HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1991/02/19
Tuesday, February 19,1991
6:00 p.m.
.., dc:::'c::-c ':r:"~f"'l" !I"l\"'lT"'~>' ....If . " "
~:,~~.;f~~~:,~,'..J t;:~ t;,~,~: ',:.:i;:;',;:-;; ~~;h,~,:~~'\::r;;;;:;j~:~1:.).>~rtl
..., .~. k"';,: ~,.'
t. I ""'.'"
tl;~: p~~:;;:~ ''''cr\':~;;~ :i.:', ,',>', ~--'_'~;.'", .:" ':.":,~::;"~: ?';
D' '''ED ~-.' #-; / '. '. '.'..' ,,', '-. '-1.::1 Ila.' on
...0 1'" J't::I.L. ,." .' ...~
' ,., "''' . , " Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Regular Meeting
CAlL TO ORDER
1.
ROll CAIJ.:
Councilmembers Malcolm _, Nader _' Rindone _ and Mayor Pro
Tempore Moore _'
2. ADVANCEMENf OF COLORS BY THE CHULA VISTA DEMOLAY YOUNG MEN'S MASONIC
ORGANIZATION
3. PLEDGE OF AIl.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 18, 1990, January 26, 1991, and February 2, 1991
5, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
Proclaiming the week of February 17 through 23, 1991 as "Danielle Marie Martin Week" . Accepting
the proclamation will be Danielle Marie Martin.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 6 through 15)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember or a member of the public requests that the
item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form"
available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in
favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.)
Any items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed under the subsequent agenda item entitled "Items
Pulled from the Consent Calendar. "
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a, Request to have City contact owner of property at southeast comer of "E" Street and Third
Avenue, Chula Vista to clean and maintain property. Eleanor Stubblefield, 138 Second
Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
7,
ORDINANCE 2436
ADDING SECTIONS 10.52.480 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.020
lHROUGH 10.56.040, 10.56.150 AND 10.56.280 lHROUGH 10.56.320
RELATING TO PARKING METER ZONES AND PERMIT PARKING (second
reading and adoption) . At its 11/20/90 meeting, Council approved staffs
recommendations to establish a parking permit system and change the one.
AGENDA
-2-
February 19,1991
hour meters on Third Avenue to two hours. Staff recommends Council
place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Community
Development)
8. ORDINANCE 2441 AMENDING SECI10N 3.20.040 OF TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO INCLUDE PUMP STATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FEES
(first readinld - Section 3.20.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
provides for payment of sewer service charges, penalty for delinquency and
discontinuation of sewer service for non.payment. The consequences of
non-payment of pump station operation and maintenance fees are not
addressed in this section or any other section of the Code. Staff
recommends that Council place ordinance on first reading. (Director of
Public Works)
9.A. ORDINANCE 2442 AMENDING SECI10N 2.04.150 OF TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR CI'IY COUNCIL MEETINGS
(first readinld - At it's 2/5/91 meeting, Council discussed a staff report
regarding potential changes to the City Council Agenda format, specifically
whether routine items should be placed on the consent calendar with those
items expected to require specific action or discussion by the Council
placed under a new "Action Items" section on the Council Agenda. At that
meeting, the Council directed staff to bring back proposed guidelines for
what would constitute Action Items, as opposed to Consent Calendar items,
in preparation for implementing the Action Items concept. Staff
recommends that if Council wishes to implement the Action Items concept,
approve the resolution and place ordinance on first reading. (Deputy City
Manager Thomson)
B. RESOLUTION 16069 APPROVING COUNCIL POUCY ESTABUSHING TIlE ORDER OF BUSINESS
AT CI'IY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND ADDING AN ACI10N ITEMS SECI10N
10. RESOLUTION 16059 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT Willi LOC NGUYEN AND BAY LE AND
GRANTING EASEMENT REGARDING GREENWOOD PLACE FOR TIlE
ISSUANCE OF A COMMON DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AND LANDSCAPE
UCENSE OVER OPEN SPACE, ACCEPTING $7,500 AS COMPENSATION
TIiEREFOR, AND RESTRICI1NG A COMPARABLE AREA OF APPUCANTS
LAND FOR NON-CONSTRUCI10N - Council requested that staff determine
the extent of the City's prior commitment to the property owners and
determine if a solution can be achieved which reduces the impact on the
open space and the neighbors, while still meeting the commitment of the
City to the property owners. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(City Attorney) Continued from the 2/12/91 meeting.
11. RESOLUTION 16070 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT Willi URBAN CONVENIENCE
CORPORATION FOR OPERATION OF TIlE BAYFRONT VISITOR
INFORMATION CENTER . At its 9/18/90 meeting, Council approved a
three-year agreement with Urban Convenience Corporation for the
operation of the Bayfront Visitor Information Center, with the agreement
commencing on 10/1/90. One of the provisions of that contract was that
AGENDA
-3-
February 19, 1991
Urban Convenience Corporation formulate a graphic Design Layout
acceptable to the Ciry by 12/20/90. Urban Convenience Corporation has
asked for a six month extension of that date and staff has negotiated the
attached contract amendment to provide for such an extension. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Ciry Manager)
12. RESOLlJIlON 16071 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR 'PHASE NINETEEN TIIROUGH TWENlY-TWO STREET
IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE C1lY OF CHULA
VISTA" - On 2/6/91 the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for
"Phase Nineteen through Twenry-two Street Improvements at various
locations in the City of Chula Vista". The work to be done consists of
various street improvements adjacent to 41 separate parcels. The work
includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, excavation and
grading, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
sidewalk ramp, driveways, traffic control, protection and restoration of
existing improvements, and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans.
Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution appropriating
$107,574.70 from the unappropriated balance of Gas Tax funds to Block
Act FY 1990-91 and accept bids and award contract to Caves Construction,
Inc. in the amount of $188,019.00. (Director of Public Works) 4/5's vote
required
13. RESOLlJIlON 16072 APPROVING IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE EIJMINATION SYSTEM - This agreement entered
into by the County of San Diego, the incorporated cities of San Diego
County and the San Diego Unified Port District establishes the
responsibilities of each party with respect to compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit
regulations administered by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and its 1987 amendments, the Water Quality Act (wQA). Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
14. REPORT REGARDING POllCY DIRECflON ON RECYCUNG ISSUES - This report is
in response to a 1/15/91 request by Council for information on voluntary
commercial recycling. In addition to that response, a number of other
recycling issues requires further clarification of Council direction. Staff
recommends that Council accept the report and place ordinance on first
reading. (City Manager)
ORDINANCE 2443
AMENDING ORDINANCE 1993 SECflON 21, REGARDING RESIDENTIAL
CURBSIDE RECYCUNG COLLECflON OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND
VOLUNTARY COMMERCIAL RECYCUNG COLLECflON (first readinsd
15.
REPORT
REGARDING REVISIONS TO TERRA NOVA PARK CONCEPT PLAN - The
Woodcrest Terra Nova Developer agreement specified $850,000
improvements to the existing Terra Nova Park. The Master Plan included
expanding the park area by approximately three acres for two ballfields,
AGENDA
-4-
February 19,1991
two lighted tennis courts, and lighted basketball court. Actual additions
to the park have been reduced to cost. Staff recommends that Council
accept the report. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Continued from the
2/12/91 meeting.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The fol/owing irems have been advertised and/or JH1sted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the SUlff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opJH1sition to the staff recommendlltion.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
16.
PUBUC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER Sl FOR
GRADING OF 11.6 ACRES FOR THE ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX ON THE
SmITH SIDE OF LAGOON DRIVE - The project involves grading and
drainage improvements to 11.6 acres of currently vacant property located
on the south side of Lagoon Drive ("F" Street), adjacent and west of the
SDG&E 13SKV transmission line right of way, north of the existing Rohr
Industries complex, and east of the F /G Street Marsh. The project site is
located within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista's certified Local
Coastal Program, with a portion of the site located within an area where
the State Coastal Commission has reserved permit jurisdiction. Therefore,
Coastal Development Permits from both the City and the State Coastal
Commission are required. Staff recommends that Council accept the report
and approve the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
RESOLUTION 16073 CERTIFYING EIR-9Q-10, AND ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA
FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, FINDING ROHR'S
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED
CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE
OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER Sl
17.
PUBUC HEARING
AMENDMENT TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR DIXIEUNE
LUMBER COMPANY CONTROu.ED FILL - Dixieline Lumber Company has
requested an amendment to Condition Number 7 on Coastal Development
Permit Number OOSA. That condition stated that the maximum time
period that the fill surcharge shall be allowed to remain on the project is
36 months. The applicant is requesting that the condition be removed.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community
Development)
RESOLUTION 16074 AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NUMBER 008A TO DIXIEUNE LUMBER COMPANY FOR A CONTROu.ED
FILL
AGENDA
-5-
February 19, 1991
OTIIER BUSINESS
18. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - this is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on
any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law,
however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted
agenda.) [fyou wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to
Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to
the meeting. Oral Communications are limited to three minutes per individual.
19. ITEMS PUIJ.ED FROM TI-IE CONSEN[ CALENDAR - this is the time the City Council will discuss items
which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public
will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. Public comments are limited to five minutes
per individual.
20. CI1Y MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
b. Notice of Intention by Laidlaw Waste Systems Inc. that the City consider allowing a rate
increase for refuse collection effective 4/1/91 based on the CPI increase for San Diego
County for the period of 1/1/90 through 12/31/90.
21. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Appointment to Boards and Commissions: Bayfront Conservancy Trust "Citizen at Large",
Seat Number Nine
22. COUNCIL COMMENTS
a. Councilman Malcolm:
Legislative Analysis
Requiring Council Action: S3132 (Craven) - Mobilehome Parks: Rental Agreements and
Rent Control. Staff recommends Council SUPPORT and request amendment.
RESOLUTION 16075 REQUESTING TI-IE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REFRAIN FROM
IMPLEMENTATION OF TI-IE "BOOKING" FEE AUTHORI1Y UNDER
SB 2557 - Staff recommends approval of the resolution
Information: SB169 (3oatwtight) - Repeal of S32557 Booking Fees, Property Tax Charges -
Staff recommends Council SUPPORT.
S3388 (Peace) - Airports. Staff recommends Council SUPPORT.
AGENDA
-6-
February 19,1991
23. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: None
ADJOURNMENT
A Redevelopment Agency meeting will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting.
The following item may be deliberated upon at this meeting, however, due to the anticipated length of the
meeting and unavailability of the persons necessary to discuss the following item, it is anticipated that this
meeting will be adjourned to Friday, February 22, 1991 at 7:30 a.m. in the City Council Conference Room
for a Legislative Briefing with State Senator Wadie Deddeh and State Assemblyman Steve Peace.
February 15, 1991
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
E. R. Asmus, Assistant City Manager ~
City Council Meeting of February 19, 1991
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 1991. Comments
regarding Written Communications are as follows:
6a. This is a request from Eleanor Stubblefield to have the City
contact the owner of the property at the southeast corner of
"E" Street and Third Avenue to clean and maintain this property.
The Code Enforcement division have contacted the property owner
and requested that the slats in the fence be replaced so that
the tanks being used to remove gasoline contaminants from the
soil will not be visible from the street, and that the debris
be removed. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT MRS. STUBBLEFIELD BE ADVISED
OF THE RESULTS OF STAFF'S CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
ERA:mab
------ - I
,,,-
138 Seoond Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910-1941
February 5, 199
,... ~@~UW~ -
0 rn
lli FEB 71991
CITY COUNCIL OffiCES
CHULA VISTA. CA
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Gentlemen:
The lot on the southeast oorner of the interseotion of E Street and
Third Avenue in Chula Vista has been vaoant for some time and is enolosed
by a slat fenoe that permits view of the area inside the fenoe. The lot
has beoome an eyesore, as the area between the sidewalk and the fence,
both on E street and on Third Avenue, has beoome littered with trash--
paper, glass bottles, plastio bottles, metal oans, eto. This littering
oontinues inside the fence as well. Also inside are barrels, buokets,
sheets of plastio, and other debris.
Sinoe this interseotion is a prominent one in Chula Vista and the lot
is not a oredit to the oity in its present state, I feel that the oity,
once aware of the problem, would have an interest in abatement of this
nuisanoe. I realize that the lot owner is unfortunately the viotim in
this situation, as the littering is obviously being done by many thought-
less unidentifiable people, not by the owner himself.
I am suggesting that the appropriate oity personnel verify my statements
and then oontaot the owner of this property, requiring him to olean it
up and keep it olean, if the oity has legal authority to do so.
Thank you for you,r oonsideration of this matter.
Sincerely yours,
t.L--.-,. f. <; ~~
Eleanor P. Stubblefield
(Nrs. m. E.)
WRIT'I"EN (:OMNUJi~ICA l'iONS
C~ nJ~o.~{S-) ;J/;Ctj'il
e;~ Ai~
")) a.. t1\ puJ &, a. - J
~OG ~ctMtIoJT
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
~ 7
2~
0<./(9/11
PUBLIC HE~~NG: To add one section and amend certain
sect~o~~the Municipal Code related to parking meter
zone~ermit parking and off-street parking lots
~inance ?"I:!.,I~ Adding section 10.52.480 and amending
~\~0sections 10.56.020 through 10.56.040, 10.56.150 and
~~~ 10.56.280 through 10.56.320 relating to parking meter
O~Q zones and permit parking
~SCJ
':>
Item
Meeting Date
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution I i.,;(l.>(. Amending the Master Fee Schedule to
establish the price of the parking permits, and
appropriating $11,155 from the unappropriated balance
of the parking meter fund to specified accounts
(
Communi ty Development Director (- -" .
"/)' r'
REVIEWED BY: City Managerlt.~, (4/5ths Vote: Yes-1LNo
On November 20, 1990, the City Council approved Staff's
recommendations to a) change the parking meter time limit on the one-
hour meters along Third Avenue to two hours and b) approve a parking
permit system for the downtown area.
.
In order to implement these recommendations, the Council must hold a
pUblic hearing to adopt an ordinance which will make changes to the
text of the referred Municipal Code Sections and Schedules. The
Council must also adopt a resolution which will amend the Master Fee
Schedule establishing the quarterly price of the parking permits. The
resolution will also allow the Council to appropriate funds for the
purchase of parking meter parts needed to change the meter time limit
from one hour to two hours. Staff is also recommending that the time
limit in some of the parking meters located in parking lots 3, 4, 5,
and 7 be increased from four hours to nine hours in order to provide
additional 9-hour spaces for those people who will buy parking
permits.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing, place the ordinance on
first Reading and approve the resolution amending the Master Fee
Schedule and appropriating $11,155 from the unappropriated balance of
the Parking Meter Fund.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Town Centre Project Area
Committee, at its meeting of January 17, 1991, recommended that the
time limit on half of the meters in parking lots 3, 4, 5, and all the
meters in parking lot 7 be changed from four hours to nine hours. The
Downtown Business Association has expressed their support for the
Project Area Committee's recommendation.
.
~
7- (
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
:~ \i
2/12/91
-
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of November 20, 1990, the City Council approved the
following recommendations from Staff:
1. Increase the parking meter time limit on all one-hour meters
along Third Avenue to two hours.
2. Approve the parking permit system as described in the report
attached as Exhibit 0 of the 11/20/90 report.
3. Direct Staff to inform merchants that expeditious loading and
unloading in the alleys is permitted by the City I S Municipal Code;
long-term "arking is not permitted. Staff also recommends that the
Project Area Committee evaluate and approve or deny each request for
30-minute meters along Third Avenue on an individual basis.
4. Direct the Parking Enforcement Officers to provide change and/or
tokens for the meters on a trial basis for six months. It is also
recommended that merchants be encouraged to provide change and/or
tokens to their customers.
5. Direct Staff to prepare flyers indicating the availability of ,.....",
five cent tokens and have the Downtown Business Association distribute
the flyers to the merchants and customers.
Recommendations 3, 4, and 5 can be implemented administratively and
the recommended actions are currently being executed by the Chief of
Police and the Director of Finance. These actions do not require the
appropriation of additional funds. Recommendations 1 and 2, however,
can be implemented only after the Council holds a public hearing and
adopts an ordinance and a resolution. The ordinance is necessary in
order to change certain parts of the text contained in several
sections and Schedules of the Municipal Code:
Section 10.52.480 is added to the Municipal Code in order to
establish Schedule XV listing the location of the public
parking lots owned and operated by the City.
Sections 10.56.020 and 030 relate to parking meter fees,
hours of operations and meter zones and regulations. The
amendments to these sections will include the municipal
parking lots as designated meter zones.
Section 10.56.040 contains Schedule XI which I ists every
street and public parking lot that are designated as meter
zones. This section is being amended to include several of
the new public parking lots, the meter time limits, as well
as the new meter time limit on Third Avenue.
,.....",
.~
r7_~
.
Page 3,
Meeting
-,. J
Item~_:.L~
Date 2/12/91
.
The ordinance being presented to the Council for approval
also includes changing the time limit on some of the meters
located wi thin parking lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 (see attached
map). This issue was not included in the report to the City
Council on November 20, 1990 nor was a previous
recommendation made. However, the proj ect Area Committee
has recently addressed this issue. They have indicated that
the implementation of the permit system will require
additional 9-hour meters. Currently, there are 149 9-hour
meters in parking lots 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9. Parking lots 3,
4, 5, and 7 have only 4-hour meters. A shortage of 9-hours
meters will likely exist if it is taken in consideration
that there are approximately 300 businesses in the downtown
area ~nd if it is assumed that at least one permit will be
bought per business. Changing half of the meters in lots 3,
4, 5, and 7 to nine hours will provide a total of 221 9-hour
meters. Although this number of spaces does not equal the
number of employees in the downtown area, it is anticipated
that 221 will be sufficient to satisfy the demand. However,
if there is a much higher demand for spaces, Staff and the
Project Area Committee will look into this issue and will
come back to the Council with an appropriate recommendation.
Changing the meters within the parking lots does not require
appropriation of additional funds. The Parking Operations
Officer has indicated he has sufficient funds in his
operating budget to expeditiously change the meters.
section 10.56.150 is being amended to reflect the current
hours of meter operation and enforcement which is from 9 am
to 6 pm.
Sections 10.56.280 thru 10.56.320 provide for the
establishment and regulation of a parking permit system
which will allow bearers of such permits to park within
designated areas of the municipal parking lots. The permit
system was approved and implemented a few years ago, but it
was subsequently discontinued and permits have not been sold
since then. The new permit system makes use of the existing
legislation for its implementation. However, some changes
to the language used in these sections of the Municipal Code
need to be made in order to reflect and authorize the new
system approved by the City Council. The resolution also
recognizes the existence of the downtown parking structure
and the F Street City-employee parking lot.
The resolution being presented to the Council for approval will amend
the Master Fee Schedule establishing the price of the parking permits.
The price of the permits as recommended by the Town Centre Project
Area Committee and approved by the City Council is $54 per calendar
year quarter ($18 per month) or a prorated amount. The resolution
.
~
{~3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
;r I
\,-. ~
2/12/91
~
will also allow the Council to appropriate $11,155 from the Parking
District's fund to purchase the necessary meter equipment to implement
the meter time limit from one hour to two hours. The change in the
parking meter time limit along Third Avenue will require the purchase
of some parts to adjust the meter mechanism to the new time limit.
Decals and labels to indicate the new time limit on the meters will
also have to be purchased. The cost of these parts is approximately
$11,155 and the itemized costs are shown below:
ITEM
COST
Internal meter parts
400 2-hour rate & enforcement decals
400 "Limit 2 Hours" labels
Continqencies 115%)
$
$
$
$ 1.455
$11,155
9,075
185
440
The above-mentioned amendments to sections of the Municipal Code will
allow the implementation of the increase in the time limit on meters
along Third Avenue from one hour to two hours. They will also allow
the immediate implementation of the permit system and the sale of
permits. As soon as the ordinance is fully adopted and the resolution
to appropriate the needed funds is approved by the Council, the
Director of Finance will acquire the permit tags and will offer them
to the downtown merchants and employees for sale. The change in the
meter time limit along Third Avenue will be done as soon as the
necessary materials are purchased. The change in the time limit
within the parking lots will be done immediately.
~
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of parts and labels needed to implement the
meter time limit change along Third Avenue is $11,155. Funds will be
appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the parking meter fund
to in the following manner: $800 to account number 230-2300-5212 and
$10,355 to account number 230-2300-5368.
(A:\reports\council\report.doc)
.~
~
~7 -q
.
~~
{tV
-#
~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CffiJLA VISTA ADDING SECTION
/~ 2.52.480 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.020 THROUGH
~ 10.56.040, 10.56.150 AND 10.56.280 THROUGH 10.56.320
/c9~<::),/ RELA'rING TO PARKING METER ZONES, PERMIT PARKING AND
~ OFF STREET PARKING LOTS
~\'~I
ORDINANCE NO.,'" \.,,0
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECrION I: Section 10.52.480 is added to the Chula Vista Municipal
Code to read:
Sec. 10.52.480
Municipal Parking Lots-Designated-Manner of parking
Required-Schedule XV.
,rsuant to Vehicle Code Section 22519 the following area are
designated as off-street parking lots owned or operated by the City.
It is unlawful for any vehicle to park in a municipal parking lot,
except in accordance with the angle to the curb indicated by signs or
pavement markings allotting space to parked vehicles and entirely
within the limits of said allotted space, with the front wheel
nearest the curb and within six inches of said curb or other stop,
and in accordance with the time limits indicated on signs erected in
the area.
.
Designated Parking Lot
Location
No. 1
Northwest corner of Church and Madrona
No. 2
200 block of landis
No. 3
Northeast corner of Landis and Davidson
No.4
Northwest corner of Church and Davidson
No. 5
Southwest corner of Church and Davidson
No. 6
Near Southeast corner of Third and
Madrona
No.7
Near Southeast corner of Landis and E
Street
No. 8
281-287 Church Avenue (Church and Del
Mar)
No. 9
230-232 Church
i;
Downtown Parking Structure
South side of Third Avenue and F
Streets
.
Employee Parking Lot
North side of F Street west of
intersection with Fourth Avenue
~
:J.g-
/) /
1-J
,
l.
,
Li
SEcrION II: Section 10.56.020 of the Chula Vista t1unicipal Code is
amended to read:
""""
Sec. 10.56.020
Meters-Installation and maintenance-Rates
use-Tokens permitted when.
for
The city council shall provide [or the im,tallal:ion of meters
includinq curb or street mark ing lin~?s, u~gulation and operation
thereof, and shall cause said meters to be ma intained in good
workable condition. Meters shall be placed upon the curb next to
indi vidual parking places and meters shall be so constructed as to
display a signal showing legal parking upon deposit therein of the
proper coin or coins of the United States, as indicated by
instructions on said meter, and for a period of time conforming to
the parking limits of the city, said signal to re11l3.in in evidence
until expiration of the parking period so designated, at which time a
dropping of signal or some other mechanical operation shall indicate
expiration of the parking period. \vhen any vehicle shall be parked
nex to a parking meter, the owner or operator of the vehicle shall
pa:k within the area designated by the curb or street marking lines
as indicated for parallel or diagonal parking and upon entering the
parking space shall immediately deposit in said meter as follows:
A. A five-cent coin for each ten-minute interval of the
thirty-minute, one hour and two-hour meters; or
B.
A ten-cent coin for each twenty-minute interval of the
thirty-minute, one-hour and two-hour meters; or
""""
C. A ten-cent coin per hour for each four-hour and tJ!!rinine-hour
meter for the 11l3.ximum legal parking time limit established for
said zone; or
D. A ten-cent coin or two five-cent coins ~t//~~0i for each
twenty minute interval for each two-hour meter for the maximum
legal parking time limit established for said zone; or
E. In lieu of the deposit of tJ!!rifive-cent coins hereinabove
referred to, there is specifically authorized the use of a token
approximately the size of a tJ!!1Ifi ve-cent coin; the design and
shape of such token shall be on file in the office of the city
clerk and such design may be changed from time to time by
resolution of the ci ty counci 1. Such tokens may be purchased in
reasonable amounts from the finance officer. It is declared
unlawful to in any 11l3.nner reproduce or manufacture or
counterfeit such tokens except upon written authority of the
city; it is further declared unlawful to have possession of any
slug, metal piece or other device capable of being used in place
or in lieu of a United States coin in the parking meters of
Chula Vista with intent to use same, except those tokens
authorized by the city.
Said parking space may be then used by such vehicle during the legal
parking limit provided by the ordinances and resolutions of the
city.
""""
-2-
7...1.-
.
.
.
SECTION III: section 10.56.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Sec. 10.56.030 Meter zones-Established-Regulations generally.
Pursuant to the authority of Vehicle Code Section 22508,
?rarking meter zones and the rate of fees for such zones as
heretofore established by ordinances are readopted upcn those public
parking lots and streets or parts of streets as described in Section
10.56.040 and Schedule XI attached hereto and made a part of this
chapter, in which zones the parking of vehicles 0Pf61V ~ shall
be regulated by parking meters between the hours specified in said
Schedule XI of any day except Sundays and public holidays.
SECTION IV: Section 10.56.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Sec. 10.56.040 Meter zones-Designated-Fees-Schedule XI.
In accordance with Section 10.56.030 of this chapter, ~ri~
~ If-PI N.,r$Y#rN1~1 Ic/f I ## ItMlJl 1rJ--t0rif;XU parking meter zones
MI ~ 1'1>'11 ~ 114-tll;o/P 1#1 Mi I~##.$/ Nt I AS! /'itl /.rI# IY,~
~,n,eri~~~ are hereby established upcn those public parking lots and
streets or pcrtions of streets described hereIn in which parking of
vehicles 0;!S-t1V ~ shall be regulated by parking meters between
the hours specified in Section 10.56.150 and upon the signs erected
thereon, and for the duration specified below and upcn the signs
erected thereon, of any day except sundays or public holidays, as
follows:
Name of Street
Beginning At
Ending At Side Duration
"E" Street East 2 hours
"E" Street West 2 hours
300 ft. north of E/w 2 hours
north curbline or 9 hrs.
of "E" Street
Third Avenue
Alvarado Street
Third Avenue
Roosevelt street
Landis Avenue
"F" street
Church Avenue
"F" Street
2 hours or
9 hours
"E" Street E/W
"G" Street
40 ft. west of the
west curbline of
Third Avenue
100 ft. east of South
the east curb-
line of Church
30 minutes
or 2 hrs.
~-3-
.-( 7 1")
\ n
',j
Name of street
Beginning At
"G" Street
125 ft. west of the
west curbline of
Thi rd A venue
Garrett Avenue
100 ft. south of
south curbline of
"E" Street
Park Way
100 ft. west of
west curb line of
Third Avenue
Del Mar Avenue
"P" Street
Madrona Street
Third Avenue
"P" Street
Garrett Avenue
Ending At
Side
450 ft. east of North
the east curb-
line of Thi rd
150 ft. north of N/S
north curbline of---
"E" Street
Third Avenue
N/S
Center Street East
125 ft. east of N/S
east curbline of
Third Avenue
Del Mar Avenue North
"P" Street Church Avenue Del Mar Avenue South
Center Street Third Avenue Del Mar Avenue N/S
"E" Street Church Avenue Del Mar Avenue N/S
--.--
"E" Street Garrett Avenue 100 ft. east of N/S
-~-- east curbline of
Landis Street
Public Parking Lot
No. 1 Northwest corner of
Church and Madrona
No. 2 200 block of Landis
No. 3 Northeast corner of
Landis and Davidson
No. 4 Northwest Corner of
Church and Davidson
~ -4-
~ 7"'1
Duration
---
1 hour or
2 hours
2 hours
1 hours
9 hours
1 hour
9 hours
4 hours
or 9 hrs.
4 hours
or 9 hours
4 hours
or 9 hours
-
.
Public parking Lot
4 hours
or 9 hours
NO. 5 southwest corner of
Church and Davidson
No. 6 Near southeast Corner of
Third and Madrona-------
9 hours
No. 7 Near Southeast corner of
Landis and "E street
No. 8 281-287 Church Avenue
(Church and Del Mar)
No.9 230-232 Church
4 hours
or 9 hours
4 hours or
9 hours
4 hours or
9 hours
't'/J.ti/V:rU,(1 tN:MJ'Ij ;fie1;iw l'Niil ASI ~ !rN I /3I#A.6N /W /'IiI;f/4tj I I~"
ttlpt~"~rltXt/~~t"ti/~t/~"ltt/~i/~~/~~n~~~II"~~XX/~~/~"It~XX~w"t
tt~/tnt~t~~X 't~~/zt~~~'/J.X~ ~'/J.rit
SECTION V: Section 10.56.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Sec. 10.56.150 Parking meter-Time of operation.
.
Parking meters shall be operated in parking meter zones every day
between the hours of ~tlJYtt nine a.m. and six p.m., except Sundays
and holidays; provided, however, that whenever the city council
provides by resolution or ordinance that the parking time limits
shall be effective at other times, said parking meters shall be
operating during all the times within which the parking time limit is
effective.
SECTION VI: section 10.56.280 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Sec. 10.56.280 Permit parking-Authorized when-Sticker
or Tag required.
.
In those parking meter zones ~t and municipal parking lots
approved by ordinance of the city council, and described in section
10.56.290 and Schedule XII attached hereto and made a part of this
chapter, II /tIr/rilrirNv' I AMN IMtJI N,lN'idil.hNllV 1M! Ip~t",'i'i'ii~1 IWv' I AM'
#y.#J~f,/ Irl'#r/Y<t/'/rIcf I N 1#.Y-'i~1 ~ IUi'#M/ IWy<;ti9W I ~ IU</J<A
tUil I!'id<l.r.<til NffY'frli / I I;Wt>iJ<W I ~ I ~ I;W I M/::I1,I#/ I tlJI ItiU
It,Nr/rtWI#pt(>#U no person shall park any vehicle upon any of the
following public parking lots owned or operated by the city except
when such vehicle is parked in accordance with regulations on
appropriate signs erected giving notice of the requirements to
display the permit parking tag (or for a designated employee parking
lot, a valid permlt parkwg sticker obtained from the DHector of
Personnel in the manner required by Section 2.56.310) and then only
for the duration specified in said SchedUle XII and on said signs.
~
~
-5-
1"'~
I'
,/
SECTION VII: Section 10.56.290 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
-
Sec. 10.56.290
Permit parking-Areas designated-Schedule XII.
Pursuant to Vehicle Code Sections 22508 and 22519 and iXn
accordance with Sections 10.56.270 and 10.56.280, ;f/tt./Ni/:iltWrN/#/J
~it.X/t~/tt~//~f/~/~//t~0/ttXX4 public parking lots 1-9 (parking
meter zones) and the employee parking lot on the north side of F
Street west of intersection with Fourth Avenue are also designated as
permit parking areas wherein vehicles displaying appropriate parking
permits or tags shall be allowed to park in spaces so marked for up
to t~/t nine hours (all day). --
SECTION VIII:
amended to read:
Section 10.56.300 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
Sec. 10.56.300
Permits or Tags-Cost-Period of validity-
Prorating permitted when.
Said parking ~i-u.tf; tags shall be sold to cover a calendar
quarter of three months duration only, for the sum as specified in
the Master Fee Schedule. Said ~i-u.tf; tags may be obtained at the
city finance office. Applicants must bemerchants or employees of
merchants owning or operating businesses within the Downtown Business
Area. Applicants may request a proration of the quarterly fee if
they are purchasing a permit for the balance of the calendar quarter,
and such proration shall be made at the sole discretion of the
finance officer and no other proration shall be allowed. For
employees assigned at City Hall, permits may be obtained from toe
Director of Personnel for parking in the adjacent employee parkinq
lot. - -
-
SECTlOO IX: Section 10.56.310 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Sec. 10.56.310 Permits or Tags-Sale procedure-Placement of sticker.
The finance officer shall establish the necessary procedure for the
sale of such ~i-u.# tags, and shall obtain the necessary
f;Ut'l.I:N,/ JirI /~l:t~X$ tags which when displayed from the interior of
a vehicle shall be clearly visible from the exterior of the vehicle.
Said -g,l:iwtt/ ~ tags shall be placed on the interior rear view
mirror when the vehlCle is parked, and shall be removed before the
vehicle is placed in motion. For employees with parking stickers for
the employee lot obtained from the Director of Personnel, the sticker
shall be placed within a seven-inch square in - the lowest corner
farthest removed from the driver's positin of the front windshield
pursuant to the requirements of Section 26708 of the California
Vehicle Code.
-
~ -6-
-:l ,I{) ,
1'~
. SEcrION X: Section 10.56.320 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read:
Sec. 10.56.320 Permits or Tags-Issuance and USf'.
Such permits or ta(Js shall be issul'd to the person applying therefor,
and may be used on any vehicle owned by the permittee displaying such
permit, decal or tag.
SEcrION XI: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on
the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone, Director of
Community Development
8365a
,\ I ~ '
\ 1/\... ~" i Ii
'J" \
D. Richard Rudolf,
City Attorney
.
.
~ -7-
~1'1
,/
1:/,
,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item g'
Meeting Date 2/19/91
ITEM TITlE: Ordinance 2&/'11 Amending Section 3.20.040 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code to include pump station operation and
maintenance fees J
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works I~ I
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...I.J
Section 3.20.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides for payment of
sewer service charges, penalty for del inquency and discontinuation of sewer
service for non-payment. The consequences of non-payment of pump station
operation and maintenance fees are not addressed in this section or any other
section of the Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council place Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
All users of the Chula Vista sewerage system pay a sewer service charge for
capital costs and operation and maintenance costs related to wastewater
collection, transmission and treatment. Residents in several areas of Chula
Vi sta are served by sewage pump stations because gravi ty flow sewers are not
available. These residents are required to pay their prorated share of costs
for ope rat i on and maintenance of the pump stat i on in addi t i on to the normal
sewer service charge.
Currently, the pump station fee is either billed to the residents on the water
bill or billed separately by the City. There is no specific provision in the
Municipal Code which assigns penalties for non-payment of this fee. Such a
provision is particularly needed when the City does the billing. For example,
one resident connected to the Rancho Robinhood pump station owes the City over
a year's worth of fees and has consistently ignored letters requesting
payment. Since this subject is not addressed in the Code, the proper recourse
for the City is not clear.
Section 3.20.040 of the Code, entitled "Payment of charges - Penalty for
delinquency - Discontinuance of service when" discusses the method of billing
for the sewer servi ce charge, pen a lt i es for del i nquency, and di scont i nuat i on
of sewer servi ce for non-payment. Si nce the pump stat i on fee is rel ated to
sewer service, it would be appropriate to treat del inquencies in payment of
the pump station fee in the same manner as sewer servi ce charge
delinquencies. It is, therefore, recommended that Section 3.20.040 be amended
to apply to the pump station fee as well.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the 31st day from and
after its adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total fi sca 1 impact of th is proposed ord i nance cannot be
determined. Passage would enable the City to collect minimal delinquent sewer
pump station charges more effectively.
WPC 5464E
<g'- ( I g --_z,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM q At6
MEETING DATE 2/19/91
SUBMITfED BY:
Ordinance -z'/'lt Amending Section 2.04.150 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code Relating to the Consent Calendar for City Council
Meetings
Resolution/flll1!%roving Council Policy Establishing the Order of
Business at City Council Meetings and Adding an Action Items Section
Deputy City Manager Thomson ~
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
City Managet
(4/5ths Vote: NollYes_)
(Council Referral #2245)
At its February 5, 1991 meeting, the City Council considered the attached staff report
regarding potential changes to the City Council Agenda format, specifically whether routine
items should be placed on the Consent Calendar with those items expected to require
specific action or discussion by the City Council placed under a new "Action Items" section
on the Council Agenda. The February 5 staff report concluded that the current agenda
format provides flexibility for Council to determine what are action items to be pulled from
the Consent Calendar for Council discussion and what are items that can be adopted on the
Consent Calendar, without staff having to second-guess Council priorities when formulating
the agenda four days before the Council meeting. That report also indicated, however, that
if appropriate guidelines are established as to what constitute "Action" items, it is possible
that Council meetings could be somewhat more streamlined, with the Consent Calendar
basically approved as submitted with little time spent in pulling items from the Consent
Calendar.
At the February 5 meeting, the Council provided two suggested guidelines and directed
staff to bring back a list of proposed guidelines for Council to further consider regarding
what would constitute Action Items, in preparation for implementing the Action Items
concept. Four such potential guidelines are provided in this report. It should be
emphasized, however, that staff found it difficult to formulate clearcut guidelines and
would welcome further Council clarification of the guidelines Council would like staff to
follow in determining what are listed as Action Items on the Agenda.
The proposed ordinance amends the Municipal Code to allow an Action Items section to
be established. The proposed resolution would approve a Council Policy designating the
order of business on the Council Agenda, with the proposed Action Items section placed
after Oral Communications, and the Board and Commission Recommendations section
placed after the Action Items section.
9 .,/
PAGE 2, ITEM ~~
MEETING DATE 2/19/91
RECOMMENDATION: That Council, if it wishes to implement the Action Items concept,:
1. Place the ordinance on first reading.
2. Adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the order of business shown on the Council Agenda is as follows:
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, Silent Prayer
Approval of Minutes
Special Orders of the Day
Consent Calendar
Public Hearings and Related Resolutions and Ordinances
Oral Communications
Items Pulled from the Consent Calendar
By the Public
By the Council
City Manager's Report(s)
Mayor's Report(s)
Council Comments
Board and Commission Recommendations
Adjournment
Based on Council direction in June 1985, all agenda items that do not fit within one of the
other sections listed above have been placed on the Consent Calendar.
If Council wishes to establish a new Action Items section on the Council Agenda, staff
would suggest the following guidelines for which items would be included in the Action
Items section rather than on the Consent Calendar:
1. Potentially controversial items with an anticipated need for the airing of
views by the public and/or by Council members.
2. Items for which significant and viable policy alternatives are presented for
Council to discuss before making a decision.
3. Items for which no staff recommendation is provided.
r..~
PAGE 3, ITEM ~~~
MEETING DATE 2/19/91
4. Items for which verbal and/or supplemental written staff reports will be
provided at the Council meeting itself.
While guidelines 3 & 4 above are fairly clear, guidelines 1 and 2 are much more subjective
and will require staff to make its best judgement about which agenda items fall in one of
those categories. It should be understood that different people will have different
judgements about which agenda items meet those guidelines and which agenda items do
not. As indicated above, staff would therefore welcome further Council clarification of the
guidelines Council would like staff to implement.
ORDER OF BUSINESS ON AGENDA
In terms of the order of business of the Council Agenda, staff would suggest that the
proposed Action Items section be considered after the Public Hearings and Oral
Communications sections. This appears to be the earliest place on the Agenda that is
consistent with previous Council policy regarding public hearings and oral communications.
In addition, staff would recommend that the Board and Commission Recommendation
section be moved from its current order on the Council Agenda (after Council Comments
and before Adjournment) to directly after the proposed Action Items section. This change
would allow representatives of Boards or Commissions to have their recommendations
considered earlier in the Council meeting, rather than having to wait until the very end of
the meeting as is currently required. The recommended order of business for Council
meetings would therefore be:
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, Silent Prayer
Approval of Minutes
Special Orders of the Day
Consent Calendar
Public Hearings and Related Resolutions and Ordinances
Oral Communications
Action Items
Board and Commission Recommendations
Items Pulled from the Consent Calendar
By the Public
By the Council
City Manager's Report(s)
Mayor's Report(s)
Council Comments
Adjournment
FISCAL IMPACT: Implementing an Action Items section on the Council Agenda will have
minimal fiscal impact.
C:\AFORMAT
9-3 jq-1
//
RESOLUTION NO. /It:>of&J q
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING COUNCIL POLICY AND
ESTABLISHING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AT CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.04.150
requires the order of business at City Council meetings to be
established by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the order of business at City Council meetings
has previously been established by resolution and/or minute order
of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at its February 5, 1991 meeting, the City
Council discussed a staff report regarding potential changes to
the City Council Agenda format, specifically whether routine
items should be placed on the Consent Calendar with those items
expected to require specific action or discussion by the City
Council placed under a new "Action Items" section on the Council
Agenda; and
Council
business
WHEREAS, at its February 19, 1991
determined to modify the order in
at City Council meetings; and
meeting,
which it
the Ci ty
conducts
WHEREAS, it is desirable to place the order of business
in a Council Policy so that it can be easily found and referred
to.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby repeal all previous
resolutions and/or minute orders relating to the establishment of
the order of business for City Council meetings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached Council Policy
establishing the order of business at City Council meetings is
hereby adopted.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Jim Thomson, Deputy City
Manager
8559a
;"7
COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF CHUIA VISTA
SUBJECT
POUCY
EFFECTIVE
~.~
Establishing the Order of Business
at City Council Meetings
104-01
2/19/91
1 of 1
ADOP1EDBY: Resolution No'I'IJ~?
DATED: 2/19/91
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, pursuant to
Section 2.04.140, establishes
Council meetings by resolution.
resolution be easily located and
placed in the Policy Manual.
Chula Vista Municipal Code
its order of business at
It is desirable that such a
referred to, and therefore,
PURPOSE:
To establish the order of business at City Council meetings.
POLICY:
Except upon the consent of a majority of the Council that
items may be taken out of the following order, items shall
be taken up in the fOllowing order at City Council meetings:
1. Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, Silent Prayer
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Special Orders of the Day
5. Consent Calendar
6. Public Hear ings and Related Resolutions and
Ordinances
7. Oral Communications
8. Action Items
9. Board and Commission Recommendations
10. Items Pulled from the Consent Calendar by the
Public
11. Items Pulled from the Consent Calendar by the
Council
12. City Manager's Report(s)
13. Mayor's Report(s)
14. Council Comments
15. Adjournment
8559a
9.'6
~
)
)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE
SUBMITTED BY
Item J56' q fJ~ .8
Meeting Dat~ fir~r
potential changes in agenda format
4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No...!...
Report regarding
City Manager Ct
II
Backaround
The City Council, on January 8, 1991, referred to staff the issue of changing
the City Council agenda format, specifically that routine items be placed on
the Consent Calendar, and that those requiring specific action or discussion
by the City Counc i 1 be placed under "Act i on Items".
RECOMMENDATION Retain the current agenda format, unless specific guidelines
are provided to clearly specify "Action" and "Consent" items.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSION
Historically, there have been changes in the City Council agenda format to
meet the needs of the public and the Council. Obviously, whatever you feel
works best for you is the form you should adopt. What is being presented here
is an evaluation of the proposal for pulling action items out of the Consent
Calendar and placing them in their own separate agenda category.
Historically, say in 1983, the sequence of the major items of business on the
City Council agenda was as follows:
Approval of Minutes
Special Orders of the Day
Written Communications
Public Hearings
Consent Calendar
Resolutions and Ordinances, First Reading
These were then followed by the Report of the City Manager, Reports of City
Officers and Department Heads, and the Mayor and Council Reports.
,,'
'-J '\ ...
~ 9..9
~~
This format was changed in 1985 to fold "Resolutions and Ordinances, First
Reading", into the Consent Calendar. This was followed by a change in June
1985 to place a "Reports" section on the Consent Calendar. In effect, what
has happened is that a number of special sections that existed previously,
such as "Resolutions and Ordinances, First Reading" and "City Officer and
Department Head Reports" were a 11 fo 1 ded into the Consent Ca lendar.
If the City Council desires to separate out from the Consent Calendar an
"Action Item" section, there would need to be some understanding as to what
constitutes an action item. Obviously, past attempts at this, such as setting
aside Resolutions, Ordinances and Reports, did not particularly work since
some of those items were routine and others were not. The bottom line is that
without such guidelines, staff is in the awkward position of second-guessing
what is routine and what is not. As long as each staff report has a
recommendation as to what is required, theoretically every item on the Consent
Calendar could be adopted without it being pulled from the agenda. That may
be theoretical and may never happen, but what the current Consent Calendar
does is provide the Council the flexibility to determine what its action items
will be at a particular meeting. In looking at the actions that were taken by
the Council so far during the month of January, there are several that staff
would have assumed were routine when the agenda was put together on Friday,
but turned out to be pulled and discussed by the Council on Tuesday. On the
other hand, other items which would have anticipated to be pulled were not and
were routinely adopted. So, without some guidelines, instead of staff
guessing what might be an action item on Friday, the current format has the
advantage of giving the Council flexibility to determine what will be an
action item and what will be routine when the issues are presented to them.
By way of further background, staff held a "brainstorming" session in 1989 in
response to a Council referral to come up with ideas to shorten Council
meetings. At that time, staff looked at the County's long-standing
administrative agenda as a model. The County also tried briefly a system
whereby the Chief Administrative Officer categorized agenda items, setting
aside policy items for discussion and pre-determining that routine operational
items went on consent. Although the administrative agenda is still in use,
the County has since reverted back to a system like ours.
In summary, the current format provides flexibility for Council to determine
what is an action item to be pulled and discussed and what is routine, and
avoids staff having to second-guess Council priorities when formulating the
agenda four days before the Council meeting. On the other hand, if
appropriate guidelines are provided staff as to what constitutes an "Action"
item, it is possible that the meeting could be somewhat more streamlined, with
the Consent Calendar basically passed as is each meeting with little time
spent in pulling items from that Consent Calendar.
For fear of making a mountain out of a molehill, staff would like to reiterate
that either order of business will work and, even though a recommendation is
offered, the Council basically needs to decide what format of business it
feels most comfortable with.
FISCAL IMPACT: N.A.
JDG/mab
agenda
<?..~ 9 --It)
- I f~ 2..:_
'I
)
)
/
council Agenda statement
Revised from 2/6/91 Version
Item: JI!>
Meeting Date: February 19, 1991
Item Title: Resolution /foOSCf Approving an agreement with Loc
Nguyen and Bay Le and granting easement regarding
Greenwood Place for the issuance of a common
driveway easement and landscape license over open
space, accepting $7,500 as compensation therefor,
and restricting a comparable area of applicant's
land for non-construction.
Submitted by: Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney~
4/5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
Council Referral No. 2189
Property owner of 289 and 291 Greenwood Place had applied for an
encroachment permit to cross over open space at two locations, both
of which constituted a 3860 square foot encroachment into Open
Space. The Council requested that staff determine the extent of
the City's prior commitment to the property owners and determine if
a solution can be achieved which reduces the impact on the open
space and the neighbors, while still meeting the commitment of the
city to the property owners.
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the attached agreement
which accomplishes the following:
1. the City grants to the property owners a common driveway
easement over Open Space and authorizes the Mayor to execute a
grant deed therefor; and,
2. the City grants an encroachment permit to the property
owner for landscape and landscape maintenance; and,
3. the Property Owners pay the City $7,500 to be used to
offset the landscape maintenance assessment of the Open Space
maintenance district in which the easement is located.
4. the Property Owners convey to the ci ty a covenant
prohibiting improvement on the end of their property furthest from
Greenwood Place, thus giving the appearance of open space without
grnwd9.wp
February 13, 1991
Al13 re Greenwood Place Accord
Page 1
/0""
losing the area from the property tax roles.
Boards and Commissions Recommendation:
None. None applicable.
Discussion:
At the City Council meeting of November 20, 1990, in response
to a resolution approving an encroachment permit for driveways in
the open space area east of Greenwood Place, the City Council
declined to adopt the resolution, and directed the staff to review
answers to the following questions:
1. What commitment did the City make with regard to an
access easement when granting the lot split?
2. Can the city restrict access to the lots only from Palm
Avenue?
3. Is there an opportunity to arrive at a better solution
for access to the property?
1. What commitment did the citv made with reqard to an access
easement when qrantinq the lot solit?
The Public Works Department acknowledges that during the lot
split process, approximately 10 years ago, between the owner of the
lots at that time (Dennis Mc Cann) and the city, the City, through
the City Council at the city council meeting of September 23, 1980,
by Resolution No. 10271, copy attached as Exhibit A, committed to
the Nguyens' predecessor in interest, Dennis McCann, that they
would have access to their two lots from Greenwood Place at least
by virtue of an Encroachment Permit, No. 80-22, which allowed the
installation of two driveways, two retaining walls, and landscaping
within the City's open space adjacent to Greenwood Place.
2. Can the citv restrict access to the lots so as onlv to allow
access from Palm Avenue?
According to John Hardesty, Permits Engineer, there are no
existing access easements to the two lots. They are literally
landlocked.
As such, the law will create an easement by necessity over the
property from which the land was "carved" or split in order to
permit access to a road.
We do not know that the larger original parcel was one
grnwd9.wp
February 13, 1991
Al13 re Greenwood Place Accord
Page 2
/6 -2..
contiguous to Palm Drive or Greenwood Place at this time. We did
not further research this prospect for the following reasons:
1. The City has previously committed to permitting
access from Greenwood Place to the property owner's
predecessor.
2. Access to Palm Drive would require the City to
grant an easement over open space substantially
more extensive than the 20 feet or so to reach
Greenwood Place.
3. Access to Palm Drive would require an extremely
steep, and prospectively dangerous grade. Such a
grade may be of such steepness as to be unpavable,
and would require the construction of excessively
high retaining walls on either side of the
driveway.
As a result, staff has abandoned consideration of an access
across the Open Space to Palm Drive.
~ Is there an oooortunitv to arrive at a better solution for
access to the orooertv?
At the meeting at which this matter was referred back to the
Staff, the Staff was sponsoring two encroachment permits with
adjacent landscaping over the open space, one of which was designed
for improvement with a bridge, in the manner shown in Exhibit A.
As a result of further negotiation with the Property Owner,
the Property Owner has agreed to a common driveway configuration
which we believe will accomplish the following:
A. We have minimized the encroachment into the Open Space by
limiting it to a single common driveway which both
parcels shall share for ingress and egress to their lots,
in the manner shown in Exhibit B. (By limiting the
ingress and egress to the two lots across a common
driveway, we have limited some additional inconvenience
to the neighbors from having to worry about traffic to
two separate driveways.)
B. We have obtained replacement "open space-like" area equal
to twice the size to that taken from the driveway
easement and landscape license, by imposing "no building"
restrictive covenants on the easterly end of the parcels,
as shown in the shaded area of Exhibit B, which is
contiguous to adjacent open space parcels. While we
grnwd9.wp
February 13, 1991
Al13 re Greenwood Place Accord
Page 3
/0-3
could have obtained this area in fee as "open space", it
would have been removed from the tax roles, and not
visibly different from a no-development covenant.
C. We have gotten the agreement of the Property Owner to pay
the City $7,500 for the common driveway easement upon
execution of this Agreement. We recommend that the
proceeds be applied, for so long as said amount shall
permit, to reduce the costs of the open space maintenance
district assessments in which the easements are located.
D. By converting the "encroachment permits" (which would
have been revocable on 30 days advance notice) to an
"irrevocable easement" at least as to the common
driveway, we have reduced the potential for a future
liability resulting in denial of access to single family
homes. While this is giving more than we originally
committed, we can not practically expect to revoke an
encroachment permit after same is fully improved with a
driveway constituting the only entry access to the lots.
E. We have separated the extent of the burden on open space
by conveying an easement to the driveway and only an
encroachment permit over the landscaping area. The
homeowners are burdened with maintaining the landscaped
area, but at the same time, the City will have the option
to revoke the landscape encroachment permits, and take
over maintenance ourselves.
Conclusion.
We believe that, given the prior commitment of the city when
permitting the division of these two lots, the Council should
approve the attached agreement as the "best possible" negotiated
agreement.
Fiscal Imoact:
The City would expect to receive $7,500 upon delivery of the
agreement to the property owner, the proceeds of which are
recommended for application to reduce the total open space
maintenance district assessments for the Open Space Maintenance
District in which the easement is located.
grnwd9.wp
February 13, 1991
Al13 re Greenwood Place Accord
Page 4
/6 ..y
Exhibits List
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Original Dual Driveway with single bridge plan.
Proposed Common Driveway Development.
Exhibit C.
Parcel Map showing "Development Restriction" area
shaded.
grnwd9.wp
February 13, 1991
Al13 re Greenwood Place Accord
Page 5
It) - S/ 11;- g'
~
~
tl)
f1)
~
~
~
,.
~ ;
Q
tl ;
~
o
"'II.
f
i
o ~
" !
~ 0
tAl
I) "(
'>l Q
1
III
AI
,
.
r--- _________
----------
.
.
----~------
--------
----------
"~
. '.':.' ,..... - - -------------
J>,
~
:
"
~
. '..
,
,
,C1l
,'>)
.tJ
if
}:
~
.\)
.CI)
IJ)
\'
\::I
""\
-
.
-
. . .....
" ,
. .
.'
"
() ,
'i
..
,lJ1
,....
,0
~
~
~
~
.()
"-
~
~
~
"-
\0
.
\
\
nffr!1l[ t4 ro)JJ3
/0 ' ~
.
I
.
.
J.J J j
hJ h' }/ ~J
.0.0
I
p
L~ Ii ~ i
t> Sf!. .
~ r~ .,. J.
I 's ~;'l ri
r, ,'t, ", 'Pi g!
, !Ii I, Ii J ie
,I r~. . ,-'
~ ~J ;l!I ..1: w :-
~ ~. !j !~ ~ fi ~
~ . Ef ..; ,,' p~"
.. t ~,' .
".." " ~ ::i
I , i~ if if . ,. i
, "' ',' -r 1 " J
OO..d....i
1
;.; ,I,
Iht~,1
~ ; ~~~
€ ~ ~
t,' I.,
"i '
.. -.
" ."
Cl ,-
.. ,
5 iU
i I Iii
~ ~,~ ~ L ! ~
u. .' If'
r.. ' ;
"i n.:t ,"
ii' :: ':f. I"!:
~. '3"'
Ll,IIHi~'~
!. ~~: go i "
J i !l ~j i , ! l~]
,./dl', It' ,
r ~. 'I ~ ;:
- . "'.\ 'I I
.. 1'11" L
L. ~ r ~ ~ ,_
~!. ';:11
l!n l!~d
-'
~ ~,i i
! 5 ,~~ :
',I "
f. "', ,_
'~I.i! ':'
· i~, ,~~ ,
~ ~'J" . '
~~I'~' ..
fJ ;'iJ' ~i! '
"J'" J:JI 1 ;
5' ':', r ,.~ '
'!" ,
. ... 9f"11! ~t I
'-- - ~l'
.. .. ... ;>> x
j
,
I
I
I
Nr.
~ r f~i! )
o - I!:. .
..-t ~ '~!t,~
I - ih! J/l,~
e ~::! ~J.
f2 \i :i1i ~:~~f,
~ !'''l'J1$
~ ~j Wi t ;
, 't-- 1~
....""' ah~ u
ill IIi " \_
~! I"" J. J.
'''t' \}.) ~ -.
"" 1:1 y - <J
U; Iii ~ l 1 i n, 's1~~Hi '
1:1 ~~ ~~ r;;;dfr', \~~)'.jA
Hi C1 "- :"l '6 I.~ ,/1" J . '- II "..a."/~' ,i
:~;4ii ~"f:;/T Ii ~ ii /:"':1 '
~.~ ~ ~~~ flQ~~~ \0'" :' I I
".~,~. '1-... ~: 1>>:J~ 'I. IV. .t'~i' , II '
\~~\~~ ~ > \ '\_. i!W\~t,,,,,,;~ 1 i
i',~ \ \.~ " ";:' III/ ,<, \ ! I
. -<:,. 0";" f~k; '"
i~ ~.~ )\ ~ !\'i " 1
;I (1f~ ~~; '\ ,\",.'\ il~1 /I~ 'J I
!: Ji ~:~ '~'\\. ' ~;':'\J ,~i_6IW I.@'t /~I
j, ~3 ~o~.... ~..~ II ,f., /_4\~/ #;1 i'
t . ~7 ~" \ !l'l ~ /. 1
~ ~! t l(,-{'p 'r l, ~ (! ! / ~ I "
':<. \ f ,'b d ~ I ~:"o .~
r;I:",1 X:'~T \ ;~ll '~'l. 1.1;/ ~/#.J/; I
"\'"'' <I. ~ ~. ~.!~ ",/P,
iH' Ii ~I I \q,. ~~:;:ik~'~ ~ ~~'''' 1.1~,;/~.'/ '
'II I. ,I I'^" ,,~d"
~t.i~l: ~i! '~'!l" ~;~,:. <" '\.'\. , / k ;~r/I ). f.Y i
,J ,~~ .~ . ")l) ',:", 1,.-" I.... 'q
f;~llt I:~ \l~' , ~:;. '", . ~.9 J~~ ,/' ~ I
· " {Ill I · <.iiI, ~.~ ~ A '\...., '., ~"I/w~" ,"
:IJil"~; Iii r ~,,";I ,;> <,., ""\;." .. I ' / .>'
-'~ '~iI' ,.' Sl ...~~," '''1 1;, '1:. ',' ,~" ~
!! ~~!~;i I~! ~;~: ,~. l~ i' oJ;/," 1;/ ell ,~u".. ",t.'
" i',il~ f~~ I ~f} /<:, 6"/ .t I 't- "....
En .TV". .\~ '___ _, /' /' '\/1 tl "..' "v
- " -- '-If ) -- .... f' ,,~ "J' .
-~. --=:~~~~.~::~- rj \ \J~ t.~ U ."IJ~." \. ..~~
\
I
j
I
/6 ~ 7 t' X H I B / r 13. To fI. fl-3
RESOLUTION NO. JIsoS"L
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH LOC
NGUYEN AND BAY LE AND GRANTING AN EASEMENT
REGARDING GREENWOOD PLACE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
A COMMON DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AND LANDSCAPE
LICENSE OVER OPEN SPACE, ACCEPTING $7,500 AS
COMPENSATION THEREFOR, AND RESTRICTING A
COMPARABLE AREA OF APPLICANT I S LAND FOR
NON-CONSTRUCTION
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an agreement with Loc
Nguyen and Bay Le regarding Greenwood Place for the issuance of a
common driveway easement and landscape license over open space, a
copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista
hereby grants to the property owners a common driveway easement
over Open Space as described in the Grant Deed attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby accept
$7,500 as compensation therefor and restricts a comparable area
of applicant's land for non-construction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
agreement and grant deed for and on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the compensation of $7,500
as herein provided to be received by the City shall be applied to
the Open Space Maintenance Distr ict No. 4 for the purpose of
reducing the overall costs of said Open space Maintenanace
District assessments to the members thereof.
Presented and Approved as to form by
,,::: ~:gr:;y Atto,"O,
8533a
/4 -'1 /t()~ "
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this
is a conveyance from a public
agency of less than a fee
interest.
Declarant
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND
LOC NGUYEN AND BAY LE
RE GREENWOOD PLACE CONSTRUCTION
This Agreement is made this February 13, 1991 for the
purposes of reference only and effective as of the date last
executed, between the city of Chula vista (hereinafter
"city"), a municipal corporation of the State of California,
and Loc Nguyen and Bay Le (both of which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "Nguyen"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
Recitals
WHEREAS, Nguyen is the owner of Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel
Map 10802, commonly known as 289 and 291 Greenwood Place
respectively (hereinafter "Lots", "the Lots" or "Said Lots"),
which are legally described in "Exhibit A" ("289 and 291
Greenwood Place"), attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein, and is desirous of constructing one
single family dwelling on each of the two Lots; and,
WHEREAS, in order for the Lots to be suitable for such
purposes there needs to be access to Said Lots from Greenwood
Place; and,
WHEREAS, ci ty is the owner of Open Space Lot
Bonita Ridge Estates unit No. 3 and Open Space Lot
Bonita Ridge Estates unit No. 4 located adjacent
between the Lots and Greenwood Place, which are
140 of
219 of
to and
legally
GRNWD7.WP
February 5, 1991
Greenwood Place Easement Agreement
Page 1
/0 -II
./)
.":)'/
I
described in "Exhibit B" ("Open Space Lots 140 and 219") which
is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein;
and,
WHEREAS, Nguyen seeks from City an easement for ingress,
egress and maintenance over the city-owned open space lots and
is willing to construct a driveway to the Lots in such a
manner as is herein provided, and is willing to pay to City
for said easement a sum equal to the value of said easement,
and is willing to restrict development over a portion of the
Lots equal in size to twice the size of the easement granted,
by covenant in the same manner as if it were designated as
city Open Space; and,
WHEREAS, Nguyen will provide to City, at no cost to City,
prior to commencing any grading or construction on Said Lots,
written assurances by civil and traffic eng~neers that
Nguyen's proposed access configuration is safe, and Nguyen
will bear the cost of any additional signage reasonably deemed
by city to be necessary for public safety; and,
WHEREAS, Nguyen will bear the cost of landscaping the
area adjacent to the easement in order to minimize the visual
impact of the access construction over the easement;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
The parties hereto, in exchange of the mutual
considerations herein made, do hereby agree as follows:
A. Obligations of city:
1. Common Driveway Easement.
City does hereby convey to Nguyen a non-exclusive
right-of-way easement of ingress, egress and maintenance, over
and upon that portion of city's Open Space Lots 140 and 219 as
legally described in "Exhibit C" ("Common Driveway Easement"),
which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein, for the sole and exclusive benefit of Said Lots,
equally, and for no other or further lots, and then only for
the use of Said Lots as single family residences. Upon failure
of said conditions, the easement shall lapse. Although any
ambiguity is to be resolved in favor of the legal description
contained in Exhibit C, the parties intend that Exhibit C
describe an area of land measuring approximately 24 feet wide
and comprising approximately 1176 square feet.
2. Landscape License.
GRNWD7.WP
February 5, 1991
Greenwood Place Easement Agreement
Page 2
/t1 ' /7..
'J
City does hereby convey to Nguyen a revocable, non-
exclusive license to landscape over and upon that portion of
City's Open Space Lots 140 and 219 as described in Exhibit D,
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein,
("Landscape License") for the sole and exclusive benefit of
Said Lots, equally, and for no other or further lots, and then
only for the use of Said Lots as single family residences.
Although any ambiguity is to be resolved in favor of the legal
description contained in Exhibit D, the parties intend that
Exhibit D describe an area of land measuring approximately ten
(10) feet wide on each side of the Common Driveway Easement,
and comprising approximately 1,000 square feet.
B. Obligations of Nguyen:
Nguyen agrees to:
1. Accept title to the Common Driveway Easement.
2. Accept the Landscape License.
3. Provide to ci ty , prior to any grading or
construction on the Lots, written assurances by civil and
traffic engineers that Nguyen's proposed access configuration
is safe.
4. Pay to City the cost of permanent signage
reasonably deemed by city to be necessary for public safety.
5. Present to city a plan (hereinafter referred to
as "Landscape Plan") for the landscaping of the area described
in the Landscape License.
6. Upon review and approval of the Landscape Plan
by city, which city shall have full discretion to approve,
modify or reject, to landscape the area which is the subject
matter of the Landscape License consistent with the City-
approved Landscape Plan.
7. To maintain, until such time as the Common
Driveway Easement shall cease to exist, said landscaping in a
manner consistent with the city-approved Landscape Plan.
8. Complete construction over and upon the Common
Driveway Easement and implementation of the city-approved
Landscape Plan prior to the conveyance of any interest in the
Lots, and in any event no later than 24 months.
9. To indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless
GRNWD7.WP
February 5, 1991
Greenwood Place Easement Agreement
Page 3
1~~/3
from any and all claims, whether or not meritorious, resulting
from conveyance of the interests described herein, construc-
tion over and upon the Common Driveway Easement and exercise
of rights and fulfillment of responsibilities pursuant to the
Landscape License.
10. Pay to City upon execution of this agreement
the sum of $7500.
11. Restrict that portion of the Lots in a manner
consistent with and as set forth in "Exhibit E" ("Development
Restriction"), which is attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein. Although any ambiguity is to be resolved
in favor of the legal description contained in Exhibit E, the
parties intend that Exhibit E describe an area of land
contiguous to Open Space Lot 140 and comprising an area equal
to twice the combined area of the Landscape License and Common
Driveway Easement (2,552 Square Feet).
12. Take all necessary precautions to protect the
remaining open space adjacent to the Common Driveway Easement
and the Landscape License and to remediate any injury to such
open space occurring in the course of construction and
maintenance
13. Endeavor to minimize disturbances to neighbors
occasioned during construction on the Lots and over and upon
the Common Driveway Easement and the Landscape License.
(End of page. Next Page is Signature Page.)
GRNWD7.WP
February 5, 1991
Greenwood Place Easement Agreement
Page 4
/~4Y
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND LOC NGUYEN AND BAY LE
RE GREENWOOD PLACE CONSTRUCTION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Nguyen have indicated their
consent to the terms of this agreement by executing or
directing that their agents shall execute this Agreement as
hereinbelow set forth, and have caused them to execute same,
which shall be deemed to be executed as of the date indicated
adjacent thereto:
GRNWD7.WP
February 5, 1991
Greenwood Place Easement Agreement
Page 5
/d ./ S'
Exhibit Page
to
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND Loc NGUYEN
RE GREENWOOD PLACE CONSTRUCTION
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Legal Description: "289 and 291 Greenwood
Place".
Legal Description: "Open Space Lots 140 and
219".
Legal Description:
Easement" .
"Common
Driveway
Legal Description: "Landscape License".
Legal Description: "Development Restriction".
GRNWD7.WP
February 5, 1991
Greenwood Place Easement Agreement
Page 6
/d -/~
EXHIBIT "A": 289 & 291 GREENWOOD PLACE
Legal Description
Being in the City of Chula Vista, more particularly described as
Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 10802 recorded in the office of
the Recorder of the County of San Diego, State of California, on
December 17, 1980.
EXHIBIT "B": OPEN SPACE LOTS 140 & 219
Legal Description
In the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, Lot 140 of Bonita Ridge Estates, unit No 3, according
to subdivision Map thereof No. 8633, filed in the Recorder's
office of said County of San Diego, on August 4, 1977;
and
Lot 219 of Bonita Ridge Estates, Unit
subdivision Map thereof No. 8370, recorded
County Recorder on August 26, 1976.
No.4, according to
in the office of said
/0"'/7
EXHIBITS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
TO ACCOMPANY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND THAN V. NGUYEN
EXHIBIT "C": COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT
Leaal Description
In the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, those portions of Open Space Lot No. 219, Bonita Ridge
Estates, unit No. 4 Subdivision according to Map thereof No. 8370,
recorded August 26, 1976, in the office of the Recorder of said
county, and Open Space Lot No. 140, Bonita Ridge Estates, unit No.
3 Subdivision according to Map thereof No. 8633, recorded August 4,
1977, in said Recorder's office, more particularly described as
follows:
A parcel of land 24.00 feet in width whose sidelines are
parallel with and 12.00 feet distant, measured at right angles
to, the following described center line: Beginning at the
most southeasterly corner of Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No.
10802, recorded in said County Recorder's office December 17,
1980; thence southwesterly along the protraction of the
southeasterly boundary of said Parcel No.1, South 43. 32 I 49"
West, approximately 47 feet to its intersection with the
northwesterly right-of-way line of Greenwood Place as shown on
said Map No. 8370, said sidelines shortened or lengthened so
that the southwesterly terminations are at their intersections
with said right-of-way line of Greenwood Place and their
northeasterly terminations are at their intersections with the
southwesterly boundary of said Parcel Map No. 10802.
EXHIBIT "D": NORTHERLY LANDSCAPE LICENSE
Leaal Description
Those portions of said Open Space Lots 140 and 219 bounded by
the southeasterly sideline as described in EXHIBIT "C" above
and a line parallel to and 10 feet southeasterly of said
sideline, said parallel line shortened or lengthened so that
its southwesterly terminus is at its intersection with said
right-of-way line of Greenwood Place and its northeasterly
terminus is at its intersection with said southwesterly
boundary of said Parcel Map No. 10802.
/()-/K
PAGE 2 OF 2
EXHIBIT "D" (CONT'Dl SOUTHERLY LANDSCAPE LICENSE
Leaal Descriotion
Those portions of said Open Space Lots 140 and 219 bounded by
the northwesterly sideline as described in EXHIBIT "C" above
and a line parallel to and 10 feet northwesterly of said
sideline, said parallel line shortened or lengthened so that
its southwesterly terminus is at its intersection with said
right-of-way line of Greenwood Place and its northeasterly
terminus is at its intersection with said southwesterly
boundary of said Parcel Map No. 10802.
EXHIBIT "E":DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION
Leaal Descriotion
The northeasterly 38 feet of Parcels 1 and 2 of said Parcel Map No.
10802. No construction shall take place within this area as long
as the Common Access Easement described in EXHIBIT "C" remains in
effect.
/~ -/'/
~
i'\) . . '.
J>.
tl) ~
l'l) ~
\\ .
<. ff \ . '..
.C1l
~ ill \ .." ~
III
~ .r:;; ~
,.. \r)
l>o ~
~ ~ ....
Q
~ III
J; .V>
~ i"-
t:l \:::I
"\ "
f ---:::::..:.
- .. .
~ . .'
0 it ....
t .-
i' . .
4 0
ill /'. . ~.
I) ~ .
., Yl
'It Q () , ~
f Z ,." .
'( \::) ,0 I\l
III
~
i
I
i
I
,I
~
l
5
~
ij
S
~
OWN BY: JH
, DATE: 1l'3'~O
-----
---------
---------
--------
-
~
.CJ
.......
~
\::)
tu
'"
\{)
\
\
\
. FILE NO. P€-/94
Nc;UYEN'S E./IICI<OACi-IU'T
RE.t:)VEST AT
'. Z89 -29/ GREE/VW(JOO PL.
EXHIBIT "A'"
/4~l.O
I ~
I ,., ::?
~ \0
I . ~
,-OT 198 ~ ti
I I ~
OpeN s ~/~
\;=:__.~Ace lor 219 ]~
OpeN --~
SPAce l. ---
\. 0, /40
\
PAR I
~
\.)
~
'-J
Q.
~
~
~
~
~
DRAWN BY
L. M. G.
------
DATE2_/3_9/
-----
1;,
~L
I r \
1'\0
PAR 2
N\A?
?
---
\
\
I
\ I
I
\ I
\ l
\ \ . _~---1
ifit
~"
C}I
~o
EXHIBIT liB"
TIT L E
ACCEss EASEMENT FOR
289-29/ GREENWOOD PLACE
/~ '01.1
4&
\.)
~
....,
Q..
~
~
~
~
~
I
I
---J
O,s,
LOT /40
PAR I OE'VE'J.o
RE'S7 RIt!;1'o~1'''''
O.
?~~ 1
("),.0 y PAR 2 38'
\00
\
\
I
\ \
\ I
\ l
---1
\ \ ---
\\----------
EXHIBIT "e"
DRAWN BY TITLE
__J:.~M, G,____ DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION FOR
DATE2_/3_9/ 289-29/ GREENWOOD PLACE
/6 ., "t.
I
I
t.OT /98 I ~ ti
I I ~
OPEN S ~ I Cl..
PACe J ":c
\;=:__:-.:--- /.or <IS ~ ~
OPEA' --____
'Y SPAce -----_
I Lor /40
I
.......
l.lJ
(..)
~
'-J
Q..
~
~
~
~
~
DRAWN BY
_ _ L. M, G,
---------
DATE2_13_91
-- ---
PAR I
---
'N\A?
r
Ij
~\O
PAR
\
\
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ ___----1
\ ---
\ '\-------
\ \
TIT L E
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT FOR
289-29/ GREENWOOD PLACE
/0 ".2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
.','" ,",',0. "'-CO.OIIl> ....,I. ~<>
I
~
i;""'ACE ABOVE THIS ~INE. FOR FH"
"'....
.-
...~.
C;ty&
...
L
.....11 T..l n~'E/o<'"'' 10
I
N.....
.-
...~.
C'IV&
5'....L
AFFIX I.R.S. 1_..
1"3dIS ~,
Corporation Grant Deed
THIS "ORM FUR"'ISHE:D BY TITLE: INSUIt"NCE AND TRUST COMPANY
TO..uw.CA /1-65)
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
K corporation organized under the laws of the stale of
hereby GRANTS to Lac Nguyen and Bay
California
Le
the following described I'tJdxpt~XrKIbJ[
County of San Diego
easement for access
, State of California:
purposes
in the City of
Chula Vista
(See attached legal description)
In V;ritness 'Whereof, said corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed hereto and this instru-
ment to be executed by it~ ~ and ~lIf:itUlt:~
thereunto duh authori~ed. Mayor Clerk
Dated:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COl;NTY OF
0"
sil!"ned. a Notary Public in and fOT said
} 5S
By
Mayor mtKKOOH
By
Clerk ~K>>-~
before me, the under-
State, personalh appeared
kno.....n
President, and
known to me to be
Secretary of the Corporation that executed the
within Instrument. known to me to he the person. who executed the
within Instrument on behalf of the Corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such Corporation executed the within InstTu
ment punuant to its by-Jaws or a TelKtlution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
to me 10 be the
Signature
Name (Typed or Printed)
(TIlls .,.... f~r oMcl&t noun..!....1I
Title Order No.
Fscrow or Loan No.
MAil TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
/6 -.;Jt/
ACCESS EASEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
In the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of
California, those portions of Open Space Lot No. 219, Bonita Ridge
Estates, unit No.4 Subdivision according to Map thereof No. 8370,
recorded August 26, 1976, in the office of the Recorder of said
county, and Open Space Lot No. 140, Bonita Ridge Estates, unit No.
3 Subdivision according to Map thereof No. 8633, recorded August 4,
1977, in said Recorder's office, more particularly described as
follows:
A parcel of land 24.00 feet in width whose sidelines are
parallel with and 12.00 feet distant, measured at right angles
to, the following described center line: Beginning at the
most southeasterly corner of Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No.
10802, recorded in said County Recorder's office December 17,
1980; thence southwesterly along the protraction of the
southeasterly boundary of said Parcel No.1, South 430 32' 49"
West, approximately 47 feet to its intersection with the
northwesterly right-of-way line of Greenwood Place as shown on
said Map No. 8370, said sidelines shortened or lengthened so
that the southwesterly terminations are at their intersections
with said right-of-way line of Greenwood Place and their
northeasterly terminations are at their intersections with the
southwesterly boundary of said Parcel Map No. 10802.
-
/d-)S
~o1 Iq~ I
I
~
r - OPC'"" =.;---
-.JP4c.e L ----
?JT /40
\
I
lI.l
~
~
"'-J
Q.
~
~
~
~
~
DR AWN BY
L. M. G.
------
DATE2_13_91
---
I
~
'\)
~~
~/'tJ
___Jr
Ii SPA(..&
Cpt . Z I 9
'-' (J 1
PAR I ---
y V~
Po. 8 ~
"w V
12' ?- ~ ~~/
12' PAR 2
\
\
\
\ \
I
\ I
\ l
\ \ _ __~--1
\ \---------
TIT L E
ACCESS EASE/vfcNT FOR
2139 -29/ GReE)../WOOD PLACe
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
...0 WHaN "'C:O_O .....,L TO
I
I
..-
--
""-
a. ,
...
L
-.J
SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR RECORDER'S USE
_llT...IIT...TIMINDTO
I
I
.0-
--
...~.
(Ity.l.
