Blakeslee
vironmental Review Section
Permits Branch
Permitting and Enforcement Division
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Subject: H# 95111038 Proposed Negative Declaration for the
Chula a aterials Recovery Facility, San Diego
County (SWIS# 37-AA-0911)
Staff of the Integrated Waste Management Board have reviewed the
proposed Negative Declaration (ND) prepared.for establishment of
a materials recovery facility (MRF) and transfer station (TS) .
Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Services proposes to design and
construct a facility with a maximum design capacity of 1,850 tons
per day (tpd) on 10.8 acres. The facility will have the
capability to recover cardboard, newsprint, mixed paper,
aluminum, ferrous metal, plastics, mixed plastics, wood, glass
and yard wastes. A green waste grinding and shredding operation
is included in the project. .
The intent of these comments is to assist the lead agency in
preparing a complete analysis of environmental impacts and
identification of appropriate mitigation measures. We recognize
that other agencies have regulatory authority over several
aspects of this project. Staff offer.the following comments, and
ask that they be addressed prior to adoption of the proposed ND:
~ 1:3
Proiect Characteristics
This section may have a typographical error; "The applicant
plans to obtain permits to process an average throughput of 1,500
tpd and,a peak throughput capacity of 1,850 ppd."
Solid Waste Transfer
The document indicates that solid waste may be transported to the
Otay Landfill, or some other landfill not identified. The
document states that Campo Landfill may be used, or some other
landfill. Is the service area for waste collection to be
expanded? Would implementation of the proposed project result in
any increase of quantities of waste landfilled at any of the
disposal facilities?
The document states that transfer station employees will screen
the incoming truck at the scalehouse to prevent the acceptance of
hazardous wastes. The tipping floor will be monitored and if any
material is found it will be handled in accordance with approved
procedures. What are these approved procedures? Development of
(unprepared) management plans does not constitute mitigations.
Notification of the-General Manager or designated personnel and
notification of the San Diego Department of Environmental Health
that a questionable load "might" be taken to another facility
does not mitigate a potential environmental, health or safety
impact. What specific contingencies are in place, and will be
implemented in the event that hazardous materials enter the
facility?
Impact Analvsis
Impact analysis mentions that construction activities on the site
will necessitate grading, which will result in wind and water
erosion of onsite soils. The mitigation measures do not identify
any specific dust control measures to potential dust impacts; it
merely mentions that appropriate dust control measures shall be
developed and approved by the 'City of Chula Vista. What specific
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District rules and
regulations apply to the project? What specific erosion control
measures shall the registered geologist incorporate into the
grading of the site?
The document states that implementation of the listed
recommendations will minimize the identified impacts. relative to
grading and erosion, yet it fails to identify or discuss any
specific measure which will be implemented that will minimize
impacts. The mitigations include appropriate (future) dust
control measures which shall be developed and approved by the
City, certification of a (undeveloped) grading plan, and
incorporation of (undetermined) erosion control measures. Again,
undeveloped plans and approvals do not. constitute mitigations.
The document indicates that a major earthquake on an active fault
in the region is likely to occur within the project ~ifetime. It
also' states that prior to construction, a geotechnical
engineering investigations will be conducted by a Registered
it ~
, ~
Civil Engineer. The investigation will contain soil, foundation,
slope stability and seismic criteria that will be used in the
project design. The investigation should have been completed
prior to preparation of the negative declaration, and should have
been included as part of the document. It is impossible to
qualify or quantify potential impacts if a site's existing
environment has not been adequately assessed and described. The
document indicates that all buildings shall conform with the
seismic design standards of the Uniform Building Code and with
the City's requirements, but does not described or explain or
describe any of the standards or requirements.
Whac specific odor mitigations will be implemented? The document
indicates that operational policies should be delineated in an
odor control plan for the facility. The word "should" does not
assure that any proposed mitigation will be implemented. Staff
ask chat the air discharge system which is to be incorporated
into the building design for odor control be described.
There exists a potential for accidental burning of waste
materials if a fire were to oc~ur. The document indicates that
the Project incorporates a contingency plan for fire prevention
and control. Staff ask that a brief describing the components of
this contingency plan be included in the ND.
Noise Impacts
Staff have noted that the noise impact analysis was .based on a
1971 study. There are current documents available which may be
more accurate, such as the "Threshold Values for Chemical
Substances and Physical Agent and Biological Exposure Indices",
which was published in 1994. The ND states that there would be no
significant noise impacts associated with construction and
operation of the proposed MRF, however, the discussion pertaining
to noise impacts indicates that the outside the building to the
property boundary is anticipated to be from 70 to 80 dBA, which,
over time may adversely impact workers' health and safety. The
document further states that as a mitigation, employees. will be
required to have ear protection. What other measures are to be
implemented to abate noise impacts?
Conclusion
The proposed ND has some flaws in identifying impact-specific
mitigations which will be implemented to protect the environment,
as well as worker health and safety. Impacts to be mitigated via
permits and plans which are.to be secured/approved by agencies as
conditions of project approval do not constitute project-specific
mitigations. What measures might these permits and plans contain
which would mitigate impacts?
Staff respectfully request notification of the date of adoption
of the ND. We ask that we be sent a copy of the final version of
the document and any attachments. We also ask that these
comments be responded to, in writing, prior to adoption of the
ND.
~t5
-)
Thank you for the opportunity to review this ND. If you have any
questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Jeannie
Blakeslee at (916) 255-470B.
~ 1~
~{f?
:-~:c~
- - --
~~--,.",..
...oo:...-~~
OlY OF
CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
January 23, 1996
Jeannie H. Blakeslee
California Integrated Waste Management Board
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826
Subject:
Negative Declaration for Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer
Station
Dear Ms. Blakeslee:
Thank you for your comments on the above referenced document. The following are responses
and clarifying statements related to the issues raised in your. comment memorandum dated
December 13, 1995.
Proiect Characteristics
Comment noted. The referenced sentence should read" ..... peak throughput capacity of 1,850
tpd. "
Solid Waste Transfer
First Paragraph: The service area for waste collection would not be expanded. Waste transfer
to landfills other than the Otay Landf1.ll will result in an increase locally but the operation of the
MRF component of the facility would result in a net overall decrease of wastes disposed in
landf1.lls.
Second Paragraph: For clarification purposes, the following is a summary of hazardous waste
screening and handling procedures that are identified in the project application for a Special
Land Use Pennit (copy attached). These mitigation measures have been integrated into the
project design by the project applicant.
All loads shall be inspected for hazardous materials as they are unloaded onto the
tipping floor.
No sealed drums of any kind shall be accepted by the facility.
y;f ,7
276 FOURTH AVElCHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA Q101nt'~10\ ~01_l:;nA"7
Ms. Jeannie Blakeslee
January 23, 1995
Page 3
'All personnel shall be provided with evacuation procedures in the event of a fire.
Operations personnel shall be trained in the procedures to extinguish small fires
that may occur in the waste receiving area.
All wastes entering the facility will be checked for burning or smoldering material
and if discovered, emergency response shall be enacted, including limiting access
to the area and treating the fire with water, foams, fire retardants or smothering.
Fire extinguishers shall be located throughout the building and the site.
Noise Impacts: The project is required to comply with Cal-OSHA regulations regarding noise
levels and their impact to workers. The standards set by Cal-OSHA have been detennined to
be adequate by the City of Chula Vista to ensure that no environmental impact on worker's
health and safety would result. Therefore, no mitigation beyond the provision of personal
protective equipment is detennined to be necessary. The referenced impacts of 70 dBA at the
project boundary are related to operation of the green waste shredder which will be operated
outdoors near the property boundary. This is not the impact from machinery located inside the
building.
The City of Chula Vista appreciates the comments of your agency and hopes that this letter
satisfies your concerns. A hearing before the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
to adopt the Negative Declaration and consider the land use application for the project is
scheduled for February 20, 1996. Please do not hesitate to contact ine with any questions or
comments at (619) 691-5016.
Sincerely,
{7h /ht---
Joseph Monaco, AICP
Environmental Projects Manager
cc: George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Dave Vladic, Sexton
attachment
~ 1~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
sky trucking
187 mace street
chula vista, california
91911
December 7. 1995
Mr. Joe Monaco
City or Chula Vista
Environmental Projects
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Calirornia
91910
Re: Initial Study No. 95-28/Materials Recovery
Facility-Trash Transrer Station
Dear Mr. Monaco,
We are in receipt or the above noted
initial environmental study document and wish to
note comments on several topics covered therei~.
Section 1.2 Project Setting: The narrative
included in this section covers the general
conditions round on the proposed site. . We do
not rind any mention or assessment or any
hazardous wastes that may exist due to past or
existing uses or the site. We question ir any
underground ruel or oil storage tanks are or
were located on this site. Ir so, what
mitigation measures are planned?
Section 1.3.1.4 Green/Wood Waste
Processing: This section deals with what we
believe has potential to cause signiricant
environmental impacts. Unlike the trash
transrer. station, which is co.ntained completely
inside a building with the ability to control
emissions, this operation will be conducted
outside. From our observation or variou~
racilities in operation around the Count~,
including Miramar Landrill,
~1/
,
Page
I.S.
2
NO.95-28
this type of processing of waste utilizes large
high horsepower industrial equipment and will
create significant noise and a variety of other
impacts to the community. Based on empirical
evidence as noted we believe this part of the
operation requires a much more detailed
description including, but not limited to,
various impacts, scope and size and the required
mit~gation measures. Has staff made any
observations of current operations of this type
of waste processing, such as, Miramar Landfill
in the City of San Diego? Does staff intend
this section t-o note environmental impacts
associated with this activity?
Section 1.3.4 Hours of operation: This
section notes that the facility will maintain a
holiday schedule the same as the Otay Landfill.
Does the list of holidays included in ~his
section accurately reflect the holiday schedule
observed by the Otay Landfill?
Section 3.13 Transportation/Circulation:
This section includes a discussion of traffic
impacts on Otay Valley Road and Maxwell Road.
There is no mention of Main Street which is used
to access the site from Interstate 5. Was Main
.Street a factor or consideration in any traffic
analysis for this project? If not, why?
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on
the Initial Study for this project and look
forward to your response.
Jj~
Mark Watton
cvtran/is
fP
~
:..-.;-.....:..:-_~......
.' . - - .
..:...... .,_.... .,. ..,. ",
. :.... .:.. : . :t;;tt~;:~1~':"::"':'~,3L.._; .:_. ~.:.... ;, _..~.
. .:_,....._..-1.-_ ...:. _..
'..-..-
TOM GARIBAY
DlnECTOfI
(t1t) "...1211
F'd:: (at.) 218-fM11
LOCATION COOC 810
....
"
.,
ClLl11t1:ttu ~f ~n1t ~itgn
"
January 19, 1996
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
!i655 OVERLAND AV~ SAN DIEGO. CALIFORHIA 82123-12..
.{
.~
COUNTY INt"'"IR
COUNtY AIRPORTS
oowav ROAD COMMISSIONER
TIIAHSIT SER'tIC!S
COUNTY .Uft......6fI
Ft.OOO OOHTAOL
WASTEWATER MANAGEMI!Nf
aOUO WASTE:
.~
;
:.
City of Chula Vista t
Attn: Mr. Joe Monaco, AICP' "
Environmental Projects Mana5(rr
276 Fourth Avenue ,'.
Chula Vista,CA 91910
"
-.
-,
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY' - MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH'
::
TRANSFER STATION ",
Dear Mr. Monaco:
..
The County of San Dieg-o, Degartment of Public Works, Solid Waste
Division has reviewed the p~posed Negative Declaration (NO) for
the Materials Recovery Fa~ility/Transfer Station propoaed by
Sexton/Chula Vista Sanitary Ser1Tices, located on Maxwell Road, and
,
offers the following comment~:
SDecific Comment;s ':J
~
pag-e 12 - 1.3.:1..5 - 'l'he W;; states that the expected worst..case
closure date for the Otay ~ndfill i8 1999. ~his is inco~ect,
even as a worst case. At: cutrent disposal levelg, it is projeoted
that the Otay Annex Landfi11.~ will provide disposal service beyond
the year 2020. :!. . .
.~.
Page 14 - 1_ 3.::1. (; - Pisposal ~f Wastewater - The ND s.tates that the
tipping floor will be clean.d every day to eliminate buildup of
dust and residue. However, there is no discussion as to the mean..
by wbioh any water used to olean the tipping floor of the faoility
will be disposed. Since the::facility is apparently a "dirty MRF",
any water used to clean tbe'~ltipping floor, as woll as any water
used to clean the aprons,en6:rance, exit, etc. would be considered
"contaminated" and would re@ire disposal in another marmer from
the sewer system. Please .~ include a discussion of plans for
disposal of contaminated wastewater in the NO.
., .
:-.:..
Page 21 - 3.2 b - Air - 'l'he NO states, "Putrescible wastes will not
remain at the station for more than 48 hours. Mso, wastes are not
allowed to lie exposed for a long period of time as can occur at a
landfill. . Rather, such wastes Will be secured and covered. II
~-1/
~..........~......
?('L..J T....I"'I
, '~'.""""
:..........-....._-~
....M...'.r
_.. . ... _:., ~':""__J_~~_"'.'''''''W..
......._..__.~....n..__
_.. ---~. -.. ...
"
,.
",
Mr. Monaco
-2-
January 19, 1996
I'
Landfills are required by l~w to employ a "daily cover" to cover
all waste which is disposed on any given day. Therefore, the
suggestion that the facility would not generate as much odor as a
landfill is not justified. Consequently, odor issues should be
examined on the basis of the worst-case daytime odor detectability
cited in the ND rather than;compared with an incorrect assumption
about landfills. Also, a dis~ussion regarding which materials will
be used to cover waste left'~t the facility is needed.
'.
Page :2 8 - 3 _ 3 ~ Water - ~ stated above, this section should
include a discussion rega~ng the washing of the facilities
tipping floor and disposal ~f the contaminated water tbat would
result from this washing. I\;. should also discuss in specific terms
what permits would be 'requiJ<'~i:i because of this activity.
. :~.
Page 32 - 3.6 - Notse - The!!b states, "Furthermore, the local area
already has an elevated amb~ent noise level due to the existing..
truck traffic traveling to the otay Landfill."
Thil!l ie a questionable assumPtion. A 1992 Traffic Impact Analysis
conducted for the County by I.i~nscott, Law ~ Greenspan found a total
volume of 16,600 between M~ell Road and 1-905. Of thot total,
approximately 567 -vehicles (-on a busy day) were traveling to the
otay Annex Landfill. This :: cOnstitutes. approximately three (3)
percent of the total traffid:on a road which the ND characterizes
as having, "disproportionately high volumee of heavy trucks..
Consequently, it is unlikely:'tliat noise levels are elevated solely
because of traffic to the O~y ~ex Landfill.
. >
.,
The same para9raph states, .~ased upon the 432 ADT ultimate level,
the total traffic increase iill: about 2 percent for Otay Va11ey Road.
Again, a very small, :l.mp'e%;C'"ptible increase .in noise generation
wiLl result. Based on tMs discussion, noise impacts due to
project-generated truck traf~ic will be minimal; and no signifioant
noise impacts will oocur." ."
,.
l' :
CEQA does not permit the "trivialization" of an impact through the
argument that a project's c~tribution to a potential problem is
small. Therefore, the impact caused by the addition of 432 ADT in
an area which the ND states has an elevated noise level should be
considered fully, a determin.ation of significance shou1d be made,
and mitigation proposed if ~ecessar.y. .
Page 35-39 - 3.11 - Transpor~~tion/Circulation - The ND states that
an assumed 1999 closure date -for the ot.ay Annex LandfilL represents
a .worst-case" scenario. However, with regard to this section,
that aseumption results in a ~best-case'" scenario as far as traffic
foreoasts are conoerned. ~As was stated above, it is highly
unlikely that the landfill :.;.ill close in 1999. Therefore, the
statement on Page 38 that, ...i,~ is assumed that post-closure t:l:affic
distribution represents the worst-case local and regional traffic
~g1/
.
,
......;......
L'" ~... <0 f <0
r.O.-l TOO
, '
......:-J
.', ~ . ."..
.~'_.~..
. . ....-- -..' "
. ....~~,,::.,.;~:..._._.:...:...-__.~__n_._:.
. ,...
., .
. .... ...
-
Mr., Monaco
-3-
January 19, 1996
impact" is
continuing
customers.
"
"
';.~
incorrect, becau~e it fails to take into account the
use of the land,~ill by both commercial and p:dvate
'.