',",teL
-.J
AFFIX I.R.S. .
IN THIS SPACE
Corporation Grant Deed
THI. ..OIllM ..UIIINI8HED BY TITLE IN....IIIANCE AND TRun COMPANY
T0406CA (8-65)
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
K corporation organized under the laws of the state of
hereby GRANTS to Loc Nguyen and Bay
California
Le
the following described ~ilKltuI:
County of San Diego
easement for access
, Slate of California:
purposes
in the City of
Chula Vista
(See attached legal description)
In Witness \Vhereof, said corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed hereto and this instru.
ment to be executed bv it~ ~ and "'Ntl~
thereunto duly authori~ed. Mayor Clerk
Dated:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
} ss
By
Mayor )(!fHiK!l:Mt
COUNTY OF
On
signed, a Notary Public in and for
to me to be the
before me, the under.
said Slate, penonally appeared
known
President, and
known to me to be
c;;..cretary of the Corporation thai executed the
within Instrument, known 10 me to be the penons who executed the
within Instrument on behalf of the Corporation therein named. and
acknowledged to me thai such Corporation execuled the within Inslru
men! pursuant to its by.laws or a reeolutioD of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
By
Clerk lSI4t","",
Signature
Name (Typed or Printed)
(TIlts aTH. foe oSklal "",arlo.l_l)
Title Order No.
Fscrow or Loan No.
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
Pe:.o / (POS'~
COUNCIL AGENDA SfATEMENT
ITEM II
MEETING DATE 2/19/91
Resolution/l167DAPproving Amendment to Agreement with Urban
Convenience Corporation for Operation of the Bayfront Visitor
Information Center
SUBMITfED BY: Deputy City Manager Thomson f
REVIEWED BY: City Managy (4/Sths Vote: No..x.. Yes_)
At its September 18, 1990 meeting, the City Council approved a three-year agreement with
Urban Convenience Corporation for the operation of the Bayfront Visitor Information
Center commencing October 1, 1990. One of the provisions of that contract was that
Urban Convenience Corporation formulate a graphic Design Layout acceptable to the City
by December 20, 1990. Urban Convenience Corporation has asked for a six month
extension of that date, and staff has negotiated the attached contract amendment to
provide for such an extension.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the amendment to the
agreement with Urban Convenience Corporation for the operation of the Bayfront Visitor
Information Center.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
When staff was negotiating the agreement with Urban Convenience Corporation (UCC) for
the operation of the Visitor Center, UCC had indicated its desire to install exterior tables
and chairs to make the exterior area more of an activity area and to make some limited
improvements to the interior of the Center. Because of the September 30, 1990
termination date of the interim agreement with Charles Costa Enterprises, it was not
feasible to have UCC prepare formal plans for those interior and exterior improvements and
obtain necessary design review and other City approvals prior to finalizing the contract for
operation of the Center starting on October 1, 1990. Staff therefore negotiated a
requirement in the approved contract that UCC subsequently prepare an interior and
exterior design layout for City approval prior to implementing such improvements. The
approved agreement required UCC to complete a graphic design layout acceptable to the
City by December 20, 1990, and indicated that the agreement would automatically
terminate on April 1, 1991 if the design layout was not completed and approved by
December 20, unless the parties mutually agreed on an alternate termination date. As
indicated above, UCC has requested a six month extension of that date until June 20, 1991.
/1- (
PAGE 2, IIFM II
MFETING DAlE 2/19/91
The proposed amendment to the contract with UCC provides for an extension of that date
to June 20, 1991, and provides the City with a unilateral right to terminate the agreement
at the City's convenience if the parties do not reach agreement on a design layout by the
extended date.
Both in the originally approved contract and in the contract amendment, any structural
improvements or changes to the Visitor Information Center that UCC desires to make prior
to the approval of a design layout will require advance written approval of the City. UCC's
operation of the Visitor Center has generally been satisfactory, and the City essentially
retains veto authority over the layout of UCC's operation of the Visitor Center prior to the
design layout being approved. Staff therefore does not see any real problem with
extending the date for the preparation and approval of the design layout. In fact, the
whole purpose of the design layout requirement is to provide a process for City approval
of improvements to the Visitor Center that UCC desires to make. Thus the intent of this
provision is to encourage UCC to make limited improvements to the Visitor Center, subject
to City approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed contract amendment would not have any fiscal impact
since it would allow a continuation of the contract with UCC for the operation of the
Visitor Information Center. There would likely, however, be a significant fiscal impact if
the contract amendment is not approved. Disapproval of the contract amendment could
result in the automatic termination of the agreement with UCC on April 1, 1991. Based
on the other responses received from the RFP issued in June 1990 for the operation of the
Visitor Center, the City would likely need to significantly subsidize the operation of other
potential operators of the Visitor Center. It is thus fiscally beneficial to the City to
continue the agreement with Urban Convenience Corporation.
C:\VIC-A
It --7-
RESOLUTION NO. /6070
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
WITH URBAN CONVENIENCE CORPORATION FOR
OPERATION OF THE BAYFRONT VISITOR INFORMATION
CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, at its September 18, 1990 meeting, the City
Council approved a three-year agreement with Urban Convenience
Corporation for the operation of the Bayfront Visitor Information
Center commencing October 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, one of the provisions of that contract was that
Urban Convenience Corporation formulate a graphic Design Layout
acceptable to the City by December 20, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Urban Convenience Corporation has
six month extension of that date, and staff has
contract amendment to provide such an extension.
asked for
negotiated
a
a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the First Amendment
to Contract with Urban Convenience Corporation to provide Visitor
and Transit Information Services at the Chula Vista Visitor
Information Center, a copy of which is on file in the office of
the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the Ci ty of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said Amendment for
and on behalf of the City.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Jim Thomson, Deputy City
Manager
8554a
11-3/11-9
10
t,
"
(
(
--------~-"-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
ITEM
MEETING DATE 9/18/90
Resolution l:1t~1 Approving agreement with
Urban Convenience corporation for the
operation of the Bayfront visitor Information
Center ~
Deputy City Manager Thomson JI
City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
At its June 19, 1990 meeting, th~ City Council accepted
Charles Costa Enterprises' notice of termination of the
previous three-year agreement for the operation of the
Visitor Information Center (resulting in that contract's.
terminating on July 31, 1990) and authorized staff to
execute a two-month interim agreement with Charles Costa
Enterprises for the operation of the Visitor Center through
September 30, 1990. The Council had previously, at its June
12, 1990 meeting, authorized staff to issue a Request For
Proposals (RFP) for the operation of the Visitor Center, and
staff hoped that the operator selected through the RFP
process would be prepared to operate the Center starting
October 1, 1990.
Staff has completed the RFP process and negotiated the
proposed agreement with Urban Convenience Corporation, the
highest-rated proposer, for a contract with an initial
three-year term commencing on October 1, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution
approving the agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
On June 18, 1990, staff distributed over 100 copies of the
Request For Proposals (RFP) for the operation of the Visitor
Information Center (a copy of the RFP is attached). Five
responses were returned by the RFP's July 20 deadline, and
all five were interviewed by the selection panel composed of
Deputy City Manager Thomson, Public Information Coordinator
Gulbransen, Transit Coordinator Gustafson and Larry Watt,
Principal Transportation Specialist for the San Diego County
Public Works Department.
II;'~
.
,
"
,
(
(
PAGE 2, ITEM
MEETING DATE 9/18/9D
The proposals were ranked by the selection committee using
the following criteria and weighting system:
Points
criteria
40
Financial package
Quality of transit and visitor
public service
30
15
Presenting a positive image of the
city and South Bay
15
Promoting visitor-serving
attractions and businesses in the
City
Total points
100
The proposals received and evaluated by the selection
committee were submitted by the following organizations:
Urban Convenience Corporation
Expo Vision, Ltd.
Long on Service Corporation
Craig Wylie Company
Charles Costa Enterprises
The selection committee unanimously ranked Urban Convenience
Corporation (UCC) as the highest-rated proposer, and staff
has subsequently negotiated the attached proposed contract
that would commence on October 1, 1990. Of the five
proposals, UCC's financial package was the most attractive
to the City and County. In UCC's proposal, the only
City/County costs would be for building utilities, major
maintenance an~ repairs, and landscape maintenance. All of
the other proposals required significant operating subsidies
by the City/County, ranging up to $151,000 per year. The
UCC proposal (and 3 of the other 4 proposals) also offers to
pay varying percentages of the operator's gross sales to the
City/County if such sales exceed threshold amounts. UCC's
proposed operation will involve a significant retail
component, but staff believes that UCC's proposal provides a
satisfactory balance of visitor and transit promotion,
pUblic service, and appearance with low cost.to the city and
County.
?
//-~
.
.,
(
(
PAGE 3, ITEM
MEET! NG DATE
9/18/90
Urban Convenience Corporation is an operating sUbsidiary of
starboard Financial Corporation. starboard Development
corporation, a separate subsidiary of Starboard Financial
corporation, has specialized in development projects for the
public sector including the James R. Mills Building/MTS
Tower at Twelfth and Imperial Avenue, the city of San
Diego's new police headquarters, and the new headquarters
for the Southeast Economic Development Corporation.
Urban Convenience Corporation is involved with the creation
of convenience store concepts, restaurants and other retail
business. UCC currently operates the convenience store and
retail food facility at the James R. Mills Building/MTS
Tower and has recently opened a convenience store named
"Star Mart" at the intersection Qf Shelter Island Drive and
Scott Street in the Point Lorna area. UCC's financial
disclosure statement is attached.
The proposed agreement requires UCC to provide visitor and
transit public service and allows UCC to occupy and conduct
specified retail operations in the visitor Center and
surrounding exterior areas. UCC wants to install exterior
tables and chairs to make the exterior more of an activity
center, and these plans are subject to further staff
approval for appropriateness and design review and may
requir~ the approval of the Design Review Committee.
Similarly, the interior layout is subject to further staff
approval.
until a ucc interior and exterior layout design is formally
approved by staff and possibly the Design Review Committee,
staff has approval rights on UCC's operations. This
approach is being recommended, rather than waiting until the
layout design can be finalized, because of the rapidly
approaching September 30 termination date of the two-month
interim agreement with Charles Costa Enterprises. If staff
and UCC cannot agree on a final layout design by December
20, 1990, the proposed contract with UCC will automatically
terminate on April 1, 1991, unless the parties agree on an
alternate termination date.
The other terms of the proposed contract are summarized
below:
1. Term: Three years commencing October 1, 1990 with
five consecutive. options (requiring mutual consent) to
extend the lease for two-year periods for a maximum of 10
additional years.
2. Percentage of Gross Sales: After each quarter
(three months), UCC's gross sales for the quarter will
determine whether any payments to the City/CGunty are
required based on the following formula:
.-
/1" 7
(
(
PAGE 4, ITEM
MEETING DATE 9/18/90
a.. No payment required when quarterly gross
sales are less than $25,000.
b.
c.
2% of the next $25,000 in quarterly gross
sales, plus
4% of the next $25,000 in quarterly gross
sales, plus
6% of the next $50,000 in quarterly gross
sales, plus
d.
e. 8% of any quarterly gross sales in excess of
$125,000.
,
f. No payments to the City/County will be due or
will accrue during the first twelve months of
the agreement.
3. Hours of operation: A minimum of 8 a.m. to 6'p.m.
on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends; during, the
winter months the center may be closed one hour earlier.
4. The proposed agreement includes guidelines the
operator must follow in terms of the level of staffing,
capabi~ities of the center staff and the type of public
information to be dispensed. The sale of transit~passes
is required as well as providing transit information.
5. ticc's operation of the Visitor Center will conform
to the layout design, once it is finalized. Any changes to
the approved layout design must have the prior approval of
the City.
6. UCC is prohibited from erecting or creating any
signs visible' from the exterior without the City's prior
approval.
7. UCC is allowed to conduct specified commercial
activities (e.g. retail sales, Mexican auto insurance, and
display ads) but such activities cannot significantly
interfere with UCC's ability to provide transit and visitor
information service.
8. UCCwil1 be responsible for cleaning and minor
maintenance of the. interior of the center and the
surrounding exterior areas. The City/County will be
responsible for major maintenance and repairs, exterior
landscape, and utilities except for trash disposal and
telephone costs.
/1-1
.
(
(
PAGE 5, ITEM
MEETING DATE 9/18/90
9. The city can terminate the contract for material
deficiencies or for UCC's failure to maintain minimum
operating hours. If the Center is closed for two
consecutive days, the City can determine that UCC has
abandoned the premises and terminate the contract
immediately. As mentioned previously, the contract will
automatically terminate on April 1, 1991, if the parties are
unable to finalize a layout design by December 20, 1990,
unless the parties agree on an alternate termination date.
FISCAL IMPACT: Other than maintenance and repairs, the only
City/County costs required by the proposed contract are an
estimated $3,000 per year for utilities and a one-time cost
of up to $1,500 to split the cost with UCC of constructing
screening for a trash receptacle. Maintenance and repair
costs can vary significantly from year to year, but staff
anticipates that adequate funds are available for these
purposes in the approved FY 1990-91 Bayfront Trolley station
Fund.
After the first year, UCC will pay the City/County 2% to 8%
of any gross quarterly sales in excess of $25,000, with the
percentage starting at 2% and increasing to 8% of any gross
quarterly sales in excess of $125,000. Which, if any, of
these gross sales thresholds will be exceeded is difficult
to project at this point, but there is at least a potential
for some revenue to be received starting in January 1992.
JT/kt
C:\KIM\VIC-Al13
11-1
.
.,
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
TO PROVIDE VISITOR AND TRANSIT INFORMATION SERVICES
AT THE CHULA VISTA VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT, entered into this January 2,
1991 for the purposes of reference only and effective as of the
date last executed by the parties, is between the city of Chula
vista (hereinafter "City") and Urban Convenience Corporation
(hereinafter "UCC").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Urban Convenience Corporation was awarded a contract
to provide visitor and transit information services at the Chula
vista Visitor Information Center for a three-year period commencing
October 1, 1990, and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2 of said contract requires UCC to use good
faith and best efforts to provide a graphic Design Layout
acceptable to the City no later than December 20, 1990, and
WHEREAS, UCC has requested a six-month extension of this
requirement and is agreeable to providing the City with a
unilateral right to terminate this agreement at the City's
convenience if the parties do not reach agreement on said Design
Layout by June 20, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 4.2 of the original contract shall be replaced in
its entirety by the following:
4.2 Duty to Present and Obtain City Approval of a
Design Layout
4.2.1 UCC will continue to work on completing a
plan which demonstrates the color scheme, theme,
lighting, and physical location of facilities such
as umbrellas, tables, chairs, racks, shelves,
display advertisements, etc. ("Design Layout")
which UCC intends to incorporate at the interior
and exterior areas of the Premises. The Design
Layout shall be subject to the City'S review and
approval and will be subject to all City rules and
regulations, including but not limited to Design
Review. UCC will use good faith and best efforts
to provide a graphic Design Layout acceptable to
the City no later than December 20, 1990 June 20,
1991.
4.2.2 From October 1, 1990, until said Design
Layout is mutually agreed upon by the parties, or
.
II", If)
. c
_.c- _
-- .~- ~- '-- ,. - -
'~. ,-. _...- ~ .
untiLthe terIliina:tiafi:aftlfis .cantract if agreement
:anthe Design ..Layailt :isnat::reached, city may
-terminate: any use:.in the. interior ar the Center ar
layaut af the interiar facilities which it finds
abjectianable; and UCC is prahibited fram use ar
decaratian af the exteriar areas withaut the
advlihce. wri ttetl apprbvalaf the City. .
, : A. 2. 3 If the:. - parties do.. nat reach agreement an
.0 said Design Layaut by December 29, 1990June 20,
- - 1991, thio ag-reemeRt \;ill automatically termiRatc
OR April 1, 1991, uRleoo the parties mutually a~ree
OR aR alterRale~LmiRatioR date. then for the
period starting on June 20, 1991 until such time as
the parties do reach. agreement on said Design
-. . Layout or until the termination or this agreement,
whichever occurs _ first., _ ._the city shall. .have : the
following right:
.:: :4.2.:3~1 :City:may:.terminate this. agreement: at
. any time and for any. reason by. giving _ UCC
- - written . notice _of:, such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof, at
least sixty (60) days before such termination~
-
- ~ .- :::' ~.'----- - .
_,,4. 2 .3~:Z:: - :UCC. .stipulates that, -under: the
circumstances described in Section 4.2.3, ci ty
shall have the unilateral right to terminate
this agreement for convenience as described in
Section 4.2.3.1. _ UCC further stipulates that
it WAIVES any reciprocal right to such a
termination :forconvenience. _ . This mutual
::.agreement..to "provide the city with a
unilateral right to terminate for convenience,
under the circumstances described. in Section
4.2.3, -is in consideration of City I s waiver of
automatic termination required as a result of
. Ucccnot. having provided even. a draft Design
Layout _for City .r~view prior to. the December
:20, 1990 date_specified in the .original
Section'4.2.1 of'thisagreement.
4.2.4 UCC shall nat make any structural
impravements ar-changes to. the Premises _ .except in
accardancewith the "Design Layaut" which has been
reviewed and appraved by the. City. -.prior to the
Design Layout being approved, any such structural
improvements or changes will require advance
written approval of the city.
4.2.5 UCC's operatian of the Premises will canfarm
to. the appraved Design Layaut. Any changes to. the
appraved Design Layaut must have priar appraval af
the city.
.
/1.,11
'.
.
2. All prov1s1ons of the original contract shall remain in
full force unless otherwise amended herein.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
URBAN CONVENIENCE CORPORATION
Mayor of the city of Chula vista
Attest
i.
City Clerk
Approved as to form by
Assistant City Attorney
C:\CHUCK\AGMT-VIC
/I"/?-
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEHEIIT
Item Il...
Heeting Date 2/19/91
ITEH TITLE:
Resolution "0 7/ Appropriating
and awarding contract for "Phase
Improvements at Various LOC;7tiO s in
CAU
Director of Public work~
City Manage~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes~No___)
funds, accepting
XIX thru XXII
the City of Chula
bids,
street
Vista.
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
At 2:00 p.m. on February 6. 1991, in Conference Room I, in the Public Services
Building, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Phase XIX
thru XXII Street Improvements at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista,
CA". The work to be done consists of various street improvements adjacent to
41 separate parcels. The work includes removal and disposal of existing
improvements, excavation and grading, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb
and gutter, sidewalk, sidewalk ramp, driveways, traffic control. protection
and restoration of existing improvements, and other miscellaneous work shown
on the plans.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Appropriate $125,574.70 from the unappropriated balance of Gas Tax funds
to Block Act FY 1990-91.
2. Accept bids and award contract to Caves Construction, Inc. in the amount
of $188,019.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOHMEHDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council at their meeting on December 11. 1990. passed Resolution No.
15979 making findings at a public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the
"Improvement Act of 1911". Said resolution directed the Superintendent of
Streets to cause the improvements to be installed adjacent to 43 separate
parcels. At the public hearing, the City Council deleted one of the parcels
from the district and subsequently one of the other parcels has already taken
out a permit for the improvements adjacent to their property. Therefore, the
construction contract included constructing the improvements adjacent to 41
separate parcels.
Bids for this project were received from four contractors as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Caves Construction, Inc. - San Diego
ABC Construction, Inc. - San Diego
Frank and Son Paving, Inc. - Chula Vista
Roca Construction, Inc. - Spring Valley
$188,019.00
240,312.00
256,581. 45
284,182.00
1;)..- ,
Page 2, Item
Heeting Date
/7..,.
2/19/91
The low bid by Caves Construction, Inc. is below the engineer's estimate of
$233,315 by $45,296 or 19. 4'Xo. We have reviewed the low bid and recommend
awarding the contract to Caves Construction, Inc.
Attached is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement.
Two separate property owners have asked the City for financial assistance
concerning the construction of their improvements. One, at 51 Oxford Street
and the other at 554 Glover Avenue. Both of these owners are requesting that
a lien be placed against their property for the cost of the construction of
the improvements. Staff will be pursuing this matter with the City Attorney's
office to determine if this can be accomplished. Exact cost for the
improvements adjacent to these two parcels have not been determined yet and
will not be finalized until after construction is completed. This is
anticipated around the end of July of this year. At that time, staff will be
in a better position to discuss the exact financial cost with the property
owners and make an appropriate recommendation to the City Council. Also staff
has included the pavement work and curb and gutter adjacent to 119 First
Avenue as requested by the property owner. The owner will be installing the
sidewalk and retaining wall by separate permit.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The cost of this project has expanded from that originally anticipated. This
is due to several factors: 1) construction plans were not available when
budget estimates were prepared; 2) cost for relocating water facilities were
higher than expected; 3) costs for improvement of Oxford Street and Bonita
Road were higher than budgeted. The cost of administering and designing Block
Act projects is high because parcels are located at various locations
throughout the entire City and additional administrative procedures are
required.
A. Funds Required for Construction
1.
2.
3.
4.
Contract Amount
Relocation of Water Facilities
Contingencies (approx. 10'Xo)
Additional Staff Costs
Total Estimated Construction Cost
$188,019.00
25,740.00
18,981. 00
18.000.00
$250,740.00
B. Funds Available for Construction
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Block Act Phase XIX Reconstruction
Block Act Phase XX thru XXIV
Block Act Program - Phase XXI
Block Act - Phase XXII
Block Act FY 90-91
Appropriation of Funds from unappropriated
Balance of Gas Tax Reserves to Block Act
FY 90-91
Total Funds Available for Construction
$ 25,042.63
18,501.47
3,221.20
70,000.00
8,400.00
125.574.70
$250,740.00
/ 2~ "L
-....... -~ --~-
---T
Page 3, Item
Heeting Date
/"l,
2/19/91
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will be awarding a cash contract for construction
of the required improvements for this assessment district. The total
estimated construction cost including contingencies and relocation of water
facilities is $232,740. The City's portion of the construction costs is
approximately $78,940. The property owners share of the cost ($153,800) will
be reimbursed to the City over the next 10 years. Finance will be billing the
property owner annually for their portion of the cost, which payments will be
used to reimburse the Gas Tax Fund.
In addition, the estimated cost for staff (design, inspection, and surveying)
is approximately $112,000. Of this amount, $94,000 is ccurrent1y available.
This project is funded from Gas Tax revenues.
WPC 5472E
/7..---'3
RESOLUTION NO. 16071
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "PHASE XIX THRU
XXII STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CAw
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the following four bids were received and
opened at 2:00 p.m. on the 6th day of February, 1991, in
Conference Room 1, in the Public Services Building of the City of
Chula Vista for "Phase XIX thru XXII Street Improvements at
Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista":
Caves Construction, Inc. - San Diego
ABC Construction, Inc. - San Diego
Frank and Son Paving, Inc. - Chula Vista
Roca Construction, Inc. - Spring Valley
$188,019.00
240,312.00
256,581.45
284,182.00
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that said contract be
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Caves Construction,
Inc. who has assured the City that he is a licensed contractor in
the State of California and can produce an acceptable performance
bond.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista has reviewed the specifications for the
construction of said project and does hereby approve same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista does hereby accept said four bids, and does hereby
award the contract for said street improvements at various
locations to Caves Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$188,019.00 to be completed in accordance with the specifications
as approved by the Director of Public Works of the City of Chula
Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to
execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $125,574.70 is
hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of Gas Tax
funds to Block Act FY 1990-91.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
8556a
~t "
trl
Ii ! Ii Q Ii ! !!: !:!.!Hl
DATE:
Februa~y 8, 1991
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
John Goss, City Manage~
Bruce Boogaa~d, City Atto~ey
Lyman Ch~istophe~, Di~ecto~ of Finance
Beve~ly Authelet, City Cle~k
Robe~to Saucedo, Senio~ Civil Enginee~
John Lippitt, Di~ecto~ of Public Wo~ks
Resolution App~op~iating funds,
cont~act fo~ "Phase XIX th~u XXII
Locations in the City of Chula Vista,
accepting bids, and awa~ding
St~eet Imp~ovements at Va~ious
CAu
A. Funds Requi~ed fo~ Construction
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cont~act Amount
Relocation of Wate~ Facilities
Contingencies (app~ox. 10~)
Additional Staff Costs
Total Estimated Const~uction Cost
$188,019.00
25.740.00
18.981. 00
18.000.00
$250,740.00
B. Funds Available fo~ Const~uction
WPC 5474E
1. Account 250-250l-GT2ll -
Block Act Phase XIX Reconst~uction $ 25,042.63
2. Account 250-250l-ST408 -
Block Act Phase XX thru XXIV 18,501.47
3. Account 250-250l-ST4l8 -
Block Act P~og~am - Phase XXI 3.221.20
4. Account 250-250l-ST507 -
Block Act - Phase XXII 70.000.00
5. Account 250-250l-ST5l7 -
Block Act FY 90-91 8.400.00
6. Unapp~op~iated Balance of Gas Tax Funds
to Account 250-250l-ST517 - Block Act FY 90-91 125,574.70
Total Funds Available fo~ Construction $250,740.00
/2"'7
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning
Commission, and all other official bodies. The following
information must be disclosed:
1.
List the names
the contract
supplier.
JO.)~ J. CAV~
of all persons having a financial interest in
i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) 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.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit
organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as
trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted
wi th any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No 'I..... If yes, please indicate
person(s)
/:l ~ 1
Disclosure statement (Con't.)
5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate,
contributed more than $1,000 to a councilmember in the
current or preceding election period?
No
~
Yes
If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership,
joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, recei ver, syndicate, this and any
other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or
other political subdivision, or any other group or combination
acting as a unit."
(NOTE:
Attach additional pages as necessary.)
e of Contractor/Applicant
2..- ~-ql
Date
JoSE J. CAVE 5
Print or Type Name of Contractor/Applicant
(L\CONTRACTS\BOIL-HUD)
/2-7
,--
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEHEIlT
Item
"
Meeting Date 2/19/91
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution I bo7~ Approving Implementation Agreement for
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
~
Director of Public
City Manager!
work~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
This agreement will be entered into by the County of San Diego, the San Diego
Unified Port District, and the Cities of San Diego, Carlsbad, Chula Vista,
Coronado, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, San Marcos, Del Mar, El cajon,
Encinitas, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, Santee, Solana Beach,
and vista. It establishes the responsibilities of each party with respect to
compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
stormwater permit regulations which are administered by the United states
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority granted by the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and its 1987 amendments, the Water Quality Act (WQA).
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOHHENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations
(published December 8, 1988 in the Federal Register) for the issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate
storm water discharge into the waters of the united States. The final version
of these regulations was issued on November 16, 1990. In order to allow local
agencies an opportunity to come into compliance with the EPA requirements
gradually, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) issued
an "early" NPDES permit on July 16, 1990, to agencies within the San Diego
County region which exercise jurisdiction over land development matters.
The EPA regulations require NPDES permits for discharges from municipal storm
drains on a system-wide or jurisdiction-wide basis. This is why the County of
San Diego, the incorporated cities of San Diego County, and the San Diego
Unified Port District are all parties to the agreement and named as
co-permittees.
The early permit requires that the co-permittees cooperate in the development
and implementation of a comprehensive county-wide stormwater/urban runoff
management program including the execution of an implementation agreement.
The co-permittees have designated the city of San Diego as the principal
permittee to be responsible for the ov~rall program coordination including:
1. Coordination of activities of all permittees with the Regional Board.
2. solicitation of and response to public input for proposed monitoring,
reconnaissance, management and implementation plans.
13 .. ,
l:-
Page 2, Item
Heeting Date
1'3
2/19/91
3. Collection and submittal to the Regional Board of all reports, plans and
programs as required by the Permit and Order.
As a co-permittee the City of Chula Vista will be responsible for management
of stormwater and urban runoff management programs within the City's limits
including activities listed below:
1. Conduct stormwater conveyance system inspections within the City's sole
jurisdiction.
2. Plan and conduct surveys and characterizations needed to identify the
pollutant sources and drainage areas where there is sole jurisdiction
over such drainage areas.
3. Participate in management programs, monitoring programs, and other plans
as required to comply with appropriate state and Federal Clean Water Acts.
4. Implement management programs, monitoring programs, and other plans as
necessary to meet the statutory requirements of state and Federal Law.
5. Submit stormwater conveyance system maps that are within the sole
jurisdiction of the City with periodic revisions as necessary.
6.
Prepare and submit all reports in a timely manner
required by the law and based on the City's
responsibilities to the principal permittee.
that are reasonably
sole jurisdictional
7. Enact legislation and ordinances as necessary to ensure compliance with
the stormwater management programs and the implementation plans which is
consistent with the scope of powers of each permittee.
8. Pursue enforcement actions as necessary to ensure compliance with the
stormwater management programs and the implementation plans where it has
statutory authority to pursue such enforcement actions.
9. Ensure adequate response to emergency situations such as accidental
spills, leaks, illicit discharges, etc. within each permittee's sole
jurisdiction.
10. Abide by the terms of the Implementation Agreement where it does not
conflict with other statutory requirements.
Staff has a proposal, which will come before the Council on February 26, 1991,
that the City adopt a storm drain fee to provide the necessary funds to pay
the costs associated with the NPDES requirements.
Fiscal responsibilities are defined in the agreement as follows:
1. All co-permittees shall share in the administration costs of the permit,
including the initial permit fee, the annual permit fee, if any, and
reasonable costs incurred by the Principal Permittee in fulfilling its
duties. Costs shall be allocated to the co-permittees as follows:
13 '. 2-
Page 3, Item , "!>
Keeting Date 2/19/91
Each co-permittee, including the Principal Permittee, shall share equally
in one-half of the administration costs. The remaining one-half shall be
allocated as a percentage of the population of each co-permittee and the
principal permittee, except the Unified Port District, with respect to
the total population of San Diego County. The percentage shares shall be
calculated annually from information provided in the SANDAG "January 1
Population and Housing Estimates", using the "HOUSEHOLD" population
figures.
2. Joint co-permittee expenses shall be estimated annually by the Principal
Permittee on a July l/June 30 fiscal year. The estimate shall be
presented to the co-permittees not later than January 1st and approved by
a majority of the co-permittees prior to Karch 1st for the succeeding
fiscal year.
3. Each co-permittee shall pay quarterly its share of expenses within 30
days of receipt of an invoice from the Principal Permittee. Funds
collected and not expended in any fiscal year shall be carried over as a
credit to the next fiscal year.
4. The principal Permittee shall provide a detailed accounting at the end of
each fiscal year of the costs and expenses incurred.
It should be noted that significant additional expenditures by the City will
be required to achieve compliance under the NPDES program and the permit.
While each of the parties to this agreement will have similar obligations
under the permit within their own jurisdictions, the agreement covers only the
administrative costs as discussed above. It does not set precedent on the
sharing of future compliance costs. Each agency pays those compliance costs
within its jurisdiction.
FISCAL IKPACT: The estimated annual administrative cost associated with
this agreement will range from $2,000 to $3,000. It is anticipated that once
the storm drain fee policy is adopted by the City Council the General Fund
will be reimbursed for these expenditures.
SMN/KY-18l
WPC 5475E
/3- 3//3 --'1
RESOLUTION NO. 1/d),L
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the united States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed regulations (published December 8, 1988 in
the Federal Register) for the issuance of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permits to regulate storm
water discharge into the waters of the united states; and
WHEREAS, the final version of these regulations was
issued on November 16, 1990; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow local agencies an opportunity
to come into compliance with the EPA requirements gradually, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued an "early"
NPDEs permit on July 16, 1990, to agencies wi thin the San Diego
County region which exercise jurisdiction over land development
matters; and
WHEREAS,
discharges from
jurisdiction-wide
EPA regulations
municipal storm
basis; and
require NPDES permits
drains on a system-wide
for
or
WHEREAS, the County
Cities of San Diego County,
District are all parties to
named as co-permittees.
of
and
the
San Diego, the
the San Diego
implementation
incorporated
Unified Port
agreement and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Implementation
Agreement for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system
(NPDES), a copy of which is on fi Ie in the office of the Ci ty
Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is authorized to execute said agreement for and on
behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public works
8555a
\l) -:-
/3"'S- //3 'f
..C--";:-
~- -' -,
" .~
r:~:"
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM C ::- ;
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL ~DARD~
SAN DIEGO REGION ';;.i(Ti:.D -&
STORMWATER PERMIT NO. CA 0108758
~ 0-. .
AN 10: 2 7
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT entered into by the County of San Diego,
(herein called COUNTY), the San Diego Unified Port District,
(herein called DISTRICT) and the cities of San Diego, Carlsbad,
Chula Vista, Coronado, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, San
Marcos, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Lemon Grove, National City,
Oceanside, Poway, Santee, Solana Beach and vista (herein called
CITIES) establishes the responsibilities of each party with respect
to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) stormwater permit regulations administered by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the
authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its 1987
amendments, the Water Quality Act (WQA).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Congress in 1987 amended Section 402 of the Federal
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. 1342(p) to require the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations for
applications for permits for stormwater discharges; and
WHEREAS, these permit regulations will require the control of
pollutants from stormwater discharges by requiring a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit which would allow the
lawful discharge of stormwaters into waters of the United States;
and
/3-7
WHEREAS, these EPA regulations will require NPDES permits for
discharges from municipal storm sewers on a system-wide or
jurisdiction-wide basis; and
WHEREAS, the CITIES, the COUNTY and the DISTRICT desire to
develop an integrated stormwater discharge management program with
objective of improving water quality in the County of San Diego;
and
WHEREAS, the California State Water Resources Control Board
(CSWRCB) as designee of the EPA has delegated authority to the
Regional Water Quality control Board San Diego Region (RWQCB-SDR)
for administration of the NPDES Storm Water permit within the
boundaries of its Region; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 1990, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board - San Diego Region issued NPDES Permit No. CA 0108758 and
Order No. 90-42, Waste Discharge Requirements for Stormwater and
Urban Runoff from the County of San Diego, the incorporated cities
of San Diego County, and the San Diego Unified Port District naming
the above entities co-permittees; and
WHEREAS, said Permit and Order require that the co-permittees
/
cooperate in the development and implementation of a comprehensive
county-wide stormwaterjurban runoff management program including
the execution of an Implementation Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as
-,follows:
/3-K"
-2-
I. DESIGNATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCIPAL PERMITTEE
A. The city of San Diego is hereby designated Principal
Permittee, but has similar responsibilities as a co-permittee.
B. The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for the
overall program coordination, including:
1. Coordination of activities of all permittees with the
Regional Board.
2. Solicitation of and response to public input for proposed
monitoring, reconnaissance, management and implementation
plans.
3. Collection and submittal to the Regional Board all
reports, plans and programs as required by the Permit and
Order.
II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CO-PERMITTEES
A. The co-permittees shall be responsible for management of
stormwater and urban runoff management programs within their sole
jurisdictions for storm drainage systems where they have ownership
and maintenance responsibilities as delineated by the appropriate
easement conveyances (herein referred to as "sole jurisdiction"),
including:
1. Conduct stormwater conveyance system inspections within
the co-permittees' sole jurisdiction.
2. Plan and conduct surveys and characterizations needed to
identify the pollutant sources and drainage areas where
there is sole jurisdiction over such drainage areas.
13-'
-3-
3. Participate in management programs, monitoring programs,
and other plans as required to comply with appropriate
state and Federal Clean Water Acts.
4. Implement management programs, monitoring programs, and
other plans as necessary to met the statutory
requirements of state and Federal Law.
5. Submit stormwater conveyance system maps that are within
the sole jurisdiction of the permittee with periodic
revisions as necessary.
6. Prepare and submit all reports in a timely manner that
are reasonably required by the law and based on the co-
permittees' sole jurisdictional responsibilities to the
principal permittee.
7. Enact legislation and ordinances as necessary to ensure
compliance with the stormwater management programs and
the
implementation
plans
which
is
consistent
with the scope of powers of each permittee.
8. Pursue enforcement actions as necessary to ensure
compliance with the stormwater management programs and
the implementation plans where it has statutory authority
to pursue such enforcement actions.
9. Ensure adequate response to emergency situations such as
accidental spills, leaks, illicit discharges, etc. within
each permittee's sole jurisdiction.
10. Abide by the terms of the Implementation Agreement where
it does not conflict with other statutory requirements.
13 --/0
-4-
III. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES
A. All co-permittees shall share in the administration costs
of the permit, including the initial permit fee, the annual permit
fee, if any, and reasonable costs incurred by the Principal
Permittee in fulfilling its duties pursuant to section I-B. Costs
shall be allocated to the co-permittees as follows:
Each co-permittee, including the Principal Permittee, shall
share equally in one-half of the administration costs. The
remaining one-half shall be allocated as a percentage of the
population of each co-permittee and the principal permittee, except
the Unified Port District, with respect to the total population of
San Diego County.
The percentage shares shall be calculated
annually from information provided in the SANDAG "January 1
Population and Housing Estimates", using the
"HOUSEHOLD"
population figures.
B. Joint co-permittee expenses shall be estimated annually by
the Principal Permittee on a July l/June 30 fiscal year. The
estimate shall be presented to the co-permittees not later than
January 1st and approved by a majority of the co-permittees prior
to March 1st for the succeeding fiscal year.
C. Each co-permittee shall pay quarterly its share of
expenses within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from the Principal
permittee.
Funds collected and not expended in any fiscal year
shall be carried over as a credit to the next fiscal year.
D. The Principal Permittee shall provide a detailed
accounting at the end of each fiscal year of the costs and expenses
incurred under section I-B above.
/3-'11
-5-
IV. LIFE OF THE AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement commences on its execution by each
and all of the duly authorized representatives of the CITIES, the
COUNTY and the PORT DISTRICT. The life of the Agreement shall run
with the NPDES Permit and Order referred to herein, but may be
terminated where federal law fails to require the terms contained
in this Agreement.
V. RESOLUTION OF DISAGREEMENTS
In the event that disagreements arise between the permittees
and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board such party may
demand arbitration of the dispute whereby the aggrieved parties may
appoint an arbitrator, and those arbitrators may appoint a neutral
arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
VI. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE AGREEMENT
A participant may withdraw from the agreement 60 days
subsequent to written notice to the RWQCB-SDR.
The participant
shall agree to file for a separate permit where required by law and
to comply with all of the requirements established by law. In
addition, withdrawal shall constitute forfeiture of all of the
percentage of cost attributed to their sole jurisdiction for the
joint implementation cost for that budget year. The withdrawing
participant shall be responsible for all lawfully assessed
penalties as a consequence of withdrawal. The cost allocations to
the remaining members will be recalculated in the following budget
year.
/342-
-6-
VII. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT REOUIREMENTS
Any participant found in non-compliance with the conditions of
the permit within their sole jurisdictional responsibilities shall
be solely liable for any lawfully assessed penalties.
Non-
compliance disputes shall be heard before the RWQCB.
VIII. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT
This Agreement may be amended by consent of the effected co-
permittees.
No amendment to this agreement shall be effective
unless it is in writing and signed by the duly authorized
representatives of all of the co-permittees.
IX. NOTICES
All notices shall be deemed duly given if delivered by hand;
or three (3) days after deposit in the U. S. mail, postage prepaid.
X. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance
with laws of the State of California and The Federal Clean Water
Act. If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be
held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not
in any way be affected or impaired hereby
XI. CONSENT TO BREACH NOT WAIVER
No term or provision hereof shall be deemed waived and no
breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing
and signed by the co-permittee to have waived or consented. Any
consent by any co-permittee to, or waiver of, a breach by the
other, whether express or implied, shall not constitute a consent
/:]-13
-7-
.
to, waiver of, or excuse for any other different or subsequent
breach____ ____
XII. INDEMNIFICATION
Each party to this Agreement (I) shall have the sole
responsibility to comply with the Permit, (2) shall pay all fines,
penalties and costs which may arise out of such party's non-
compliance with the Permit, and (3) shall indemnify the other
parties to this Agreement against any fines, penalties or costs
(including attorneys fees) they may incur as a result of its
failure to comply with the Permit.
XIII. APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR AGREEMENTS
The document constitutes the entire Agreement between the co-
permittees with respect to the subject matter; all prior
agreements,
representations;
statements,
negotiations
and.
undertakings are superseded hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of
day of
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
, 1991.
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
Attest
City Clerk
Approved as to form by
1$4'1
-8-
'.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
'I-,
.r ,t
;
,
Item
1'-/
Meeting Date 2/19/91
ITEM TITLE Report Regarding Policy Direction on Recycling Issues
Ordinance z'l1./3 - Amending Ordinance #1993 Regarding
Residential Curbside Recycling Collection of Single Family
Homes and Voluntary Commercial Recycling Collection
SUBMITTED BY Principal Management Assistant pope~
REVIEWED BY City Manag~ 4/5ths Vote: Yes__ No-K-
V
At the 1/15/91 meeting, Council requested that staff report back on the
current handling of voluntary commercial recycling interests pending
development of a Citywide program. As outlined in an information report dated
February 8, 1991, a number of other recycling issues are surfacing which are
not directly addressed in the governing ordinance and which now require
attention. This report is being presented to allow Council to fully discuss
the issues and clarify intent and direction to staff.
RECOMMENDATION Place ordinance on first reading, which would allow: (1)
residential curbside service to single family detached and
attached homes receiving curbside refuse service; and (2)
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. to enter into voluntary commercial
recycling agreements pending establishment of a Citywide
commercial program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSION
Additional clarification is being requested regarding single and multi-family
residential, as well as commercial collection.
Residential Curbside Collection
The two primary questions on this issue are: who is to receive service and
how can the types of materials accepted in the program be expanded?
Regarding service, the ordinance provides only for single family homes. Staff
has directed Laidlaw to implement the current program only with single family
detached homes because of the Council's strong interest in soliciting bids for
a future program to service multi-unit residences. Unfortunately, this
direction eliminates service to over 1,600 attached homes (including
condominiums and duplexes through 8 unit buildings) where the residents
currently receive curbside refuse collection. These homes can easily receive
curbside recycling service and a number of residents have called to express
interest in such a program. Since the major problems of multi-unit collection
are not inherent in this situation, staff recommends that the ordinance be
modified to clarify this point and allow the service.
/t/-I
ur
Page 2, Item
,''' .
Meeting Date 2/19/91
As to expanding the types of materials collected in this residential program,
current materials are listed in the ordinance and additional materials can be
agreed upon in writing between the City and Laidlaw. Staff would evaluate any
written request against the overall goal of the program, which is to remove as
many recyclables as possible from the residential waste stream because of AB
939.As new material types (i.e., mixed paper, cardboard, etc.) can be easily
accommodated and marketed, it would be staff's intention to proceed by
notifying Council of a written request and the planned expansion, barring any
specific direction from Council to the contrary. Unless Council desires a
different type of evaluation and notification process, the present ordinance
does not need to be modified.
As a point of clarification, collection of yard waste is considered an
entirely separate program and would not be added as a new material type using
this procedure.
Commercial Collection
In the present ordinance, the City has retained the right to go out to bid for
future expansion into the commercial waste stream. Until the City establishes
a commercial program, staff has cautioned Laidlaw that entering into voluntary
agreements with commercial customers in Chula Vista for recycling services
would appear contrary to the Council's desire that there be a "level playing
field" for commercial service competitors in the future. However, in reality,
other commercial recycling service providers are coming into Chula Vista and
entering into voluntary agreements.
From a program planning perspective, staff would prefer to have a solid
commercial plan in place before dealing with questions like these. However,
it is clear that the question is timely and staff continues to evaluate these
questions against the broad goals of diverting as much waste as possible from
the landfills. To allow staff to respond fairly and realistically, it is
recommended that the ordinance be modified to clarify that Laidlaw may enter
into voluntary commercial recycling agreements pending a Citywide program.
As additional information, staff is preparing to present alternatives for a
Citywide commercial recycling program in a Council workshop setting within the
next three months. At that time, staff will address how voluntary agreements
can be dealt with in establishing a Citywide program.
FISCAL IMPACT
Additional franchise fees resulting from the inclusion of approximately 2,000
single family attached homes is estimated to be about $500 for the remainder
of FY 1990-91.
sp:mab
spal13
/y-7-
,
2. Containers - Grantee shall purchase and distribute recycling
containers to be used by each eligible residential customer
included in the program. The type and cost of container to be
used, or changes of container type shall be approved by the City
prior to purchase and distribution. Grantee shall retain
ownership of the containers. Each residence eligible to
participate in the program will receive one container. If
Grantee determines that the volume of recyclable material exceeds
the capacity of the one container, additional containers shall be
provided at no cost to the resident. Replacement of containers
that are stolen and/or damaged shall be made at no cost to the
resident at Grantee's discretion. Grantee will be responsible
for keeping records and making them available to the City
regarding additional containers requested, and the reason for the
request, e.g. damaged, stolen, needed to handle residence
recyclables beyond capacity of one container.
3. Transportation of Materials - Grantee shall transport collected
recyclable materials to a central collection point and shall
retain responsibility for the sale of such materials in a timely
and efficient manner, so as to yield the highest possible market
value for the material.
4. Missed Pick-Ups - In case of a missed pick-up called in by a
resident, Grantee shall, where possible, provide collection
within 24 hours. If unable to accommodate due to inadequate
notice, the materials shall be picked up on the next scheduled
collection day and resident is to be so notified. Information on
missed pick-ups shall be logged by Grantee and shall be available
to the City.
5. Public Awareness Program The Grantee will prepare an
Introductory Packet of information regarding the Citywide
Single-Family Curbside Recycling Program, approved in advance by
the City, and will distribute such packet with the recycling
containers to each eligible residence. The packet shall include,
but not be limited to: a) An informational brochure that details
the program elements and describes how they can participate; and
b) doorknob hangers or other methods encouraging use of the
recycling container and explaining the program.
The Grantee will assist with media events, make presentations to
community groups and businesses on an as needed basis, and attend
County wide meetings related to recycling, speaking on the City's
/c(-s-
-3-
COUllCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Keeting Date 2/19/91
ITEM TITLE:
Report: Revision
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Parks
City Manager~
to the Terra Nova Park Improvement Plan
and Recreatio~
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
On August 8, 1989, the City Council approved the concept plan submitted by
Gillespie-DeLorenzo and Associates, Inc. for improvements to Terra Nova Park.
As part of the concept plan and development agreement for Tract 89-06, Terra
Nova Woodcrest, the park was expanded by 1. 5 acres and $850,000 worth of
amenities will be added to the site.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the revisions to the original Terra
Nova concept plan.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission, at
its January 17, 1991 meeting, approved the revised concept plan.
DISCUSSION:
On August 8, 1989, the City Council reviewed the concept plan, dated April 12,
1989 for Terra Nova Park. As a part of the development agreement for Tract
89-06, Woodcrest Development, the developer offered to expand the park by 1.5
acres and provide $850,000 for park improvements (Attachment "A"). Since that
approval, the City staff has been working with the developer and the
developer's consultant in preparation of final construction drawings.
During the 2-112 year period since the project's inception, a number of
factors have arisen to cause changes in the layout of the park and the
improvements to be provided. The City has revised its criteria for the
minimum outfield area to be provided for a ballfield and the cost per acre of
park construction has escalated significantly.
The original Park Concept Plan approved on August 8, 1989 by Council included
the following amenities: increasing park size by 1.5 acres, offstreet parking
for 50 cars, two ballfields with a soccer field overlay, two lighted tennis
courts, one lighted basketball court, tot lots with play equipment for primary
and secondary school-aged children, viewing station, community gathering and
picnic facilities, picnic shade structures with picnic tables (Attachment "B").
A revised concept plan (Attachment "C") depicts the park's new configuration
and the amenities which include one ballfield with overlying soccer field, two
lighted tennis courts, one basketball court, a multi-age tot lot, a community
gathering shelter and four shade shelters, picnic tables, an equestrian trail,
security lighting, and parking for 50 cars.
The minor changes in the revised plan includes redesign of tot lots:
the existing play structure, next to the picnic shelter (per
moving
Council
/S"/
Ci I),
1)/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
I~
2/19/91
direction); enhanced play equipment; and incorporating the tot lot into this
single play area location. The second change eliminates the reinstallation of
the existing par course. Once the construction project is awarded, if
additional funds are available, it is possible that the par course can be
reinstalled as well as other needed amenities.
The Parks and Recreation Department also determined the original criteria for
260 feet outfields was inadequate for quality adult softball play. Increasing
the outfield radius to 300 feet will result in the deletion of one ballfield
but allows the basketball court to be moved away from its cramped location to
a position near the tennis courts and provide for more open picnic areas.
Some concerns have been expressed by an area resident regarding the park
revisions. The major concerns were:
1. Are there chanr;es to r;radinr; 1>lans? The grading has not been modified
except for minor adjustments for walkways and deletion of stairs.
2. Is the r;azebo/community r;atherinr; structure still in the revised 1>lan?
Yes, these amenities with picnic tables are included in the plan.
3. Are there chanr;es to the tot lots? The three tot lots have been
consolidated into the main tot lot. Play equipment for the three age
groups will still be installed.
4. Will there be any specimen trees planted? The developer will add
approximately 15 specimen box trees in the final landscape plans.
The revised concept plan has been reviewed and unanimously approved by the
Park and Recreation Commission.
When Council reviewed the Master Plan in 1989, Council found that the
environmental documentation for the Woodcrest Development and park as
described in the development agreement was adequate and satisfied all of the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Council adopted
Resolution No. 15249 on August 8, 1989 documenting compliance with CEQA.
Since these recommended revisions are very minor in nature, the City's
Environmental Coordinator will file an exemption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
park.
$850,000 worth of park improvements will be added to this
WPC l608R
IS.?'
C'Woodell t;
r:
ATTACHMENT A
/-
September 14, 1988
Mayor Gregory R. Cox
Mayor's Office
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: WOODCRE5T' S PURCIIJ\SE OF TERRJ\ NOVA SCHOOL SI7E
Dear Mayor Cox,
I would like to thank you, council Members Malcol~ and
McCandliss, and those of the city staff who spent many hours
working on this project and for giving us their s~pport. We feel
that once completed, the homes in our project wil: be among ~~e
finest in Chula Vista. .
.
To further reaffirm what I stated to t~e city Co~~cil at the
hearing on September 13th, we are committed to sFe~ding the full
$850,000 on the park. We feel that it is in the =est interest of
the residents in the immediate neighborhood and c~r own future
buyers to provide the "premiere" park in the area for their use
and enjoyment. Thus, our intention is to make use of the entire
$850,000 expenditure (except for the possibility of providing
night lighting elsewhere) at this locat:on.
I feel that once all the costs associated with de~eloping this
revised park are finalized (inClUding: grading, sitework, land
planning, landscape architecture, retaining walls, construction
supervision, parking, park equipment, maintenance, security
lighting, etc.) any perceived savings by preserving some of the
existing facilities will be negated. However, should we fall
short of the $850,000 figure, we will spend the money at this
park by upgrading or expanding some of the facilities.
Woodcrest is proud to be a part of this project and looks for~ard
to closing the escrow and processing our development plans as' .
quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
tJ~ a. tJ~
Wayne A. Barnett
President
WASfj ah
" -
.
cc: Councilwoman Gayle McCandliss
Councilman David Malcolm
sid Morris, Deputy city Manager
Courlci 1m;)n l.conClrc] Moor.e
Coullt:i Lilian '1'illl Nauer
/5 --3
').r"~ ~(',1rn... '. il1.1 Ro,le! . S\lill~ -2 ~n . S.ln Oit.'~n. C~ ")2121 . Ir) ;c)) :,-.'fnO
ATTACHMENT B
~
1
"'~
././
""
__1.(,(7...--/ .....-/
./
\..--
~ ,.
i- ~
I t
:!
l
~
~
"
i
~
l
f
r
;~~i t Ii il
~ t f ~l
i ~ ~ t
~
~
/j-Y
ATTACHMENT C
!
J
1
, , , /-~~"'"
/ / "'"'~
/ /'
/'
~
~
"f
~
~
~
,., ~
1""~ /'
..--- .
>"" /
-
j~~
-~}ri:~
o "tl J:;Ht
~'-I-~
~'-o-~
~r'" _
~.~~
@ "
~ , ! ~
. ~ ~ i t
~ ~\ i
~ rfl1ff, r !l 'P !~~()
, ,', 1111"~1
~ : :"11, '~fCJ
Will II
i
11
\
~
1
~
~
~
"
~
I
II
L~
'J.
~ 1-
f "
"Ii
-S
----
...J
~
IS-.5'
INFORMATION ITEM
February 15,1991
TO:
Honorable Mayor and city council Members
VIA:
John Goss, City Manager
L~
FROM:
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
On February 19, 1991 a public hearing will be held for
Coastal Development Permit No. 51, the Rohr Office Complex
grading plan. Regarding this item, your regular Council
Agenda packets contain an A-113 with three attachments and a
resolution with exhibits A and B. Exhibit C, the project's
mitigation monitoring program and the addendum to exhibit A,
EIR-90-10 will be presented to members at the public
hearing.
/w
Page - 1
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
I~
2/19/91
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Coastal
Development Permit No. 51 for grading of 11. 6
acres for the Rohr Office Complex on the south
side of Lagoon Drive (F Street)
RESOLUTION l~o'13 Certifying EIR-90-10 and
addendum thereto, adopting CEQA findings and a
Statement of Overriding Consideration, adopting
mitigation monitoring program, finding Rohr's
proposed grading plan is consistent with the
certified Chula vista Local Coastal Program, and
approving issuance of Coastal Development Permit
No. 51 S'
Community Development Director ( v
City Managerp
(4/5ths Vote: YES___NO-X-)
The proj ect involves grading and drainage improvements to 11.6
acres of currently vacant property located on the south side of
Lagoon Drive (F Street) adjacent and west of the SDG&E 138KV
transmission line right of way, north of the existing Rohr
Industries complex, and east of the FIG Street Marsh. EIR-90-10
was prepared for the project and addresses potential impacts of
the project. One cumulatively significant impact has been
identified, therefore, a statement of overriding consideration
will need to be adopted. A grading plan for the project has been
approved by the City Engineer.
The project site is located within the boundary of the City of
Chula vista's certified Local Coastal Program, with a portion of
the site located within an area where the State Coastal
Commission has reserved permit jurisdiction. The applicant is
currently coordinating the project with State commission staff.
No permits are required from the Federal government, although the
Fish and wildlife Service has reviewed and approved the plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing, consider public
testimony, and adopt the attached resolution:
1. Certifying EIR-90-10 and addendum thereto, adopting CEQA
findings and a statement of overriding consideration set
forth as Exhibit A, and adopting mitigation monitoring
program set forth as Exhibit B of the attached resolution;
2. Finding that the proposed Rohr grading plan is consistent
with the policies of the certified Chula vista Local Coastal
Program; and
/~-/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
lIP
2/19/91
3.
Approving
conditions
resolution.
Coastal Development Permit No.
set forth in Exhibit B of
51 subject to
the attached
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Rohr Industries, the applicant, proposes to grade the project
site, construct on-site and off-site drainage improvements, and
install erosion control landscaping. Grading is preparatory to
the construction of a 245,000 square foot office complex and two
below-ground parking structures. (The office project will be
reviewed by the Design Review Committee on February 25 and will
be presented to the Redevelopment Agency on March 7. A public
hearing for the office project Coastal Development Permit is
scheduled to be held on March 12.)
The site entails 11.6 acres of land area that slopes gently to
the southwest where elevations vary between 19 to 8 feet above
mean sea level (MSL). until recently the property was
agriculturally cultivated, therefore, the terrain is no longer in
a natural state.
Grading on the most part will entail drainage improvements,
building pad elevations, and parking structure excavation. A
total of 40,000 cubic yards of cut and fill will occur and
approximately 9,000 cubic yards of fill will be imported.
Finished building pad elevations will be at 14 feet. Parking
structure subsurface elevations will be at 7.5 feet. Maximum
slope adjacent to the F/G Street Marsh area will be at a 3 to 1
ratio.
A substantial detention basin will be created parallel to the
westerly property boundary. The top of the outside slopes of the
basin will be 14 feet on the east side near the building pad and
10 feet on the west side near the property boundary. The floor
of the basin will be at about the 7 foot elevation.
The drainage improvements proposed are designed to collect on-
site storm water and irrigation runoff and direct it through
underground pipes to the detention basin where it will be
cleansed of contaminants and silt and directed to an off-site
system to an existing outfall.
Water conveyed through the basin will be discharged into an
improved storm drain system at the southwest corner of the
project site. A new 24 inch pipe will be installed from the
project site to an existing 36 inch storm drain located in G
Street.
/~. z.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
/w
2/19/91
The detention basin is designed to convey water slowly to allow
silt and other particles to settle. Grease, oil, and other
contaminants will be trapped by a triple baffle box before being
discharged into the off-site storm drain system.
A protective berm will be constructed along the western boundary
of the site, avoiding the seasonal wetland located ln the
northwest corner. Prior to the start of grading, temporary silt
fencing and a chain link fence with filter fabric will be
installed at the foot of the slope (berm). A "biologically
aware" construction monitor will be on site during grading
activities.
Erosion control landscaping will be incorporated into the project
including appropriate irrigation along slopes and has been
approved by the city's Landscape Architect. Plant species to be
used will be those known not to be invasive into salt and
brackish marshes and not attractive or used by predators.
The u. S .
grading,
approved
Fish and wildlife Service has reviewed the
drainage and erosion control plans and has
the program.
proposed
verbally
Grading and landscaping for the protective berm will occur within
a limited portion of the FIG Street Marsh buffer located at the
northwest corner of the project site, less than half an acre.
Grading within the buffer primarily will involve mounding on the
western slope of the detention basin at the northwest corner of
the site. Generally, work will result in the enhanced quality of
habitat at the buffer's edge.
The EIR for the project discusses that elimination of fallow
agricultural fields currently used for raptor foraging would
result from the project. Because of the limited extent of
similar coastal habitat and the absence of currently accepted
mitigative measures, the impact is considered to be cumulatively
significant and unmitigable. Therefore, CEQA findings and a
statement of overriding consideration will be required in order
to approve the project.
Conditions of Approval
1. Applicant shall incorporate into the project all
recommendations provided by the project soils engineer and
contained in the project geotechnical investigation, soils
report and hazardous substance site assessment and related
documents.
1,..3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
If,
2/19/91
2. Applicant shall incorporate all mitigation measures set
forth in EIR-90-l0 relative to proposed grading, drainage,
and erosion control landscaping activities.
3. Applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth by
the City Engineer in the approved grading plan including
erosion control landscaping and use of reclaimed water for
dust control during grading.
4. Applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth in
the certified Chula vista Local Coastal program.
5. All grading work conducted within and adjacent to the
boundaries of the Sweetwater Marsh National wildlife Refuge
shall be conducted in compliance with the letter of
permission issued on December 6, 1990 by the u.S. Fish and
wildlife Service.
6. If the biological monitor (required mitigation measure)
identifies that remedial work is necessary, the contractor
will perform or cause to be performed remedial work within
24 hours of notification or the City of Chula vista shall be
allowed by the applicant to cause the work to be conducted
at applicant's expense.
7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Chula vista to ensure regular maintenance of the drainage
system clean-out prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
8. Applicant shall incorporate the mitigation monitoring
program into the project and shall comply with requirements
set forth in said mitigation monitoring program.
Findinos
Based on the following findings, the proposed project has been
found to be consistent with the policies of the certified Local
Coastal Plan:
1. Grading and drainage improvements have been designed to
comply with section 19.87.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the
certified Local Coastal Program. Building pads will be
above elevation 6 feet and the loo-year flood level. On-
site drainage will include a drainage basin and drainage
apparatus to eliminate silt and contaminants from storm
water and irrigation runoff. Subject to conditions, grading
activities, drainage improvements, and erosion control
landscaping are planned to minimize runoff problems of
sil tat ion and chemical intrusion into wetlands which is
consistent with the LCP's area wide grading policies.
/6" V
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date
lip
2/19/91
2. The project site is privately owned and development for the
purpose of this Coastal Development Permit includes grading,
drainage improvements, and erosion control landscaping only.
The site is located at least 1300 linear feet from the
nearest shoreline point. The proposed project will not
preclude or reduce public access to the shoreline nor will
public parking be affected by the proposed earthwork,
therefore, development as proposed has been found to be in
conformance with public access and public recreational
policies of the Public Resources Code.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City will result from the
issuance of Coastal Development Permit No. 51.
(CDP51)
/dJ-J /1' -).'1
.'
"~
I .',"' /.,tv
: ()!'~/IOO 200 ?J(){J 4qO',;' " ~..
) \~C~~E~" = 2~D' r' 'i /' . / -t--- r \ .. ,
",. . \ . \ I 'L /
~.;~> .. _ ':.'~ I I_-tl-:- /' .
/----- /~~~I--r\ .8._,. -
';:-.1' .. , ,flf,!' S/lffya DATE
:/)r/ ;.----- -- 12.14.88
Z;Y" ,~~ I LEGEND
'. ,_ " ',,,,-< .'."-~ . RICX SURVEY Pl. . . . .
((4' ""i......... ""..,"" '\. . I SANDERS'STATIMS. . . A.'
;- . ~ '" ',\:, " t If/ND SEETABW
J <,~~, >~-., ' . Sf/N/JEl/S' STUOY flREfl5 LJ
iVl - .)"}<'';:.> '. I, WET/flNN. - . . c:;;:::Z>
. fer} /} · "< \...:.~<" ~._./-' . RICX fTND Sf/N/JER5 [lEV
'" ,', ,'",," _,,<__~ /"'1,'\ I f.1 (J.B!
t-- f"', ~; '.::<".:'-. ...., "~ ~b~
.. I' ~'" /' ~ I 4 5 &DZ
.. '~' "I ~"!r, - ..""" 5 4 552
','. ,G~-'" - I ~ 3 53D
r-.-.----. _j .', ~"7 ~ ~" / ' ,,- 1 I Q,2(
I[;! I " ~....G ~ "-~ly - -., 8 2 53~
.1\ . .', . _r~~~
.l' !;2""''-/';,i-<3 - .', \
), I C-4;~DS~\~,
:;EA 8AREAA~-i!t, )
--'j ,'. i..-_____~_
.-, .:
----"":".,.'--'i
NO. DATE
ATTACHMENT I
I I
, .
, .
SAN DIEGO SAY
"
.,
'.
~
~~ !
,:-,,--
"'-.
'"
.~
. r--~-1 I
F~CI~IT~,C
ROt;lRPABCEL
I' '
:'1'
',I
:r
~50"~~uD. G.&, E.
R/W
..!";----:.,..~.~,,;;,._. " .
"\.J
[:.....L.."":.....~__.c:p...._'-"-.~."
,~"--.:.,.,,_.,.i
__,.____r__::::;'-
i~~"
J!W:''> . y'/
_'::.UJ::'/" / .
.~;a:: l-,;;" /
',-I.;' . . . ...)....~ . ..
i~~::~~~~~-:~~~::W....;
INTERSTATE 1";5 . 1'!
WETLAND BOUNDARY ,
STUDY
----.-.-"...=i'.
-/
.1
.1 ~ '
PIUNTIIJ) BY
;~~tl:!}~P
-. AUG 1 1990
-<\ """::::::--=-~~---::,-:..------:.~,.:;~": .
~~ ~---.---.- ~',-----'-'-~'--'-
J-10812
1Jj~ ~~~~,~~~!~~~~cl~~LT~~~~~!s
/~-,
(
'L '
l ;-
--=r~
feo:,
I
,
"
ATTACHMENT II
.
'" 0.:' ~
<j
...:
J
/t..7
Illil'!
II - 1.
- I "
'11,1
',11"
Ih!!:"
II' .
· II...
~ I Illii!
Ii".'
I i;:I~:
"-..,-
'1"E'-'
w, .1";1
CD -:1"'."
o Ii '!E1I
....I~ 5U::o:
, 'I,li
lS: llil':I'
(5 -'.i' II
. ,.
!: h suh
I\H~H~oli
I
! ~ a - A
ffi !!::;i
:E E." !
I!! 'i!i
c( 1'1 '
~ iE~ ~
en .~ i
~:i E
, -,.
Ul . .
a: iil
LIJ ~l[t
LlJU;;:
~"j:
" '~ni
Z ~S
w i
VI :!~
:! Ii
o "
CfJ .;~i
a..
c(
,:E
. \ >-
, ....
, plt~t1 Z
jAf'f --'---
~ I ,At I ()
1': ~>
.....'~
~-~
~ "
:: ~
w
Cl
a:
c(
:z:
EEl'! Ili!ij! 'E' '.' ,.. W'l () :t::: ..
iilll :lE. . ..... :;I~:~ W 'i' ;~
it:t r ~= ~i ~~t~
>< i3 0"
hll . ..:: -, Ul z'l "!~,, ... !.J
UJ -Ie, i ;" i I;, ll:~ h ;5!~ iii ~:~I :~
ihi; -1"1' "'1 !! W ,
'I- . I" i" .- t= z!! iii '.
..J In-Ii i,I Ill, " ,,, '1"; .tf~
'. ;~ ~ :;;::i z H
Q. 'Ii!; 1';'1.5 ,11_ . Iii ;E "" ~l:: :!l;
'5 Ul 0
~S~lj5 B*h "i ,.- ~:;; " ~~ a:r 13 :;5j a.. :: :!l
::!E Ul WII t!:IU:lg~ "i ,:' '. .1 c( Q I Ul ~~~~ :=
'"I' h' i::: ::I ~:t "Sll.
I!! !!il"; .' , . lid I': .i 'I 0 :E '! !o~: W .,
0 " - , o:!. z a: :I~. "
h. i!'1 ." ,. II .L
0 0 i!iha:l" .1:; ii l'l' ::11 " ~ " i t;~= lL ~lji':5 ,I
Z .-"l '11 ':1 , 0,' ~ ~e~~
II':!! 'I'" i . '. . a: ~-:a 0
, . I! ' " I' .... , ;i!i
".~i!i ,-. 0
UJ :;! 'II!!I "'l m! ..!ii t " ., Ul i! c( . =~E: z Ec
i':! ! i'" ,- !I ~ () =:~~
a: :1 , ~i:~5 0 :;~
a: 0 W Ii ;'5 .1:; "i T! 1m " ;. :z: W5! Ul , ~ ;~~~ ::;
0 , ~~ ;~ ., .... ...... Q =~lb
- z II!,!' : h ;! , ~~:~
lL ha !', :Oi a: c( I. Z ! ..11:.... ~~
U. W !!C! , I' ,- W .J5 c( ~!i :5 ';" a: :1;'
Cl I!illm ,i Hi H ~" ~~~~ "
'" U. l,Mi 5~.! :u: ,.. W ~lL, l :5 Em :::~
a: , ~~
z 0 a..h () :!;,
c( W
... Cf) Q
a..
Cl UJ ~!;'Il!i'i:' ii!111 Ii tl!?j' =i:;ll:i~ gE=~:lt; ;' ....,.w.
- ~o:~=~ ~~; !:~
Z 0: "'1 ".. !l:";lo l' ." '-j'i'" =...:a~ ;i .i....i.'-
is ....~ SUi~r:-: ...a~ll '! ,"'- "i -" i~iE~~ ..
t- ~g~:l: 'u:.I~ e;;:ij ;:= ::5:-: E": !<~e !! ~.~t:IO~::;!< ~:
f" ..:1 g.",
c( .. .. "8 > .' 1".\' ~ l,ili; ~O.. ..
a: Cf) =E~hl;~i: E :;"'a ' "";" ii!ii, ii ~=~~5 SHt '.
'i "Il!' i1hii ~: =In:ll:~ W"", !;~I~~~~;:~ '.
Cl , ";, ! ',. 5:: o~ll:lj;::" ',1,:, '. lit:
:) "icl.. .. ...... ,5., i-I!l", ~":l."! i' j' .'!.... .:.~
;UE;g i'i'IH. ,,!lB" .:~ ~:E:~f 10.. ~ f~~~
0 i ,'i!i;'i" In~~t: . ,i i;~i!!'!'; ie
Ul i'lEl!,i,I;; !i':ii .. :l":li:!!~ !hili
ll~ ;::llilli: !!~';;:: Z!l:~;8:Fi~ E~
Z I!!!I':., "-il: :I.. ;lE:l..t:; "
!!l~&'l ."iI"i "I Eai =E Ot;311d=~;~.. .'
- o 'l'--'; ." 'j a: i~!ift;;: ::I!!l.:..::. ::I l':..~ Ii - !:H~~ :~~ U
!d-5'.' ;li!l!i '!'I'" ji"!!
z ....,11..;1'. ..~ ~I:l: ~M t- !i:~M ",t :::;;~
0: .I"~ ~",ll. e. ~~Ed~:l~ " '!i"" *~ ,'.' .I~." II c(;' ,. -,...
Cl ,IiI j'=,!ll ".; '''!t . ',..., iK: ().'"l!~'BI ~e
:I: .::"~I;I ...... '" e sc~ :I~:'" ;~ -'1""-""
z:: '" .'1:::; ~ =...;"M'!I.
. -r " "il:~~;.9: 5E
0 Ci ,!",. ,,,..1 il!'i" Il";:~!! j.. I ~i:",a=t! t. !!: ""~:~:::~;:~ II
c( ji.!;;!!i:l:l III 1l11; ::t:.........:;"';:: i,!; i !i t- ~~:I~p~:~:~
iW;! a::~u..l;::~ . ::1..::....
0: a: ,;i'i''''I!! "1l.9~~.~.
'..t i"" Ill" 11M:! 'Ii' . " o :~ja~~:;~!?~
C) ~i~d~E;;L5~ Eodb '''il'.',,! u~Jth ~ ;2 ; Ei , Z!.!;m,m
.... ..1..;"
, i
[ ,
II Ii
,; Ii
i !! i! Ii
i ! I! :::!'
. Ii; : ! I j I ! i I!
~ ! ~ I ~ I I I r 5 : ~II
15"""'1', '
i: II II tl ;:: ~ :: ;;;.. ~ II
i
,
.
i i
Il i:
~ .: ~ ~
Ii i,
~ ~ .. ... ~
_ ~ ~ b .
,
;0 ~ i
~ : i ~
t i ~ i
5" ;
; I ; ~
e" j:"
1:1" ".! .....lIl1....f 'C.I: I..M "M"~ll II" ....:!....
" ,~, 'I ':'. I"~. :;, :::,. -,i H!'"
:i ;i; i,I'II,; ',!, Iii i'ie,e ii-, ,II.;.'
=.. :: j ;.. ~~ :~~;: I~M ".,,~.. "'.. a ..~t:!~
1 _. 'I' 'j' .j '..' 'I' '". .,. . ,.".
.'" ,. 'Hi' ."i " ''':' "j' 'E"-"
"'t.! ..:I ~ II~ II :~..; "II" j'" .~: I Il. .. ~U~;;
I,., fir: M o:l", . ': ~ I;: ;:Ili~"ll Q"... Ii'
~t ,h :;:11 :!..h ei" "1l:S~" E:le Me",!MM"
..; .:1......... ...;.... I: !1M::"
-." "'! ,_II", '!!i' 1,1. .,'" '" "I'!!,
tn I:~~ i ~ "EIi:lltj;:: '::=~ ;:i:~ 8!~:~ !IfE "i!~e~"t
W 1.15.1i !'il;;. ,I", !H \,h; ,.; I!.~;i,
.... .... 'Ii"" .'il .,' -3'. ,. '".,..
o -:E:l :S~E =I"t;:t ~!; ~ !H~ I~=e~ 21; .. ~~ie:
z j!!l 11" 'i'lli'i ;',l'i Il~l ~;'E; "'. I ="il
:;! I""~' e.., '1'1 "1' '1m ii;! ;.:1'"
",I ',1" ';!l'''! "..1 ",. ,.,,- . .'".",
. .j" .-'. - -,- , .. -"
- -l. .', ... ..., "";' ,.,.'..
!I":l ;:I. ~~ .!..Ilt: t:~1' ;::. <l ~.. ~ g"
lil i'll ". ,i.l." "'i' 1'11""1 ,!, ,;l,i',
A. I" lEi' ";1" , : 3 IE! P;, . ";5' ii!,
Ul ,Eli ,(,I ell,.,1 ,lEi; ..1_ ,1m! ii" Ill""
~~~ ~~;:~ t~~ E ~!i!~
;1, ,.,1, i','ji; ',',j',"
,.; lh,l ! !
.~~;. -,=:._~ ~EE5 8 ! ~e
i ~::j:"" ~
~~. ..I ~t ~~~~: ~:~i
....~ ~~::~. - I'
~i~ ... =~~E; ;Mi:
:sE ii~~~ ~:~~:: i~5~
3.l;~. ',If~j: :M~. ~ si~;
..~ .il.:~j :I"~ I: Iff":~
31~ ;"~i~ =:~; t;~:
,,' -'I' "" "i'
:E: _ l!~:lj~ ;!!~ i i~..~
~E::" ~~.. ~ ;t~~ Ii t"'~~
S ~i :~-I: -: "e;;M;; l!:~i:
!E" I"!' ".! ,s .'"
."E M~M. t '1:1( ..~
_I!! iW!W~!':ii
;~5; ei~~~j e:in ;:: i~~;:E
!!!.i!!!li!!,i,.l!l,
.,f
,
;~ ~l; ~....
::i ~; E~~
!i, ,j '.'
Ii ~ E~;
!:: ,j F!
WI! ,:;
,.: ;. . ii,
:!~ E: ~ ~d
;:~ :;~ ~ ~~:
~~-; H i h~
t~~ :i ~ ~E:
',h s.. ! ':;~t
I." ,..
:; ..~" c~~
:: ~ ::1 ! t~~
..f"... i..~"
...". f '
mill,!~l!
l ;~;
I
~
,
.
o
.
"
i
o
"
~ t:
~ it
> ~
,0
.0.
." "
~~ ~
v<.
""
.' 0
0", !
"~E
...~ %
-,0
Vo c
!
, .
. <
H
! ;
i:~
.._~ _o~_~..
*i!~~~E~E~
"~<..,, " ,
~~"M~O"~_~
~.."..,,~~....~
....-..~~....~..
m~mm
----------
.
::::1
r~
~ :~
~~~
:~i
i'!
,I.
".
r-
:8::
Ii
~~ : .
~=~~
,~~!
:1:~51
~~,:
'!-
~~~
a:lt
::"~
",
"-
ii~
;;~
i5~
!h
! ig
fi ~.a
i! Eli
:: ~~~
;!-I;!
~ ~.f
!~ ~",.,
=~ 1;:...=
i.. e:B
ik:"
c(~
z.
jij~
~i
J ! J
o ~ ;
~d
~ .
.ill;
; :i:~
~i~g
i.:~~
. '
~
~
~
ii1 .
~] i
G !I'
OJ .,!
~
I'
.
. -,
~ llil J
.
10, IE;
! i Ii!
~ '~ ~,
~~ .. i
~dlh
/
f-
.
.
i
,1I"!"'I' II
,,, II . ..
II',I}' ; Ii
r.lJ,1 ;: ~
1,'11 I! ~ !
~~!