,';
Coneeq;uently, the "WOrBt-ca.,e'" Bcenario ..hould aaaume the ..ame
level of "mom and pop" hauf~rB and private citizena now using the
landfill, plus the franchised haulers from Chula Vista, National
City, Imperial Beach, Coionado, South San Diego City and
unincorporated areas plus th~ additional transfer trucks, materials
trucks, and employee/visitor.;'vehicles in its calculationa,
"
Furthermore, it is unclear exactly which jurisdictions were
included in the traffic foz:~casting. Those mentioned above all
currently dispose of waste ati'. the Otay Annex Landfill. If all were
not included in the calculatlons, it is likely that tbe forecasts
are flawed. . ' ):'
The traffic seotion a.lso states on Page 38, II (Al fter closure of the
Otay Landfill, the projected traffic increase on this segment (Otay
Valley Road) is approximately 4J.6 ADT. This increase amounting to
an estimated 2.2-percent in9rease in existing traffic vol~e (1
percent of ultimate LOS ,~. voluBle) is minor and does not
significantly impact operat~ns on Otay Valley Road or cause the
LOS C standard to be exceed!id, " It is unclear from the document
whether rising levels of traf):ic from Otay Ranoh have been included
in these calculations. Als~~ we would once again point out that
impacts cannot be "triviali~ed" and the cumulative impacts of tho
additional traffic should be\cousidered, particularly in light of
the apparently incorrect as~mpt1on that the Otay Annex Landfill
w:i.ll close in 1999. .:
,;
The Solid Waste Division app:ti1;ciates this opportunity to comment on
this environmental document' ~d would request that the division be
'included on any mailing lists' regarding this project, including any
hearing dates, These may be ~sent to tbe attention of Bob Forsythe
at the address shown above ~ail Station 0383).
Very truly yours, .
~ ::r~, ;.:.
L -rtl ~~TER: Acting ~eputy '6~rector and
,- San Diego Solid Waste Autho~ttY General Manager
'l'W'RCF:jww :H
,
.'
~ f:f;
.'
:.;:
.~
. -....
f7n,..l Inn
rr.~' " TA .~~~~
This page blank.
gPf.
'. . ~~-i~-i~~D ~~.~~
r~ .
. .
O~toI O::1"'t~"+::I~
IKRt-t-1L; CONTROL
P.01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO "
.....
~ri"tt
i
R
:,-r-
~,~
.
~'.~\
.;,.. " '
p
FA)(, COVER SHEET .
PIeaIe notify QddteIIfHJ that they hQV8 teefllved a FAX.
Data: 1}1! 9 (. FAX Number: c.(=;{; - ,f) ~!rJ
To: J" e- IYI.ID" o...c.(!)
C '-1 ~.f- e~ '^ ILV ,.J..A.
Addressee's Telephone Number: tf er 1-. S'd / t:
MESSAGE
~~e.. :t:...~'trN-r ~~(J ~~kJ 1)1/96 .
rrr~"':f -;ell-.i'N.r s .f.v.Jy -9.,...- cA.../A'vlw"
f'r.-o.k,..r..1r- ~ e t,fJver-, A-e:,/...J.1 /T~,.~
"(~N;kr f'1a.J,~n. ~ "-,,,'/Itle.f Yd~
A )'\N!c../. f.e.{kr f-o 'fa 11 "^ TArS' r..{;'ff;jcf
/I e-;c...{. we e Ir.' S""d-I""7 ,a,,... rt..f!. ~.",.
-ft.~ !Jot J 1,\(.. evd~f.:r ~ ,1.,1 W'~k ~~rk,...,~
tv ,'I( frv t",j f), 1. f1 c-. '1 r- i~ , a !,..oe fA; 1., r. v ,,/"'-
~ (J "" ,;., , "f1... i/... Q ,'t"'" c.. , /K w..~ I'- f.i '711I"<A/f.
Number of pages (Including this cover sheet): 2-
From:-D,rk b.v\:tb.....TelephOneNumber: tfer6"'.....~;Zr
II)
~
=1
r
-
-
~...
f._
...
1;::\'lill;III':II[I\!i:I:;1I
...
_.s>s
This page blank.
4if g~
~... "'-.J ....-.J...JI.J .......J.c:.J
D...Lo:1 Do:1-r....:.-r.;::.<'t::/
I K.Mrr J.l.. l..UI\l1 KUL
J-'.fOc
/'
}
.
Cl!111UtfJ1 of ~an c!8i.ego
TOM QARIBAY
"PEC_
1110) ....ot 2
'A>CIII.Ij"'......
I.OOATION 0001'"
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY ENGINI1IiA
COUNTY "'FltoOAT8
COUIITY."OM COM_ION'"
"IIONSlr 8E1MO"
COUNTY 'UIll/CYOll
. rLOOo CONTROL
WMTEW,A,TI" ..ANAGElleNT
lOUD WAITE
&66B OYERLANDAVE, 8AtI DI&OO. CALlFORNtA II12:a-121&
Jlmuary 11. 1996
g)vt"",
.R{U1 r-.,,!--:/pclCfvfJEnoIi'J!1t't
SUBJECT: Initial Environmental Study for City of Chula ViRa Matarials Recovery
FacilitylTrash Tl'III1!Ifar Station
Dirk Smith. Environmental ServlclI .
Department of Public Wor!ce
103851
TO:
FROM:
Robert Hoglen. Route Locations
Department of Public Works
(0336)
We heve reviewed tho subject document end heve the following comments:
TRAFFICICI!:1CULATION
,. Include datil for project traffic and peroent traffic splits on all existing County
Circulation Element Roede and other roads In the unincorporated IIrella.
2. Identify 1raffic Impact. on the road. in thll County and provide appropriatll traffic
mitigation messures for the Idantified traffic impacts.
3. Route locations needa to rmew future documents for this project.
If you have any questiona regarding this metter, plesse cell Robert Hoglsn et (s.c. S50)
694-3244. . .
RCH:PAS:ak
ce: Jim CheQala. DPLU (06501
M:IWI'1HC1flLEMWCl1I1OQ.PS
~f1
Q -.....,....-
This page blank.
f8
- ATTACHMENT "E"
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CHULA VISTA MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or responsible agency that approves
a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt
a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects".
The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency for the Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash
Transfer Station (MRF/TTS) project. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project which
addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommended mitigation measures to
reduce identified significant impacts below a level of significance. A Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The City
of Chula Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) after considering
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and if approval of the project occurs.
The proposed MRF/TTS may result in adverse impacts in the event of substantial alterations to the
proposed project description. A monitoring and reporting program would prevent adverse impacts by
insuring that the proposed project is developed in substantial conformance with the project description
and design features used to conduct the analysis for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including final
design, grading, construction, and operations. The City of Chula Vista has primary enforcement role for
the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) will
provide final approval for the completion of the implementation of mitigation measures. The ERC will
appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be responsible for the actual monitoring
of the implementation of the mitigation measures. The MCC will interface with the ERC, the City
Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction Supervisor, and the Construction Inspector(s),
all who have some responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Chula Vista Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Chula Vista
5'7
~
~
'"
E']~
cu:<&,>tE
"" .
~
r>:
.11'
"
o
'8
o
;;;:
~
6'.
o
...
~
OJ)
=
'E
o
i:><
'"
~
""
=
0:
OJ)
'2
o
...
'S
o
~
=
o
.~
1ii
OJ)
.~
~
.
"3 co....
..c "2 5
~ ~ €
at!'sol!
..... ._ t:: ~
U>LilO
"
o
o
.
.~ ~
g:.a,!!J
8 c3'~
.J::..... I\)
"" 0 0.
o
0':
~
.5 -"
" 0
~lJ
c>u
ri.8..!S
Le
" .
p.,f;jt;
5co I\)'~
. "u
~ ~ I\)
bO~.s
~ 5 ~
o '"
tli]
a 0 e
a 0 0.
.~ '" g.
I\).a-g
.s .
.9
" .
-"
-~ &
8.9 .
::; p., ~ t!
if ~~ :>
V
N
~
'"
.
"'5 1:11)....
o -2 ~
..... ~ e
o 5.5 <<I
.~.:!! ~ g.
u>wO
"
o
o
.
.~ ~
.9:.a '"
~ cS@
.C..... I\)
,,"00.
o
.
0:
.a ..;.:
" u
~lJ
c>u
I\) I\) '" c::::
..s.s..!! .g
. .... 2..a
11 co:! 1\)--
'@ .s.s ,,';
8.~:€~
co-€ ~ 0
.5 8 ILl co
~ ::! -~
\.:0_"'0
ct);;j E c:
'O~.E~
o
u .... 0 u
g 3 0 oS
<<I t::.5......
.~.~ '" ~ 0
.s :].~:~
..... 0.- 14
S ~ co 6b-
" ,g.5 E g
-g8:-g-gs
0.. 0:( bO e<:I U
V
N
~
'"
.
"3 ~ E
e "I:: I\)
..... 3 e
~t!.~ a.
u>tflQ
"
o
o
.
.~ ~
.9:.a ~
S c3'~
't:..... u
,,"00.
o
0':
~
.5 -"
" u
elJ
c>u
ILl t:i '"
":;'00 i!::
o a
~!~
~"O-~
-0 ~ g .5
~ '~'8 ~
:.a. ~ g LiI
e I'd .- a
8 'E 8 u
u 0 II,) ILl
<<I ~ oU oS
;;j-a......
.8 ~ e. g
........... o'p
000
~ c:.5:E
.9;;j ....
tII).~..c ~
.5 i: '" I\)
~ &] oS
o ~ ~ s
V
N
~
'"
'"
~
~
:>
'"
]
u
....
o
C
o
.
:g ~ c
() 'I: ILl
... 3 E
o fI .5 '"
_€.~ ~ ~
U>LilO
"
g
.
.E ~
.9] '"
~ ,,@
J:'E&
o
.
0:
~
.5 -"
" u
elJ
c>u
gf~ a "8 ~ co:I.8
-\: 0 ~ C'I:I.~ >0-
U t: e.c c;:J
.s '00 S ~ 0.."O-ffi
0(11\)0.'-11)01)"0
r:::~~:E-sg5
II) cod .5 "0
ca >. g '" .5 8 ILl
.~.c'::: "0 p., ILl
.2 C'I:I & 0\) .5
o]'~.9=2gp~
~g~Uj.8 ~s
I\) "0 > . c;.-'
coc:::.5gs~_~~
~81\)'~~ ULiI
g.8t:'gjg~~'€
'B 6<=1~~~
2."~.. --
..... -- I\) C ILl '~.s
~J:;g~B~'"
8.g.Co~.8 ':;$
.., t:: . .~ 13
S.g'~.5.oJ:S>
S:i:=~E.~:E~
.C:: > .:::: g .ii :i .., p.
~.SUu",'OU..,
"
.s
~
v;
...
~.
~
...
b
~ ~
... ...
~gf
>,...
.;:: P-4
:;::: bO
g .9
~t:
1:'&
" "
><>::
8-0
&j a
bI)
.;;J "
.;::
.S B
~ .S
::E 0
",::E
~ "
;> .s
'"
'" 0
:3~
o:i
V
N
~
'"
qf)
::a-
'"
::I
I::
.~
...
=
o
<.I
~
~
...
t>1>
o
~
t>1>
I::
'f
<:>
p.
'"
~
"0
I::
~
t>1>
=
.~
...
<:>
...
.S
<:>
~
1::.
o
~
t>1>
.~
...
~
~
~
.!O
.!!
'8
~
~ btI
~..:9. ... .~5
!:.[~i
~ ~
ro 1:'
]1~
U ro
'O~
01:1
u>~
~'"
" "
'C ~
~ E
.S !;
~o.
" ~
",0
u
u
"
ro
.~ ~
.9 i2 ""
~ ;g 'g
'C u
Q.,'OQ..
g u
._ u
- "
'" ro
C:::.=
u 0.
E E
o 0
u u
o~
o 0
.s.9] ~.s;!.~
~ s 's e ~ 's e
-~.~ [8: e 8. p.,
ES ~ 8.0'-
0\) 'I::.... "0 0 U 0
Q.uc;j~"'do..
~> Bc<~
~,,~.s::~.g
- ~ :g
~-~~.8~.s8
00\)8uo'-
u~~1;Y~~
~~g,..c::sC::o
cd ... II,) ~ "0
~Q.Q@o:-5!o
'~~coc.~]~
1I)..c:: t:: -( o,s
.s ... 'E 13 0 u
05 @ cd ~ II) ';j
.... ,~ ;:; ~ 10 .;..~ >
_~-E-5'''' 8
.g IS:: v E :a c;; 0..
g,. <( oS 8.E~.;J ~
'"
"
ro
"!
~
ro
] e.J)....
U .tj ~
'0 ~ E
fi .5 '"
.€-~ gp go
U>JilO
u ~
u "
" ro
.~ ~
B:O
- ~
0<:>
'C ~
p.. 0
Iii
0:
~
"...
~ ~
<:>-5
~
o
..
-OJ
.rs~.8~
~"O S ~
~ ~ 0
....~=~
~ 8 'fl J
~8:g6
~ <<I a ~
" 0""
c.coOO
C<I.5 Ii's..
'::-0'"
-8 IS: @ "0
.E nI v-i
-~ .... '€!..c::
o ~.~
.9] ..c::
oa ~.~
~~
J'!
~
;;:
'"
'3
,q
u
~
o
Q
U
. ro '"
]1 ~- '3 .5 E
" " "' "" -~
U 'C u U '" u
~ € 0 €
~ ~ co 0
0 0
o ~.~ s. o~~ .
0.
.... __ c: 11) iJ >~ ~
u>~o 0
u u
u u
" "
ro .
.~ ~ .~ ~
" "
.9 :; '" .9 32 '"
~ 6~ - 'S .~
0 co
'C ~ u 'C ~ u
p.. 0 p.. 0. 0 0.
C u
,9 g
E .~
sa.
E E
o 0
uU
o~
o 0
eg.s~
= s
8 '::I
s:g
~ .
~.s
a
ro .
e .~
= : 5
u u 5
8 -g, ~
~e"'2
0.. p,,~ 0
E <0 C<I '::I
:: ..s '" .-
';j....=:g
..c::COS"OC'I:I
~;~.......-g
.g,"O ;j 1-4 E
eu,~ue~
Q..:: ::I 0.. 0\) 't:: e"'O......:..
II)'~ s:: -<.... .!! Po. B..c::
t=.a.s~.~;~] S'
'"
"
ro
"
..-;
a
o
."
.
H
~ a
ro
~
1/
-5 ~ c;
-~ .s -g
0\) s@
~:o.....
:a. -t 0
5.5 C
o ~.g
u a <<I
.5.g E
~.E
261 co
~ .5
"0''.::
';j c:::e
~C'd..c::
~ ~ [
"eQ g a)
p,,~ gp g
-( 'p cd
~ ~ ~ 'S
... '" ~ "
....
"
"'
"!
~
~
"
ro
0:
~
,5 ~
'" u
:; It)
~"'
COU
E 1:'
.!::g
~ '5
oP
'8.9
~ .5
&]
~ ~
.9 f:-
5 8
u .5
" u
O;>P
"
.9
:;;
v;
...
~
~
E-
'2 ~
tgf
>>...
.':::: p..
:;:::0.0
~ ,S
~t::
1:>8-
~~
8--0
~ ~
~ bl)
] .2
i) 9
1<j 'S
:2 0
",:2
1;; "
;;: .9
:;;
rn,~
'3_
0::;8
u _
f;:2
"' ~
~ 0
;.0:.::::
1-0 'u
'0; ~
c u
<-5
~
,~
u
""
....
"
P
"!
~
~
'"
='
=
.~
...
=
o
u
~
8
C<I
...
bJ)
o
~
bJ)
=
'€
o
"'"
'"
~
"CI
=
C<I
bJ)
=
.~
...
o
...
'S
o
~
=
o
.~
...
C<I
bJ)
.~
...
~
~
:g gp ~
u -c 11)
'- ~ €
;~.~ 2.
....._ c 11)
U>~C:I
"
u
"
~
.~ gf
.8:; V>
E g'~
.1::..... 11)
0.00.
"
~
0;
'"
.5",
" U
~,g
"'u
.s..s.sb'
~;>..I-<-g
:3"0<8>
~ ti " [
8. u'~ g.
~~ .8
QIJ.;j ...
.5 f! () ~
]"O.~ e
bOc>Sc..::::
..... -';:: .....: 8
o E ..s 2
8 ~ 8.~
@ Q. '"
.~ c; g.'O
- {; "0 11)
B~@~i-
:5:&-~~Q
"I:: p. > c u
c.. <: ~ 8.s
00
M
"
'"
~
~
] ~i::
U 'C 11)
'0 ~ €
at!.~ a.
u;;tfio
"
g
~
.~ ~
B ~ '"
8 " 'g
6:'0&
"
~
0;
'"
.5",
" U
~,g
"'u
11) "'0 --0 cu s= '0 '0 ~ QIJ U E
..s ~ g: @ .s ~ = 'a -~ :E .~
~Q~E"E -gc:.9_....a.<:_
1J 0 en G,) <\1 .... D..g .-.
=e-s~.E.~ ~ i:: 0 <II <'OS
t:: @'E- ~.:::;gS~~~
&'d s......._I1)~IE~u~
B 0::: 11) g"g "0 0 .
0lI,E 50 s= G,J~ e o~ v'O g
.s-'.o"'8p.,~"3 .ss',:;:
]~5~:...gJ.s sp.;o:;lf!
u>o... .uc..:oc..-!"
"'." ~"';;i", Ii'.s 8,e-,,' go
..... 0 c.. f:1.c..'- '" ~ 11)'
oZt::~O'z-g <tn_~ S
..sp,Q u'gc......;Ea:s:"
~lI)g~B.s.5<<1t1.10,QEf!
~iE= <OS ~ .az~l1)tII)
6! &. }JJ ~ .s ~ 11) .- 11.1 11) e Ill)
.~ ~ .... .~ "@'- @ ~ ~ .s .. ..s .~
~u 6 St.g-= 8.......... ~5
.8s=~u'-"'=':~;jO;;;Q~
~? oS ~J:! '0 ~:.= >.0.'"
....- E ~ p.... p. .:.::
.~ ]: s:€ ... E ~ u B 8 ~ 2:: 8
c..<cnSt.s8;t-58<p..~B
00
M
"
~
..;
~
~ oi
].5 ~ ~
u ~.~ 5
~-"~€
;~ .~~ s.
u;>J3@o
'"
.5
o
'"
"
o
'"
.5
o
Ii'
o
~ " "
<'d 2:1 0
~ .
. .
.S c;j
"
~ .5
].a
~~g
.c-=~
:3 ~ ~ @
;:c: (,) o.s
~ g Z t;
." .s
";;"0 ".; 0
'P g CIS '"
g.~ ~ ~
.s~ ~"s
~~~~
3: ~ 8 :u
~.s~~
i'3
~ ~
~ v
",.0
"-
,,'-'
.
1;-
~
'"
M
"
'"
~
fJ-
""
~
;:;:
'"
::;
-"
u
....
o
C-
O
oi
. "
]"~ gf ~
u C'<:I"C
t; A: ~ ~ ~
Q~ "bO-o a.
u>~;;jQ
'"
"
'0
~
"
o
~
"
'0
~
"
o
" ~
~ 'nj
8 ~
o "
" U
o..g
" ~
.0 ~
.9
.~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ "
. "
-0-5...:
g C !!
. v .
.. > .
" ~ "
f 0."2
~B ....
o ~ 0
s::: g ~
<~~
"
.8
OJ
-
en
...
~
'"
!a
...
r-
] ~
... ...
r-bO
- 0
>>...
"~ Po.
:-;:::bl)
~ .s
<'-<to:
t:'8.
" "
>P::
8'd
~ a
~ gf
~"i::
t) 9
~ "S
::E 0
",::E
~ "
;:;: .8
OJ
1"~
o~
'"
M
"
'"
~
~
'0
'"
:=
.5
.....
I::
o
u
~
~
..
en
o
~
en
I::
..
.....
..
o
1'0.
'"
p::
'0
I::
01
en
I::
..
..
o
.....
'S
o
~
I::
o
~
en
..
.....
~
].f
U ro
tiP:
"'~
u>
'"
c
'0
~
o
'"
.S
o
~
o
0;
~ 0
-<>2
~"O
-Iii ~
.~ fJ
g;
"0 .~
~ ~
o 0
<;;; @
~'E
~ g
. ro
~
3.9.g
&~ iij
\1]"0=
- ~ '"
<..c:~
a-
N
~
~
,.;
~ ~
'0 ~
~ ~ €
c" ro
'~-g fr
",roO
ro ~
]~
U ro
tiP:
"'~
u>~
~
o
c
ro
.~ ~
S i2 '"
~ ~.~
~'O~
c
ro
0:;
'"
.S -"
'" 0
"' ~
o.c
"'U
0;
0.>'
'o.c
'g ~ E
e'- "0
5-tJ vi
7d e CO ~
8 ~ ~ :I
~ 6! 8: ~
eo ~ Q.,~
8 S ~ ~
.5 5 "0 ~
""0 ~ "
~ E ~ "0
u 11).... E
.~ g ~ E
8: u ~t:
~~Sg,
.q IU 8: u
~ :t: cd 0
'"
~
.c
~
,.;
J'!
~
:>
'"
;:;
.Q
U
'H
o
C
U
"'E
'2 ~
~ e
.~ ~
c ~
",0
~.r
u ro
'CiS:
"'~
u>~
gf~
'0 ~
.~ ~
",0.
&30
~
~
.~ ~
s;g ~
c; &r~
'I: .... IV
0.00.
c
ro
0:;
'"
.5 ~
'" 0
~ v
o.c
"'U
~ '"
oS .S .2:! =
..... ~ ~ v
.g~~e
~ "0... cd
.- @ = 0.
E -.!S II)
II) cd 0..0
C. ~ E co
~.~ ~.;j
:a:a..!!a
:=,::.9.,2!
.E co,E/:l.o
'0:3 ~.s~
v~8oe
~ ~ ~.; 8:
<dd~!:!C'd
.~.g.E'813
II) u g,.c CI:I
..s ~.- BJ ~
o .... ~ II) .;;:
:!!-s.o~
.8 ~ ; ~ ....
~ ~ 'P..-5J.E
"
.9
1;;
'"
...
~
~
'"'
~ ~
,",00
- 0
.2.s:;
::::O!)
~ .S
~t::
c&
OJ OJ
>1>::
8""
~ ~
~ 00
'" .g
'Ii B
<<j 'S
::E 0
",::E
1;; "
:> ,S
1;;
c;:I'.~
]~
u::E
'"
~
.
.c
~
~
93
~
~
"0
Q)
:::
=
i
o
u
~
~ ~
" .-
o ~ S
~-E
0"'1:
.O~ a.
0>0
.~
o 0
@ ~
" -
.E ri 0"
'"
0'- t::
- " ~
_ . 0.
.g u B
~'Oo
~
....
OJ)
~
OJ)
=
.~
1::
o
c..
~
"0
=
~
OJ)
=
.~
....
.s
oS
~
=
o
~
OJ)
.~
....
~
"
>
8
0.
0.
~
~
0;
b4€ ~
.S g 0 u
'() .... 0 &J
....>.Ug<=
o (.) u 0 ""
~2:!:.s~-@~i
ri g 9 "" > c::: 10
~'fl-~ ij ~"E. E
~ i .g E go] ~
co:! u': a. -g r::: Q
.... .... ~ U <Ii g tIO
o ~ :t; Q ::t .....;1
8~_~.29E
c: u .9 +:I > 0 ""
~.se]~~P::
~ .... &::r: .... "0 U
--.E 0 o.s 01).s
u >. u tIO C >
.s ~ oS _!oJ ~ ~.9
9 <<I AO Q. p."O
~g..~ap~,~
't: tl TI tIJ E oS 8
p..o~'08'C;~
;;:
o
on
M
?tf
)'J
~
;;:
'"
:;
.<:
U
'H
o
C
U
c
.9
:;J
ii5
...
~
~
~
E-
~ ~
... ...
E- OJ)
- 0
>,...
.~ ~
:-::::bJ)
a! c
<'-< .-
1::
<:>0
'" ~
~~
tJ'O
~ a
~ blJ
}'J .6
~ 9
~ ......
~ 8
)'J~
.~ =
:> .9
'" :;J
_ 0.
::3 ".;j
.<: .-
u~
1JS
-'"
00
:>
oj
'3
.<:
U
4-<
o
b
U
~
'0
Q.I
;::
=
.~
.....
=
o
u
~
cu: tie
.....>;9<>.5
~/1~.3
.. ~ .~
..: ::;:
. ""
_ c
" .-
o;g~~
".- E
'0 ~ ;:: ~
.€~ ~ !l
u><>CfO
e
~
....
bIJ
~
bIJ
=
t
o
~
~
'0
=
~
gr
.~
....
o
.....
-g
::E
=
o
.~
.....
~
bIJ
.~
.....
~
""
c
'0
1!'
o
""
c
'0
8'
.s.~ i
~ ~ "
~ ~ C'I:I
8 ~ "1;;
0. 0.
1\.1 t: ~
oS ~.s
~ 12 .
.s p., t) 8
oS..... c.....
._ ~"Bi ;;
;:t.<=I s:::"'O
~ 0 c
~ ~ ~.g
:Q<<I.s~
" -
~ ~.ff [
" "
~ 15.a ~
~ ~.s ~
o c 0
i5.:.a .; ~
J1:S"8 a
.0 c ~
"
o
"g
cij
...
~
~
~
a ~
t ""
bE
.- p..
~bl)
g "
r.L. "€
~S<
" ~
>~
o
<.>-0
~ [;J
00 ""
~.tJ
t> .9
1ii '13
::;: 0
oj::;:
t; "
:> .9
oj 1ii
-""
= ";:j
'" .-
u::;:
M
M
95 _
~
"C
'"
::I
=
o~
...
=
o
(j
~
~
...
bJ)
o
~
bJ)
=
t
o
i:Io
~
"C
=
'"
bJ)
=
o~
..
o
...
oS
o
~
=
o
~
bJ)
o~
...
o~
~
. 1:'
]"@ c
~~~
ot! S-
....._ II)
u>Q
~
"
""
"
"'.
~ >
.~ e
" "-
Q~
~
"
."
"
'"
o
.~
"
Q
.~ g
~:€
11 ~
~i!
-g"~ .;
~ :~ .~
. ~
bO G,) a
".c 0
> u
"" >>
~ ~ ~
to:: 0 ~
~ ~ 10
'"
.S
.~
'E
.
"-
o
.'"
~
o
.
~c;
" '0
"
" -
1:6
~
~
":
~
. 1:'
] 'g c
~~~
.f'.g ~
u>Q
~
"
""
"
"'.
o >
.~ 8
" "-
Q ~
~
"
.;:
"
'"
o
.~
"
Q
-g "
.-5
] 'o;j
o ~
" .
'I=: bO
~]
-;;~
-5!~
u
.g .9 ~
~ ~"E
"
~~.8
';;:]'0 r>;.
c:: ~ 1:
o 01) &
~ e
:( ~ Q.,
~
~
":
~
-a'~
..c E C
~5:~
.f'.g ~
u>Q
~
"
";:
"
"'.
o >
.~ 8
" "-
Q ~
~
"
.;:
"
'"
o
.~
"
Q
~ '"
" .S
";; '0
"'"
~ "
.c
r
.
0; ~
<8'c;
.E ~ G,)
-" u
.9 Q. @
- ~
.~ g.~
.c 0 "
~8..s
"'0
'" .J3 -
~..c:: 15
~.~
~ '" <<I
.S! c:: >
"S.. II) e
~€ 8:~
II) 8.~'~
~~@&
~
~
":
~
c;t:.
~
~
:;;:
'"
'3
--"
U
4-<
o
G-
U
"
.5<
1<1
'"
>-<
~
~
E-<
~ ~
>-< >-<
t: ~
>>>-<
.= p.,
:-::: OJ)
a} .S
~t:
i:;>8.
" "
>1>:
8""
~ [;j
~ b()
O! .01
..: >-<
".9
rtj 'S
:2 0
",:2
~ "
:;;:.5<
1<1
~ .~
]-
u::E
1!if
:s-
o.>
=
=
~
o
<J
~
~
....
/OJ)
o
~
/OJ)
=
'E
o
s:>.
~
~
a
/OJ)
=
0-
....
o
....
08
o
:;;1
=
o
~
/OJ)
.-
....
~
M
'3 _
e ~ c
'O~~
.g.E ~
u>o
~'O
~ ~
M "
~ ~ >-
.- 1+:: u
.9 'f! ;
..... ~ g-
o U 0
J:'Oo
...
o
"
-"
u
~
M
0:
.s~"'~S:g-g.s22.9
~o~.......~2t:-E"'t::i-=5
:;> 0 .... ..... cd ::t 0 ';j E Q.
r;: '" 8 0,) .9 ~.!! 0.. ~ ... 0
8 ~o 50S S:x= ~J.;! '" 5'.8,,;
cd"E~ g.~""'U~:E3S.~
.... nI ",... r::: 0.0 0 <d ~ =
'" ~ ...... 0 ILl I.) <0.:0 _ _ I.< ... u
8.:r. II) <O:<..s @ ;:a s-E-< 'E ~
-g ..s:>'~"'i:i:"'UJ,,;8=
cue: ::!.€fl'.....i! ;t::v~
;::102~~c.uG.l .-::::co
'-8--0 ~e~-~
.fSe B~eu::lO,)"'" II)
'8"'50 __gpuEo. ~
0.'1=: 0 ~f.1.. '::J O'p II) r:I co
::; 11.1 = c"'O ",.t:I
1! C. p......... 7.;.~ 0 oS:;j ::I "'0::;
'" O>'tJUo 0,);.....
~~. gl1)-c:Q~..s"O.c
....._"'uj:;,~:= <!,Id
~ t.I.. ~ ~ "a 'o:;J ~-= ",.5 E 0
0,) ::IuOe!,) ~u"'O<Ue'=
go '" "0 I.t: ''8:sa 0,) e.~ 0,) ~
. ".e::l>.... ES=p..
II) .€ g 0,) "g 8 ::'J c. ~ 'r:I g !!J
~ u J5..u r:: a.~ ~ o...t:I "O.!;;j
"
M
s
,.-;
17
::J
~
:>
'"
'3
.0
U
~
o
;>,
~
c
"
.S
OJ
~
en
...
.,!!
~
?:
~ ~
... ...
E-<bJJ
- 0
.q,!:;
:=bl)
~ .13
~t::
QO
" if
>~
0",
~ ~
~ bJJ
] .2
i) .s
1<3 "E
;:E 0
",;:E
1;; "
:> .S
OJ
-3'~
o~
11
"0
Q.I
:::
=
.~
...
=
o
u
~
~
...
OJ)
o
&::
OJ)
=
i
o
~
Q.I
~
'0
=
<U
OJ)
=
.~
...
o
...
'8
o
::E
=
o
.~
~
OJ)
.~
...
~
~ ~ '"
.E"@ 1::
u '" ~ E
'b is: - ~
.f:Ii.L. cd
O<n"CI R'
u:>@o
"~
u 0
" ~
.~ ~ ~
.9"f @
888'
'0:;:..... <.)
0.00
~
o
~
] ~
r.75c.
~'O @.!!~~ ~@
'" >.~.E.r:: '" e CI)
~ go >,u: tt ~.s
(,).0 o'~ '"
o~"3-s 0 6 ~$'
-5B&;JSo.'E~"3
...~'~13~~~e1::
o U E t: E-<.r:: 00.. IU
~E'S . d 'E ~ @
~ 11.1 .0 1:: ;,j lid '" '"
~.~o..~8Q.~;~
1=::= 001::: - .. ~
~~:5.D '" g "'-a.~
~ubIJ,;.J~R'co'8 ~
(,).6......r:: 0 (,) eo; = ti
o u 0 '" A.!:!::C
>.t:;o~~a~o
~~E'at;::"S..ss
.81:'00@<<I=g'0
.g:.=oUS::O'~""'U
... 0 "C '" 0 0
.~g"'~~.E.a@bO
~~.si5>.s ~Q.E
i1;
.
~
..;
. 1:'
:g :E bIJ E
~ ~.~ ~
,f'.E X ~
U>ai:lQ
"
g
.
.~ ~
9:9
E ~.~
'C..... <U
0. 00.
...
u
"
'"
U
~
0;
~2f
ca.~ a
~E>
.r::c:.!!
~ "'C ::I
~ EO
"" ~ "
.5'" 05
"
'"
.5
"
o
."
u
~
"
~
B >>
';;;] ,D
"'3
01;;
"
. ""
5 'r!
""
~ ~ ~ ~
;~~~
o .~ > Po
~ ~ ~o
"
.
~
..;
.
:g~-g
U bIJ ~
'0 ~.~
,f' ~ 6
u"'o:
"
g
.
.~ bO
.5
.8:s! '"
b ~.~
J:'O&
...
u
"
'"
u
"
.
0;
...."
u B
.g, e
e 0
Co 8-
" 0
05 u
~ .5
o "
.,0
e~
Co'"
Co~
.
2 ~
o a
'.0 n =
~ 8.~
o bIJ~
~ .=
oS ~.~
9 ~ 11.1
"_05
~ .s .~
o
~
.
~
..;
9?
~
c
"
" @
.~ g,
'0 "
0.0
"
o
."
."
'3 "
e .
'u (,)
"
],8'
. Co
~ "
So5
~]
>>~
E ~
~"8
E ~
" ~
" 0
~-f.
g.~
" e
,,05
'"
~
;;
'"
]
U
4-<
o
C
U
"
o
."