~!I
Ell
I
~L
,
. .,;,:.;",J.' "_' ~
[ :; J
, ~
.: t
; j:::
"
,"
"or:
i;:I"'
j" .
.1.=
.i:&
'I"'
I.IIi
.,
,.-,
lt~EI
I':
,
,
N
'"
"7~~
~"'
/--
~, ,
..:.:..',-
- '"
t::: '"
~-
~~
:2~
~~
~:
~ ~
, ~ I
tI "
:1
Id
~ HI
~
.'1,
j , ,
" 1'li1i
~. .
hi~> "I r!l 6 .~', r' .
~iri: it~~ ~g t
I" . -
!;! Ii !
~i~f' ~i~ , M
~ 't..... ! I .l-1 !l' III i ~
, ; . ~
~ '~ ~" . ..
. '"
.,.~.! 0
i j~ / . u
! ~
f u
~ -1 ~ ~
~ ~
~~"i . 0
~ ~! ~ > .
~ ~r .~!!!
ill 0- ~ :;...=:
~ "'. " .-.
' . I"Z- ""~::)
~n~ I "0
. i . . Z
~ ~ r ' 00-
' , ~~E
~ t'i az
!:<o
,,'f, . ~ "'~II:
,n ~~
,g'. ," r.
,
Ii ~!~ ,,"'3 "
.
~i , .
w "
n~
~~i ~ii .- : ,#
~~ -~
~~R~ i~~ ~m ----; "
~~~i ~ i ,.."
~~
.~ ~i -
i~~~ i-i i~, ,
i~~ ~h~ , ,
~!l 1 ~.:
i~~ i'~~ i1g~
e! _l3!i
is ~ .
, I',
I !
~ .. ;.:;
".. .
;:; ; ~
-
.'
" -
'i!;
~!~
::i~
: :i:~
t~~i
Ul
III
I-
o
Z
..J
o
a:
I-
z
o
u
z
o
iii
o
a:
III
>
a:
c
a:
o
Do
::Ii
III
I-
~~
..~
z.
~~
:Ji
~i
., ~~ :i"~ 3~ i~ 1:: ~
~ .. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I~; ~;. ~J ~~ ~
!i i. . I! . m.1 ~i l!~ !:: :~;, ~
~: !!3 E ~-'~ i ~~ ~~~ :lh.. :;::1: ll:
l,i i . " , i~" ~! ,: !!:l """ 'I;, ;,' Ii
-8 ~ ." ~ ~~~~~ ~= i~ ~: S=~;i ~~ ~
" ~ ~"" ~ ~:;"~i~! '0 ~h ~:!i a.. t~ ... .. ;E
""'. '.'.:!:;- -: ::l.L _.'.". m":i".::!,,~ Y." ..
~ "~j~= ~~ l~~ 8:::~ t~N:::~ 2'" i:; =.~., I.;.
- ~~ -::I ~"~:~:lu =: ew; E~~ 3~ _c
, ',', '.', ',~ ~::"j!~ ;!:l is:! j,1:: =E~ E~..~ ~~: i~ :!:;
~'"~:. ,~ ::::.~:~ ..~ ~=o :l>~ 0...3 I'"~ ..~ e~
. :::! t~ ~~ ::;::~~ ~2 ~E8 ~~~ ;!~e ~j F ,,~:~ i~
~:~: :~ :::5E~ ~~ :~f ~~~ ;l!E~! CO ~:~ $!< H
... ;! ..~ ~~ t:i :!;.3~ ~:i t~~ ~~: t~1~;j :o~ wE c~
" . ., 1:. " ",,; ., ": 'i'; I:; i: 10; i' .,
".",' ~ ~~ ~~t ~:: ~5::S;! es ~~i: .:;~~ 3~~ :~ g~~ :.. ,,~ _~
. 0.." ~ __w>~ M w~5 CH E.~ ~;! ;!.~ :l.~ wo ~.
.. B~ B~ E;~ EQ ~~:e~ ~~ ~i~ 8:e: .E co U~ co._
;h" ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~
~i!.= M
~
~ , i
d ..
~
~ !
-] ;:
~H!
'"
i;!
'(p., /0
~
,
~i ~
~? i
f' ~
-",~
~
:~
,~ ~
~- ~
.'
"~ ~,
.,l ....,
to ~ I-..J
~~ e~
~;~ ~~
~~~ r~
:t~'- ~
~., ~"
..'!" ..iii
.
~
I~
~
m ~
~. P
d ,~
c l~
~ n~ ~
~ W~~~~
~ ~~~~~l~
~ ~t~~~:~
II ~:t;_lI.!~~2
'~
~ II
, ~
~ i
~ ~
~
,
,
,
II
tl
~j
~t ~
h ~~~
ia !t'r:"
>, U'~
t~ l~~~
;1 ~'b
~ "1'"
\ ~~~~
(@
w
U
Z
w
Uo
...
..J
iii
>-
II:
<
II:
o
0..
:Ii
w
...
@)
zw
ou
uffi
~Uo
m~ ~
Cz ~
t.&.:i ;
II:z
w_
...<
=:x:
Uou
-L
--r~
{
"
i!
~:
.'
~,
~
b
II
(i)
...
W
..J
~
"h!
, ~
...
~II
~
.
i
"T
I
6
III
III .
"
.
z u
o .
~ :
u
w
UI
e
<
< ~
.
z u .
o : :
i= .
u
w
UI
@)
I i6'
, .0<
I
. .
. I
!
. ..
. ~
! i
! u
~ ::
= t
- 0
>
..
c:? !!
- .
'- ~
Zz.
U~:J
.LQ
o !
~- .
- '"
u ~
u
u ~
.
z ~
o .
i= .
u
w
UI
i.:
I 1
i ~]
i~
; j.:::
,.
i~!
..i'!;;:i]:
iI!..:
>:>1_';1
,,"I.
!i~!
':.;
~..
i'rl
i1j
:i"l
:::::i~
w.
~i
~
. a ,
li~
~ .
I I
I'r ;
I r{ II '~I
~~" : 'j i 1"-/1 ...1 ,:
. + v' '
- ,-, ill r'\ !
"t' "
I: ;': :
:: '-.j/! ."
,: I "",'
Q I II~, I.r,; ". "
~ ' Ii "1 i;,:
-~'''~4 :,:::. /,'
. /, 1-,
,I, '
_ <( ~ !:' 1'------/
-'-. -f "<1'1" I
-.......~-.......... tJ t: j : ,\ I (
~._--~ Ii '\ /~
_" ...L; ~), ;,' \ It.ll
'~__Jri,l!: ~
<lJ~JI'1 L.....
c; 11)[: a
, "
"-..._ 1o...!
~ef
--~!
I ,,,I
~,<. I . \
__'____._~~)'- , '\ 3
. _ -'I.. ",0
~/ 'i ~
Ii ;:(
I -I
----~ '
I
,
I
'\1
\
I'~-
I,'
\
.1-
"---.-..
~~
-----.......
'7-~
~-
~-
/
/
,
,
C'.
I,
/~
t
Ii
.~
, . t~
~ f
I' ~h .'
'"
"..\
\
'(
(:
,'I
I'
I
1'\
"
I,
-,-
,
NOD'v'N ,-n 30
2[[ :J3S: ~ /1
,
~~ : : ~!
~> I" .
~~ · i
!
i
I
OI--DNVi..:!
~\ v- -' - - ---0-1/--1- n';
--~ .-
~
~t
~ ~~
\ ~~ '
I I~;
r ~~
'~
II
H
M
.
~
I ~
; 8
! ...
u
= e
;: 0
.
c !!!
- E
:t~ ~
~~ ~
.. ~ 10
o~!
.. E
. ~ %
;:;~~
~
~
!
i ; 1
.J",
'"
:0;
,
,
~
~ .
;J;
~
I
D
~
~~u
~!;-
.~:::
is::
:i:t
,~;1
~ii ~..
i~i~
'--.........
'~
.~
<~,
z.
:;;1
~H
0:0
,l,'
.,
3DI l3:>U'v'd ZLl )3'3 1T/I
. '\
~l:'J
!~
~~
-
.-
g"
.c
-,
~
~
:i
I.!
~ jll
~'B
'"
~ I
.'Id
!h
/1
;, i:
,a.
?
!
.
II
I,
~:;:
II
~
~....
J3S 1711
I~
I I
.' 1,] J
--~-T--T~~--~
:" I 't
. I
"j ,I
I ~
I
I '
/1
L_
I
. ~j
" .
~F~
/~"t%'
/ 'ii'
td
lit "'~
!~~.
..~..~
i
.
i
i ..
d
f u
~ I
.
;~!
5"1
~~!
sill
J !
! "
S :
~
.. !~ I
~ ~II i
~ nH
tEl
l~
~
.....~ .-aI~
.'
: I i
::z ': u
lu i ~]
w
'"
>II
,
.
III ~ ;
0*-;'
; j:~
.
.
,
I
....=--
N :: .I..',~ . ==----- . -. ~ j' -I ; !
l) ~_ --=====-../ ..... 0 - ~
...r Ll~ --~~-J -
~ ;.
l(
h
,
"
l:;~ ~ ______________
, I
-----L.J
.
.
/;:5 !'
~I i!l
;!j~ '~i:
~~ ll:'
i ...1
....'
'!:~
/ r ~.ll
/-~~~ ;
./.,
..
/
~
.,
~-
" :::::::=---=:= -
.
~
.-"_.-
I------=-~
---s-J "'...
~t "'...~
,
...~.
......q~
~
" w,j'
6vLlI S ;l0 U
l3JH'Q'd 2L! J3S vII
"
( .
.~,
~I.'i~
~..~
~ A . /:::=... ./~/ .-'~ ~ I
~. .,/ a :
. ... , '-------= :,J .
.~^~ ~'---- ~ '"
'J.3~~_A ..-= [i:J
0/ -' ~" ~)!
~ I gllP
~ ; I
II"I!
II
, -------
,
"'"
~
- ;~
\~l
" '
~u:
!h~l
~-~~
I
~r-i
I!
n
yl!
HI!
'I
r~i
l_
'c'
o
"
'w
-----"
.
~
-.J
-------I
I~
~ ----
-~T---"--
"/
~orJVh!
j;..-
I~A 0
, /10' C=:J
~ .,
i
.
...-
r--------...
L.---
VI 30 OI-DNIf~
2/..1 j3S
vii
,(
>II ._
~/
~~/
~/
I
;:>
.
-_. (
~
\0
/"
~~
.'
,~
0,
~!
Ill'
, I
II J!:c
~I '!
:~I J!
I~II .
I~II 11
I ~
-----.-~~-" "-==-==1^ ~. ),;
L-__ !, ll~~ ~!E
.:....,
J
~
.
"
~
,
~
.
~
,
,
h I
~.
, j
it:~~;
~:~ 'V I
~~~
(..I:;
~
~:'1/
=r
~!
~----.:::::::..
--
-~~
~t~'" I
h~h
~~"
!h~s
~
~
-6...-I_ll S ::!O H
3Gi -!3)H\'fd' ~I )35 1711
,-,
.. It!
r
~
I.~
I~~
~,~
Z 1{1
rh!
"
~.
" ..
,~~
~~~
, l:', ~
:~h
~~~
~:j~
<>
:x
I-
'"
IU
:x
III
.IU
~
"
'"
D_
" _I to
,0
.
i; i
. ~ :i! :.
:
o
.
.
i
.
. M
. ~
~ ,
! 8
~. Il
~
;; ~
. .
. ~
~~ !
;H
.~'"
=.~
". '"
O/~
j , !
I j
:: :::.
L
z
o
u
<:
z
<:
-'
'" ;-
r:: ;-
u '"
0 z
w a
'" ..,
" ::>
::: m
J !
(; ~
".
;i.
:!;-
~~i:
..,z..n
:i:~
!,~~~
l~...:.
~! ;
<I~
z.
~8
~i
~ ~
;~ ~ I z
:1
2
"'
!i1 ~
_l'
~Bi
'" .
1;1 -
IIliI :111
lSIIu
>
!
,
.
^
~
~
I
~
\z
Q
~
,
,
.
>
~..
~~
~ ~~
S;i;;;...
~ ~~
~ s
:!;~~
\!!~ ,....
.,Im~ W~ "II~\ '"
. *'~~. C\,.... <( \ ~
II ~~.~ ~ -I -'" ,
',' , ~~. "1 U. '" " l'
.' "'~~~ .L L~ll a \ 3 . ~\l
I' l,~~ . ,"J, 0\ '~ ,~ ~,,~.
~,h ~ ',,! c: I {\"' II ~ I II~~
~ i !:::I 'i' ~ ~, ~ i ' e:
" : I; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~I ; 1 r I~~
: II ..<t ~ 1': ~ .... ~ ~ l ,~~
~ ;11' \1 ~~ ~V=, 7~' ", '---=~"I !~,.
Iu II;, ~I j II ~hd; ~ ~~~==l~L'Jh. ~~ ~~d.
I'MI h .. "~ ~, . ,/ 'II I ~'. ,I ",II I~ I 'I I
\l <i' -~='Oll ~'l; :.eoll /- "'''Z. ~.~ ~ '"
~If~ I Jj ~" /7 - N.N,y'.//# II ,~~.. ~
' .. .~; . ~t ,- 7 ,c"'''-~''.'''''''''". ~_..__n_..~.,," , I
' '::, ::. ..~'~'i"::' n....::..:.. .'. -=-~---=-- It-- -_ _'_ n':';; .' }" .
.}I! I~~ --- !--' ' ]1 ~,/j 111'r~ )1.
-:::'-',} ~ ,I. , 'I' I I
~~ ~) i!!~I~ ~S~: :' [1: ; 1,1 i ; ~:I
.," ;!~ ~iilil! i i II~ I II !; ~ f~
}~ll' ,I: 1 0/ ~ II ~III~ ~ ,!!'
!l~H 'II ,~ ----.JI, Will' ~I'
i' hI 0 '::'1, I ~!~ ~
" 'T , "I} " l' 'I
i; ~ ~I ! I ·
.. ~ Q II' I j.
::: D... tC' II (0 I I. I
Q 'I
z
a
.,
~ I
"
'I
.~
.;'....4~
/~-
I '
r 1 ~
.
. -
.
!
;
.
~ w
~ ~
~ ~
u
= ~
> ~
o
. .
- ~
~:5 !
u; !
.. 0
o<z
.~;;:
.~.
;::;~~
, I
~ J
...
"
III
i ~ ~
~ . -..
,.
!!~
. ;~~~
z.i...
z .I..~
.. ~i~~
~.. ."
i:i:
~~
""~
z.
~~
..J~
~i
~
~ ;,
i
OJ
e! ,
~ 1 ~ ~
~ HI 0
~ : I
.'11
-!!
ien
.h~
i ~.
'h~
!'e~
hi~
i-
~~~'
~'ig
~~H
.'ii:~
~a~~~
nm
~m!
~~'
M
m
~l'.I12
!!~
.,.
I,'
,oi
II!
i'i:l!!'
nIl
~.~.
a .'gl
uiM
='"
. ..
iil
! Ij ~ ,~
Jiliil ~ ~ j
\.<-, !/ "
"'::":: ./
i~; ~Il j H
;~I!1 !V~ i. ~E
~ ~I~ H I;
I;l~ ~ g (~ ~,
;j!i"il ~ i i :i~
q~ l'~ ~~ 5.
l!~og _6~ 51 ~.
~ ~j!; :;~a h ~l
~iil m ~~ i~
~~H ~I e~ ei
l;'~ d~ i~~ ~~!
1m H! ~!lllh
Hin~~
m..~.
~.~~~~.
'I'o'~~
~ed~11
".I~~'
~~~ !~!
~~2 ~~~
>;:ie!!~l'>~
....-..
"ii2-'
~Pi~~g
~-~~s~~
!I~~hh
~,~.~he
~hSnd
g~~ ~Q~g.
ih ~~il;
~a i~~n
I~. ~~Q~8
:o~~ laMa
,~~ ~,v;ij
~~.. Y'..~:t1!.
.,. "-'.
~i~ ~ti~
~~; ~'~I~
l~~ =~-llJ
; m ~~i!l
rll~ jr(5So
m ;mll
~'~'H
ihW
.~~'l
. !~~n~
~ o:tll..;t:
! ~5m~
.~:_ Ih!S' ~
! _>.1
uill,iOO:z l!!
i :li~~i~ ~
I h~lH g
I II~;~~ ~
I g '~~31"
~ ! ~.~~Q~ ~
o 5"'-!3;
, v.~L.,
!
i
I
~ ,
I ~
i '
!d
.. I
~~ 3
!~ s
;~n
6' :
v, ,
~~ ~! ~ mn~~ il ~ . n , ! 0 I , iiUi ~~ii i l!~~ ~~
. <, .
ii ih , . ~ ~. 1 l ,. ~!~
.~ '. ~ " ' "
" i Eri~5'b ~, .- ~i ~ I !e . 'I!~' '~o~ ~ ;~, ~i
12j l'~ .. u, 3e ~ ~ "~
~ I .<v~~' I' ., i ~~ ii i !,~ H~ . l~~
V, i" ,U~~g~ :1 . ! ,S . 6" ~e'; I ~~
.~ ~, .::; ! .' I ~~ ~IUi
!~ i I~ ! -. ~ ~~t; I~~
., , :..~~v" :~ '" I~
L. ,(h r- '. . H -~i
~I ~~c:r!~~ " ., ~ ~ l..d
!~~ ~:lI... h ." j:' .0 PlIl · !i
~~'il ~I~i~e~; 1~ ~ ~ ~ 0' l!~~~ .~p...
.u v" o! .. "' I~~!~ "12
,'~ -~ !; ~..u~u~ " ". . .< - gl i ~.
~i! !. ~~ 0" . !~ v d , .'~- !~I
+ I ~Q"B~i !! , Ii , n lil':;:~=tl o " . ~~
SI! ,. ~~o~~;g, . a~ , . ~~l! 'Z......
~_a ',' p " ,. I o~ , II! I " .. "! - .,
F i-I id~l5~' h >~ Ii 10 !W~o il~~ =5~ i ,~
...cJ '8 .~ -' II Ii I;'; .,~ " ~~~
"I" ii ~~ ~! r~~ ~ ~:!
I.~ i ~~~ !."~Il i~ q~ i !!!g
g~1 I ~~ ~l;:i5-;!!i - 3 i~ .~. i i~~
-le'i,g; H
Fa 10 II ~ oh I Ili~" p~~
.~ 2~~ ~i ;'Ole __1 I ",S u ~. ~i5~~ al'3
~h. '0'8"~i ,. ~v ,!d . -. ."
I,. 11 n !~ ....:I!i!... ~W
<II ~i~ l:;; !~h~~u ~z'll " " 3 hi l:;(~~ e d!
O'il ~~5!iBi:lO!~ i2!il~ , I~ . ~
~~ ~ !'~.r~' '~22~ .
~ ~5 ~
ft .g ~g ni~ I,,5 B ~
., v
U2' "U~.~',~~ ~~ll! l . !
C"!",,. i '3 I
o.,~ i~~~1 '" l~ ,
~.~~. ' .~ I.;5!~ ,
~hi :h;h ::>8 ~ e. I' 0
!~- ~ !~ .
~~m io...!fu ~
ot~IH;:~5i~~.rtl !i5iOg i! .~ 0
~,.,.~. ~. "ll~ -, -. h
iiloll; "l,l'llvi' a~l3~ l, e. -
;!-e~ a eg;;i ';cO!! ~ 15 I II .
r" ~~~'.~~~~I~ ~ii5g ,~ .. ~. 0
ii~!~ '5~~~~2e: ~ ~!~Ei ~! -~ -I ;~
!o l,
-~ 1 ~~~.. e~!ei ;~ih s! eo =, .
,. -.
v~B' "e I . ., m ,. !I
UIO~~...:t o~ to; ~3
UQO 00 _~... - 6'1 .~
~~m~ g~h
;~~~~ . . ~5
~'I~I ~: ;<
!~~ -3
;!:~:t~ ,~ 'v
"
..
J
; ..
i ~
~ u
~ I
o
~ =
~ ;;;
% ..
U ..
"
o ;
. 5
!: 0
u "
j,
i
r
,
.. !
!,d
~: I
9 I i
1 ~
~ _o-
j !"I
.. t
~ j I
j j J
o ;:: .:
:: ~ ,
~ ; 2
M ~
-
':t~o n~ ~l" ~! T I ~' m i m ~~1S!e "e,,~ nm
M~ "'!E - , jl ,~g~ i:i'5
i~~v .- "0 ,-- ~
:it'" ~g t/:t... ::!O~ 'Z~a ~'lj. '!l'
rOI ~,~~ ~I _vo ,I H:li ! . ~ !f~~~
... i~, ~~i I I~ ." i'f ~~!.~ ''I"
.m .~~ ih! '. ._" .! W ~ J. 2~ih 0, . '~i'<
go ",- ~ . ;- 0 ~. g,
ll'~;:: h. I~I g2 i=; ~ ., ~i' B~ ~~!Sie ~h ",tc'l!!'I
2,ol ~'~i ~~ " eY! l~- ~
.,~ ~B 315 >-=-; I,l-
I~v 0' i vu~1O 8':~
~i;~ ~^ u';:ci ~I
~i .~. ~lj ~~... ni~! ~~I
.1'. ; i 8f ~ _i"ii'" .pl'
v~'i <. ~~'i
~,~ "~~ ~~Il "'0. s- ;' 1<= ~ ! 91 I.~ ~ viI
-! l.~ ~~ ~., !~ gE i 56! ilo'~ ~i'-
, . h ." IH 8~! H~ H!.
oPi I", I 26 ~gl ,~ " i ~ 'I i.~h~ .- .
~" I!i5 r .~ 1m Q~~ r~ I~i; i~~H
@j ~~ ~ -s 0
'Iv ;i !g2 I ,o~~"
'!ll a !M~ '~i o' -l. .,' !~.. "i "~.. ~i~U~
.. ~~ ~c>g
i.~ .-. .. B~i , hh o::i~'f~I 2 I~
I ;1~1~ 0; ~~~ $; i ~2'" I ~"~'2' '-I
IQ~ HI~i ~~ E~~", !! ., ,.. 5'i . !Iud
'J h~1 u.,
dd h Uh ~t ~".; h 5i H u" ~~i~ Jm! HH
aa!' ..
J!
;1', ~
1~h ~
"" ~
Q ~ ~ 01 -
~e.!l~ ~
i.i5iO~
"'1 I"
t;~~l:j
"CO ;
!j~! '
'l~- ~
1,"1 &
l!P ~
,!-'
;ol, !
5~~~ h
I" ill' ~,
zto~9 ~:l(
P', Q,
l'g~8 ~l
g~~H
i"~~;;j
~h5~
~~~3~
~ 9 ~o l"
1~:lI~
ilm
~Q~H
,.\ill
:r~ ';1:;;
;,j'l.
ou~ 0:: I
j!l@,
38g-~
'i3~~S1 ~
~P~i
jill' I
~u;<i'S~ ;j
H ;l
H Q;3
" !,
a "@
n ~i:
l; lEI
o~ ~Qi
~~ ~H
i~ ~:~
::;:0 -~!i:
~g~ 5~:;:
~~~ ~g~
!rB6 :!jZ'ij
li~ I"
l;e !~!
iH ell
II" ~
~ 5( ~ '!j
I- l I
~ ~ ~<l
; III HI
I "I"
< 'I
~ ; .. ~
!!I; I j1'
,"" l ,! ~
m1 !!! !
-,.j 1 i"1 ,
~~~u:j l:
~~l~ ~ 2i
li,! l ~l , !
~~~~ L ~~ ~ ~
\'!'j'" <~!;1" ~
-1'1; "',;' j
~8~ 8~~: s ~ ~
I!U IIHIII;l'
11,;' II Ii "
hHhl-n H II '~
iOlj
,,~~
;n~
i~{)~
~i~"
2:,,<:15
iH"'<
',I'
1,,1
...:/:0:"
~~~i
~ ~ c5
!ili
c,
'il!
, ,.
<I',
~~,J(j
<.'>i~:ii
liie!
c ~~~
, i'~
~ j-h
. .~
i ~o!
5 \1-1
;: ~"'~
, ~b
! -,-.
S ::'t.-lll
e "l,
.. llj'f'..
~ l'is
o ,1-,
~ ~~o3
~ g15;
j ~~~~
l ~g~!
,
,
~
!
~
,
'0'
,-!
,I,
--I
!l~
"0
~';~
,liS
leh
~~H
~Q~~
Hi'
Iii;
"ll
',.,
iSig
i=~~
~i~1
;l i ~ ~ ~
Ii! ~ ~ ~
~ I
!U~g II
" ~ s ~
^ , , ,
1 _ ~ ~
!
,
~
~
l'l .1 ~
I H. ~m
! m 1m
i mom
1\ p! !!5!o~
I ,f'ln
, l,l !nlo
! ~~i 1m!
3', lj"1
- ~! 00 ~o ~
Ii" 1'1"
'l: 15 "S'f:<,1i!
~~~ 8ii>~~
6Ni ~I~~o~
,Sl _ii,l
'<! I:'"
~'"= ~~lll'<
o
I
~
~
ill
L
~
! i .
g
,
i '
ql
l
m h,
~ n i
"' i
!, 0
1, ,
, I
II -
-; !
~: !
H'
!: ~
~p
^ ~
iH
l~ !,
,M ,~
yO: u~
:m I !,
;i!!
M, i
;l!~! !
~W! - 1
!,,! I, I' 8 l.
i1'! - i
~~~~ ~ ~! ~
3~H. ~ g~. 6
~~~o <; ~ i
~ll!' i j !
,"I I 0 !
e!j! 1 '
-~'" j! I
'o~ -
lS2' ~ ~
,
, , ,
!II
I ! !
~
i i ~
i "
Hi
! '
!
! l
! .
o ~
1_
; I
, 0
I ~
;
, !
, .
,
o
~ 5
~ i~
;2~~i
1!!5~
I!~i~
"'::l<~0!
l~h!
!!I~~~:r
iiliJ~
ill,!
, ,,,
~io.c~~
I !_5l!i
l;m'
L,,~~~
!,.~l~
~~B8~~
,~h!l
1 fi
~ III
.~ "i
!IIIU
:
.
I
. i
. !
~
0 ~
. .
~ '.
.
, .
! 0
u
~ .
u
;: ~
~
0
~ .
.
, 2
, ...
u .
,
;; c
~
~ .
is
u e
II ~
IP
"I'
, .
i ~
U
i :il
. ,I
n
'I ;"
:J;' j I
: : I
i'l
JL
o ~ ;
I J
-1-
~ ; E
~ il ;[
. ,
: I
~
-<
~ :I"! l . gj~ '! l!
~! ',1 " · lH I~ -
~i lil i Ii I '" 'I li
\. l~l 1.1 ' "i~! I!
~i ell ! ~i ! i,"" "
;Q "G l ,! ! ~ol 9\ I'
!l :j. e gl ; 1~i Ii! gi
~i ;!~ ~ U : Hi 1;1 H
~~ W e j~ I g !i!.1i n
~8 1::Iuli ! ~. ~ ~sq 2s;!~ g!
'i "i O~' g I"~ III Ii
h ~lh ~ g~ ~ ~~~ /l~i e!
'0 '0 ~ 'I -l 1'1 ~!l 'I
," ", . 1, II "l" !b,!
;j llfl'fo Ot:( .. Ii! Ii ~'<I ui
i:,! f
~ ! 'j i
1 ; iH
. ~ in
- t iH
~
l
I
~l
lid
ll~,
!~u
'[(XL
, r
JI, . ~ ~
i"i Ii ~
~!f. ft{ !~ i
~mih d I
=>.11 II
~
...........t\I~ ....
~
"
'I
-<
,
T
i
.
i'
!
,
q
i ,
lj~
ILi
~;l
11:
~, t
3ir
~~H
~ ' 'i l
i l! ii Jl~ ~
I 41 ~r 1r'
~ i~ ~: ~l.iB
1 ~. ~! !!{Z
glii ~~ 'ii~
i!jjm~ t;l~
j~'la,q llJ~
e~~L:!~~lf~::>
n~~h-'irl~
~i= >It 'll~ iw
~1!1 h L,~ ~~jg:
~!! ~'l' ~!; ~~
'"
i
I
!
0:
W
-'
..
:>
o
o
l<
o
:>
o
..
~
w
>
-'
<(
>
w
CIl
o
-'
to
'"
1 . ,
J!P
. p 1
Hllh .
i
. .
~ !
!
i
.:-- . ..
" :.. \ - l~ ~ U
~
~ r i I L
Z :I
~~l:;'-' ! 0
u
~ u
u
. ;:
. L
0
~ .
u
, i!
. ...
v .
"
(; Q
l;
. !!!
~ 0
i v ~
~d i.
th ,p f
1 i I to
Z ,
i t i Q
~~ i) i 0: i I
w
!'1
th 0:
nq CIl
:>
0:
i;? r
U) 3.d
if ~ ~I~ w
.. I
0 . .
-'
. ~j '~I'> <J) ,
.
i~ ~ ~ !~ ... ,.! ,
:} .'-
.' i:~
, .
Ii } ~ J
~ti .
! :;
. .f
I ~. w
~ll I , i I 0 J I i
, < i , t ! <(
i !~I ~ i 0:
to
i . , ~ J i Z
;1 i , i ~h Q
..
~ l "H~ 0: ~ ~ ~
w
j: <!1
;: ~ 0:
4. - CIl
I i~df :>
0:
, r
'~I'> U)
" j~ ~ ~~ <0 .
,
IJ
~I
~,
~T ii~
9. ~lc::t
f c:
-r J==
,
,
,
,I ~ t
\h \
741 i 1-
Ii ~ ~ ~
'.' Ii
l
l
,
l'
T
l
~
~
>
I
,
H
, ,
!~j
t,!
M
ii~
~ ~~~
~,~i;
~~~~
,
l
w
:l
><
>
-'
<(
:>
Z
<(
"
~ ' I
:
'I ! Ii~i ;< 1
!-
" o l
j i ~ -'
~
i ., 111-1 : . ',.: II j i illt l<
0
11 iU! <(
lhi CIl
w
0:
~~!y ,~ 'i~ 'I :>
.jj :ilftJ <J)
U)
,_ t -t ~t ~ w
0:
j,i' pi "0:
ia~ff!~4 OW
w'"
o ~
!!s!Pjili :> >
Ow
W 0:
~hlhli~!; 0: ..
~J... I~li 1'- ~
-'.. 0:1"" "
'"
,
:< ,,!
111
'.
I
I .
I
/
/
'-...
---
'-.
".
.:--
aHt i .
_HI . ~
~U\ . iF
~It~ ~ :<:C
a . '"
u , .- "
It.1 1::
,
h
ti
NGI:.J\fN
VI 30 GH)N\.J\J
v co 2Ll
"'...
lIo,'
~~.
~ Q.
~~~. '"
. ,-,,",\"11 ~
. ~~
~ "" 11"-
ill,
ldF'
1 01 I~
~~! ~ 1"1:
~~ C I,
1"1 I~
fF. 1 '
r,Ji~ I:
I W~ 1\1
, ~ 1,1 1I
i '---1:t. ~
:4
i 1':\ 'H:
, :~
r~--
1--h\ . .
.~ ~1
I ~~
"
I
I
~~ +--- -
==-,_'~= ,f
~
~
"
I
i
,
"
1
1.---t- --
n
~~
"
,>
~~
hi
'j; ',."
-:..~-
~_~ 30\ \3_~1\..
~~~\
30 }~
c.Ll )3S ~,I!
~~
..'
I ~~
~;'
" .
~-=.:'~
-It:!
i!!iI!Jli
lidl!!I'!:
'11"1
lJI)",
....-............
'-.,
UI '"0.........
I,,:
!~/
i
!
r
i
j
7
~
2
.) ~-
.,
"
c.\
..::: . \
. .
~...; ~-,
r) ",.
.
'. .
;.;.lll..
. ~ \" " ~-'-
~i~
[; h
NOD\1N
,
~"..- ';,,: H~NVH
V'13G 0
'.
II
Q
R
~
Iil
~
~
~~
~S
,~
~.~\
(it";)' I
\.~ -/
,~
-----.----.
/~
....J
~. ....-
h
h
~~~
an
.
...",-
t::~
-;;: ,;,~
u
~t~.<\
\:"'<,"~
. "-\. ~\.
........\'t!.....
p~"\-:'-.
j~l;lr~l t !I
ZLI ~.. 'I ~..
j!. -- --,
~~
.....,
.lI'
I
,
..
.
~
..
.
o
u
:! ~
. 0
; .
.
:5 ;
~ ..
z .
VI~
o~ !
Ie
... z
~Io
ute
:1
~I
~ \ :'7
llr'~!
\. 1._ "
r,
_ L~
--" ---- -.... --------.::::::1--
---. 'I--'~~ ] . ,
-. .I~; '.
................- "'J f(! ~) ~. !.:
',..A '..
\ :,J:::-~ . . 0 ~ .
! .
~
.1
t\'
I
I
I
I
-~-~-S'~'~_'- ....=_,;
-------- .:: i b:
~ : ~
I '~
~ .:..:,
..
~ ,~~ .
.. ~
~
,'--
r- ?
::2
~. ~!
;:: ..
~
~~
" . "'~-"::;:-~:-,'::...-...-.." f,- a . ,
" 1 1 ~
.' /""")1 .. ! 1
.:.-" . . ~~:...~..l. . RI' It
HOf:ilfN 1f1 30' OH~NIf!l ZLI ~3S i
!
0-
-=
~[
I!
Fi .
I:
'~
fl
. L ~
-~rJ
\.' ~._---~
~/r-' ..'
~ ;' ~' ~-----
./ /'
I
,
~ I
,,/'//!~~= f11
:~
II ~:
;:;i.
JI I-
"I J
i~lil
."
1~lil
~~~-~i-'- I, - --=-j ~I
l,~l::
. ~
~
~
~
f
~
>
t/
"
.
~
.
~
,
,
-
,
......l:... ~
~!E
~,- :"'"
.
,
~:~~
, t~~
...':J
!'-~
-'.J~
"
~'~t~
1S~ ,~
S~R~
..~....
~~~
,J ~. j\~IJ m.
c-- - , '~! ,.
I ~~ I ,,'. ~~~
'1/,;0(.:-
~~-- ~_____ - - '- <<J !' ~11.n 3~ :
.~~j~~.. ~------J : ~'I ,~. :z
~~~~~~l~ I~~-" i',~~: ~
-t====-----=::::::::::::::.-~ I, II 'fr '",- :z
- ___ ------ ~~ ,~L ~ i' . U ..
- ----------:-..:--- ---- -----------=::: ! ~ II' I - '- '"
- ii ~ -~. '\, I I ~'" :!/
I. ,,- ';i';'f- - j'H J ~
----~ _ ::::::::=>._ z;! I ~ " "
- .~~- . , . ... ~I .; ..1,
-j I _:t--e---...,.--....4-~+....-+ -..---e---....-......-.....~........:+-e-- :;) : tj
___~ <,==~~::-.:;.:~= _-~_.---=--.6~~ ~.._ .__' -r '1'"/
.~.
.~:: ~..
~~H
-#7--- -
'.r~/~~
-~ ........
<,
~
"; Ii
,)1'.-0' :::/: ~"..; II
~-
1"'
c,_
, .0
fa
o
..
i i
- "
~ I
r--
()I-....--.--,
,
<<
i
:, I
01
sit
i , :
!
"I
C>
"
\
c,
~
~
~
B
i' ~ ~
<5.::;.
~ l.~.
. !ll~
z"'-
:1l!1
I:
?;:~ 'I i
<<,
z;:
~~ I
rd~
B:i
!, :
II,
;-
= z
~
~ ~
..--.-
,- .
; I'
~ - II:
~ .
~ J!;
iJ il~
~ ~j~
~
. II!
!
;
.-'
'II '
l~
I!,
-- --
/
I ' ,
, --,'--"'-"--'~"
~r
IIIJ
/11
r I
'I'lL
~~' ~j L~
: J
'1
~~.,! L _~
i.J ! -------'
.ILl .'1 .............
~ "
:>V-N v- :
. ,1 30 OH:lNv-B ,.,,,/
1"._ ....,..- --ZLl :)35 fTlf
."_i~'
"-
I ~"
I
-_,-J I!'
-1--7'~- I
" +---
~,' !
J
. ~\ -'
, r!l~
~i!i
~~~.
...i
/
./
->
I
I ti
2
,
"
,
...
__ UI
, UI
, '"
olI
\
\
\ ~__ III
, "
,II ~ IL/ i . . ; ,;"
'}' I ,-~_. ,,_CC ~' --I. ;' roc.. "Iii i
- -', - ,': :~ ce. '= ' L J r. - "
/,i -- ~-l: ~:i
. Ci:~ .'
- <t' ."
, z~ ,I.
. 3 :!:~ .,:
I :J8 i::o;
. ~~ !i:'
j ,,' ' ',,' "'. ,_.', w .~~
I ,:.'j - ._~~', '",' , I
--- ,- - - .~
------ . ----
,. - __ ~' ,. /'" _, . I'
,',' ,--~,., -'" ~ --<
.-'" ....-~~... /.
~-7--'--~' ~~. " --
, ,~- ~- --- -,-------- ...., - - ~:: >-
.< '_ ; ~+-_~4~"--= -", ' ~ ~
__", _ J(~=-=- t,. - 0
: -~i ~ - .,..,....' --------=-.
.. . .~' . -- --..-- -- - --"- :!'
~"",-=----=--4' -.... .;:"
"'~/.' \ ...,~- '._, ' -+--+.. i;j
~' V" .L.
,Et-LII' . t _d
. 0 ,'c' r .. .'1:.' .
"' I 13JU\fd :" J d . Gl
<LI )3S v/I ~~t I ~ 1I! .
~~t... . ~
nia' .
"
.
~
'"
'-
"~
"".....t/'+.
.........
I
J
: i:.
~ .. I
, 1
i I
I ~ I
. . .
I'l,! :
i -- , I ~'
· J ~ 1
I. , , _
J_;- :;."
11 ~:
. ~~ ,-
<li ill
Z<;n "'":"..
~:: :~t
t. ~; !i~!
1j.~o;~
.
I , n. .
/. m _ ...._~p~~111
' . d~-C~ :' 'd'- II,
w'@! ~~~.. " .#ff;.~"~d,~.-::,
~I /::':-:1=. ~~'\ . / t(~ " ':-~_
. . d", 0" "'~ 'l. .~_
. !!,~ "::Zc'$&.'~Ail
1, ""d . /!" , '." _",~,;,;
';r -< . '~Y4,v,i.i';">:;y
~
----
---
.-
./ II .._____
I' ~
il J3S f:, If
. ft. ~~. V1 30 OH:>NVU 2LI
Itr'.J"tN
? .--it . l~ ~ ~
.---;- I,. ~t
..- .1I_jWJ~l;:~
r-
'I
I, (
IH
.....t. I ..~.
10) '. ,..
.... .........
-l,r
~ II i
;H
U
J
" -. I
.Jti::!. '
~-~<=
"t.~ ..
~$;,h .
~~..;:
>.
'~~~j
.
~
!~~/
-;~~
~ ,
-.-
,0
,
...
.
/
I
I
/'
~.:....-.- '-
~
,
'"
/
(/
, ,
=;:~=::. Ly, [ d~-J!
~_._-
\
L--
~--
---
">,
~ to
.'{~
"'~~
~i_OJ~3
.. .
h"-)i,
I~:~'
,~',...:\
I
~.
I
: I
~,I
~=I
u
, I
, 'I'
:!
ti
:z
I-
OJ
OJ
'"
1$\ :- 0 I
l&I .: !
IlJ "! =1
III !:
2; ;
. ~ . -.
~ ~H
~,. :r
i;i
.".1
. I
"~~'. o1NJi~lf~;.
. r,f CJijlnt i
.. 'Ij
.
'_..... l.-. .._
~---;,
NOI:>VN
.'
. .~~.:'__~J
(-~
,
,
.I
/\.
OH;lNVlI eLl
,-[ // -- i.
_J II I i(o/ ~i
n. Jf I
+-d. /1 u" ~~
'.
' - " ..... Y'I" 1IiI; IH
[ ~ I :~
I II tl !~Iil
-----"~~. ~J i '[
r '---'" ~ ~._---11
IL_ .~" . -=-=-.:..::-_~__~,_
l_ -~-- ,,_ I_
..i~
(I..~I
j _ J j r
f ;, rrftr
I . :,' II~!
I I --, 't "0 1 . .
J--~ ~~;,.=-.hj If'!
=' '~$~~l~
== J __ ___ ~_.~
- -=l - -11 _'_."~_~ /
/'. --- e ;~ - -=-~
~.. .. ......-----
~ ,i:~ ..
-~i
;>
_.-...
.
.
.
.
I
!
~
.
~~
.;.,
- _..-/
.
,
. ,i:.
'-,
!h
-~~
"'!-...
'....
.
~'h~
~~ ~~
~;;:~'"
'~"i:J;l:C
,~
!'"
.,H
~,~
~ hot
" ot~\..
-t ~~~
,
,.
:.;;...
;t'"
,
.
~
~: '~
~"~-~
,
.':'- 'j
,-I
'::i JIj\1'd 2/
~ " I
.~.....
. - '-" V........
I~.
',<,;:>
"
n
0/------..._,
..
I i
~ u
c
~
.
;
I
I i
! ,;
i ;
["'-
51'~'
v:
<:!
Z!
<:
.,
hI
D
o
:I:
c'
Z
<:
" .
1\: .
!::i
'.'
hi :
,r
::::!
.._n____.
"
<>
z
f-
'"
'"
:r
\II
'"
:II
~~
Co;
I' ,
; j J
:;; .
;;;; ;:.
[t':
~ }--,
;~;;
~ ~~~;
::i:i
~i~~
~::if
. ,..
.. ~
~
.~
~
~
::;::
~ l
::'
'" III
~
!;! , '
I
. ' '1
1I1
RESOLUTION NO.
/flO 13.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND ADDENDUM
THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, ADOPTING MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, FINDING ROHR'S PROPOSED
GRADING PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED
CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING
ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 51
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista Local Coastal Program (LCP)
has been certified by the California Coastal Commission: and,
WHEREAS, said LCP includes Coastal Development procedures
determined by the Commission to be legally adequate for the
issuance of Coastal Development Permits and the City of Chula
vista has assumed permit authority of the Chula vista Coastal
Zone: and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on
February 19, 1991 in accordance with said procedures: and,
WHEREAS, EIR-90-10 and addendum thereto, CEQA findings and a
statement of overriding considerations (attached as Exhibit A)
has been prepared and considered by the city council: and,
WHEREAS, a mitigation monitoring program has been prepared
to be incorporated into the project, attached as Exhibit C, and
has been reviewed by the City Council: and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as
"approving authority", has reviewed the grading plan for the Rohr
Office Complex.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
city of Chula vista as follows:
Based on the following findings, the City Council of the
City of Chula vista finds that the grading plan for the Rohr
Office Complex, subject to conditions listed in attached Exhibit
B, is in conformance with the Chula vista certified Local Coastal
Program because:
1. Grading and drainage improvements have been designed to
comply with section 19.87.07 (Grading and Drainage) of
the certified Local Coastal Program. Building pads
will be above elevation 6 feet and the 100-year flood
level. On-site drainage will include a drainage basin
and drainage apparatus to eliminate silt and
contaminants from storm water and irrigation runoff.
1'- J.r
Subject to conditions, grading activities, drainage
improvements, and erosion control landscaping are
planned to minimize runoff problems of siltation and
chemical intrusion into wetlands which is consistent
with the LCP's area wide grading policies.
2. The project site is privately owned and development for
the purpose of this Coastal Development Permit includes
grading, drainage improvements, and erosion control
landscaping only. The site is located at least 1300
linear feet from the nearest shoreline point. The
proposed project will not preclude or reduce public
access to the shoreline nor will public parking be
affected by the proposed earthwork, therefore,
development as proposed has been found to be in
conformance with pUblic access and public recreational
policies of the Public Resources Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby:
1. certifies EIR-90-10 and addendum thereto, adopts CEQA
findings and a statement of overriding consideration
set forth as Exhibit A, and adopts a mitigation
monitoring program set forth as Exhibit C, incorporated
herein as though fully set forth;
2.
Finds that the proposed Rohr grading
with the policies of the certified
Coastal Program; and
plan is consistent
Chula vista Local
3.
Approves Coastal Development Permit
conditions set forth in Exhibit
Approval, incorporated herein as
forth.
No. 51 subject to
B, Conditions of
though fully set
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Gh~~
Chrls Salomone
Community Development
Qo1;L 9- J\ \L---
Bruce M. Boogaa
City Attorney
(Resol3 )
1'-
~(.
C) "{
"
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
EIR-90-1O
CANDIDA1E CEQA FINDINGS
In accordance with Section 21081 of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Section
15091 of Title 14 of the California Administration
Code.
Prepared for:
City of ChuIa Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Ine.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
February, 1991
r;j%/f-IfJ I T A- / ,. .. J. r
,------
..
I. INTRODUCIlON
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project
shall be approved by a public agency when significant environmental effects have been
identified, unless one of the following findings is made and supported by substantial
evidence in the record:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
(2) Changes or alterations are the responsibility of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible tbe
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the Final EIR for the
proposed Rohr Office Complex (SCH # 90010623) and all documents, maps, and
illustrations listed in Section VI of these findings. The project's discretionary actions include
the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Grading Permit
Building Permit
City Coastal Development Permit
Coastal Commission Development Permit
.---.-
The Rohr Office Complex Project site is an 11.6 acre site located within the Midbayfront
area in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is located sits east of the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh, west of the SDG&E right-of-way, north of Rohr Industries' existing complex and
south of "F' Street.
The "F" & "G" Street Marsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). The NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing
habitat for many types of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
- 1 -
I " "J r
90-14.021 02/13/91
C. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR and the record, finds that no specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
D. The Planning Commission acknowledges that these recommended CEQA Findings
are advisory and do not bind the City Council from adopting findings to the contrary
if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
ID. IMPAcrs FOUND INFEASIDLE TO MITIGATE TO BELOW A LEVEL
OF SIGNIFICANCE
A Biology
Impact
Elimination of fallow agricultural fields currently used for raptor foraging and replacement
of them with approximately 9.5 acres of developed land would result from project
implementation. Because of the limited extent of similar coastal habitat and the absence
of currently accepted mitigative measures, the impact is considered to be an incremental
contribution to a cumulatively (regionally) significant impact.
Mitigation
..._-
No mitigation measures are available to reduce this incremental impact to a level below
significant. Any development on this site would result in the same incremental significant
impact.
Finding
Land use at the project site has been planned for the proposed type of use by both the
existing, adopted Local Coastal Program and the General Plan, and the proposed project
is in conformance with these plans. However, even though the project is in conformance
with adopted land use plans, it, and any development, would result in the incremental
contribution to a cumulatively significant impact.
- 3 -
11I"'~
9O~14.021 02/13/91
Mitigation
· A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit issued by the
Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work and/or installation of any
drainage structures.
· The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990)
must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department. All
recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the applicant."
This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and must be included
(or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
· Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas overlain by
bay deposits or other compressible overburden soils will require some form of
subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for use
in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the
use of surcharge fills to pre-compress saturated bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table; or foundation elements must be designed to extend through these
soils into competent bearing formational"soils.
.~
· If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto
existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to
improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to pre-compress
saturated bay deposits.
· If saturated soils are encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering should be implemented in general accordance with the r~commendations
contained in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance with
RWQCB order 90-31 regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
Diego Bay will be required.
- 5 -
1~-30
9O-U.021 02/13/91
. Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and human
presence
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
. An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Mitigation
. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub vegetation
between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer must be isolated
from human intrusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds
as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities occurring on the patio areas.
. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and grease
traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed
on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple-chambered.
. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning to be'.
conducted in late September or early October and as needed througfl~e winter and
spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing,
as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must be conducted,
possibly through the mitigation monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is
occurring as required.
. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained
during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction
site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would assist in this measure. In addition, construction de-wa.tering should be
directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so
that clear water is released from the site through the regular desiltation basins.
- 7 -
I ~ . 31
90-14.021 01/13/91
. A full time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront, or by other
funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management program, ensure
compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of
other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers
should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal
Reserve Lands. Officers s~ould have training in predator control and should possess
the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
It is recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection of the
entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the boundaries of
the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and the San Diego Bay. The
jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in this board are the City of
Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District, the Bayfront Conservancy Trust,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game,
Rohr Industries, and the owner of the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula
Vista Investors).
. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who is a
state-certified applicator.
. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the multi-
jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for the purpose
of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator
control program and mitigation programs for the project.
. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
- 9 -
I~'~;;'
90-14.021 02/13/91
11',0
,u
· 1-5 southbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (4.5 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
· 1-5 northbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (0.9 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
· Broadway and "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.7 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
· A significant parking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13 percent) under the
proposed project, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
occur.
Mitigation
· Bay Boulevard north of "F' Street should be designed for traffic only and on-street
parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wide parking areas adjacent to the east curb
line must be dedicated to normal traffic flow. "F' Street (Lagoon Drive) must be re-
striped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out
from the intersection, and three lanes in toward the intersection. Th~t.\Jree inbound
lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one through-lane, and one
shared through- and right-turn lane. The westbound and northbound approaches will
also require modification to provide one left-turn lane, one through, and one right-
turn lane. Signalization is necessary at the intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Bay Boulevard for 100 to 200 feet north of the intersection would
be necessary to accomplish this measure. These measures would improve the LOS
to C. The applicant is responsible for providing 53 percent of the funds for this
mitigation based on the recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed in
Section 10.0 of this report).
· Implementation of two improvements must be made prior to, or concurrent with,
development of the Rohr project, which is necessary due to the near-term extremely
- 11 -
90-14.021 02/13/91
111...&3
1.;--'1
IV
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
D. Air Ouality
Impact
· Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant impact will result from build-
out project traffic adding approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NOx and 0.03 ton'
of ROG daily to the airshed. The NOx and ROG counts (the main ozone formation
precursor pollutants) are less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
threshold.
· Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional impacts resulting from
the clearing of existing site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporary emissions of dust,
fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during project construction will
occur. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from construction
activities are assumed to average 1.2 tons. of dust per month per acre disturbed. If "
the entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development,.~al daily dust
emissions would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
Mitigation
· Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) such as ridesharing, vanpool incentives,
alternate transportation methods and transit utilization must be incorporated into the
project.
· Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abate.ment measures
required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70 percent.
- 13 -
,,,-..1'1
90-14.021 02/13/91
STAlEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
The decisionmaker, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, after balancing
the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the EIR and the Findings which remain notwithstanding the mitigation
measures and alternatives incorporated into the Project, determines that such
remaining environmental effects are acceptable due to the following:
A The need to expand an Industrial Business Park use in the Midbayfront area in
conformance with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program.
B.. The need to stimulate the regional economy by providing construction-related
employment and employment related to the Project's industrial, office and
commercial uses, all as more particularly set forth in the record.
C. The need to advance Chula Vista's environmental goals by decreasing current
acts of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation on the Project site.
illegal off-road vehicle use will probably also decline.
D. The need to increase the economic base of the City of Chula Vista.
riding
..._-
I ~ -.3.5
Page - 15
JHK & ASSOCIATES
6192932393
P.02
j hk & associates
Pebraary 19. 1991
Ms. Diana Richudson
Pro:Icc:t Manager
Keller Environnattal Assoc:iaICS, Inc.
17'1:1 P"dth Avenue
San Diego, California 93110
Rc: Rcca1cu1atcd Project ImpaclS - Robe omce Complex Devc10psnent (IHK 1135)
Dear Ms. RJc:bardson:
In r~~!!8C 10 now trip generation and intcrs<<tI.on geometric infonnatl.on, JHK &
Associatea (JHK) has pl'q)mxI. the fo~~ report documenting ncw .PfOjcct impacts fur the
ablwe Jefenmced project. Th.l.s report . new information ~gllllling existing conditions,
future conditions With the project, and future conditions with the project and the ~ommcnded
mitigation, The tables that are inc:1uded in this report IIJC modified venions of the tables included in
the OrIginal Traffic Imp8ct AnalY5lS Rcpon. The purpose for perf~~J this Trame Analysis as
an addendum to the original traff1e impact analysis report was primarJJ.y to respond 10 the new
direction provided by the aty of OIula VUtB 'n'aftIe JlnBineering Depou.tu.....t Tfiis new direction
Involved the use of a trip generation rate of ten ttips per lbousand square feet for the Rohr
~ office oolIflex. Tbis new ttIp geocration rate is some 41% lower lban the tl:ip genemtion
rate used in the otlIinal analysis wlUeh was 17 trips per lbousand square feet for a large
commercial office complex. Based on the 245,000 sq\IIR feet of dcve1opii1ent which is planned
for this site, approximately 2,450 trips will be generated. Thus, lbe following sections conl4in
tcdmical discllSsion addressing this change In estimated trip generation for the site. The most
c::rl.dca1 finding of this new traffic analysis is the sections en1itlCd "Impact of Project Trips - Year
1992 PM Peak How" and "Future Conditions with )IIjripu. n Both of these seelions describe
the fIndlnp wbich resulled from this reanalysis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table A-I shows 1hc existing level of sa:vice and lCU results based on new inConnatioo
~g the ii;eeway ramp interchanges at "E" and "H" Streets. Pl.ease note that the intersection
ot 1-5 Northbound Rampf'E" Street bas improved from LOS D to LOS C during the PM .Peak
hour, Aka. Ihe lntersel:t1on ot 1-5 Southbound RaI1lpI"a" Street improved !tom LOS C 10 LOS B
during the PM peak hour.
8989 RIo 5ao Dk:go Dri\'e . Sui\c 335
SaIl OIeao, California 92108 . (619) 29S-ZZ48 . !'AX (619) 29,..2393
1~-3"
,
~
10
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929:52393
P.03
_jhk " -mID
Ms. DiaDa Ricluudson
Fcbruery 19, 1991
Page Two
IMPACT OF PROJECI' TRIPS - YEAR 1992 PM PEAK HOUR
. Due to the ~on ~ project gma:aII:d 1rlp$ and ehangl:s in inascclion geometries, tbme
inlersections In significantly nnpacll:d by the projca. These in1l!l.'Sections are:
~Jntencclion
I-S N ~ at I-.H" Stmet
lhllIdway at "ft" Street
Broadway at "B" Street
LOS PM Peak HolU'
D
D
D
The contribution of project generated trips at impacted httenections is also reduced, as
shown on the following table, :
Impaet of Project Trips. Year un PM Peak Hour
~1nter8ectIons
1-5 Nortl1 und Ramp at "B" Slm:t
Broadway at "E" Street
Broadway at "H" Stm:t
Pro~ Contribution
. percent
0.6 percent
Not applicable"
"Note: The conlribu1i.on of projected rraffic at the intersection is negligible. However, annual
growth win playa vital pan in the dtterioration of 1he intersection. This intersection has
been dlsregarded in Ibis analysis by should be taken into account for flltlUe Cl.ula Vista
expansion.
The ",,1111".1;71''11 inlr:lseclion of Bay Boulevard and T' Street is aIM heavily imparted by
project generated traffic. Due to tbis impact thiJi intersection will Kquin:: st!".H...ation and
geomelric mi.liptI.on as described in the following section. 1be contribution of project traffic at
tbis location in the Year 1992 PM peak hour is equal to approximately 17 pexcent of the total peak
hour entering volwne.
As shown on Table A-2, incremental improvements in inlCISCCtion level of service are
acbieved with the reduced project trip gcnc:md.on. l'1case nole that the signalized. interseCtIon at 1-5
DIl'I'Ips/"H"Street is not si&niflCllIltly iu~ted by project gcncra.red u:aflic in the future.
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATION
Aa shown on Table A-3, two inlCl:SC:Ctioos 0.0 longer rc:quirc miti~tion (I-S NB and SB
Ramps at "Boo SlIcet). 1be following mitiption measures are still required to achieve acceptable
levels of service under fuluRl conditions:
1-5 NB Ramp at "E" S~-
Westbound right mm only lane
Balltboundright tum only lane
Broa4way at "E" Stt=t -
I~"'JT
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929:52393
P.94
_jhk & .......
Ma. Diana 1&1wdson
Fcbnwy 19. 1991
~ 'l'hnle
Broadway B1 "8" StJ;eet-
WeslboW\dright turn ~ lane
Northbolllld rigbltum oo1y lane
Soltthbound rigbt tmn only laDe
Bay Blvd. at "F' Street -
The lnformalion pIClIlllllcd above SIII11I1JIrlzc:a the tesuJ.ts of OlD' reanalysis of the t\'affic
impacts usociatM with this project. The t.cchnica1lnfonnation geucnled during this reanalysis
wiD be incoJporalcd into a final \e(;hn;"-al report to be produced by JHK by FcbJul!)' 28, 1991.
JHK a: AssoCiIlca is confident that this new mtonnation. will. meet the needs of the City of <:.'hula
Vista and if there are any qllClSdons rcganling this technical analysis or you require additional
lnfmmation. please do not hcsita1c to contact Ms. Pam BarnJIart or me.
~YIllll"S,
JHK &: J\qneja~1
])~~/f~
Daniel F. Marum -
Senior Transportation Planner
Att&:hmc$
cc: MI8s Maryann Milk::r
BnviIoIJ.IJICDW Consultant
City dOlula ViBIa
1~--3f
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929152393
P.0S
jhk 1Il __
TabIeA-l
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS - SlGN.AlJZED lNTEBSECTIONS
III....MCtIon All PelIIc PM PeIIk
HIS SInleI E/W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-6 SclutImund
~ "E" S1reet OAG A 0.62 B
1-5 NoIthbound
~ "E" Slrlllll 0.02 B 0.75 C
Woodlawn AVllllU8 "e' Street 0.51 A 0.68 B
Broadw<Iy "F" Street 0.36 A 0.68 B
Bay EkluIeYaId 'M" SIfeeI 0.28 A 0.47 A
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "H' Slreel 0.43 A 0.72 C
1-5 NoI1hbound
RaIJ1) "H" SIIeet O~ A 0.67 B
Bl'OIIdway "E" Street 0.60 II 0.78 C
Broadway "H" Street 0.42 A 0.79 C
A-4
I (P . .3'
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929152393
P.06
jhk oS< ossocia*
Table A.2
SUMMARY OF STUDY AREA lNTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM FI'INk Hour
Future
v.... 1m
COnditions
InIll1'l11!Ctlon ElQtIng V..r 1890 Plus PropOHCl
COnditions ProJect
.::a~ ~= leU LOS ICU LOS
"0.40 A 0.61 B
1-5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.62 B 0.89 B
1-5 S8 Ramp "H" Street 0.43 A 0.47 A
1-5 NB Ramp "H" Street 0.56 A 0.61 B
Bay Boulevard "I-r Street 0.29 A 0.31 A
Woodlawn Avenue "e- Street O.lil A 0.56 A
Bn>adway "F" Street 0.36 A 0.66 B
Broadway "I:" Street 0.60 B 0.<40 B
Broadway "H" Streer 0.42 A 0.45 A
PM PMk HotW
Futur.
Y_1882
COnditions
ExI8Ilng Veer, 990 PlU$Propond
InterlleGtlon COndItIOns Pro/4ICt
NI8 S1~ EIW Slrwt ICU LOS leU LOS
1-688 -e- Street 0.62 B 0.79 C
1-8 NB R;unp '1:. SII8Ilt 0.75 C 0.89 D'
Hi sa Ramp "H"~ 0.72 C 0.78 C
1.5NB~ "H" SIreeI 0.67 B 0.71 C
Bay Boulellard "H' Stnlet 0.47 A 0.56 ^
Woodlawn A_ "E" Street 0.68 C 0.74 C
Broadway "P' Street 0.118 B 0.74 C
Broadway "E" Street 0.78 C OM O'
Broadway "1-1" Street 0.79 C 0.a5 e-
Nole: . IndlcaIes mitigation to schievll aoGePlabIe levels of service for Year
1992 condJ:iona.
A..s
J " ... '10
JHK & ASSOCIATES
6192952393
p.e7
jhk /k aseociala
Table A-3
SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
BEFORB AND AFl"BRMlTIGATION
STUDY AllEA PROBLEM LOCATIONS - FUnJIm YEAR 1m
Befolll AfWr
..lIaallon MIl_ion
Prapo&ed AvP-....~
n.....tk).. ProJect ProJect
NIS EIW .!!aL. ~ leU LOS
Broadway "E"8IIeeI 0.84 D 0.78 C
BroadWay "H" Slr1Wlt 0..85 D 0.85 D
I-6NB
~ "E" Slreel 0.89 0 0.74 C
Bay BIIId. "P street NlA 0.75 C
Note:. NlA 1ndIca18S that the lnIersec1lon of Bay Boulevan:v'P Street Is QUrrently
unslgnallzed and WIle IIIIlIlymd as a fOur-way SUlp comroned 1l1l8t98CtiOn.
"'e . AlI8r Mitigation- AnalySiS leSIed this int8l'S8Clion under signal
conlIOf.
A-6
,,,- 1./1
3HK & ASSOCIATES
619293239:3
P.99
l
j hk & ..sociates
flLE ccey
Fdlnwy IS, 1991
Ms. DJaDa Richlldson
Pi.~lManager
KeDcdmviroDmenllll Aunr.;...,
1 Tr/ Fifth Avcuue
SlIIl Diogo. CaIiComia 92101
Rc: Bohr Office Complex: Development 01angc 0Idrr Request (JHK 113')
AI.~uWItlod JBK &: AltEOCi....,s (JHIC) is pleased to provide this ~ of work
and COSt utimate ~onn the additional seMces teltuhed OB the Robr 'n1ftic Impact
Analysis Study. Idditional work: is neceuuy baSCd on tho """';.;nn of the City of
Chula Villa to advise . trip generation lite for this site which is different than the 1rlp
JCIlClltion used for the de\rclopment of the drift ElR. The dmft EIR utilized . ~
aenendon I8IIl of 17 ~per tbousand square feet which is . wonsc-case condition for this
245.000 sql1lU'e feet complex. During !he review of the ftna1 EIR the CIty of ChuIa
Vista dctcnnined tha1 a DI01e appropriate rare fur this sile would be the 1'IIe calIlgo.rhcd as a
cmporate office single user rate which SANDAG recommends at 10 trips per thOUSlllld
square feet. lbis additional phu: of the study will be divided into two major subtasb as
described below:
SOhbUIJro 1 .. Prq?Ar'e Additional Trltf'fil! Anatyritl Infmmarion
JRK will provide this additional traffic iDfomwiClll t1~"i1lllg the .:::t:am at crilica1
IipaIized lnll:rSCCti.ons and nmigBtion at critical Aip"lin'IJ intasectIons this new tIip
pneradon 1810 analysis direi:tion. This information will be provided to Koller
EnvimDD1ellltal Aunciates by midday 1'ucsday. Febmary 19, 1991.
SuhMet,.1_ Re\'ise Final Traffic Analvd. R~
JBK will produce a new report with ~k:d gmphics and CDlRCfl:d text to n:fJect
the impacts and miliption descibed in the lllidP.ntl.,/TI. This new ICpDlt will he provided to
Kc11cr Environmental Assnciates by Febrwu:y 28. 1991.
8989 Ri<> San Dies<> Drivc . Suite 335
San Dieto. Caluomia C)?lnK . ,F.1Q\ ')041; "'nolle... _.... u.n.. ......... ..........
J~- '/~
JHK & ASSOCIATES
6192952393
P.B9
jhk .I: ..~ .
,-
Ms. Diana Richardson
PeIzuary 15, 1991
~2
Rlvt""'SD~
The total esrimated ~et for this "rltfirional wodc will DOt u.ceed $4.000. An
IlCt1Ial invoK:c doc..u.~ the hours llXpCIIdcd by JBKin compIetiDJ 1heee twu cub will
be suhmiUOd upon the completion of tile two tasb whfch is ",,""""11M for Thursday,
Pebrualy 28, 1991. JHK ;ntel)d. fO coocentraIc the work dOlt fllI' Task 1 on February
IS, 16,17, 8Dd 19, 1991. The effort iovohrc:d in """T1eting Task 2 will ocx:ur bc1w-'l
fcbnwy 20 and 28, 1991. JHIC will produce approxinjI&dy 10 copies of the Pinal Report
for sub.mUtal to the City.
.'
JHK & Auoc:iates 11 ploued to continue to usist the City and Keller
Environmental on this developinent project and we look forward to the successful
compldion of the Environmental ImpaCt Report lIIlII our TufIie Analysis Rqlort. If you
have my qw:stions orrequb ""tll~! kd"u.......wm., please do uot"..m..te to co11laCt me.
Sina:mIy,
JBX: Ik. ASSOClA'IES
~/I1Ifii r M~
Daniel F. Marum
Seoior TnDsportadon Planner
DFM/dr
/(,-'13
Ii!
j
EXHIBIT "B"
Coastal Development Permit No. 51
Rohr Grading Plan
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Applicant shall incorporate into the project all
recommendations provided by the project soils engineer and
contained in the project geotechnical investigation, soils
report and hazardous substance site assessment and related
documents.
2. Applicant shall incorporate all mitigation measures set
forth in EIR-90-10 relative to proposed grading, drainage,
and erosion control landscaping activities.
3.
Applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth by
the City Engineer in the approved grading plan including
erosion control landscaping and use of reclaimed water for
dust control during grading.
'.
4. Applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth in
the certified Chula vista Local Coastal program.
5. All grading work conducted within and adjacent to the
boundaries of the Sweetwater Marsh National wildlife Refuge
shall be conducted in compliance with the letter of
permission issued on December 6, 1990 by the U.S. Fish and
wildlife Service.
6. If the biological monitor (required mitigation measure)
identifies that remedial work is necessary, the contractor
will perform or cause to be performed remedial work within
24 hours of notification or the City of Chula vista shall be
allowed by the applicant to cause the work to be conducted
at applicant's expense.
7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Chula vista to ensure regular maintenance of the drainage
system clean-out prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
8. Applicant shall incorporate the mitigation monitoring
program into the project and shall comply with requirements
set forth in said mitigation monitoring program.
I, Ian Gill of Starboard Development, authorized representative
for Rohr Industries, Inc., have read and undertand these
conditions of approval as required by the City Council of the
City of Chula vista as they pertain to the grading plan for the
Rohr Office Complex and agree that these conditions be
incorporated into Coastal Development Permit #51.
Cond51)
Ian Gill, Starboard Development
/~ '~-JlJI!16-88
02. 22. 9 1
12: 10
PM
*STARBOARD
COMPANIES rP02
G;jz~ Ivi 1:)
.
,
.".
..
EXHIBIT "sn
Coastal Development Permit No. 51
Rohr Grading Plan
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Applicant shall inoorporate into the projeot all
reoommendations provided by the projeot soils engineer and
contained in the project qeotechnical investigation, soile
report and hazardous substance site assessment and related
dOQUmente.
2. Applioant shall inoorporata all mitigation m<'!lleuree eet
forth in ETa-90-I0 rellltivA to prorosAd qradinq, drainaqe,
and. erosion control land.acapinq act1vitiea.
,
Applicant sll<lll comply with all requiremente eet forth by
the City Engineer in the approved <;Jrading plan including
erosion control landscaping and use of reclaimed wa.ter for
dust control during grading.
4. Applicant shall comply with all requirements set forth in
the certified Chula Vista Loca.l Coastal program.
3.
5. All grading work conducted within and adjacent to the
boundaries of the SWeetwater Harsh National Wildlife Refuge
shall he conducted in compliance with the letter of
permission issued on December 6, 1990 by the U.S. Fish and
wildlife Service.
6. If the biological monitor (required mitigation measure)
identifies that remedial work is necessary, the contractor
will perform or cause to be performed remedial work within
24 hours of notification or the city of Chula vista shall be
allowed by the applicant to cause the work to be conducted
at applicant.s expense.
7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city 0'1"
Chula Vista to ensure regular maintenance 0'1" the drainage
system clean-out prior to the issuance 0'1" a grading permit.
8. Applicant shall incorporate the mitigation monitoring
program into the project and shall comply with requirements
set forth in said mitigation monitoring program.
I, Ian Gill of Starboard Development, authorized representative
for Rohr Industries, Inc., have read and undertand these
conditions of approval as required by the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista as they pertain to the grading plan for the
Rohr Office COl1lplex and agree that these conditions be
incorporated into Coastal Development ermit f51.
I-
,
Ian G~
Cond51)
\'
,
v
I' -1/-4 ~;r;H-lIj! 7 75
B2....19....91 16126
ll: 61~ 233 0~~2
Keller Environ.
P.04
DRAFl'
~J kAk}J.~
1"be "F' & "0" Street ~arsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh ~
Refuge (NWR), The iNWR is considered a sensitive estuarine envirOI
habitat for many type1 of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
endangered and/or thrtatened by State aDd Federal agencies. The project site is currently
undeveloped, but has Ileen used for a~rleulturc in the past and is Jittered with agricultural
and household dcbrls.1 An abandoned irrigation system and several unimproved roads
I
transect the slte. Thef. ite elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) and slopes gen y to the southwest.
The proposed project Ipeludes the proposed construction of a 42.foot high office building
and associated parki1g area containing 730 spaces, a drainage system, and road
improvements to "F" street and Bay Bmllevard. On-site landscaping will be provided and
a berm and detentlonibasln wlll be created on the western portion of the property to
physically separate the iMarsh from the project and protect it from surface runoff. A 6-foot
high chain link fence 4i11 be located near the toe of the western facing slope of the berm
to prevent disturbance Ito the adjacent sensitive wndlife refuge area.
Alternative 2. the .Mo~lfled Design" Allernatlve, as described III the FEIR, includes the
development of a 245,O~O square foot office complex with two subsurface parking structures,
which provide partial mitigation of parking impacts, Alternative 2 i~ the applicant's
preferred project, and 'II be the project which is constructed. This monitoring program
addresses Alternative and its mitigation requirements.
MONITOlUNG p~
TIle City of Chula VIs+ will monitor mitigation measures presented in certified EIRs for
impacts identified as sifnlficant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the
Robr Office Complex PfoJect addresses mitigation measures Identified for significant impacts
ill the following arells: i
· DrainaBerl Groundwater/Grading
. Biology
I
I
I . 2 . rm-U.NMl'O/l/ 02/J9/9J
I
'I, -'If,
02....191....91 16127
z: 6191 233 09~Z
Keller Environ.
P.0~
i
!
I
I
I
I
arculatl1n/parking
Air Quallty
I
I
The City of Chula Vis*Plannin& Deparlment will implement the mitigation monitoring
plan. In this role the "ty will identify a City staff person or hire Ii consultant who will
function as the proje 's Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC). This person wi\l
establish the team ofjtcchnical monitors, conduct on-site monitoring and oversee the
monitoring actlvitle.~ 01 other monitors, ensure t1mt the plan is being Implemented on
schedule, and compile .nd prepare periodic monitoring reports. These reports will be filed
with the City of Chula rvista and any other regulatory agency witb the Butoority to enforce
or otherwise regulate tto construction and/or operation of the project.
I
The MCC will also fu~Ctlon as Ii representative of the aty in enforcement of mitigation
measures aJ1d monltor~rg activities In the field. This means tbat tbe MCC will communicate
directly with the C011S1~ction foreman or construction manager when non-compIlance is
noted. 1rns may, on ,occasion, require that construction is delayed while Ii particular
situation is remedied. ! Tbe MCC will also be able to recommend additional mitigation
measures to reduce impacts based on field observations or to modify mitigation measures
or monitoring procedures in response to actual field conditions. These changes must be
approved by the Citi Planning Department and the project applicant prior to tllcir
I
implementation. Chllntes shall be noted in activity log.q aud monthly monitoring reports and
this monitoring plan s~all be modified to reflect these change.q.
I
A fmal mitigation monItoring report will be prepared following construction of the project.
The report will descri~e the monitoring activities which bave oceurred, the observations
made, the success of t~e mitigation measures and recommendatioJ1$ for future mitigation
monitoring plans. Th4 final report will be prepared by the MCC and filed with the City
Plaoning Department. ' .
I
i
DRAFT
.
.
,
'I'he following text inclupes a summary of significant impacts, associated mitigation measures,
and the monitoring effdrts needed to ensure that the measures are adequately Imj)lemented.
In many cases, the lantuage of tbe mitigation measures ineorporlltes monitoring. In other
case~, the specific mitiJatlon requiremenl$ of the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction (Wer
!
I
i
,
I
!
I
- 3 -
jl(j.J4,MMJ>olXl O2/1'/9J
I ~ -1'9-
82"'1'''''1 16127
ll: 61' 233 U~2
Keller Environ.
P.06
I
i
I
I
I
i
the project have not yet heen fully defined. This plan may need to be updated as the City
proceeds through the cfity'S discretional}' approval process. Included after the text of the
plan is a table which putllncs the. (poUmtial) imp/ll:lts, mitigation measures, monitoring
activities and other as~ of the monitoring program.
I
I
DRAINAGE/GR01DWATBR/GRADINO
'1I\Pact5
,
Incremental coLtribUtions to cumulatively significant flooding impacts may be
associated with 1xceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over Japaeity).
I
I
Significant Impa,~ts resulting from contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot
,
with oil, grease tnd other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "P"
& "0. Street Mttsb If runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern.
!
Significant Imp~cts may occur if surface runoff carries slit and sediment Into the
Marsh during grading. This Is particularly problematic If grading occurs during
winter months, then the heaviest rains occur.
,
Significant imP~cts to the wetlands area on site could result if adjacent grading
introduces soils ro thi~ sensilive area.
I
Potentially si~cant impacts may result due to approximately 11,2 acres being
graded to provl?e flat pads Cor parking and the building. A total of 40,000 cubic
yards of cut and,flll will be generated. The maximum depth oC cut and fill will be 11
and 7 feet, res~tively, with the average change in grade of approximately 2 feet.
Onshe soils ate Identified as compressible and expansive, and arc not acceptable in
tbelr present cofdition for structural support.
I .
Saturated soils Ciom groundwater, without remediation, may adversely affect blli1ding
support and maj be lID unacceptable material for building support and fill.
I
DRAFf
.
.
.
.
.
.
-4-
9(}.UNNl'fJInIn/l'j91
1~.lJ1
82/19/91 16;28
z: 619 233 89:52
Keller Environ.
P.87
DRAFT
Mfttptfon Up.AEures
1.
A detailed grad~" g and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula
Vista Munlclpa Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted stand ds. Said plan must be approved Il1ld a permit issued by the
Th1ginecring Di~sion prior to the start of any grading work and/or installation of any
drainage Sb'Uctu~es.
!
2.