.
u
'"
'0
"
:S! ~
~'9
. "
~ ~
.E E
~ "
""1:'
~ 'C
~-=
~ ~
" ~
~ .g
" .
g,g
e;;:
CoO
"
.51
:;;
rn
...
~
~
1i!
M
E-<
~ ~
... ...
E-<""
- 0
>,M
.~ ~
:-:::trJ'J
~ .5
~t:
D&
~~
8",
~ a
~ 00
] .e
t .9
~ 'a
::;: 0
",::;0
to "
:> .g
~ ~
::3 'p
o~
~
.ci
--
~
"0
'"
::I
I::
..
....
I::
o
<.I
~
~.~ .g
t:iar.. 0
ea>8.~ :a
=--..~ 0
'" ::.:
e
<Q
6;,
o
..
~
bJ)
I::
i
o
c.
'"
~
"0
I::
<Q
bJ)
I::
.;::
o
....
'2
o
~
I::
o
~
bJ)
'.
....
..
~
.g ~
..c::9 ~ 5
~ ~.~ E
b~:t g,
u>~o
~~
o 0
c ~
. ~
5J ~
~ 0
.- IJ:
B 'f!
~ ~
oU
'0 ~
" 0
>.
o
C
.
Po
B
o
o
-"
o
~
-"
U
"
0;
't)bOG,JCIO'~-g~O
.S 1:i c 05 E 11'
~~~8B~fL~i5
~~:9 "RlOpo.=
"f! olO.ar::tS~~
~]cn-S].;cd~g.s
(..} .s >. ~ 5 at;>.
cd.a.....cG,JEj- .0
....~o .ot::~~"1:I.s
o >."'0 ::::: ~ p cd ~ ';j
~o.lO~U'g~eu
01,) cd 0 ~ '" Q 0 '" o.::t:
g!i.tu.~ u;:jo.....
cd "'0 :EibO~.gnlO
~ 10 8 cd. B ~ ~
.~-S::lo'aO O<<lC<l5
~= ~~~8
1O.E~~'O~cd':::;jt
-s af!~cdi5.~
t).~.E! "'0 i:: Q
E>.S;~b
cd .!!! ~ :> I::
e-] ~ :; '8. 6
OU~"E.IUU
>."
B g ""
g, i:E
.g g ~]
~ o..:g ~
N
..
!:;
..;
. 1:'
:g :a bO C
U ~ s::: ""
o .~ 8
'0 j:Q ::I t:
ot!:t g,
._._ 10
u>Q(;!Q
~~
o 0
C ~
. ~
~ E
.- l;::
B 'e
~ ~
oU
'0 ~
" 0
'"
c
.
Po
o
o
o
o
-"
o
~
-"
u
"
0;
'O.g~;S;
Q...c::: .:.0 '"
8 >. ..... $:: B
cd U"'O 5 5' f!
S~C6t;o
"e cd t: =,:a
v '= ~ 8. on_
u.g g, u ~:s..
cd g .~ 0 '"
"C 0.. ~ oB
.... ~ s ~
o ::; ii: (..} '"
~..c:: ~;r:
8 cd '" 1:> u c;
;~E;.-5'o
g u..... U ... &
.~ oS ~ 10 .s '"
,p g...s a cd
.s-0I,)>'''5.~
[)' oS .0 = ~ c1
Ba~'E.gs.g
... g..€ e ~'", ~
'8g~8:~~~
~ 0 ~ cd 10 cd 01,)
N
..
!:;
..;
9'1
. 1:'
] :a I:;lj E
u:s.~ u
'OQ:l5~
o a::r: 0..
u><>dO
~
o
C
.
.~ bO
.S
g21'"
:s ~.~
.c::.... G,J
" 0 "
-"
o
~
-"
u
c
.
0;
~
~
'jj
'0 .
E;-~
H
.~ s.
- ~
~'"
8 ~
~p::
~ '"
~u
~
"'05
-:;; >.
~.o
1:'11
;g~
o ~
.0 "
< ~
N
..
!:;
..;
-"
(
."i
~
;;
'"
;3
""
U
<0-.
o
Q
U
. ~
'"5.s -::::
..c:"1:I blI...
u:s.~ 10
'0 Q:I g €
.E'.E ::r: ~
u>a:dO
~
o
C
.
.~ ~
.9;g~
5 ~.~
.1:..... 10
" 0"
-"
o
~
-"
o
C
.
0;
~
00;
~ ~
E
~ .~
'0 ~
8~
~'"
i;E
-"
~
]>5
. ~
.s ~
:s! ~
2.9
~
.~ .~
~~-g
e ~ ~
~ ~:g
t: -g ~
'"
.~
1ii
~
CI)
M
~
~
!ii
M
f-<
~ B
f-<OI)
- 0
.2.5:
:-=bJ)
~ .s
....;::
~8.
" "
>p<:
8""
~ !ii
~ 01)
] .~
~ .9
~ .~
'" "
:2 0
",:2
to;; ~
;;: .g
'" '"
"3'~
e~
N
..
!:;
..;
-
.
~
~
"0
Q)
=
c:
.~
.....
c:
o
<J
~
~
Cl)
o
&::
Cl)
c:
.~
'g
::>.
Q)
~
"0
c:
0:1
Cl)
c:
.~
....
o
"=
c:
o
~
c:
o
!
.~
.....
~
'"
~
;;
'"
]
U
4-<
o
c-
U
~ gf
:;1'- blI =
..d;:g c:: 0
U '0 " E
....... ~ :;I ~
o ~ ~ ~
G'>a:dO
~'O
c .
" "
~ ~ >-
.~ tf! g
.9"f! [
C; U 8
~'O8
-'"
u
"
-5
c
"
0:
~ >. "
-.:. blI-g ~.~ 0 fI S
g.EnI~~<I,)O~
C':I2::C:"'~ugo
p,."'<U:::I 5 CXI
8S:'>~.sE2!"!"
U f c c:: i<j 9
o <1.J I-< ILs 0\) "'0
b-5.8~Bo~~
!;! .9 ~...... ~ .g.,~ ~
~ ..... c..:! if; ~ ~;:::
!<:: "s - co:I '0 a. ~ ~
€,c g.s t:: u> I<
~ a g ~ 8.-5 ~~
~=~aaeos
o~l:!o.sgBo~
8"':.::::'506......."'0.:::11.1
~=C':I:a.~~.9-gs
a~d?J.: >'""".95
"':'::::0 ~1So=.....=
'-Q..8,,@~S~>.>.
9<-'E ;:;T) ~ I<~"ii
.... 11 ~ s; <OJ;; 8
.:2 <I,) <I,) 0. '" ",.;:>- >.s
,Q:: -5 Q co:I Cd._
"
.S
1<1
Vi
...
~
~
~ ~
... ...
~ ~
.qp:
:':bJ)
~ .S
....1::
~&
~~
0",
~ !iJ
<>::""
~ "
3'i::
... 0
<1J ~
~ 'S
::s~
'"
.~ a
> '.g
~.~
,g .~
u::S
M
..
~
M
I~ tJ
~
'"
;:;
=
.~
.....
=
o
u
~
~
bi)
o
..
~
bi)
=
'f
o
Q.
'"
~
'0
=
'"
bi)
=
.~
.....
'S
o
:E
=
o
i
.~
.....
.~
:E
ro ""
~.9 ~ g
..c E ~'':
U .., 8 u
....~t::e
of! g, 'gj
0", GJ 0
CJ>QU
-@,
~
8
-S
.S ~
o ._
gp"
o ~
o
.g ~
0'0
E .9
q
8 e
'O~1;;
~ :5 .60
~ ~ -a .
~aM~
:a .g '@ B
~ 0 ro e
roE"
~a~.s
~ 8 ~ $
55 5 5o.s
~ ro ro
-;;:;g"O~
-." 0 .9
a e ...
'3 C'I:I ""3
o 0.'0 C
- ~ B 0
.g c..;;j ~
o '"
o
i'~ ~ ~
>. bn;g 11
~.~ ~ E
::: 't:I "" ~
o
OJ
M
s
~
:>
'"
]1
u
.....
o
C
U
o
o
."
o
o
0.
oS
"
.52
OJ
'"
~
~
~
~
f-o
] ~
~ ~
~~
c~
=t:L..
.- ""
~ .S
~t::
ciS.
~~
0'0
~ ~
~ gp
'" ..:
'5 .9
~ 'S
::;:: 0
",::;::
.~ g
:> 'g
'" ""
'3 .,:::
'" .~
u::;::
/tJ/
This page blank.
1c1 ,U
RESOLUTION 1486
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY/NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS-95-06, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE OTAY VALLEY
ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/DESIGN
MANUAL ADDENDUM, AND APPROVING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY/TRASH
TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL AVENUE WITHIN THE OTAY
VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Whereas, the John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation ("Developer")
desires to develop a trash transfer facility (the"Project") at 1855 Maxwell Road (the
"Site") within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area; and,
Whereas, the site is located within an I-P (IndustriallPrecise Plan) zone and
the project requires a Special Land Use Permit in order to be developed within that zone;
and
Whereas, the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee noticed and held a
public meeting on March 18, 1996 to consider the project, made the requisite findings and
recommended that the Agency approve a Special Land Use Permit for the project including
certain conditions; and,
Whereas, the Agency duly noticed and held a public hearing on the
requested Special Land Use Permit on March 19, 1996, and all protests, if any, to the
approval of a Special Land Use Permit in the manner herein contemplated, were made and
received at said public hearing, and no convincing objections to the proposed transaction
were found to exist; and,
Whereas, Initial Environmental Study IS-95-28, of possible adverse
environmental impacts of the project has been conducted by the Environmental Review
Coordinator who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects' and
recommends Negative Declaration IS-95-28 be adopted;
Whereas, the Redevelopment Agency is requested to review and adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
Whereas, the Redevelopment Agency is also requested to make Findings
under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design
Manual Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
Section 1.
to adopt Negative Declaration issued under IS-95-28.
Section 2. to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
/53
Resolution 1486
Page 2
Section 3. to make the following Findings under the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Mar.,ua/ Addendum:
a. The Proposed Special land Use Permit does not constitute a substantial
detriment to the Project Area or adjacent areas in that it is compatible with
surrounding uses.
b. The proposed Special land Use Permit generally promotes the orderly
physical and economic development of the Project Area in that its
continuance contributes to the local economy by providing a needed service.
c. The proposed Special land Use Permit is generally consistent with the
townscape/planning and urban design objectives of the Implementation
Plan/Design Manua/ Addendum, and contributes to the amenity of the
Project Area in that the project must implement any requirements related to
landscaping, exterior structural alterations, etc.
Section 4. to approve a Special land Use Permit for the establishment of a
Materials Recovery Facility/Trash Transfer Station on the property location at 1855
Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, California on the following conditions:
This special land use permit shall become void and ineffective if not
utilized within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall
cause this permit to be reviewed by the City/Agency for additional conditions or
revocation. The Applicant/Developer shall:
Planninq Department
1. Construct and operate the Project as described in the application and
adjoining plans, or as amended in this conditional approval.
2. Comply with and implement all plans and conditions of the Design
Review Committee as approved pursuant to DRC-96-20.
3. Comply with and implement all Mitigation and Monitoring Measures as
listed in IS-95-28.
4. A minimum of two months prior to the opening of operations, develop
and submit to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval an on- and
off-site clean-up program.
5. Limit the hours of operation to:
A. 5:00 a.m; to 10:00 p.m. (with no deliveries before 6:30 a.m.).
Mondays through Fridays; and
B. 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (with no deliveries before 7:30 a.m.).
Saturdays and Sundays.
/5l{
Resolution 1486
Page 3
Police Department
6. At least one month prior to the opening of the Project, schedule a
security evaluation of the Project with the Crime Prevention Unit of the
Police Department and implement any suggestions resulting from said
survey, to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. Submit written proof of
compliance to the Director of Planning prior to opening of the project.
7 . To the satisfaction of the Chief of Police, provide additional lighting to
that shown on the site plan at the following locations: Gate C, truck parking
area, drop-off area, northwest parking, overflow parking, gate house, self-
haul staging area, west parking, truck staging area, scales, grinder/shredder
or on the perimeter of the property.
Enqineerinq Division, Public Works Department
8. Pay, comply with or otherwise implement the following to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer:
A. Pay the following fees:
i. Sewer connection
ii. Traffic signal
iii. Public facilities Development Impact Fees
B. Dedicate a half width of 36 feet along the Maxwell Road
frontage.
C. Install two (2) 250 watt HPSV street lights on Maxwell Road.
D. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk on Maxwell Road.
E. Provide sufficient asphalt paving to provide a half-width of 36
feet on the east side of Maxwell Road.
F. Obtain all necessary grading permits
G. Obtain an encroachment permit for the monument sign in the
public right-of-way.
School Districts
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, pay all school fees to the
satisfaction of the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula
Vista Elementary School District.
/55
Resolution 1486
Page 4
Fire Department
10. Prior to the submittal of building permit applications, review the project
with the Chula Vista Fire Department and implement their suggestions, to
the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
11. Install fire hydrants at locations and of a type satisfactory to the Fire
Marshal.
12. Install fire hose stations at locations and of a type satisfactory to the
Fire Marshal.
13. Install fire extinguishers at locations and of a type satisfactory to the
Fire Marshal.
14. Install a Knox Box or key gate switch to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshal.
Miscellaneous
15. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect,
defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees,
agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses,
damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees
(collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly,
from:
A. City's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit,
B. City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use
contemplated herein, and
C. Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted
hereby.
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by
executing a copy of this Special Use Pennit where indicated, below.
Applicant'sf 9perator's compliance with this provision is an express condition
of this Special Use Pennit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of
App!icant's/operator's successors and assigns,
Execution and Recordation of Resolution of Approval
16. The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by
signing the lines provided below before a notary public, said execution
indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood
/50
Resolution 1486
Page 5
and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this notarized
document shall be recorded with the County Cleik of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicants, and a
signed, stamped copy returned to the Planning Department. Failure to return a
signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of
recordation to the Planning Department shall indicate the property
owner's/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application
for building pennits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without
approval.
Submitted by
Approved as to Form
-r~~ ~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
Agency Counsel
IBBIC:I WP51IAGENCYlRESOSIMRF-TISl.RES]
1:57
This page blank.
/51
REVISED 3/18/96 RESOLUTION 1487
AGENCY: ITEM 3a,b
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING PLANS AND ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH JOHN SEXTON SAND AND GRAVEL CORPORATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILlTY/TRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855
MAXWELL ROAD WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA
WHEREAS, John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation desires to develop a trash
transfer facility ("Project") at 1855 Maxwell Road ("Site") within the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area; and,
WHEREAS, the Site is located within an I-P (IndustriallPrecise Plan) Zone and the
proposed project requires a Special Land Use Permit for construction in that zone; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has presented plans for development to the Otay Valley
Road Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Design Review Committee (DRC); and,
WHEREAS, said plans for development have been conditionally recommended for
approval by Gaia Ceffiffiittees ~ry~~~~; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has adopted Negative Declaration IS-95-28 and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program issued on the Project and has approved a Special Land Use
Permit for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency hereby approves the development proposals as conditioned
by Project Area Committee and Design Review Committee; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency desires that said development proposal be implemented and
completed as soon as is practicable.
NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Owner Participation Agreement, on file in the Office of the Secretary
to the Redevelopment Agency known as document RACO-xx-96, entered into between the
Agency and John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation, is hereby approved.
Section 2. The Chairman of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute said
Agreement.
PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS. TO FORM BY:
~-~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
Agency Counsel
[BBIC:WP51 lAG ENCYIRESOSIM RF- TTS2.RESI
This page blank.
/00
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
Meeting Date 3/19/96
3~
ITEM TITLE
Resolution - Approving Solid Waste Flow
Control Agreement with John Sexton Sand and Gravel
Corporation in conjunction with the Development of
a Transfer station and Materials Recovery Facility
at 1855 Maxwell Road
SUBMITTED BY
Deputy city Manager Krempl
city Manager itf& 4/5 Vote: Yes
No-1L
REVIEWED BY
John Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation (Sexton) has been working
with the City on the planning, permitting, siting and development
of a solid waste transfer station/material recovery facility (MRF)
in Chula vista. This effort has been ongoing since they responded
to an RFP in February 1994. A companion Redevelopment Agency item
addresses the discretionary land use permit issues pending before
the Agency.
In the Fall of 1995, Sexton requested a flow commitment from the
City of Chula vista as a guarantee so as to be able to proceed with
project financing, site acquisition and construction. This report
addresses that flow agreement proposal. While Sexton and the city
are in agreement on most of the terms of the agreement, there were
a couple of points of disagreement discussed later herein. The
language of the draft agreement attached represents staff's final
position.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council continue this item
for 90. days pending further information about the County System and
other alternatives. If council wishes to act on the flow
agreement, the alternate recommendation would be to approve the.
agreement with the herein described walk away provisions prior to
site acquisition and construction of the transfer station.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSION
Negotiations have been ongoing with Sexton over the past five
months on the terms and conditions of a flow control agreement.
The city team during the discussions has consisted of the Deputy
city Manager, Finance Director, conservation coordinator, city
Attorney and, from time to time, Mr. Tom Vence of Brown, Vence and
Associates, our outside consultant. During the course of the many
meetings and discussions, most issues have been satisfactorily
resolved but a few policy issues require specific council
direction. A central issue too is the timing of entering into any
flow agreement and under what circumstances and conditions.
/&1
This report will summarize and discuss the main points of the draft
agreement, the issues of disagreement, and choices with regard to
how to proceed.
A. MAJOR POINTS OF THE AGREEMENT AGREED TO BY STAFF AND SEXTON
1. The original agreement, entered into between the city and
Sexton in September 1994, to pursue permitting of the
transfer station, is superseded by this agreement.
2. Following execution of this agreement, Sexton is to
execute the Hazard property site acquisition option.
3. Sexton has a duty to obtain permits, acquire the site,
and construct the MRF at their cost and expense.
4. Sexton has a maximum of 18 months from execution of this
agreement to obtain permits, acquire the site and
construct the facility. That period may be "tolled" by
any third party litigation for up to an additional 18
months or longer, if needed, to settle the litigation
should the county tip fee be lower than Sexton" s proposed
tip fee.
5. The term of the agreement is an initial 10 years with an
automatic 10 year extension unless either party gives
notice not less than one year prior to the expiration of
the original terms of their intent to terminate. During
the extended term, the city can terminate the agreement
at any time with 18 months' notice. This provision gives
the City the ability to go out with an RFP after the
initial term and flexibility during the extension period.
6. Performance criteria are established for the ongoing
operation of the facility with remedies to cure and the
ultimate ability of the. city to terminate the agreement
if performance continues to be unsatisfactory.
Performance criteria include the following: time frame
for trucks to move through the facility, hours and days
of operation, acceptance of 100% of conforming, non-
hazardous waste from Chula vista residents and
businesses, record keeping, exclusion of hazardous waste,
diversion for mixed waste, and priority at the facility
for the city's waste.
As to priority, first priority would be given to the city
and its franchised hauler_ Second priority will be given
to a business or individual resident's disposing of waste
other than by our franchised hauler, and third priority
would be given to those delivering waste from outside the
city.
: ~ /&~
with regard to diversion, the state Permit for the
facility will require not less than 15% recycling or
reuse so as to help meet our overall AB 939 recycling
mandates. The agreement encourages maximum recycling to
the extent economically feasible.
7. The city obligates itself to deliver its solid waste
stream to Sexton to the extent legal.
8. Sexton indemnifies the City against any loss incurred as
a result of Sexton's operation of the facility. In
addition, Sexton will try and dispose of the waste at a
landfill that will indemnify them and us from all
liability and remediation costs eligible for recovery
under RCRA or CERCLA.
Solid waste will only be disposed of at a landfill site
which meets the most stringent environmental protections;
that is a landfill which meets subtitle "0" requirements.
9. The initial tipping fee proposed by Sexton is $45.13. If
at the time actual contracts are negotiated, the original
proposed costs for transportation and landfill disposal
can be reduced, then the City benefits by 60% and Sexton
benefits by 40% in such decreases and savings.
10. The city negotiated assurances of maintaining the lowest
possible rates compared to most other users of the
transfer station through a number of controls. No other
City using the facility will pay a lower tip fee than
Chula Vista. If Sexton owns a collection contractor,
Chula vista receives their price. Large volume private
disposal contracts would not be charged less than we
would. Finally, we would benefit from the average
tipping fees charged to all customers during the previous
6 months.
11. During the operational term, the city has the right to
review subsequent transportation and disposal contracts.
If the city is able to secure transport or disposal
commitments lower than those presented by Sexton, then
Sexton must enter into contract negotiations with such
entities. The terms between the Sexton and city
alternate, if there is one, should be generally similar.
If there is a disagreement as to the comparable
provisions which Sexton believes is still to their
disadvantage, the matter can be taken to binding
arbitration.
If there are resultant decreases in future transport or
disposal contracts, the city benefits by 60% of the
reduction and Sexton by 40%. It has been further
/!- {103
clarified that fees are paid only on the tonnage that is
actually transported or disposed of and not the tonnage
tipped into the transfer station.
12. Facility Construction and other fixed cost components are
not subject to any adjustment during the contract term.
For the variable cost components, the agreement states
they shall be adjusted annually by the change in C.P.I.
for the San Diego Region. Adjustments are capped at not
to exceed 5% unless the C.P.I. exceeds 9% in anyone
year, in which case the increase above 9% is then passed
through. with the breakdown of the total costs into the
various components, the limitation on fixed cost
adjustments and the review and approval of transport and
disposal contracts, staff was comfortable in supporting
an automatic C.P.I. pass-through.
13. city customers delivering acceptable recyclables to the
facility can do so without charge.
14. Sexton shall pay the City a service fee over each ton of
waste delivered to the facility other than from the city,
its agents or franchised hauler. The fee shall be 6.65%
of the tipping fee. At the initial proposed fee of
$45.13, this would equate to $3.00 per ton.
15. A formula has been negotiated giving the city, and
providing the ratepayers, extra revenue on a sliding
scale based on being able to market additional tonnage
growth to the facility.
B. ISSUES OF DISAGREEMENT
There are two main issues of disagreement with Sexton, of which one
is a money issue and the other is a timing issue.
1. Facility Service Fee (Host Fee)
Sexton and the city have agreed that Sexton shall pay the
city a monthly service fee for each ton of waste received
at the Facility, except for waste generated by city
facilities and waste delivered from Laidlaw, as our
franchised hauler.
Sexton has proposed a one dollar per ton service fee and
contends that that is the maximum they can afford to pay
and still keep their rates competitive. The one dollar
is folded into their initial price of $45.13. city staff
has taken the position that the service fee should
represent 6.65% of the tipping fee as established in the
agreement. Based on the initial rate of $45.13, this
would amount to three dollars per ton. The amount of
~
IL/I
revenue difference at the start of operation would be
about $14,500 annually based on Sexton's proposal and
$45,000 annually based on the city's proposal. In years
3-5, the amounts would be about $192,600 and $600,000.
The amounts would change respectively when the facility
is operating at full capacity from $335,000 under the
Sexton service fee proposal to $1,000,000 annually under
the city service fee proposal. This assumes a constant
tipping fee and increasing volume. As the tip fee
increases, the service fee would increase even more.
2. Timing and Conditions of Agreement
Sexton and the City disagree over what is termed the
"back out" or "walk away" provisions. Sexton would like
the agreement, and thus the relinquishment of the City's
flow rights, to become effective immediately upon
execution of the agreement by both parties. The City has
drafted the ability to walk away from the agreement and
reimburse Sexton for out-of-pocket expenses at a couple
of key points in time. The walk away points would be
prior to the facility being permitted by the State, prior
to site acquisition and prior to construction of the
facility, with 30 days' notice by Sexton prior to each
event. This process would give the city additional
flexibility to determine if the transfer station is still
the preferable and most cost effective long-term option.
The current amount owed Sexton as of March 1996 is
$280,000 should the City decide to walk away prior to
permits being approved by the State. Should the city
decide to walk away subsequent to State permits being
approved but prior to rate acquisition, the cost could be
up to an estimated $365,000. Should the city decide to
walk away after permits are issued and after the site is
acquired but prior to construction, the cost could be an
estimated $2,300,200. .
Enclosed for Council consideration are further statements
from Sexton, Hazard and Amcor's representative as to why
the walk away provisions should be deleted and the flow
agreement executed and why the host fee should be reduced
(Exhibits A-C).
3. Additional Choices As to How to Proceed
a) continue the Flow Agreement
Another option to the walk away provisions would be
to continue the flow agreement for some period of
time, say 60 or 90 days. As Council is aware, the
County is in the process of negotiating a buyout of
X-
I/.,5
the NCRRA plant and has advised that the tip fee
will be reduced to $40/ton on July 1, 1996. The
pending lawsuit by the 9 cities against the County
may also be close to resolution. 'Laidlaw has
developed a prototype "pod" truck system which
could allow the city to transport its waste out of
County without a transfer station and is developing
a financial proposal to the City therewith. (See
attached letter from Laidlaw dated March 13, 1996,
Exhibit D.)
Finally, a major manufacturer who might use paper
fiber material which would be recoverable from a
transfer station is still assessing its locational
needs and the possibility of locating in San Diego
County. The transfer station permitting by the
State is still estimated to take about another 180
days. As always, it is a dynamic process.
b) Approve the Agreement
Obviously, executing the flow agreement at this
time without walk away terms or a continuance is
likewise an option but would inalterably commit the
city to develop the transfer station. From
Sexton's point of view, they have spent
considerable time and effort in the planning and
processing of the request and desire to build and
operate the facility. The R. E. Hazard Contracting
Company, the transfer station property owner, has
also been more than patient holding the land for
which they thought an option would have been
exercised last Fall, with a close of escrow this
Fall. On the other hand, Sexton is guaranteed of
being reimbursed for out-of-pocket costs of up to
$250,000 plus a $90,000 management fee under the
current agreement. .
Sexton and the City have both continued to
negotiate in good faith up to this point on the
joint assumption the transfer station will happen.
The new developments by the County and Laidlaw have
materialized only in the last few weeks. Thus,
approval of the agreement with no contingencies is
not recommended.
C. DENY THE AGREEMENT
The agreement could be denied or direction given to renegotiate.
As staff supports the content of the agreement and it could offer
a number of ,economic and other advantages to the city, there may
not be any reason to simply deny the agreement.
j{...
I ~&
FISCAL IMPACT:
The transfer station offers the city flexibility and an option to
the existing county System which is not easily quantifiable. The
tip' fee proposed, $45.13, is currently $2. 37/ton less than the
county tip fee of $47.50. However, the County tip fee is proposed
to go down to $40/ton on July 1, 1996. The ability of the County
to retain fees at that level and for what period of time is
unknown.
The agreement provides a service fee to the City of between $45,000
per year to $1,000,000 per year over the 10 year term, as
operational capacity of the facility is achieved. Revenue sharing
for certain excess tonnage which might be delivered to the facility
could generate an additional $6,000/month average to the City at
some unknown point during the contract term.
Once a flow agreement takes permanent effect, the city will be
committed to the transfer station's construction, operation and
use. The walk away rights stipulated in the agreement could cost
the City $280,000, up to $365,000, or up to $2,300,200, depending
upon whether the walk away is exercised now, after permits are
issued but prior to site acquisition, or after site acquisition but
prior to construction.
x (~7
This page blank.
/&~
Mar. 14. 1996 1:07PM JIJJ1N SEXTON CONTRCTR
No. 9870 P. 2/6
JOHN 5EXTON
SAND & GRAYEl CORP.
1815SixJlhWoIfRoati
HiIkide, 1li11lis60/62-2195
108-44P-1250
FAX: 70H49-0r77
@1Ii..h.I.<v<\Idr...
~exton
EXHIBIT A
March 14, 1996
The Honorable Mayor Shirley Horton
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Visa, California 91910
Dear Mayor Horton:
City Staff has kindly allowed Sexton to attach to its staff report
this letter regm:ding the proposed solid waste transfer station/material
recovery facility to be located at 1855 Maxwell Road on land now owned
by RE. Hazard Contracting Co. The contract being offered for yow
consideration, termed a "flow control agreement" by City Staff; considers
that the City of Chula Vista would commit to direct the solid waste under
the control of its franchise agreement to the proposed facility, and that
Sexton will be completely responsible for all costs ofIand acquisition,
permitting, construction, and operation of the proposed facility. While
negotiations have been lengthy, your Staffhas worked diligently tx:J come
to a fair and well-negotiated agreement while protecting the best interests
of the City ofChula Vista.
We would appreciate your review and consideration of two issues
which remain unresol,:ed between Sexton and City Staft:
The first item reIate& to what has become known as the "walk-
away" provision. This provision was included in a previous agreement
betw~ Sexton and the City wherein Sexton was charged with only
siting, design, and pennitting of a facility - but not ownership. In the
context of a publicly owned facility, that concept was appropriate.
However, City Staffhas attempted to move thiswa1k-away concept to the
current agreement where, in our view, it is inappropriate. Sexton is
committing its own capital to land acquisition, permitting, construcpon,
and operation of the facility. !fit is to make that commitment, it needs
certainty that the agreement with the City is firm,
1&1
Mar. It 1996. 1:07PM
JOHN SEXTON CONTRCTR
No. 9870 P. 3/6
. Page Two
, .
. .
The walk-away provision has cU11'ently complicated any
relationship that can be negotiated between Sexton and Hazard relating to
Sexton's purchase of the property, A letter from Hazard is included for .
YOUl" information reganling those concerns. We sincerely believe that the
agreement as proposed by Sexton more than adequately protects the City
for the next twenty year period ftom the previously unpredictable
fluctuations in tenus and pricing of its nearest solid waste disposal
alternative.
The second and equally important item relates to the "facility
service fee." Sexton recognized early in this process the conec:pt of
paying such fees to the c<;>mmunity in which privately owned and
operated facilities are cons1ructed, and proposed to pay to Chula Vista $1
for each ton of waste received by the facility which is not dcliverc:d under
the City's franchise agreement. We have estimated this volume to be in
the range of 600 tons per day. This represents an annual fee of
approximately $160,000 to $170,000 1:9 be paid to the City by Sexton.
Throughout our negotiations, City Staffhas maintained a position
of ~uesting payment at an amount of $3 for each ton delivered. The
actual impact of this differenc~ presents to Sexton and its business .
associate, Am.cor~ an unacceptable busmess risk. We have advised the
City ftom the begjnnlng oftliese negotiations tlu\t the $1 per ~on fee is
reasonable and acceptable and has always been calculated in Sexton's
flD.ancial projections. A $3 host fee might necessitate a higher tip fee
which places the facility at a competitive disadvantage. It is in the best
interest of both the City and Sexton to aUract o~ide waste to this facility,
The $1 fee proposed by Sexton is the level at which we believe this
facility can attract'sufficient outside wasteflows.When considered with
other financial incentiv~ provided to the City, the $3 per ton fee
requested by City Staff is excessive in ow: view. 'Included for 'your
infonnation is II letter from Amcor describing its concerns with regard to
the facilitY service fee issue.
(.10
Mat It 1996 1:08PM JOHN SEXTON CONTRCTR
No. 9810 p, 4/6
Page Three
Sexton and Amcor would appreciate your consideration and allow
the contract to be Q:c:cuted at a fair fac11ity serVice fee of$1 per~.
We appreciate your consideration and we thank CitY Staff for the
opportunity to provide this information to you.
ay,nw~
Ira Ohen
President .
Chief Operating Officer
,
jn
att.
co: Scott Alevy .
John Moot
. Stephen Padilla
Jcny Rindone
"
I
, .
II!
,
This page blank.
/}V
MAR-14-1996 10:16 FROM R.E. HAZARD
TO
5855612 P.02
EXHIBIT B
R.E. HAzARD CONTRACTING COMPANY.
ENGINEERIN~ e. ~.r;, ~ONTRACTORS
Man:h 14, 1996 ,~w.)
INCORPORA18J 1926
Mayor Shirley Horton and Members
of the Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton and City Council Members:
Our Company has been in negotiation for the sale of our property since December, 1994. We
have negotiated with the City in good faith during this period and have not :received a defmitive,
binding purchase agreement. On December 22, 1994 we received a draft of a Letter of
Undersmndi1\g with the City as a prelude to a finalized option and purchase agreement. The
Letter of UnderstJlnding in its final form was dated April 25, 1995 and signed by Mr. Hazard
on April 27, 1995. When Mr. ~ signed this Letter of Understanding he believed this
transaction would be accomplished in a fair and equitable manner with the City. Subsequently,
the City had 10hn Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation commence additional negotiations with
our Company which have continued to this date. Meanwhile, the City has commenced those
studies, design reviews, etc. that are associated with ownership of property. Relying on the
good faith of the City, Hazard has oot only suffered an economic disadvantage by holding
marketable property off the market without an agreement, but it must now deal with the
uncertainty of whether this project will ever go forward at all.
It is time for the city to act in a more business like manner and complete its commitment to the
R.E. Hazard Contracting Company. In order to do this, the City must either enter into a
biDding agreement directly with the R.E. Hazard Contracting cOmpany or, if Sexton is going
to be the City's agent, then the City must ellter into a binding agreement with Sexton that cannot
be terminated so that our Company can have a binding agreement with Sexton.