,
Monitoring: TIie MCC must ensure that the detailed grading and drainage plans
inelude reoommfndations and detailed design InC01}lorating all measures contained
In the Final Elll for this project, Il1ld those contained in the "Update Geoteclmical
Investigation" (\foodward-Cyde. 1990). If the MCC determines that these measures
have not been iinc1uded. the applicant must have the plans revised to inelude
incorporation o~ these measures. TheD, the MCC nlUst check that the plans have
been approved ~y the Engineering DJvision, that grading and drlllnase permits have
I
been issued, an~ must file copies of the plans, approvllls, llnd permits witll tlle
Mitigation MonItoring Program file. The MCC must be present during grading
operations to ~sure that all requirements of the Grading Plan are implemented,
Including Instal1~tion of all drainage facUlties. The MCC may request the attendance
of a City Engi~cering staff person during portions of the grading proce.'lS, if so
dc.~ired. The ~CC must prepare a detailed checklist which includes all of tbe
requirements of It he grading and drainage plans. and incorporate this checkllst into
the monitorin& ~nd reporting program.
i
.
The "update ae!otechnlcallnvestlgation" report referenced above must be roviewed
,
and approved ~y the Oty's Engineering Department. All recommendations
contained withi~' the study must be implemented by the applicant. This measure
must be made a ndition of project IlpprOV"d1. and must be included (or referenced
to) on the Grad ng Plan.
.
Monitoring: Thf: MCC must cheek that this report has been approved, must verify
that the Gradin. Plan includes all recommendations of ilie report, and must, on an
ongoing basis, 4onitor the Implementation of all such recommendations. Thus, the
!
- S -
fIO.U.MMPOOJ 0JII'1'1
J"-4/9
821'llJI'91 16;2lJ
a 61lJ 2::5::5 89:52
Keller Environ.
P.88
I
I DRAFT
,
MCC's presenccJ during grading and Jm;tallatlon of all drainage facilities must occur.
I
The frequency apd timing of monitoring activity Is to be defined In the revised Draft
Monitoring pro~nlm.
I
I
3. Ungineered fills ;and/or any structural clements that encroach into areas overlahl by
bay deposits or; otller compres.,lble overburden soils wlll require some form of
subgrade modifi'catlon to Improve the suppon capacity of the exlstlng salls for use
I
in ultimate]y supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soillmproveme*t may include partial or total removal and recompactlon, and/or the
use of SlIrcl1arg~ fills to pre-compress saturatod bay deposit' which exist below tIle
groundwater tab~e; or foundation elements must be designed to extend through these
soils into compe,tent bearing formational soi15.
!
Monitoring: 'l~ls measure must be incorporated, as appropriate, into the grading
plan, as descn"+d by Mitigation Monitoring Mealrore No. 1 above.
4. If encountcrod,: roadways, embankments. and engineered fills encroaching onto
.
existing comprc;.,slb]e bay deposits will ]ikely require subgrade modification to
Improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction sealement. Soil Improvement would likely Inc]ude partial or total
removal and r+ompaction. and/or the use of surcharged fills. to pre-compress
saturated bay dyposits.
,
Monitoring: nils measure must be incorporated, as appropriate, Into the grading
plan, 8.~ describ~d by Mitigation Monitoring Measure No. 1 above.
!
5. If saturated wil$ are encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering sbou1d be implemented in general accordance wlth the recommendations
contained In thEl July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance wIth
RWQCB order' 90-3 J regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
,
Diego Bay wlll ~e required.
.
I
i
,
I
-6-
9Q.U.MMP<<4 0l/19/P1
111"'50
82....1~....'1 16; 2~
a 61~ 233 09~2
Keller Environ.
P.09
DRAFT
McmitoriDg: TIlls measure must be Incorporated, as appropriate, into tbe grading
plan, as describ~ by Mitigation Monitoring Measure No. 1 above.
I
6. ll' project gradi~ occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained
in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chuw Vista Bayfront
I
Specific Plan m~st be implemented, and these must also be included (or referenced
to) on the Grading Plan.
,
I
Monitoring: This measure must be incorporated into the grading plan, as described
by Mltlgallon 1.1onltoring Measure No.1 above.
I
I
7. To eliminate th~ possibility of slit IIJJd sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier system
must be placed ~etween the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading
III1d remain un~1 the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This
I
measure mllst bP included on tbe Grading Plan.
I
Monitoring: niiS mea.\lUre must be incorporated, as appropriate, into the grading
plan, 8.<; dcscrlb4d by Mitigation MonitorIng Measure No. 1 above.
i
i
r
8. To prevent gra~n8 impacts to the wetland, a protective berm nlust be constructed
along the cntlrt western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. During
construction of his berm, the City must retain a biologically trained construction
monitor to obsefve grading prllctkcs and ensure the integrity of the wetland. To
,
guarantee tbat t~c berm itself does not Introduce sedlmentatJon Into the wetland, the
western slope of;the berm must be hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sbeeting.
This measure m,~18L be Included on the Grading Plan.
,
I
Monitoring: This measure must be incorporated into lhe grading pIau, as described
by Mitigation Monitoring Measure No. 1 above. If the MCC is not a biologically
trained monltorl then the MCC must ensure that the biOlogically trained monitor is
present during tiS portion of grading and berm construction.
,
1
,
- 7 -
f1().U.NMI'IIIT.I 01/19/91
1(,-5/
82/19/91 16138
Z 61~ 233 0~52
Keller Environ.
P.10
DRAFT
mOLOOY
Impacts
.
I
,
I
Loss of freshwa1er input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent
NWR lands I
I
Contamination tf the Marsh by parking area and street runoff
Modification of ~nerease in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the
drIIinagc system'
I
I
I
Impacts of enhajlced pet-associated predator attraction to the study area. and humall
presence i
I
I
I
Impacts to the cixisting balance of competitors. predators IInd prey
I .
An indirect imp~et to the Light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment Irl the "F' & "OM Street Marsh
I
I
lncrea.'led disturbance to. and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
I
I
Mltlr,ation Mr.-.re.., !
.
.
.
.
.
.
J.
,
The proposed project must Include a buffer of re..~lored native scrub vegetation
between the buhding and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer must be isolated
from human int~usion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds
as designed to ~lIce visuallmpaets from activities occurring on the patio areas.
I
,
I
Monitoring: IJnplementatlon of the Landscape PIan for the project. which
,
incorporates t~ native scrub vegetation must be overseen by the biologically tralued
monitor. Succe.c;,~ of this vegetation program will require an ongoing effort by tbe
monitor to dOCllment the implementation of the buffering design. the planting. and
I
j
;
i
- II -
go.U.NAII'IX12 D2/19fPl
/"-.5~
82/19/91 16:31
E 619 233 e9~2
Keller Environ.
P.ll
DRAFT
.
;
the long-term es\abllshment of t1iis vegetation. The monitor, if different from the
MCC, must coo~inate the monitoring and reporlhlg program with the MCC.
, .
2.
i
AU post-coDstruc!tion drainage must be directed lhrough large volume slit and grease
traps prior to beIng shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed
on line(s) eutertg the detention basin must be tr!ple-chambered.
I
Monitoripg: Tilt. MCC must verily that the silt and grease traps have been built in
their correet loJtions. The appropriate 10eat10n.~ of the SUI and grease traps must
be shown on th~ grading plan.
I
I
The silt and gr~ase traps must be maintained regularly with thorough clcaningli
I
conducted in laIc September or early October. A~ needed c1eanings are to be
performed thro~gh the winter and spring months, but at least once in March.
I
Maintenance m~st be done by removal of wastes rather than f1usbing.
Monitoring: Th~ MCC must coordinate the cleaning proccdure and schedule, which
wlll occnr at leas,'! twlcc a year hl September/October and March. This coordination
will occnr throU~h the life of the project. Once the enforcement officers are hired
(described by M~ure No. 10), they willllSl>"UIDe responsibility for this maintenance
schedule. I
,
Deslltation basi4s large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained
during the consttuetion phase so thai no silts are allowed to leave the construction
,
site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would ass~t in this measure. In addition, wnstruclion do-waterlng should be
directed into a btl sin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drain.<;, so
that clear water s released from the site lhrough the regular deslltation basins.
I
I .
Monitoring: Th4 measure must be illcorporated into the srading and drainage plans,
as described by ~iligation Monitoring Measure No. ] under tbe seetion Drainagel
Groundwater /Gtading. The locations of both the drainage &wale and the construction
de-watering bas~ must be clearly indicated on the plan.'\. TIle MCC must ensure that
I
I
3.
4.
- 9 -
9O-U.NNl'OO211Z/J9!'J
/1,-53
82'19'91 16;::51
lit 619 2" 09'2
Keller Environ.
P.12
DRAFT
the drainage swa1e is constructed and planted (per the Landscape Plan) early in the
grading process; and that the construction de.walering basin be constructed
simultaneously (with one of suggested systems noted above) in the event of
encountering waier early in the grading process. The MCC must ens\lre the quality
of botb of these ba.'lins during the entire grading and construction pr0CC8S.
!
i
5. Landscape plant'materlals to be utilized in the project area must be from tbe lists
provided by the ~evcloper. Should species substitutions be desired, these must be
submitted to th4 City landscape architect for review. Plant materials which lire
known to be inv~'live in salt and brackish nlarshcs such liS Umollium or Carpobrotus
species, or those, which are known to be attractive as denning, ne.~tlng or roosth1&
sites for predato~S such as Washington/a or Col1aderla, must be restricted from use.
I
Monitoring: Tht biologically trained monitor nrost oversee the project landscaping
w ""lif)' LbaL Lho, species plan led o."e consistent with the Landscape Plan. If species
subsututions are !deslred, the monllor must also review nny chonges to tho Landscape
l'lan to Cl1llUTe t~llt appropritLtc species arc being used.
!
6. A bJOlOSicall,y-I<oJned monitor mu&t bc present for nl1 pha.~e& or grading nnd
uLlIUilllltiull of dJlIinage s)'Slems. The monilor musl be employed throuSh Ille Ot)'
I
and would reMrt diroetly to a spoclCie responsible person In the Bn&,neering,
Planning or eoJulIunity Development Department if construction activities fall to
meet the conditions outlined or should unforesccn problems arise which require
hmncdinte nctl~ or &topplo& of the construction nctivitic.~. nU& DlonitOl' must
continue monitoring on n reduced bnsk during nctual outside builcUng con&truction.
Mouitoriug: nie biologically trained monitor must prepare the monitoring Imd
,
reporting progra!n tor 011 ospocts of tlle projecl relntlng to biological fcsourccs. nle
monitor must ~ordinnte with the MCC TClJIlfdlnll the llradwS nnd construction
schedulc, W1<.1 nluKl KUbmit his/hcI' I'CJ"'l'lll to thc MCC U11 II wcckl)' blllliK. All
appropriate, the!monitor will continue monitoring and reportins after construction
Is completed. I
I
,
I
I
I
i - 10 - "1)..UJoIMJ'(III2 '>>/1"1"1
'1,-51.}
e2/1~/91 16=32
ll: 619 233 09'2
Keller Environ.
P.13
DRAFl'
7.
.
!
,
.
Re-establishmellt of 0.14 acre ohiparian vegetation within the on-site drainage swale
must be accomplished to mitigate tbe bydrologic isolation and direct impacts of the
I
project upon lh~ 0.]4 acre of willow riparian grove st.raddllng the NWR border.
Management ofithe riparian grove to retain wildlife resources must be coordinated
with the Natio~ Wildlife Rduge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types
must be includcf1 in the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species
used in this habItat area.
I
j
Monitoring: nJe biologically trained monitor must oversee the development and
planting of the ~parian vegetation. The monitor must coordinate with the National
,
Wildlife Refuge:Manager on this task. The monitor must ensure that the species. liS
i
speclfied in the ~ndscape Plan. are in fact planted. The monitor and/or National
Wildlife Refuge:managel will prepare and implement a long-term maintenance and
monitoring program. The maintenance program will include replacement of plants
that do not survive.
8.
Human accllllS t<jl marshlallds and buffer arellS must be restricted through vegetalloll
barriers and rail$ around the patio areas. Addltiomll human/pet encroachment must
be restricted th~ough fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western
property bound~'Y'
,
!
Monitoring: nie biologically trained monitor must verify the development of the
vegetation harripn (per the Landscape Plan). rails and fencing, and check that no
aCCleSS from the: site i.~ available into these areas once development is completed.
The frequency a{td timing of monitoring activity is to be defined in the revised Draft
Mitigation MonItoring Program.
I
The project shlll/ld be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula
Vista Bayfront rpgion to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators.
This program s~ould utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a
basis, but should he tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan
should inehlde .he use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet
;
I
i
I
i
9.
.11.
~u._ M/lP/pl
Iii -- 55
82/1'/'1 16=33
a 61' 233 8':52
Keller Environ.
P.14
DRAFI'
activities. The plan should be comprcbenslve and should include nlanagement of
predators withi~ the adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development areas.
Monitoring: ~e predator management program has yet to be deveillped. and lo;
currently being ~lanned by bayfront properly owners and regulatory agencies. The
MCC must p~dpate in tbe development of this program. and mllst inform tbe City
I
Redevelopment Agency when such a program is in place, and what Rohr's
participation will be. The MCC muU attend program meetings, once tbe program Is
established, to !verify Rohr's participation in the prognun. Once the full time
I
enforcement st4ff is hired (described below), they will assume responsibility for
reporting on Rd,lu's participation In this program.
:
:
i
10. A full time en!tfcement staff of two or more officers sbould be funded by revenues
generated by tl,'6 project and other development within the Bayfront, or by other
funding mechajlisms. to conduct the predator management program, ensure
compliance. isstje citations, and conduct routine cbeeks to ensure maintelUtnce of
other mitigatlonrequlrements (i.e., slit/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Sucb officers
should work Clotel)' with the USFWS in enforcement Issues as the)' relate to Federal
Reser"e Lands. jOff/cers should have training in predator control and should possess
,
the necc....o;ary sIfL'i, permits and authority to trap and rcmove problem predators.
Jt is recommended tbat these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
I
ageney/propeny owner advL~ory board set up to oversee resource protection of the
entire midbayfr6nt area. The midbayfront area is that area within the boundaries of
the Sweetwater'River, Bay Boulevard. "0" Street, and the San Diego Bay. The
jurlsdictlons/prJperty owners which should he included in this board are the City of
Chula Vista, th~ San Diego Unified Port District, the Bayfront Conservancy Trust,
I
the U.S. Fish a~ Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game,
Rohr Industries; and tbe owner of the nllljorlly of the Midbayfront Uplands (Omla
Vista Investors):
I
!
Monlt()l'lng: O~anization of the multi-jurisdictioIUtl board must occur prior to the
hiring of tbe entorcement staff. Until sllch a time as the board is established, the
MCC, with the!assistance of the biulogically trained monitor. must monitor and
I
,
i
! _ 12 . IIO-U.MMI'111J2 02/19/91
I "-~h
82/19/91 16:34
Z 619 233 89~2
Keller Environ.
P. 1~
DRAFr
report on the I$plementation of Rohr's mitigation measures. Once the board Is
established, and ~he enforcement stafr is hired. the MCC will relinquish responsibility
,
(or maintenan~ of the silt and grellSe traps and participation In the predator
management prfgram.
I
11. Fertilizers, pestlcldc.~ and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
.
project must ~ of the rapidly biodegradable vllflety and mllst be certllied as
,
u"",,!,\ublo to thb nnv.lronmc>ntal J.>roteollon Al;enO)' for USe near wodand area.. All
landscape Chemical appJlcatlons must be accomplished by a person who Is II state-
j
certified appll,tor,
i
M<nutorin,.: Tlic biulujSiCllll)' tn.iJled moniLOr must coordinate with tbe landsellpe
,
mnfntenancc ptrsontlel to ensure that proper substances arc used, and that
applicators are ~tate-certlf1ed. The monitor muM obseNe landsCllpe mnfntenance
operations on aibi-monthly basis to ensure compliance.
12. Annual fund. ~ be paid by RobT into an asscssment district set up by the multi-
jurllKlieliulllll/pr,operlY uwner uc.Ivlsury bUllrd l;buultl be t1Cll1jS1I1I1W tUT tbe purpuse
of trallb control/ repair and mllintenancc of drailllllOe facilities, femcins. the predator
I
control prosrauj and mitigation prosrams for the project.
,
,
Moni1orina: ~e monitorins fOT No. 10 ubove. Assessment distriot fUllotions,
,
including funds,:wuulcl bo a fun<ltlon 01 the adviool)' buurcl. Tho MCC m\lSt report
I
on tbe prol>res5 lof both cstablishment of the board and the ltSScssmellt district.
13. Open garbage ~ntalncn; should bel rcsU-ictcd and aU dumpsteln; Dlust he totall)'
cnolOllCd to "voId ..ttractin, ..vi.... ltnd me.mn1aJlu prcdat(,rs and seavcnp. to the
area. Garbage "hould be hauled away as often as possible.
MonitodDg: n?c MCC must verify on II munthl)' basis, both duritiS srading and
,
construction, anr niter construction, that dumpstel'& are totall)' enclosed, nnd that the
dumpsters are ~t ovcrfJ.owmS' Solid WD!lte service musl be inercnsed if dumpsters
are overflowing;
- 13-
W. UMlfPQ(ljl 0.YI9/9/
1""'5"
14.
02/19/91 16;34
:B 619 233 0952
--
Keller Environ.
P.16
DRAFr
,
Buildings shoul4 utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observab~e by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M Dr a suitable sub5titute
I
are recommend4d. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest Cllll
I
be included on ~he western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west
should not exceed two incItes in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are
exposed to the Jetlands IDllSt be covered witlt an anti-perch material such as Nixalltc.
A comtultment lo correct any additional problem arelL~ should be obtained mould
lteavy Incidence ~f perching be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
Outside Ilghtin~ must be directed away Crom marsh areaS or renectlng faces oC the
western side oflthe proposed building. Ughts should be limited to the minimum
required for secPrlty on the western side of the building.
i
!
,
Monitoring: Thl: biologically trained monitor must attend the Design Reviewprocess
,
for this project ~o ensure implementation of proper building materials and design.
Design Review JnllM not approve the design without a written statement from the
biologically trai~ed manllor that proper building material and design have been
incorporated. 4nti-percb material must be specified in the construction plans.
\
CJRCULATlON/P~G
i
I
Imnacts 1
,
1
. "F" Street ami r~ildway segments west oC 1-5 would operate lit LOS D or Ilbove with
the exception of;Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "I'" Stroot, which will decline
from LOS C tp F with the lncluldon of annum growth and the project. The
intersection of ~ay Boulevard and OF Street would decline from LOS 13 to D with
the project respbnsiblc for S3 percent of this impact.
I
,
. I.S northbound .t "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.6 percent) to a cumulatively
1
signlflcant Imp~ct will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
- 14-
9/l-U.MMJ'OfJ} trlfl9f91
It, -5'8
e2/1~/~1 16:3~
z: 61~ 233 8~~2
Keller Environ.
P.17
DRAFT
. 1-5 southbound at "H" StreeC Incremental contribution (4.5 percent) to a
, .
cumulatively siinlficant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population groJth. .
I
,
,
i
. 1-5 northbound, at "II" Street: Incremental contribution (0.9 percent) to a
cumulatively slg,nlficant Impact. will result from the proposed project and annual
population grOih.
i
. Broadway and .~. Street: Incremental contribution (4.7 percen!) to a cumulatively
;
significant Imp~ct will result from t,he proposed project and annual population
growth. j
\
I
. A significant p~rking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13 percent) under tbe
proposed proje4t, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
!
occur. I
\
MlticatJon MeHllurcs !
I
I
i
1. Bay Boulevard ~orlh or "F' Street should be designed for traffic only and on-street
,
parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wide p8Jking areaS adjacent to the east curb
I
line must be de~icatcd to normal trllffic flow. "F' Street (Lagoon Drive) must be re-
striped to the ~t and west of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out
,
from the Interse.ction, and three lanes in toward the intersectIon. 111e three inbound
.
lanes would be: comprised of one left-turn only lane, one through-lane, and one
snared through-;and right-turn lane. 'rhe westbound and northbound approaches will
also require mo~ification to provide one left-turn lane, ODe thrO\lgh, and one right-
turn lane. Signtliz:ation Is necessary at the Intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Day Doulcvard for 100 to 200 feet north of the intersection would
be neeessmy to !accompJish this measure. These measures would Improve the LOS
to C. 111e applicant is respoILcdble for providing S3 perccll! of the funds for this
mitigalion ba5e~ on the recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed in
Section 10.0 of this report).
i
.15 -
IIO-U.MM1'OO211l/I9/9J
'11'59
82/191/91 16136
II: 619 233 e~'2
Keller Environ.
P.1S
DRAFT
,
Monitoring: Thf Benefit Asse....~ment DIstrIct (BAD) must flm be established, and
the cost to impfove the intersection determined. Before tIle permit to occupy is
issued to Rohe ~y the City. Rohr must pay the appropriate share of the cost. The
MCCwlll ensllri that the BAD has been established and that the share of costs have
been paid to th4 City.
I
j
2. Implementation. of two improvements must be made prior to, or concurrent wlth,
development of ~he Rohr project. which is necessary due to tIle ncar-term extremely
poor conditions ~t this intersection. These improvements Rre to (1) widen westbound
"E" Street at th+ northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separl1te righHurn lane from
,
westbound 'E" ftreeti (2) restrlpe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to
provide an cxcl\ls!ve right-turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. The
applicant is res1>onsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for thIs
mitigatiOll base4 011 the Benefit Assessment DistrIct.
I
i
Monitorma: sail.1e a& tor M1t.1&nUon MonitoJ'i.l& MoulYou,,~ Nu. 1 ubuvc..
i
3. Double loft- turjl unly lalll>~ UII "I-I" Street to southbuund 1-5 should be provided to
improve the opl;ralioJl 10 LOS C. The f1pplic;ant ill responsible for providing a
pn>portional all~unl of funds (OJ' Ihis lI1iL~ation blL~w un the Benefit Assessment
DIstrict. I
Monitoring: Salno as for Mltlgalioll MoniloJill8 MCllsurc No.1 abuve.
.
!
4. Double left turn ;on1)' hanes un ")1" Street to northbound ].5 lamp should be provideJ.!.
I
This mitigation jmea!lure would improve intersection operation to LOS C. The
Ilpplicant is r+sib1c for providing a proportional amount of funds for thi.
rnltlsalion ball~ on tbe Benefit AssC88mcnt District.
I
MonitorinS: Sil~le w; for Mlti.atlon Mouitodng Mcnsure Nu. t Ilbuvc.
I
S. All CJlcJusivc li~JI lUlllla.ll" fruw eastbound ".12" Street to southbound Broadway
shuuld be I'rovlded. This additional lane would facilitate smoother traffic now {tOll!
1
!
I - 16 . II(l.U...,/,UWH2/'P/I"
If.I "IJ ()
82'19'91 16;:56
Z 619 2:5:5 0'91'2
Keller Env1ron.
P.l'91
;
i
}.5 and lmprove'the operation LOS to C. The applicant is responsible for providing
a proportional $tount of funds for this mltlgadon ba.~cd on the Benefit Assessment
,
District. 0
DRAFT
I
Monitoring; SaIne as for Mitigation Monitoring Measure No.1 above.
,
6. The applicant iroust meet the Citys standard by either providing additional
permanent offsi!e parking; or by reducing the size of the building; or limlting the
,
number oC employees consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard.
,
This Ihnit oouldbe increased if the proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces
under Alternatiye 2) is found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be
provided. In order to determine oif the parking is adequate. tbe parking demllnd
should be moni~red over a one year period following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building. :
,
MonitoriDg: RO~T must submit to the MCC the plan {or provision of the appropriate
number of spa~5 offsite. Until the requited amount 01 parking Is provided, Rohr
must limit the ~umber of employees to be consistent with the employee.based
parking standar~. The MCC must check tbe parking lot onsile on a weekly basis on
staggered days for one year to determine the adequacy of parking. If parking is
Inadequate, tbe!MCC must report to the City and the Coastal Commission so that
I
appropriate action may be taken.
!
AIR QUAUl'Y
Impaelll
. Incremental ~tributions to II cumulatively significant impacl wfll result Crom build-
out project traffic adding approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NO. and 0.03 tall
of ROO daily tt! the airshed. The NO. and ROG counts (the main ozone formation
pre<:UTSQr pollu~allts) arc less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
threshold. !
i
,
;
.17 -
Pf.U.MM1'OO2 02/19/91
/fp-/P/
82,1'1~/~1 16=37
S 619 233 09:52
Keller Environ.
P.20
DRAFf
. lncremental contributions to potentially significant regional impacts resulting from
the clearing of i existing site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
I
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporal)' emissions of dust,
fume.~, cquipme1t exhaust and other IIlr contaminants during project construction wjl\
occur. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-10) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from constmction
activities are asshmed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If
the entire 11.6 a~re project site is under simultaneous development, total daily dust
,
emissions would ibc lIpprolrimlltely 1,200 pounds/day.
Mitlptlon Mca~uros I
I
Tran.~portation ~ntrol Measures (TCMs) such as rldesharlng, vanpool Incentlve~,
alternate transMrtation methods and transit utiliution must be incorporated into the
project.
1.
Monitoring; Ro~r must submit the Transportation Control Measures to the MCC
prior to Issuance of the pennlt to occupy. The MCC will review tbe traffic control
I
measures with t~'c aty Bnglnccring Division, and they will jointly determine whether .
the measures ar~ adequate. If the measures are not adequate. the permit may be
delayed. At a minimum. the measures of ridesharing. vanpool incentives, alternate
I
!lnd transportation methods incentives. including transit utiJiutlon must be included
,
in the project. I
,
,
2. Dust control thrtlllgb regular watering IInd other fugitive dust abatement measures
,
required by the APCD can reduce dust Ilmisslons by 50-70 percent.
!
i
Monltori"8: Du,e to the regional and statewide shortage of water, treated drinking
,
water may not lie used for dust control. Rohr must use reclaimed water, or other
measures, If deemed appropriate by an air quality expert. 1bc MCC must receive
receipts from the watering vehicle operators showing proof that the water is
reclaimed. The MCC may a~ any watering vehicle operator for this proof. If proof
is not shown, thd, vehicle may not spray water. The MCC may stop work if vehicles
!
,
: - 18. fIO-U."''''IWHZ/IOt'1
;
i
I~" lid.
82/19/'U 16:38
21: 619 2" 09'2
P.21
Keller Environ.
I
,
I
,
!
; DRAfT
I
i
,
do not provide proof. If other measures of dust control are proposed by Rohr. the
MCC must revj~w these measures with an air quality expert for a detennination of
acceptability. i
- 19 .
9/).U.1tIM1'fIII2 03/1P/91
, (, '(,3
82/19/91 16;::sa
:II: 61' 233 0"2
K.ll.r Environ.
P.22
SAMPLn ACflVJTY 1..00
Rohr Office Complex
Mltlptlon Monitorin~ Activity.J.o&
Observer i Date/TIme Activity Observed Compliance Status
,
!
,
j
,
,
Observer Date/TIme Activity Observed Compllancc Status
:
,
,
Observer Date/Time AetMty Observed Co",!,ll1.ncc Status
,
!
I
,
,
Observer , DatefIimc Activity Observed Compliance Statu"
,
I
,
,
i
i
,
,
,
,
I
9O-J4MMI'.OOJ 01/18/91
,,,-h'f
Keller Environ. P.23
02/19/91 16'39 Z 619 233 0952
I
i
..
~
C/I
nUUi lillii' , Iii iliJi nUl IIHHH Iii! HIi .
1;11 !I} II.}
Jllm I lill hnltl! I'r ni)
il!j '11'1
II ,hI 11~ ilia
'in jlll .(111,1.; I il tld I
Idlll 'th Iii h&l I. I
Hi iIi, Illf ill.ill Hh
II' '1 ..11
S'I .I,ll I htl
trill. I~J
lh JIll Ihl Il IILI li~1 Ii,i
iIi Ii I Df il it il hi
lit it il!j 'JiHi jll' ILl ..
lit I}r ~h ;'111
li~IH i,) II 'ff Jll
HIm IIi Iih If ' J iEill lr Iji~
111 II t ,I t!i{iH ~. 'I
II( fEll Ih I ~
f' I I
r 8 lif f
,
!
,
!
i
I
!
!
I
i
I
I
I
;
,
i
,
;
i
I , t.. .t..~
I
I
,
II
II
I
I I~
I~
II ~
II
,
I
I
,
,
i
i
I
i
I
;
I
;
!
1
!
,
,
,
I
i
It.-"~
I~'
Ii
II
92/19/91 16'49 Z 619 233 9952
Keller Environ. P.24
I
~
Q.
'"
un 1H!1l i !! lit pU11 PHi' IHr JP III{ I
iil
,11 flU I III' l'I'It {Iplt ~lp fl
I, II 1 III I!ft
III tpt'~ i I J Ulhl Ir.
rt),! III
If lllth Idf!l IIJii hie !IiI
III dill. jilj If I
r PIt -j.,n Illlll -I, rll;
In II'" Ir
lllhl ill III Ilt~
sU l )Ir filiI II If I hit
II' Itlhl flip If !ta Jj!il iil J{ Ip
(I.Ur 'Hn f;i if
J,' Iii: HIli II · I
if I i(r{fl ,i it 'pif 1'1 ' Iii hI
III I f il . "r !h.1 ilt II
.iUj Itlli i(1
JiliH Sl
d -II S" I I!l j .rl
.fli Ii llf
11 I l-
I
i
!
i
I
i
i
!
;
i
1
i
,
i
!
;
I
I
I
i
I
!
i
!
I
i
i
j
:
;
i
i
!
i
!
,
i I J
I ,... " .
II
II
I
i
I I~
I~
Ii ~
II
I
I
-~
!
,
i
!
[
i
I
:
!
,
j
,
IfI...flg
!I'
sf
II
92/19/91 16'41 Z 619 233 9952
Keller Environ. P.25
~
li
c.l
Q.
CII
!ll!1ll!llI I i llr IIU I~UIIU'ltfIH IIHH'
I I 11{! 11..1 i
If I P oil I I I II Ii if I I 01 !P11h
hh1j'j:' till Iii i !:t(1
rl~lt ! II 'I' ' }, hU (Hili
(dhlUh ... J PI;)}:
I I Ii! Hit IIH,t1IH It t
III Jilt '{lllil
It'IH1Il.f( I tilt
!hl!I,Pl .. Ul!iJlili~hh
I Ii' :111 j,!hl
mlunh r : III Im.il jr1ilH
I llt.f 'II
I iff Ih~ If
J III IIIi bPf,HliHHi
Iii I'IISS riHi~
i I t I J ,I Ii I' h.'~ HI Ii tIll: i
. tll'ht.
~ It
I
!
!
1
;
;
,
,
,
,
I
I
i
,
1
I
,
1
,
,
,
,
,
,
!
,
i
I
,
!
,
, JftJ..~lf
i
!
!
II
I)
j
II
11
M
I
I;
II
~~
I
e
II
I
1
,
,
,
!
,
,
:
i
,
,
,
;
,
,
;
I
-,
I
~
!
: -
11# - 1-()
IJ'
il
II
02/19/91 16'42 Z 619 233 0952
Keller Environ. P.26
i
~
Q,
en
H1il'i nr IIi! Ilrl Hi i It 1 iiUJ~t511lif I
'ti r I !l, 'r J !S'1l I
WIll, 1'1' gl II IIJl'si
t~ll '51 I'(hill IltlliJlull1
11~Jr I flt1 IU III ifrl I .~. I 118i~~
lllJth Ip' of! (i! If u It hil!II' .,11
, ('
H!; II i. I Iii ,I:t hfH, '("'oil 1i'r1tl
f,,1 t!~il"! i lil,llllI'
[ I~ If
nnh hi 111 II "., J'1I1l I .
II! (,I IfhlfWtl
HUn .""ISH
, It ,.,;!; fll(;1I1
I~I Iii I,' flii IHI"liH1i1
llant rl
LaU II ~f Ii utUI' iildhUhi
UiUI !h
H Ii i Iln }"-I II SlUII}
, if f , f f . 'II'
!
!
,
,
,
,
,
,
!
,
:
,
,
1
i
,
i
!
i
I
:
!
!
I
I
I
i
,
I
i
,
!
i J~" ~I
- I
II
[ I~
g "!
Ii ~
II
i
I
~
-
!
!
!
!
!
:
;
,
!
,
;
i
;
I II -?-~
--
IJ'
Ii
II
82/19/91 16142 Z 619 233 8952 Kell.r Environ. P.27
,
!
I
<II
~
<II
U
r~
,~
if
f~
~'i
i
,
J
f
:
I
Q,
f
J
I
J:
I
J.
11#-=1-3 i
,fi If i
'(
'1 II
II If
t.
Ii
,fl
~f If
If iJ
I If
I iI
f r
"
Ij
j
II
II
If
i
I~
I~
!
i j. III
i
i
; j
i
,
I
I i
!
, Ii
:
, i
,
~
, I II
,
t
1(,- 'Tl/
********************************************************************************************************
* P,OI *
* TRANSACT ION REPORT *
* FEB-19-91 TUE 15:32 *
* *
* DATE START SENDER RX T1l1E PAGES TYPE NOTE *
* *
* FEB-19 15:12 6192330952 19'02" 27 RECEIVE OK *
* *
********************************************************************************************************
JfI-r.5
Item #16
Additional information for Rohr Coastal Development Permit No. 51
1. Disclosure statement
2. Resource Conservation commission Minutes of January 7, 1991
3. Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 1991 (unofficial)
4. Planning commission Minutes of February 13, 1991 (unofficial)
5. Exhibit "C" to Resolution - Mitigation Monitoring Program
6. Traffic Addendum to EIR-90-10
I' - rh
O~')/1 -it Ie
CITY Of CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE Of. CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON TilE" PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER QFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. list the names of all persons baving a financial interest in the application.
Rohr Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation
List the names of .all ~ersons having any"ownership interest in the property involved.
Rohr Industries, Inc., a" Delaware corporation
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) 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.
Reich I> Tang, Inc.
100 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10017
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non*profitorganization or a
trust, list the names of any person serVing as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. . Have you hd more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, COllll1issions, Col1lt1ittees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes____ No~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: -Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
: soctal club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
; this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
:polit1cal subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.-
~t' ~ Industries. Inc.
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~ ( ~
.. Not to our knowledge. ~i9nature 0 app TTcant/date
WPC 0701P
A-1IO
R.W. Madsen, Vice President, Cen. Counsel and
Print or type name of appllcant Secretary
,,- ~ T
r.
:-- /, ' " i' I
'-j-C..c .
j,'
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00p.m.
Monday, January 7, 1991
Conference Room 1
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDERlROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a quorum at 6:10 p.m.
by Chairman Fox. City Staff Barbara Reid called roll. Present: Commissioners Ray, Johnson, Hall, Fox,
Kracha. Absent: Ghougassian, Stevens.
AFPROV AL OF MINUTES: It was MSUP (Kracha/Ray) to approve the minutes of November 12, 1990
with one correction: the word "Permits" should be added at the bottom of Page 1. The minutes of
November 19, 1990 were unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Lance Fry, Assistant Planner, provided follow-up information on Chula Vista 2000. After much
discussion, the following recommendations were made:
1. It was MSUP (Ray /Krach a) to support staff recommendation on the recycling effort.
2. It was MSUP (RaylKracha) that council direct the preparation of a citywide open space and
parkland master plan and to emphasize the western area of the city for the purpose of further review
of the feasibility of open space and parkland acquisition and development.
3. It was MSUP (JohnsonlHall) that Council support staff assistance to city volunteers dedicated
to the city trails tree planting program and other public lands; and identify a program coordinator
for this effort.
4. It was MSUP (KrachalRay) to encourage placement of citizens from environmental groups on
city committees and commissions dealing with environmental and open space issues.
B. The Rohr Office Complex EIR 90-10 was reviewed by staff. After much discussion, a motion was
made (FoxlRay) to include the following: to recommend to the Planning Commission that Kracha's
comments of inconsistencies of the EIR be incorporated with the exception of the last comment
regarding support of Alternate 2; that Hall's question regarding paragraph 3-50 be clarified; that Ray
requests that the Planning Commission not close the public review hearing until the inconsistencies
and issues in the EIR are resolved; motion passed unanimously.
A motion was made by Hall to recommend an off-site alternative listed as #1 on page 4-7; motion
died due to lack of second.
C. It was MSUP (FoxlRay) to continue the item regarding "Environmental Agenda for the 90s" to the
next meeting with review of previous minutes back to July 1990.
D. It was MSUP (Ray/Johnson) to continue the budget discussion to the next meeting and have staff
clarify items regarding printing and binding, photography, and postage.
'h-;rr
J <' .
Page 2
ADJOURNMENT:
It was MSUP (Ray/Johnson) to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Fox at 8: 11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
~J4U~ &~
Barbara Taylor
J ~ -. r'
- ^-~"
" ",.. r:",.f""1 '1m~s
U"I'!~""'r:o""-'ln ,^," L ,\, ',' "IJ" ~
t... ~ .; ';,2f~.~~' ;._:....:; 'wlllMoJ\w1...:a7 t1
"""-,,,,-,.Ill u w_..~--
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9. 1991
ITEM 1:
PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-90-10 ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
Contract Planner Deborah Frischer noted the Draft Environmental
Impact Report had gone through its 45-day circulation with the
State Clearinghouse from November 20, 1990, to January 4, 1991, and
was presently in the local public review period time which began
November 26, 1990. Comments had been received from the U. S.
Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service, California
Department of Conservation Division of Mines & Geology, CALTRANS,
City of Chula vista Department of Parks & Recreation, City of Chula
Vista Public Works/Engineering Department, Sweetwater Union High
School District, and Chula vista City School District. The
Resource Conservation Commission discussed the Draft EIR in their
meeting of January 7, but made no recommendation on the report;
however, they asked that the public hearing be left open until they
could get some additional answers to some questions before making
recommendation on the Draft EIR.
Ms. Frischer continued by giving a brief description of the
project. She noted the "F" & "G" Street Marsh is a component of
the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and considered a
sensitive estuarine environment, providing habitat for many types
of plant and animal species including species listed as endangered
by state and federal agencies. The project would include a berm
and detention basin on the western portion of the property to
protect the marsh from runoff and to physically separate it from
the project. A 6' high chain link fence was proposed to be located
near the toe of the western-facing slope of the berm.
Diana Richardson of Keller Associates, the preparers of the EIR,
noted the Draft EIR was not a decision-making document, rather was
intended to provide guidance to the City of Chula Vista decision
makers in their consideration of approval of the proposed Rohr
office complex. All of the comments received would be responded to
and all necessary changes would be made as a result of the comments
and incorporated into the Final EIR. Ms. Richardson noted that
implementation of the mitigation measures and approval of
Alternative 3 would eliminate the parking shortage impacts by
providing adequate parking to meet City minimum requirements for
the proposed use. However, none of those alternatives would
eliminate the impact to raptor foraging habitat, which is
considered a significant incremental impact.
Ms. Richardson stated there were potentially significant impacts
both to circulation and parking which could be mitigated by a
variety of measures including, for the circulation impacts, a
I' -gO
MINUTES
-)-
Januarv 9. 1991
contribution of funds toward improvement of impacted intersections.
These funds would be proportional to the project's percentage of
impact which varied from 2\ to 50\; in most cases, less than 6\.
The funds would go into a yet-to-be-established benefit assessment
district which would be a fund bank for necessary traffic
circulation improvements in the western and bayfront portion of the
city. This measure was created due to the cumulative nature of
traffic circulation impacts as described in section 10 of the Draft
EIR. Regarding the parking deficiency impact, the applicant would
be required to either provide additional permanent off-site
parking, reduce the size of the building, or limit the number of
employees consistent with the City's employee-based parking
standards.
Ms. Richardson noted the comments received from the various
agencies would be responded to in the Final EIR. Referring to the
letter from a member of the Resource Conservation Commission, Ms.
Richardson said there was no guarantee that the Rohr employees
would be transferred from the current plant. In order to analyze
the worst-case condition, the EIR assumed that these new employees
could all be new employees, especially if the building were sold or
leased later. There was also a question as to how the building
would be used. Rohr has provided the city with a letter stating
the intended uses.
Chair Grasser Horton asked for comments or questions by the
Commissioners.
commissioner Decker, referring to Table 1-1, page 6-10, regarding
the predator management program, suggested closing the parking lot
when Rohr was closed to keep people out. Mr. Keith M~rkel,
biologist, explained predator management programs are specific to
the site on the resources to be protected. In this specific
situation, the predator management program is specific to the
Bayfront resources, not specifically the Rohr site. Rohr would be
a participant in the program which is focused on the entire
bayfront, not just the Rohr site.
Commissioner Fuller noted that full-time enforcement staff of two
more officers would be funded by revenues generated by the project
and other development within the bayfront to conduct the predator
management program. She asked, if this was included in the EIR and
project since it was the beginning of management for the entire
bayfront project. Mr. Merkel answered in the affirmative. He said
they anticipated a two-person staff requirement for the overall
project. Rohr happened to be the first participant in a much
larger program.
Ib-I'
MINUTES
-4-
Januarv 9. 1991
Upon Commissioner Fuller's query, Mr. Merkel answered it would
start with two officers, but there may be more and some part-time
specialists. Two is anticipated to be the minimum number.
commissioner Decker questioned the "human pet presence impacts,"
since it was an office building. Mr. Merkel answered it was an
office building, but there would be lunchroom facilities outside
and people would feed dogs and cats at the location.
Commissioner Carson, referring to a letter from Chula Vista
Elementary Schools, questioned why 162 new elementary children
would be generated from the project, since it was an office
building. Diana Richardson answered it would be an indirect
generation of students from new employees.
Commissioner Carson asked if the employees would be from the
present structure of the Rohr Corporation, or if Rohr would be
closing some buildings and transferring employees.
Ms. Richardson stated the draft EIR assumed that because there
would be no guarantee that they would be all transferred employees
from the campus next door, they could be all new employees from a
different area. The EIR assumed the worst-case position because
they had no guarantee that all these employees would be
transferred. Although Rohr had indicated to City staff they would
be transferring employees over, there was no guarantee to do so in
the future.
Commissioner Fuller stated that the first letter from Kate Shurson,
Chula Vista Elementary School District, indicated the relationship
between non-residential development and student enrollment had been
clearly recognized by the State Legislature thro~gh authorization
of collection of school fees. A joint study sponsored by the five
South Bay School Districts prepared earlier this year by
Sourcepoint further documents and demonstrates this relationship.
Based on this study, the proposed 211,500 sq. ft. of office space
would generate approximately 162 new elementary age children. She
said she wanted to see a copy of that report, and asked how they
had arrived at those figures.
Commissioner Casillas noted the applicant may be required to pay
fees they should not be paying, based on those figures.
Several inconsistencies were brought out by the commissioners
regarding the height of the building and the ADT estimate.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if the traffic projection assumption was
before or after total completion of SR 54. Dan Marum, from JHK &
Associates, answered the assumption was what the benefit would be
on the total completion of SR 54 in the year 1992, about a 15%
I~ -g ~
MINUTES
-5-
Januarv 9. 1991
benefit on some of the east/west streets in the northern portion of
Chula vista as a result of the connection to I-5.
Commissioner Decker noted there would be a siqnificant chanqe in
traffic patterns, and asked if an off-ramp onto "E" Street had been
considered. Mr. Marum answered the off-ramp would be reconfiqured
as a new intersection at Bay Boulevard and "E" Street. There would
be a direct connection into Bay Boulevard for the traffic that
would be cominq down to Rohr.
Commissioner Decker said it had been projected there would be a
reduction in traffic volumes on "E" Street of as much as 15%.
SR 54 is hooked up except for part of the last interchanqe. We
should have seen some kind of reduction on "E" Street now. Mr.
Marum answered that the Chula vista Traffic Enqineerinq Division is
currently conductinq an after-study; had done extensive before-work
study on many east/west and north/south arterials immediately south
of 54. They had a qood data base of "before" conditions. They
will prepare a report on the impacts of the openinq of 54 which
currently exchanqes traffic only to and from the north at I-5 and
doesn't allow the exchanqe to and from the south yet. They assumed
a full interchanqe at that location for the EIR.
Commissioner Tuqenberq suqqested that the EIR address the traffic
impact at the intersection of Woodlawn and "F". He said it was
practically impossible to make a left-hand turn (qoinq east) from
Woodlawn onto "F" Street between 4 and 6 p.m.
Commissioner Tuqenberq asked why consideration wasn't qi ven to
EastLake Industrial Park and the El Rancho del Rey Office Park
rather than San Ysidro and National city.
Commissioner Decker noted that Dr. Gordon Snow of the Department of
Conservation pointed out there was no qeoloqy section in this EIR,
and he felt there was some sort of seismic liquefication, etc.
Contract Planner MaryAnn Miller said that would be responded to in
the Final EIR.
commissioner Carson asked how much it costs the city to retain the
bioloqical trained construction monitor to monitor the qradinq, and
if it came out of the fee that Rohr pays, or out of tax dollars.
Contract Planner MaryAnn Miller responded that the City would
assume the overall responsibility for makinq sure the monitorinq
was takinq place, but it would be an additional cost to the
applicant.
Commissioner Casillas asked if 200 sq. ft. per employee was a
standard fiqure used for office buildinqs, and what was qoinq to be
done with the buildinq. Ms. Miller stated that would also be
addressed in the Final EIR.
1~-8.3
MINUTES
-6-
Januarv 9. 1991
Upon Commissioner Casillas' query, Ms. Miller answered the most
recent figure for the maximum number of employees was 1,184 total
employees.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing
was opened.
Ian Gill, Starboard Development Corporation, 1202 Kettner
Boulevard, San Diego, representing Rohr Industries as their
developer, clarified that for now and in the future, this project
was anticipated to be one of relocation. There were approximately
1200 employees from three critical business groups within Rohr--
commercial business, government business, and new technology--which
would be relocating into this new facility. Mr. Gill stated they
would like an opportunity to work with Keller's consultant to give
them more information that might be helpful in determining the
appropriate trip generation factor.
Mr. Gill stated the higher 200 sq. ft. per occupant number relates
to the fact that there is a cafeteria in the building, which is
actually a combined cafeteria and auditorium space for employees,
and other support spaces within the facility that in fact are not
just primary office space. Applying the City's parking standard to
what would actually be more like the number of occupants in the
building and the real usable office space, the number of spaces as
proposed in the alternate in the EIR of 760 should more than
comfortably accommodate a ratio of more like 5 spaces per 1,000
rather than the City's minimum of 3.3.
Commissioner Tugenberg asked if Mr. Gill could clarify if the 1200
employees were presently on-site at the Rohr facility in Chula
Vista. Mr. Gill answered in the affirmative. It would be a direct
transfer. Long-term there would be some demolition of existing
buildings on the campus and probably conversion to some additional
parking or some other use.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Grasser Horton directed staff to take the comments and
written communications and incorporate that into their final EIR.
Commissioner Fuller reminded staff that they would like staff to
request from the Chula vista School District a copy of the report
referred to in the letter from Kate Shurson.
" -8'-1
.
"If''',~~"",,,_,, I" I'!
U" "'<..j-":"'..;....,I/..', !':t'r~"'" ~~l'1!. ""'.
........- '-:..-:J L oJ, ....~..... \.il~1 U E:~
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13. 1991
CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-90-10, ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
Contract Planner Miller stated the Final EIR included the Draft
EIR, as well as the comments received during the public review
period and the responses to the comments. Ms. Miller stated the
Commission had received three letters reiterating the position of
the Chula vista Elementary School District, as well as the
Sweetwater Union High School District, with regard to school impact
fees associated with non-residential projects such as the Rohr
project. The Districts' positions are that non-residential
projects do create school impacts and, therefore, should have been
considered a significant impact in the EIR. These letters were
received after the close of the public review period on the EIR,
and were not responded to in the Final EIR. Contract Planner
Miller stated it did not change the conclusions of the EIR
regarding school impacts. The conclusions were that school impacts
were deemed to be less than significant. The "Comments" section of
the EIR had been expanded in order to clarify the city's position.
This did not affect the conclusions of the EIR or the adequacy of
the document. Ms. Miller noted the expanded comments would be
forwarded to the School Districts for their information.
ITEM 2:
Contract Planner Miller, referring to the traffic issue, stated the
Draft EIR assumed the site could be utilized as a large commercial
office building greater than 100,000 sq. ft., and the traffic
generation rate was based on a trip generation factor of 17 trips
per 1,000 sq. ft. for a total of approximately 4,170 ACT. After
discussing this matter with the applicant, it was determined that
a trip generation rate of 10 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. would be a
more adequate measure of traffic. It was the conclusion of the
traffic consultant that the reduced trip rate would generate
approximately 2,450 ACT, which is about 41% fewer trips than
previously reported. Ms. Miller noted the decrease did not change
the conclusions of the EIR regarding traffic impacts which
presented a worst-case scenario for traffic, but changed the
percentage contribution that the project would have on impacted
segments and intersections. The adequacy of the EIR was not
affected by the new information. However, in order to be adequate
under CEQA, it would be necessary for staff to come back before the
Planning Commission with an addendum to the EIR reflecting the
minor technical changes that had occurred. Ms. Miller noted this
would occur before the project is actually approved.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if the percentage would change for the
benefit assessment district.
I~ -'is
Minutes
-3-
Februarv 13. 1991
Contract Planner Miller answered that the percentage of the
contribution of the project toward impacted segments and
intersections, which ultimately will affect the contribution of the
applicant towards off-site improvements. It would be a lesser
percentage than the 4.7% noted in the staff report. The traffic
consultant would have to come back with a revised traffic analysis
reflecting the specific percentage contribution of the project
would be.
Chair Grasser Horton asked how the percentage was reached.
Dan Marum, traffic consultant from JHK, replied that the percentage
of project contribution at the critical study area intersections
was based on the amount of "proj'ect only" traffic entering those
intersections during the peak hour. That is compared with the
total volume coming into the intersection from all other cumulative
impacts based on future forecasted volumes.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if the cumulative impacts were based on
a built-out bayfront.
Mr. Marum answered that this did not include the complete build-out
of the bayfront, but was a near-term analysis of three years in the
future with some cumulative impact from traffic growth from other
development and in-fill development, but not a build-out analysis
of long-term contribution at these intersections.
Commissioner Decker noted the number of trips generated by this
facility would be reduced by 41%, and asked how that would affect
the number of parking spaces.
Traffic Consultant Marum replied the rates used for parking and
trip generation were separate rates. He suggested that this could
be included in the addendum.
Commissioner Carson queried staff as to what other dust abatement
measures could be used instead of watering of the site during
grading to enhance air quality, since water is at a premium. Since
homeowners are being asked to cut back severely, she felt a strong
look should be taken to balance air quality against water usage.
She asked that it be included in the addendum.
Contract Planner Miller answered there would have to be an expanded
discussion in the addendum. She noted the applicant had informed
staff that they had available the use of recycled water.
Commissioner Decker suggested the use of wetting agents to make the
water more efficient.
liI-"
~
Minutes
-4-
Februarv 13. 1991
MSUC (Decker/Fuller) 6-0 to certify the final EIR for the Rohr
Office Complex (FEIR-90-10) has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered
the information contained in the FEIR.
If#"'~
82'19'91 16:2:5
Z 619 233 09'2
Keller Environ.
P.02
i
I
I
I
.
I
February 19. 1991
Keller
Environmental
Associates,
Inc.
Maryann Miller I
City or Chula V~' ta
276 Fourth Ave e
Chula Vista, CA 92010
I .
Dear Maryann: I
Enclosed is the 4,rart Rohr Office Complex Mitigation Monitoring Program
as requested. TI,ls document represents a first draft submittal to the City for
review. The rro~t sheet of the Mitigation Monitoring Program document
shows the statu of additional items which need to be included in the
document for rc lew by 111C City.
ULd~-~
O1rlstine A. Ke!er
President
CAK:lId:9014M P
Enclosure (5 mJleS)
I
I
I
I
1727 lr'ifthAve., sa1 Diego, CA 1J2101 .. (619) 233-1454 .. FAX 238-0952
III -8 f
Z 619 233 0952
P.03
82/19/91 16;25
Keller Environ.
DRAFT
ROHR OFFICll COMPlEX
~GATION MONITORING PROGRAM
u=1
I
,
2/18/91
2/18/91
2/19/91
2/19/91 I
I
-t
r
~
KEA to Complete Rough Draft
Submit to Biologist (PSJlS) for Review and Comments
Receive Biologist Comments and Revise Draft
Receive JHK'u New Traffic Addendum and Revise
Monitoring Program Accordingly
Submit Draft to City for Review and Comment
Revise ))raft Based on City Comments and Traffic
Addendunl
Submit Final to City
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
'1:16 Fourth Avenue
Cbula Vista, California 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Bnvlronmental Associates, lne.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
February 19, 1991
1f#-8~
, (~
" /
82.1'1'.1"1 16126
It 619 233 B9~2
Keller Environ.
P.B4
DRAFI'
100 "F' & "0" Street J:darsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). The ~WR Is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing
habitat for many type1 of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
endangered and/or thrtatened by State and Federal agencies. The project site is currently
undeveloped, but has l)een used for aRriculture in the past and is Jittered with agricultural
and household debris.! An abandoned Irrigation system and severltl unimproved roads
transect the site. The rite elcvation vltrles between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) and slopes geny to the southwesL
The proposed project ipcludes the proposed construction of a 42-foot high office building
and associated parki1g area containing 730 spaces, II drainage system, and road
improvements to "P st.eet and Bay Boulevard. On-site landSCllplng will be provided and
a berm and detention, basin wlll be created on the western portion of the property to
physically separate the lMarsh from the proJcct and protect it from surface nmoff. A 6-foot
high chain link fence 1m be located near Ihe toe of the western facing slope of the berm
to prevent disturbance Ito the adjacent sensitive wildlife refuge area.
Alternative 2, the "MO~lfled Design" Alternallve, Il8 descrIbed In the PEIR, includes the
development of II 245.t square foot office complex with two subsurfacc parking structures,
which provide partialf,itisation of parking Impacts. Alternative 2 I~ the applicant's
preferred project, and '11 be the project which is constructed. This monitoring program
addresses Alternative and its mitigation requlremcnts.
MONITORING p~
TIle City of Chula V18~ will monitor mitigation measures presented in certified EIRs for
impacts identified as si~ficant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the
Rahr Office Complex Pfoject addresses mitigation measures Identified for significant impacts
in the following arells: i
. Draina8c(1 Groundwater/Grading
. Biology
I
I
" .2.
lIfJJ4.MMl'IXIl Ul!J9!pJ
I
I
i
1~-9a
...,
82....191/91 16:27
.. 619 2JJ 89~2
Keller Environ.
P.0~
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
C1rculatI4n/parking
Air Qualjty
I
I
The City of Chula Vi*Planning Departmcnt will implement the mitigation monitoring
plan, In this role the 'ty will identify a City staff person or hire a consultant who will
function as the: proje 's Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC). This person will
establish the team ofltechnlclll monitors. conduct on-site monitoring and oversee the
monitoring activities o~ other monitors, ensure l118t the plan Is bclng Implemented on
schedule, and compile .nd prepare periodic monitoring reports. 11lCse reports wlll be filed
with the City of Chula rvista and any other regulatory agency with the authority to enforce
or otherwise regulate tI'e construction and/or operation of the project.
The MCC win also ruJctlon as a representative of the City in enforcement of mitigation
measures and monltoTif' g activities in the field. This IIleJIn~ tbat the MCC will communicate
directly with the canst uetion foreman or construction manager when non-compIiance is
noted. 111is may, on joccasion, require that construction is delayed while a particular
situation is remedied. : The MCC will also be able to recommend additional mitigation
measures to reduce Impacts based on field observations or to modify mitigation measures
or monitoring procedures in response to actual field conditions. Tbese changes mUSt be
approved by tbe City' Planning Department and the project applicant prior to their
I
implementation. Chanfes shall be noted in activity log.~ and monthly monitoring reports and
this monitoring plan s~all be modified to reflect these change.~.
I
A fmal mitigation monItoring report will be prepared following construction of the project.
The report will descri~e the monitoring activities which have occurred, the observations
made, the success of t~e mitigation measures and recommendation..~ for future mitigation
monitoring plans. Thd, unal report will be prepared by the MCC and med with the City
PIaWlIng Department. ! .
I
I
,
,
1be following text inelllPes a summary of significant impacts, associated mltig.ation measures,
and the monitoring eff~ts needed to ensure that the measures are adequately ImJ))emented.
In many cases, the laD~a8e of tbe mitigation mcssures incorporates nlonitoring. In other
caSC5, the specific mil~tion requirements of the rcg111atory agencies with jurisdiction over
I
I
i
!
I
DRAFr
.
.
- 3 -
lIO-./4.NMJ'IKIl1l2/1PIl"
/tJ-91
82/19/91 16=27
z: 619 233 89~2
Kell&r Environ.
P.86
DRAFt
I
i
the project have not yo. heen fully defined. This plan may need to be updated as the Oty
proceeds through the cpt)"s discretionary approval process. Included after the text of the
plan is a table which putllncs thc-(potential) impacts, mitigation lneasures, monitoring
activities and other BSPFcts of the monitoring program.
,
I
DRAINAGE/GRO~WATBR/ORADINO
Jrnpam
.
,
Incremental CO*tribUtions to cumulatively significant flooding impacts may be
associated with !exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over dapacity).
I
I
Significant impa,bts resulting from contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot
,
with oil, grease ~nd other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "F'
& "G" Street Mtrsb if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern.
!
Significant imp~cL~ may occur if surface runoff carries silt and sediment into the
Marsh during gl-ading. This Is particularly problematic if grading occurs during
I
winter months, then the heaviest rains OCCllr.
,
Significant imptjcts to the wetlands area on site could rcsull If adjacent grading
introduces solis ~o this senlutive area.
I
,
i
Potentially sign~cant impacts may result due to approximately 11.2 acres being
graded to provl?e flat pads for parking and the building. A tot!l1 of 40,000 cubic
yards of cut andifill will be generated. 'rhe maximum depth of cut and fill will be 11
and 7 feet, reSpllctlvely, with the average change in grade of approximately 2 feet.
Onslte soils ate Identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable in
their present cofdition for structural support.
,
I .
Saturated soils riom groundwater. without remediation, may adversely affect building
support and maj be an unacceptable material for building support and fill.
I
.
.
.
.
.
i
.i
I
-4-
!J().14.NNI'tJDZ rIZ/1'/P1
I ~ -9~
02/19/91 16128
Z 619 233 09~2
Keller Environ.
P.07
DRAFr
Mttip.tion Up~EtlreS
1.
A detailed gradi~g and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance. with the Chula
Vista Municipa~ Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted standa{ds. Said plan must be approved and a permit Issued by the
Ongineering Di~sion prior to the start of any grading work andlor installation of any
drainage strllctllres.
!
,
Monitoring: ~e MCC must ensure that the detailed grading and drainage plans
include recomm~ndations and detailed design incorporating all mea..~res contained
in the I7inai EI~ for this project, and those contained in the "Update Geotedmical
Investigation" (Woodward-Cyde, 1990). If the MCC determines that these measures
I
have not been :included. the applicant must have the plans revised to include
incorporation o~ these measures. TheD, the MCC nlUst check that tbe plans have
been approved ~y the Engineering Division, that grading and drainage permits have
,
been issued, an~ must file copies of the plans, approvals, and permits with tlle
Mitigation Mon'tnring Program file. The MCC must be present during grading
operations to ~sure that all requirements of the Grading Plan are Implemented,
Includlnglnstalllltion of all drainage facilities. The MCC may request the attendance.
of a City Engi~r1ng staff person during portions of the grading process, if so
dc.~lred. The ~CC must prepare a detailed checklist which includes all of the
rcqulrelllents of It he grading and drah18ge plans. and incorporate this checklist Into
the monitoring ,nd reporting program.
I
.
TIle .update Ge!otechlllcaJ Investigation" report referenced above must be roviewed
,
and approved Py the City's Engineering Department. All recommendations
contained wlthi~ the study must be Implemented by the applicant. This measure
must be made a Irondilion of project approval, and must he Included (or referenced
to) on the GradIng Plan.
!
2.
Monitoring: Thp MCC must check that this report has been approved. must verify
that the Gradin$ Plan Includes all recommendations of the report, and must, on an
ongoing basis, 4onitor the implementation of all such recommendations. Thus, the
!
. S .
PI/oUMM1'OO1 ~191P1
Jip..q,3
e2/1~1/91 16:29
S 619 233 S9~2
Keller Environ.
p.se
I DRAFT
,
MeC's presen~ during grading and in.~talllltion of all drainage facilities must occur.
I
The frequency apd timing of monitoring activity Is to be defined In the revised Draft
Monitoring Pro1ram.
I
I
3. I!ngineered fills !and/or any structural clements that encroach into areas overlain by
bay deposits or; other compressible overburden soils wlll require some form of
subgrade modil'{cation to improve the support capacity of the exlstlng solis for use
I
in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soli improveme*t may include partial or total removal and recompacllon, and/or the
use of surcharg~ fills to pre-compress saturated bay deposit~ which exist below the
groundwater tab~e; or foundation elements must be designed to extend through these
soils into compe.tent bearing formational soils.
!
Monitoring: 'l~ls mC8Sure must be incorporated, as appropriate, into the grading
plan, as descn"~d by Mitigation Monitoring Measure No. 1 above.
4. If encountered,: roadways, embankments, llnd engineered fills encroaching onto
.
existing compre,..sible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to
Improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total
removal and rJcompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fllls, 10 pre-compress
saturated bay dtpoSitS.
,
,
Monitoring: lliis measure must be incorporated, as appropriate, into the grading
plan, a.~ describ~ by Mitigation Monitoring Mea~'Ure No. 1 above.
i
5. If saturated soilllare encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering SbOll~d be implemented In general accordance with the recommendatiolls
contained in thd July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance wltb
I
RWQCB Order, 90-3] regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
Diego Bay will ~e required.
.
I
I
.
I
- 6-
9fJ.U.AlAlPfIt1162j19/p1
It, -94/
I)
82/19/91 16: 29
E 61. 233 89~2
Keller Environ.
P.8'
DRAFr
6.
Mcmitoring: ~s measure must be incorporated, as appropriate, into the grading
plan, as descrlb~ by Mitigation Monitoring Measure No. 1 above.
I
li' project gradirjs occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained
in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of QIUW Vista Bayfront
Specific Plan mJst be implemented, and these must also be included (or referenced
to) on the Grading Plan.
I
Monitoring: This measure must be incorporated Into the grading plan, as described
by Mitigation 1.1onitoring Mcasure No.1 above.
I
'ro eliminate thJ pos.~lblllty of slit and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier system
must he placed tetween the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading
and remain un~1 the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This
measure must ~ Included on the Grading Plan.
I
.
Monitoring: niis measure must be Incorporated, as appropriate, into the grading
plan, 8S dcscrlb~d by Mitigation MonitorIng Measure No. 1 above.
I
7.
8.
To prevent gra~ng impacts to the wetland, a protective berm nlust be constTllcted
along the cntir~ western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. l)uring
construction of ~his berm, the City must retain a biologically trained construction
monitor to observe grading prlltticcs llnd ensure tbe integrity of the wetland. To
I
guarantee that t~e berm itself does not Introduce sedimentation Into the wetland, the
western slope of;tbe berm must be hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting.
I
This measure ll\\IS1 be Included on the Grading Plan.
i
I
Monitoring: This measure must be inoorporatcd inlo ilie grading plan, as described
by Mitigation Monitoring Measure No. 1 above. If the MCC Is not a biologically
trained monltorj then the MCC must ensure that the biOlogically trained monitor is
present during ~iS portion of grading and berm construction.
,
I
,
I
I
i
,
.
; - 7 - 9(J.Jof.MMI'f1IT1 01/19/91
I" - 93
',)
e2/1~/~1 16:38
a 61~ 233 8~~2
Keller Environ.
P.10
DRAFr
mOLOOY
IlI!pactJ;
Loss of freshwa1er input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent
NWR lands I
Contamination ~f the Marsh by parking area and street runoff
,
I
Modification of ~ncrcase in the rete of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the
drainage system'
I
I
Impacts of enhanced pet-associated predator attractiOn to the study area, and human
I
presence !
i
I
I
Impacts to the 1xisting balance of competitors, predators lInd prey
An indirect imp+ct to the J..ight.fOOted Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment hi the "F' & "G" Street Marsh
I
i
Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
I
I
Mitlptlon MlllIlIIlrcs :
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
I
I. The proposed ~roJect must Include a buffer of rc.~lored native scrub vegetation
between tbe bujlding and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer must be Isolated
from human hlttusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds
as designed to J!edl.lce visual Impacts from aetlvltles oeeurrblg on the patio areas.
I
I
I
I
Monitoring: IplplementHtlon of the Landscape Plan for the project, which
incorporates tm4 native scrub vegetation must be overseen by the biologically trailled
monllor. Succe.o;/; of this vegetation program wlll require an ol1going efforl by the
monitor to dOCllment the implementation of the buffering design, the planting, and
I
- 8 -
911-U.NM1'(J(f2 01/19/9'
I i# - 9.
82.r1 lJ'.r91 16=31
Keller Environ.
z: 619 233 0lJ':52
P.l1
DRAFT
2.
i
;
the long-Ierm es!tabllshment of this vegetation. The monitor, if different from the
Mcc, must coot!dinate the monitoring and reporting program with the Mcc.
i
AU post-construc!tion drainage must be directed through large volume silt and grellSC
traps prior to belng shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) plaoc:d
on Iioe(s) enterlrg the detention basin must be triple-chambered,
i
Monitoring: Tilt> MCC must verify that the sill and grease traps have been built in
their correct loJ,tlons. The appropriate locatIons of the sDt and grea..~ traps must
be shown on th~ grading plan.
I
I
The silt and gr4ase traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaningt;
f
conducted in laIc September or early Oct.uber. A~ needed cleanings are to be
performed thrO~gh the winter and spring months, but lit least once in March.
I
Maintenance ~st be done by removal of wastes rather than Ousbing.
3.
4.
,
I
Monitoring: Th~ MCC must coordinate the cleaning procedure and schedule, which
wlll occur at I~ twice a year in September/OclDber and March. This coordination
will occur thrOU'h the life of the project. Once the enforcement officers are hired
(described by Mtasure No. 10), they will assume responsibility for this maintenance
schedule. I
Deslltation baslJs large enough to handle storm water nmoff must be maintained
during the cons~uetion phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction
site. ConstruClj~m and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would ass~t in this measure. In addition, construction dc-watcrlng sho\lld be
directed Into a htl sin with a ruter-fabric, gravel leach system. or stand-pipe drains, so
that clear water s released from the site throuih the regular desntation basins.
I
Monitoring: Thll measure must be Incorporated into the grading and drainage plans,
I
as descrIbed by ~itlgatlon Monitoring Measure No, 1 under tbe section Drainage/
Groundwater IGtading. 1'be locations ofboth the drainage &wale and the construction
de-watering bas,* must be clearly Indicated on the plan.'\. The MCC must enslIre that
i
i
- 9-
9D-lf.N.Nl'OV2I12/J9I'J
J It! - 9.,...
',>
02/19/91 16=31
z: 619 233 0952
Keller Environ.
P.12
DRAFT
the drainage swa1e is constructed and planted (per the Landscape Plan) early in the
grading process; and that the construction de-watering basin be constructed
simultaneously (with ODe of suggested systems noted above) in the event of
encountering waier early in the grading process. The MCC must enS\lre the quality
of both of these basins during the entire grading and construction process,
i
5. Landscape plant! materials to he utilized in the project area must be from the lists
provided by the ~cvcloper. Should species substitutions be desired, these must be
submitted to tb4 City landscape architect for review. Plant materials which are
known to be il1v~'live in salt and brackish marshes such as Limo"ium or Ca'1'obrotus
species, or those, which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roostinG
sites for predato~s such as Washlngtonla or Col1aderla. must be restricted from use.
,
I
Monitoring: Tht biologically trained monitor must oversee the project landscaping
\u v..,iCy Lhc.t th~ species planted are co",<I$te"t willl the Lal1C!scapc Plan. If tpeeies
substitutions arc1desircd, the monilor must also review any chnnges to tho Lundsonpe
l'lan to 0Il."ll1'C ttllt llppropriate species arc beins used.
6. A bJologicnlly-t<allled monItor musl be prC6ellt for on phases oC gradinG and
UIlIUllIlllioll or d~ailla&e sySlcms, The monitor must be cmplo)'ed thrOU~l Ihe Cil)'
and would repdrt directl)' to ... specific responsible perso" in the Bngineering.
I
Planning 01' Co1fllunity Development Department if construction activitics fall to
meet the conditloDs outlined or should unforeseen problollls arise which require
hnmedlale acli~l or sloppin~ of Ihe coru;lruclion ncljyjlios. TIlis monitor must
continue monltotb'S on a reduced ba51s durif'S ocluol outside building constrllction.
MOlJiloriug: TIic biologicall)' \I'lllncd monllor must prepare Ule monito,in8 "nd
,
repol'lill8 pl'o;l'a!n for all aspects of Iho project l'olauns to biolo;lcall'esoul'ccs. TI.e
monitor must ~ordinate with the MCC reJlllllling the gradius nnd construction
.cbcuulc, lUlU ulU.1 .ubmil JUs/he,,. f'CI'III'll! 10 Iltc MCC Ull It weekly I>llIlf.. All
appropriate, the!monitor will continue monitoring and reporting after construction
is completed. '
- 10-
!II).l4.NMJ'C1/12 c>,;'/lPt!'l
/, -9r
.'
J;,
82/1~/'~1 16;32
Z 619 233 8~'2
Keller Environ.
P.13
7.
I
I
I
.
.
Re-estabJisllme.lt of 0.14 acre ohiparlan vegetation within the oil-site drainage 5wale
must be accompHshed to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and direct impacts of the
I
project upon th~ 0.]4 acre of willow riparian grove straddling the NWR. border.
Management ofithe riparian grove to retain wildlife resources must be coordinated
with the Nations) Wildlife Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types
must be includcflln the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow tbe principal species
used in this babltat area.
i
i
Mooitorlng: nJe billlogically trained monitor must oversee tbe development and
planting of the rJparian vegetation. The monitor must coordinate with the National
,
Wildlife Refuge:Manager on this task. The monitor must ensure that the species. as
i
specified in the J.,andscape Plan, are in fact planted. The monitor and/or National
.
Wildlife Refuge:manager will prepare and implement a long-term maintenance and
monitoring program. The maintenance program wiIJ include replacement of plants
that do not survive.
DRAFJ'
8.
Human aCCCllS to nlll.l"6hlauds and buffer areas must be restricted through vegetation
,
barriers and rails around the patio. areas. Additional hl1111an/pet encroachment must
ba rastrlcled th~ough fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western
property bound~ry.
I
I
Monitoring: nle biologically trained monitor must verify the development of the
vegetation barriprs (per the Landscape Plan), rails and fencing, and check that no
access from tb~ site is available into these areas once development Is completed.
The frequency +d timing of monitoring activity is to be defined in the revised Draft
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
i
i
The project shln/ld be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula
Vista Dayfront rFgion to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators.
This program sjJould utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a
basis, but should be tailored to fit tbe needs of the proposed development. This plan
should include 1he use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet
I
9.
.11-
IXJ-u,MMJ_ 02/IP/I'l
1"-91
')
" 1-
I,
82/19/"1 16133
E 6U 233 .~'2
Keller Environ.
P.14
DRAFl'
activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should include nlanagement of
predators withi~ the adjacent NWR -as well as the proposed development areas.
Monitoring; The predator management program has yet to be developed, and is
currently being ptanned by bayfront property owners and regulatory agencies. The
MCC must participate In the development of this program, and must Inform tbe City
I
Redevelopment. Agency when such a program is In place, and what Rohr's
participation wijl be. The MCC must attend program mccllngs, once the program Is
established, to !verify Rohr's participation in the progl'l.ll11. Once the full time
I
enforcement st4ft is hired (described below), they will assume responsibility for
reporting on Rd,IIr's participation In this program.
:
,
i
10. A full time enftfeement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generaled by tlf project and other development within tile Dayfront, or by other
funding mecbailisms. to conduct the predator management program, ensure
compliance. iss~e citations, and conduct routine checks to emure maintenance of
oilier mitigation' requirements (I.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such offi<:ers
should work elotely wilh the USFWS in enfor<:ement issues as they relate to Federal
Reserve Lands. iOfflcen should have trainIng In predator control and should possess
,
the necc.....o;ary slfL~' permits and auiliorlty to trap and remove problem predators.
It is recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
,
agency/property owner advL~ory board set up to oversee resource protection of the
entire midbayfront area. The mldbayfront area is that area within the boundaries of
the Sweetwater; River, Bay Boulevard, "OU Street. and the San Diego Bay. The
jurlsdlctlons/prJperty owners which should he included In this board are the City of
I
Chula Vista, th4 San Diego Unified Port District, the Bayfront Conservancy Trust,
I
the U.s. Fish a~d Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Garno,
Rohr Industries; and the OWllor of tho majority of tho Midbayfront Uplands (Chula
Vista Investors);
I
.
Monitoring: O~anization of the multi-jurisdictional board must occur prior to the
biring of tbe enl'orcement staff. Until slIcb a time as the board is established, the
MCC, with thelassistance of the biologically trained monitor, must monitor and
. 12.
1IO-14.MMPi1112 02/19/91
,. -I()~
^' l"
\J:
82/1'9/'91 16=34
Z 61'9 233 8'9~2
Keller Environ.
P. 1~
DRAFf
report on the i$plementation of Rohr's mitigation measures. Once the board is
established, and ~he enforcement stafr is hired, the MCC will relinquish responsibility
,
for maintenan~ of the silt and gre!lSe traps and partlclpatlon In the predator
,
management prfgram.
j
11. Fertlli~rs, pest!c1dC5 and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project must b~ of the rapidly biodegradable varIety and must be certified as
''''''''P'''ble to thb Il1wirOnm.6ntal J.>rotoeUon AlienO)' for \lSe near wedand arcaA. All
landscape chemIcal applications must be accomplished by a person who is II stllte-
ce.rtll1ed I\PpJj~tor,
1
Monitoring: Tile biulo~icully ....ui"ed JUon/to.' must coordlnllte with the Illndscape
,
maintenance p~rsonnel to onsurc thllt proper substances are used, and that
applicators arc ~tatC-CCftlfled. The monilor mu.~l obseNe landscape maintenance
operations on Illbi-monthly basis to ensllre compliance.
,
12. Annual funds ~ be paid by Rohr into IU1 assessment district set up by the multi-
jurllllIicliulIltl/pr,uPCrly uwner tWvlsory board sllUuhl be dllldgnuled tUI' tbe purpose
of trash controli repair Illld mllintenanoc of drainase facilities, fencins. the predator
I
control prosraul and mitisation prosrams for the project.