The R.E. Hazard Contracting Company is not willing to extend itself any further. We have
been patient during this whole process beCause we thought that the City and Sexton were close
to J11a Idog a binding agreement. The insistence by the City that it be allowed to terminate the
agreement with Sexton at any time makes negotiations and any agreement with Sexton absolutely
unacceptable to our Company.
Very tmly yours,
R.E. HAZARD CONTRACTING COMPANY
,e1J,~~ ~ j
R.D.
Executive Vice President
cc: Sexton Sand &. Gravel
11b\1996lhollOD.m!4
_.~
6465 MARlNDUSTRY PLACE P.O. BOX 22901X1 SAN DIEOO. CAUFORNIA 92192 (SiS1587-;36O)
TOTAL P. 02
/73
This page blank.
(7f
I
Mar. 14, 1996
1:09PM
JQHN SEXTON CONTRCTR
sggCONSULT'
110. 9870_P. 6/6
..
FaxATIN.: Ira Cohen
EXHI BIT C
Number of pages;'" 1 ..
.'
From: Stewart G. Gordon
Fax Number: (203) 661-4051
D,a!e: 0311.3196
Phone Number: 203 622-0e&4
Re: Transfer station- AMCOR ISSUE RESPONSE
Just spoke with Amcor - while I'm still waiting to learn their new timetable for
filing an Initial $!udy - I got a surprisingly concerned reaction to the host fee
issue. It seemed to fall on 2 issues _
1. Their Board must approve the Transfer Station investment and they viewed
this High Host Fee as financially undesirable both due to higher costs but also
due to lower volumes (revenues) thN the Station'" related financial negative.
2. They were equally concerned fhat an unrealistic Host fee would reduce
'.
volume thru the T.S. and would make it an even lower source of fibre for a milt.
,.
..
/15
...
, ,.
This page blank.
.;1~
8888881
EXH1 BIT D
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS
i+'F! I 4 .
Ii I 1f'l0'"
'J~,b
March 13, 1996
96-LWS-1022
George Krempl
Deputy City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 919IO
Dear Mr. Krempl,
Thank you and City Stafffor joining us at our facility on Februaty 9, 1996 for a
demonstration of our "detachable body" or "pod" system. As you know, we have been
researching and developing this system for some time as this service option can provide
the City with long term and low cost disposal security.
On February 22, 1996 I received your request for Laidlaw Waste Systems to provide the
City with full cost proposals for implementing the pod system. As we have discussed,
Laidlaw is preparing proposals for the various scenarios requested by you as follows;
I. Implementing the pod system as soon as possible.
2. Phasing the pod system in over a specified period (approximately 2-4 years).
3. Combining the implementation of the pod system with the implementation of
Automated Residential Refuse Collection.
We are adhering to your schedule to provide the proposals within thirty to forty-five days
so that Staff can give them the appropriate consideration. In order to respond to your
request to include multiple disposal sites and automated residential collection and to
ensure that Our proposals provide the City with the flexibility of utilizing the lowest cost
disposal options, we are working with numerous outside parties and numerous options.
On Tuesday, March 19, 1996, the City Council will consider entering into a ten year flow
control agreement. I respectively request that this item be continued until Staff and the
City Council have been able to fully evaluate Laidlaw's pod system proposal. Upon
consideration of our proposal, we are certain that our options wil1 provide the City with
cost effective and environmentally appropriate waste disposal services for Chula Vista
generators. It doesn't make sense to enter into a ten year flow control agreement until
Staff has had the benefit of considering our proposal.
/77
P.o. BOX 967 . Chula Vista, California 91912 . (619) 421-9400 . FAX (619) 421-0841
Recycled Paper
Page 2
There are scenarios where the "pod" system may be the appropriate option for providing
Chula Vista residents and businesses with cost effective collection and disposal service.
There are also opportunities to provide more fiber for recycling through Laidlaw's
curbside recycling and commercial recycling programs. As your long-term local service
provider and partner, I appreciate your consideration of our request to continue a decision
on the flow control agreement until our proposal is considered.
\~
Daniel P. Higgins
General Manager
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
/jw
171
March 14, 1996
Agreement for Transfer Station and Materials Recovery
I. Parties
The parties to this transaction are:
A. Sexton. John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp., an Illinois corporation, whose
principal place of business is Hillside, Illinois (herein, "Sexton"); and,
B. City. The City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of
California (herein, "City").
II. Date.
This agreement is made this _ day of , 1996 for the purposes of reference only,
and effective as of the date last executed between the parties.
III. Recitals.
A. The City desires to assure its residents of long term, efficient trash disposal and
recycling services;
B. The County solid waste enterprise has been rendered economically unstable as a
result of the NCRRA Solid Waste Recycling Facility;
C. Sexton has offered to capitalize and operate a trash transfer station and materials
recovery facility if it can have assurance of solid waste to process;
D. City is willing to give assurances of delivery of solid waste, to the extent legal, if
it can have assurances of effective trash disposal and cost effective materials
recovery to meet waste stream reduction goals of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO DO HEREBY AGREE, FOR THE MUTUAL
PROMISES AND CONSIDERATION HEREIN PROVIDED, AS FOLLOWS:
//7f
IV. Definitions.
A. "Original Agreement" means that agreement dated July 19, 1994, entitled:
"Agreement with John Sexton Sand & Gravel Company for Site Selection, Permitting
Services and Conditionally Optional Transfer Station Operating Agreement,' Executed
between City and Sexton. .
B. "Site" means that approximately 10.8 acre parcel of property currently owned by
R. E. Hazard Contracting Company located at 1850 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, and more
particularly described on Exhibit A.
C. "Hazard Option" means that offer of option Sexton has negotiated with R.E.
Hazard Contracting Company, the fee owner, to acquire the fee title to the Site pursuant
to that offer of option entitled" Option Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions,' a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
D. "Specifications" means the specifications for the construction of the Facility
heretofore prepared by , dated , and on file in the office
of the Planning Director, a footprint layout of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
E. "Facility" means a transfer station and materials recovery facility constructed at the
Site.
F. "Mixed Solid Waste" means all non-source separated residential, commercial,
institutional and industrial, non-hazardous and non-infectious putrescible and non-
putrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, rubbish, industrial
wastes, demolition and construction wastes.
G. "Franchised Hauler" means all haulers of Mixed Solid Waste to which City has
issued a franchise or issues a franchise to during the term of the agreement. For purposes
of this Agreement the term "Franchised Hauler" includes the City, in the event the City
discontinues the use of a private hauler and collects or hauls Mixed Solid Waste itself.
H. "Qualified Customer" means (1) a Franchised Hauler tendering Mixed Solid Waste
or Recyclables for disposal or recycling at or by the Facility originally generated from a
generator in the City, or (2) a business or individual resident of the City tendering for
disposal at the Facility Mixed Solid Waste or Recyclables generated in the City.
I. "Recyclables" means those commodities the City currently collects in its curbside,
multi-family and yard waste recycling collection programs at the time this agreement is
executed, a list of which is attached as Exhibit D. Both parties shall meet and confer in
good faith to amend the list upon request, Sexton shall not unreasonably prevent the
addition of a material for which a market(s) has been identified.
;/ I!t)
J. "Non Conforming Waste," includes hazardous, extremely hazardous, acutely
hazardous, infectious substances and wastes, (as those terms are defined by applicable
federal, state or local laws or regulations), and/or combination of wastes, which because
of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may
pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed. Non-
Conforming Waste shall not include "household hazardous waste" (as defined in California
regulations) which is incidental to a load of Mixed Solid Waste.
K. "Economically Feasible," when applied to diversion standards means that the net
market value of a commodity or group of commodities is equal to or greater than the
combined costs of transportation and disposal.
L. "Commence Construction," means the intent to proceed with construction in
accordance with a duly issued building permit for the Facility.
V. Obligations
A. Termination of Original Agreement.
The Original Agreement is terminated and superseded by this agreement.
B. Duty to Obtain Permits, Acquire Site and Construct Facility
Simultaneously with the execution hereof, Sexton shall, at its sole cost and expense, (i)
execute the Hazard Option, (ii)commence and continue to use good faith and best efforts
to apply for and obtain permits from the California Integrated Waste Management Board
and such other final, non-appealable permits from such agencies, including the City, as are
necessary to construct and operate the Facility at the Site consistent with the terms of this
agreement ("Permits") and the Specifications, and (iii) after issuance of a building permit,
Commence Construction of the Facility which is capable of processing 1800 tons of Mixed
Solid Waste per day, and to diligently prosecute the construction thereafter, and complete
construction and make the Facility operational pursuant to the Specifications submitted by
Sexton. If Sexton fails to fulfill all of the obligations within 18 months of the date of this
agreement, the remaining rights and duties of the parties under this agreement shall be
terminated; provided however, prior to such termination the parties shall make a good
faith effort to renegotiate the terms of the agreement; provided further, if third party
litigation relating to the Site, the Facility or the Permits is instituted during such 18 month
period, such period shall be extended for 18 months or until the litigation is sooner
resolved by final judgment or settlement. If at the time of any third party litigation
relating to the site, the tip fee offered to the City by the County/Solid Waste Authority is
lower than Sexton's proposed tip fee, the litigation period shall be extended until the
litigation is resolved.
/ 11/
C. Rights of the City to Terminate the Agreement Prior to Certain Subsequent Actions
by Sexton. [Sexton and the City disagree on these provisions]
1. Duty to Give Notice
Sexton shall acquire the site no sooner than 75 days subsequent to final operating
permit approval by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Prior to
Site acquisition and prior to construction of the Transfer Station and Materials
Recovery Facility, Sexton shall give the City 30 days written notice ("Notice of
Option A and Notice of Option B ") to the City Manager and Mayor of their intent
to acquire the Site and their intent to commence construction of a Transfer Station
and Materials Recovery Facility at the Hazard site, as follows:
Sexton Sand & Gravel intends to acquire the Hazard Site not sooner than 30 days
after the date of this notice, to wit, on , 1996 (or Sexton intends to
commence construction of a Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility at
the Hazard site to wit, on , 1996.) This notice is being provided under
Section V(C)(I) of the Agreement dated entitled: "Agreement for
Transfer Station and Materials Recovery". You will have the option, during the
next 30 days, to terminate said agreement pursuant to terms of said agreement.
Failure to do so within said 30 day period shall constitute a wavier of your right
to exercise Option "A."
2. Option A.
For 30 days after receipt of said Notice Of Option A, the City shall have the
option, exercisable by the City Manager, and upon the City Manager making a
finding that the long term costs of disposal and diversion under this agreement are
not likely to be in the City's best interests given the known competing market
prices for trash disposal ("Option A Findings"), to terminate this Agreement by
giving to Sexton notice of exercise of Option A, and by tendering to Sexton
thereafter, within 15 days after demand, the following consideration ("Option A
Termination Consideration"):
a. Option A Termination Consideration: Management Fee, as defined
in the Original Agreement, not to exceed $90,000, out of pocket
expenses, as permitted to be paid under the Original Agreement, not
to exceed $250,000, and site option costs.
b. Upon tender of Option A Termination Consideration, Sexton shall
deliver to City all of Sexton's right, title and interest in Hazard
Option and Hazard Site, all permits acquired to operate the Facility
/ ;/2/
at the Site (Sexton shall arrange to make all permits for construction
and operation of the Facility assignable to City, if Option A is
exercised), all design and construction drawings of the Facility, all
environmental impact reports or studies of the Facility; and any and
all other reports, notes, drawings, or related documents then in
possession of, or under the control of, Sexton relating to this
Facility Agreement.
c. If Option A is not exercised by City as herein permitted, this
Agreement shall not terminate at this point, but shall continue in
effect.
3. Option B.
For 30 days after receipt of said Notice Of Option B, the City shall have
the option, exercisable by the City Manager and upon the City Manager
making a finding that the long term costs of disposal and diversion under
this agreement are not likely to be in the City's best interests given then
known competing market prices for trash disposal ("Option B findings"),
to terminate this Agreement by giving to Sexton notice of exercise of
Option B, and by tendering to Sexton thereafter, within 15 days after
demand, the following consideration (Option B Termination
Consideration"):
a. Option B Termination Consideration shall include the same as
Option A Termination consideration, plus the costs incurred by
Sexton in connection with acquisition of the Site, including the
assumption of any debt incurred by Sexton. (Sexton shall arrange
to make the financing for the acquisition of the Site assignable to
City if Option B is exercised and without a prepayment penalty.)
b. Upon tender of Option B Termination Consideration, Sexton shall
deliver to City all of Sexton's right, title and interest in the Hazard
Option and Hazard Site, all permits acquired to operate the Facility
at the Site (Sexton shall arrange to make all permits for construction
and operation of the Facility assignable to City if Option B is
exercised), all design and construction drawings of the Facility, all
environmental impact reports or studies of the Facility, and any and
all other reports, notes, drawings, or related documents then in
possession of, or under the control of, Sexton relating to this
Facility or Agreement.
//13
c. If Option B is not exercised by City as herein permitted, this
Agreement shalI not terminate at this point, but shalI continue in
effect.
D. Term.
Sexton shalI, upon completion of construction, and making the Facility operational, and
for 10 years thereafter ("Operational Term"), operate the Facility in compliance with the
Performance Criteria. The Operational Term shalI be automaticalIy extended for one
additional ten year term ("Extended Term") unless, not less than one year prior to the
exp iration of the Operational Term, either party gives written notice to the other of its
intent to terminate the agreement at the end of the Operational Term. The City shalI have
the continuing right during the Extended Term to terminate this agreement by giving
Sexton notice eighteen months in advance of the date on which it desires the agreement to
terminate.
E. Duty to Operate.
Sexton shalI operate the Facility according to the folIowing performance criteria, and
during such time shalI accept all Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables tendered by a
Qualified Customer, according to the performance criteria set forth below:
I. Performance Criteria.
During the Operational Term of this Agreement, the Facility shalI meet the
folIowing criteria ("Performance Criteria").
a. Turn around time.
(I) Except for delays caused by driver neglect or driver option,
tarpaulin removal, "compactor" unloading, vehicle malfunction,
weather, or off-site occurrences, front, side and rear loading trucks
of a Franchised Hauler shalI not be required to spend, on average
over a 7 day period, more than 25 minutes on the premises from the
time they queue up to enter the premises to the time they exit the
premises.
(2) The City shalI have the right on the first day of operation
and a continuing right to inspect Sexton's adherence to these turn
around time criteria. The City shalI immediately notify Sexton of
any failure to so perform.
/ lit!
b. Hours of Operation.
Hours for acceptance of waste. The Facility shall remain
continuously open and available to receive and process Mixed Solid
Waste and Recyclables for the hours of operation for the various
services set forth in the Special Land Use Permit as approved or
amended by the City of Chula Vista.
c. Days of Operation.
The Facility shall remain continuously open and available to receive
and process Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables on all days during
a year except the following days on which Sexton may be closed or
operate at their discretion:
(1) Memorial Day
(2) Independence Day
(3) Labor Day
(4) Thanksgiving
(5) Christmas
(6) New Years
d. Standards for Acceptance of Mixed Solid Waste.
(1) 100% of all Mixed Solid Waste or Recyclables from a
Qualified Customer tendered to the Facility shall be accepted and
processed.
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing Sexton has the right to refuse
to accept, or to reject after acceptance, any load of waste delivered
to the Facility if Sexton has reasonable cause to believe the waste
contains a regulated quantity of any Non Conforming Waste;
provided however, Sexton shall not refuse Mixed Solid Waste from
a Qualified Customer for containing incidental amounts of
"household hazardous waste" as defined by State of California laws
and regulations. If a customer delivers Non-Conforming Waste,
Sexton shall immediately notify the customer and identify the Non-
Conforming Waste and may, in its sole discretion, either remove
and dispose of that waste and charge the customer for the waste.
Sexton shall have no recourse against the City for delivery of Non-
Conforming Waste unless such waste is delivered directly by the
City or from City operated facilities.
/' /15
e. Priority Standards.
The City and its Franchised Hauler, hauling Mixed Solid Waste and
Recyclables generated in the City (under the authority of its
franchise) shall have first priority in the use of the Facility for the
disposal of Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables. Other Qualified
Customers shall have the second priority in the use of the Facility.
Generators of Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables outside the City
shall have third priority in the use of the Facility.
f. Diversion Standards for Mixed Solid Waste
(1) Sexton shall not accept any Mixed Solid Waste that is not
designated by the hauler thereof as having been generated
from a specific city or county (or foreign country in the case
of Mexico) prior to unloading on the tipping floor.
(2) In accordance with the Permits, Sexton will to the extent
economically feasible divert from disposal by recycling or
reuse not less than 15 % of the Mixed Solid Waste delivered
by Qualified Customers to the Facility. Residual Waste
may not be sent to a transformation facility without prior
City approval.