1
,
,
Monitorw8: S~e monitorlns for No. 10 above. Assessment district functions,
including funds,:wolJld be a funQtlon of the advisul)' buurd. The MCC must repo"
I
on the prD!,"css ]of both e&wblishment of the board and the llssessment district.
i
13. Opon garbasc ~ntalncn; should he rcstricted and aU dumpsters must Ilo tOlally
eneloecd to avoid attractil'1f avian and mammalian predators and scavcnscr. to the
area. Oarhll8c lihould be> hauled away as often as pOBsible.
MODitorlDF n?e MCC must verify on a montbly basis. both during grading and
,
constmetion, nnp nfter OOIIStruction, that dll1'11pStbrs life totally enclosed, IInd that tbe
dumpster. arc ",ot overfio....ins. Solid wll9te sc.Nlce must be iocronsed if dumpsters
are overnowlng;
- 1~ -
WI. lLAfUPQ()} 0:'-/19/91
I' -/()/
82/19/91 16r34
E 619 233 8'~2
DRAFr
Keoller Environ.
P.16
]4. Buildings shoul4 utilize non-reflecLive glass and bold architectural lines which arc
,
readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a suitable substitute
I .
arc recommend4d. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest call
I
be included on ~he western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west
should not cxccied two Inches In width. Additionally, the roof crests which are
exposed to the Jetlands lmlst be covered with an anti-perch material such a.~ Nixalitc.
A commItment to correct any additional problem arelL~ !\hould be obtained should
heavy incidence pf perching be observed on the buildings or In landscaping materillls.
Outside Ilghtint must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecLlng faccs oC the
western side oCithe proposed building. Lights should bc limited to the minimllm
required for setrlty on the western side of the building.
;
;
,
Monitoring: Thj: biologically traIned monitor must attend the Design Review process
,
for this project ~o ensure implementation oC proper building materials and design.
Design Review inllSl not approve the design without a written statement from thc
biologically trai~cd monitor iliat proper building material and design have bccn
incorporated. 4nti-perch material must be specified in the construction plans.
i
j
ClRCUlATlON/P~G
i
I
Impaclll I
.
i
. "F" Street and r~adway segments west oC 1-5 would operatc at LOS n or above with
the exception of;Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street, which will decline
from LOS C tp F with the lnclu!dlln of annual growtb and the project. The
intersection of $a)' Boulevard and "F" Street would decline from LOS 13 to D with
the project resPfnsible for S3 percent of this impact.
, '
. I-S northbound.t "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.6 percent) to a cumulatively
I
signlflcant lmp~ct will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
- 14-
1~-ICe1
94-u.MMl'f)(J2 t12/19fPl
\ ;;,
82....19....91 161::5:J
z: 619 2::5::5 .e9:J2
Keller Environ.
P.17
DRAFT
. 1-5 southbound at "HIO Streec Incremental contribution (45 percent) to a
,
aamulalive1y siSnWCllDt impact wll1 result from the proposed project and annual
population groJth. .
I
I
I
. 1-5 northbound, at "Ii" Street: Incremental contribution (0.9 percent) to a
cumulatively si~lficant impact wlll result from the proposed project and annual
population groth.
i
i
. Broadway and 'j!" Street: Incremental contribution (4.7 percen!) to a cuD1l11atively
i
significant imp~ct wllI result from the proposed projcct and annual population
growth. \
i
!
. A significant Jl1jrldng deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (t 0 to 13 percent) under the
proposed proje~ or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
!
occur. i
Mltlllalion Measurc& !
I
I
I
Bay Boulevard ~OTlh of "F' Street should be designed for traffic only and on-street
parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wkle parking areas adjacent to the east curb
line must he d1icated to normal traffic flow. "P' Street (Lagoon Drive) must be Te-
striped to the e~t and west of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out
I
from the Inter~tlon, and three lanes in toward the intersectIon. The three inbound
.
lanes would be: comprised of one left-turn only lane, one through-lane, and one
shared through-:and right-turn lane. The westbound and northbound approaches will
I
also require ~o~ification to provide ODe left-turn lane, ODe througb, and one right-
turn lane. Si&nt~izatlon Is necessary at the intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Day lloulevard for 100 to 200 feet north of the intersection would
he necessury to \accompllsh tbis measure. These measures would improve tbe LOS
to C. 111e appl(cant is responsible for providing 53 percem of the funds for this
mitigation ba5e~ on the recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed in
Section 10.0 of this report).
I
I
,
1
J
I
1
1.
- IS-
f/O-U.MMNI02I1J!J9!pJ
'IP-/D3
021"191"91 16136
S 619 233 e9~2
Keller Environ.
P.18
DRAFT
,
Monitoring: ~ Benefit A~~e.~~l1Ient District (BAD) must first be established, and
,
the cost to impfove the intersection determined. Before the permit to occupy is
Issued to Rohr ~y the City. Rohr must pay the appropriate share of the cost. nle
MCCwlll ensuri that the BAD has been established and that the share of rosts have
been paid to th~ City.
i
j
Implementation of two improvements must be made prior to, or roncurrent with,
development of ~he Robr project. which is necessary due to the ncar-term extremely
poor conditions ~t this Intersection. These improvements are to (1) widen westbound
liB" Street at tht northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a !lepllTlitc> rlghHurn lane from
westbound 'E" ~treet; (2) restrlpe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to
provide an cxcl~sive right-turn lane and a shared left- and righHurn Jane. The
applicant is re$onsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mltigatiol1 based on the Benefit Assessment District.
!
Monitor1Df' Sa~l" as Cor Mitl&"tJo" MouUo..j,,& Meusw." Nu. 1 "buy".
,
i
3. Double Illfl.- tu/'jl unly lanes un 'U' Str""t to suuthbound 1-5 should be provided to
Improve the opbl'atioll to LOS C. The t1ppli(;ilJlt ill responsIble for providing a
pJ~portional an~ount of funds for tllis lllitiJlIUUU bused un the Benefit Assessment
DIstrict.
2.
Monilorhl&' Saino as for Mhigalioll MonitoJing MClISUl'C Nu. 1 Itb(lve.
,
!
4. Duuble left tUTn ion1)'llIncs on "1 J" Street to northbound }-5 ramp should be providell.
I
This mitisalion jme8lnlTC would improve interseetion operation to LOS C. The
applicant is rcs~onslblc for proyiding e. pToportiOl1aJ IImount of funds for thi.
mitlsatlon ba&~ on the Benefit A.8CIIlImcmt Di.tr10t.
I
MonlloTios: Su+,e... fOT Mitisal.lon MonitoriI18 Meosure Nu. 1 Kbuvc.
I
S. All cllclusivc ti~/t tum Ian\: frum eastbuunll 'n" Street to southbound Broadway
,
ShlHlld be pruYided. 'fhls additionll! lane would facllltatc smoother traffic now ftom
I -
I
,
I - 16 . flCl.U.J4/'UwH2/l'/I'l
IfI-/fJ'I
82/19/91 16;::56
a: 619 2::53 89'2
Keller Environ.
P.19
DRAFT
i
J-5 and Improve'the operation LOS to C. The llpplicllllt is responsible for providing
a proporlional ~ount of funds for this mitigatIon ba.\cd on the Benefit Assessment
,
District. .
!
Monitoring: sajne as for Mitigation Monitoring Measure No. 1 above.
,
,
,
6. The applicant must meet the City's standard by either providing additional
permanent offsi!e parking; or by reducing the size of the building; or limiting the
,
number DC employees consistent with the City's Clnploycc-based parking standard.
,
This limit could be inl,.Teased if the proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces
under Alternatiye Z) is found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be
provided. In or~er to determine. if the parking L\ adequate, the parking demand
should be monitbred over a one year period following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building. :
i
MonitorbJg: Ro~r must submit to the MCC the plan for provision of the appropriate
number of spa~s off.ite. Until the required amount of parking Is provided, Rohr
must limit the ~umber of employees to be consistent with the employee.based
parking standar~. The MCC must check the parking lot onsite on a weekly basis on
staggered days for one year to determine the adequacy of parking. If parking is
inadequate, the!MCC must report to the City and the Coastal Commission so that
I
appropriate action may be taken.
I
AIR QUAUTY
Jnw3Cll:
. lncremental anitributions to a cumulatively significant Impact wnl result Cram bulld-
out project traftjc adding approximatel)' 0.5 ton of CO, 0,04 ton of NO. and 0.03 tOil
of ROG daily tQ the airshed. The NO. and ROG countS (the main ozone formation
,
prec;ursor pollu~antll) arc less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
thre..\hold.
- 17 .
~U.MMf'()()211211P/91 .
Ib -IAS
82/19/91 16=37
Z 619 233 e9~2
Keller Environ.
P.20
DRAFT
. lncremental oonjributlons to potentially significant regional Impacts resulting from
the clearing of; existing site uses, .excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporal)' emissions of dust.
fume.~, cquipme1t exhaust and other alr contAminAnts during project construction wjll
occur. Constru91on dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-tO) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from con~1nletion
activities are asspmcd to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If
the entire 11.6 a~re project site Is under simultaneous development, total daily dust
I
enllsMons would :bc appro,nmutely 1,200 pounds/day.
MlllllBtlnfl MeasnTCli I
I
1. Transportation <!:ontrol Measures (TCMs) such as rldesharlng, vanpoollncentlves,
alternate transpqrtation methods and transit utlllution must be incorporated Into the
project.
Mouitorlug: R$r must submit the Transportation Control Measures to the MCC
,
prior to Issuance of the permit to occupy. The MCC will review the traffic control
I
measures with t~e City Engineering Dlvisioll, and they will jointly determine whether .
the measures ar~ adequate. If the measures are not adequate, the permit may be
delayed. At It n{inimum. the measures of ridesharing, vanpoollncentives. alternate
,
and transportati~n methods Incentives, including trans/t utilization must he included
in the projeeL i
2. Dust control thrbugh regular watering IInd other fugitive dust abatement measures
,
required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70 percent.
!
i
Monitoring: Du,e to the regionalalld statewide shortage of water, treated drinking
water nlay not tt used for dust controL Rohr must use recla/nlcd water, or other
measures, if deefned appropriate by an air quality expert. 'lbe MCC must receive
receipts from !be watering vehicle operators showing proof that the water is
reclaimed. The!.tCC may a~ any watering velllde operator for thl~ proof. If proof
is not shown, thd, vebicle may not spray water. The MCC may stop work if vehicles
i
;
: - 18 . fJO-U.MMPI>>20Z/J0/91
,
,
I
!
I" - 10"
~ .1
\'/.,j
02/19/91 16:J8
s: 619 2JJ 0952
Keller Environ.
P.21
i
I DRAFT
I
,
1
do not provide proof. If other measures of dust control are proposed by Rohr. the
MCC must revi4w these measures with an air quallt)' expert for a detennination of
acceptability. i
.19.
I b - 101-
9IJ.U.MM1'OI12 03/1P/pl
\, ;
02/19/91 16;38
z: 619 233 0952
Keller Environ.
P.22
SAMPLn AcnVrrv LOG
Rohr Office Complex
MltlptIon Mnnitorin~ Actlvlty.llJ&
Observer i DatefTIme ActIvity Observed Compliance Status
,
!
,
j
,
ObsCIVer Date(I1me Acllvlly ObselVed Compliance Status
:
,
:
,
ObselVer , Date/Time AttMty Observed Compliance Status
;
,
,
!
I
,
Observer Dateflime AttMty Observed Compliance Status
I
,
I
i
,
,
i
,
Ii
I
tD-J4MMI',OOJ OZ/18,191
J I, - /0 1
02/19/91 16.39 Z 619 233 0952
Keller Environ. P.23
i
..
Q.
C1I
IU H if Ill"' 'lnt iUH -pr lliUIH lit! ll1i .
rill !I} 1,1.1 11,,1
'11illJ i ' Jill II It'f' uN}
h!! Jill
II 1,1 j'1I1 I~ III illl
I ilU tifi J I It f
ith Ii II if ,I lift J! III
t II I H hit {II.III
Ii ihi Illf It J
I ! tl ..II
,.rl .tlll I Tilt l!U
,!tU- III ~~J
rf 11I1 ,Iif hll-'
jlili! IIi Hr JI t il hi litJ 11fl
Iii ~n ji!i Hilli ill' -[ ..
If1 III li}llh ;111
li,l!! i,l 'ri !Ii :'1 III
Iii
iUIH 11-1"-1 '( lill
!ill 1111 f.ii
lit ill t~illt
~ IJ HI
s'llu fir l' fIr I .( I ~
If B 'If f
,
!
!
i
!
,
!
!
,
I
i
I
i
!
'I
I
I
I
!
I
i
!
,
, .
i
I I " - 109
J
1
I _
II
II
j ~!
II ~
II
,
I
i
j
j
,
,
i
I
i
I
;
I
;
!
i
1
;
I
1/,-//0
II ~'
if
II
82'19'91 16'48 Z 619 233 8952
Keller Environ. P.24
i
lit
sa.
III
un mm i Ii lit PU1f I!IIII ItSl JP pp I
I. 'I
III I i ill Illlh ililh Illp if} ,hi
I, II 1 H. li'l
HI tJltn j:lfH1 tr.
I ulf Uihl jljHt h!( (Ii !Ill
If 'II' h I 'Hi! dill: Hlj IiI
III 1 fl,
Jj.ll! 1.lln f1li
lit il!!U IHII .r p Jltll
911 l I, tflrl II it II ill I. hil
Ip it(ht. flip If It. Pil ,f I J{ I!t
Jill
Iii Hi'! il
!!.Ul Iii ~ Hili -It
Iii .1
fll hUh Ii it q.lf PJ r .& ht
- r'if II I II
hi 'I'll Illil i{l ill
JilHI Iii 'a} S' .Pi 91
I rll S S' I I! I .. ~fl ii H,
11 t(li fl[ i
,
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
!
;
;
!
I
,
I
I
l
!
;
I
,
,
i
i
I
;
!
I
i
i
!
-
:
i
: J ~ ~-II'
L -
II
II
j
Ii
II
H
I
i
I;
;!
~
,
I
t
!
;
;
,
I
,
i
!
,
;
,
I
i
I
:
;
,
I
,
/
;
,
)'
J~-II~
~J'
r.i
II
02/19/91 16'41 Z 619 233 0952
l
Keller Environ. P~25
i9
'i
(,)
Q,
Ul
J'tU!1111i IIi lr! IfU J~UII jiftfliH Il'lff~
'II hh ',l,. I
h:lllj.il I I ,I}; fin Ii {I 11.r !1'11f1
i I f'
!!h!j pt I I t !~ ('
rll! hU tHili
rp1t ! il 'I' ' }, iiUli1llihtli
Idh!Hh I' J {ll'-r
I I h! !iJt l'Itj ·
iil 11 II 'till,}
'lihil I
'I II i~1 I- till Illi'liljihh
IJ(lllh:1 i ft :i'f .mlt
rl: ltl
lllljihl, I rr.r 0111 flU'il jr'illi Ilill!
Ih' hh , u hh iiPhUJJHiii
JI~li;IISl i III ilJ f
, i iH 1} [i~
i I' I ' J Ii I-jhhrlU (j t f i
.I a
I
i
!
I
i
!
i
,
,
I
:
,
,
!
,
i
,
I -
!
,
I
I
,
!
i
I
:
,
,
:
;
,
,
i
,
i '1,-113
!
!
il
j I;
I~
II !
II
II
.
1
I
!
i
,
I
i
,
,
;
i
,
!
I
,
I
!
~
,
liI-IIY
~I
il
II
82/19/91 16'42 Z 619 233 8952
Keller Environ. P.26
i
.,..
Q.
en
Hfil'i Ur IIi! -II HilHl iiHI~I~11111 I
15ft H. Iff J ls'- I
WII!. t~I' ((I' hI 1.1 i- gJ frllJl"i
t 1~,f I IhJ iSl -lhll~ 1llltlUjll!
IllJlh r f of! [~! lh; It JI'I I 'Jli
II" !~J:IIJ Iffl
n!~ !I ~ II Iii !ll( hlUt III It Illitl
10, r
(I, If t~ait.1 I i ,If( h
unit hi (ii H or, Jel(_1I '
II (II IIWWt!
HUU i..'lSH
t Ii Itlr;!; Ilh;H
1st d! IHI"ti!~lif
1 lallt f[ i~1 I'i 1111
LOll' I Ii lildhHhl
U!iil 'd if nlLp
II Ll Ii I-I t! IIHII}
, IJ I f 11111 f f , 'h J
!
i
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
l
,
I
,
1
i
;
,
!
i
I
:
!
!
;
,
;
I
i
I
i
;
;
,
,
I
T
!
!
,
i J~"II~ -
i
i
j
If.
II
,
fl
II
,
I
I~
0!
II
i
!
I"
ii
i
I
II
'(,-/Ib
02/19/91 16:42 Z 619 233 9952 Keller Environ. P.27
I
CI1
st
CI1
li1-I19-
Ii
I;
f~
I.~
if
Ig
~'i
f
,
!::
t.
tB
i
.?
:
I
~
~
I
j,'
i
J:
I
J,
i
.(~ II t
I( J
I{ II
It
II
1:1 II
.rl I;
~t l-
It II
I
,I
I iI
t r
II
j I~
I~
II !
il
.. -.- .-
i :3J"
!
i Ii
t
~
i i II
~.
I
Il#-/II
********************************************************************************************************
* P,OI *
* TRANSACTION REPORT *
* FEB-19-91 TUE IS: 32 *
* *
* DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE *
* *
* FEB-19 15:12 6192330952 19'02" 27 RECEIVE OK *
* *
********************************************************************************************************
J(, -I"
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929:52:393
P.92
I
j hk & associates
Pebnwy 19, 1991
Ms. Diana. Ric:1wdson
ProJect~
Kefier ~tal Aasocia1cs, Iue.
1727 Fifth Avenue
Sao Diego, California 92010
Rc: Ra;ah,IR""" ProF Impacts - Robr Offic:e ~elt Development (JHK 113S)
Dear Ms. Ricbardson:
In ~~e to now trip generation and intersection geometric: infonnation, JHK &.
AssociRtelJ (JHK) has prepncd the fOllCreport documenting ne:w project impacts for the
above Jefercmced pro' ect. ThIs report . nc:w information rc:ganting c:xisling conditions,
future: conditiOllll Wi~ the project, and UIC conditions with the: project and the recommended
,,"l'igl-hon. The tables that arc: lnc1udcd in this rc:port 8l.e modi6c:d vcnions of lhe tables included in
the Original Tlaffic Impact Analysis Rc:port. The: purpose for pIrl~~f, this Trame Analysis as
an addc:ndum to the oripnal traffic impact analysis report was' y to respond to the new
dlrection provided by the at)' ofOtula V18I8 TrafElc EJl&ineering DepmbuUIt. T6is new din:ction
Involved the: use of a bip generation rate of ten trips per thousand square feet for the Rohr
COIpOIlII1'l offioo ~ TIlls new ttIp gem:ration rate is some 41% lower than the trip seneralion
rate used in 1he o1ig:inal analysis whiCh was 17 trips per thousand square: feet for a large
commercial office complex. Based on the 245,000 square feet of development which is planned
for this sile, approxi.mately 2,450 trips will be generated. 'Thus, the following sections contain
1eclmica1 discussion addressing this change: in estimated bip generation for the site. The most
aidca1 finding of this new traffic: analysis is the sections enti.tlCd "Impact of Project Trips - Ye:lll'
1992 PM Peak Hour" and "Future Condilions with Mitigation. n Both of these lICCIions desc:ribc:
the findings which resulted from this n:ana1ysls.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table A-I shows the existing level of service and 1CU reslllts based on new infonnation
ICpJ:dlng the: li:\,cWilY I1DIIp lnterchanges at '"E" and "H" Streets. Please note that the lnte%SeCtion
at 1-5 Norlhbound Rampf'll" Street has improved from LOS D to LOS C during the PM Peak
holD". Also. the lntel'SCCl1on 01 I-~ Southbound Ramp/"ll" Street improved from LOS C to WS B
dudng the PM peak hour.
ll9ll9 RIo San DlelC' Dtl\'C · Sui.., 335
San D1cao, Califotllla 92108 . (619) 29S.2248 . I'AI' (619) 29,.2393
I f/J -/01 D
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929152393
p.e3
_jhk " -a....
\
Ms. Diana Richardson
FclbIUary 19, 1991
I'aF Two
IMPACI' OF PIlOJECf TRIPS - YEAR D92 PM PEAK HOUR
. Due to ~ ~ ~ project gmcnallrips and changes in inlenCCtion pmelriC5, three
mtmectlons are SIgnificantly impaclcd by the p:ojcct. These in1lll'Sections are:
~In~ LOS PM PeakHo1ll'
{-S Northbound Ramp at .~. SIMc:t D
BlOIldwa7 at "fI" Street D
Broadway at '"8" Street D
The contribution of project generated trips at impIIcted intersections is also reduced. as
shown on the following table, :
Impact of Project Trips - Year ",2 PM Peak Hour
~1nIel1ectlom Pro~~ Comribution
{-s North Ramp at "E" Street . percent
Broadway at "E" Stteet 0.6 percent
Broadway at "H" Sum Not applicable-
-Note: The contribution of projec1cd traffic at the intersection is negligible. However, annual
&TOwth wiD. playa vital pan in the deterioration of the intersection. 1bis intencction has
been disregarded in Ibis analysis by should be taken inlo acc:ount for 1'utule Qula Vista
expansion.
The nnlri81'AU7P11 intersec:ti.on of Bay Boulevard and 7' Street is also beavily iI~ by
project lenerated traffic:. Doe 10 this impact this intersection will require si.gI'.li7.ation and
geometric Il!itigation as dcsc:ribed in the fol1owing section. The contribution of project traffic at
this toealion in the Yl!lll' 1992 PM peak: hour is equal to approximately 17 ~ of the total peak:
hour entering volwne.
As shown on Table A-2, inc:ranental improvements in intcrsec:tion level of service are
achieved with the red.ucc:d project trip gt:Ileralion. l'Jca.se note that the signalized interseCtion at I-S
llIIIIpsI'H"Strcct is not s.i&nific:antly impacted by project generated uaffic in the future.
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATION
As shown on Table A-3, two inrenectlons no kmFrcquire mit!f1lion (1-5 NB and SB
Ramps at "8" Strc:et). The following mitiption measlJl'C8 are still requin:d to achieve acceptable
levels of service UIIlk:r fut=l conditions:
I-S NB Ramp at "E" Street -
Westbound right turn 0D1y lane
Bastbound rl8hI tum only lane
Broadway at "E" Slnlet: -
I II -/~J
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929152393
P.04
_jhk Ie .........
,
Ma. Diana R.idwdson
February 19, 1991
Pa&e 11ne
Bmadway B1 "H" Stnlct-
Bay Blvd. at "F' SIreet -
Weslboundright turn on.Iy lane
Northbollllll rlgbt turn ool1 lane
Soltthbound rlght turn only laDe
The information ~~ above 5lIIl1IlIIIizcs the results of OlD' reanalysis of the ttaffic
impacts usoci.ated with this project. The: tcchnicaI. infotmaIion aenerated lhIring this reanalysis
will be incoJ:poraled into a finall1'r.hn;...al report to be produced by JHK by Febru'!)' 28, 1991.
JHK 8l. AssoCialcs is confident tbat this new mfonnation will. meet the needs of the City of Chula
Vista and if there are any qllCSdoD& n:ganting this technicallllalysi& or you require additional
lnformalion. please do not hesitalc to contact Ms. Pam Barnhart or me.
Siooeu:cly Yours,
JHK. &. A&8ociaIes
])1IMiI~ If~
Daniel F. Manun -
Senior Traosportation Planner
AUlIchlll".
cc: MI88 Maryann MilIa
EnvkoDmcntal Consultant
City ofOtula Vista
/" -/~~
JHK & ASSOCIATES
6192952393
P_05
jhk '" ...ucialCl
Table A-I
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
YEAR 1m CONDITIONS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECI'lONS
lalel IiKtlon All Pe8Ic PM P8lIk
HIS Sbwt EJW StreeI leU LOS leU LOS
1-5 SouIttlcund
R8mp$ "E"SlI'eet 0.40 A 0.62 B
l-ll NOIthbound
Rarnp., "E" Slr8ll1 0.62 B 0.75 C
Woodlawn AV8lIIIe "E"Sttee\ 0.51 A 0.68 B
Broadway "F" Slrae! 0.36 A 0.68 B
Bay BouIeYaId "If' Street 0.28 A 0.47 A
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "H" Slreet 0.43 A 0.72 C
1-5 Nor1hbound
Ran1l "H" SIreet 0.56 A 0.67 B
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.78 C
Broadway "H" Street 0.42 A 0.79 C
1.-4
1~-1;;)3
JHK & ASSOCIATES
61929152393
P.B6
jhk lk 1NOCiI""
,
Table A.2
SUMMARV OF STUDY AREA JNTERSJl:CrIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE
I~ -/,;, 'I
JHK & ASSOCIATES
6192952393
P.07
jhk &: astOCiob:a
Table A-3
SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
BEFORE AND ArrERMlTIGATION
STUDY AREA PB.oBLEM LOCATIONS. nntlItE YEAIC 1,n
Befv.. After
MItiGation Mlllaallon
PropOBed PIop1'-....
Int.n....c.llon ProJect PnJJect
NIS EIW !aL LOS leU LOS
BfoatIway "E'StreeI 0.84 0 0.78 C
BroadWay "H" Stteet 0.85 0 0.85 0
1-6N8
~ "f" Slrelll 0.89 0 0.74 C
till)' Blvd. "P Street NlA 0.75 C
Nate;" NlA lndIcalllS that the intersection 01 Bay BouIevBrCV'P Street 1$ w!l1ll1lly
unsignallzed and WIlli ana~ as a fOur-way SfOp comroUed Intecsectlcn
l11e . Abr MitigatiOn- AnalySiS tested this inll!ll'll8Clion under signal
control.
A-6
I ~ -/~ 5
3HK & ASSOCIATES
6192952393
P.BB
,
j hk & associates
.''''f
flLE tiLl)'
Fcbnwy IS, 1991
Ms. DDIDa RichmIson
Project ManaFr
KdIer&vJronmcnIal AMnclIltP.f
1 TJ:1 Piftb. Avcnue
Sill DioJO, (',.J;fnnri.. 92101
Rc: Rohr Office Complex: Development OlaDse Older R.cqnest QHK 1135)
AI teqDCSIlld JBK & A!tEnCiau,s (JHIC) is pJeasecl to pIOVide this ~ of work
and cost e.stimatl: to ~ the additional savkes required. 011 the Rohr Tnffic Impact
Analysis Study. ThiS additional work: is ncceswy bucd on the """';,,;nu of the City of
Chula Villa to adYirc I trip generation rate for this site which is di1fcrcnt than the uip
pncratlon llICd for the development of the draft ElR. The dmft EIR utilized a trip
aencndon ratc of 171rlps per thousancI square feet which is a WOJ:5OoC8Se coJldition far this
245,000 square feet office complex:. DurIng the review of the ftaa1 ElR. the City of Chula
VJsaa delmnined dIII1 a DIIl.nl appropriate rate fur this site would be tI1c raae c:aIIlgodz.c:d as a
corpmate office sblgle WIlli: mte which SANDAG m:ommeods at 10 trips per thousand
square feet. This ad4ilional pbuc of the study will be dividI:d into two major subtasb as
described below:
Su"a.1r 1 - ~An! Additional Tntf'fi~ Analym Irtfnrmarioq
JHK will provide this additional traffic iDfmmatiOll cfctwmllg the ~acts at c:r:itica1
IiInalizalln1m'SeCti.ons and mid8l'tion at critica1 dp'RIl~ inrersecdOns this new mp
pneradon rate analysis direCtion. This information will be provided to Keller
Environmental Assoc:iiues by midday'I'uesday, FebmaIy 19, 1991.
Su""'" 2 - Revise Pin_I Traffic Analyd. RfI!nnrI'
JHK will produce a new mpOIt with comcted graphics and com:ctcd text to reflect
the impacts and mitigation descrlbed in the arldP.nci1nn. This new rcpon will be provided to
Kc11cr Environmenlal Aunc1ates by Febrwuy 28. 1991.
8989 RiQ SAJI Diego Drive . Saite 335
San Di~o~Ca1ifomiaQ'tOJl. fIioIA'''OC ,.,Aigo _ _..."..~... ........ ...........
I ~ -/~ ~
JHK . ASSOCIATES
6192952393
P.09
.
jhk a: _,,,b.'
,-
'.
Ms. DiIma RicJwdson
Pemuary 15,1991
E'ap2
BltdrSD~
Tho total esWuar.ed bIldget for this llMirional WOlk: wiII not exceed $4.000. AD
actual inVOK:c docw.....Ong the homs lIXpeDibl by .1BK in compIerin.1he8e two tub will
be submitted upon the COI1lplctlon of tile two tub which is lC'~dlIled for nursday,
February 28, 1991. JHK ;nteacU co 00IK:CIItIak: the wort: effort for Tilt 1 on February
15, 16, 17, and 19, 1991. The effort involved in completing Task 2 will occur betwaen
fcbnwy 20 and 28, 1991. JHIC will produce appr:o;dnwcIy 10 copies of the Final Report
for submittal to the at;y.
. ,
JHI{ & Associates fa pleased to continue to ulist the City and Keller
Environmental on this development project and we look forward to the successful
completion of the Envinmmental.ct Report and our Traft1c Analysis RqlO1't. If you
have any quCItions or require AMltinllal informatioa, plaasc do not b..m.~ 10 coDlaCt me.
S~.
.JBE: a: ASSOCIATES
~1IWlI r M~
Danie1 F. Marum
SeIlior TrusporIlUion Planner
DFWdr
,J~-/~T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
&1>16/7 If
/l&J /1fJ . j(p
Rohr Office Complex
Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR # 90-10)
SCH # 90010623
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
Environmental Review Coodinator
276 Foruth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, IDe. (KEA)
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
February 1991
~~~
~
'--- ---------
~ ~------
------
CllY OF
CHUlA VISfA
I,,-/~'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Final Environmental Impact Report
Contents
Summary
Comments and Responses
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ii
I , -1129
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY
This report is the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Rohr Office
Complex project. The FEIR includes the Draft EIR (which has undergone public review),
the public comments received as a result of the public review, and the responses to these
comments. Changes to the Draft EIR which have been made as a response to comments
are indicated in the Draft EIR with shading for new text, and cross-outs for text to be
eliminated.
5-1
I 11-/31)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JAl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
$1 A TE OF CAlIFORNIA-oFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR '-
Comment-A
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowmo,
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO. CA 9S8U
@"
.. ,
,
Jan 04, 1991
MARYANN MILLER
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 4TH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 92010
Subject: ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
SCH # 90010623
RECEIVED
.IAN
81991
PLANNING
Dear MARYANN MILLER:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) 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.
Please note that Section
required 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."
21104
of the California Public Resources Code
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 recoI:ll'llend' that you contact the commenting
agency ( ies ) .
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
Terri Lovelady at (916) 445-0613 if you have any
questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
.-r:;> "
t','~=;,"'_40"'_""':"'''''''''.''___..I'
David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance
Enclosures
cc:
Resources Agency
/11-/31
Notice 0' Completion
" ,..-..
Mail 10: Swc Oc.vin.OOuJC, 1400 Tenth Suwa. Sacramenco, CA 958104 .4'~13
~'". "..., _.._.~Q.hr Qffj~eSQ!!lDlex .[JR. _....:....____
LtIdAlcncy: ._.... C~~y. .c~f..~hul_a_ ~!.~.~_a _ __... _._ C~'-t Marvan'L.ruLEt~n___.
S...,....w...., _" 21&-L.oYT.thp'y"enue ..__ r..."" (619) 691-5101
CiI" . .. .--__.. CblLl.a...H~t~.. JA_ ?J", .1.~Q.~_.__. c...,., San Oieqo
lICIt ,
lHNOBa..,..
..
90010623
-
-----------------------------------------
Pr.ject LN_....
CClliRl)': ___,San D.i.ego ____..____ Cityhol..uc cGlNftunicy:_~_Vista
C",USU'otll: ~.StreetJBay. a9.lt1eya.tQ..... ..._ ____... _ TNlAcnl: 11.00
A'~...........,N.. .5.liZcOI0-26_. __ S<<tio" N/A Top. N/A ...." N/A_ 8..., N/A
Wilhin:ZMil..: S~..Hwy,:_-1.::~__ WIIClW'Y': San DieQo Bi!l!_~~ater Rlver
Alrporu: -Hil\....___. ".____. It.ilw.y.: _.~D&~~__ Sc_lIl '~~:~~e~ ~~~:~~~~~ler E lemi
---------------------------------~-------
Dooum... ~ \
CIQA, ClNll. Cls'''''''-"",,-,,,
0"""c... oE1RIPriorKHNo.)
ClN..o.. ClOllw
IZID..nBll
NePA:
0,"'.
DBA
o C,oA 2IS
OFoNSI
-
..
01"",
o low o.:....n..l
o Pill&! Doa.monl
ClOlNr__.
-
-----------------------------------------
LN.' ..,.... 'TYM
o Oonoroll'tul U.....
Oc.....,.zPlM~'
CJ Qt,.,ttl ".lllfMtll
OC'ommW\M)'P11ft
o SJ*iRc PI..
o Muw PlIn
O_u""c....",,_
!:JSklPI.. Design Review
-
ClR_
0_
ou.._
o I..a.i ~..... (S..wi........
._W"" ~...._)
0-.....
o ......-'opm..c
K..l c..w.....
0""""
-
0",_...11.11." ,."...
O~, ,."..
o """c' M,.._
0"".... r".
DW__ r".
O_w_,."..
rBOdlc 730 car oarKlny
--------------------------------------,--
h..I......... ,.,..
o a..ilMndaJ: UttiI. A~
OOrll<o1 s,~.24~.UOOl"...=: """"",,_
DC~IaJ'lf"._ A.'tu__ BM,J""u_
Dlnd~1I1 s."._Ac"a_~,u__
o Ed\ll:'III-.I _.
OR...........
.._MnO_
-
W..,,_
..
IV!" rVI
cm...lvJ...."
-----------------------------------------
~,... 1--... .._....... I" .........
o AN~&iGNlaleJ
QA&ricul~~
QAIrQuality
O~IKa.VHlllOtic:a.I
[iCuuLal:t..oM
QDrkftl'''''bIotp,kon
o &.c.wnic/Jobl
OF",oI
tJP>>ocIPI~iftl
O-'-H.... .
n o.o&o.icIS...io
o Mtrwlla
o HoiM
CI Pop.I..1onA~ B.t~.
o P\!bUt: S,",~lCilit...
o l...........,""
o.s-""'.........
0'11*' s)....
o s.._ c.,.""
ClSolI_~......
o Solid W....
[JToaklK~
[3 Tn/li<JCin:ooloDon
a v........
l2lw__
mw..s_y~_
[l] Wedadlll5Wi_
(X WlldlU.
o Orowllt. lMlIC'..inl
o Londuoo
i1 IoIlad..8IJ'CICCI
-
-
------------------------~-~-
"..."t u.4 UMJZ.............. PIAII u.. Project 51 te. ; s ~resent
disturbed from agricultural uses. The current,zonlng lS ~p
~be~n:ral Plan is R~s~arch & Ltd. manufacturln9. The sIte
~~~~~~m~~~~~~-----~---
The project is an office complex with surface parklng for 73
building would contain a maximum of 245,000 square feet of gr
not exceed 42 ft., in height.
...
CLEAAINGHOUS! CONTACT.
STAn RXVIEW' BEGAN:
DEPT' REV TO AGENCY:
AGEllCY' !lEV TO SCH
SOB COHPLIANCl!:
916/44'-0613
Tl!:IIlU LOVELADr TOLLl!:TTll
aa S.ItT
· ".our-c.. ABflDcy
--.. .
. Coasul COJIIa
--. '.
.
.u:.. . Conservation
. Fish , Game
--A '.
-
R-ZO-:m.
I Z -:1!i..
-1--.1::...
L-~
'1' Jr.t, Cl:X R.!:rnIlII HOC WIm ALL COMMER'r's
AQKD/APCD:n (Resourc.. :-1[,.2:f1.,
~"""'tiolY
~;J~ci
.; -.. - se~t b,.
- ~ .....au..p .u..._
.
- -
..
= · ~tran. ,-LL
l' '",-
- - ~
_ ~Food . As
- ." It"""r
...... .~... .:--
SC~~__._
/fI-IS;j
-
----
-
aa SlIT
-
-
.
.L
_:
-
-
-
_ J~_. _
_ ~SWRCB:-..tltr Quality
___ -!-SWRCBI-_tltr aights
_ ~R.g. WQCB' q
f"' .. -,
-
-
-
-- -
- -...
-~
- -
___ ~Stat. Landa CQaa
. I' _ _
_ _ J:U.1..__.
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENfS
Comment A - State of California Office of Planning and Research
Al The acknowledgement from the Office of Planning and Research regarding
compliance with State Clearinghouse review requirements is noted.
90-14 01/25/91
III - 13.1
Comment]l
I. s..... vf e..HfvrnJg
IIUIIMU, '",na~l..... .nol H.voIftIl Atl-.,
I Memorandum
I To
I
I STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Date I January 4, 1991
File No.. 11-50-005
7.9-8.6
Attention T. Tollette
I District 11
Nom : DEPARTMENT OF TltANSPORTATION
1 Subject: Focused EIR for the
Rohr Office Complex - SCH
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Caltrans District 11 comments are as follows:
Bl
1. Locally funded Interstate Route 5 interchange improvements -
Our contact person for the initiation of feasibility studies
is Mike McManus, Chief, Local Funded Projects Branch, (619)
688-3392.
2. Visual Quality - The extent of the visual impacts at Inter-
state 5 could not be determined. Our agency encourages
project sponsors to landscape highway rights-of-way when the
project-specific or cumulative visual impacts at those
highways are Significant. Our contact person is Larry
Fagot, Landscape Architecture Branch, (619) 688-6092.
3. Encroachment permits are required for work within the
rights-of-way for Interstate and state highways. Early
coordination with our agency is strongly recommended for all
encroachment permit applications.
TC-L..tf-- ~
S T. CHESHIRE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
MO:ec
I fI -1.1'1-
...
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent B - State of California. Department of Trans.portation. District 11
...
..
B1
Caltrans District 11 co=ents are noted; these co=ents identify Caltrans contact
persons for (1) locally funded 1-5 interstate improvements, (2) highway rights-of-way
landscaping, and (3) encroachment permits.
...
-
...
...
...
-
-
-
..
...
-
-
-
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
I ~ -/35
Comment C
I Slale of California
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA
IMemorandum
To
I
I
IFrom
I
I Cl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
Assistant Secretary for
ff:' ~",l rr
Jo y--- :.._/
:r~ ..... ,
........' \
~"".: Uate, '
". - \: \
Resour ~s ':::..-\
12 _'., sut"
i-.J
}_.1
/~"; i
'. ,
/.... "/
/..... '/
,? ,....-'\~:.,>
-~~>...-
December 5, 1990
Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the
Rohr Office Complex,
seR# 90010623
Ms. Maryann Miller
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
~
~ --'
"-
Departmenl of Conservalion--Office of Ihe Director
The Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology
(DMG) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the Rohr Office Complex for the City of Chula Vista. This
Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts that will result
from the construction of an office complex on an 11.6-acre site.
The proposed development will construct approximately 245,000
square feet of office floor space and adjoining parking
facilities. The following report was reviewed by DMG:
o Draft Rohr Office Complex Environmental Impact Report, EIR#
90-10, SCH# 90010623, prepared for the City ofChula Vista,
prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., November
1990.
Our review of this report indicates that sufficient data are not
presented to properly review 'the site for earthquake stability.
We offer the following specific comments:
1. The Draft EIR does not provide any data on the potential
seismic or geologic hazards at the project site. The Draft
EIR indicates that the Initial Study by the city of Chula
Vista found that no geologic hazards would affect the
project site. However, as we indicated in our July 17, 1990
letter in response to the project's Notice of Preparation,
the project site may have potential seismic, liquefaction
and tsunami hazards. Although a preliminary geotechnical
investigation was performed for the project, the Draft EIR
does not provide data on the seismic setting of the project
site nor on the potential for liquefaction. These geologic
hazards may have a significant impact on the proposed
development. The potential significance of these hazards is
discussed in the items below. The Final EIR should address
these issues and propose mitigation measures, if necessary.
Technical data to support the conclusions should be appended
to the Final EIR.
2. The project site is located approximately 1-1/4 miles east
of a system of faults that may be a southern extension of
the Rose canyon Fault (Treiman, 1984). Although there has
been uncertainty in the past regarding the activity of the
Rose Canyon fault, recent trenching of the fault in the San
Diego area by Thomas Rockwell of San Diego State
1'-I.3b
Dr. Snow/Ms. Miller
December 4, 1990
Page Two
University's Geology Department has provided evidence of
Holocene activity. In addition, recently released mapping
of offshore geology by DMG shows the Rose Canyon fault
offsetting Holocene sediments (Greene and Kennedy, 1987).
Thus, a seismic event on the Rose Canyon fault appears to
have a high probability of impacting the San Diego area.
Recent evaluations of the maximum credible earthquake (MCE)
magnitude indicates that the Rose Canyon Fault has an MCE of
magnitude 7 (Anderson, et aI, 1989). A maximum probable
earthquake (MPE) of at least a magnitude 6.3 for the Rose
Canyon fault would be consistent with the recent data.
Based on seismic predictive equations (Joyner and Boore,
1988), the project site can expect peak ground accelerations
of approximately 0.40g and 0.53g from an MPE and MCE event,
respectively, on a nearby segment of the Rose Canyon Fault.
The project site lies within Zone 3 of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC), which has a seismic zone factor of 0.3,
representing an effective peak acceleration of 0.30g (Table
No. 23-I, UBC, 1988). Thus the level of ground motion
expected at the project site may-exceed the design standards
of the UBC for the San Diego area. Therefore, the Final EIR
should address the seismic setting of the project site and
provide mitigation measures, if necessary.
3. The project site is underlain by soils of the Bay Point
Formation and lies adjacent to a marsh. Portions of the Bay
Point Formation are considered to have a moderate potential
for liquefaction (Gray, et aI, 1977). The Draft EIR
indicates that the depth to ground water varies from 5 to 16
feet below the existing site grade. Although the Draft EIR
indicates that a preliminary geotechnical investigation was
performed. for the project, no data are provided to
demonstrate that the potential for liquefaction on the
project site does not exist, or even that it has been
evaluated. Since liquefaction would have a significant
impact on the project, the Final EIR should provide data to
demonstrate the lack of liquefaction potential on the
project site, or provide methods to mitigate the hazard.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental
Review Project Manager, at (916) 322-2562.
~~.j- O~f1fd:-
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
I "-Ia~
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
-
...
...
...
-
....
-
-
...
...
...
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dr. Snow/Ms. Miller
December 5, 1990
Page Three
DJO:1<:C:skk
cc: Roger-Martin, Division of Mines and Geology
Kit Custis, Division of Mines and Geology
References:
Anderson, J.G., Rockwell, T.K., and Agnew, C., 1989, Past and
Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego
Region, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 5, no. 2, pgs. 299-335.
Gray, C.H., and other, 1977, Studies on Surface Faulting and
Liquefaction as Potential Earthquake Hazards in Urban San Diego,
California, DMG Final Technical Report, U.S.G.S. Contract No. 14-
08-001-15858.
Greene, H.G. and Kennedy, M.P., 1987, Geology of the Inner-
Southern California Continental Margin, DMG California
Continental Margin Geologic Map Series, Area 1 of 7, scale
1:250,000.
Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M:, 1988, Measurement, Characterization
and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion, in Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics II-Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, edited by J.L. Von
Thun, pgs. 43-102.
Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and
Analysis, DMG Technical PUblication, EMF-83-K-0148, pgs. 80.
1~-13r
...
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
-
State of California. Department of Conservation - Office of the Director
-
C1 Comment acknowledged
The following is provided as a summary of geologic conditions for the project site.
-
GEOWGY
Existing Conditions
-
The present-day configuration of the southern California coastline can be said to
have had its early beginnings during Cretaceous time (120 to 85 million years ago).
At that time, the southern California Batholiths intruded into existing Triassic and
Jurassic-age strata, causing uplift to the east, and subsidence to the west where the
deposition of marine sediments has continued through the last 60 to 80 million years.
The project site lies within the San Diego Embayment Graben, a structural block
down-dropped between the La Nacion fault zone (two to three miles east of the site),
and the "San Diego Bay faults" (one to two miles west of the site). The San Diego
Bay faults are generally believed to be a southerly extension of the Rose Canyon
fault zone, described below under "Seismicity and Geologic Hazards." The formation
of the San Diego Bay is directly related to the downward displacement of the San
Diego Embayment Graben.
-
-
-
-
Seismicity and Geologic Hazards
-
The major San Diego and southern California fault systems form a
northwest-southeast trending regional structural fabric, generally parallel to the San
Andreas fault zone, which extends over land from the Gulf of California to the
Bodega Basin north of San Francisco Bay. Structural geologists relate movement
along the San Andreas and associated fault zones (at least for the past five million
years), to movement along the boundary between the North American and Pacific
tectonic plates. As a result, the southern California region is subject to significant
hazards from moderate to large earthquakes. Ground shaking is a hazard
everywhere in California. Fault displacement of the ground is a potential hazard at,
and near, faults. Tsunamis, earthquake-induced flooding, and liquefaction are all
potential hazards in the San Diego Bay area.
-
-
-
-
The fault zones nearest the site which are mapped as "active" are the Coronado
Banks and the Elsinore fault zones. The nearest fault zone currently classified as
potentially active is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The California Division of Mines
and Geology is currently considering certain segments of this fault zone as active,
although this information has not yet been published by the State.
-
-
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
lu-/3<j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The coastal zone of San Diego, including the areas along the periphery of San Diego
Bay, is currently assigned to DBC Seismic Zone 3. Based on recent information
from the Structural Engineers Association of San Diego, strong consideration is being
given to changing coastal San Diego from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
Coronado Banks Fault Zone
The Coronado Banks fault zone is located offshore from San Diego, approximately
10 miles southwest of the project site area. It appears to be part of a discontinuous
zone of faulting which includes the Palos Verdes fault near Los Angeles, and which
extends southeastward beyond the Mexican border (Greene et al. 1979; Legg and
Kennedy 1979). The total length of this fault zone is estimated to be approximately
130 miles and it is likely to be a strike-slip fault. Because of its mapped geologic
displacements, one-half of total fault zone length was used as the length of surface
rupture in order to estimate a maximum credible earthquake of surface wave
magnitude (Ms) 7. Offshore from San Diego, the Coronado Banks fault zone is near
an area where the epicenters of numerous local magnitude (ML) microearthquakes
(ML 2.0 to 3.4) have been plotted. The Coronado Banks fault zone may be
associated with an Ms 6-1/4 earthquake during a typicallOO-year period.
Elsinore Fault Zone
The Elsinore/Laguna Salada fault zone (approximately 40 miles northeast of the
project site area) is the nearest likely onshore source of a large earthquake. This
fault zone is generally characterized by strike-slip displacement. The total length of
the fault zone is approximately 255 miles; however, geologic displacements are
relatively discontinuous and sinuous compared to those of the other major active
faults. Therefore, it appears likely that the Elsinore fault zone would rupture in
shorter segments (as a proportion of total length) than the other major active faults
in the region. The general tectonic environment and expression of geologic
displacements along the Elsinore fault zone suggest that it may be subject to a
maximum credible earthquake of Ms 7-1/2, which would be associated with a length
of surface rupture of approximately 80 miles. The epicenters of numerous small
earthquakes of ML 3.0 to Ms 5.0 are located near the fault, suggesting that an Ms 7
earthquake is likely to occur on the Elsinore fault zone during a typical 100-year
period.
Rose Canyon Fault Zone
The most significant fault zone near the project site area is the Rose Canyon fault
zone, which is currently classified as potentially active. This fault zone has been
generally considered to exhibit no geologic displacement in the last 11,000 years
(Ziony 1973); however, some small earthquakes and microearthquakes have
epicenters on or near traces of the San Diego Bay faults (Hileman 1979; Simons
90-14 01/25/91
III -/~/)
-
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1979). A series of these earthquakes occurred in 1985 and 1986. Moreover,
evidence of displacement on the fault during the last 11,000 years has been
reportedly discovered (Abbott 1989) near downtown San Diego, and at a site in Rose
Canyon. Consequently, it may be advisable to consider the hypothetical earthquake
hazard from the Rose Canyon fault zone. It appears reasonable to conclude that an
Ms 6-1/4 earthquake could occur during a typical100-year period.
-
-
-
Seismic Hazards
-
Ground shaking likely to occur during the anticipated life of the development would
affect uses on the site. Bay muds tend to magnify the effects of ground shaking by
amplifying the intensity of movement caused by earthquakes. Ground surface
accelerations and site period (the frequency of oscillation) would be likely to vary
somewhat across the site.
-
-
Liquefaction is a potential hazard in all areas underlain by water-saturated sandy
soils. Within the site vicinity, portions of the fluvial (Qal) deposits encountered in
the low-lying areas are considered moderately susceptible to liquefaction.
Additionally, relatively clean sands were encountered within the formational soils at
depths of 11 to 26 feet below existing ground grade. Although considered relatively
dense in nature, these clean sands may be susceptible to liquefaction during severe
ground shaking.
-
-
Tsunamis and earthquake-induced flooding are also potential hazards within the San
Diego Bay, and a sufficient length of water surface exists within the bay to cause
earthquake-induced flooding within low-lying areas.
-
-
Seismic hazards are potentially significant. However, standard required design
criteria and conventional engineering techniques can be implemented to reduce the
risk. Some risk would always remain due to the uncertainty of future seismic events.
-
Site-Specific Investis:ations
-
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCe) has prepared two geotechnical reports
pertinent to the subject site: a preliminary geotechnical investigation dated May 13,
1988, and a more recent update geotechnical investigation, released July 24, 1990,
and revised September 7, 1990. These reports address potential constraints due to
seismic and liquefaction hazard. Refer to these reports for additional details on
these geologic hazards, and recommendations for mitigation. Any specific design
details intended to mitigate potential geologic hazards would be incorporated into
the grading plan, as specified by mitigation measures contained in Section 3.1.
-
-
-
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
11I-1'I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CommenCD.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 335
Imperial Beach, CA 92032
Dec 6, 1990
city of Chula Vista
Engineering Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 92010
RE:
LETTER
MARSH
LAGOON
OF PERMISSION TO GRADE AND PLANT WITHIN
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN CONJUNCTION
DRIVE, ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX.
SWEETWATER
WITH 850
Gentlemen:
The property identified by the Assessors Parcel Number 567-010-27
lies within the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
Dl
We have reviewed The Grading and Planting Proposal as shown on
City of Chula Vista Drawin~ Numbers 90-991 and 90-1102. Because
this effort is viewed as habitat enhancement, consistent with
Refuge objectives, we hereby grant permission to grade and plant
on our property (t 200 Square feet area) as shown thereon. As
agreed, all revegetation actions vill involve coastal sage scrub
species only. Planting maintenance must comply vith provisions
as outlined in the appended Landscape specifications, sheet 10;.
By: Marc Weitzel
U.s. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
By: '\~~ \\~ \)~
Title: Refuae Manaaer
Date:
(\ (,
~("\.o.,,~.~
"
cc: Kelly L. Birkes, Rick Engineering
J ~-I'I~
J.
-
PLANTI~
Mtl
THE PLANTING PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. ALL PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS SHOWN
ARE APPROXIMATE. PLANT SYMBOLS AND/OR "ON CENTER" SPACINGS TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT QUANTITIES LISTED. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE ONLY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
...
...
-
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND ROCKS IN All NEW PLANTING AREAS. FINISH PLANTING
SURFACE SHALL BE SMOOTH AND EVEN.
-
-
WEEDS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THEIR ROOTS, INClUDIN3 BERMUDA GRASS.
WEEDS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ALL PLANTING AREAS. WHEN NECESSARY TO
DISCOURAGE REGROWTH. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD APPLY A SUITABLE'
HERBICIDE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. (ROUNDUP,' _
HERBICIDE BY MONSANTO OR EQUAL.)
-
REMOVE ALL GRUBBED MATERIAL FROM THE SITE.
...
DELIVERY AND STORAGE
I
WHEN SOil AMENDMENTS ARE NOT INCORPORATED INTO TOPSOil PRIOR TO
DELIVERY. SOIL NvlENDMENTS SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN THE ORIGINAL '
, UNOPENED CONTAINERS BEARING THE MANUFACTURER'S GUARANTEED
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, NAME.(TRADE MARK OR TRADE. NAME AND STArEMENT '
" INDICATING CONFORMANcE.:fO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. IN LIEU OF
'CONTAINERS. SOIL AMENDMENTS MAY BE FURNISHED IN BULK AND A
, CERTIFICATE INDICATING THE ABOVE INFORMATION SHALL ACCOMPANY EACH
'DELIVERY. .
-
...
-
...
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO "
CERTIFY ALL UNOPENED FERTILIZER PACKAGES ON SITE AND PACKAGES SHALL
NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTil AFTER INCORPORATION INTO SOIL AS PER
SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED HEREIN AND ONLY WHEN DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE.
-
...
STORE SOil AMENDMENTS IN A DRY PLACE AWAY FROM CONTAMINANTS.
-
SOil TESTING
THE FOLLOWING SOILS TESTING LAB WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE FERTILITY OF
THE SITE SOil AND MAY BE USED TO DETERMINE THE FERTILITY OF THE TOPSOil:
-
-
Ir,-II/~
SOIL & PLANT LABORATORY, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 6566
-
nf:'l^~~r,r r..... (I'II,l')/.!";/,!,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOIL AMEW 1ENTS
. ALL FILL SLOP.ES 3:1 OR STEEPER SHAlL HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE CUBIC YARD
P-e.l1.-ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENT
INCO~PORATED IN TO THE TOP 3". AND CO~FACT~D PRIOR TO PLANTING OR
- .. ... .
SEEDING.
HYDROSEEDING MATERIALS
AlL-HYDRGSEE9-APPLlGATIONS SHALL INClUDE FIBER MULCH WHICH HAS BEEN
DYED GREEN. THE FIBER MULCH SHALL BE WOOD CELLULOSE WITH NO
INHIBITORS TO GERMINATION OR GROWTH, AND IT SHAll BE A HOMOGENEOUS
UNIFORMLY SUSPENDED SLURRY WHICH WILL ALLOW THE ABSORPTION OF
MOISTURE AND PERCOLATION OF WATER INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL. FIBER
SHALL BE NONTOXIC TO WILDLIFE.
WHEN A WETTING AGENT IS CALLED FOR, IT SHALL BE 95% ALKYL POLYETHELENE
GLYCOL EITHER OR EQUAL, APPLIED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
SEED SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN SEALED CONTAINERS, LABELED BY
GENUS AND SPECIE. CONTAINERS SHALL NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTIL
DIRECTED BY OWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. MIX. SHALL CONFORM TO
SPECIFICATION FOR PURE UVESEEDi BULK POUNDAGES LISTED FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH
SEED SUPPLIER FOR PRE-SOAKING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEED WHIGH ARE
DIFFICULT TO GERMINATE AND SHALL ALSO PROVIDE SCARIFIED OR INOCULATED
SEED WHEN SPECIFIED. INOCULATED SEED MUST BE DRY BROADCAST.
HYDROSEEDING PROCEDURES
PRIOR TO SEEDING, THOROUGHLY MOISTEN THE ENTIRE SURFACE TO BE
SPRAYED. .
PREPARATION OF THE SEED SLURRY SHALL TAKE PLACE ON SITE. FIBER MULCH
SHALL BE PREPARED FIRST AND SEED SHALL BE ADDED lAST. THE SEED SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE MIXING TANK LONGER THAN THIRTY MINUTES.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF SPRAY SO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY ATTEND SPRAYING AND
SLURRY SAMPLES MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE TANK.
~E.v-1 LY ~Dc.D SUQF~ =ttA~ Be... kEPT
MOIST CONTIHWoW?LY -n+~L-1C:jHoUI THE-
GjERH I t--1A.T k?N .pt::.R..IO D.
C.OHiJ2...b-G-IDf2-, L-ll---!LS.s::, OTrlE~ISE:- DIRECTE-D,
St+b..L-L- f<t..SPRb-'l ALL ~ A'2EAS WITi-11 t-i 20 P~y')
"-I'I't
__ ._._.u. _....__
- ...-
-
St"BIUZING EMULSION SHAll BE A NONflAMMABLE; NONT<:)XIC
CONCENTRATED LIQUID CHEMICAl WHICH FORMS A PLASTIC FILM AND AllOWS'
. NR AND WATER TO PENETRATE. THE EMULSION SHAll BE ~EGISTEREDWITH T/-lE.
DEPARTME!'lT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF CAlIFORNIAAS AN
"AUXILIARY SOIL CHEMICAl." STABILIZING EMULSION SHAll BE MISCIBLE WITH'
WATER DURING APPLICATION, AND ONCE CURED, SHALL No'T' BE':
REEMULSIFIABLE.
-
. .
.-
.'
-
rlYDROSEED NATIVE MIXE~ -
MIX A: UPLAND COASTAL SCRUB MIX ....
lBS/ AC . SPECIES PURITY % GERMINATION %
-
2 ARTEMISIA CALIFORNIA 50 60
-
1/2 ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS 90 70
2 ~OF";':>I~ 05- SO -
MARITIMA
-
10 . ERIOGONUM FASICULATUM 10 65 -
-
2
.l..,D..,?TMENIA
'~TA
lOTUS SCOPARIUS
90
85
8
4CJ
60
..
2
MIMULUS PUNICEU5
2
55 .
-
30
PLANTAGO INSULARIS
95
75
-
4
STIPA LEPIDA
40
30
60.5 lB/ AC
MIX B: tV" i- .0 h R~fuJ-<' ;:'4 (h fr
-
-
TEMPORARY
HYDROSEED
MIX
-
LBS/AC
SPECIES
PURITY %
GERMiNATION %
-
60
PLANTAGO INSULA.RIS ~J I:
11I- I"T,J
98
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:j() Yl-~O IN~UI.ARJS.
...1... STWA lEPIDA
. 60,..5 lB/-AC
MIX B: AI<> ~ 0 f). {(e{u.r- [r.4 r~" fr
TEMPORARY HYDROSEED MIX
. lBS/AC SPECIES PURITY %
60 PLANTAGO INSULARIS 98
HXDROSEED SLURRY MIX:
WOOD CELLULOSE FIBER
20-20-20 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER
BINDER
95
40
2000 POUNDS / AC
400 POUNDS/AC
160 POUNDS/AC
I" -/~e"
75
. 30
GERMINATION %.
40
-
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
-
Co=ent D - United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service
-
Dl The comment and the requirements contained in Mr. Weitzel's letter are noted, and
will be compiled within the project design.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
, "-I'IT
I
I
Comment-E
-,
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92011
(619) 691-5553
RECENEO \
0\
1
OE.C \ 9 \990 \
\
PLANN\NG J
IPLANNING DEPARTMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I El
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 14, 1990
Ms. Mary Ann Miller
Environmental Review Coordinator
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92011
Dear Ms. Miller:
Re: EIR-90-10/Rohr Office Complex
On June 21, 1990, I responded to a Notice of Preparation of ari
Environmental Impact Report for the above subject project
(attached). The district's position has not changed. I am
requesting that any approval of this project be conditioned on its
successful annexation to our. district's Community Facilities
District No.5, providing that Government Code Section 65995 and
65996 are applicable.
Should you have any questions, feel free to give me a call at 691-
5553.
ResJjctfullY,
1H/lIfV~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Kate Shurson
11I-I'if
-
""'
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
-
Co=ent E - Sweetwater Union High School District
-
El
Director Silva's comment requesting annexation to the District's Co=unity Facilities
No.5 is noted. As stated on page 5-4 of the ErR, "The applicant...is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
90-14 02/01/91
-
I " -/1./,
EXHIBIT B
REVISED 2/13/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment E - Sweetwater Union High School District
El Director Silva's comment requesting annexation to the District's Community Facilities
No.5 is noted. As stated on page 5-4 of the EIR, "The appIicant...is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing."
The question of whether or not the School Board has the authority to directly levy
a development fee on commercial or industrial projects is not part of the scope of
this EIR. According to Government Code Section 53080.1, the School District
governing board is required to hold public hearings and folIow specified procedures
to adopt or increase development fees for commercial or industrial projects. The
imposition of such a fee is a matter for determination between the Applicant and the
School District. In the absence of failure to pay a School District-imposed
development fee, the City's environmental review process cannot stop a project due
to adverse impact. On the basis of the School District's factual assertions regarding
impact, it is concluded that this project creates impacts which are less than significant
and/or wholIy mitigated by payment of the statutory fee for non-residential
development.
/ , -/50
90~U 02/13/91
. BOARDOFEIlOCATlON
LEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D.
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
I JUDY SCHULENBERG
FRANK A. TARANTINO
SUPERINTENDENT
I JOHN F. VUGRN. Ph.D.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Comment F
CHULA 1,j 1TA ELEMENTARY SCRf )L DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
RECEIVED
DEe I 0 Isro
December 4, 1990
PLANNING
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Notice of Planning Commission Hearing - Rohr Office
Complex
Dear Ms. Miller:
FI
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report for the Rohr Offi ce Complex
to hearing before the Planning Commission.
As stated in my October 19, 1990, letter (copy enclosed),
the Screencheck DEIR for. this project did not contain any
discussion relative to impacts on public facilities,
specifically schools. I have not received the DEIR and do
not know if this omission has been corrected, and impacts
properly addressed.
Dra ft
prior
The relationship between nonresidential development and student
enro llment has been cl ea rl y documented and thi s project wi 11
have significant impacts on District facilities. My July
5, 1990, response to the project's Initial Study (copy
enclosed) stated that developer fees are not adequate to
mitigate these impacts, and recommended consideration of
an alternative financing mechanism, such as a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~~ st\M.~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc : Tom ~1eade
Tom Silva
John Li nn
lu -IS/
-
CHULA y ISTA CITY SCHOOL JISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425-9600
-
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
-
-
BOARD OF EDUCATiON
JOSEPH D. CUMMiNGS, Ph.D. October 19, 1990
SHARON GILES
PATRiCK A. JUDD
JUDY SCHULENBERG
FRANK A. TARANTINO
SUPERiNTENDENT
JOHN F. VUGRIN. Ph.D.
~
-
-
RE: Screencheck Draft EIR - Rohr Office Complex
E I R- 90-.14'
-
Dear Ms. Miller:
I am in receipt of the Screencheck DEIR for the Rohr Office Complex
and your request for comments. The document, dated October 8, 1990,
was received in my office on October 17, with comments requested by
the 19th. Unfortunately this does not permit adequate time to review
the document.
-
-
It has not been the Di stri ct' s practi ce to comment on Screencheck
documents; rather, we provide initial input at the time the Notice
of Preparation or Initial Study is circulated. I refer you to that
letter (copy enclosed) for issues we request be addressed in the DEIR.
-
-
A bri ef revi ew of the document's Tabl e of Contents revea 1 s that the
impact analysis does not contain any discussion relative to impacts
on public facilities, specifically schools. Without a thorough analysis
of these impacts and inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures,
this document is inadequate.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
-
-
Sincerely,
~\L S\..~.s..G\^,-
-
Ka te Shurson
Director of Planning
-
KS:dp
-
cc: Tom Silva
Ian Gill
-
-
-
IfI-IS~
I
I
BoAnD OF EDUCATION
I JOsEPH D. CIiWINGS. 111.0.
SIlAnON G~ES
p^,nlCK A. JUDD
JUDY SClllll.ENBEnG
I Fn^NK A. IAnANllIIO
I ~'N F. VUGnN. Ph.D.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUrEnlllTENDENI
CHULA 3TISTA CITY SCHOO" DISTIUCT
. '.
"
8~ BAST "J" STnEF,T . CIIULA VISTA. CALlFOItNIA 92010 . G 19 ~25,9G()()
EACII CIIILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORT"
July 5, 1990
Ms. Maryann Miller
EnvIronmental RevIew Coordinator
Clty of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula VIsta, CA 92010
RE: Rohr Office Complex - Notice of PreparatIon of an EIR
Case No. EIR-90-1~
Dear Ms. IHPer:
Thank you for the opportun lty to prov I de Input on the Ora ft
EnvIronmental Impact Report for the Rohr Office Complex.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project does not
identify potential significant Impacts on schools. The relationship
between non-resIdential development and student enrollment has
been c I earl y recognized by the Sta te leg I s I a ture tlll'ough
authorizatIon of collection of school fees. ^ joint study sponsored
by five South Bay schoo.l distrIcts, prepared earlier this yeai'
by SourcePolnt, further documents and demonstrates this
relationshIp. Based on this study, the proposed 211.500 square
feet of office space will generate approxImately 162 new elementary
age chIldren.
Per student facilIty costs to the District are estimated at $B.BI~,
or $1,427.868 for thIs project. These costs far exceed developer
fees currently allowed under State law. Chula Vista City School
DistrIct's share of these fees Is $ .12 per square foot. 01' $25,380.
far short of what Is needed to provide facilities.
The DIstrict recommends alternative financtng mechanisms including
formation of or annexation to a I.lello-Roos ConmlUnlty Fact I i ties
DIstrIct and would be happy to discuss this further.
If you have any questions. please contact my office.
Sincerely.
U'L~lU.~~
Kate Shurson
DIrector of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
Terri Senner
'II -/5 .3
-
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
-
Comment F - Chula Vista ElementaIy School District
-
Fl
Director Shurson's comments regarding impacts to schools and recommendation of
an alternative financing mechanism are noted. Please see pages 5-3 through 5-4 of
the EIR, and Appendix A for discussion of impacts, and inclusion of her letters,
respectively. As stated above in Response El, the applicant is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90-14 02/01/91
-
11I-ISI/
,
~
REVISED 2/13/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment F - Chula Vista Elementary School District
F1 Director Shurson's comments regarding impacts to schools and recommendation of
an alternative financing mechanism are noted. Please see pages 5-3 through 5-4 of
the EIR, and Appendix A for discussion of impacts, and inclusion of her letters,
respectively. As stated above in Response E1, the applicant is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
The question of whether or not the School Board has the authority to directly levy
a development fee on commercial or industrial projects is not part of the scope of
this EIR. According to Government Code Section 53080.1, the School District
governing board is required to hold public hearings and follow specified procedures
to adopt or increase development fees for commercial or industrial projects. The
imposition of such a fee is a matter for determination between the Applicant and the
School District. In the absence of failure to pay a School District-imposed
development fee, the City's environmental review process cannot stop a project due
to adverse impact. On the basis of the School District's factual assertions regarding
impact, it is concluded that this project creates impacts which are less than significant
and/or wholly mitigated by payment of the statutory fee for non-residential
development.
1(,-/55
90.]4 02/13/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J [?@ciJD=O@W@[? carbon less
':'0 ~ \' ("'?
.r o.(yo..flA f'!\:\\.e-(.; 'V0vV\~ ~~ ~t90./"II'r- ~. /I/,.h""':17
l\l'A ~ R.Cl~ I . ~<J~ ,~e~ 0 4~;'j
, '/" M
.. , . 1 t'l.fliZ-Y' __
C1 (' CI n ~
....' 1') -' " . -:...
TRIP
'f r;-of
,
I
, ~
. ~
.~
: ~(""'4r~t;';:':..;~,;..,.,;~..;O.-.a.::_.:.U~-:.-.:al.c.:.::':"':""~~'~';::j.{.......':';':~ ~~.J~ ~-......,;.:;:i:.;;;....,;;.:~~~:';' ',' ..::;;;j.'~, :-";'t'l-)::-'~.:ar~,.r :(.,;..,.;....~;:,"j.:.~,;.:..'~~.~;,,';.i-"...'l";,..."I;,,~*'.i.~~~;,;;,..\.....~o.;.: ,;~~::s~~..;.':,:;~
. UBJECT t':<o ~ F - I CI:? .:::oM f' L e:.-L ~ - z.. ~ C-\-\ K.. . '
ESSAGE
:~
I ~ ~~;r-J 1);",:~:~ \v.... (\.B,/:l"'~----=i:L <::pr~-rJ cL,rf"
<it c'\ ~ S""b5,",cJ- ~-t . ~ +.~ <I.... --\k ~~ ~-.NL t..
. ~ _ S--.b,v;,*e.J cAl ~~ -ik ~': r.s 1- cO....tLc:.-k ~~ ~cl.r~ J
I (2. """"'/ -;) . P\e~ (,v),) r~ p,jQ ~ ~~ ('1"':.." r -h
*-'- <,\;1 {'.huh.. S~M:W"J - -\-~k t~
I .S.IGNE.~ ,l}._,.~~._t:'_~;~~...: . ...
IREPLV
I
I
I
SIGNED I" -15h
DATE
/ /
n'~~~' .......... ..,.,..",rT
~"""IV 0:'1..: Irn '::-;-~\ ,~P:C'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Comment G
~rn@rnDWl[g~
OCT 3 0 1900 ~
MEMORANDUM
October 26, 1990
File No. YE-042
TO: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM: Clifford L. swan~eputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Engineering Review of EIR 90-10, Rohr Office Complex
The Engineering Division has reviewed the subject Environmental Impact Report and
hereby submits the following comments:
Gl
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
6.
1.
The subject EIR is incomplete. Many sections, most notably the ''Traffic
Impact Report," are missing. The Engineering Division considers this review
of the EIR incomplete and will provide a final review upon submittal of a
complete EIR.
2.
Page 2-4. Reference was made to Figure 2-3; however the figure is missing.
3.
It seems that this project will create significant changes to existing traffic
patterns, especially in the section of Bay Boulevard between "E" and "F"
Streets and at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street. The existing
ADT 4160 on "F" Street will be increased by 2450 to 6110 ADT.
4.
The developer will be responsible for the upgrading of "F' Street (from Bay
Boulevard to their westerly property line) to a Class I Collector as designated
on the General Plan and for dedicating the necessary right-of-way along "F'
Street. The required improvements to "F' Street shall include but not be
limited. to the installation of pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
Iights,...etc.
5.
A "Traffic Impact Report" is being prepared as part of this EIR. Bay
Boulevard between "E" and "F" Streets will probably need to be widened to
handle the increased traffic volume generated by this project. This
requirement will be contingent upon the conclusions of the "Traffic Impact
Report" after that report has been reviewed and accepted by the City.
A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances,
policies, and adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit
issued by the Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work
and/or installation of any drainage structures.
I (p -/5-1-
-
-
Maryann Miller
-2-
October 26, 1990
-
G7 7.
The following paragraph must be added under the "Mitigation Measures"
section on page 3-5:
-
"Development of the subject project must comply
with all applicable regulations established by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set
forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements
for storm water discharge."
-
-
G8 8.
The draft EIR did not go into detail about extension of existing sewer mains
to service this project. The nearest sewer line is in Bay Boulevard south of
"F' Street and is over 1100 feet away from the proposed office building. The
developer would need permission from the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Sewerage System if a direct connection to the existing 78" RCP Metro sewer
line is proposed.
-
-
G9 9.
The proposed building falls within an inundation zone due to tidal waves. The
lowest finished floor elevation of the building must comply with the standards
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
-
-
-
SMN/bb
-
[SMNIIROHR.DOC]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,. -15'
EXHIBIT C
,
REVISED 2/13/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment G - Memorandum. City of Chula Vista. Deputy Public Works Director/City
Engineer
Mr. Nuhaily's request for addressal of all of their comments was completed as part of the EIR.
Locations where specific information is found in the EIR, or further information is included below.
G1 The Traffic Circulation/Parking impact analysis is found in Section 3.4 of the EIR, and the
full report, prepared by JHK Associates (1990), is found in Appendix D.
G2 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G3 As shown on Table 3-4 of the EIR, the existing ADT on "F" Street will be increased to
approximately 5100 ADT between Tidelands Avenue and Bay Boulevard, and to 5900
between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue. It is important to recognize that the traffic
volume increases were based on a trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet as
recommended in the San Diego Traffic Generators ManUIll, September 1989, produced by
SANDAG. This trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet is for a large commercial office
complex in excess of 100,000 square feet. At this rate the project was projected to generate
approximately 4,165 daily trips.
After the public review period for the draft EIR, the City Traffic Engineer recommended
that a trip rate for a corporate office complex with a single user be applied to this project
rather than the large commercial office rate used in the draft EIR. This corporate office
rate as recommended by SANDAG is 10 trips per 1,000 square feet. Under this scenario
approximately 2,450 trips would be generated by this site rather than the 4,165 daily trips
which were analyzed in the draft EIR. This lower trip rate represents a reduction of
approximately 41 %. This trip reduction will reduce the amount of impact that this project
has within the study area, because both study area segments and intersections will
experience a decrease in amount of project-generated traffic than what was originally
estimated. This decrease, however, will not change the conclusions of the traffic analysis,
rather, it will change the percentage contribution the project would have on impacted
intersections and segments. JHK & Associates, the traffic consultant, will develop an
addendum to the original traffic analysis report to document the new reduced impacts which
will result from the trip distribution rate of 10 trips per 1000 square feet. This information
will be forwarded to the City of Chula Vista upon its completion for their use in the
adoption of a developer agreement.
G4 Page 2-2 of the EIR states that "as part of the project, the south half of this ["F"] Street
should be improved to Class 1 Collector Road standards (74 feet of pavement in a 94-foot
right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a 10-foot center turn lane, 8 feet of parking
adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at each side). The
improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, a bike lane, street lights
and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional five feet of pavement within
this ROW on the south side."
G5 These comments are noted. No additional response is necessary as the widening discussion
is included in both the EIR (pgs 3-59, 3-60), and in the Traffic Report, Appendix D.
G6 This measure is included on page 3-5 of the EIR, in response to this comment.
90.1402/13/91
I t. -IS'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment 0 - Memorllnonm City of Chula Vista. De'puty Public Works Director/City
Engineer
Mr. Nuhaily's request for addressal of all of their comments was completed as part of the
EIR. Locations where specific information is found in the EIR, or further information is
included below.
G 1 The Traffic Circulation/Parking impact analysis is found in Section 3.4 of the EIR,
and the full report, prepared by JRK Associates (1990), is found in Appendix D.
G2 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
03 As shown on Table 3-4 of the EIR, the existing ADT on "F' Street will be increased
to approximately 5100 ADT between Tidelands Avenue and Bay Boulevard, and to
5900 between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue.
04 Page 2-2 of the EIR states that "as part of the project, the south half of this ["F"]
Street should be improved to Class 1 Collector Road standards (74 feet of pavement
in a 94-foot right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a 10-foot center turn lane, 8
feet of parking adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at
each side). The improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
a bike lane, street lights and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional
five feet of pavement within this ROW on the south side."
G5 These comments are noted. No additional response is necessary as the widening
discussion is included in both the EIR (pgs 3-59, 3-60), and in the Traffic Report,
Appendix D.
G6 This measure is included on page 3-5 of the EIR, in response to this comment.
90-14 02/01/91
I'-/~O
-
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
-
G7 Mr. NuhaiIy confirmed addressal of this comment.