(3) Sexton shall provide the City quarterly with documentation
under AB 939 for diversion of City Mixed Solid Waste
under a "jurisdiction averaging" or "jurisdiction specific"
method.
g. Duty to Report and Keep Records
Sexton shall keep records with regard to, and provide the City
quarterly with such records of the total number of tons of Mixed
Solid Waste disposed at the Facility by the City's Franchised Hauler
(collected under the authority of its franchise), by other Qualified
Customers, and the total number of tons disposed by other
customers and the tonnage by each jurisdiction of origin.
h. Hazardous Materials
No provision herein shall require, or be deemed or construed to
require, the a=ptance or processing of Non-Conforming Waste or
/ II'?
of hazardous material or any component of Mixed Solid Waste or
Recyclables that contains hazardous material. Nothing herein shall
be construed to consider City a transporter or arranger or' generator
of hazardous material, except to the extent that such material is
delivered to the Facility by the City or is generated at facilities
operated by the City.
I. Delivery to Disposal Facility.
Sexton shall dispose of all Mixed Solid Waste delivered to the
Facility by Qualified Customers at a disposal site which meets the
criteria of 40CFR258. Sexton shall not enter into a negotiation for
the disposal of Mixed Solid Waste with any landfill that operates
under the exclusion provisions of 40CFR258.
2. Violations of Performance Criteria.
If the City gives notice to Sexton of an alleged violation of any of the
Performance Criteria, Sexton shall cure the violation as soon as possible but
no later than 120 days from the date of receipt of such notice to cure the
violation; provided however, if the required cure is of such a nature that it
cannot with reasonable diligence be accomplished within such period, and
if Sexton is diligently pursuing the required cure, the 120 day period may
be extended at the City's discretion to allow sufficient time to complete the
cure. Not less than 7 days after Sexton receives such notice of a violation,
at the City's discretion, the City may choose to direct the Mixed Solid
Waste collected under its Franchise agreement to another disposal facility
during the cure period. At the expiration of the cure period or the extended
cure period, the City has the option to terminate the agreement if the
violation has not been corrected.
F. Indemnity
Sexton shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any loss, expense or expenditure,
or other costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, incurred as a result of
Sexton's operation of the Facility ("Covered Act") whether the damage claimed to have
occurred is for response (including remediation) costs, property damage or personal injury,
except to the extent that any such loss, expense, expenditure, cost or damage results from
delivery of materials to the Facility directly by the City or from disposal of materials
generated at facilities operated by the City (collectively, "City Waste"). Sexton agrees to
defend City at City's option and tender of defense, from any claim, suit, complaint, or
other proceedings wherein it is contended that a Covered Act has caused City to be liable
for response costs, property damage or personal injury, except to the extent that any such
IIt7
claim, suit, complaint or other proceeding results from the delivery or disposal of City
Waste.
However, not withstanding the foregoing exception, Sexton shall use good faith and best
efforts to dispose of the Mixed Solid Waste, after recycling, at a landfill which will
indemnify Sexton, the hauler, the City and generators from all liability for response,
monitoring and remediation costs that are eligible for recovery under RCRA or CERCLA.
In the event that Sexton is indemnified for such costs, notwithstanding the exception to the
indemnity for City Hauled waste or City facility generated waste, Sexton shall indemnify
and hold the City harmless from any and all such costs, losses, expenses, or expenditures
(including attorney fees and costs related to such litigation) in connection with all such
Mixed Solid Waste delivered to or through the Facility, and shall upon request for defense
and tender of defense by City to Sexton, Sexton shall defend, at their own cost and
expense, the City in connection with any litigation or other proceeding wherein such costs
are, in whole or in part, sought to be recovered from the City.
G. Duty to Direct Mixed Solid Waste.
City shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law (including strict enforcement of its waste
collection franchise agreement), direct the City's Franchised Hauler to deliver to the
Facility all Mixed Solid Waste that said Franchised Hauler collects under the authority of
its franchise. In the event the Franchised Hauler fails for any reason to deliver all such
Mixed Solid Waste, City shall promptly take enforcement action against the Franchised
Hauler. In such event, Sexton will pay all reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the City
in such enforcement action. Sexton shall have the right to choose counsel to pursue such
action, and any monetary recovery by the City resulting from the action will be paid to
Sexton as reimbursement for damages and expenses it has incurred. City may at its option
direct Recyclables to the Facility. City and Sexton shall negotiate a price for processing
of Recyclables, and if they agree to a price, City shall direct the Recyclables to the
Facility.
H. Fees Chargeable for Services.
1. Maximum Tipping Fee.
Subject to the provisions of this Section, Sexton shall not charge to the City or its
Franchised Hauler, for the receipt, handling, processing, transportation and
disposal of Mixed Solid Waste, more than the lowest of the following (the
"Maximum Tipping Fee"):
(a) the average tipping fee per ton charged to all customers (excluding
Qualified Customers) for disposal of Mixed Solid Waste during the
previous six month period;
~ It!
(b) the tipping fee charged to any other city for Mixed Solid Waste
generated within its limits and delivered to the Facility by such City or its
Mixed Solid Waste collection contractor;
(c) the average tipping fee per ton resulting from a calculation of (A)
the total tonnage of Mixed Solid Waste disposed at the Facility during the
previous six month period (excluding Mixed Solid Waste delivered by the
City's Franchised Hauler under the authority of its franchise) divided by
(B) the gross revenue of the Facility (less any payments made hereunder by
Sexton to the City) during such six month period;
(d) the tipping fee charged to a Mixed Solid Waste collection contractor
owned by Sexton.
(e) Any hauler delivering 5,000 tons of Mixed Solid Waste or greater
to the Facility in any 30 day period,
Every six months from and after the effective date of this agreement, the
Maximum Tipping Fee shall be determined in accordance with this
subsection, and the result of such calculation shall be the Maximum
Tipping Fee for the next six months.
2. Initial Tipping Fee.
During the initial year of the Operational Term and subject to the Maximum
Tipping Fee, the tipping fee at the Facility shall be $45.13 per ton ("Tipping Fee"),
prorated based on actual weight delivered, adjusted as follows:
(a) Lower Initial Landfill Rate.
The Tipping Fee shall be decreased by 60% for each dollar less than
$ per ton tipping fee which Sexton is required to pay, under its
landfill disposal agreement with its operator.
(b) Lower Initial Transport Rate.
The Tipping Fee shall be decreased by 60% for each dollar less than
$ per ton for transportation of Mixed Solid Waste to a landfill
which Sexton is required to pay, after rebates if any, under its transport to
landfill agreement with its landfill transporter.
-( /fY7
(c) Components.
Solely for purposes of calculating adjustments to the Tipping Fee, the
$45.13 Tipping Fee for the first year of operation of the Facility shall be
deemed to have the following components consisting of the:
(i) Disposal Component, representing $_ of the Tipping Fee;
(ii) Transportation Component, representing $_ of the
Tipping Fee;
(iii) General Component, representing $_ of the Tipping Fee;
(iv) Facility Construction and Other Fixed Costs Component,
representing $_ of the Tipping Fee,
(3) Adjustments to Fee.
(a) Sexton has the duty to advise the City of any adjustment in cost
of the Disposal Component or the Transportation Component of the
tipping fee within 30 days.
(b) The City shall have the right to review prior to their execution,
the entire landfill disposal and transportation agreements which Sexton
desires to enter into for the sole purpose of determining (A) the price to
be paid by Sexton under such contracts, (B) the terms relating to
adjustment in such price, (C) the term of each contract and (D)
indemnification provisions with respect to the initial agreements to be
entered into by Sexton. With respect to the initial agreements to be
entered into by Sexton, Sexton shall present such proposed agreements
to the City not less than ninety days prior to the commencement of the
Operational Term and the City shall have twenty days to review such
proposed agreements from the date it receives them from Sexton.
(c) During the Operational Term and the Extended Term, the City
shall have twenty days to review any proposed agreements from the date
it receives them from Sexton.
(d) If during any such period the City is able to secure commitments
from a disposal facility and/or a transporter to provide services at a
lower price and with a lower rate of adjustment to the price, Sexton shall
enter into good faith contract negotiations with such entities; provided
however, each such entity must be fully permitted and licensed to
7" I f()
perform its obligations, any disposal site must meet the criteria of 40
CFR 258, and any indemnification must provide no lesser protection to
Sexton than under its proposed agreements. All other terms and
conditions of any such contract must be substantially the same as those
which Sexton desires to enter into. If Sexton and the City cannot agree
that such terms and conditions are substantially the same, the parties will
submit the issue to binding arbitration.
(e) During the Operational Term and the Extended Term, the
Tipping Fee shall be automatically adjusted to a level not to exceed the
Maximum Tipping Fee, in the manner set forth below, upon presentation
to the City and verification by the City within 10 days of receipt of
information which requires an increase or decrease under the terms of
this agreement. Any adjustment shall be effective on the date on which
such evidence is verified, but not less than ten days after receipt by the
City.
(1) Adjustment to Disposal Component of the Tipping Fee.
i) Increases. During the Operational Term and the Extended
Term, no increase in the Disposal Component shall be allowed
except for an actual increase in the tipping fee Sexton shall be
required to pay for the disposal of Mixed Solid Waste under its
initial contract for disposal. The increase shall be prorated to
apply only to actual tonnage disposed at a landfill.
ii) Decreases. If any time during the Operational Term or
the Extended Term Sexton obtains a lower rate for disposal of
Mixed Solid Waste, the Disposal Component shall be reduced by
60% of the amount of the reduction times a percentage
representing the tonnage taken to landfills divided by total
tonnage received at the Facility. For example, if the Disposal
Component of the $45.13 Tipping Fee is $22.00, and Sexton is
able to secure a $20.00 tipping fee during the Operational Term
or the Extended Term and 85 % of the intake tonnage is taken to
the landfill (15 % being recycled), the Disposal Component of the
Tipping Fee shall be reduced by $1.02 per ton, from $22.00 to
$20.98.
(g) Adjustment to Transportation Component of the Tipping Fee;
i) Increases. During the Operational Term and the Extended
/
?IP/
Term, no increase in the Transportation Component shall be
allowed except for an actual increase in the transportation costs
Sexton shall be required to pay for the transportation of Mixed
Solid Waste under its initial contract for transportation. The
increase shall be prorated to apply only to actual tonnage
transported to a landfill.
ii) Decreases. If any time during the Operational Term or
the Extended Term Sexton obtains a lower rate for transportation
of Mixed Solid Waste, the Transportation Component shall be
reduced by 60 % of the amount of the reduction times a
percentage representing the tonnage transported to landfills
divided by total tonnage received at the Facility. For example, if
the Transportation Component of the $45.13 Tipping Fee is
$10.76 per ton, and Sexton is able to secure a $9.76 per ton
transportation charge during the Operational Term or the
Extended Term and 85 % of the intake tonnage is taken to the
landfill (15 % being recycled) the Transportation Component of
the Tipping Fee shall be reduced by $.51 per ton, from $10.76 to
$10.25.
, (h) Adjustment to General Component of Base Year Tipping Fee.
Commencing on the second anniversary of the Operational Term, and
continuing for each year of the Operational Term and the Extended Term
thereafter, the General Component shall be automatically increased or
decreased annually on the anniversary date of this agreement in an
amount equal to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for
the All Urban Consumers (San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area) as
published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
during the preceding 12 month period during which such index has been
reported, not to exceed 5 % in anyone year; provided, however, in the
event such percentage increase exceeds 9% in any 12 month period, the
General Component shall increase by an amount equal to 5 % , plus the
amount of the increase in excess of 9 %. Sexton shall present the City
with documentation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to evidence the
amount of the increase or decrease.
(i) Facility Construction and other Fixed Costs Component.
During the Operational Term and the Extended Term, no
other adjustment shall be allowed in the Tipping Fee for
any other component or part.
4. Drop Off Recyclable Services
/' 17';?--
Sexton shall accept from any Qualified Customer, Recyclables, scrap metal and
mixed paper, without any charge therefor if delivered to the Facility by the
Qualified Customer; provided, however, Sexton may, in its sole discretion,
refuse to accept scrap metal from scrap dealers, contaminated loads, loads
which are not separated, or volumes of more than 1,000 pounds per week from
any single source.
5. Scales Testing
City or its designee shall have the right upon request to review tests of the
scales at the Facility conducted by the appropriate regulatory body, including
County Department of Weights and Measures. Sexton shall have the scales
tested at least monthly and shall notify the City and report the results as soon as
reasonably possible but no more than five days after a scale test has been
performed by the appropriate regulatory body. If the scales are found to be in
error by recording weight more than 100 pounds above actual weight, Sexton
shall make a refund to the City of the amount in excess of the 100 pound margin
of error of the tipping fees actually paid by Qualified Customers during the
month prior to the date of the scale test. If the scales are found to be in error
by recording weight more than 100 pounds below actual weight, the City shall
credit Sexton in the amount less than the 100 pound margin for error of the
tipping Fees actually paid by Qualified Customers during the month prior to the
date of the scale test. Any payments or credits due shall be less the costs of the
scale test, shall be reconciled on a monthly basis and shall be due within thirty
days of the end of each month.
6. Revenue Sharing Provisions
a. Facility Service Fee
[Sexton and City disagree on the amount of the service fee]
Sexton shall pay City a monthly service fee representing 6.65 % of the
Tipping Fee, as established in this agreement for each ton of Mixed
Solid Waste received at the Facility other than from the City, its
designated agent, or its Franchised Hauler under the authority of its
franchise during the month. There shall be no service fee for source
separated Recyclables accepted by the Facility which are not disposed of
at a landfill or transformation facility. The fee shall be payable without
billing 30 days after the end of the month, and shall be accompanied by
a report which shows the total tonnage of Mixed Solid Waste generated
outside the City which was received for disposal during the preceding
month. Such reports shall be certified to the City annually by Sexton's
? If';
outside auditors.
b. Productivity Revenue Sharing for Mixed Solid Waste.
Within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter, Sexton service
fee to the City, it shall pay to the City, for every ton of Mixed Solid
Waste delivered to the Facility by Qualified Customers during the
preceding month, which is in excess of 9000 tons per month ("Base
Tonnage'), an amount equal to the entire number of tons in excess of the
Base Tonnage multiplied by the appropriate amount per ton specified
below:
Tons Per Month
Payment Per Ton
9000 - 11000
11,001 - 13000
13001 - 15000
15001 - 17000
17001 and above
$ 1.00
$ 1.25
$ 1.50
$ 1.75
$ 2.00
For example: If 14,000 tons is delivered in a month, the payment will
be:
(i) $2,000 for the tonnage between 9,000 and 11,000; plus
(ii) $2,500 for the tonnage between 11,001 and 13,000; plus
(iii) $1,500 for the tonnage between 13,001 and 14,000.
I. Miscellaneous Provisions.
I. Assignment. Sexton shall not have the right to assign any of its
rights under this agreement without the advance written approval of City
by and through resolution of the City Council, which approval shall not
be unreasonably withheld.
2. City Waste. City shall have the right to dump up to 1200 tons
per year without charge of City generated Mixed Solid Waste, including
roadside debris.
3. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event litigation is instituted in
order to protect a right or require the performance of a duty herein
specified, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorneys fees and
court costs.
/' Iff?-
4. Jurisdiction and Venue. The parties agree that this contract shall
be governed by the laws of the State of California, and in the event that
litigation is instituted by either party, it shall be instituted in the State of
California.
5. Entire Agreement. This agreement represents the entire agreement
of the parties as to the subject matter herein addressed.
6. Severability. If any non-material provision of this Agreement is for
any reason deemed to be invalid and unenforceable, the invalidity or
unenforceability of such provisions shall not affect any of the remaining
provisions of this Agreement that shall be enforced as if such invalid or
unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
7. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be provided under this
Agreement shall be provided by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the
following persons:
City: City Manager, with copies to City Attorney and Mayor, City of
Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA.
Sexton:
John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp.
1815 S. Wolf Road
Hillside, IL 60162
Attention: President
Copy to: General Manager of the Facility
or such other address either party provides or requires for the providing of
notice.
8. Equal participation in drafting. This Agreement shall be interpreted
and construed reasonably and neither for nor against either party, regardless
of the degree to which either party participated in its drafting.
9. Force Majeure. The performance of this Agreement may be
temporarily suspended by either party in the event the delivery or
transportation of Mixed Solid Waste by Franchised Hauler or the
processing or disposal of Mixed Solid Waste by Sexton are prevented by
a cause or causes beyond the reasonable control of such party. Such causes
will include, but not be limited to, acts of God, acts of war, riot, fire,
explosion, accident, earthquake, flood or sabotage; governmental laws,
regulations, requirements, orders or actions; national defense requirements,
injunctions or restraining orders; labor trouble, strike, lockout or injunction
/1/95"
(provided that neither party shall be required to settle a labor dispute
against its own best judgment).