G8 - Please see pages 5-2, 5-3 of the EIR. Also, the latter part of the comment has been
added to page 5-3, in response to this comment.
G9
A tidal wave (tsunami) is generally considered to describe a destructive wave
generated by submarine earthquakes. A damaging tsunami has never been recorded
along the coast of San Diego County.
-
-
We are not familiar with an established "inundation zone due to tidal waves".
However, as noted in the Response (Cl) to Dennis J. O'Bryant (CDMG), tsunamis
are potential hazards within the San Diego Bay.
-
We assume the intent of the comment refers to inundation due to flooding, as
defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our review of the
appropriate FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the project site is
located in an area assigned a Zone "C" designation. Zone "C" refers to "Areas of
Minimal Flooding". The applicant will be required to comply with all standards
established by the FEMA which are found to be applicable.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
,. - / ~I
.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
G7 Mr. Nubaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G8 Please see pages 5-2, 5-3 of the EIR. Also, the latter part of the comment has been added
to page 5-3, in response to this comment.
G9 A tidal wave (tsunami) is generally considered to describe a destructive wave generated by
submarine earthquakes. A damaging tsunami has never been recorded along the coast of
San Diego County.
We are not familiar with an established "inundation zone due to tidal waves". However, as
noted in the Response (CI) to Dennis J. O'Bryant (CDMG), tsunamis are potential hazards
within the San Diego Bay.
We assume the intent of the comment refers to inundation due to flooding, as defined by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our review of the appropriate
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the project site is located in an area
assigned a Zone "C" designation. Zone "C" refers to "Areas of Minimal Flooding". The
applicant will be required to comply with all standards established by the FEMA which are
found to be applicable.
90-14 02/13/91
,,,-,,.~
I
I
I
I
I
I H1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Comment H
December 12, 1990
TO:
Marianne Miller, Environmental Section Planning
Department 17
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreatio~
Shauna stokes~incipal Management Assistant
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Draft EIR for Rohr Office Complex Expansion
We have reviewed this document and appreciate the inclusion of our
concerns from the check print draft EIR. The concerns of this
Department have been met.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.
Ics
RECEIVED
DEe I I 1990
PLANNING
I ~ -1(,.3
-
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent H - Memorandum. City of Chula Vista Director of Parks and Recreation
-
-
HI Ms. Stokes co=ent is noted.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
I ii-I 1,'1
- .. r
;I:.~:JU:II
Comment I
r.
rJ
PLANNING
COI1I1ENTS RELATING TO EIR #90-10
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
11
Why is the building be1ng constructed?
objectives. Are there othe~s?
Page 4-1 provides
'-
Where are ttle future occuvants CUmiJlg from? Is this a
cun:->uli.(~u.ti0!! \.JL ,::mployce::5 t.r::om out.::jide iJreas or a relocatioIJ ot
12 L'f:.[.i.c~ i;/0r:}:el:S y.'iLhin l:h!:: overall Rohr Chuld VisLd c()mple~.;:;' The
]redtest il\ipc.ct is Section 3.4 Circulation/Parkinq. Page 4-1
indic~tes a consolidation of current employees into one facility.
Summary page 6/10 says 44' foot high building. Paragraph 2.2
,
[Jage ~-1. 2.ays olJildln'-j l1e';'~ht r;TE 42 feet. Fd9~ ....-.):. :.:)dYS' u(itll
13 lJr0pl.;~ed ";2ctjj(1 LJ1.0pOGeu 44 tuot. WtJlcll7 It appears tllt: alluwed
is 44 feet. The proposed is 42 feet. Recommend changing
"Impact~. on page 6/10 to read "42-foot".Make similar
correction to page 3-30.
Page 3-5. Slllce tile orl~sit~e ~oll:3 are 110t ~cceptable. [or
.14-__:,;trllt.;J_uraJ,__ SlI2lL~~t.L ..,1-,,, 1; e ,is this "ul1slLitable__soiL"--'olO-lrLg-__LO----cb-e_
deposited?
---------~-FYequeff reference. to "h~avy metals". Is
IS clause or is there a chanCe of heavy metals
the envirunment.
this a protective
beillY il1troduced to
"'.,1
16
Page 3-6. What is the possibility of major subgrading
modiflcatiofls. ior the structure, tb~dwaY3, etc. that could !)dVe
;:lajur imLJ..:.!cls on draina.ge, environment- du.riIltj
removal/recompaction? The words "If encounteredt' bothe~ me.
17
paqe 3-6.
:-:>t'=:iiLd~.cd::.
j 7 rt: .1:'..;1: :.-:.
Whal 15 c.1
"biologically trailled moniter"? Al~
!~ ; L,;,.' r. L~
~/j ..hill ::hc Inuu.=:.t:t:y ,t:-:; Lo ;11::"; LjU..lllfi....:ations? ?\...1":.lt::
i,.;) a "bloluidLL-dlly aw-ltr.e" lIIoI;lluL. T'.Le Ll;i:~;t: Lilt: ._~,_,:;i~":>
w 1 U~?
Gel1eral COlornel1t: 0085 Rollr agree
pr ULli..I;:";I~..d ~ 1; ~-1lls .cel!uJ..: t:. ~.E no t,
to the mitiyatlull l:led~ures ~~
'N'hj ch (llIes (Ju Lhey tot:e.i ~~suv
18
19 .L1Pf'~tlijicc:.i riot ~;-jcluJt:,(j wILlI ~.:.~ll~.
I(J-:":t~flt c.{ ("-.'E:,r~;,.igjlL..
110
F.::tg,= _;-i...:.: :"-=>F.(l-=,:..L._~i.. Hi.'!'=' .:tr'.:-a dOtS n'j~: ,:,ut-:p0r~ refUl;je... ..=ip.:.j\"'(,~,'L'-::.i
'-:';i.::(!ll1ll.:J3 [o.r numerous ~l_lecle::.:; .more: typicdlly ci_::.:._.(:,c:i,~-ttl.,,:"d ",-1 :_:.i '.._'''':~~
water or shoreline areas of the bay alld coastal areas.,t Yet O~)
pagE::' 3-24 bottom it states" L)xygell levels ill the water Ciln I:t:; .:.;.0
..i...;:.dl.-_'-:.'d !_l-J.d,c.. i...:li..': .r2~ult is a rnas:3ive die-off of the ::lsh '~uld
in'vertebrates.!l in'ici't::. ll~;:',~' W}J':''1t :.;fll ~ lll':".:-.::.;:,i.::g:'
III '-'a'je >2.1.
What "larl~e .:iIHount:..:::;- of de-c''::.:llii'J 'j:;:F!.l':~;;1..-:I'~'
F,3.I~':
"'\ ""I'}
-,-...0.
112'
.... J 1...
, '
,:: >.: ~ '. 1.
(;'-"':-J~
~'n-IY ...:;)uld Ll-Jt:' (;fficL LI1.111("ilng i.!-l~_:r(-:o:-:',' ;~h,___ pl""j;~,t.'(:C'_-
.:.!fJlJ ...;:.( t::-';,;'
f" ,
.. i.'~ u (.':;'
'- -.,
:... \.} ~ 1. '-, ! J i.i ..;. J i Ij
~';':7V'"IC':"';,(en~: 'I'!ll.':'"
,I: -,.! t:'..L.-i i. '.' .;1::'" t_. ," 'J" J; '~'.L:- " I ,. ,'" 'j j 1 ,;,;: .'-; L: ::,.
- L" i ;.~; l. ... '-' ~ ..:
,
l~ -I '5
.r
j;'~~~';t'h~ pound" for his study.
~ara~raphs to discussion?
r
,
r
If
insignificant,
why devote
When the Report refers to predators they are referring to
sGaveng~rs, ~ats, dogs, coyotes, ~nd raptorR. In discussing the [-
113 heignt of the building, they ~eem~ more ~oLried uf the balance of
the rapt or versus the prey. ~"haL is the j (Jcidenc~ of Lhe r.apLor
dl~er the eQdallgered specIes?
114
Page 3-37. Mitigation measure 110. "Appears excessive to require
Rohr to fund the ful.l time .enforcement staff of two or more
officers until more development comes to fruition. While the
idea.is sound, the responsibility should be funded and operated
by the city. Revenues Inlght tl~ obtailled through the "developer's
feee;. I believe thut Chula Vist<l ie; re";pollsible to other
identified entities for e:,ecution of..cun:ent law. Do-n't 'Jet
another ,ltrllulti-jurisdictiunaJ agency" ~-;t.:trteLL with lL::> aS5uciated
bureaucracy.
Page 3-jB. i1itigatioll measure H13. 'fAnllual tUCJGS to be pdid by
Hohr"- The .owner. __ is.r:e::;pons ibl_~' [or l~_()S-t of' tl'le~e r_ecommend2ttl ()ns .
---ItS-C I - don rr-])el i eve- TfleY-- need-- 'beue-l1umerated'-- SOl-OR ---are, alreClL1Y
111cluut=d in tdze:=>, Oi:.:l"ier::) by contract. Would 1:'; Ut:' un<Jer~t()od
t+n::r-t-----the-rre-w-TT.VITe-r-vrt-I d::::.bUllH;----cn-s--e-s-vhell L"\o'l~reaves:- -------
120
121
122
123
116
T-able ]-L
opposite ::)dJ~
;: -.; S .
'''';Ol_:J.I*:
Lave
been ea.sier
ita
L'e
w'c.re to
pr L;...ed
117
'....'.. ,"
Vl'SlI r'c' ~.-9.
included?
tlF"
[
~.;h'y 1 Sf) 't
the Bay Blvd stretch between "E"
and
118
Page :>59.
upt:'r,~(t:l:jn~'
[
Are the
The cit:L'
t .:.RE.:l.
~rojections of traffic Lased on a posL SR54
C-rO:.:,:3 tr.....'1.fflc m,:\y b::; l~::;_.; t..:()njjC'3t~J 'wJ.th ti"le
,) V ~~' r ! : j1 ~J
119
'i'n;!;-~ t.
:~lJe
"_~ lL~;'= dl. c~
t..;-!€:y
I1~arly
'J 0 i 1'1 S t.:. () ~~ 0 .L 11
20U ~~.[t./~mploye~.
, '
".-
'; t. .:. ld 11l9.~'
'Li::~a/occup'~0t 1."3
F.-:tl:.lt: ":';-'01. Ylhei...c i.::> the
i'':': 0j;.:cL / ,-, 111 t~. Lii.i"':.:t i),jD.k
SD(:i&.I.:.: right oi ...'CiY
'vl i t 11 1 nth E: ;: i 'J ~ I t (J [
i ;.1 :..I': 1i:.:\ t i 1.'.:l
Lo t".jl~
[
",
'WdY;
~-'~iljl:: ::;-6S.
Co ~:~; 2_1 .f ('j,~ll ~,:~ .=. ~.d:lG<.:~t ,j;-:i
~:' r:: II: ,:, : i.1 ;,; ,'! .c. ,= ..' t:..;. i i -' ':]' .
j I '.~' j :
,_ i; ~}:::;.: '..: :... !~ d ;_, 1 i. ::; l,~.::: i :
~;1 i..J.lo:; F'cClt.:t ..i.~
.-.1 _ _ , .'
--,_..i.. .;ii.. .'\ '. _ ,~c_
."'(\
;.:t.'~I.-IU':ir,.;:.; j:t~'\Jj'~:t::'d t;j Llle
;:.lc~<=t;l l\ 1': -/1c:: (It' : ':'!'-In bi?":'!l
W;t..lt .impact do_th\..:y ~l......\/e "j',
l:ILI.ij'';'':_,,;',, L;_ '/
if dP.l:1ro~1."ldLe~?
I f no t,
f),=-(Yt_: ~:'-r-.9.
,::tJ.l_t'!'n,~t.i.v~
'.-/11'-' L
1) ; ,~:; I:... . \.) t:";:::
to rt:-dUCI::
.il\:... '"'i\:'_i. '_.l.
:.he: ~,i-lfJ,3.cL ":If
l;-'-'_".)t.:'<...L.
. ! ':., \i ,;:'~ .i...;J .:..
'.,1.'.:
hOll"':"';;
L1.' . ..... I
. ~ f.J! 1 .
~ . ,Ct::
i ,_~,:", ~~:- '.! d"': k (, ~_ L '_, :... i . .' . '{ _' ~ '.' .
,:inj '::;hd';l~jl: 011 l)l~d,J-: hour '~-:onge5 t 1 on.
,
",1-
i;-'-'-' ;ijT . ".
.....i.._.:._,
!
.....':i'-'
- ,'.'-
_.'.1 ~
i;,;. t::U1:i ',.;-lr-:t.
l
:. .. .'-~
'j - .;. .
. t: _ ',,:~,: ':.' :-j L~
.' l.J_';
,.t::
1.' L. 1_. ~ ':";"-:.:::, -', d'::'
:'i~'.!("",
, ,
,-'.!.J
" '
_ I......
;.,.J
_.~ijl,:: eUi.. :>1 \
i!
'-'-'.' "
'i; j e.- ~_ _ .'.1 .
---: .,; ;.1,-"::- ::..: t:: 1 . ~
...'.('..
J ~ -II,f#
[
goIng to work off "H" Street, they go to work off "F" Street.
Fage 4-1. Objective 5. What
124 Distr iet tldelands." Hlli.le
~nvi:::orll~le!Jtally prefe.::abJ.e, is
is the "Need tu move off of Port
Alternative 4 Off-Site may be
it :.=.tlll ()!l t~jdI::"1dna~>~.'
I25
?'~:lge '::,-3. ;.;c:::oui:=.;. '"I lri ~,~.ict, tLt::rt~ !..;'J u. C:vnsoli.datiGn ,~:c
i::mplu}'i::es trOHt Olle RollI" "c,~ml?uL)II to LLc l).!.:ujecL ;jiL.t: dUd ttldL UrIC
"campus" 1s just down the street, ',.,Ihy is there an i:Dl).:l,ct on tIle
schuul :,:;y:::.:;Lem?
126 Hi tigc.tion n,oni tor. It doesn't dpjJear that this ha:o been
prOVided for by the applicant. Does it need to be addressed?
127 I ~:llpport. :ll~~,.?r':Jd.tlve 2 - H1oJifi~d De~,l(Jn.
lll-/(,,:r
15
16
17
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent I - Co=ents from RCC Member - John Kracha
11 The objectives of the proposed project are stated on pages 4-1 to 4-2. The applicant
has not submitted any other objectives.
12
The EIR analyses assume that all occupants of the building could be persons new to
this location, and not merely transferred from the adjacent Rohr campus. Rohr and
its consultant have stated that all persons to occupy the building will be transferred
from next door. Rohr, however, has not made a commitment to this, and even if
they did, the possibility remains that the building could be leased or sold in the
future creating a situation where all occupants could be new to this location.
-
-
-
-
-
""'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I3
The proposed building height is 42 feet; the allowable building height is 44 feet. The
EIR text has been corrected to indicate such.
14
Text has been modified to indicate that these soils "are not acceptable in their
present condition". These soils will require remediation prior to construction of any
structures. Specific remediation recommendations are a part of the geotechnical
investigation (Woodward-Clyde Consultants [WCC], revised September 7,1990), and
include removal and recompaction, selective grading, and use of piles.
The WCC report also reco=ends the site be cleared of vegetation, organic matter,
trash, debris or other suitable materials, and that unsuitable materials generated
during clearing should be disposed of off site at a legal dump site.
Heavy metals are often found in the usual array of contaminants that typify urban
runoff, and are typically a byproduct of automotive discharges from both exhaust
gases and continual low-volume leaks of gasoline, oil, and other fluids. It is intended
that the cleansing system be designed to remove these contaminants prior to their
entry into the detention basin and subsequently the marsh area.
If compressible bay deposits are encountered in areas proposed for improvement,
remediation of those soils will be required prior to construction of roadways,
embankments, or engineered fills. These "subgrade modifications" are a part of
project grading. Subsequent mitigation measures of the Groundwater/Soils and
Geologic Units section discuss (Section 3.1 of the EIR) erosion control measures to
be performed during site grading activities.
"Biologically trained monitor" and "biologically aware monitor" have the same
meaning, Le., that the monitor is aware and knowledgeable of the resources that can
be affected by the actions and/or conditions that he/she is monitoring. There are no
qualification standards within the industry, but the individual should have a general
90-14 01/25/91
I II -I ~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
knowledge of construction techniques and a background in ecology or resource
management.
r8 Rohr has not publicly commented on their response to the required mitigation
measures.
r9 Appendices were included with the ErR, and were bound in a separate volume.
IlO The ErR text states that "this area does (emphasis added) support refuge, foraging
grounds and spawning grounds...". Also, to answer the question "What fish?" the ErR
goes on to say on page 3-14, "The tidal channels, creeks, and even frequently exposed
portions of the marshes are utilized as spawning areas and nursery grounds by
numerous coastal fish and invertebrates."
III The large amounts of decaying organisms originate from increased algal production
in a poorly flushed environment. While algal production is increased through inputs
of fertilizers into the marsh, water circulation in the marsh is not sufficient to remove
the excess dead algae, so decaying organic material accumulates. Refer to paragraph
2 on page 3-24 of the ErR.
Il2 Outdoor lunchroom facilities have the potential for attracting wild and domestic
predators and scavengers. Furthermore, where office complexes provide such
lunchroom facilities, feral animals tend to be promoted by well meaning individuals
that leave food out. Refer to Recommendations 13 and 14 of Section 3.2 of the ErR.
90-14 01/25/91
III -11P9
-
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
I13
No matter what the "incidence of the raptor after the endangered species," any
increases in the availability of perch sites for raptors has the potential for adverse
effects on endangered species living within the raptors' view from the perch site.
According to CEQA Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, any action
that threatens an endangered species is significant.
-
-
-
1]4
Predator management programs are site specific. In this situation, a predator
management program is currently being formulated for Chula Vista Investors
proposed project in the larger Midbayfront area. Rohr Industries would be a
participant in this or another program developed in the area; however, since Rohr's
proposed project affects only a small portion of the Bayfront's sensitive wetland
areas, Rohr Industries would bear a minority of responsibility under a Bayfront
predator management program. Refer to Recommendations 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and
17 of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
-
-
-
I15 Responsibilities for ongoing mitigation requirements are anticipated to fall on
whomever owns the developed property.
-
I16 Table 3-1 has been moved forward in the text to follow its reference in response to
the comment.
-
II? Acknowledged. The segment of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street
was inadvertently omitted from this figure. However, the daily traffic volume on this
segment is correctly labelled as 9,800.
-
I18 As stated on Page 3-52 of the EIR, the "E" Street/I-5 and 1-5/SR 54 freeway
interchanges were assumed to be completed and fully operational by Year 1992
which is the scheduled construction period for this Rohr Office Complex facility.
The completion of SR 54 and its connection to 1-5 will certainly reduce east/west
through traffic on major arterials in the northern portion of the City of Chula Vista
(i.e., "E" Street and "H" Street). It has been estimated that this reduction may
amount to approximately 15 percent of the current traffic load on "E" Street due to
the diversion of east/west through trips to the new SR 54 facility. Also, by
comparing the values for "E" Street east of 1-5 from Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 you
will notice that future traffic volume projections are in fact reduced.
-
-
-
-
I19 Rohr has submitted a table showing projected uses. This table is located at the end
of the responses as Attachment 1.
-
120 The SDG&E right-of-way is located adjacent to the project immediately east of the
eastern edge of the project site. If the City of Chula Vista determines, through the
monitoring program, that parking demand at this site exceeds the supply, it is
possible that an agreement could be reached between SDG&E and Rohr Industries
-
-
90-14 02/01/91
-
J II - I =?of)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
and the City to allow Rohr to lease a portion of the right-of-way for overflow parking
in excess of the estimated demand.
121 The Clean Air Act of 1990 has not yet resulted in any revisions to the federal air
quality standards. Thus, the California standards remain, in most cases, more
stringent than the federal standards, and in a couple of cases, equal to the federal
standards.
122 Page 3-71 describes mitigation required of the applicant pertaining to transportation
control measures. And, as stated on this page, in order "to be most efficient, these
measures must be integrated into a comprehensive transportation system
management (TSM) program," which would relieve existing congestion to some
degree. Additionally, this project would be required to conform to regional
transportation demand management strategies established by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) Transportation Demand Management
Model Ordinance and/or other ordinances adopted by the City of Chula Vista in the
future.
123 See Response 12.
90-14 01/25/91
'''-/~I
...
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
124
The applicant's objectives are stated in the E1R exactly as they were presented to the
City (no more explanation was provided, nor necessary). The off.site alternatives
considered these objectives as far as to what degree the objectives were
accommodated by the alternatives, but the major focus of the off.site analysis was to
compare environmental impacts of both similar and different types of locations.
-
125 See Response 12.
-
126 The Mitigation Monitoring Program would begin after certification of the E1R and
approval of the project. A statement regarding this procedure has been added to
Section 1.0 of the E1R.
-
127 This comment is noted.
-
-
...
...
...
-
-
-
-
...
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
, "-11~
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CommenU
COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS - DRAFT EIR-90-10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
January 9, 1991
Decker: Table I-I, page 6-10, predator management program. Mitigation measures
not as detailed as in others.
J1
Full er:
J2
Decker:
J3
Ca rson:
J4
Suggested closing parking lot when people weren't there to keep people
out. ,
Are predator management programs site unique, or generic.
(Keith Merkel, biologist, explained predator management programs are
speeific to the site on the resources to be protected. In this specific
situation, the predator management program is specific to the Bayfront
resources, not specifically the Rohr site. Rohr would be a participant
in the pro~ram which is focused on the entire Bayfront, not just the
Rohr $ i tc . )
Page 3-37. Full time enforcement staff of two more officers would be
funded by revenues generated by the project and other development
within the Bayfront to conduct the predator management program. Is
this included in this particular EIR and project since it is the beginning
of management for the entire Bayfront project.
(Keith Merkel answered in the affirmative. They anticipated a two-person
staff requirement for the overall project. Rohr happens to be the first
one in on a much larger 5cale, a participant 1n a much larger program.)
Upon Commissioner Fuller's query, Mr. Merkel answered it would start with
two, but there may be more and some part-time specialists. Two is
anticipated to be the minimum number.
Page 3-28, thi rd paragraph, "human pet presence impacts." Thi s is an off1 ce
building, and people don't generally bring dogs and cats to offices.
(Merkel:
outside.
Is an office bUilding, but they have lunchroom facilities'
People feed cats and dogs at the location.)
Why in the letter from the Chula V1sta Elementary Schools it is indicated
that approximately 162 new elementary children will be generated from the
project, since it is an office building. People that will be employed?
New employees coming into the area that would generate the elementary
children?
(Diana Richardson: Yes, indirect generation of students from new
employees.)
Where are the employees coming from-~within the present structure of the
Rohr Corporation, clos1ng up some build1ngs and transfer employees, or??
(D1ana Richardson: The draft EIR assumed that because there would be
no guarantee that they would be all transferred Rohr employees from the
campus ne~t door that they could be all new employees from a different
area. The EIR assumes this worse-case position because we have no
guarantee that all these employees will be transferred. There is no
commitment. not guarantee to do so 1n the future.)
I' -/~
Grasser: J7 Traffic projection assumption. before or after total completion of SR 54.
(Dan Marum, from JHK & Associates, answered the assumption was what the
benefit would be on the total completion of SR 54 in the year 1992,
about a 15X benefit on so~e of the east/west streets in the northern
portion of Chula Vista as a result of the connection to 1-5.)
Decker: J8 Page 3-45, there will be a significant change in traffic patterns.
Was off-ramp onto "E" Street considered.
Carson:
Fuller:
Cas i 11 as :
Carson: J5
Decker: J6
Decker: J9
...
Rohr has no !lame phn? . Shouldn I,t they be ,able to tell us that tonight?
(Richardson:' Rohr, has' indicated to the City that they would be
transferring employees over; however, she understood from City staff
there had been no commitment to do so. The draft EIR needed to look
at the i~pacts if in the future Rohr sold.)
First letter in the packet from Kate Shurson indicates the relationship
betweer. non-residential development and student enrollment has been
clearly recognized by the State Legislature through authorization of
collection. of school fees. A oint stud s onsored b the five South
Ba School Districts re ored ear ier t is ear SourcePoint further
documents and demonstrates t is re ations ip. Based on this study,
the proposed 211,500 sq. ft. of Office space will generate approximately
162 new elementary age children. SHE WANTED TO SEE A COpy OF THE
REPORT. How did they arrive at these figures.
Applicant may be required to pay fees that they should not be paying,
based on their figures.
Height of buildin9 - consistency.
Estimate of ADT - which estimate is being used? Two different estimates.
-
;'.
...
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
(Dan Marum answered the off-ramp would be reconfigured as a new
intersection at Bay Boulevard and "E" Street. There would be a d1rect
connection into Bay Boulevard for the traffic that will be coming down
to Rohr.)
""
-
Assumed there would be an increase 1n the number of trolley scheduling.
Understands there will be 8 per hour for peak. The EIR shows about
12.
....
Projected there would be a reduction in traffic volumes on "E" Street
to be as much as 15%. SR 54 is hooked up except for part of the last
interchange. We should have seen some kind of reduction on "E"
Street now.
(The Traffic Engineering Dept. of CV is currently conducting an after-
study; had done extensive before-study work on many east/west and
north/south arterials immediately south of 54. Good data base of before
conditions. They will prepare a report on the impacts of the opening
of 54 which currently exchanges traffic only to and from the north at
1-5 and doesn't allow the exchange to and from the south yet. They
assumed a full interchange at that location for the ErR.)
-
-
...
-
-
I ~-IT'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tugenberg: ' Suggested that the EIR address the troff1c impact at the intersection
J1'0 of Woodle.'wn 1\ nF'I. ,It is practically impossible to make II left-hand
turn (going east) from Woodlawn onto "F" Street between 4 & 6 p.m.
Why wasn't consideration given to EastLake Industrial Park and the
El Rancho del Rey Office Park instead of San YSidro and National City.
Jll
(Commission decided not to ask for more comparison because of cost.)
Letter from Dr. Gordon Snow, Dept. of Conservation, points out there is
no geology section in this ErR. He feels there is some sort of seismic
1iquefication, etc.
(MaryAnn Miller: That will be responded to in the Final EIR.
Page 3-7 - how much does it cost the City to retain the bio1gical
trained construction monitor to monitor the grading? Does that come
out of the fee that Rohr pays, or out of our tax dollars?
(MaryAnn Miller: The City would assume the overall responsibility
for making sure the monitoring is taking place, but it would be an
additional cost to the applicant.)
200 sq. ft. per employee - standard figure used for Office buildings?
What is going to be done with the building?
(MaryAnn Miller: That would have to 'be addressed in the Final EIR.)
Maximum number of emp10yee~? Answer: Most recent figure 1,184 total
employees to occupy the building.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Decker:
112
Carson:
113
Casi llas:
114
Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Ian Gill of Starboard Development
Corporation, office at 1202 Kettner Boulevard in the City of San Diego. I'm here
representing Rohr Industries as their developer. We also have members of the rest
of the design team here. We've got the president of BSHA, the architectural firm,
I Gordon Carrier, and the project architect, Mike Gilkerson. We have representatives
from Rick Engineering, and from WRT, the landscape architect on the project. We
J15appreciate this opportunity of addressing you, and maybe I can provide a little
bit of clarification on a couple of the concerns that have been expressed here.
I 'You're absolutely right that it would be foolish of Rohr not to have a detailed
plan in terms of how they are going to move into this building and, in fact, we
have been assisting them for the last 12 months in devising a detailed program
for relocation into this facility. And you're absolutely correct. For now, and
for the foreseeable future, it is anticipated that this is a relocation. There
are approximately 1200 employees from three critical business groups within Rohr--
commercial business, government business, and new technology--that are going to
be relocating into this new facility.
I
I
I
I
I
As to some of the questions relative to the trip generation factors and so on,
in point of fact I would like an opportunity, we would like an opportunity of
working with Keller's consultant to give some more information that might be
helpful in determining what the appropriate trip generation factor should be.
Because in point of fact what's being used is a stock SANDAG factor which probably
wouldn't be appropriate for this particular building, even, although there is
certainly the possibility that has been pointed out. that long-term part of the
II, -/~S
...
facility might be sub-leasea, it probably would not be a true multi-tenant
,fa~ll?ty ,in ,which you might ~ave_2Qte~ants.., It would stlll be more of a , '
corporate~tjp'e""acni ty' becaas. '1 t '1.5, a _high~qua l1ty office bull d1 rig and so the
numb!r of ,user's' would be more restricted as dictated by a higher economic rent.
So we'd certainly like the opportunity of working with staff and their consultants ~
to ensure that appropriate numbers of utiliZed prior to finalizing the EIR.
-
In terms of Some of the other elements, the higher 200 sq. ft. per occupant number _
relates to the fact that there is a cafeteria in the bUilding, which is actually
a combined cafeteria and auditorium space fOr employees, and there are other
support spaces within the facility that in fact are not just primary office space.
In fact, if you look at what is primary office user space within the bUilding, ~
it isn't the 245,000 sq. ft. of space, which is actually the gross space in the
bUilding, but mOre like 153,000 sq. ft. And if you then apply the City'S parking
standard to what would actually be more like the number of occupants in the building_
and the real'usable office space, the number of spaces as proposed in the alternate
in the EIR of 760 should more than comfortably accommodate a ratio of mOre like
5 spaces per 1,000 rather than the City's minimum of 3.3.
We're basically here to anSwer any other questions you might have, and we'd be
delighted to provide any clarification you might desire.
Commissioner Tugenberg: MaYbe you can clarify it. These 1200 employees. Are
they presently on-site at the Rohr facility In Chula Vista?
Mr. Gill: Yes.
-
-
-
CommiSSioner Tugenberg: They all are. They will not be coming from Arkansas,
or Los Angeles, or outside the area. It shouldn't be an incremental addition to
the present-day traffic.
Mr. Gill: No. In paint of fact, it will be a direct transfer. Long-term there
will even be some demolition of existing buildings on the campus and probably
conversion. at least in the median term, to some additional parking or Some other
use. So you're absolutely correct. Staff obViOUsly has had to take the most
conservative viewpoint that, at least. theoretically, at some point in time Rohr
might sub-lease part Or maybe even all of the office space in this faCility.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Grasser Horton directed staff to take the Comments and written communications
and incorporate that into their final EIR.
Commissioner Fuller reminded staff that they would like staff to request from the
Chula Vista School District a copy of the report referred to in the letter from
Kate Shurson.
...
-
...
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
11#-11-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment J - Comments from Commissioners. Planning Commission Meeting of January 9.
1991
J1 Predator management programs are site specific. In this situation, a predator
management program is currently being formulated for Chula Vista Investors
proposed project in the larger Midbayfront area. Rohr Industries would be a
participant in this or another program developed in the area; however, since Rohr's
proposed project affects only a small portion of the Bayfront's sensitive wetland
areas, Rohr Industries would bear a minority of responsibility under a Bayfront
predator management program. Refer to Recommendations 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and
17 of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
J2 See response to comment J1 above. A IIllnImum of two full time predator
management officers for the predator management program is anticipated for the
entire Midbayfront area, however, additional personnel may be needed as the
magnitude of the anticipated predator problems becomes known. Also, part-time or
contract specialists may be needed for specific problems that the full-time staff
cannot alleviate.
13 Comment noted; however, outdoor lunchroom facilities have the potential for
attracting wild and domestic predators and scavengers. Furthermore, where office
complexes provide such lunchroom facilities, feral animals tend to be promoted by
well meaning individuals that leave food out. Refer to Recommendations 13 and 14
of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
J4 As stated in the minutes, the Draft EIR assumed that all employees in the building
would be new, as there is no guarantee that Rohr would always occupy the building.
The student generation is an indirect result of new employment. As stated in the
DEIR, Section 5.0, Schools, the applicant is currently negotiating with both School
Districts regarding appropriate fees for the anticipated impact to the Districts'.
9().14 01/25/91
litJ-/:p"1-
J9
-
-
RESPONSES TO ffiMMENTS
J5 The EIR has been corrected to accurately reflect the proposed 42-foot building
height.
-
J6
--
The proposed project will generate approximately 4,165 daily trips. This calculation
was based on a large commercial office building (in excess of 100,000 square feet)
trip generation rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet, as recommended by SANDAG.
-
The discussion of project impacts under built-out conditions contained on page 3-56
of the EIR discusses the future trip generation from this site as modified by the trip
generation that was included in the regional model for this zone prior to the
initiation of this project. Thus, an estimate of the difference between the previously
coded land use in this zone and the new land use proposed by this project for this
zone is calculated. However, the total trip generation for the site remains at 4,165
daily trips for the proposed project.
-
-
-
17 Refer to Response No. 118.
J8
As stated in Response No. 118, the interchange improvement project currently under
construction by Caltrans at I-5j"E" Street was fully accounted for in the Year 1992
traffic projections for this project and the circulation system in the project study area.
In other words, the direct connection of the 1-5 southbound off-ramp to Bay
Boulevard at "E" Street was utilized in our traffic analysis. This improvement project
will create a new intersection and the existing traffic signal at the southbound on-
and off-ramp intersection will be relocated to this new location. Also, the provision
of a loop ramp for westbound "E" Street traffic to access southbound 1-5 was included
in our analysis as well. As stated on page 3-47 of the EIR, at the present time,
approximately eight trolleys cross major east/west arterials in the City of Chula Vista
in the AM and PM peak hours. However, in the near future, one to three years,
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) anticipates the addition of two
more trolley vehicles per hour on the south line through Chula Vista. In the long
term, the number of trolleys on the south line could be increased further (potentially
16 trolley vehicles crossing these arterials in the AM and PM peak hours), resulting
in an additional loss of available capacity on these arterials due to the amount of the
accumulation of gate down time.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department is currently conducting a
study to determine the impact of the completion of SR 54 between 1-5 and 1-805. The
study will also be conducted when the full interchange at 1-5 and SR 54 is completed
to connect with 1-5 to and from the south. At the present time the connection from
SR 54 limits access to and from the north on 1-5. The City Traffic Engineering
Department has completed an extensive study of the major circulation element
facilities in the northern portion of Chula Vista immediately south of SR 54. This
existing data will be used as the base condition to define baseline data prior to the
opening of this new facility. A series of reports on the positive impacts of the
-
-
-
-
90-14 01/25/91
-
,"-/it
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
110 The intersection of Woodlawn and "F" Street was included in the traffic circulation
analysis for this Rohr Office Complex Development. The most difficult movement
is tyJ:lic:alry the H16St EliffiSYlt mS'.'@m@Iitat this unsignalized intersection today is the X
southbound left-turn maneuver from Woodlawn Avenue to proceed eastbound on "F'
Street. This particular movement is typically the most difficult movement to execute
at T-intersections which are controlled by a stop sign for the minor street approach
(i.e., Woodlawn Avenue). This movement will continue to be difficult as additional
traffic is loaded onto "F" Street in an east/west direction.
The long term solution to the impact caused by higher volumes on "F" Street would
be to install a traffic signal at this location. However, the impact from this Rohr
Office Complex Development was not significant enough to warrant the installation
of a traffic signal at this location. The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering
Department will continue to monitor traffic flow at this location to determine when
signal warrants may be met in the future and the intersection will be placed on the
list of potential candidates for signalization.
J11 The comment refers to the alternatives analysis in the EIR, Section 4.0. The purpose
of the alternatives analysis is to compare environmental impacts of those at the
project site against those in a different location. This analysis chose two bayfront
locations, and two entirely different ecosystem locations in order to see the difference
in types and numbers of impacts from these both similar and very different
ecosystems. Certainly, there are a number of locations which could have been
chosen for study, but it was not the purpose of the analysis to look at every potential
site, but, rather, to provide an evaluation of differences between different types of
ecosystems.
112 See Response Cl.
113 As Ms. Miller stated in the response in the minutes, the applicant would pay for the
mitigation monitoring, and the City would be responsible for coordinating its
implementation.
114 See Attachment 1, which shows the anticipated uses of the building.
115 These comments are noted.
90-14 01/25/91
I II -/1-9
-
-
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
completion of SR 54 in its various phases will be generated by the Traffic
Engineering Department and reported to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This report will define the beneficial impact of the new SR 54 facility based on the
anticipated diversion of east/west through traffic on major circulation element
facilities in the northern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
...
-
Also refer to Response No. US for additional discussion of this topic.
...
-
...
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
..
90-14 01/25/91
...
1(, -/tD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CommentK
MINUTES OF A SCHE.DULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource COllllervatlon Commlaaion
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday,lanuary 7,1991
Conference Room 1
Public Services Building
CAll MEETING TO ORDERIROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a qunrum at 6:10 p.m.
by Chairman Fo~. City Staff Barbara Reid call1ld roll. Present: Commissioners Ray, Johnson. Hall, Fox,
Krachl. Absent: OhoUiass1an, Stevens.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Il was MSUP (KrachalRay) to approve the minutes of November 12, 1990
with one corrcctlon: the word 'Permits" should be added at the bottom of page 1. The minutes of
. November 19, 1990 were unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Lance Fry, Assistant Planner. provided follow-up information on Chula Vista 2000. After much
discussion. the following recommendations were made:
1. It was MSUP (Ray/Krach a) to support staff recommendation on the recycling effort.
2. It was MSUP (Ray/Kracha) that council direct thlfpr~paration of a citywIde open space and
parkland master plan and to emphasize t\le w~tern area of the city for the purpose of further review
of the feasibility of open space and parkland acquisition and development.
3. It was MSUP (Johnson/Hall) that Council support staff assistance to city volunte~rs dedicated
to the city trails tree plantinll program and other public lands; and identify 8 program coordinator
for this effort.
4. It was MSUP (KrachalRay) to encourage placement of citizens from environ/nental groups on
city committees and commissions dealing with environmental and open space issueS.
B.
The Rohr Office Complex EIR 90-10 Willi reviewed by staff. After much discussion, a motion was
made (Fox/Ray) to include the following: to recommend to the PlarUllng COlnlllissi,lO that Kracha's
comments of Inconsistencies of the EIR be incorporated with the exception of the last comment
regarding support of Alternate 2; that Hall', question regarding paraaraph 3-50 be clarified; Illat Ray
requests that the Planning Commission not close the public review hearing until the inconsistencies
and iuues In the EIR are resolved; motion passed unanimously.
Kl
A motion was made by Hall to recommend an off-site alternative listed as #1 on palle 4.7; motion
died due to lack of second.
C. It was MSUP (Fox/Ray) to continue the item regardina "Environmental Agenda for the 90s" to the
next meeting with review of prevlous minutes back to July t990.
D. It was MSUP (Ray/Johnson) to continue the budaet discussion to the next meeting and have staff
clarify items regarding printing and binding, photography, and postage.
111-/81-
,- ---_.- . - ~..-.-
...
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment K - Minutes. City of Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commi~sion
~
;".
-
K1
.
Kracha's comments are indicated as comment Letter 1.
.
Regarding the question on page 3.50 of the EIR, the text has been modified
on this page to amend this inconsistency.
...
.
The public review period was closed on January 9, 1991.
...
...
-
-
...
-
-
-
....
...
-
-
-
90-14 02/01/91
...
I"-/~-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATIACHMENT 1
ROHR PROPOSED BUilDING SPACE UTILIZATION
11,-/83
.
I
I
'I
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
LJ
~')I l~ 1/' ~~'t' '''': r ;;,' };":.
1i1, __J \i.,A \:.. ," ' J
ADI) '.' I"CQ
. h ..} \.' ,~
STARBOARD Community Oevel(l;;:n,~!11 QUIl.
STARBOARCJ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
April 24, 1990
VIA FACSIMILE
Pamela R. Buohan
Senior Community Development Specialist
city of Chula vIsta
Community Development DepartmAnt
276 Fourth Avenue
chula vista, CA 92010
Dear Fam:
Enclosed is a copy of the preliminary buildin9 pro9ram recently
completed by our architect derin1n9 space utilization and
allocation for the new Rohr office complex.
When we talked by telephone last week, you indicated that your
planning staff had the perception that the uses for the new
facility were industrial or R&D in nature, which called into
question the adequacy of the proposed parking ratio (one space per
300 squat's feet of building area). Their feeling was, as you
relayed it, that this parking ratio requirement is relevant and
adequate only if the uses to be housed within the new structure
will he commercial Office-type activities.
The detailed program enclosed not only lists the specific
departments which will be relocated into the new facility, but also
breaks down each departmentls functions and their related space
requirement. '
As mentioned in our recent meeting with you, one of the major
reasons Rohr is anxious to see the new office complex completed as
soon as possible is to effeot a relocation of the many offioe
staff, detailed ,in the enclosed program, who are currently located
in industrial type space allover the Rohr campus.
Rohr recognizee the increa15ed productivity and efficiency which
will result from relocating their scattered office groups to an
appropriate office environment under one roof.
1202 KETTNe~ BOULEVARD, f=IFTH FLOOR, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ~C"1U'-~~88
I fJJ -18~ ~... ,~.~, ~~. ~M~
'~"~1 1"'")1"':}" o~__
-
Pamela R. Buohan
Benior Community Development Specialist
City of Chula vista
Community Development Department
April 24, 1990
Page 2
-
...
-
You can clearly see from the enclosed program information that the
intended USe for the new buildings is pure office in a
predominantly open space system furnished environment.
If you woul~ be kind enough to give your planning staff a copy of
the enclose~ proqram, we believe it should completely address their
concern related to the adequacy of the on-site parking proposed for
the project.
If you or any of your staff have additional questions or require
furt er clarification on the enclosed information, please do not
hesi at 0 contact me or Ian Gill.
...
-
-
-
-
...
AS:moh
-
enclosures
cc: 109-10.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jl#-ItS
I
I 1 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS
I SQUARE NO. OF:
EMPLOYEESIROOMS FOOTAGE EMPl.OYEES TOrAL
t Senior Vice President 320 Ii.f. 1 320 d.
I Vice Presidents 280 s.t 4 1,120 s.f.
Directors 150 s.f. 9 1,350 s.f.
I Managers 150 s.f 62 9,300 8.f.
I EmployeesjProgram Support 90 s.f. ...211 87.390 s.f.
1047 99,480 s.f.
I .Customer Reps & Support 100 s.f. ....M.. 3.000 R.L
Staff (estimate)
I SUBTOTAL 1077 101,480 s.r.
% 9rowth/Sct up area 5,124 s.f.
I Coffee c;cnter ~5 @ 2S s.r. 375 s.c.
1/10,000
I Research Library 200 s.f.
t Storage/supply room 1/20,000 8 @ 192 s.f. 1,536 s.f. .
Vl\ult 2,000 s.f.
I Mail stations 4@ 8 s.f. 32 s.f.
I Reproduction/Plotter Rooms 6 @ 320 s.f. 1,920 s.!.
Ij20,ooo
a. xerox machine
I b. paper storage
c. plotters
I Small Conference Rooms 9 @ 144 sJ. 1.296 sJ.
(for 6-8 people)
I Medium Conference Rooms 3 @ 364 s.f. 1,092 s.f.
(for 18.20 people)
I
I '41-/81.
-
-
. Commercial Business Continued:
-
Large Conference'room
(for 30 people) 3 @ 624 s.f. 1,872 sJ.
-
Large lounge 1/20,000 3 @ 600 s.f. 1,800 s.f.
MIS Engineering Computers -
Hard Files & Training Rm 1 @ 3,500 d. 3,500 s.t.
. Engineering Support -
Computer 1 @ 2750 2.750 d.
SUBTOTAL 21.5,977 s.r. -
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 30,234 s.f.
-
Core Factor @ 1.165 , 25.775 sJ.
TOTAL 181,986 $,t. "'"
...
...
...
....
-
-
-
""
..
....
'(,-1'1-
i
2 TECHNOLOGY & NEW PRODUCTS
SQUARE
NO. OF
MP
FOOTAGE
E
Vice Presidents
280 s.f.
1
280 s.f.
Directors
150 s.f.
3
450 s.f.
Managers
150 s.f
9
1,350 s.f.
Employees
90 s.f.
IIL
10.440 s f_
SUBTOTAL
129
12,520 sd.
% Growth /Set up area
626 s.f.
Coffee center 1/10,000
2 @ 25 s.f.
50 s.f.
Storage /supply room 1/20,000
6 @ 192 s.£
1,152 s.f.
Mail stations:
8 s.f.
Tempest Rooms
2 @ 41000
8,000 s.f.
Vault
500 s.f.
Library
1,000 s.f.
Reproduction/Plotter Rooms
1/20,000
320 s.f.
320 s.f.
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage
c, plotter
Small Conference Rms
3 @ 144 s.f.
432 s.f,
(for 6 -8 people)
Medium Conference Room
1 @ 364 s.f.
364 s.f.
(for 18 -20 people)
Large lounge
i @ 300 s.f.
300 s.f.
SUBTOTAL
25,292 s.f.
Circulation Factor @ 1.24
6,065 s.f.
Core Factor @ 1.165
5.171 s.f.
TOTAL
26.508 s.f.
/& - X19
-
3 GOVERNMENt BUSINESS
-
SQUARE NO. OF
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS FOOTAGE EMPLOYEES ~
Vice President 280 s.l. 1 280 s.f.
-
Director 150 s.f. 3 ~ 450 l :
Managers 150 s.f 9 1,350 ~.
Employees 90 d. :11 ,j.230 s.l.
60 6.310 ~
Government Reps
(estimate 2) 100 s.f. ..l 2oo~,
SUBTOTAL 62 6,510 s.t
-
% Growth/Set up area 325 s
Coffee center 25 s.t. 25 s'"
Storage/supply room
(10 x 20) 192 s.c. 192 s.'
Mail station 8 s.t.
...
Reproduction/Plotter Room 320 s.c. 320 s
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage ..
c. plotter
SmaIl Conference Room 144 s.l. 144 s."
Medium Conference Room
(for 18-20 people) 364 s.f. 364 5."
Large lounge 300 s.t. 300 d.
-
SUBTOTAL 8,188 s,
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 1,965 S.4
Core Factor @ 1.165 1.675 s.(.
....
TOTAL ,11.828 s.
-
...
IfJ -/19
I
I
I
I
'J
J
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
.i
I
I
4 CAFETERIA (service for 400 personnel)
SQUARE
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS FOOTAGE
NO. OF
EMPLOYEES
TOTAL
Dining Room 6,000 s.f.
. Servery 1,200 s.f.
Kitchen, Dlshwnshlng 2,600 s.f.
Kitchen Personnel
Restrooms/Change Rooms 200 s.f.
TOTAL 10,000 s.&
//'-/90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
,
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFf
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT
EIR # 90-10
SCH # 90010623
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
January, 1991
I II -/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
~
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARy...................... 1-1
1.1 Scope and Purpose of the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
1.2 Summary of Impact and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
2.2 Proposed Project ................................... 2-1
2.3 Consistency with the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3
2.4 Alternatives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ................. 3-1
3.1 Drainage/Groundwater/Grading ....................... 3-1
3.2 Biology ......................................... 3-10
3.3 Aesthetics/Visual Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-41
3.4 Traffic Circulation/Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-46
3.5 Air Quality ...................................... 3-64
ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-1
4.1 Alternative 1 - No Project ............................ 4-1
4.2 Alternative 2 - Modified Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-2
4.3 Alternative 3 - Reduced Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-6
4,4 Alternative 4 - Off-Site Alternatives ..................... 4-7
4.5 Conclusions ...................................... 4-10
EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT........... 5-1
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL........ 6-1
IMPACTS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM........ 7-1
USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT . . . .. 8-1
WILL RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED 9-1
PROJECT
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................. 10-1
REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . .. 11-1
CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND LIST OF........ 12-1
PREPARERS
ii
IIt1 -19 ~
I
I LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Follows
I No. Title ~
2-1 Project Vicinity Map 2-1
I 2-2 Site Plan 2-1
3-1 Vegetation and Sensitive Resources 3-11
I 3-2 Expected Zone of Perceived Threat Impacts 3-33
I 3-3 Key Observation Points 3-41
3-4 A: Southern View of Site From "F' Street 3-41
I B: Southwest View From Nearby Restaurant
3-5 C: Northeast View Towards Site 3-41
I From Bayside Park Near "G" Street
D: Southwest View Towards Site
I From Interstate 5, Southbound
3-6 E: Southeast View Towards Site From 3-42
I Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center
F: Southwest View of Site From "D" Street
I Adjacent to Jade Bay Mobile Home Park
3-7 G: Southwest View From Condominiums 3-42
Located at Chula Vista Street/Woodlawn Avenue
I, H: Northwest View Toward San Diego
Bay From Project Site
I' 3-8 Existing Year 1990 ADT (in Thousands) 3-46
I 3-9 Existing Street Network and Traffic Volumes 3-49
(in Thousands) Year 1990 Conditions
- 3-10 Future Street Network and Traffic Volumes 3-54
(in Thousands) Year 1992 Conditions
3-11 Future Street Network and Traffic Volumes (in Thousands) 3-57
I Buildout Conditions With Project Trips
4-1 Alternative 2 - Modified Design Site Plan 4-2
I 4-2 Alternative 2 - Modified Design Grading Plan 4-2
I 4-3 Alternative 2 - Modified Design Subterranean Garages 4-2
Cross Sections
I iii
111-/1.3
I
I
Table
I No.
2-1
I 3-1
I 3-2
I 3-3
3-4
I
3-5
I 3-6
1 3-7
I 3-8
3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
liST OF TABlES
Title
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Existing Year 1989 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
1990 Existing Levels of Service, Year 1990 Conditions -
Signalized Intersections
Existing Year 1990 Conditions Unsignalized Intersections
Levels of Service
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis, Existing And
Year 1992 Conditions with Project Trips
Summary of Study Area Intersections Levels of Service
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis, Build-out
Conditions with Project Trips
PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU Analysis Build-Out Conditions
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Chula Vista Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary --
1984-88
iv
,,,-/9'1
Follows
~
1-2
3-49
3-50
3-51
3-54
3-54
3-57
3-58
3-66
3-66
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix
A
B
C
D
E
LIST OF APPENDICES
Notice of Preparation and Comments Received During Circulation
Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Rohr Industries Office
Complex Southwest Corner of "F' Street and Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista,
California; Drainage Study; Foundation Design Criteria
Report of Biological Resources and the Potential Impacts of Development of
the Proposed Rohr Office Complex Site, Chula Vista, California
Circulation/Parking Technical Report
Air Quality Impact Analysis, Rohr Office Complex EIR, Chula Vista,
California
v
IftJ -195
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
III -If'
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 IN1RODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
All governmental discretionary actions defined as projects by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) require environmental assessment. Those actions which could result
in significant physical impacts to the environment require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
This document is a focused EIR which addresses the potential impacts associated with
development of an office complex on an 11.6 acre site in the City of Chula Vista. The
purpose of this EIR is to provide an accurate and concise informational document which
analyzes the environmental consequences of approval and development of the proposed
project. The EIR is not a decision-making document, rather, the information herein is
intended to provide guidance to the City of Chula Vista decision-makers in their
consideration of approval of the proposed Rohr Office Complex.
The scope of the EIR was determined by the City of Chula Vista after preliminary
evaluation to identify issue areas of potentially significant impact (see Section 5.0 of this
document for issue summaries of topics not further addressed). Potentially significant issues
include:
. Hydrology/Drainage/Groundwater
. Biology
. Visual Quality
. Circulation/Parking
. Air Quality
The EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, and other
environmental summaries as required by CEQA
The lead agency for this project is the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. CEQA
defines the lead agency as "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project." The City has solicited comments from responsible
I-I
90-14.003 01/24/91
/fI-/9r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
agencies and interested parties regarding potential environmental effects by use of a Notice
of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comments received as a result of its circulation
appear in Appendix A.
The environmental consultant responsible for the preparation of the EIR is Keller
Environmental Associates, Inc. of San Diego, California. Preparers of and contributors to
this report are listed in Section 13.0.
This report is a Draft EIR. Upon completion of the public review period of the Draft EIR,
the receipt of public comments, and the Planning Commission hearing on the Draft, the
Final EIR will be prepared. The Final will include this Draft as well as the public
comments, and responses to the comments. Prior to making a determination on the project,
the EIR will be reviewed and considered by the Chula Vista City Council (decision-makers),
who then have the authority to certify the EIR. Project approval is a separate action. If the
Council approves the project, and the EIR defined significant, unmitigable impacts, then
Findings of Overriding Considerations must be made, with substantial evidence present to
support the Findings. .pil,iil!h~;~[~ji~tl[~p~[9X~II~Im;~ril~lf![.1~1~lt!~
Nti6<iafl6ii:mMQmtbWtlii%Pf6iiliiimi:t6i";f!tf~alji!lkt:&ilfi$:alit:;'iiii(li:fifibffittlf:IthlJi'iisuiiliessffi!
:,:,:,:,:,:,::::;,:,:,q::::,:,:,::,{::,:,:::::,::,,:,::::.:,,::::::.:::::.:::;:::::::::.::::,:,:,,:::,:,:,:,:,~1I~,t::::,:::::::::::::::,:::",,~~;:;:<::::::::;:;,::::::::;:::::;:::.:.,::.::,::.,:,::.,:,::.::::::,:::,:,:~:~~:,:::,:~::,::.,:,::::~it~:.:,..:.:,:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:,:':"':':".;.:,:.:,:,:.:.:.:."
Eg!ilt!HgM;R~D';I!~lg~HPP;I~~H[ii!
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPAcrs AND MITIGATION
This section provides a summary of the environmental analysis that was conducted for each
of the issue areas. Table 1-1 lists the potential impacts of the project and the mitigation
measures recommended to reduce or eliminate the impacts. As stated throughout the
report, all mitigation measures must be implemented and monitored via a Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
1-2
9().14.1J03 01/24/91
11# -/9 g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=
o
'.;:l
gb
'.;:l
~
~1
,
jj
....
o
[
tIl
11
k~
i~
J
:1
:il
i
~
-
..;
"
o
]
~
~
~
!2.
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q
~
~
~
u
"
"
"
~
..
~
~
"
~
o
Z
J
, ~.c
" c:_
co'''' .
0'- ~ E
u:ijc,g
e = .S
o 8 u ll.)
..:: Q.) ;;.~
'0 e 'go g
OJ Q.) 0 ....
'H .... u e
il""o.
g.ll.-'O
D 11) ~ ~
IU '5 .- 0
~ '00.
ca c::: 0 0
CIl Q.) 0 ""
tl ." 0;:: 9-
ca 6h.&:: 1J
0. u"
e ~ 5l'0'
.- .- ....
.... '0 (1) Q.,
c: g e ca
~=8'O
.- " " 1ii
". u bO
.~~ 0 5
.... .....-
= is! i:'!i;
.s1l~~
~ !i; 8 ~
~ e 8'~
ti
..
0.
.5
e
!l
!to
.~
~
"
..
-5
~
3
.S
~
..
.0
"
.9
~ ~
.g t
'0'0
1ii 8
eo;::
" ~
l~
.~ ~
'0 II
E ~
~ ~
.. ~
II ..
o "
8'-
~ ..
0.'8
.~ ~
_ 0
!l ~
'" ..
'g B
i>--
g .~
'8'S
0.. Ii!
c=~~
!l-e
~ bO"
. c: t:
:a "
.- !l "
~tl~
-'" '" ~
Q.) Q.) .~
.!: 5~
.. .'" u
-;;s;:!
e'O
8H
'0 ~
B ~ '0
~ .. E
0= Q.) 0 .
'.0 J:;l tl 'B
.s ~ bO'O
'5 e.13 ~
" ~.:<j !l
8 tl II ~
.. "
_ o.~ >
co e 0 0
-=.... bJ)
e ~.~'13
Q.) :.0 0 C'I:l
to!.. ti
.s.g!l8'
ti
..
.~
e
!l
~
~
"
.s
~
"0 = ~ "0 0 .
~ 'I::' ~ c:: ~ =-
o :s t;i ca "0 fi
8'~~~~0~
.... .... ....... E
o..U'J Il) Q.)
" ~"= e $l 0
... c::1.:: t\:....
:.; ca ~ ca ~
~-6~~Bu
.0"" '0>>
ca ~ e ~rQ.) 8
1lt!-5..a.-
g ~ ~ ~~ B
.5 ~~.15.a
~.ctlOa~O~
.0 t: C Q.,.::l
" .. t! !l.8
.S:::e ~ 0 c: 8
.... Q.) -.... 0 u
5-s"'g"O'.oca
'0 bll ca ~ 5 B
'O'2~'u;o5
-g~'eiU"O.o
ca c: "C 't:l IU IS
5 E'o~~ 5l
....00.0 ,-
~ "'" .... 0 VJ ....
f/l-;;: e ts ~ B
.508oc:~
e c ...... .c: 's.....
"025~<<Io
~ c.... -= '0
t: IV ca "0 0 ~
B ~ ~ " u <>
VJ ... B S ti l:i
II,,) 0..::) ~.c: co
~fe~ON
'E2~~
c'=--
e 0 B .S
"0 -g .... ~
B .. ~ 0;::
.5 ~ 0 B
e":!2ll
l:i !;b 5 ~
c ~ ~ 0
8 '" ~ =
o ~ ..
e.r::'~ .~
0."" 0 l:::
..:: :s: e- 0
bO"" "0 =
c: .E .... 2
:a"05~
~~.e..c::
Il,1 cc 0 Cf.)
""' 0.. Cf.) ;:
~cc"8::a
cc-"'" ....
0.. 0 CC ilJ E
EOO'E~:::"
'-.S <> Iii
="5i:= I: ~
B;.g~b,O
!6 e gj olI .13
a. 0 - ,- .19
r.n~g~Qj
/lI-/f'
ti
..
0.
.5
~
~
"
~
<>
"
<>
'"
~
&.
e
!l
'"
.~
.,.
Iii
-5
ill
"
...l
SO! " - g .
i5' ~ eli .~~
-. 0 ~
]'H~5.b,O
;;;~ir'O~
.- = Q c: CC
;g ..E ~.~ 0
o ilJ .-:::
',= J:)' "0 ilJ
CC 'i;;i 8 c: of:
~ e.;; 8.s
6b..~
..Et:&jilJS
l ~'b ~"8
-l! -.- "e li
!l u ~
~'2,g~o.!!
..E:..c:..... ""' ilJ
1:: ~ >- Ii! ~
cc ..... J:) cc ....
ilJ 8"0 O.e-
bOb,OoE"O
.5 Cf.) ~ c:.g
"E~6..9::l
~.=: fi'i_u
~ 5l ........9-1.5
~g'H'g~
.9U~'O,"
- ,,'''' " ~
.g~2-gE
!~~~~~
o ~ e 8"';
~o~~~
- 0 ::l "00..
<~t!1ii~
o
,....,
""
o
~
<J)
~
~
Ii
1
c:
e
CI
g1l2.E~e;;B~
'q:!2ll:g~li
0.._ ::l ii ~..IIIl If.!
ilJ =- ~ .0.."8 ~ -.:g e
.c:._ 0.... - ::l
.... 1i ~'':: ~ ilJ ilJ ~
B-e'iii;oSJ:)J:)e
llii8..15;a~:slo.
1J:;.g~.s~g....
~tii~~.gll~'&.
5..c: c: c: Ci; Cf.) ='
e cc ..... .9 g :; ilJ
cc.,::: _ ~ _..... :; c:
If.! c: 0 "0 ~ If.! 0
11" ,,~ ll'-
ccog=,.S~el1
o..o..'-..E:E~ e
e -t::.- .....
.- <.f.) 0 0 =. e:- <.f.)
......-:= c.. c: J:) cc g
c: <.f.) _ .....~"O c: c: u
B2-c:-oo..!.
'-= 0' cc ilJ = .- <.f.)
'-"0 E ra,g s:; 0
a.>-~~", !'lo.
';j cc <( 0.. t ~
= Q:l .:::...... 5.1J ~
cc ilJ ....... cc ~ e ilJ
..c:of:,u-cie-5-oE
..... ~ ilJ cc = .cc .... 0
~e~'O~~""-
o c: CC._ 0 4) = t::
~ 0 toof: to ~ 8 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
&~
]~
'""'
~
Q)
.~
=
8
'-"
....
,
....
.!l
i
~
I
~
:1
:i
-~ ~"';
~ 'g ~
5 0."
" " S
.... u e
~1;
= 0-
.g 15:<
G ~ ~
~~5.!!1
ol-oe~
Eo..obll
ll.l 5 'E .5
'g '0 ~ ~
tb'::ct;
.0 ~ 0
1;] is '-5 ~
" ~-
.~ ~S B
= ~ ~ 5
c::r ~ c.
e~~"H
13 ii! t! ;;;
:t: _ 0 ....
Ul 0 c.. 0
'~~e"~
it' 5 B.5
"O-..bno
~"O c:.D
,o;.Sl1ll
~
s~r8e
._ :3 Ul
.~~ ~ ~
;g ~'O 3
~ 8 ; s
1
'0 =
" 0
'C
'013
,,'0
.0 ~
~g
= .-
s "
=.0
0-
.- ~
tl =
2 S
t;j e
= ~
o ~
" '"
--"
ooS
.5 ~
'0 .-
~~
00...:
'S ;:
.g ~
13 1;l
~ =
" 0
= :
= 0
8.c .
Ii 0.;
~130::
'" ~
o " 00
.. - =
"0 CI:l._
Il,) ~ 'i
- " ~
~'Oc:l
3"00
" =.0
'" ,,-
ti
"
0.
.5
"
"
i
~
=
'"
oS
3
. "
"'0
~.I:;>
.5 U
E..o
'0 ~
" "
,,~
~ 0
= 0
~~
.g ~ .
~,,"""'E
1; " ~
!j.o_
-0
'O=~
C '- iU
"'0.0
"",,-
.S 5 ~
'0' =
'" " s
""
0081;
~~g.
lit = ~
fi'~'B
~ "'01
~ ro oS
.12 0. II
,g"O....
c ~ ~
" ~ ~
e c -=
e .sa <<l
0--
II ,,-
.... -g ii
= =
:(.B8
.;1
:5
."
B~~~-S
C'I:l ... .c 0..
o o..~_.g
::l ~ u is''
"'0 c:E "0 ~
,=:-8aee
='- g = ll.l
~ ~~.~ ~
0- e "
>--- -s
<<l "'0 0 Il,)
S.g5~oS
tl ~B .'~
" ",,0( ~ .:
c..= .ceo
.5:8.~ l;..2
~ :!2 Ii '0
... Il,)._ bO
c:: ti ::! 04,)...
Bco-:-:..o"Cll.l
I;:N"'...... 0
.~...<os~;;;;::;
'li.j i- "g:::: :J: .?;>
11) to r.::::: 1IJ
>.'" blI r.:'"
:= e.5] e
.~._~t':l-g.~
=!:l"o.'5<<lO
o 1-0 t,.) ....
08:...._-8:
~ co ~ 0 a <<l
'8
c:l
'0
;
"
...
~
I" -,}.() ()
III 0 U'-
"';l~~e"
etba.g2
0.0 e:a bn
1) 1;] .... "0 c:
...... 0 C'I:l .9
ee~b08
::1,_""" c:: :=
'd g.iE't:--g
2 e l\) &....
t;i ~ c... 0
I-t == <<l ='.:0
o 'I::'.c Vl c::
..........::s: ~ >. <<l
-g <Il 5l "B !3
<<l.,!::: ""' C'I:l =
f<ll ~~.~ e
&'0 - "
'O==~
'" 5 ~
~ c' c..
.... ,2.5a ~.5
!f ~::I E
c::..... c...... =' .
~oe.Et)=
~~8~2e
!eci~-:~
~ " ~ oo..e. il
~ B e..9 "g c::
-"l 5 !!'II " 0
r.:lO _ .-
-= 12tl
'0 oo=~ 2
e~.goea
.~~~.~ll~
6btl'O"'~-
~5eG"58.
ti
"
.~
is
13
-=
'&,
."
....
~
....
S
'"
....
<::
...
....
8\
=
"
oS
~
.3
Cl:l "'0 C II> r--- '> 0
.c;.~-s~;S.s
'" - '" ....'
I-< 4) ~ ~~ ~ ;:::
~~,=='c~~o
"':::;o"'O=, ~"O
Cl) .c: Cl) "0 C il,)
-S-~ie.g~]
~ 'g.5 ? -g 'E ~
'C CIS ~ ;:s CI:l 1;1..'
" '" '0 0 "'''
c::t:;l1)OO'Sa,o
"8..o.5'O~-
O""''OQjs:a
5asLi.5l;3E
s:::::: c:: 1'0_
.:l ,.g =' 11 e. _= 2
'O_5Q)o~:s
~ c'Cl:l '0' U '-' :a
'O~e~:e'C"'sQl
=] It)... 0 0::...
Cl:l I-< _._ ~. VJ
.:: "'O.,~ 0:2
'Cij c bll ~ iU f-l
... ";l co.5 .....c
o!j""Eo.-.
~.!!I.s"o;'o13
is c.. ~ g.'g _ c
.ell ~'O ~~~
!a 10-0 = CIS~"
K.~ocoCl)' -
::; c: Il>.c::::: Q.,
]s.Sg-Q.5
..... ~.-_S!"6..=~~'2 S! d
B::;.s= __tC
" "'._'- "1lI 0::
'~~o'~~~::;bl)
;.:::l ~ .... e .... :c e ,g
iU'~e:Il>Be5~
~ .0 'g, ~.~ e.o: ti
o
....
""'
o
N
Q)
~
~
Q.'~ 0
~ ,,-
.~ ~.!
G ob'S
l::: = ~
g;a"'O
" " ~
.. ~ ~
8 00 @ "
~'S 0 @
::l ::I ~ 0
ell "O:e '"
= .c: a:l .5
? 5 bb e
g::;;""il
i;' II>'~ '5
E oS co II>
" ";.0
1jB~1l>
co.s.g-s
g. - ""' c:
.::l 5 Q., u
.... e.r:;..c:
c:: ._ ~ ~
G '0 - ...
!;i 1;l .11 oS
ShOO 1:: S
V5;!.e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
.h
i~
"'""
"0
~
.~
8
'-' '
....
,
....
~
~
~
~
,~
1:
6
~
~
"
'"
::
]
J
:1
:i
Il.) Il.) ~ 0 0 Cl) 5
,o-5o~r---5-...
~ ~.5 B . B -g
e:.a '"" '2 "0 .5 C'll
._ Il.) 0 c:: C "0
" l: c e.!;! 0 "
5 co Il.) c '0 '':: "0
,o,,~'t;jo~.e~
... ::I'''' ==:>:
.~.S; e 1j ~ 0,) 8
1:$"~E~t'O
~-5._~'O ~
0'" u 8
s.. 0 Il.) t;> 8 .8
coe--5-g'c.g~
~ '" ." bb "
v'O".-"oe
c:: c:: C ca .... ....
Cl:l ::l Il.) .::.5 C s::
i],o~Il.)':c
~E:E11::g.8
9i!;1l.)-'ghu:.1u
-t:l'-o,....o..c:
.... Il.) 0 - :::I "0""
B:t;c:.2JG='obiJ
Vlu.2.co~ 5
1:$.!l1:$"'O_8.'~
'" c 2'" ,,'- 0 II
~""'~"E;;-5j
.- 0 c:: tILl Il.) E
""::8tsC::.o,,,.~
" ,- " - '"
._ ~ "" e 'O~", .. ~
"00 c: = .... ll.)_
I"Oj'co :;;~o.
6b ::luu.c::u.c:
~'OQ,.,,,, ~"'."
c: U t:.... 3"" :s:
P2'l:i:g.",,-d''O
.... c:,:>... c: Il.)
o..'liJ.ssut;e.!~
= .... Cl.} ib co ... >
~8~.s.g~~8
j
'0 0
g:
...""
B Ii
'Vi -;
" 5
0'.::
1l'6
:;;'g
~ 8
" "
"''0
." 0
" ~
~ .5
" ""
fi .5
0'0
~ '"
~ !;b
1:1 .... cO
(Ij c: ~
0. 8 '"
Jl.~ "
5 ~:~
~ ~ jg
!S.=1>\
So ~ .~
.... Il.)..c:
'" ~ -
N'
,.;
"
o
'il
"
'"
~
>-
;
~
E P 8
B :;; 1:$ 'fl
<<i "0 2 a
o.;~~
R- o.g.
...... '0 u coo:
,5 ~ 1:$ e
Cl:l II) ll) Il.)
""' ..c: '0' oS
'0 _ ~
,,., ",;0.
"" eo .. 1:
'0 ",
0':: "0 t: ~
e id 8;
:2~rI).~i
~~'~15~
Il.) "0 = .e:
"dg.o2~
'sii.5.~ ~
s...E~~~
'g 0 ';l C ::l
~ ~ CI,) '; s;
&,u-s.o'O
o.c:: Co) Il.)
.... .... '- bO.e:
0...5 0 ~ ~
ll) of t! '(; B
~ 'n -6 ;
g
I(,,-~DI
~
.~
1:
6
~
~
~
::l
~
.~
.i
.~
~
o
g-
o.
o
Z
b B "='
co u g.
~.g .-
o~t
o ~ ~
::::E~
B 0 rs .
"Ov.t::s
~058a
1rC, ~ s;
u ~ ~ ~
:;;.. ....'"
<I'l ~ 0 "0
1:$. "
<<l Il.) C,ca
0. '" 0
5 .... '.0 U
..... ~.E 1;
" ""C ~
6",--0
I: .~ g 3
:~ ~ ~ ~
f/:l.c Q.) 0
; ~ ~ -
~ ~'QJ ~
.:s'O-se
ti
'"
0.
.5
'"
~
".
~
<;
".
<;
'"
'"
~
1:
6
~
~
"
'"
::
::l
~
il8.:E~~
06-"0"0
.g, ~ ,is 'i ~
~ = "0 ;;>
".:3 1>\ ,is OJ
-5 Q.) =' ~ g
~ .c f/:l e ....
. - QJ 1;
_ = '0 0 z
'Ii ,- " -
QJ ~ ~ ~..8
>'0_0-
o='t'tItb.c
!;bu.~ ."
=.s = = :s
.~ Q.)'c,~ =
5i ,t:J 0.. C':l .2 lti
o..ts: Q.) 0..1; (,,)
'C " :: 'C ,is ;
'Oe~.~'E=
Q.) 4j -5 g B
~g:~'O"'~
.... " ~ ~ 'lib e
- 0 ~ " ~ ""
0'= QJeo.s
.....t'tI_ .2"0
ol):e~-""
e ~:J C':l "" C':l
e>;;~e
'c .;@::s t
'::1.2= ts:OD
I:: e ~ ~ e ;g
C'll (;j .c e C'll
'" ",- '" l'l::E
.~ l:)I) i _ c u
:0 C'll C'll!3 I:lO
C'll.S=~'~o~
~e.si~B
_"CQ..,.c",,_
o
....
....
o
'"
~
~
~
OJ 'g ~ ~
~ .. - ""
C'll=~~
~ QJ QJ QJ
"'lltlC<:
o C'll,,2
~="l1':.::l
.E .~ ;; ;g
,g .2 ,g ~
-1:$~Oj
e-6'O=
8 e ~.g
... 0 '"
.::::CI:S-z
" " "
rl .- 1> "
"" l:)I)Q..-E
:!l.a e ,is
is "3 8 'll
"rl;o._
~:.]~
CI:S ::l-"""
(:l.o..5'u
.5.iS <; ~
5~:tb
~ 1; = c:::
'"' ~ "'.'"
;;;l.f:: "" C
S. f/:l 0 C':l
~.g .~.@"
__ _____________ _u___ -----
I
I ....
$-
ti ti ti ~
" " " <:;
I 11 "" "" ""
.5 .5 .5 ""
~ ;: ;: <:;
...
13 13 ....
~~ ~ '" '" g;
I '5, '5,
'<>'b ~ ~ ."
]~ " a "
" "
-5 -5 -5
~ ~ ~
I ~ ~ ~
" ;s.;s.t'~ ~'g;]~ oli;:.<allll c~~~.~s
,0
I ... e e fl ca coo "'C ;:: il,) bO- ;:: ~ ::).- c:
r.I'l"'r-o...u .e ;3 '5 .2 .g '0 '0 = "'C 0 U e 1::: ::) bO
e:S..c~~ c: IE 'C ;',0:: auise.E'2
~ " ts -fii .~ ,Jl iil II ,o'~
~ - - .....~'O"'C - "" ~5'2...~.B
.l! ~ d If ~~;~a :;J ~:: .0 0.. tiI ~ ~ ~u ~
.002- ,-'o.g~~
I .g ... il,) ~ 0 ~--",.;g "" 0 ::) .- ... E
r.I'l.c:' ... ca s:: 0 c: s:: o..";j E g E il,) il,) u 0 il,)
~ ~ ....c: u "'C c: ~.- ~ .213.= Zl.l! s 1f~] bO::)
o 0 ~ ~ ;:: ._ l;: .0 tl <<i ca ;:: c:: ... '8 5 . - ".5
0 ""-c:: ;'''''2€~ . c: .-...
~ e .$ c: ~ ....c: S il,) .... o ca ca.c: c c:
" iil.!1P.Q. ~ ;:: ... r.I'l E 0 e-ao::'~.ffi8
J ""l::: "~ - " ~ u'i.c..- -
I :a ... o..s. .2! .... ~ e = 5Eai~ 5'ObO Q.,t;j
e = c: ... 0..:S ''::: il,) ~ ._ .51:$ ::)
~i~.s~ o."d"",~ tl,,-geoliEd
e ::)',0::.0 ::) E.o.e.gu
~ ",," e ~ 8: ~ :a ~ l5 .;;" tl" ~ 2.g....c.a....o
"..... ~1;ICl811B'iJ
"Q :1 ] ca ~ ";j . ca r.I'l g. E ..... -5 .?; 5 ~.~ :a " '2 2
I "'!!J "
~ 'Ollc::il~S. llA .$ ~ ::c ]~~a.a .8~-5~.~~-
.~ "'C'O'uecae ::) ..c::o S u. c: ca ~ ~
c: ....c: u .5 ... ,,-;:;- ~.2 @ 8. ~ " ~ " ~ 0 0.. u 8 0
::il ca 0..... .... e Q,) ~B~-e o..bO fl ca]:8H,g~ca ...-<
c:I .~~B.~"'Cfl o lU = _.
8 r.I'l a il,) ca ....'-.C~5s "'" o.l! _ . 0 .....
r.I'l ....--u~ e:.::l u.c ..!5 0.. 0 ::I ~.~. 0
I '-' ~ l::::i.8 "'C e.o 8:fl'g a ~ c: "'C '- e B ~<l - " ;: ~ I "d-
o.. 0 0.. g ~ g .c:.S: ...: o.c. "'C . 5 lU._ U
~ " ~"'s . ",. E ~
...-< g,~~~.d! -tl--"g, ~~".gj," t. ~
~'B:.c~u c:: IV c:: 0
, G ~ l::::i ~'.g's.. _ .0::);:: tQ OIl
...-< co ca u . bO 'ESu:gti .2~iil"8il'.g '"
o..,g .- ~ Go) 5 .- 0 ...,
~ U1:::~'-'- c.."gc::.5~~ P"Ol.l!EQ~ ""
_ "'C ... > . - - "
I ~ ~e~.$'-~ -g~.g i~ 0.. 2 ca il,) ~~~iiilid "
colU ='"0'"
,0 8 5 ~~ "" 'H bl) Go) 0 U r.I'l .2
Eo- u ...... . r.I'l co -::l ~:.::l .~.= U.c: "'C ,oEi;'BE'8 1;1
::l "'C r.I'l .... Go)_ .g;~js~ .~ OIl "'C~'" c: c:o..oo.. g. .!1P
OIl u ... u U et':l:SCl)~:
B~'S~'~s '0 ca . 0...0 0 .~ ::l 5 'S::;l ~ E ~- ::l .~
.= ,,,'-llUl :a ~u'Ho'B
I ~ e 0.. r.I'l e' ~ ~ ~ 1$ -0 CI) CI) "g..e 6- e'~ "0 ... U u !::l i) .... "
~~,;ee] ~;.:..- o~ c:..s F~B~-5,o <..EE.o:.oOco z
E '" ." rJ 'Ot::r~!';::B B 1::: 0 ~.... CI) <Ii .;;-
I o c: .0 'l "'g ~ o~,,,,~-Se ~~
.. .. S" ""'"3 ~
~ ,0 " rz.~= '-::I
~~" 1;1
rJ .. ] : ~,~] :a u i> "'C 0 '0 !=
bl) :I '0 'E =: 0 1) :i .:::: > _ 6\,
" :'il ~,o ':; E 'll ,0 - ... ... OIl 0 :I ~
:E lj '; ,g ~ .- """ " "~rJ ~~
I o ~ " -~,-l5<<i ~e~=OIl""=
~ ~'" ~:S:EGo)-gca-g
" E " " ~ 0 _
~ 0 ~ .- ElUO"-:::O ._ ~ co ~ 0.. r.I'l ~ a .~
" e~~s~ -; u r.I'l 5 ca OIl
_lU,:::: .:; -
~" 5 ~ """ 0.$,0'" e " :iO
t)=:bO CI) C :I CI) O"~-"~l"
ca ~ .5 .... '::::-=5"'C:O .... Go) OIl 0 . ::: " tl
I i """,,~ " :I . U ca o bDlU'-F:=co - "
E'"O lU u ~out'.-=: ~ a.c:'1ii I;b "" ~ on
.- " "" iI ... = -s .... a .c: ... o. 0 -g '3
" ~ .. "" _UC:fr~""OO
_~"'C~ "'C ....!';:: 0 p ~ '" ,0 ~ ,5 """
:; ~ 0:-:0 .5 .E -d
c: bO c: "'C Oil,).c:~co _ Go) '0 .... CI) co
I ~_co= "~1;Ill'il o.g~ofl-d'-t:l ... .... ~
i::::= r.I'l co r.I'l '€ -8 !::l ~ :~.c:g.5='o " " "
'. 0 - l! 13 -
Q;::~c -g~1:$:.o..... u ~ U'1jj .e- = c: ~ ~ell
';;j 2 ~ &. 0.. u... 0 !. :I ~ e:a bB.9
E '" .!l " ~ J ~ "
'C rJ .d ._ c: "'C .c: 0 5~ Go);S.$'; 'W; 0 a
I >. BE": r; ... lU c''5- '_~~'OE-gB ,," .
= ~ 0 co co c: r.I'l'- _ co ~ B 8 ~.::: 1;b0l ,,~
'!!!'e':: l5 ~ G.g~~.~. ,Jl ~''::: ~
= 'S: ~ <: '0 .- r.I'l t:: '61> g e 0 ~ 1:$ is - """,
o.s.cca.c: ._._.::::-o~ .- ~..!5 u ~.~ '8
fo-S:;"'- Go)' .~
... c 0Il.c - So tl iil " II ,0 0=- ~ 0 ~
~ 8 ~ ] .5 .- C,) ll,) o.c: ... en:E E !._ .a a ~8
I tr.l 0...... ... _ 0
I I ~ ..~() ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
~~
i~
:;-
o
.~
8
'-'
....
I
....
o
i
E-'
ti
~
0.
.5
;:
G
S
So
.'"
"
~
.:;
:r<
~
J
:1
~
:l! "
~.:;
- e
~~
l'l ~
.g.?!'
'0
.c'"
u ~
:2~
it:] ...:
~..... B
'iji '0 ~
" " "
"0 :E .j::
~ :: 'll
"0 ~ ~
B it: ~
.~ ~...
.o-.e,
=' C::._
~ o.c
~ ~ B
..c: "'6b=
-= .... 8
~ 0 ~
.~ .!l:s"
8;.e '"
to:l,B]
.i~~
e.ia: tlO5
o.'lli:>
Uc:-:l
~e.E
J
,,~ ~
000
't;j VJ ~
==~
o ~ "
~ S 8-
o ~ 0
::-"00
;;; ~:3
:9.s,e
:r< '0 e
o _ ~
0. ~ il
" 0 ~
.c.c~
- ~ ~
I ~ 5
tl g '0
E. 0 'i
.5 ~"
;:e~
G I .!l!
S ~ g .
So .- '0
._ :;;; :r< "
<,t)._ cc '"
"ii.Ebb:)
.- v u
= U ia:,c
".c''ll ~
- - ~
&.: c:: B
..:'~ e ~
ti
~
0.
.5
;:
G
S
So
.'"
"
'"
.:;
~
~.:a ofi lU 'B ~,g ; rs ~ 'B
~.c'-~", -- e",."
o .~ .c .- .....!:l..1;::: u.i:
.s'i ~~:5 B 5 B'o~!
E .~ ~ 0 'C ~ E ~ t':l"O
.!:! cc e ~ .~ H -a ~ =' -5 -; ~
,C tb ~~ Cl c:: s:: t'C ll) .... 0 ~
'm e >,U =3':=;: eo;; ~
&.p..;~~ j:);~E.g II) ~ ~
5=:-:lu8~",,=-S8Q..
.:a E,c~..=.; ~ B'O ciS]
,,,.,OJ ~ l:l @.g.5;c: 0-
c:: co a:J = C'-l U....El U -=
.g ~ .O'.s ~ u a a'g ::s: ~ 0
~ ~e a<; it:;E ot:'= ~'t> >-
"0 <,t)Z~"O""'oo;B~t:
g,~:E u ..~ u~_~~ B
a:r-.......s.e-~ "0 - 0.. O;.:::l 0
"0 ~ ~ '0 U -g 5 ~ "ii l5..;g,::,
'0 is.. " l'lOj "'.$ 2.E'o~;:
uu.Sf,,)s.c....ov.....-G
..... ~ .... ....._.:a c .r:: c::: t':l:.=
t'!l.'""cc=.....~uut-'lu=o..
1! 'll'!'~z . e" . e.9 0.
I t::'- U Ct.:l u.r:: :a 0 ii co
"ii u e ~-g~ tb~'~ t?Pz u
.;C:::5-5<<luC'lle/i,c;e-=
C'CI ~ <<1'= t':l e '"
'0 e-~.~; ~ ~ ~ u s.c
'0 6 ~ 8.~ !ii ~ II '\l -g 6 1a
.: ~.5:; tl Re ~'1:l 00.
" lS "b.c 'C 5" .5 ~.$
.9 "e" b OJ ~ .1<l '0 .9 .ll 1<l 6
-; c'=OQ'--"O"'u~
.~.!! 0 5 III t: t':l ~"3 e.,;::\"C
..... Q.,..... ... .u ..... '':: 0 "C l.r.l'=
'-eo 0,'::= 0:;:1'= cc'"
::E,_C::Q.,o~ot::-5.i<<lo.,e,
C: ~ (';> U
_ Q. '"" .c::
is 0 Q.,.....
~ !l.. 0 e
.c - 0
~ U .::
U :::I <Ii
';~"C8's
~ c:: c:: ~
E III .S ,g Q.,
<<I ~ '"" tltl
U l.r.l~~ B ~
.gB~:6~
l.r.l"C"C"C.E
~a~au
Q., l.r.l '<i! ::
.5 .g E ,~ S
....._"olj~
c:: 0 <<l 2 <<I
G 8 " - ~
!oS c ~ ~ ~
So:l!:;'O:S
'<i! ~ 8 'Pi.$
Q., ~ ~ -
~"o ~ 0
- ,,> "
'!~]~g
:l'g qj:l!
o ~ ~ ::I ~
Q., <<I.... C Q.,
/I" - ~ ().:J
ti
~
0.
.5
;:
G
~
.'"
"
~
.:;
~
tl .:
" 0
" .-
:c-s
ei
o "
.l: >
~.o
.~ ~
0."
~ .is
- ~
00"
'2 '0
t1J-8
~ 0
.0]
EE
8~
~ Iii
1l_
~1!
.0 ~
:;;;;::0
~ -
~ ii
~ ~
tl.=
~'O
0."
.5 oS
,,~
~ 0
~ ~
=: .~
~
0.
.5
;:
G
~
~
"
~
.:;
~
~]~
<<1"0'::::
'"":; 0
00"
~~~
e t:~
<<I~t)
-5.i...J~
la . ~
;::0 ~ oS
e'" "
8 ..s 0
~"::-
~.:; 'C
~ ~ ~
"O:is
" ~-
'll e 1l
:6 ~ '3
u ~ g-
oO " ~
~ :: e
.~U
.a't: u
;:riil':;
u 0 e
"'~; "
:s tl " tl
; ~ 'a 2
oe~t;j
ti
~
0.
.5
....
~
...
S
<>
...
<;:
...
....
8\
;:
G
S
So
.'"
!ii
.:;
~
~ OIl oo.c
~.s .5 .'i'
,_ "0 Q.,::S:
: n e
eq!l
<<l e _ c::
00,,8
'.g .:: ~ co
0. ~ ~'I
.,g c:: ::I-
.... '; l.r.l
- ~
.$ S ~ '0
u
:uc"C
U.c:: B a
.5 -._
lSR<8;6';
"811~'6bg
.:a.c; U'-
o g '"" -i
-5i .... '0' u .c::
e .... '"":: 5
.... c Q., ....
,,'Mu:S.@
eE~~e
U:::I U Q.,
~ l.r.l ..; _ tltl
.:::~e'i~
o ~g n
!liS..; 8 is..
!ii ~.e ~ 0
c:: <<l co....
~'~ '€'r= ~
';'2B.~~
;::o.~ G e ~
o
....
"-'
o
Ir)
o
bll
<<l
....
'O~e";5
6 ill' ~ g e;-
.... u 0 ';. B
'i~g.e]
~u-g:~
'fi t'd B lj
.,g's:: l.r.l '':: Cl:l
.... :::I cu &E
B"g'""e!ii
" 2:~~,g
-60-:0:<<1
l.r.l ~.c B l;>
~.- tltl,g e
g.lUe~
.::l .t:: ; Q.,c:
c: co t;j ,g -a
B.c:.c~u '
!;l ::l '" " > l'l
'6i,l:: 6'0 gg'iij'~
,_ '"" ~ <<l C 0...
l.r.l 0 l.r.l C) c!:: /,If"
.i!;>:O- fi ,t:l 0 tltl
-; c:: i; B C::.5
.~ <<l '"" e '0 t)
U"C :- ~ 0..
~.E~~~~
I
I " - ...,
~ ~
"""
0 ...
ti tl ti ti ~
" " -" " " <:::
I 1-1 0.. 0.. ~ . 0.. 0..
.s e - .s .s ...
._ _ c
C - 1l C C <:::
" i '"
1l 1l:! . 1l "
ti " ...,
k~ '" ",,,, !5 '" ~
.~ .- '0 .- :~
I g:." ~ .!! .~
~
]~ ~ 'Vi ~~ " ~ ~
" a .~ .. " "
" '0 " "
.; ~1i..:!! '" .; .;
~ " ~ "
I ~'S e " ~ ~
j j 5. 8 " j j
~
~ ... III 0 tl
o 1iJ ....
I --5 b'";; 0..
"0
i:' ~ '- e "
~ 0.. 0 e "
~ c e 8 "
1l " "
I " ~ F 1>1 e
~ ~ ~ ~
.- 0 e '"
i! o..bh "
" " ~
:s .... '-.c:: 0
CIl"C:SO ~
co u'- ~
J iU'- :s "
I e"'"" 0
_ ;J: v U 'ij
oc:.c:;:$ 'S
t: 0 ... co .
8~'O'~~ ~
"
:;- ~
:1 !5'B;9vg "0
I <U "
,~ ~-;lI).c.8 "
'll"il'ill>, e . 0
~ s..g~ee ,,"0 .....
= ~"
8 iU ._ U C 4-<
I .~~-5~'5 ~ " 0
'-' 1l"O ":= c! b b o..!j
I:: co E..! ~ 0 c:'a \Q
... :~ ~ I <U
, ",s"Oie e .s
... '0,...:.. B u ~
.!l ;;uglU- .~ " ~~ p.,
I .gj--=-e "
i 1 .~ " " 'ill
.s C':l u 0 Q., 0 " ~
- e e
Eo- = coO .... tlO 1;1 "
e.51 il].5 g- .eIl .~ 5 8
" ~ tl ~ .~ 'e - "
c..~1iJo~ 0.. 'U
I 0 0 ~
e.-"llo z z ~ ~
_"'Cc:: u 0..0..
,g'<;::'Ooc !5fl.::l1:!.e-B ]-"0 e ~ B.!::: ..c: .; !5
go., "
I o:!!8".g - .~ ~ " C "0 8.ue ". ~,s~~~
.... 0 t$ t'd "0 il " " E!~ "il E
l! t: ~
'Bu;~:; =e"'O'OBu e ~ 'C5 i';.8 ..:::; ~ ~
ti3:2ClSg. ~ 0 "3 B ~ o..e_ 0.13 0..
~u~:2o. u ~ ca -~ o :s d) <.fl .....
E-5~'E'OC: ",,,fj' 1l 0 -.- "-~ 0
.~ CIS:S!5 " .- 8. "0]1::
I t::.... "0 - 8 U'.I..2 -"0", ,~ ~
_ ,5 ~ ~ ' ~,,- o 0 lU. CI):.o =
a 0 c: u = .- .0 o!: . .
o 1-0 III .... .s-=~t)ClS ~- l~ ~;g ~
" 8. ~'- " 8 "" o..e
~ .... "o.....c C'll.~ c'O''5iJ3
.:<l '_ F 5. 1l _ c:: u 0 co Q...~ II ca.g t:: _ "
,~,~~ d 1 ~ ~ g. ~ u .5, l! ~ " II ~ "'~
e tl 0"0 " " e.... cid ...
I 1 "0 c:: 0.... . -81)~-5~::l 0..<<150 o 8 "e 0
r::l = ..a 0 II) E,,~ "0-"0 U C '';: ~ ~.. rI).g~=u
.s..c:~e~-==- .fl g. ll:qi If a -5ll.l.gt'd ~~ ~:=" -g e
... iU (0 'ii
fo~ 1: $'.....= 8,-,'0 .....3= 1;1 t:: <<I~ ~" ~ e u ~,g
'5, " " 8 ~7:
:E .... =' = CI:l '0 rs ,g :B ~ ~ .; ,- '5,
.c:: aI i.o u ~-8.g . t) -E .
I o ~ en .,r 0 ~"tltl"ei ,:<l =. ~ .... Q. .... '""
o 8. CO g -8 0.. CO <<I e...::: ll) " - ~ il ~,5 il @
ts ll> CO c.. ill 1l "
:i.: t'''O r.tl 8. "0 :; bD"1 '2 'iI .~ 'VJ CO 0 .t:: "0 io.. i" :f
:"'" 0 U'l CJ Q.iU~-
"," ,'-' e .~"E U'l ~ .... cC7\ 01;; co;:. "0 .- ~ . "0"5' "0
'o'6h..e-.U~.!2Po e"'O -= 5 a " -
; 'C 8:s i'i'~ .- "0 ~ '--Jj' "
c:: e B 1:$ u .-=: of: ---g ~ ~ 0 0
I ~ Q. &.$' ~ c:: o 0 <<I Cl.) 1-< e co .e 5 <<I ~ 'll " E ~~ ~ ~ ~ .
.... cc: <<108 ''::; .... e '0' <<I "'0 "3 l: to) bO::t 6 ""0 CO"" <<I ~ r.tl
fo~~~-5.~ " .~ ~ 'jj " e g ts.5 ~ ~ II .- 'Ei,"" .~ "
5 "'" 0 0.. .... ~ .... co.... .-
::1"0 CIS & Ul 's B ""' e'iil fr 8 ~ Cl) 0..(,,) ij ~ 1;j 5 ~ 'S:
o l! ~" .- :.= 0.. R: 0 to-< lj '0' e := r: .... u Q.).... .-
F"e.;aF ~eco":::oco,g < ""' ::I 0 ~= e~~-g
I 0.."0 >
I I II -.:J () 'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""'
"Cl
I <l)
::l
.~
=
I ~
....
I
....
<l)
I -
~
Eo-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
~~
i~
J
.s
.~
~
~
..,
,.;
c:
j
~
1 I
~
~
I
ti
'"
"-
_5
~
'"
-tj,
.,.
c:
'"
-5
::<
j
]~~.s
'" '"
.= t) <Jl -=
c: bO.o~ "1';
.g 0 :5'
.. ~
I:: ~Vl CIl .e-
II Q, ~ -s
.0 't;l '= .5
o 0 I:U .....
> "0 c::: c:
"',..,.,,8
.c: il c:
ts '0' ra u
ra .... ~ e
c..c..o~
.5 ~ ::: 0
-- ."
C:.5 g-";:
13 _ ". <>
S fi :a C1.
Q,~'"
'VJ ~ t'CI-g
0.5 c: CC
::~ - ~
"'gp~'6ci
~'a = :; .g
l:! II rI) .0 '"
~ ~ r.. II 'G>
= .... 0: ..... >
.~ ~ ~"O..e
= t:: 0 "i3 ~
o :s -.- cc
.'" - '" -5i"
.~ tf E """"
.. il .ll OJ "
e!it .."
o e 1:: t:.~
zet:s~~
e"~~Il:!;'ll.<t.E
o,c w ~ "'" <<I ......S:P 0
~ r-- ~ co't: ~ r:x:
!it "'" .5 "
.... . [)cciUc..r,fJe..e
~ bO-. 0 "5'- !it '" -
c: :> 1-0 .... ~ [) .c::
:E] gp"-~.;: ll"~
'S CO t'CI ~...J'Q.._
"O.oo"a.5'--ec:
- "0 00"0 CC 0
g8';;j~==;ks81iJ
~ '" e := ">'.0" .Ol
'6oCl)~"9.08g
Vol _~Vl~ 'Su
t5"O.!:!-~olO'ocS
~~:ge:C-g..o 5
e~.~oc:::"'\U'H~
.- - > !t: t'CI c..-E !JJ c:::
e 0 U ell II) 0
... c...Cl 'S: = .c: 0 0...5
t:: i3 C":I--o
13 " .~ E ~ ... ~ 5.:<"
s..s u~~i) ~
Q,_ .~.,. il 13.;: II c:
'l;jo:s~""'o --g
._ .c: t'CI e ~_'-
c:: :s <I'l e 0'- 0 0
C:o.coccVJ~ ....
] 'S "9. .... ..... c: '8 c: co
.... 2 ~ ~~: .:= 'S 15
_ 0 c:,,'" tl w "
~ :0 "-0 == .- .... .U 0 :::I '0-
... c::: 0 0 ""' "0
o ... ~ .- e - .- = ....
u o..:;l> "0 .0 "0 ._ 0..
~
,.;
c:
o
~
~
I
~
~
~
J., -_0.5
ti
'"
-~
"
13
'"
-tj,
.,.
...,
~
...
~
<:;
...
<:;
'"
...,
:;:
c:
'"
-5
::<
j
~.rl~~J~~Jsgl!~!J~
o~ et:-..eot-oC:::<<I-.-i) ....0
(,);; "C e.... A(' ..=:-Nc...oF~ co
8 0.- C 0 ~ ..., ~ - e - r::; 0 -
g.g ~ i:F.B.B~ f;-E ~ ~1'~
5.~ 8" 5 ci~e"8e~OJ8 ~ ~.oj
~oB,g-.=:o.a 'cg-5:;;c
il 0 -" ~ e ," .. 8 .. 0 .5
c:~"'o~ .ll.="."~.:o-.".,,
oocb~-"" ::Sco::SC"C ~cco~
.... tti_-~"i'.t::C"O"C~_"'bO
VJ~o'ol __ ~ co 0....
-ll ~ '6 .8. '0 _S :!l ." ::; "8 <; ~:a -~ 8
~ v C ~ ~ C ~ ~ < 0 ~ 0. .~
.0 ."Ct!lI\)...e::~COca .-c..co.!!3"C
"B~oc_c ..c el\)~-
." .o~.9 0..!:F.3fo08R,c_tl
:;.Bt'J, ~ 0"E'8 onCli ::S'~-l:;S1:-I ....'C
~~e~~i-gj~~~~~~:~
- ~-.... <1:l_CO - --"C
Il ".C: e.g c:.t: o!! .5 1: ... rI) .. "
.... .0 ~ .- c.. "C .... - co """ 0 ::s I\)
~"C~~I\)~e~~o,g~~~-e
~ga~~~8~~giS=~,g~~
. .c:~""'~-" c:'" -- l:!
_~ cc..l\).oI\)::s-e:- c~'O<
o 0 0 = 0 ~ ,,~
.c .~ ~ ~ B .E:E 0 :il ~ g.o 5.. c: 'fi
~i!~.:3"C-g"Ct:"i' "Ce8c
c co o_~og ~ = g~ = c:;'- h~
ogc..__>c coog.!!U'loo:S!i5..-
~-~Il""rJ .. ~~."
coiU5....,,; "CiU";iUCC OMO.
~~o~oCCOCog=OiUC~l.f"log-
";t!l~ ~.=:-~co~e.=: ~5~
~=~~~~~~g~~~~~~efr
_0." .~<1:l::s::s.o.!::coco~~._e....
j;-"C fi ~ t,g 0 t!l 0 Q c.. t 5 ~ 8
<:Qiia~'oI.a~5.~'ole5.ei
o
....
4-<
o
t-
<l)
~
~
~
."
!
~
-
."...~ -.""
_ t'O. CO"".c
::s l%:l ::s co_
~'O-5~~:E
",c::E-o~,.;
~ .=: ~ 0 Q:1 Q ~
--8"lfg~oo.
o iU'- Q:1 - =
.... c,/l .=
t!l ri ;'X ..a '0 Q:1 c,/l
iU .,n (,) tI:l :a
~",.-5so-
..c::: - ._,_
VJ -"' iU t! - 0
=~-g~~ec
~'ico~te8
1;/ "il.~.5 ';; II
~ l:: l>o .l!.5 "-
f~tI:lOE-t]~
~ - '"'0....
ell l5 = u H:S!..E
eQ::l5tn'E'g~
"C tI:l ~ 9 c..il ~
=0'" iU_C
ca~,ge~~&
___0"C1::~
~ ca ~ .::: = tr.I v
iU ca ca ....
t:~i)~..c:::~tl
rI) e -:!i 1;" "
iU ::l u 6 "C '0'
r.."-,g,,.....~
= 0_"'0 coca Co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
~~
i~
,-..
]
.~
=
8
'-'
....
,
....
.!l
i
Eo<
~.:a t$
1':1 g a......
tl..:: E a
co co.. 0
o.bll ],
e:.e .
.- E ~._
.... ..., VJ
G 8 ~ c:
So]-.s
~-' 8 ::l
.. il,l ll,)
~ ~ -
;; _ "O~ il,l
.<: " .c
- tl ~ '0
::l '~:a "
~ ~ u 0
~ 0..1':1 it:
J
:1
~
t5~g.s~~-g(lS~
~ U$ 'S.... J:::" 7 ~ c:
-~~asG,)coe::s~
... CiS ... .... c: 0. IV..
o c: il,l il,l co e - > 0
'C: Vl ....5 ~ - co "0 e -=
0........ ... II) 0..
.c: CIl en e t::; c:
U ,u :a" = 0 .c ... 0
~~....u:l'"i'V'lVJa'g
e ....= i~ tU tn
tf=].c"O"O~!
.8il,l~= cc:.oc:::
...... 0 0 IU = co '<ij 0
o .. .0 .... 0 Il,) c: ..
t:J~'-=:1;;SE.oc:o~
=' "Oll,)co.c::cuo.bQ
E.l:"~p.-t:-~..::
o 8 ~ 0 E - ."
." ~ == c: t:
-= e: ~ co 0 -9.:a.:a
il,l il,l o.~ -=.... .c::
E:o..:s;u -5.........
~ '0 .e-=-~ .g.'i: B.B
... 0 _ ~ .... il,l;'=
g. fi ~ 0 (5.. ~ .~ 8:-s
." E ........ "'::1 C'll ...
tlil,lBN-u ..a
og.~; _...:4)......
!o;fi 0...,.",<:.0
> ~ e IU c: ~ _ .
'O~_=~el':l ;.~
~ ~ ciS C!,) 0 t::
so5":!"'? ~gpl
.~ .~ " ~ - III 0.. Q
~ cJ ... "0: .... - Ciii
==~o.c:"OQ.. ==
IU U "".5 6 ; E e .S IUE
Et:o ,cO ='1::]
-a8:;~'H]ili8.
!8.gFg~~.~~
1
.~ ~.~
'S tj ~
~CI:l"3
... 0.. g.
g.5 0..
" -
- == g;
~ G e
il,l !; ClS
E .~ '0
t.~ a
~bt$
~ ~.~
~ .: e
... .!S 0.
v:; =000
E !l
~ 8 0
.. go
';j 0 l5..
'0 - "
a-..c::
0= e
:El ~ 0
t:1l.lJ::..c:
g 0..= ~
\C ~ 5
~:!"eto
- " ~
.. 0 tl
13'~ s.~
R..:: .s G
.5 's " s
_ ".j!; ~
a g ~.;;;
"0" "
S . E ..
~ 0; 805
.- ~ ::l
ell _ ~ 0
"tl'll-
\'0 IU > l!,)
.c:'5'.~.o
-...:="0
~~~"3
" .<: 0
....:l .....~ :e:
~.:a :E
:2=::
5 G .s
-;j:a ~
V') g.."C
~ "
"Cil,)..:!
"ES-
S 0
.&J ....ti
.c:: . c:: 'C
....U::l til
5 0 ....
~tr.lEQ
00..
.......:1-=
ild~
b ~'f ~
VJoo~
:t .... 0...J.
5tee::
c:: 1IJ 0..1;:
o g- co :g
~ " bll~"
= .c:: c: I:t4
~"":ail,)
~".~ 05
o ~ ... c:::
- 0. 0
E ~... "C
.e .~ .g ~
..!.. 0 il,) .&J
'is....-c:::
-"0:90
1IJ il,) ~'Z::
:o:g~go"
::l 0 !ir....
,s; - "'.;;
~ o..i: I::
.~ ~.2
'$ t) ~
:@co"3
.... 0.. g-
" E 0.
8 .-
- ..
~n
1IJ 5 ~
E .~'O
t'<;j ;
-:'~~
is .~.S'
e.s a
t?}::l"O
. E!l
:=88.
~ to 8
o 0.
'0 - "
s-::;--=
o " E
~ ~ 0
'$ g.':= ~
51 '" 1;;
\nv:a15
~~etb
III ..~() "
to .!a ~
<<i c: ~ .
o 0.-
tl..:: " "
to to ':= G
.~:i ,,!9
.... .~.~
= 8 ~ c:
G c: "3 to
soso5
~-' 8 ::l
'''; 1IJ .2
,,~ ""
~""'"E.&J
- ~ ~:sl
~ 'O':a S
...:I s.. ~ ~
0.. c: co iE
e .9 l:lO 1IJ
.. ~ " "
':::r::U
~ il,) ~ 1IJ
"0.5 a-=
; ~ !5 Z
l:8-"O
.c:: o..il,) 1IJ
s.5;eii
= :2 :g =
oS 6 O~.Si
~ -
tl " _.~
,,- -
= i!.>Il's
VJ ~ .... ~
, E a :a
:I: ,,_
"' 8:.::1...
C:'Z:: 8::.s
o go,,"
~:€.1l ~
~s~..:!
- ~ -
...:a . 0
-= ~ U C .
0.,; 'A ~ tl
o ,,~ 0 'C
~:g3E.1>l
.... 0 0 ~ 0
<::: a.... eo....
.2~=z5
.2 .g.ss
.&J:2~o~
::l ::l t: o..~"
o 0 0.. 0
0-5loa
,,= "
.Si'~ .51
'S w ~
:@~"3
cg.g-
8 ." 0.
__0;
.. " ~
- G "
5 l: ;
E .~
" ~ '0
t> '''; ;
.s ~~
lj .~ 'e'
e ,g 0..
t?}::l"O
E !l
?: 8 0
.... eo 8-
., 0 0.
'0 - "
3-::;--=
o " E
;g ~ 0
t: 1IJ.t:: .
o o.......c::
" -1;;
V') ~ a 6
~eel;b
~ .~ t$
~ g !...;
tl..:: E a
to eo._ 0
~.2!' ~
.-'s ~ .!2P
.... .~ ~
G 8 :;; "
l:c:"3~
.- 0 E _
'~'ii 8 ~
,,~ "-;;
~-"E.c
- ~ ~:sl
] '[~ ~
~
~
~
<:;;
...
<:;;
'"
~
g;
"0 iU .-
c: ~ U 0
" - 0 -
0;= - " ti
;g'uVJs'c:
....~oetil
~:2...:1 to a
065-;....
::: ~ ': g fi
il,) co .- e
~~ ~l~
~ ~ ~ a<
~.2~eoiE
= ~ ~ l:lO g
s'Ol5:.,g&!
.c ., " .~
~ ~." ~.ll
iU "C.......
" 0."
S to ~ 0
8't:i\n~1
~.g~iU
g'~s;e.o
.s ... e :g c:
E 0.- 8..51
.e.8 ~ ~ :;;
.... = ....!2P
oS, '0 -
'c" ;!.>Il's
0!C_~
iU .c:: 10 c:._
'53 ~ b G-5
::l a;-...:.::I...
v !t ~ ~.s
ll~ '0" ~
c:; 0 0 il,) c:
<~~~.;:!
o
....
....
o
00
<)
OJ)
~
~
f';':;~
~~ ~
s ~ bb
'~~ g
Pc tl ''::
- .. ..
c: 0.. "3
8 E go
-;': 0..
- 50;
5 fj ::l
!j],~
~ .~ '0
..::l ~ ;
...~tl
II .j!; .l<,
~.!S8
~ 0.
. E '0
~ 8 !l
"Oeo&.
; 0 e
... _ 0.
~-=-~
.. !l E
e. t.i 0
=:l 0..":::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ .~
~l
&~
]~
---
"C
o
.~
!
....
I
....
.!!
~
~
ti
~
0.
.s
~
~
~
"
~
-5
3
J
:1
::i
~,g..rn,g.:a~-g:;
........e-.... _ to....
:s:!_u~N'tieo
> 0 ~ ~ U ....
o O'O~'O__
~".o~.~.~-"
o..!:i - 1;; Eo "" 8
~~.o E~"~
u 0 'e ts c::..::;; It)
.o.o~5BIl.>"'Q..
."'-_. -:l.c~o
4) bI) == <q,; 0.0\
"""~'C..",,
~'u .~.c 0"'5 .... =:
=lI'l"O"Co-s,~
"0 = "3 c:: u ..
'E"88=~1l>-
ell ... C ....-
] >. ~ ,= 8;.;2 g.,s
toj"cOt::CO;o"O
<;:;S 5g~ ~c.."O.8
Q. CI.l co u
~ .. 5'- $ 01 ~ 0.
~ .~ ~ ~ .... .~ .~ ~
U:ao-ci5'~c___
~ ~ 'C'''~
,gc..~.a~"O'Cu
"'u.oc~co!.S
.....~ e Cll t'lS ~ . as .
3~sUi-"",g....~
50 bO o.....u..
u.so......>"O
_.c:~MU._O:O:=
1li ij-ff"'c.c; u"O.s
::I =: CIS ::I ~
e ell '... Cl.{ 0"'.5 0 II,)
".__ ""_.0
c!j-' 'CC'--
Ii 8.'~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ '0
:.=_o?;c...c-e c:
0.11 bii" 'l1 0 o.8.S
Q. 0 c::: ~:;; .......... CiS
=....oo"O....::Ec..
.- "0 - c.. c:: u :=
,l!'6=~o~'CoB
t-I'g.s u ~~:s~ 0
1
E:2 ~"
So
~-
~",'C
8""3
~ ~ 0
'"' 0 ~
on .N
~ 'B u
o .......~
..... e CiS
~ 0. E
...."OB
olt-
is'0~
Ii is".IJ
'1'3 ... c::
t.= c.. ='
" ,,~
'C.o-
- ~
{ll~
~2!8.
o.~o
- ~
c::-:;-o
11 " -
!S8~
'e, ~ :l
._ 8. <.>
~ ~
<::l ~
~
on
,.;
"
o
.~
~
~
o
~
ti
~
.~
c:
11
'"
.~
."
"
~
-5
ill
"
o-l
o 1li
o ~
0.5
Iii "
> ,2
bbtil
'E J3
t':I ''::
.0 ~
:s .'!:
:g ~
~ ~
~ -
-5]
~ ~
~.;g
';;;-0
::!1-5
g~
"
e .g ti
ii t!.~
~ ~ 8
~ c ~
-~:
g =
I:: 0 .E
o CiS.5
UE'C
" " "
.g -a E
~r.G&.
~ " '"
~.~ 8
c:: fi .5
e ~ u
f-< ._ .c
g
:~
5
I>l
II
~
~
- ""8 0 ~ 8
Ii ~.,,; 0 ii 5
],"0 ~ C':I l]
. as "0 :;],
Iii 'C '" .
.. ~ c 0
"".... O.,.,Cll Q.,..
~ ~ Z 0"" a .5
.~ 1:$ '- Z ~..VI.
tcuOu8Q
_.~" ~"~
::I 0 0 '"'
e 5.,- j:l.,
c";!';lis,,
co 0 o..c'~-=
B ;g o'"'~ es
<'-l.EUCl)..E~
c .......c 'l:I
Oeo....uB
'socos~
.c~0-1:S
'c_-,e-Olt
-_V'l.-co
c ::s 0 co.-..c
8 ti b'l:l e-
-;;~~C)CI);
-,",~O.o.o .
5jJ;E~.:::--:E
fi'g'~'O~~~
~e-8:E5C1)~
_._co_ul;_
I" -.)0 r
ti
~
0.
.s
~
],
."
....
$.
~
~
'>
~
...
....
8:
"
.s
3
r
"
.S
1;;
.~
.~
o
Z
o
....
'-
o
0\
o
bll
00
~
a -0 .=: ~
.~"n~
'e~ i ~
u 0 ::s ~
5 8 o~.
0'- ~ 5
~ 1j l;'.........
a ~~ eo
g~8S
'l:I~~""
"3 . u 0
00';::-
~ -.... ~
V') tlO 0 ~
Hl~o
o.l;; U
.s o.j! ,e....
.... 8 .... '"' E
Gco(;J5'bQ
!E~.2~5
.~ V'):E sq ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ .~
_ CO:t ~ 'l:I
.=-~O'"'
....~._~.g
~ .... t::: as C
;SiS~.S~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
11
~~
'Q-b
]~
--
]
=
.~
=
8
'-'
....
,
....
..!:l
i
~
I
~
:1
:il
J
ti
'"
0.
.5
;;
8
'"
'5,
.'"
"
'"
-5
~
....l
00"'0"'0
- IE - "
.5 ~ g .t:l
"'o....c-
" - ~ :;!
e.~ IS-
0'" 0 ....
Co. ~ .- '"
..'" - .c
o " e -
u.c~o
.5." 8'''
,,~ "
.0" 0
:s! 0 f'Ul
::s c:: 0 ....
o ilJ .... ilJ
.cU~~
r.Il ~ ~....
;a ilJ iU "'0
'""....... ...
o .5 -= B
<I') iU 0:""
"eCl:l g..e] 'ci
'0"0.....0
_0 e " 0'1
" 0
~ B e ~.
;0 '" o.
0,:3 bLI'c
.co ~ .5 8...<<l
~ 8.. a u s
~ 0" ._
c:: c:r.~ ~
.51 -tl ~-;
~tl2"e
" 2 _ 0 ;l
o t'i .... .... lj:
''::: c: c: "0 =
gb8~Bc:
.- 11)._ 0
." ,., 5. e ''::
e.2.."'O:=:5
Z08e:oo
Q..=..o c..
tl
C~~B~5~
ilJ =' =._ ._ 0
e~=rI)ii.o
c.. ff't1t:cu
.:; "'0 ~ C::.!'a
C" ='0' 8 ilJ
iU iii c: ... c: ~
e.~~c..8-
o.~ .... Il) .... c:
~.~~..se.g
.... u 0 '13::S
"'3C'Oe;c=::=
rJ " ~ "", 0
....s '; ;:: a 0..
12 tl2 'il g .dl
~_>' '-"0
~., -.0_
tl8\=;~:So~
!. .E&.=,a
eonu "@"
':'2.5~g iU~
c:: ::s c: .2 it: .... ...
eJ'Co =
",,,.,::,..;g$'''
.- ~ = c: 0 ... c:
Eb<<l:::='~~f
'1;3.!! 5 ~ 'e c:: ~
5 ~ > 0 ilJ ~ :c
-S1;l~~ti~~
~ ~ .~ :a .~ rs e-
" " '" 0 - 0 !l
.....l u"'O .... 0...... cu
e
-
5
'€
!
~
0.
.5
....
~
~
~
'"
~
'"
....
~
;;
.~
~
'5,
.'"
"
'"
-5
~
!l
-0
5....
e~
"
1il$'
.0
'" ~
ill g
.g .~
!I'E!
.- "
'~1;l
~ 0
-"
] 8
" 0
,,"
; ~
on"
.a 8
"0
~~
'"
- "
~-5
-$'
t'E
.l! '1;
-""
8 e
;; rJ
8 E ~
~ ; ~
o " "
oeo.
o
....
......
o
o
-
<)
~
~
- ~~ ~ ill ,,- '''''!l;g
El,S 0.5 ::s.s B-E:; ~"O 0
~t;ic:-C'I:lu::l=ItJ=C::'-
!ii'ii.5i i'ltl'll dlHJ!l o.~
.liP - --",."o.<<lt:
'", ~ ~ -==- c ~8 8 1;5 'fi ..c'll) ilJ
onil',ol e _Sea g'~ 1;j
~'~5. .e.ll;'";'ge,.,.g~.
.- o.~t::::;;'-_il
;; [ ""oo...tl".~,;,;.
ilJ"'O bOilJlooo..'-'e0.8's:a
&. Cl.) :g Q1 0..5 -; t;; 11l 0. '0 I:
of ~~ e.~I:'O 5-6 ~t; 5
o e .e-..s ..2 :::1 : -.0" "e ~o ~ 0: 0.
-O;.::l '0'- -~
...._'O_~ _~ \0
V,)'""''$~Ul:JV,)t;8:g,..;_...
~bO ~-6C:-6.c:,"",o-c:___
.g.s'o gb...... ~ =~ ~~ 0 e~
::1'3 SO'E;oo~,..;.!::Io.Cl.)
:@ n S '0 :g Cij 'is ~ ... 0 e ..s ~
_.....:00=20~bO iUS
c: tQ.......-o_.-.-tQl\)~.R
R:: ~'O::l u <f.!1C.:= ~.c:'O 0
""""u='::l =-0>-'"
!.~ \'0 c.!::Iuo.g:: 1'0...... V,) 8::
-=OUlQ.l~ ""OIlo-::I\'O
~.:= ...r 5 t- ~ ..: -;; -6 - "t'.i as Cl.)
<LIt; ~.=: e.c:? 6_] Q.l;.o
e c =~ 00 g'6bG e-E:.:='O
b.2 <LI = a'O = ~'~:::1 E ::l '3
~ ~.~ .2 ~ ; .~ B ~ ~ ~ .~ ~
I,,-~()r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 PROJECf DESCRIPTION
J /#-i).()9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 PROJECf DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECf LOCATION AND SE1TING
The applicant, Rohr Industries, Inc., is proposing development of an 11.6 acre parcel with
an office complex. The project site is located in the City of Chula Vista, approximately 10
miles south of downtown San Diego and four miles north of the Mexican border (see Project
Vicinity Map, Figure 2-1).
The site itself is located just east of San Diego Bay, west of Interstate 5 (1-5), south of "F"
Street (Lagoon Drive), and north of existing Rohr facilities (see Figure 2-1). An SDG&E
transmission line extends north/south along the eastern property boundary; limited parking
is allowed within the transmission line right-of-way (ROW) for Rohr employees only. The
"F" & "G" Street Marsh, a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), is contiguous with the western property boundary. The NWR is considered a
sensitive estuarine environment, as it provides habitat for many types of plants and animal
species, including species listed as endangered by state and federal agencies.
The site is currently undeveloped, but has historically been used for agriculture.
Agricultural and household debris litter the site, particularly in the west-central area.
Abandoned irrigation lines criss-cross the site. Several unimproved dirt roads are located
around the perimeter and transect the parcel. A fence exists on the southern property
boundary and the southern portion of the eastern boundary, between the site and the
existing Rohr facility. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea
Level (MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
22 PROPOSED PROJECf
The proposed project involves development of an office complex with surface parking for
730 automobiles. In conjunction, "F" Street would be improved to a Class I collector street
as designated in the Chula Vista General Plan, and a drainage system would be installed
to convey site drainage away from the "F" & "G" Street Marsh.
2-1
9O-14.1XJ.1 01/24/91
I ~ -~/()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX
Vicinity Map
'.
\.~rJP~
\~ i:'J;!\'
.'Z
\
\
.'0
\-
. ~
IQ
10
\\
\\
\\
I
\\
'CP
~
N
----
/lP-.,.1I
Figure 2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~,
,~
, 'j}
'j
u" Ii
I
l~\\
, '
~i /'
Y
~
... "
\'\1.
j
~y
",1'
/ r
!
, .
n
g~
I
~
~"
ffi~
I
.I'
I.
<$>
"
"
k,
l' '" \;;-
\,',~',;'
" ,
y
,_ .. .u
_~__w.-.-
. ......--..--
'" -~/~
N'
I
N
Q)
~
~
d
C':l
p:;
Q)
.....
ti3
s
..
~
(J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed office building would contain a maximum of 245,000 square feet (gross) of
floor area with a 0.48 floor area ratio. The building height would not exceed 42 feet. As
illustrated in the site plan (Figure 2-2), the building would be placed on the western portion
of the site, with surface parking to the east. This placement of the structure is intended to
provide a buffer between the parking area and the marsh. The majority of the site (11.2
acres) would be developed with the proposed building, parking and landscaping; a 0.4 acre
marsh area would remain undisturbed.
"F" Street, which borders the site to the north, would provide access at two ingress/egress
points. Currently "F" Street is not improved to City standards. As part of the project, the
south half of this street would be improved to Class I Collector Road standards (74 feet of
pavement in a 94-foot right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a 10-foot center turn lane,
8 feet of parking adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at each
side). The improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, a bike lane,
streetlights and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional 5 feet of pavement
within this ROW on the south side.
In addition, a drainage system would be installed to convey storm runoff and irrigation
runoff. This system would involve creation of a linear landscaped detention basin on the
western property boundary. Water would be conveyed from the site, via storm drains, to
the northern end of the basin. Grease, oil and other contaminants would be trapped by a
triple baffle box at the point of discharge. Water would then enter the detention basin, and
travel slowly to the southern end. This slow flow would allow silts and other particles to
settle. During the dry season, all irrigation water would percolate and/or evaporate.
During storm events, water would be conveyed to a storm drain in "G" Street. No runoff
from the site would be allowed to enter the "F" & "G" Street Marsh.
To create the western slope of the detention basin and provide a physical separation from
the Marsh, a 3- to 5-foot high berm would be formed along the western boundary of the site.
The base of the berm would vary in width from 20 to 50 feet. Slopes to the west would be
no steeper than 3:1. The detention basin between the berm and the building would vary in
width from 50 to 80 feet. To ensure no access to the "F' & "G" Street Marsh along the
western boundary, a 6-foot high chain link fence would be located near the toe of the west-
facing slope of the berm.
2-2
90-14.004 01/24/91
III -~I..3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3 CONSISTENCY WI1H THE WCAL COASTAL PLAN (LCP)
The project site lies within the coastal zone of Chula Vista and is subject to the Chula Vista
Bayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP). An LCP, as defined by the California Coastal Act,
is "a local government's land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and
implementing actions which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement
the provisions and policies of, The Coastal Act at the local level." The Chula Vista Bayfront
LCP is divided into six subareas for planning purposes and the site is located within the
Midbayfront subarea. The project site is designated Industrial: Business Park in the
Midbayfront LCP. The SDG&E ROW easement to the east of the site is designated as
landscaped parking and the "F" & "G" Street Marsh is designated wetlands. A strip of open
space between the site and the Marsh is designated on the LCP as a wetland buffer. This
strip is located on the recently established Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
The Industrial: Business Park designation allows for the following uses as defined in Section
19.84.09 of the LCP:
Administrative Commercial
Food Service Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
Business and Communication Service Commercial
Retail Business Supply Commercial
Research Development Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Custom Industrial
Essential Service Civic
Parking Services Civic
Community Assembly Civic
Special Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
Development intensity is also regulated under the LCP. The Industrial: Business Park
designation allows a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a floor area ratio (FAR)
of 0.5. The front set back must be a minimum of 30 feet, side set backs must be a minimum
of 15 feet for exterior and 20 feet for other side yards. The building height limit is set by
Section 19.85.01. The subject property has a maximum building height t~i~t of 4 stories or
44 feet, whichever is less.
The LCP also contains a Circulation Element and roadway cross-sections are established by
Section 19.86.01. "F' Street, also called Lagoon Drive, is described in the LCP with a
prototypical cross-section within 95 feet of right-of-way (ROW). The cross-section includes
a median, two traffic lanes, a bike lane, a sidewalk and landscaping.
2-3
90-14.004 01/24/91
I " -~ I Y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed project is generally consistent with the LCP. It is an industrial/business
facility with an FAR of 0.48, less than the maximum 0.5 allowed under the LCP. Its
proposed building height (approximately 42 feet) does not exceed the height allowed under
the LCP and the set backs are consistent. The landscaped open space and 0.4 acre marsh
area would provide buffer between the building and "F' & "G" Street Marsh. Proposed road
improvements would be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan; however, the General
Plan cross-sections vary from the cross-sections contained in the LCP. While the ROW is
the same in both documents, the median, lane and bike lane widths are slightly different.
This issue is addressed fully in Section 3.4, Traffic Circulation/Parking.
2.4 ALlERNATIVES
Four alternatives are evaluated in the EIR (Section 4.0). One of these, the proposed
Modified Design Alternative, is analyzed on the same level of detail as the proposed project.
The three alternatives are:
1. No Project - this alternative would leave the site in its present condition, and no
development would occur.
2. Modified Design - this alternative is shown on Figure 4-1, and is a design proposed
by the applicant to mitigate potential parking impacts of the proposed project.
Impacts from this alternative are addressed in detail in Section 4.0.
3. Reduced Density - This alternative would reduce the proposed building M~~ site from
245,000 square feet to 228,000 square feet. The purpose of this alternative would be
to avoid the parking deficiency impact by meeting the City's minimum requirements
for parking.
4. Possible Locational Alternatives - Four locational alternatives were evaluated to
determine whether the applicant's proposal might result in fewer environmental
impacts in a different area. The impacts from these alternatives are also discussed
in Section 4.0.
2-4
90-14.004 01/24/91
J 1I"',J.I,5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
I " -.1/ III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
3.1 DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING
The following discussion is based on several technical reports prepared for the Rohr project,
the latest of which are contained in Appendix B. Rick Engineering completed a report
entitled Drainage Study, Rohr's Corporate Facility (May 14, 1990) and Woodward-Clyde
Consultants prepared the Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Rohr Industries
Office Complex, Southwest Comer of "P" Street and Bay Boulevard (.ffily 21, $~Rt~1l!Q~!lY;
........'.-..................;........................................
1990).
EXISTING CONDmONS
Drainage
The 11.6-acre project site is located near the eastern shoreline of San Diego Bay, south of
the mouth of the Sweetwater River. A salt marsh, the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, exists just
west of the site, but the site itself is typically higher in elevation, varying from 8 to 20 feet
above mean sea level (MSL). The project site slopes gently to the southwest and
approximately 75 percent of the area is covered with vegetation, primarily grasses and small
palm trees. There are no drainage facilities onsite, so all runoff flows overland. Runoff
from the site flows south to an off-site swale located within the existing Rohr facilities, just
north of Building 61 (located southwest of the project site). From this swale, runoff flows
west into the "P' & "G" Street Marsh at the southwestern edge of the project.
The existing storm drain system in the area includes a 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
located in "G" Street, just south of Building 61, which connects to a 54" RCP that conveys
flow into the salt-marsh. An 84" RCP is located in "H" Street that conveys additional storm
flows from the existing Rohr facilities into the bay, south of the project site. Both of these
facilities are near capacity.
3-1
90-14.00911/09/90
III -~/1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Groundwater
The site is located in the coastal plain adjacent to southeast San Diego Bay and within the
Lower Sweetwater Hydrographic Sub-unit. Groundwater in this sub-unit is designated by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as having existing beneficial uses for
municipal, agricultural and industrial service applications. The groundwater underlying the
site is beneficial primarily for groundwater recharge applications.
Borings to locate and monitor groundwater' were undertaken by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants ~!+~1 in March 1988 and in March and April of 1989. Groundwater was
..., "... .
encountered in all wells and the measured depth to groundwater varied from 5 to 16 feet
below the surface. The groundwater gradient flows to the southwest, similar to the existing
topography. i;%~y;~i:.:p~::~A~:,:'i\..;timgt!;ti~it~~~~I.~HR~!m9~;!1int.~i~;~n:~;~~
ml~I~41i;~t~I~~~'iH&B~!.:~i'$~~~'lln~9~t~~;]H~t;lgli~~~~t1\II;m~;~;!~;'l,iI:'R~~~
~1~~~~~~jli\.'~]~~!~:.~.lplJ!~~,tmi::I~Y*:Blt'fi~'~BA%'*!~~~~I~;!1Rt~I~I~!~t
~~Ip.l~~;i~~i~p.~~H~~gjJt;!~~l~!:I\'#t~R;IKiBR1~ftgl~l,it~!l!'p.F!1~:i~Hti~~1~~q~~I~~g
9gUB~lJ]ti];BlJ~'.:!1:~lffiti~mg~~~!P9n~::k1J'~ll~!:J~YSm~::llf~.~~m~;II\~~~9~'~SYSJ
9~~;'!mIR":RerI~~~~~HilUl,~9t;;i4t!~.~~i~!~~';~l~!!q~tq~j
Soils and Geologic Units and Site To.pO&T3.PI1y
Elevations on site vary from 8 to 20 feet MSL and slope gently from the northeast to the
southwest. The site is underlain by the Bay Point Formation (a Pleistocene age Marine
Terrace deposit) which consists of medium dense to very dense, silty to clean sands with
interbeds of silt and clay. A surficial soil is present that consists of a silty sand topsoil layer
overlaying a clayey sand to sandy clay residual soil layer. The topsoils were found to be up
to 2 feet thick and the residual soils up to 4 feet thick.
The sandy portions of the Bay Point Formation soils are suitable for use at finished grade
without remedial measures. The clayey portions of the surficial soils are moderately to
highly expansive and should not be used at finished grade. The residual soils are also
slightly expansive. Excavation can be accomplished with light to heavy ripping using heavy-
duty excavating equipment.
3-2
90-14.00911/09/90
1/,-ti1l1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soft, unconsolidated, compressible estuarine "bay" deposits appear to encroach across the
westerly site boundary near the northwest and southwest corners. Loose, porous slope wash
soils may exist in the topographic low near the center of the southerly site boundary.
IMPACfS
Drainage
Site hydrology poses three potential constraints to on-site development in the Bayfront area:
. Flooding of low-lying areas from tidal highs, resulting from extreme
barometric lows, combined with wind-driven waves
. Flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain
facilities
. Contribution of contaminated runoff into the sensitive "F' & "G" Street Marsh
The site itself is located on relatively elevated land, east of the extremely low-lying marsh.
The building pad is proposed for 13.2 feet MSL. Along the western property boundary, a
5 to 6 foot high berm is proposed between the Marsh and the detention basin. The
conditions necessary to create on-site flooding include extremely low barometric pressure
combined with high velocity wind-driven waves. Given the extreme conditions necessary to
generate such flooding, the elevated condition of the site, and the protective berm, this
potential impact is considered remote.
The existing 42" RCP located near Building 61 in the Rohr facilities is currently operating
near capacity. If overtaxed by contributions from the proposed project, flooding could occur.
Because the detention basin and flow conveyance facilities have been designed to
accommodate the additional flow given the worst-case 100-year flood event, the potential
impact is regarded as less than significant.
Development of the site with an office complex would result in paving and otherwise
covering a major portion ar tHe eJatiag !:!~I~p,~i~!HRi ground surface, thereby reducing
infiltration and ultimately resulting in increased runoff. Also, the constituents of the runoff
would be altered. With the creation of a paved lot, oil, grease, and other solvents from
3-3
90-14.009 11/09/90
I ~ -;J./'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
automobiles would join storm runoff. If this runoff is uncontrolled and allowed to flow in
the existing pattern, this contaminated runoff would enter the sensitive "F" & "G" Street
Marsh, which is regarded as a potentially significant impact.
As part of the project, a storm drain system and detention basin is proposed to prevent
storm runoff from entering the Marsh. The storm drain system would consist of a series of
inlets and pipes to convey all the water from roof drains and parking areas into the
proposed detention basin. This basin would be located to the west of the office complex,
adjacent to the marsh. Before discharging into the basin, the water would be filtered
through a cleansing system consisting of a triple box with baffles serving to trap suspended
grease and heavy metal particles. The baffle box and basin would be cleaned ~i1 each
Y;~~i~!w!I;~~g~::~~ October.
During dry weather periods, from May to October, flows would be retained within the
detention basin and reduced by evaporation and percolation. During the October
maintenance period, the stop gate would be removed and winter storm flows would be
conveyed out of the detention basin. An 18" RCP would carry site flows south to the
existing 42" RCP near Building 61.
The detention basin has been designed to accommodate 2 acre-feet of water, which is the
lOO-year storm event. Because the existing 42" RCP is approaching capacity, the conveyance
system has also been designed to maintain the water surface elevation in the detention basin
equal to, or below, the lOO-year hydraulic grade line. This design is intended to allow
gradual draining to the existing system, without flooding.
As currently proposed, the storm drain system and detention basin would capture all
contaminated runoff, remove the grease and heavy metals and divert the runoff away from
the Marsh. With implementation of the storm drain system as designed, there would be no
adverse impacts to the Marsh from contaminated runoff.
Groundwater
The presence of groundwater affects both the construction and design of foundations for
structures if the foundations are located below groundwater level. Subterranean slabs and
3-4
9O-14J)(}9 11/09/90
I U -~~()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
other foundation elements located below groundwater levels experience buoyant forces
which can result in uplift pressures. Special precautionary measures to restrain the slab
from lifting must be incorporated into project design. The presence of a high groundwater
table also results in saturated soils. Saturated soils, without remediation, arc all. .$
~9*~f~~~y~~;~i!t9HlI9~1!&'~HPIl~llliqm~Y!?#c~~ unacceptable material for building support
and fill.
.,('\s rerreatly propBsecl, BBBe sf t-h6 prejeet stmetHres 7:eulcl reqtlire seep Hl1:lBElatiens.
Rased fiB a rer;ie';/ of tRe I3relimiBary gradiag fllans, no grollflcP.Y/ater v/6ald be 0Fleel:1Bterea
dariag flfsjeet gracliHg; lUPl:e..~er, there is the potential [-aT graaiag 16 eBeOtlftter saturated
soils sf the Bay aeposits. Based Ba a f)relimiBary n~"...ie~:{ sf tRe site, Bay depBsits Viele
idealifies iB the Berth"l.-est ana s8uth"yvest eeTRers sf the site. Based OR 8. re...ie\-, of the
gradiag 131aBs [-aT the site, the eeteatiofl basia may 0RereaeR 8fl these deposits, tkereby
rcqtiiriag remedial graaiRg. OtheFwi.e, the Fe.t wOllle FemlHll. ill. it. eliFFeftt state. If
satllratee seils are eReellRtercd duriRg graEliRg, tacR this soil FfIlist be Elriea aREI 5e v/aterea
prior to lise as fill.
~w~]~#,tlf~grns~~i@r~f4j1~t~nt1,MPt~n~~~.i:!;:~~ep;:m~p]iI~:'l~M~l;9~~~~!ilW!itl~~~~.;~!~tl
~1P;:f1I~R~~;ggE:;~1~I'M.'!p~'l!;~~Q9:~I;~~F~,1~2r;lB~;.'i91~~t!$';i~~:;~D'Ijt~~1,~I;!iJg
~~I1.~~;;;;~~~p~nI~m~;,;'Il1i~:;1;jn1!,t~fj~t~~:,:$!I.&;:1~~~~~m;~,,;:~:,.FR~mj;rQ~~9~,iH;j:~~j1i~
~p,pp,r~%~:;i!'!'~t!,r{l;m;g;;,:Ii~MPM9~:{flt~~I,;lgi1~,~g,~il!~$lX;;~Pi;~g!~I~~~i~::Ifl:}!:;;;gmi
~9[mt;!gp.@!'~pq~;~lj~;~P!t.tPt:ttll~ng~lsy~YqH'R~~II;~~~tl~Itg~j
.{iigfl~t;q~~I~Qq~'9rQRjA;~tl~t~P'~~p~p~~qjj'I;.1~t~~~~PPf~Q~gR;t1~;igql~tl~
~tl1~i:!~~~I~!J\i~11i;p~ljlili~~rllP191i;ljpll;x~EJlIl[~~t;qf~9IPt~~~!~1~1~~9$!~.~I~~~tj~li
j.j~~~t~~I~m]I~~rRf~~~~t;I~~!~;9~'.t9r;I~9iFm;~~p,ppl~~I~m;~~~9:~m!~~t~i
I2n~!~~E~tiqP1I~lIr!i~P;~1~[!;1,~~!lJ!lgiy~g;tq~~~I1~i;!!}I$2P,I~nIBB~1~9g!JRi.~I~'ln~1IIm:1
9~YI~lfli!p~~~!jj~~~m~R~ilH~~:tA~Ia~~~lYmMlq.I!qn~1;~Bl~:'qE~DIIgl!II't91~pr~Il~~~
,1i4.t~99i":fi!I~'~qHA~~tiPfi~ii:;!l?~~ii!.1~qFQA~!1mgP1~I;IiiMP~~~!~~~ilt,!yjR~!1,~~gl~'~p~
Igp;n~}Y~t~F:~!.i!I~!~i!r~I~Jj~'!~~!lI~t~lilll~RIRgtm!E9!l~B~g:i;iilg~W:il~gg!~91'~q[i~ig
~~~!#J~9Hn~~t!gn~~~m~n~j!,iml~~qf!;'\9~t;~~~;ij);H~!1c~~i%~Itt!gl]g~llj,~.'~~~l1}~l~:ii1Ji.g
~tnt~lH[~I;I~9'i!lqit!t~!~~'l?j~!';!ll!Il~R~19~~tlinRB9~:;~I~;[~Ifi;ll~t,911i;r~qR~!1!&]tP;~
~~~~~g~11~~~~IRq!i~I:Sg~~~I,ipR9~~~~~t.!I!~~~~li~!t~9i
3-5
90-14.009 11/09/90
III - ~~J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~Mi~:!lf~rBi:~E~PE9~R~~Jn:I!p~~Hly~~Q'I'\il9R~liq.tily~~!;Iti~I,1lt~'t~Rql!.I9E
t9HP,f!~~gP,B~!$jjJ(i!]1)R9I~~~E~~I9n~~ngi~Y~~:!9;!~gl\m9~itP~119HP:~~!~~!f~P!~.
gl[g~Rr~1~I~ir~m~gpE9~g~g~q!'~mRRE,iIEg~.8t!'RfIi.~~(i~!irillg~t~gl~~~M~~f~
~~RliIt~t~g~Hr~p,i]1)iR9~trHmqn'~8t~~~n~~9f1i:~~1~!
Soils and Geologic Units and Site TOJlograJlhy
'NC'Ma..:;le F
Construction of the office complex would involve grading to pfe.J!ar(, II Rat pad for smfaEe
parkin~fI~I:JUilding~li" Approximately 11.2 acres would be graded and the
1'\ ................
remaining 0.4 acre would remain in its natural condition. After grading to prepare the site,
elevations would vary between 19 aRa 13 ~~p,q~g feet, except in the detention basin where
elevations would vary between 6 and 12 feet. The building complex would sit at an
elevation of 13.2 feet Msqllqi~i.~BI19g,~l(I_~i;i9g~g..~;t.g~gg:~1~Y~ligH9~i~!~
~Bq~l{i~~~9flR~~R~~r!~~9~gRtpll}!.BI~itig~,IR~w;~;Ef~~p~!!XilY.
fa. total af 18,500 etisie yards af eat aHa fill v:etild be geaeratea fffiB graaiag -.781:118 Be
balliHeea SR site. The mlilaffium aefltli sf eut Ma fill wSl:i1a be Ii feet, with the a\'erage
dej'ltfl aflj'lrslamately 2 feet.
Ij~g!m:;qFIQ;~Q~!!Hp!~:)!IR~::.P~;~Y~:;~9;:(!U'~qi\:19;ilJj~::.ii.~!~~i~qimp.t_ll!il~i~~
R~p.l8Y:lIg~I:~.!~I~gi~9Hlq~~t~qyir~q;19~ylli1'l~!!'lr9P9~~I~~II!:I!In~iti_yi
qlptp9~;RH~!~HgmU>>!9~!qi:..l.l:~~!I~Hq%;~~~~I,.Itij~R~!l~~~i!y;.;ltml~lyiti&lll1ipg~1ti
l\iBi:9~i~Rm#\:!~I~!~!~i€~~~i
There is the potential for impacts to the Marsh if surface runoff carries silt and sediment
into the marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during the
winter months when the heaviest rains occur, and this is considered potentially significant.
Also, on-site soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable ill
~h~!fit~~~!;!~:%iP:~!!9P for structural support, thus, potentially creating significant impacts
to structures. As previously discussed, there is the potential that saturated soils may be
encountered during grading. Bay deposits have been identified in the westerly site
boundary, and loose porous slopewash soils have been identified in the topographic low near
the center of the southerly site boundary.
3-6
90-14.009 11/09/9()
}" -.;J.;J. ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MITIGATION MEASURES
19~IU~91~9Plg..glI~p.ly~~p~:PFipll!!,ij,~lq;~!!I$i:MIT~gll,,:M!!pIl~I!~t~
I:pI8ilIE!I~;~H~MI~I9111~mjfllljjp!l!1~Rl~q;q.!1i~1P!fj!l1!I~II~Q9~~!l!p!s~~~~Q.li
$~}9P..m'l~ig~I~PRt9MI9!i9;~Ip~tll~I~~9iqpy~p~~gn~tI9gli}?m9nRt~!l!t!!l!~gi
~~9~~Qyl~!B~t~~tl'979tp;j!~I!~~!9il9~~n*9t~in~g~!~n!$~FF~$
Drainage
Potential significant impacts to drainage resulting from project construction and operation
include contaminated runoff into the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, and potential flooding of low
lying areas. Inherent in the project design are measures, listed below, that would ensure
that all runoff from the site is captured, cleaned and diverted away from the sensitive "F'
& "G" Street Marsh, and that runoff would be detained during storm conditions:
1. minimum storage capacity of 2 acre-feet
2. a cleansing system at the point(s) of discharge into the detention basin to
capture grease, heavy metals and other contaminants
3. a regular maintenance schedule to service the cleansing device i1!j!~g$il
at tHe eRe ef tHe dry seaseR <I1!\!m:!J;~ October) ................... .. ..........
4. a conveyance system from the detention basin to the existing Rohr facilities
that is capable of delivering flows under the IOO-year flood conditions without
flooding
Also, development must comply with all applicable regulations!1~nWH9}!:fg'lq~ established
by the Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for storm water discharge.
Groundwater /Soils and Geolo~c Units
Potentially significant impacts were identified: (1) to the Marsh from grading, and (2) to
structures from compressible, expansive, and/or saturated soils. Mitigation measures 4, 51
~g!,\!:!~ ~ would reduce Marsh impacts to a level below significant. Mitigation measures
1 2tglilid14 ftfltI-3 would reduce structural impacts to a level below significant.
, t:;::;.;:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::
3-7
9O-14.()()911/09/90
I t - OJ~.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
1.
The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1990) must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department.
All recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the
applicant. This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and
must be included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
2.
Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas
overlain by bay deposits 9tP1n~f'!igljti~~ll~,'lqy~!l:mr91l::~~~~ will require
some form of subgrade ni6i:Hflcaii6rii6 lriipr6ve the supp6rf capacity of the
existing soils for use in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or
structural improvements. Soil improvement may include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-compress
saturated bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table; or foundation
elements must be designed to extend through these soils into competent
bearing formational soils.
3.
If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching
onto existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade
modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce
long-term, post-construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely
include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the use of
surcharged fills, to pre-compress saturated bay deposits.
!J!!@!
~
#:'..
~:h
If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions
contained in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula
Vista Bayfront Specific Plan must be implemented, and these must also be
included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
~i
To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier
system must be placed between the property and the wetland prior to
initiation of grading and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place
and operating. This measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
",......
::1:,,,,
:<.,.:<
To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be
constructed along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the
wetland. During construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically
trained construction monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the
integrity of the wetland. To guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce
sedimentation into the wetland, the western slope of the berm must be
3-8
90-14.00911/09/90
I " "~-'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting. This measure must be
included on the Grading Plan.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project site currently drains via overland flow to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. With
project development and reduction in surface permeability, the amount of flow would
increase. The resultant drainage would contain potentially harmful contaminants and would
result in potentially significant impacts to the Marsh. As part of the development, a
drainage system is proposed to capture, clean, and divert drainage away from the Marsh.
This diversion and detention system would mitigate impacts to below a level of significance.
Silt and sediments could enter the Marsh during construction and be carried with site
drainage after construction. Recommended measures, including placement of a construction
barrier, development of the westerly berm, revegetation of the berm's west side immediately
after grading and compliance with all city LCP requirements for grading during the rainy
season, must be implemented to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a level less
than significant.
Saturated, expansive, and/or compressible soils may be encountered, potentially creating
impacts to structures. Remedial measures as outlined in the 1990 Woodward-Clyde
Consultants report, and as listed in the mitigation measures, would reduce these impacts to
below a level of significance.
3.9
90-14.009 11/09/90
J IP - -';1.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2 BIOLOGY
The following information is summarized from a study prepared by Pacific Southwest
Biological Services (PSBS) describing the existing biological conditions on the site and the
potential impacts associated with development of the proposed office complex. The
complete report is contained in Appendix C.
The site was surveyed six times between July and September, 1989, and again in July and
August, 1990, by biologists from PSBS. The site surveys were focused on verifying a
previous vegetation map (Sanders, 1989), and examining the current status of the wetlands.
In addition to these field investigations, data collected during previous studies of the site and
surrounding area were utilized to provide seasonal information regarding distribution and
use patterns of the various sensitive species known to occur within the study area. Primary
among these other studies are two biological technical reports prepared for the Chula Vista
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 (PSBS, 1990a and 1990b). Other surveys are listed in
Appendix C.
EXISTING CONDmONS
The site has a long history of agricultural use. Much of the wetland area around the "F' &
"G" Street Marsh has been filled in the recent past. Dumping of trash has been common
practice in the area and vegetable fields were historically treated with pesticides. Recent
studies have identified the presence of residual low concentrations of DDT and DDE in the
surface soils of the site (Woodward-Clyde, 1990). The remnant fields currently support
stands of Russian Thistle and Five-hook Bassia. Trash dumping continues to occur in areas
along "F" Street; however, a recently installed guard-rail along "F" Street has limited this
action somewhat.
Botanical Resources
Vegetation
The historically high levels of agricultural use has resulted in disturbance of the majority of
the uplands within the Rohr site. Naturally vegetated lands of the site are limited to the
existing brackish marsh and small riparian grove along the western boundary of the site.
3-10
90-14.00701/24/91
I " ... ;Jil "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Adjacent to the western edge of the property lies the coastal salt marsh of the "F" & "G"
Street Marsh (Figure 3-1). Although the previous agricultural use of the site is not a direct
benefit to most of the marsh species, the presence of weedy plants along the wetland
periphery indirectly benefits marsh species by allowing unrestricted movement between
foraging areas, by providing a buffer from human-associated activities and by providing many
species with forage (seeds) and cover.
Disturbed Fields
The predominant vegetation within the Rohr parcel consists of disturbed fields dominated
by weedy plant taxa including Russian-Thistle (Salsola australis) and Five-hook Bassia
(Bassia hyssopifolia), Short-pod Mustard (Brassicageniculata), and Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare). Also present are several exotic grasses including bromes (Bromus spp.), Slender
Oats (Avena barbata), and Bermuda-Grass (Cynodon dactylon) which occurs extensively
along the lower portions of the site.
Riparian Grove
A small grove (0.14 acre) of young Sandbar Willows (Salix hindsiana) occurs at the far
southwestern corner of the site and straddles the boundary between the Rohr property and
the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. This stand is quite young and may be expanding
based on previous reports which mapped its location approximately 100 feet west of the
Rohr property line (Sanders, 1989). While the dense growth of the grove precludes most
understory plants, species associated with the fringes of this vegetation include Tree Tobacco
(Nicotiana glauca), Bermuda Grass, Saltgrass, Curly Dock and Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca
grandiflora ).
Brackish Marsh
Brackish Marsh occurs within a small swale at the northwestern corner of the site. This
area, formerly a portion of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh, was historically isolated by the
deposition of fill and is now fed by freshwater runoff from the adjacent fields and fill area,
This area supports such alkaline tolerant species as Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus
acutus), Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and Curly Dock (Rumex crispus). Also present in this
drainage swale is an abundance of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnson
3-11
90-14.00701/24/91
III - ;J~ r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'j.1
. i'
,., I
.. -.,
o 200
400 Feet
;'
I,'
.,
"
, ,j
i
. e'
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
Figure 3-1
1 ~ . ~~ ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Grass(Sorglzum Izalepense). Other species such as Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Curly
Dock (Rumex crispus), Sea-blight (Suaeda californica), Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale),
and Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) are also represented in this area. This area has
retained the wetland soil characteristics associated with its salt marsh origin and vegetation
diversity appears to be limited both by competition for primary space as well as soil
salinities.
Coastal Salt Marsh
The "F" & "G" Street Marsh located just west of the property boundary is dominated
primarily by Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), but also include a diverse assemblage of
subordinate elements including Annual Pickleweed and Glasswort (Salicornia bigelovii and
S. subtenninalis), Arrow-grass (Triglochin maritima), Saltwort (Batis maritima), and Sea-
lavender (Limonium californicum). At higher elevations, unvegetated salt panes are
common. Vegetated areas in these locales include Salt-cedar (Monanthochloe littoralis),
Saltgrass, Alkali-weed (Cressa truxillensis), Sea-blight and Alkali-heath (Frankenia salina).
Numerous tidal channels meander through the adjacent marshlands, both increasing the
complexity of the dominating mid-marsh habitats and providing unique resources for fish
and invertebrate fauna. Along the channel meanders and in low-lying bench areas near the
larger tidal channels, vegetation is dominated by Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). Within the
upper fringes of this marsh the uncommon California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa) occurs.
Flora
Fifty-one plant taxa were observed on the Rohr property area (see Appendix C, Table 1).
Of these, 36 are non-native weeds, and an additional 9 are opportunistic natives typically
associated with disturbed or successional habitats. The large number of non-native plants
is due to the extensive prior agricultural use and the high level of disturbance which has
occurred in the area. The sensitive Southwestern Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight
(Suaeda esteroa) are also present. Sensitive plants are discussed in more detail in the
Sensitive Biological Resources section of this report.
3-12
9O-14'(X!7 01/24/91
J 1.1 - -- 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Zoological Resources
General Wildlife Habitat
The primary wildlife habitat occurring on the Rohr site is disturbed fields. Minor elements
of Brackish Marsh and Willow Riparian Scrub overlap the western boundary from the
National Wildlife Refuge. Also considered in the proposed site development were the
Coastal Salt Marsh habitats of the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh as the proposed
development may result in off-site impacts.
Disturbed Fields
Disturbed uplands occupy over 99 percent of the site. These areas are typically
characterized by dense weedy vegetation and narrow dirt roadways. Weed abatement
activities occur on an infrequent basis as ordered by the Chula Vista Fire Department. The
fields are occupied by an abundance of rodents and lagomorphs including the California
Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thornornys bottae), Desert
Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and Brush Rabbit (S. bachrnani).
Raptors were observed to forage extensively over the open fields with the predominant use
being by the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus).
This pattern of heavy raptor use was observed throughout the Midbayfront region (Pacific
Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). Seed-eating birds, including numerous finches
(Carduelis and Carpodacus spp.), Mourning Dove (Zenaida rnacroura), and a variety of
sparrows, make use of the fields while insect gleaners utilize the fields, shrubs and trees.
The few scattered Acacia and palm trees and tall shrubs are important structural elements
in the upland habitats which provide singing, foraging, and sentry points to numerous avian
species.
Brackish Marsh
These marshlands exhibit several characteristics similar to those of the salt marshes;
however, the wildlife species making use of these areas differ sufficiently from that of the
classical salt marsh areas to warrant separate consideration. The Brackish Marsh areas of
the Rohr property are limited in extent and support extremely short-lived seasonal surface
3-13
90-14.00701/24/91
I. - ~8()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water. These areas are visited during the rainy season by herons and egrets, Red-winged
Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) and song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Because brackish
marshes do not receive regular tidal flushing, they lack the macro-invertebrates and fish
found in the salt marsh habitats. Most of the vertebrate species utilizing these areas rely
on the seasonal productivity of marshes. Mammals found in association with these areas are
similar to those observed or expected in and around the salt marshes. These include the
Raccoon, California Ground Squirrel, and a variety of small rodents. Stands of Saltgrass
occurring in this wetland harbor the sensitive Wandering Skipper (Panoquina errans).
Riparian Grove
The small grove of Sandbar Willow located at the southwestern site boundary supports
limited wildlife activities. These trees are densely growing seedlings and clonal divisions
typically associated with emerging riparian habitats. The small size, low stature and
monospecific nature of this area limits its value as a distinct community. During the course
of the survey, avifauna detected in this grove were limited to Song Sparrows, House Finches,
and Lesser Goldfinches. An unidentified medium-sized mammal was also present in the
thicket. As this grove matures it would be expected to attract substantially more use by
wildlife.