The party asserting a right to suspend performance must, within a
reasonable time after it has knowledge of the effective cause, notify the
other party of the cause for suspension, the performance suspended and the
anticipated duration of suspension. The party asserting a right to suspend
performance shall dutifully attempt as soon as possible to cure the cause
and reinstate tile performance under this agreement. The Party will have
a period of 90 days from the date it has knowledge of the effective cause
to attempt to cure the effective cause; provided however, if an event is of
such a nature that it cannot with reasonable diligence be accomplished
within such period, and if the suspending party is diligently pursuing the
required cure, the 90 day period will be extended to 180 days. If a cure is
not then accomplished within such 180 day period, this clause shall not
operate to suspend the duty to perform, and the suspending party will be in
breach of this agreement.
(End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.)
/ ! 9(;
Signature Page
Come now the parties hereto, and having read and understood the terms and conditions hereof,
soliciting separate legal advice as each party deems appropriate, does hereto set their hand as
of date mentioned adjacent thereto implying thereby the consent of their principal to the terms
and conditions hereof.
Date:
City of Chula Vista
by:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Approved as to content:
City Manager
Date:
John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp.
Ira Cohen, President
mtm:transfer
sexton9.agr
/ 197
This page blank.
I rr!
GOLD ,-OAST
ENGINEERING INC.
1891 Nirvana Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911
(619) 421-1151
Mailing address: p.o. Box 1109, Bonita, CA 91908-1109 . FAX (619) 421-1506
AGENCY: ITEM 3a,b
1':--:'- -------- -
" ,
!r'j
,.;.'r
~ - ------
[r
-, I
March 19, 1996
. ,
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
i; n : , . "
/,uwL MAP I 8199f...~~
f,C ..', I" " I
Ci'VI .:, ' ,
Attn:
Redevelopment Agency
Subject:
Material Recovery Facility and Trash Transfer Station
Proposed Location - 1855 Maxwell Road
Gentlemen:
Gold Coast Engineering Inc. is located immediately adjacent to the southerly property line
of the proposed facility. As owners of Gold Coast Engineering, we are extremely
concerned about all the environmental issues which will effect not only the site itself, but
also the surrounding properties. We are also very concerned about the reduced value of
our multi-million dollar project and the value of all properties witl:Un the Otay Valley
Road project area, especially the properties immediately adjacent to the proposal site.
Further, the proposed project is in complete disagreement with the "Otay Valley Road
Development Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual Addendum", dated May
1985. When we selected the area as a location for our business, and the related acquisition
of property and building our facilities, we believed that the goals of the implementation
Plan/Design Manual Addendum met the objective we envisioned for our company.
We trusted the city to carefully follow the guidelines protecting all of the investments in
the area. It is our opinion that if the city' permits this operation in the proposed location,
the city has abandoned the goal to develop the area into a first class industrial park. .
In addition, there is an Assembly Bill, number 961, in the California Legislature which
would virtually eliminate this site as a candidate for the project. We have been informed
that the Bill recently failed to pass but is going to a second hearing.
We are primarily concerned about:
. 'Air quality - airborne particles and bacteria and nauseous odor
. Noise
. Trash being blown about the site and adjoining properties
. Rodent and pest control
~EI
March 19, 1996
Page 2
Obviously the ideal location for this operation is on the county land fill located one half
mile from the proposed site. As tax-paying, environmentally-sensitive citizens, it is
impossible to understand why the City of Chula Vista and the City and! or County of San
Diego cannot work together and locate this facility, if required, on the present landfill.
Recognizing that the city went through a lengthy site selection process in choosing the
present proposed site, we challenge the subjective analysis that this is the best location.
The land use is clearly not compatible with other business operations in the immediate
area, and we, along with business operators and property owners adjacent to the proposed
site request that the city:
1. Reconsider the worth of the project in total
2. Reconsider other more compatible land use locations
3. Deny a special use permit which only bends the ruler to allow this type of an
operation in the Otay Va!1ey Road Project area.
; ,
The City of Chula Vista has spent considerable effort guiding the development of the Otay
Valley Road project into a first class industrial and commercial area. Locating the
proposed project in the middle of the Otay Valley Road project is not consistent with the
objectives of a first class Industrial Park. In addition, the proposed project will
undoubtedly reduce the value of adjacent properties.
The attached petition and map clearly state that the business neighbors of adjacent
properties are seriously opposed to the project in the proposed location.
We are available to discuss this matter in further detail, if needed.
Sincerely,
//~
Donald R. Palumbo
President
J1;
Charles E. utherland
Vice President
DRP! aw
~
v ~ 11-
Q) <r-
- . , ,
to -t <t ~ ~
0 N Ii ~
f\I <;21 ~.
I , \
-
- - ..... " -
Q)
....
::::J
-
to
c:
CI
en
to
CI
c: c:
;: .g
to
(.) .s to
0 <I>
CI) .... tQ
.9.... <(
"C oS! - .~
(.) Iv ~
Q) I/) <I> -
'" c: '0' '" ..
0 e <I> .~ "-
c. ... ...
c. J.;; a.. <I> 1~
-
0 .c: "C c:
E I/) to J ..
0 "
to e a: ::::::.
t;;; "
>- J
" ~ lP
Q) Q) ~
'" c: ca ~
::::J 1\1
to ~ >
(.) ~
<I> =::
.!:J ....
Co) -
c: ~ 0
0 <I> '"
+= ~ .s::. '"
+= - Q)
cu- ...
c. ~ .5 "C
"C
'" 8 ~ <(
:E
- ~ Q) -
.s::.
CI ~ ...
c: - r-
'c .! c: ~
CI ... 111
'0 .!!
E ~ ~
111
....
Q)
E
111
Z ~
>-
c:
to
C.
E :
0
()
:
........... ~
PROJECT
LOCATION'
ENERGY WAY
DESIGN COURT
- ..
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~, Chula VIsta MaNrlaI. ~ CESCJII'I1ON,
C9 . "co. err facUlty DESIGN REVIEW
I'IIOJ!CT 1155 Maxw.II Road Request: Proposal a 75,900 Iq. ft. materiall'llCCYery facility.
ADCIaS: SC,tU, I'IJ! NUMRI:
NORTH No Scale CRC.96.2Q
i;;
','
..
~~
i~ i
~t ~
i' ~
~~ .
if n
,
I
~
F
,
.
~ !
~ i
e,
II
~
FI
.'
ai
-----
" t!
, ~I
PI.
. Ii
'-', ----....ok.
il
,E
.
.5
~~
h
..~-(~;;;-)
,
!
~
.
"
~
(
'.
c',
"
if
~;
::
.,
"
,
~
,
h
'0
..
z
o
~
fu~
...I:
w~
I-
I-
C:!..
. o~
I
.'-
~
~~ " J
~j ! 0
,
-- . ,
!, ~
~:i
..,~ c.
0'
/. ~1
., "
,. L
.
0
.'
.:
~I
~'
!I
~,
I
I
-"'.
if Z
"
" 0
,-
~I ~
1
,~ >.
w:
a. ...I'
lJ)a
,
1lJ'
3~
'p
Il
'. ~~~
:1. I
I:
,I
: .--:iiOm
.
:.
,
I:~
,.
.
[I
.;;;;;;;;;:",
!. ---~
.
,
I
I
:. .;iiiiiiiiii;~
il
Ii
'1=..
[Ii
.-.!~~
"1
.~=
....~.I-I'''~
"~---:c7.-
, ,
~ '. ~
c
AGENCY: ITEM 3a,b
~ ;. t:
1, 'J.1
~.l! ~...::i
'} ~ ~;l"
l'i;':; ;::!~
~i12 !.Jl:'
Urf ~h:.
i
,
.
.
,-
I'
J
I~
-,~
, !;:J
: 8:~
: ~.~
---' .-'"'-
o
~
:>
w.
...I:
W.
I
1-'
(j);;
<,
w~
; ~
"
~.. - "'I
.." !ih
~~ ! fit:
J:_ :Ji:[
'i~~ 1..i~
i!E ~hs
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
--i---
I
,
I
I
I,,:
111
: ~~
'.E
i !~
I 2f
In
0]"".
. - - '.
: .q: : ~
"
U
:;;::!
oz
~a
i;;::
<<
eu
.=:,:"
t.'::o?
,>
!:.'~
>0
<Z
"U
o
u
~
z
o
~
W
J
W
~
o
"
w
~
x
w
.
.
o
J
5
-':z
....,-
;r.,o:
;;):::
~jf
~
~
I
,
!
---T':~- ,
_'-1_._._.,.
; ~; ~
___1-
I
I
i
I!
? ~ i
iff:;
t..~
I)<~,"
i~~~;
i 11 ~
I:
~
~
z
o
~
:>
uJ.
J,
W.
~
L
I-
::J
~
t .
,."
t;i
,-,
?i~~
~.1~
<-..-
,...1
i~H
,",:
.'
~
';
< .:.~~
~d':
H~~
,;\,
h!d
~~ :".
. ./
1 _jC~
~~~1t
':Jt{,'tJ
I
~i
I'
~,g ~
i~1 I
.!~ I
;1. ;;
~,'<'<,','
~
z
o
~
.
>
W
~
W
'.
~~
~~;
"",,, a:
:':> 0
'.." cr.
~? ~
20 ~
c
Er~
J
~
.
.~
.~.
.:~ .
pi
Q!
:-\,1-
I<i'~
IF
J!~
.ill
~,~
ill,' II
$I~
~!!
.1
JI~
Of
-I
~c
::>
w.
--'~
W,~
!;
~f ;
,~ ,:
,..
'"
"
Ii
~i!!
--';
,';1
c
~
~
I ,:\~I!
i "_' r;
:~r- ~',
If
~ ! ; ;
"in
:;~ ~
:'w
x I:'.. ~
~~
"0
~:i
~
,.
23
.
~;i:~US ,-
.1;: ~ - -... !
!
i
,
- u
.
,
~ ~
o
(<;1
i ~
,
.
"
::
ii
.! J;, .); Ii. n
j 1 ; ; c; ;!'; j .~ j' j i 1/
S ~g$J!~J~!~f~_il'
~ ? ~ j ~ j t l 'f ~ ~ i . ~ i ~ I Ii
! " : : : ; ; : :~ : : : :.: 1 ; II II
~ Ii !. : r> t , f t!~ :J ic':~ 3, Ii H
,I ,.
"'
.. -
<39 @
~ @
"
~
,
--- - It, I -! ......" U
~l:~j" ,. ::-~c:t...
@'@:it4t~~'
I~@
@
~
(])
@)
z-$-
"
:;i
,;j
Q.
III
(J
'"
1:1
C
CiI
...J
OJ
;:,
-
Q.
oJ;)
(J
<=
o
o
CIJ
..,.-
z
~
"
~
w
~
~
"
o
o
z
~
"
"
~
~
~
~
w
"
Z
o
u
c
o
'"
e
UI
(j
.'1
..
, II
Illj" f
I,; i:
..!
IHr
D Hf
illi
gf/'
.
'I'..
':,
, .
,
,
[66l '6(; AoV'J
"-:(\
1'~:-..... -'
U' ,
:J't ,
,~I,{~li( fiJ11'~y/,
,..'!f .~. '.
lIY,jf~c~ '.
11N"'4~i;'
. ~ ~
;':'!'''''''~'''''"d'' ."~' . ~~.
. ,.' . ..n'
....ifr..~ , 010.,' : I#'..'.~..', ~.,~~~.
.~Z'IIiI.. .k __' ~ -'* :.<t. ';!~,'r_
"
i !! I i
!!i !,ji!lli!
I i Ii', II !'
!fffl! of
~o!DII(~I'nH
g I I \1iI
/
/
/
.----/
-'1
\
/
/
,
I
I
I
I
~.
.~
I
I
z-$-
-...- -- "-'- ----
---
iT"""" ,.
I ~ II
h z
>~5 ~
0, .
E~;! ...
"'..s !::
;~ c
~
I
~
~
. j,
..
il I ~
~: I u
Ie , If
! !
.- ,
J
'I:
....--.I~
J - ~ po ..
111
~'
I .J
_ __ __ r -
-n' --
:-1---+ u ,-L
I: :, i i ;i
, I ~ ' ,r
r ," ~ i I I
r' u' , '
, . I r' . r '
I':: i l j : ; I
" . ; ! . i r
," i r' i
, . j r '
" , ' . i i "
II'" i ! ; i '
r ' ! ii'
I ; ! ii'
L' .il i ' ;' i ;
, ! .' I I
. I I . j
I ' -; I '
, ! . I I
t i";'
. I . I
e :,.: - -t r' "
. . __ _. i! i I
! -T--'-r" i i
:~. . ,"
! . i I
._ ..' 1;1'; I
i -r'-' i ;
, W I '~, ,'"
i ;
!0/ I
; I
i i
i i
i i
j i
i j
j i
_._. ej !
"'r
II
/'
i
,
i
!
I
"
J
;. ~
'i
.!~
f'r'
,
I'
,J"
Ii,
1'1
&'-'
I
l
~:o>
. -
r
i
i
j
;
i
;
i
j
i
;
i
i
i
j
;
i
i
i
i
;
i
j
i
,
i
;
i
i
i
j
;
;
i
i
r
i
;
i i
j
i
;
;
i
;
i
;
i
.,
i ! I
i J i: J
i I : I! r joruJr::::rn
Ii: I! 11wnt:rn
: i " 'ii:omrn ;
; i 11ft'
; ; j ,r .liUJITjT=-1JJ
i i ; '--I.-Lf-
_~ ! :: :~TT1
Cb .- I . r"'.......-'-;L---l-U .
'lb-_$"-F~' !
_.~.. '
(J)'--~6W .
Q,
;
~
,
--...,.
'f'"
,
i
,
,
,
,
,
,
i
. --,-
I
i
!!
I
j
i
i
I
II
i
;
;
i
,
;
~ .~
-....-
....._-"
-....,
"
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
i
;
I
,
r
;
I
I
,
I
r
,
,
r
i
I
,
i
,
r
S'...... ,f
, <:;:i
.~ <!J U
~! ~
.~ :
5~~ wj
t- ~Q..
"~.< ~~
;!'~ :i8
in~
i
I
I
~
~
,'I
"
I;
."
,"
',:
I', ' ,~
;; ,
i ;:
I, !
'.1
!
I"
. '
,
.
-..--
--""'.F'~";~-:';:;'-.
; I.
;
,
i
;
;
I
;
i
i
i
i
;
i
;
;
i
i
i
j
i
i
;
;
_ _._.L
;
;
;
i
i
;
i
;
i
;
i
;
i
~ - ~
~
,
;
;
;
i
i
i
,
i
;
i
,
;
1m
,/r!
Ii lif1:!
:J f.1ld Ii I
I~ I, ,ill!i
I
,
I
I
I
t I '
! ~
I,' j
J
If
!
-......,
:.........-
z+
Ii
"
/,
f r
J j f
, , ,
, I ~ I
'I <"I ~ i
f La.. I ~
w
o
::: ~
-, ,
~g ~
5~5 :g
S~a ~~
..:;!> -0
~~ ~
~" ~
" 0
~
~
~~
~~
~.
..~
A
~
: jj
"
I
'I
,
: i
-----.I~j..
----..-- J ~......
--.....---.....-
~,'
~': f~t.:..
r~ei'
ft -;
;. ~,;~.~':~ .
i~L:..
~ ~'ij.;"" . .' ."", ,
~!i~}i.;:l2::.;!i~F;'~"~~~,,,
r
".
i" '.";'
~
.; ~'.
,
...,.
...,. ,....'
;
9i
in
1!riTI.. .'"
. .
h!J ,
t--
j ~
,
. .J
AI
'"
~
I
~I' n !
~1!hl f
I
I
"
"
~ ~
.
.-,1
'1 ~
"";';
#,
.D,.
.
~~
..
,,;
".
'I
"
>.
s~
'"
"~
~.
-3
~.
.~
5
~iI
~~ ..
~.>g
..~.
O'<CD:;t
~g~~
iJ>!d~
>
>~
~~
7.!.
.:: 0/ ~~
u 0 ~~
&5:0 ~'^
~25!.: ~~
~~...~ -.~~
~t,3.o~
. -"'~Z;~~j
!?..~;:.....!...
'" ~88
~ ~ ~.o':':
.
.
.
5~~
~~~
,-.
.
.
.
.
.
~~ICD
V--!j t;
.!
-,
.,
,..
.
~
,
I I i
I I I
I1I1
.
nD....
u _____
nJ
--..--:-- -- -.'- .~.~-
.,...
:". ~--'---.__'__.:..-..-. .0.
1 "-'1
I a. -.
i (f) II
"
~,i
"';2 ~
""S.~ ~o
:(=~. t~
do. t:~
~ ~i .~
l~
I
~
~
;/1
..
..
I '11
I ..
I "
! ~.;/
j
!
!
i
.
i
.,
~
..s
-(.
I 1"'1""';,,:
.... ~ M ... ;..,:
.j