Coastal Salt Marsh
Coastal Salt Marsh wildlife habitat is coincident with the distribution of salt marsh
vegetation (Figure 3-1). Characteristic species of these habitats include the Belding's
Savannah Sparrow, which occurs as two resident pairs in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh, the
Willet (Catoptrophoms semipalmatus), the Marbled Godwit (Limosafedoa), the Great Blue
Heron (Ardea herodias) and the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). Along the
fringes of the marshlands, terrestrial mammals including the Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus
audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spennophilus beecheyi), and Botta's Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys bottae) forage on the lush marsh plants; also present in these areas is the
sensitive Wandering Skipper Butterfly (Panoquina errans).
Restricted circulation at the "F" & "G" Street Marsh plays a great role in limiting the
diversity and productivity of this marsh relative to other marshes in the Sweetwater Marsh
complex; however, this area does provide supporting refuge, foraging grounds and spawning
3-14
9O-J4.00701/24/91
/ ~ - ~31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
grounds for numerous species more typically associated with open water or shoreline areas
of the bay and coastal areas.
The tidal channels, creeks, and even frequently exposed portions of the marshes are utilized
as spawning areas and nursery grounds by numerous coastal fish and invertebrates. A
diverse and abundant community of resident invertebrates persists in the salt marsh habitats
as well. Most notable are the concentrations of California Horn Snails (Cerithidea
californica), Fiddler Crabs (Uca crenulata) and Yellow Shore Crabs (Hemigrapsis
oregonensis ).
Resident bivalves and tidal channel polychaetes (marine worms) and crustaceans are
generally restricted to the tidal channels near Marina Parkway.
Fauna
Am.phibians
Only a handful of amphibians are expected to make use of the Rohr site and these would
be restricted to the wetland areas on the western boundary of the site. They include the
common Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla), Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps spp.) and
Western Toad (Bufo boreas). Because of the marine influence of the wetlands on the site,
amphibian activities are expected to be extremely low. No sensitive amphibians are
expected to occur on the property.
Reptiles
Five reptilian species have been noted on the Rohr property (see Appendix C, Table 2).
These include such common species as the Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus
multicarinatus), the Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and the Common
Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus). The high degree of disturbance would be expected to
limit the potential for other species. No sensitive reptiles would be expected to occur on
the Rohr site.
3-15
9O-J4.00701/24/91
,. - ~3~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Birds
Fifty-seven avian species have been observed or reported from the Rohr property (see
Appendix C, Table 2). In addition, a host of other birds which would not be expected to
make use of the site have been observed as fly-overs or within the adjacent "F" & "G" Street
Marsh. Some of these birds reflect migratory movements of passerines and/or incidental
transitory occupancy by other species. A variety of the species noted are all but extirpated
from the Chula Vista Bayfront region, although they occur more frequently at interior
locations.
Eleven raptors, and four species of owl have been recorded in the northern Chula Vista
Bayfront in recent years (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990a). Of these, nine
raptors and all four owls have been observed to forage over the Rohr site at one time or
another.
There has been an apparent decline in usage of the area by several of these species over
the past few years. Notably, these include the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Red-
shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus) and American
Kestrel (Falco sparverius) (Merkel, pers. obs.). These declines are probably related to the
reduction of prey (including Desert Cottontail, California Ground Squirrel, and Pocket
Gophers) associated with the more frequent and intense management of field habitats in
the Bayfront. There has been an increase in the activities of the endangered Peregrine
Falcon, an event undoubtedly related to the 1989 successful nesting of the species on the
Coronado Bridge, the first in San Diego County for over 40 years. Other rap to rial birds
have maintained an apparently stable level of incidental occurrence in the Bayfront region
as migratory movements and wide' home ranges carry them over the Rohr site. Raptor
nesting in and around the Bayfront is limited to that of the common Red-tailed Hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), the American Kestrel, the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularis) and
possibly the Red-shouldered Hawk; however, none of these raptors nests on the Rohr site.
Also nesting in the area are Common Ravens (Corvus corax), Scrub Jays (Aphelocoma
coerulescens) and Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus); three semi-raptor-like species
which constitute important predators in the area. Burrowing Owls have been known to nest
on the steep banks of the northern Bayfront, throughout the disturbed lands on Gunpowder
Point, and on the "D" Street Fill. Efforts to eradicate owl nesting on the "D" Street Fill,
3-16
90-14.00701/24/91
'" -0/3.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
near the California Least Tern Nesting Colony, have been fairly succes~ful, and currently
nesting burrowing owls are a fairly uncommon sight in the Bayfront (E. Lichtwardt, K.
Merkel, pers. obs.). This species is, however, more commonly seen on the Chula Vista
Wildlife Reserve Island.
Several sensitive birds occur in the Bayfront but do not occur on the Rohr site. Where
potential for impacts to these species exist, the species are discussed. Breeding pairs of the
state-listed Belding's Savannah Sparrow are known to be present within the "F" & "0" Street
Marsh. Also of concern are potential impacts to marshlands where the re-establishment of
Light-footed Clapper Rail populations might be possible. These and other sensitive avian
species are discussed separately within the text of the Sensitive Biological Resources Section
of this report.
Avian flight activities in the area have been investigated previously (Pacific Southwest
Biological Services, 1990b) and the results of that study have been incorporated into the
current study.
From October 1989 through April 1990, an intensive field study was conducted to determine
the levels and patterns of avian flight activities over the Chula Vista Midbayfront --
including the project site (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This study focused
on the movements of waterbirds and raptors within the region. The study documented
extremely low levels of flight activities within the Rohr parcel for all shorebirds, wading
birds, waterfowl and terns. On the average, the numbers of birds within these groups which
were observed to pass through the study site fell well below one bird flight per hour for all
elevation ranges combined. For gulls, an average of over 330 flights per hour crossed the
site, of which between 12 and 24 occurred at levels below 50 feet and could potentially be
affected by the proposed project. Raptor activities were predominantly present along "F"
Street and within the fields located on the site. More restricted use of the site was made
by the Northern Harrier which foraged widely over the Bayfront. Other raptor activities
were more or less incidental to the site, as has been previously discussed.
Mammals
Fourteen mammalian species were detected on the site (see Appendix C, Table 2). Of
these, all are common to San Diego County. Notable among the native species are the
3-17
90-14.00701/24/91
I (, -~3'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
infrequent occurrences of large mammals such as the Coyote (Canis latrans) and the Gray
Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). In addition to the native species occurring on or in the
vicinity of the site, five introduced or domesticated species also occupy various areas within
the Bayfront and its immediate vicinity. These include the naturalized Virginia Opossum
(Didelphis virginianus), the human-associated Black Rat (Rattus rattus) and House Mouse
(Mus musculus), and the Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris) and House Cat (Felis domesticus).
The introduced species tend to be the most destructive of the mammalian predators. These
species account for the majority of the mammalian predation on avian nest colonies, sites,
young, and adult birds throughout the Chula Vista Bayfront area. No sensitive mammals
are expected to inhabit the project area.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive Habitats
Coastal Salt Marsh
While Coastal Saltmarsh communities do not occur on the Rohr site, the presence of such
areas within the watershed of the property is a concern. Such habitats are naturally limited,
highly productive ecological systems which persist at the interface of marine and terrestrial
systems in sheltered bays and estuaries. The pattern of intermittent drying and saltwater
inundation creates a situation favoring holophytic (requiring saline soil) vascular plants
tolerant of frequent inundation and soil anoxia (absence of oxygen). Such conditions also
favor marine algae and invertebrates resistant to stresses due to the intermittent drying.
The regular tidal exchanges of nutrient rich seawater promotes high primary productivity
and provides the basis for an important detrital based food web.
The salt marshes of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh are home or provide important habitat to
several sensitive species including a state-listed endangered species (Belding's Savannah
Sparrow). In addition to playing host to sensitive species, saltmarsh communities provide
important nursery grounds and foraging areas for a host of other organisms including fish,
terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and birds. These areas are important to the continued
survival of several non-nesting migratory bird species as well, providing food, shelter and
resting habitats.
3-18
90-14.007 01/24/91
11I-~3.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
These coastal wetlands have suffered a tremendous decline in the recent past due to both
direct and indirect impacts. Deve]opment and agricultural pressures have lead to the filling
of such areas, marine development has led to the dredging of these areas, and watershed
development has led to the introduction of numerous contaminants, modified the erosion
and accretion patterns, and greatly altered the freshwater hydrologic character of most
coastal wetlands. It is estimated that over 75 percent of the coastal wetlands in California
have already been lost and the future of the remaining wetlands is tenuous at best (Marcus,
1989).
Due to the high value of these systems and the rapid losses they have undergone, almost any
impacts to these systems would be considered significant. In addition, in most cases such
impacts would be subject to permitting requirements of various federal, state and local
entities outside of the CEQA review process.
Brackish Marsh
These habitats are frequently associated with estuarine or drainage systems which receive
freshwater input but which maintain an a]kaline condition due to either saline soils or
evaporative concentration of runoff which is rich in salts or a]kalide minerals. Within the
potentia] impact area (both on and off site), these areas are limited in quantity to a small
swa]e supporting 0.16 acre of highly degraded habitat which has been heavily infested with
Bermuda and Johnson grasses.
With the tremendous coastal development which has occurred over the past severa] years,
many of these area have been lost or highly modified. Unlike the larger brackish marsh
located north of "F" Street, this marsh supports no substantial seasonal surface water and
receives only a limited amount of seasonal use by avifauna. It does, however, exhibit high
potential for enhancement and could be improved by the activities within the adjacent
NWR.
Riparian Grove
Riparian wetlands are a naturally limited habitat which has been heavily impacted by
agriculture, urbanization and hydrologic development. These areas tend to be extremely
productive and support a high fauna] diversity.
3-19
90-14.00701/24/91
III -~.3h
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
On the Rohr site, riparian habitat is represented by a small portion (0.007 acre) of a
recently emergent willow grove which extends onto the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh for
a total size of 0.14 acre. Plants, though dense, appear to be stunted by limited water
availability and lower fringes of the grove support a variety of dead trees with an understory
of newly emergent Sandbar Willows. These trees were most probably killed by saltwater
intrusion during recent (1986-present) drought conditions. This grove is of low stature and
lacks a diverse faunal association.
Sensitive Plants
Prior disturbances of the majority of the area is probably the reason for a lower rare plant
density. Table 3 (see Appendix C) lists sensitive plants known in the region. Plants marked
with an asterisk indicate those that might have been found on site prior to disturbance.
Currently, the only plants considered to be sensitive that occur on the site are Southwestern
Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight. The status of these species follows.
Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus)
Listing:
Status:
CNPS List 4
Apparently stable.
R-E-D Code 1-2-2
State/Fed. Status -- None
A small population of spiny rush is found within the small swale located at the northwestern
boundary of the Rohr property near "F' Street. While this stand represents the largest stand
of Juncus within the Chula Vista Bayfront, it is of negligible size relative to other wetlands
found throughout the plant's range. Populations of this size are not generally considered
to be significant or of consequence to the overall survival of the species; however, Rohr
Industries have committed to maintaining this population in its current state.
California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa)
Listing:
Status:
CNPS List 4 R-E-D Code 1-1-1
Declining. More information needed.
State/Fed. Status -- None
Suaeda esteroa seems to be presently expanding into peripheral upland areas adjacent to
undisturbed areas of Sweetwater Marsh. The population on the Rohr site is fairly small and
is not independently significant; however, this population could be enhanced through careful
management.
3-20
90-14.()(f7 01/24/91
'1p-~3r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sensitive Wildlife
Few sensitive animals occur or have the potential for occurring within the project
boundaries; however, sensitive animals which occur outside the boundaries may be affected
by development of the project. For this reason, sensitive wildlife from the surrounding area
are discussed, with their sensitivity status and on-site status, in Appendix C, Table 4.
Species warranting additional consideration are discussed below. Agency listings include the
California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the San
Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee.
Li~ht-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes)
Listing:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern
Everett (1979) - Threatened
The Light-footed Clapper Rail is one of the most endangered birds in the
United States with only 277 pairs found in a 1984 survey of California
marshes (Zembal and Massey 1985). Recent estimates for the Sweetwater
Marsh complex are 5 pairs.
Status:
This federally-listed endangered bird occurs in the "E" Street and Sweetwater marshes. It
is likely that this bird will begin to be found in Vener Pond as well, due to the continuing
conversion to saltmarsh. The "F' & "G" Street Marsh has been historically utilized by this
species; but several recent investigations have failed to locate any birds in this area. The
degraded conditions and high level of disturbance at this site may preclude the presence of
this species.
California Least Tern (Sterna antillarnm browni)
Listing:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered, Fully Protected
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
Everett (1979) - Threatened
Breeding colonies are limited in extent, and fledgling rates are highly variable
and recently very low, primarily due to heavy predation from domestic cats,
dogs, horses, ravens, crows, and small raptors. Off-road vehicles have also
had deleterious effects on the nesting areas.
Status:
This species forages over the open water along the Chula Vista Bayfront and nests on the
"D" Street Fill area. Formerly, the Least Tern was a fairly common forager over Vener
Pond; however, this pond is returning to salt marsh and the birds are now infrequent here.
The bird is only an infrequent forager within the tidal channels of the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh and does not utilize the site.
3-21
90-14.00701/24/91
1~-;J.3r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Listing:
Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986)
Everett (1979) - Declining
Remsen (1980) - 2nd Priority
This raptor has declined as a breeder in southern California due to loss of
habitat.
Status:
The Northern Harrier frequently forages over the site but does not nest on site or within
the immediate area.
Pere~rine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Listing:
CDFG (1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
This falcon has declined as a breeder in California due largely to the use of
DDT.
Status:
Since DDT has been banned, their number has increased in California (Cade 1982).
Peregrines have been observed on the site as migrants. A pair of Peregrines nested this
year under the Coronado Bridge and may forage as far south as the site and the salt works.
These falcons are often associated with bodies of water; the presence of the Sweetwater
Marsh complex and San Diego Bay mudflat areas may attract them to the site as a
foraging ground.
Lon~-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)
Listing:
Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986)
USFWS (1986) - Category II
This species is considered down in numbers by many observers; however, it
is still a fairly common wintering species along the coast in San Diego County.
Status:
Found in low numbers within all of the saltmarsh habitats of the bayfront, this large
marshbird is infrequently observed in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh -- possibly as a result of
lower productivity and higher disturbance levels than the other bayfront wetlands.
Beldin~'s Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi).
Listing:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Category II
SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern
Everett (1979) - Threatened
The 1986 census estimated 2,274 pairs in 27 marshes in southern California.
Eight marshes have populations of 100 pairs or more, comprising 75 percent
of the total. The upper marsh habitat is rare in southern California, being the
easiest to fill and claim for land uses. Extirpations have occurred in at least
three locations in. the last 10 years. Sixty-three percent of the marshes
Status:
3-22
90-14.00701/24/91
11#-:1a,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
contammg 40 percent of the individuals are in private ownership.
Development proposals exist for several of these marshes; continued planned
restoration activities and public acquisition are needed.
One hundred forty-five pairs are known from the Sweetwater Marsh complex (Zembal et
ai. 1988); up from 74 pairs found in 1977. With only 2.4 percent of the total marsh area
considered, Sweetwater Marsh hosts a density of 2.3 pairs per hectare and 5.2 percent of the
state's total number of Belding's Savannah Sparrows. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow
inhabits salt marsh areas below the confluence of Nestor Creek and the Otay River. It has
also been observed on sparsely vegetated levees within Western Saltworks.
Surveys conducted in the spring of 1990 place the resident "F' & "G" Street Marsh
population at two pairs (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This is below the
site's presumed carrying capacity; it is believed that disturbance and predation are the
principal factors limiting population levels at this location.
IMPACTS
Development of the project would result in the construction of a three-story office complex
and surface parking to cover the majority of the site. The project applicants have
incorporated a number of measures into the project to minimize biological impacts and
enhance the quality of buffers between the project and sensitive wetland areas. These
include (Sadler 1990):
· Control of runoff and sediment during the construction of the project m~
over its life
. Enhancement of the weedy buffer area
. Expansion of wetlands along the western boundary of the site in conjunction
with site drainage improvements
Where these proposed measures serve to reduce impacts associated with the project, they
are specified in the mitigation section. Specific measures proposed by the project applicant
include Mitigation Recommendations No. 1 through No.5. The following impact analysis
assumes implementation of all proposed measures.
3-23
90-14.00702/01/91
11I-~~O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Drainage and Water Quality Impacts
The proposed project would modify the existing drainage patterns within the Rohr property
in a manner that would divert surface drainage from the site away from the various wetland
areas located to the west. Instead, this drainage would be directed through a series of filters
and a vegetated swale prior to directing discharge into existing storm drains. The amount
of runoff flowing into the "F" & G" Street Marsh from the project is relatively
inconsequential; however it constitutes the major surface watershed for the brackish and
riparian wetlands present both on site and within the adjacent refuge lands.
Decreased Freshwater Input
It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in a decrease in surface water
discharge from the site to all existing wetland areas. This discharge is currently very minor
due to the loose and highly permeable soils found on the site, the small drainage basin, and
the lack of well-defined drainage courses. On- and off-site potentially disrupted watershed
basins for the various wetlands include 9.3 acres to the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove; 3.3
acres to the 0.16 acre brackish marsh; and, 2.1 acres to the "P' & "G" Street Marsh. Impacts
to the watershed of the brackish marsh and "P' & "G" Street Marsh are expected to be
minor due to their limited contribution freshwater input makes relative to groundwater and
tidal sources. The loss of seasonal freshwater input to the riparian grove would be expected
to result in a reduction in extent and vigor of this grove, but would be unlikely to result in
the complete elimination of this stand. The losses and degradation anticipated could include
from 0.05 to the entire 0.14 acre, including 0.007 acre of direct grading losses. Loss of the
amount of riparian grove on site (0.007 acre) would not be considered a significant impact.
Impacts to the portion of the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove on NWR would, however,
constitute a significant adverse effect.
Contaminant Dischar~e
Identified with the development of residential, commercial, or other human high use areas,
is a corresponding increase in the presence of automobiles, fertilizers, pesticides and other
human-associated practices and products. Features such as irrigation and development-
related impermeable surfaces create additional amounts of freshwater runoff, thus providing
effective means to transport any human-associated byproducts.
3-24
90-14.00701/24/91
III- 0)1//
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gasoline and petroleum residues, particularly from automobiles, are associated with streets
and parking areas. These products are typically derived from a slow and regular process of
vehicle emission and engine dripping composed of the less toxic fractions of fuels, as the
more toxic fractions vaporize very quickly. Nevertheless, the potential level of disturbance
caused by such chemicals draining into the Marsh is considerable. The fact that these
chemicals are not easily broken down, and further, that they are not water soluble, allows
these products to persist in a more-or-Iess original state as they are transported by
freshwater runoff to downstream wetlands and waterways. Once in the wetlands, these
pollutants can have a wide range of effects upon resident organisms. These effects range
from behavioral responses such as emigration from, lack of immigration to, or modified
utilization of polluted areas; to reduction of growth rates and reproductive success, increased
susceptibility to parasitism or disease, and in the extreme case, death of respective
organisms, species, and/or replacement of representative dominant species by more
pollutant resistant species. Hydrocarbons have been identified as effective inhibitors of
chemoreceptors (nerve endings or sense organs sensitive to chemical stimuli) which may
further inhibit an organism's abilities to locate food, detect predators, or identify potential
mates.
The use of fertilizers and pesticides by local residents also holds potential for altering the
diversity and abundance of the organisms occupying the Marsh. Fertilizers supply one or
more nutrient sources which are normally limiting to maximum plant growth; typically
nitrogen (in the form of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, or urea), phosphorus (in the form of
phosphate), sulfate, "B" vitamins and trace metals. The consequences of these excessive
nutrients entering wetlands or waterways will be an accelerated eutrophication (the process
of producing an environment that favors plant over animal life) of the system. Under
minimal input conditions, there would be a promotion of the growth of plants in excess of
that which would be possible under the normally nitrogen-limited conditions prevailing
within the wetlands (Zedler, Williams and Boland, 1986). In an extreme case, oxygen levels
in the water can be so reduced that the result is a massive die-off of the fish and
invertebrates. The large amounts of decaying organisms also promote excessive bacteria
growth which further unbalances a marsh habitat.
Another possible consequence of the influx of excessive nutrients into the Marsh is that it
may allow plant species, which normally would be unable to compete with the normal
environmental dominants, the ability to out-compete and displace resident species. A
3-25
90-14.00701/24/91
1~-,j1I1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
change in the flora would result in the alteration of the representative fauna inhabiting the
wetlands. Many organisms are intricately tied to a particular plant for food, shelter, or to
fulfill requirements for reproduction. Loss of a particular plant or suite of plants may
therefore foster the elimination of the expected fauna of an undisturbed wetland system.
Influx of pesticides into wetlands or waterways through freshwater runoff can also have
devastating effects on the Marsh community. The effects can be manifested in the outright
death of organisms or impacts such as loss of reproductive success. While the historic
examples of DDT on avian reproduction are unlikely to be repeated, they remain classic
examples of potential hazards.
Despite these concerns, the fertilizers and pesticides used today are generally safer in terms
of their consequences to untargeted species, and application methods have advanced to the
point that their use by qualified horticulturists allow them to be used more safely than in
past years. Used properly, there is generally low likelihood of such compounds reaching the
wetlands and waterways in quantities which could prove significantly deleterious to wildlife,
or to the point where the balance within the marsh might be upset.
Sediment Accretion and Erosion
As indicated, the proposed project would alter the existing drainage patterns and surface
flow volumes on the Rohr parcel. These changes could potentially lead to increased erosion
within the uplands and deposition of sediments within the lower wetland basins.
While sedimentation and erosion are natural occurrences and even required for the
development of coastal wetland systems, the rate of sedimentation experienced by coastal
systems has been drastically altered by human activity. Agricultural activities, urbanization,
stream channelization, and construction activities have all served to increase erosion and
sediment transport rates throughout the drainage basins feeding coastal wetlands. This
. increased rate of erosion has led to a corresponding increase in sedimentation rate within
alluvial portions of the drainage system. These areas are characteristically the wetlands.
Deposition of sediments within coastal wetland areas has been identified as a critical
problem in numerous portions of southern California, including the nearby Tijuana Estuary
(Zedler et ai., 1986). Even the Sweetwater Marsh has been heavily impacted by sediments
transported from upstream areas. Most recently, the joint I-5/SR-54 freeway/flood control
3-26
90-14.00701/24/91
J~ - ~~.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
channel project has introduced heavy sediment loads into the river and the marsh system
(Merkel, pers. obs.). Both gradual and rapid sediment depositional patterns are active in
most areas.
Construction Impacts
The construction phase of the proposed project has the potential for the greatest impact to
the natural systems, is likely to lead to the most rapid changes in sediment transport, and
has the highest potential for effecting a change in the local water quality as it relates to
biological resources. Such changes have already been discussed and include increased
potential for changes in the pattern of erosion and deposition and potential for both
elevated turbidity levels in the bay and releases of toxins from the construction area into the
surrounding wetlands.
The project applicants have proposed the implementation of silt fencing, sandbagging, and
erection of a protective berm with a suitable capacity to hold site runoff. The drainage
swale is to be constructed early in the site grading to serve as a large capacity desiltation
basin. These measures would function to control sedimentation and erosion resulting from
natural rainfall events. In the event that substantial construction de-watering is required,
however, containment of silts and suspended sediments would be required. It is unknown
whether these measures would be capable of adequately controlling sedimentation from
these sources, although suitable control capabilities exist through partitioned basins and
stand-pipe drains. For this reason, impacts of the project on sedimentation and erosion are
considered to be significant and mitigable.
Wildlife Resource Impacts
The proposed project would alter the character of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh region in a
variety of ways, including increasing human presence in the area and converting habitat
areas. Approximately 11.5 acres of disturbed open field habitat would be converted to 9.4
acres of urbanized land and 2.1 acres of enhanced upland and wetland habitats. The 800-
foot long and 42-foot high structure would be located on the project site. This building
would be isolated from the majority of the existing wetlands by a minimum 100-foot buffer
zone, and would be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the boundary of the NWR (the "F"
3-27
90-14.007 01/24/91
I~-~I/-'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
& "G" Street Marsh). For most of its length, the building would be over 200 feet from the
eastern boundary of the Marsh.
Avian Flight Patterns
Because of the proximity to areas of high waterbird use, disruption of flight patterns was
considered to be a major concern associated with the development of the open lands of the
Bayfront. Prior investigation in an adjacent parcel addressed this issue and determined that
development of a higher intensity than is proposed for the project site would not result in
significant adverse impacts to avian flight patterns (Pacific Southwest Biological Services,
1990b) with the exception of raptor activity and broadly defined gull flight corridors.
In the case of raptors, building placement is considered secondary to the loss of foraging
habitat usage which would result from development of the site and general human
encroachment. This point is discussed below. Because of the overriding issue of habitat
unsuitability for raptors under developed site conditions, impacts to raptor flight activities
are not considered to be significant.
For gulls, flight patterns appear to be regional in nature and not specific to any set
corridors. Further, numerous studies have cited the structure avoidance behavior of gulls
wherein they tend to fly around or rise over impediments. Collisions with structures by this
group have been reported to be extremely low. Under the currently proposed project, gull
flights would also be little affected.
Although reported collisions with structures have been extremely low, the use of reflective
glass on large windows and the resultant resemblance of the glass to open sky or water can
lead to inflation in the mortality of numerous bird groups, including a host of waterbirds.
Because of this, sites located adjacent to highly reflective water with structure orientation
towards the west, could encourage collision impacts if reflective glass were used on the
buildings. In the absence of such reflective materials in the proposed project, collision
impacts would be insignificant.
3-28
90-14.00701/24/91
III -r;} l/.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Human/Pet Presence Impacts
The construction and continued presence of the proposed project could result in a variety
of negative impacts on the quality of the adjacent NWR and could decrease the use of the
area by both resident and migratory avifauna.
Development of the area would reduce the shoreline buffer zone and make the wildlife area
more prone to the long-term impacts associated with habitat dynamics. Large stands of
habitat can withstand minor disturbance and still sustain a population which is large, healthy,
and diverse enough to ensure the long-term survival of the species in the area. Deleterious
edge effects and fragmentation caused by roads and development in such areas can make
some species much more vulnerable to local extinction (Soule & Wilcox, 1980).
ii~~gP;1[~ffl;Ii$9g~~~tP;~~:t!li!Mll~9~f%!lg~I~i419!lB~;~ll!!)I~~[~~9~!I.p~pj!!1tf the
presence of a large number of people in the area could eventually lead to site degradation
by humans and human associated animals, primarily domestic dogs and cats, which inevitably
find their way over, through, and under even well-tended and mended fences. In similar
habitats on Delaware Bay researchers found that only 30 percent of the shorebirds present
remained undisturbed on a beach when human activity was allowed (Burger, 1986). Dogs
not only flush birds along shorelines, but are also prone to swimming or wading to otherwise
isolated nesting areas and can accidentally or intentionally destroy nests. Secretive rails are
very sensitive to human presence and, if not killed, will leave a site if disturbed regularly.
Such is likely to have been the case at the "P' & "G" Street Marsh (Jorgensen, pers. comm.
1988). In the bayfront, it is not uncommon to see persons with multiple dogs turn their
animals loose to chase birds. Feral dogs and apparently abandoned animals are also quite
common in the area. Domestic cats have been found to be major predators in some
suburban residential areas. One study estimated that domestic cats in Britain account for
over 70 million deaths to small vertebrates annually (Churcher and Lawton, 1989), thirty to
fifty percent of which are birds.
Although the proposed development would not result in the direct increase in domestic
animals associated with residential development, human activities, including providing food
and shelter for wandering and/or homeless animals, i!}1K~mi4 tend to result in increased
densities of domesticated animals. Adverse effects of the increased densities of these
animals could include losses of small shorebirds, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, and
3-29
90-14.00701/24/91
J" - ~"'b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
juveniles of all species from the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Indirect impacts of enhanced pet
and human associated predator attraction to the area are considered significant.
The increase in human activities on the site would be expected to lead to little if any
disturbance of existing wetland habitat usage, however it could potentially affect the values
of future enhancement efforts on the eastern boundary of the NWR. As designed, the
project has limited access on the western side of the proposed building to low lying patio
areas within the central portion of the building. These patios are to be buffered from direct
view of the adjacent marsh lands by mounds supporting native scrub vegetation. Properly
implemented, this design would provide suitable buffering of wetland habitats from human
disturbance associated with the proposed project. The potential impacts of increased human
activities normally associated with a project in such a sensitive environment are considered
to be adequately mitigated by the proposed project design.
A beneficial impact is that it is probable that the presence of the professional center project
would decrease the amount of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation. Illegal
off-road vehicle use of the project area would also be eliminated with site development.
Alteration of Predator /Competition/Prey Rejl:imes
Of primary concern for this issue is the generation of food and/or trash which will attract
opportunistic scavengers, such as Common Ravens, a variety of gulls, European Starling,
Black Rats and Virginia Opossum; all of which are known as aggressive predators/
competitors. Their increased presence could adversely impact the more sensitive species in
the area.
The effects of non-native plants used in landscaping' designs may also serve to attract
predatory or competing birds and mammals; however, the landscape materials proposed for
the project (Wallace, Roberts and Todd, 1990 as cited in Sadler, 1990), are considered to
be compatible with the region and of minimal concern with respect to providing predator
habitats.
The proposed office building itself, however, would be located adjacent to the buffer zone
for the NWR and would have the potential for creating both real and perceived threats of
predation. Such structures may provide suitable hunting perches and nest sites for avian
3-30
90-14.(}(}7 01/24/91
11tJ-~'1r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
predators such as the American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, and Common Raven. All of
these species have keen vision and are effective hunters both from perches and on the wing
(D. Grout, pers. comm.).
Under the project development plan, the proposed 42-foot high building encroaches as close
as 50 feet to the NWR, with a set-back from existing sensitive wetlands of approximately 250
feet. In the case of coastal locations such as the Chula Vista Bayfront, it has been suggested
that buildings of 4 stories or higher provide effective predator perches for Peregrine Falcons
which normally opt to hunt from the highest available structures (P. Bloom, pers. comm.).
In the case of the project proposed 1* 44-foot building, however, Peregrine Falcons are not
expected to be among the raptors using it as a primary perch as they would probably focus
on the existing nearby, and higher, Building 61 (approximately 73 feet).
Regardless of the issue of real threat, the proposed structure was also evaluated as a
perceived threat that would result in avoidance of the area by birds frequently sought by
avian predators. Habituation (development of tolerance through prolonged exposure) to
predators and predator-like objects has been demonstrated in some avian species (Schleidt,
1961 and Hinde 1954a, 1954b as cited in Morse 1980), but in other instances, birds
confronted with changing stimuli or new stimuli tend to be slower to habituate or in some
instances wrongly habituate and are more readily preyed upon. The results of non-
habituation to unreal threats can also have serious consequences on prey species. A species
which spends much of its time reacting to "ghost-predators" is re-allocating time that could
be spent on other behavioral requirements. Morse (1980:133) noted that:
A prey species that must spend most of its time foraging, as often happens
during winter or the breeding season, could be excluded from an area even
if it was rarely taken by the predator. Harassment by the predator [or a
"ghost-predator"] could have an effect on the size of the prey population
similar to that which would be caused by actual predation, although the
predator population would gain nothing.
Shalter (1975, 1978) has examined the habituation of members of the family galliformes
(e.g., coots and rails) and flycatchers in the field and has determined that habituation results
where stimuli are static in position. The threshold beyond which birds will significantly alter
their use patterns as a result of building placement and associated stimuli is highly variable.
Types of structures, extent and type of associated human activities, and the avian species
3-31
90-14.110701/24/91
Jt.-~4/t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
considered, all play key roles in determining the impacts of building placement. Some
"human resistant" birds such as Killdeer, Mallards and a host of gulls may not vacate the
area under even the most intense development. Other birds, which are highly sensitive to
human intrusion, may completely disappear from the area with even minor development.
Still others may modify their behavior in proximity to the structures to a degree resulting
in detrimental effects.
Belding's Savannah Sparrows have been found to readily abandon egg incubation when nests
are approached (A. White, 1985 pers. comrn.). The effects of buildings, bridges, or other
large structures in the absence of human activities have not been well studied, however,
there is indication that these features may play important roles in bird behavior. The
general lack of avian nesting adjacent to the Rohr Building 61 bordering the "F' & "G"
Street Marsh is believed to be the result of both real and perceived threats of predation;
however, in the absence of any predator controls in this area, these factors are not readily
separable.
Based on the information available, and an examination of "height:bird distance" ratios for
nine large bayfront structures, an attempt was made to identify patterns of avian use in the
vicinity of structures. The lack of pre-structure bird utilization and behavior data, the wide
diversity of habitats adjacent to the structures, and the lack of control over non-structure
associated disturbances all limit the applicability of this comparison. For lack of more
comparable examples with both pre-project and post-project quantitative data, however, this
information has been used in this analysis and prior analyses (Pacific Southwest Biological
Services, 1990a). Figure 3 in Appendix C identifies the results of the site examinations
conducted.
The results of this study indicated that for tall buildings (e.g., over 50 feet), a constant 0.6
height:distance ratio appeared to hold true. When buildings were lower in stature (e.g., 30-
50 feet), the patterns appeared to breakdown and structure encroachment was less of a
factor in determining bird usage. Gulls and more disturbance tolerant species were found
to uniformly range closer than would be dictated by strict adherence to the extrapolated
ratio, and some more intolerant species would engage in active behaviors (Le., foraging,
display) within this range; however, few observations were made of species engaged in such
non-wary behaviors as loafing.
3-32
9<1-14.00701/24/91
III -~~,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Applying the 0.6 height:distance ratio to the proposed project indicated that perceived
threats might be expected within the swale and buffer zones of the project site as well as low
utility uplands of the NWR, but these threats would not be expected to extend into the
sensitive wetland areas (see Figure 3-2). The extent to which the proposed development
would manifest true predator threats is difficult to determine, but is of high concern due to
the potential for losses of endangered species from the NWR marshlands. For these
reasons, impacts of the project on the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
are considered to be significant.
Alteration of Habitat Use Areas
The proposed project would result in the elimination of approximately 11.6 acres of
overgrown fallow agricultural fields. This area would be replaced by approximately 9.5 acres
of developed lands and 2.1 acres of native succulent sage scrub and seasonal freshwater
wetlands.
There is expected to be a decrease in open field associated species and an increase in urban
affiliates such as House Sparrows and Rock Doves (domestic pigeons). Such conversions
could result in both losses of prey species and encroachment impacts to foraging raptors.
Due to the limited extent of similar coastal habitats, and the high diversity and numbers of
raptors utilizing the undeveloped areas of the Chula Vista Bayfront, the loss of the site for
raptor foraging would be considered an incremental adverse effect of the project. By itself,
this loss would not be considered significant due to the existing availability of the remainder
of the Bayfront uplands which support high raptor use. The development of this area would,
however, incrementally contribute to the significant cumulative erosion of these resource
values.
Threatened and Endangered Species
While the Rohr property does not support any federal- or state-listed endangered species,
those which occur in the vicinity and have the potential for being impacted by the proposed
project have been considered in this analysis. The Light-footed Clapper Rail, California
Least Tern, and Peregrine Falcon, all carry both federal- and state-listed endangered species
status. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is state-listed as endangered but does not carry
federal threatened or endangered status. The following section serves as a summary of
3-33
90-14.00701/24/91
I ~ - ~60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fL
C'il.
Q..'
!!.
.... '.
01 ",
Q.). ',"
= S.
~i
, -"
/f.p-,;J51
C';l
M
~
~
~
{j
~
....
1
]
...
~
Q.)
~
'S
~
~
1
s
i
f)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
expected impacts to these species. Detailed analysis should be reviewed in other portions
of this report.
California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni)
The California Least Tern occurs seasonally within the Chula Vista Bayfront and is a nesting
species on the "0" Street Fill north of the Rohr property, and on the Chula Vista Wildlife
Island south of the Rohr site. This species forages along the shallows of the San Diego Bay
shoreline and (infrequently) has been known to forage into the marshlands of the "F' & "G"
Street Marsh. This species is opportunistic in nature and is resistant to disturbance away
from the nest site. This species is not expected to be impacted by the proposed project.
Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes)
The Light-footed Clapper Rail is a resident of the "E" Street and Sweetwater Marshes and
was historically a resident of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. This species is rather secretive
in nature and tends to avoid areas of high or even moderate levels of human activity.
Nesting is typically accomplished in areas of high marsh hummocks or low lying upland
fringes. Nests are often susceptible to flooding and mammalian and reptilian predation.
Adults and young alike are susceptible to avian predation. During periods of extreme tides,
Clapper Rails are forced into upland fringes or onto floating/emergent debris where
disturbance and predation threats are magnified.
Because the Clapper Rail is not currently a resident within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, the
effects of increased predator abundance resulting from the proposed project would not be
expected to lead to direct impacts to this species. Instead, an indirect result of the project
would be to further reduce the potential for ever re-establishing Clapper Rails in the "F' &
"G" Street Marsh. This impact is considered to be significant and rnitigable.
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
The Peregrine Falcon is a skilled avian predator which tends to hunt from high perches and,
primarily, takes birds in flight. This species is fairly tolerant of human activities and has
been successfully introduced into urban areas--preying primarily on pigeons. During 1989,
the first successful San Diego County nesting in a 47 year period occurred on the Coronado
3-34
9O-J4.00701/24/91
J,,-;}6~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bridge. Marshland and expansive mudflat areas found in south San Diego Bay attract
peregrines due to the abundance of waterbirds.
Due to the relatively low stature of the proposed development, it would not be expected to
provide perching sites or potential nesting habitat for this species. The loss of open field
habitat resulting from the proposed project would not be expected to substantially affect this
species. For this reason, no significant impacts to this species are anticipated.
Belding's Savannah Sparrow (PassercuTus sandwichensis rostratus)
The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is a resident bird of all of the salicornia dominated salt
marshes found within the Chula Vista Bayfront. Two pairs were found to be active in the
"F" & "G" Street Marsh during the 1990 breeding season. This number is well below the
carrying capacity of the habitat and it is expected that disturbance and predation are the
principal factors acting to limit population size in this area.
This species, like the Clapper Rail, has been characterized as being relatively secretive in
nature and rather susceptible to human and pet impacts. Approaches to the nest site may
lead to nest abandonment or accidental nest damage (A. White, pers. comm. 1985, Zembal
et aT. 1988). Also similar to the Light-footed Clapper Rail, the Belding's Savannah is
susceptible to predation at or near the nest by mammals, reptiles, and wading birds such as
the Great Blue Heron. The proposed project would be expected to have significant impacts
on this species through the enhancement of predator activities, including those of domestic
cats. This impact is mitigable.
Construction Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will involve substantial earthwork, de-watering, and
building construction. This project is expected to generate considerable noise and increased
human activities for an extended period of time. While evidence suggests that continuous
or repetitive noise has little effect on avian activities (Pacific Southwest Biological Services
1987a, b, and c; Dooling 1982; Dooling et aL 1971; Awbrey et aT. 1980; Awbrey pers. comm.
1986), inconsistent noise or noise associated with visual stimuli may have cumulative impacts
on avian behavior.
3-35
9O-14.(J(fl 01/24/91
III -.JS.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Human activities within the development area are likely to be extremely high during the
construction phases. Limiting work areas under such conditions is often times difficult and
"wandering" contractors may cause substantial damage without recognizing their impacts.
This is especially true during avian nesting seasons when birds are establishing nests through
the actual fledgling of young.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential impacts of the proposed project have been identified in the preceding section.
Many of these impacts may be lessened or mitigated to a level of less than significant
through the project design itself. Some of these measures (1-5) have already been discussed
or proposed through a variety of interactions between the developer, the City and the EIR
consultants. These are stated below where they are of value in off-setting or minimizing
potential for impacts of the proposed project.
Potentially significant impacts resulting from project construction and/or operation include:
. Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on
adjacent NWR lands (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation
Measure No.7).
. Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff (mitigated
through the incorporated project design element of silt and grease traps
[Mitigation Nos. 2 and 3] and through Mitigation Measure Nos. 11 and 12).
. Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions
of the drainage system (mitigable through the incorporated project design
element [Mitigation Nos. 2, 3 and 4] of silt and grease traps and the
desiltation basin, construction of the applicant-proposed berm, and presence
of a "biologically aware" construction monitor [Mitigation Measure No.6]).
. Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and
human presence (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measure
Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13 and 17).
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey (mitigable
through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16).
. An incremental contribution to cumulative losses to raptor foraging areas (no
mitigation proposed).
3-36
90-14.110702/01/91
I~ -~S9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential
for re-establishment in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh (mitigable through
implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17).
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
(mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10 and
13).
Recommendations:
1. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub
vegetation between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer
must be isolated from human intrusion and should further be implemented
with swales and mounds as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities
occurring on the patio areas.
2. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and
grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The
trap(s) placed on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple-
chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning
to be conducted in late September or early October and as needed through
the winter and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of
wastes rather than flushing, as is unfortunately often the case. City
inspections of these traps must be conducted, possibly through the mitigation
monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required.
4. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be
maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave
the construction site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early
in the project grading phase would assist in this measure. In addition,
construction de-watering should be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric,
gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so that clear water is released from
the site through the regular desiltation basins.
5. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be from the
lists provided by the developer. Should species substitutions be desired, these
must be submitted to the City landscape architect for review. Plant materials
which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as
Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive
as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Waslzingtonia or
Cortaderia, must be restricted from use.
3-37
9O-14.1XJ701/24/91
I~ --5:J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.
A "biologically aware" construction monitor must be present for all phases of
grading and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed
through the City and would report directly to a specific responsible person in
the Engineering, Planning or Community Development Department if
construction activities fail to met the conditions outlined or should unforeseen
problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of the construction
activities. This monitor must continue monitoring on a reduced basis during
actual outside building construction.
7.
Re-establishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site
drainage swale must be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and
direct impacts of the project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove
straddling the NWR border. Management of the riparian grove to retain
wildlife resources must be coordinated with the National Wildlife Refuge
Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types must be included in the
Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species used in this habitat
area.
8.
Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through
vegetation barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet
encroachment must be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on
mounds along the western property boundary.
9.
The project should be a participant in a predator management program for
the Chula Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild
animal predators. This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator
management plan as a basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the
proposed development. This plan should include the use of fines as an
enforcement tool to control human and pet activities. The plan should be
comprehensive and should include management of predators within the
adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development areas.
10.
A full time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by
revenues generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront,
or by other funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management
program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to
ensure maintenance of other mitigation requirements (Le., silt/grease trap
maintenance, etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in
enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers should
have training in predator control and should possess the necessary skills,
permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators. It is
recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection
of the entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the
boundaries of the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and the San
Diego Bay. The jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in
this board are the City of Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District,
3-38
90-14.00702/01/91
I (, -.25 r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the Bayfront Conservancy Trust, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
California Department of Fish and Game, Rohr Industries, and the owner of
the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula Vista Investors).
11. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of
the project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
12. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who
is a state-certified applicator.
13. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the
multi-jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for
the purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities,
fencing, the predator control program and mitigation programs for the project.
14. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be
totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and
scavengers to the area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
15. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which
are readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a
suitable substitute are recommended.
16. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included
on the western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west should
not exceed two inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are
exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as
Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be
obtained should heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or
in landscaping materials.
17. Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces
of the western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the
minimum required for security on the western side of the building.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
To minimize the disturbance factors associated with construction, the project applicant has
proposed a variety of measures to control construction associated disturbances including silt
fences, work area delineation, desiltation basins, and construction monitors to control human
activities and ensure implementation of other mitigation measures. The inclusion of the
above recommendations would mitigate the expected impacts of proposed project
3-39
90-14.00701/24/91
111-015'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
construction and operation, and human encroachment to a level of less than significant at
the project level if properly implemented and well-enforced. These recommendations would
also mitigate the potential impacts of the project to drainage and water quality, as these
issues relate to biological resources.
One significant cumulative impact remains which is the incremental loss of raptor foraging
habitat. No mitigation is possible for this impact.
3-40
90-14.00701/24/91
J/,-:159
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3 AESTHETICSIVISUAL ~UAliTY
EXISTING CONDmONS
The project site for Rohr Industries is located within the City of Chula Vista approximately
1,400 feet from the coastline of the San Diego Bay. A small area of tidal wetlands is
included within the southwestern boundary of the site. The project area consists of a
relatively flat and uniform upland that is currently undeveloped but has been historically
used for agriculture. Because of the relatively open nature of the project area, the project
locale can be seen from numerous off-site locations (see Figure 3-3). Current vegetative
cover includes tumbleweeds and immature palm trees (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). The
project site is located within the Midbayfront subarea of the Chula Vista Bayfront Local
Coastal Program (LCP) (refer to land use section and existing certified LCP [1985]).
The surrounding landscapes are diversified in character and include the San Diego Bay and
open space to the west and north, respectively, and industrial warehouses (Rohr) to the
south (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). Immediately adjacent to the eastern site boundary
are transmission towers, railroad tracks, a parking lot and additional Rohr buildings; further
to the east is a mix of urban residential/commercial uses across Interstate 5 (1-5). Several
restaurants are located to the northeast, along Bay Boulevard, which have open to partially
obstructed views of the project site (see Figure 3-4, photograph B) including the Soup
Exchange, El Torito, and Anthony's. Elevation and existing vegetation contribute to the
visual buffer between these uses and the project site.
The proposed project site is visible from a number of public viewing locations including 1-5,
Bay Boulevard, Bayside Park, "F" Street, the Chula Vista Nature Interpretative Center, a
small city park at "F" Street and Bay Boulevard, as well as a number of dispersed residential
development. The project site is currently visible from the northern end of Bayside Park,
located to the southwest, at a distance of approximately 0.5 mile from the site (see Figure
3-5, photograph C). Views of the site are possible from along 1-5 southbound between 24th
Street and "E" Street (see Figure 3-5, photograph D). Unobstructed views are also possible
from the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center located approximately 0.7 mile from the
site (see Figure 3-6, photograph E).
3-41
90-14.008 01/24/91t
'II -';11,,0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,--
,--
,--
".... .
.... ;
.. ".\
":'>/.;~/>.::. .. . .:
':'::. .:.:.t :'::.::::: i:".:' Chula Vista
. ::'. ." ::. '..- :::'/. Nature Interpretive Center
....::..::-::..;.. ~
...... '. \
: ,', ....:....
.. ,',I
.. " :.:: ::~r/ '.
. ....vOI...~ : .. .
.' ;':.': ~'....,' .. \....
. .::,:;. ::~.~:,: PROJECf
. ", .:.. (It -. . ";"
. ":';:<:,~/;','~>,.
.....:...' .
, "
. ;' .:': ~'.,. ,
",'.:: I .:
. ':,:..:."
-1" 4e -(j' stre,; .
IV)
\~
.Z
\
\
''C)
\-,
, ~
\(;)
\0
\0
\l
\~
\~
\0
\~
\
'~
\\
\~
i-4
'oj
~
, "
.. ..'
. .:~ ': " .
. ':.::':"':" '.:', " :.
Key Observation Points
o
2000
4000 Foot
N
~
Figure 3-3
,,,-,;JIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ Rohr BuiJdings
A Southern view of site from "F" Street.
B. Southwest view from nearby restaurant.
I"-;JII~
Figure 3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. Northeast view towards site from
Bayside Park near "G" Street.
D. Southwest view towards site from
Interstate 5, southbound.
III - ~ ~.3
Figure 3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
With respect to residential areas, the project site can be seen from the Jade Bay mobile
home park, the Park Regency Apartments and from a condominium complex located along
Woodlawn Avenue. Views from both the Jade Bay mobile home park and the upper stories
of the unnamed condominiums, located along Woodlawn Avenue approximately 0.8 mile
northeast of the site, are intermittent in nature. Apartment windows with southern
exposures on third and fourth story levels would have the best possible views towards the
site (see Figure 3-6, photograph F and Figure 3-7, photograph G). Existing views from the
Park Regency Apartments, approximately 0.3 mile east of the site, are partially obstructed
by existing buildings, vegetation, the elevation of 1-5 and a bordering stand of eucalyptus
trees along the freeway.
Due to the proximity of the project site to the San Diego Bay, some views toward the site
are of high scenic interest. Views to the site from restaurants, a hotel and a small public
park to the northeast are open. Distant views to the San Diego Bay from these locations
are also generally open. Views to the north from the site are unobstructed (see Figure 3-7,
photograph H). Intervening industrial buildings, warehouses, and 1-5 partially obstruct views
from south and east of the site, and those structures dominate the landscape character in
these directions.
IMPACTS
Project Visual Characteristics
The office complex is proposed to be a total of 245,000 square feet, and a height of 42 feet.
The height and square footage of the office building for this site are in conformance with
the density, square footage, and height standards set by the City of Chula Vista LCP.
Exterior construction materials will include plaster and stone with earthtone colors. No
reflective glass will be used on the west face of the building. Glass specifications for the
other sides of the building have not been determined.
In the interest of protecting the 0.4 acre area of the tidal wetlands (located on the southwest
portion of the site) from polluted surface water runoff, the office building is proposed to be
placed between the marsh area and the project parking lot. In addition, a dirt berm and
fence are proposed between the building and the NWR to limit human encroachment into
the NWR. The berm is proposed to be approximately 5 to 6 feet high and would extend
3-42
90-14.008 01/24/91
11#- ~~I/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Site
E. Southeast view towards site from
Chula VISta NatLg"e Interpretive Center.
F. Southwest view of site from "D" Street
adjacent to Jade Bay Mobile Home Park.
III. ~"5
Figure 3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G. Southwest view from condominiums located
at Chula VISta StreetjWoodlawn Avenue.
H. Northwest view toward San Diego Bay
from project site.
/" -;J"~
Figure 3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the entire length of the site's west boundary. The proposed fence is 6 feet high, chain link
in construction and would be positioned near the toe of the west-facing slope of the berm.
A water retention basin would be provided between the building and the marsh buffer. The
buffer area would be landscaped with upland coastal sage scrub.
The parking lot is proposed to be east of the building, adjacent to the existing transmission
towers, and would provide 730 spaces. (Rohr Industries has estimated a need for 705
parking spaces for its employees - see Traffic Section.) Exterior lighting would consist of
high intensity discharge down-lighting and would be limited to illuminating the project site
only. Lighting on the western boundary of the site would be directed away from the natural
tidal wetlands to minimize the effect of light on the wildlife.
Landscaping planned for most of the site includes scrubs, groundcover and canopy trees.
The parking area would be divided into four separate "rooms" of landscaped areas to help
reduce its elongated appearance. Along the western boundary in the vicinity of the berm,
landscaping would be made up of upland coastal scrub to blend with the natural
environment. Along "F" Street, landscaping would consist primarily of trees to reduce
visibility to the site. All landscaping for the project would be in conformance with the City
of Chula Vista Landscaping Manual.
"F" Street is defined as a "gateway" to the Bayfront area, and is therefore an area of high
visitation and visual importance. Proposed improvements to "F" Street include two
entrances for ingress and egress, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights and a
bike lane. Rohr Industries would be responsible for upgrading the southern half of "F"
Street from the centerline to the site boundary. Road improvements are required for
conformance with Class I Collector Road standards as well as standards set in the LCP
Circulation Element (Section 19.86.01).
Visual Sensitivity
The visual effects of the proposed project depend upon the degree to which the project
complements the existing Rohr facilities and proposed Midbayfront development in terms
of architectural design and materials, and whether the project would have any adverse
effects on existing scenic views from public viewing locales and residential neighborhoods.
The building by itself, could result in an adverse visual impact due to its size and form;
3-43
90-14.008 01/24/91
III-;lI,r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
however, the existence of other large buildings in the area reduce the significance of the
proposed project. The proposed building is 42 feet (in conformance with the City of Chula
Vista's height regulations) as compared with the adjacent existing Rohr building height
(Building 61) of 73 feet. In addition, the proposed earthtones would blend with the visual
characteristics of the existing Rohr building. The proposed project consequently would be
complementary to the existing development and would contribute to the cumulative visual
change of the area from undeveloped land to industrial/business park development.
The proposed project would be visible from the northern end of Bayside Park (located
approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the site). The primary scenic amenity of the park is San
Diego Bay, while the area immediately to the east is existing vacant, disturbed land. The
proposed office building would be partially obstructed by the existing Rohr buildings to the
south, and views beyond the site are already currently developed. Given the planned
landscaping and visual characteristics of the area, views from Bayside Park to the site would
be altered, but impacts are not considered significant.
Views range from open to partially obstructed along 1-5 between 24th Street and "E" street.
While the proposed facilities would be visible to southbound travellers, the project would
not block any existing scenic views. In addition, the presence of the existing Rohr building
to the south, and the transmission towers to the east would result in the new structure
blending with existing facilities. Further, planned landscaping would effectively screen views
of the site to southbound freeway travellers. Visual impacts are considered neither adverse
nor significant.
From the small public park, Days Inn Hotel, Soup Exchange, El Torito and Anthony's
restaurants just northeast of the site, open views of the site and partially obstructed views
of the San Diego Bay are possible. The proposed building and landscaping would obstruct
Bay views from portions of these locations, however, due to the small amount of the views
that would actually be affected, no significant change in the existing views would occur.
Thus, project level impacts to these types of viewers are not considered significant.
From the Jade Bay mobile home park and adjacent unnamed condominiums located
approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the site, the proposed project would be visible; but the
new building would be substantially smaller in scale than the existing Rohr buildings to the
east and south. In addition, proposed landscaping along "F' Street would further buffer the
3-44
90-14.008 01/24/91
'''-;1/''
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
view from this vantage point. Thus, views of the site from this location would be changed,
but these visual changes are not considered significant.
From the Park Regency Apartments located approximately 0.3 mile east of the site, views
of the proposed project facilities would be buffered by existing vegetation and buildings.
Although the building would be partially visible, the existing conditions to the east and south
along with the planned landscaping would render only slight impacts from this view. Visual
impacts from this location would not be significant.
Improvements to "F' Street would result in a conversion of approximately 30 feet of existing
disturbed land to pavement and concrete for road widening and sidewalks. Landscaping and
trees would border the project area and create a visual buffer to pedestrian, cyclist and
motorist traffic. Views from "F" Street to the site are open. The proposed project would
block some of the distant ocean views from the Bay Boulevard/"F' Street intersection to
0.1 mile west of that location. Impacts to these types of viewers may be considered adverse
but not significant due to the existing urban character south of "F' Street.
MITIGATION
The proposed project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's standards for height,
square footage, and density as well as the planned land use for the area. Views will be
altered by the implementation of the project; however, no significant impacts have been
identified, therefore mitigation measures will not be required.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The applicant is not proposing a visually inconsistent use since the proposed office complex
would be adjacent to several existing, and in some cases larger, industrial-type structures of
similar architectural style and color. Although construction of the project would result in
partial loss of views to the bay, none of the possible impacts to viewers discussed in this
section are deemed significant; all are less than significant. In addition to proposing a
structure which is consistent with those currently existing, an extensive vegetation screening
and planting program has been developed which would provide some continuity with the
adjacent open space to the west.
3-45
90-14.008 01/24/91
IIIJ -0111'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 CIRCUlATION/PARKING
The following discussion is based on a study prepared by JRK & Associates analyzing the
existing and future circulation conditions in the study area and the impacts associated with
development of the proposed office complex. The study is summarized below and
reproduced in full in Appendix D.
EXISTING CONDmONS
Current Circulation System
The study area surrounding the project is defined as the area between "E" Street, "R" Street,
San Diego Bay and Broadway. Interstate 5 (1-5) bisects the study area in a north/south
direction. The circulation system within the study area is described below and illustrated in
Figure 3-8. The current ADT on roads in the study area are also provided.
Interstate 5
1-5 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the Bayfront area. It extends south to the
California-Mexico Border and to the north through downtown San Diego, providing
interstate travel through California, Oregon and Washington. The current average daily
traffic (ADT) volume on 1-5 is 149,000 vehicles per day (vpd) north of "E" Street, 140,000
vpd between "E" Street and "J" Street, and 141,000 vpd south of "J" Street. An interchange
between 1-5 and State Route (SR) 54 is currently under construction just north of the I-
S j"E" Street interchange. When this interchange is completed, the existing interchange
configuration and traffic volumes will be altered substantially. These improvements are
described in the discussion of planned improvements.
"E" Street
"E" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its
current western terminus at Bay Boulevard to an interchange at I-80S. East of I-80S, "E"
Street becomes Bonita Road. West of 1-5, "E" Street has an ADT of approximately 10,000
3-46
90-14.01601/24/91
I ~ .. ';}'rtJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V'\
I
-
149.0
10.1 37.2 E Street
33.6
9.8
4.2 \ F Street
J 6.3 9.9
4.5
"0 144.0
~
to
>. - G Street
-ltl
to
- 6.5 H Street
30.6
>.
14 .0 ltl
3.8 it
>. 41 "0
it > ltl
.::L- 0( 0
c. I Street ...
V'\ c to
ltl I it
c - -
'C ltl
-
ltl "0
:e 0
0
!:.
J Street
141.0
N
~
Source: City of Chula VISta Traffic Counts (Traffic Flow Report, June 30, 1990).
Existing Year 1990 ADT (in Thousands)
I II" .;Pfl
Figure 3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vpd, and east of 1-5 the vpd is approximately 37,200. In the study area, "E" Street is
designated a four-lane Major Road in the City's General Plan.
'F' Street
"F" Street extends from its current terminus in the tidelands area west of Bay Boulevard to
Hilltop Drive in the middle of Chula Vista. Immediately adjacent to the project area and
west of 1-5, "F" Street is a two-lane road with an ADT of 4,200 vpd. East of 1-5, it exists
as a four-lane road with an ADT of 6,300 vpd. The Circulation Element of the General
Plan designates "F" Street as a Class I Collector between Broadway and Marina Parkway.
"H" Street
"H" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its
current terminus at the Rohr Industries main gate to east of I-80S where it is known as East
"H" Street. ADT east and west of 1-5 is approximately 30,600 vpd and 6,500 vpd,
respectively. The portion of "H" Street in the study area is designated in the General Plan
as a six-lane Major Road east of 1-5 and a four-lane Major Road west of 1-5.
Bay Boulevard
Bay Boulevard is a two-lane street that extends from "E" Street to Main Street at the
southern end of the Chula Vista City boundary. The intersection of Bay Boulevard and "E"
Street is an unsignalized "L" configuration with unimproved dirt roads leading north and
west. Bay Boulevard provides the only continuous north-south route west of 1-5. Currently,
this collector facility carries an ADT of 9,800 vpd just south of "E" Street and 3,800 vpd just
north of "J" Street. It is designated a Class II Collector in the General Plan.
Broadway Boulevard
. Broadway is a four-lane collector street with a north-south orientation. It extends from the
National City limits south to the south San Diego city limits. Broadway is a major element
in the west Chula Vista circulation network. Broadway provides continuous north-south
travel just east of 1-5.
3-47
90-14.01601/24/91
III - ,j :r~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Most of the traffic attracted to the project from locations outside Chula Vista will access the
site via the I-S/"E" Street interchange. "F" Street will provide the primary access to the site
for trips originating in Chula Vista.
San Diego Trolley
The San Diego Trolley runs parallel to 1-5 along the east side of the freeway through Chula
Vista with stations located near "E" Street, "H" Street, and Palomar Street. The capacity of
streets crossing the San Diego Trolley tracks and nearby intersections is reduced due to
stoppages in traffic as the trolley passes. This reduction in capacity is due to the impact of
gate down time. The available supply of capacity during peak hours is reduced by the
number of trolley crossings per hour. At the present time, approximately eight trolleys cross
these arterials in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The accumulation of gate down times
during either a.m. and p.m. peak hours equals approximately seven minutes per hour.
During this down time period all traffic operations along the east-west arterials in the study
area are restricted, thus reducing available capacity. Over the course of typical peak hour
gate down time, operations represent a reduction in available capacity of approximately 10
to 12 percent.
It is important to recognize that the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) has
installed electronic trolley vehicle tagging devices which reduce gate down time at all at-
grade crossings in the City of Chula Vista. This reduction in gate down time results in a
savings of approximately 30 seconds per trolley crossing (for trolleys which stop at near-side
stations in advance of the crossing gates) or two minutes of additional arterial andlor
intersection capacity on the street system. This new device restores approximately three
percent capacity to each intersection. However, in the near future, (one to three years)
MTDB anticipates the addition of two more trolley vehicles per hour on the south line
through Chula Vista. This increase in trolley frequency will negatively impact available
capacity and result in overall reduction in capacity of approximately ten percent (assuming
all gate crossings are operating with the new electronic delay device). In the long term, the
number of trolleys could be increased further, resulting in an additional loss of available
capacity. Currently, however, MTDB does not plan to implement additional trolley service
beyond the ten vehicles per hour which will be operating in the near future.
3-48
90-14.01601/24/91
)"-,)9-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Current Roadway Segment Operations
To provide a baseline condition for evaluating impacts on the circulation system, an analysis
of existing operations on study area roadway segments was completed. The existing roadway
classifications are illustrated in Figure 3-9. As shown, the majority of the roadways in the
study area are classified as collector facilities, with the exception of Marina Parkway which
is classified as a four-lane Major facility. These classifications are for current 1990
conditions and do not represent the General Plan designations for build out.
The Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element establishes the desired threshold ADT
volume levels on each roadway classification for levels of service (WS) A through F. LOS
refers to the operational capability of a roadway segment with a given volume of traffic. At
LOS A, traffic flows are uninterrupted and at WS F, traffic is substantially hindered by the
number of vehicles. LOS C or better is the operation level typically considered acceptable
in the City of Chula Vista and this standard (LOS C) was the basis for developing the new
General Plan Circulation Element. The roadway capacity and level of service standards for
each functional class in the City's General Plan is provided in Appendix D.
Table 3-1 provides a comparison of the existing traffic volumes, WS C traffic volumes for
that roadway segment and the actual operating WS for several roadways in the study area.
As shown, roadway segments on "E" and "R" Streets east of 1-5, are currently operating at
LOS F which is considered less than satisfactory. Both "F' Street and "H" Street west of 1-5
are operating at WS A and Bay Boulevard varies between WS A and F. It is important
to recognize that this analysis is based on a comparison of volume- to-capacity (V Ic) at LOS
C capacity levels. Thus, the analysis gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity
in relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the actual (functional)
capacity of the roadway. To more clearly define traffic operations and performance, the
following analysis of study area intersections is provided.
Current Intersection Operations
An analysis of the existing operation of intersections in the study area was also completed.
This analysis used the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method to determine levels
of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The ICU method uses the ratio of
3-49
90-14.01601/24/91
'iI .~ ~'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGE
U"\
I
-
149.0
10.1 37.2 33.6 "E't Street
.. ...
9.
4.2 '\ 6.3 9.9 "Fit Street
--- ........
...............
I -- i<;::;;;;:;:;:;
4.5 144.0 "G" Street
6.5 30.6 "H" Street
3.8 II
>i: ::: >
iIi" .:. <
.: :.: C
6:1: :j: 't:l 140.0 it "I" Street
~ cu
cu. .. -
'~!1j! 10 't:l
>. 0
0
cu ~ -
::!:::. :: 10 >.
cu
::~:. ':::, it
'~::':'::::" 't:l
cu
...... ...... Street 0
...... ..... "J"
NO "::::::::..;. :;::~:::: ::~::::~:~:~ :~:; :;: ;:;:;:;: ..
10
Lane Major
I Collector 141.0
N
.
Project Site
::::::::: Four
_ Class
...._ Class II Collector
_ Class III Collector
Source: City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts (Traffic flow Report, June 30, 1990).
Existing Street Network and Traffic Volumes (in Thousands)
Year 1990 Conditions
Iv -~ r.5
Figure 3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-1
Existing Year 1989 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
LOS Cl
Planning V/C2
Level Capacity Actual
Street Sel!.ment ADT Existinl!. Conditions Ratio LOS
"E" Street
Bay Boulevard - 1-5 10,100 7,500 1.35 F
1-5 - Woodlawn Avenue 37,200 22,000 1.69 F
Woodlawn Avenue -
Broadway 33,600 22,000 1.53 F
"F" Street
Tidelands Avenue -
Bay Boulevard 4,200 7,500 0.56 A
Bay Boulevard -
Woodlawn Avenue 6,300 22,000 0.29 A
Woodlawn Avenue -
Broadway 9,900 22,000 0.45 A
"H" Street
Bay Boulevard - 1-5 6,500 22,000 0.30 A
1-5 - Broadway 30,600 22,000 1.39 F
Bay Boulevard
"E" Street - "F" Street 9,800 7,500 1.31 F
"F" Street - "H" Street 4,500 7,500 0.60 A
"H" Street - "J" Street 3,800 7,500 0.51 A
Notes: I. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circulation Element facilities.
2. The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
Source: Existing ADT data was derived from City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts
(Traffic Flow Report - June 30, 1990).
I u -,;}rlo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
intersection demand to capacity for the critical movements to measure operation of the
intersection. A summary of the ranges of ICU for each level of service is provided below:
Level of Service
K1!.
A
B
C
D
F
00.0 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
Greater than 1.00
To analyze eXIstmg conditions, turning movement volumes at key intersections were
compiled from previous traffic studies and the Chula Vista Public Works Department (see
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 in Appendix D.) Table 3-2 lists the existing levels of service at
intersections in the study area. All intersections~e te at a LOS A 61I~ring the a.m. peat
period. The intersection of "E" Strmt a the 1- no ound ramp ~d "H" Street at the 1-5
southbound ramp operate at La f) uring t p.m. peak period, while the remaining
intersections operate at LOS A dr I during this time period.
I vI\- V
It should be noted that the existing turning movement counts on all streets were taken
during the normal peak period between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., and that the peak hour analysis
for the proposed project was conducted assuming this peak period. However, twenty-four
hour volume counts taken by the Chula Vista Public Works Department, in June 1989,
indicate that the p.m. peak hour on the Bayfront circulation system occurs from 3 p.m. to
4 p.m. The ramp volumes may also peak at this time, although the ramp volumes are
heavily affected by uses east of 1-5 that typically have later peak hours. The effect of the
proposed project and future development in the bayfront will be an extended peak period.
For unsignalized intersections and driveways, the LOS is correlated to the reserve or unused
capacity remaining after the demand volume has been served. The unsignalized analysis
procedure only applies to one- or two-way stop intersections. A formal procedure for the
determination of LOS for three- and four-way stops has not been established. However,
guidelines are available that allow for the evaluation of the capacity of these intersections.
For the T-intersection of Woodlawn Avenue/"F' Street, this analysis used the methodology
3-50
90-14.01601/24/91
J~- ~TT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-2
i999- Existing Levels of Service
Y car 1990 Conditions - Signalized Intersections
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
N/S Street E/W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "E" Street .40 A .62 B
1-5 Northbound
Ramps "E" Street .70 B .84 D
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street .51 A .68 B
Broadway "F" Street .36 A .68 B
Bay Boulevard "H" Street .29 A .47 A
1-5 SCl;thb;Jund
Ramps "H" Street .48 A .88 D
1-5 Northbound "H" Street .57 A .76 C
Broadway "E" Street .60 B .78 C
Broadway "H" Street .42 A .79 C
Source: JHK and Associates
IlP- .;):r'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual for unsignalized intersections. This analysis
revealed that this intersection operates at LOS A for the critical turning movements during
the AM and PM peak hour. ~~~!~g:I-~~~i,~~~,lip~~;m~~q~mgqyD:!~~~~fl~~!~'ii
9P~~~~I!~~.~Mi:~l:\~'l9yI!Rqmri~IQl!H!tn\lpR~~~~~~~~lm~;'~"~1q;~li';.~R9Hnq!'~~I~t
~t~pliti'~~~~.~lj The intersection of Bay Boulevardj"P' Street currently operates
at acceptable levels, based on the guidelines published in Highway Capacity Manual. These
guidelines indicate that this intersection currently operates at LOS C or better with reserved
or unused capacity.
Conformance with Threshold Standards-Existing Conditions
The following items identify the current "Threshold Standards" as they apply to the existing
traffic conditions. Standards are taken from the City of Chula Vista Growth Management
Plan, Exhibit "A," Traffic Element, dated November 17, 1987.
Threshold Standard:
1. City-wide: Maintain LOS' C' or better at all intersections, with the
exception that LOS '0' may occur at signalized intersections for a
period not to exceed a total of two hours per day.
2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet Standard
#1 above, may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but sha11
not worsen.
3. City-wide: No intersection shall operate at LOS 'F' as measured for the
average weekday peak hour.
As shown on Tables 3-2 and 3-3, all study area m~t!~ intersections ~~P'~!1S~H9ji~~mp
in!~~~~!9~~~ currently operate at LOS C or better. Thus, full conformance with the
adopted standards is achieved for existing conditions.
Pl~nned Improvements to the Circulation System
Planned improvements to the circulation network include construction of Marina Parkway,
reconfiguration of the northern portion of the 1-5 interchange at "E" Street and completion
of SR 54 north of "E" Street. These improvements are described below and the
reconfigured intersections are illustrated in Appendix D.
3-51
90-14.01602/01/91
}fI-0),=r9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
Table 3-3
Existing Year 1990 Conditions
Unsignalized Intersections Levels of Service
Intersection
E/W Street
N/S Street
Bay Boulevard "F" Street
Woodlawn Avenue "F" Street
AM Peak
V Ie Ratio LOS
PM Peak
V Ie Ratio LOS
.63
B
.61 B
.'+6 A
.28
A
I~-';;I()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Marina Parkway
Marina Parkway is a planned extension of "E" Street that would extend west past Bay
Boulevard and turn south to connect with the existing Marina Parkway. Marina Parkway will
eventually provide an additional north-south access route west of 1-5 between "E" Street and
"J" Street.
State Route 54
A portion of SR 54 between 1-5 and its existing terminus near 1-805 is currently under
construction and will provide a major link between 1-5 and 1-805. "E" Street currently
carries a relatively high amount of through traffic between 1-5 and 1-805 and the completion
of this expressway is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on "E" Street by
providing an alternate route. The reduction in traffic volumes is anticipated to be as much
as 15 percent.
"E" Street/l-5 Interchange Reconfiguration
As part of the SR 54 improvements, Caltrans is planning to reconstruct the southbound
ramps on 1-5 at "E" Street. The southbound off-ramp would be realigned to end at the
existing intersection of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard. The existing southbound on-ramp
would remain in place, and an additional loop ramp from westbound "E" Street to
southbound 1-5 would be added in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. This
reconfiguration would eliminate left turns at the existing southbound on-ramp from
westbound "E" Street. Bay Boulevard would remain as the southerly (northbound) approach
to the newly constructed intersection, but access to Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street would
not be provided at this intersection.
In addition, a direct ramp from SR 54 to the southbound 1-5 ramp will merge with the
southbound 1-5 to "E" Street ramp, and the northbound ramp from "E" Street will diverge
and connect with the northbound 1-5 to eastbound SR 54 ramp. This will provide direct
access to SR 54 from "E" Street without requiring merges on the freeway.
3-52
90-14.01601/24/91
I " -,J 'II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IMPAcrs
Impacts from the proposed project relate to traffic circulation in the project vicinity, and to
on-site parking.
The proposed Rohr Industries office complex would consist of a three-story building with
245,000 square feet of office space and 730 parking spaces. According toU!~$!lij~~~gQ
..w.._._._._..._._..._._..._..._._..._....._..._._..._.._.._,.,....._".
~~g9i~H9g9gM9Y~rHi~i;\!t~~i,lH) San Diego Traffic Generators !l4:IIl, September
1989, this project would generate 17 trips per 1,000 square feet or roughly 4,165 daily trips,
11 percent of which would occur during the AM peak hour and 12 percent of which would
occur during the PM peak.
Traffic Circulation
To identify potential impacts to the circulation system, the anticipated traffic volumes
resulting from project development were distributed to the system within the study area.
The analysis was completed for two time periods, in the 1992 "near future" and at "Build-
out." Build-out represents a future date (Le., beyond year 2010), when the City's circulation
system is constructed consistent with the build-out of the adopted General Plan.
PrQject Impacts - Year 1992 Conditions
Future Roadway Segment Operations
The proposed project would generate approximately 4,165 daily trips. This calculation was
based on a 61:1siFleSS park/iFl81:lstrial geFleratieFl rate ~~r$~9mii~fi~MlqfHilBH!~~R$(1
~;9~~~9i~IlI~Il:~9V~t~~~~~)llt!~~i;\~;~t!9n~~!~ of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet
(SANDAG, 1989). To calculate the traffic volumes in the study area in the year 1992, a
three percent growth rate per year was assumed. Assumptions regarding lane and
intersection geometry are shown in the Traffic Appendix; generally the "E" Street/I-5 and
I-5/SR-54 freeway interchanges were assumed to be complete and fully operational. The
Marina Parkway extension was not assumed to be completed by 1992. Traffic from the
project was distributed 75 percent to I-5j"E" Street and 25 percent to other major cross-
streets. At the "E" Street interchange and 1-5, 54 percent of the traffic was assumed to go
3-53
90-14.01601/25/91
It.I-;J8~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
north on the freeway, 36 percent was assumed to go south on the freeway and 10 percent
was assumed to go east on "E" Street. On other major streets, 15 percent was distributed
to "F' Street and 10 percent on Bay Boulevard south of "F' Street.
The future traffic volumes with the project trips distributed to the 1992 circulation network
are shown in Figure 3-10. An analysis of the LOS at several segments in the study area was
completed and the resultant V\C ratios and LOS classifications are summarized in Table
3-4. In general, roadways east of 1-5 would operate over capacity and there would be
congestion on these segments. "F" Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate
at LOS B or above. These forecasted levels of service are a continuation of existing
conditions. The exception is Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F" Street which would
decline from LOS C to F with inclusion of annual traffic growth and the project.
As noted above, it is important to recognize that this analysis is based on a comparison of
V IC at LOS C capacity levels, thus giving an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity
in relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the actual (functional)
capacity of the roadway. To more clearly define traffic operations and performance, the
following analysis of study area intersections is provided.
Future Intersection Operations
An analysis of the resultant LOS at pertinent intersections in the study area was also
completed and is summarized in Table 3-5. The intersection geometry and a.m. and p.m.
peak period turning movement assumptions are provided in Appendix D. Development of
the project and anticipated growth in area wide traffic would result in a degradation of
service at several intersections. In the p.m. peak hour for 1992 conditions with the project,
the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS of D or worse. This is a
significant impact related to both the project and cumulative area development.
3-54
90-14.01601/01/91
I II - r2 f.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-4
Segment Volume To Capacity Analysis
Existing And Year 1992 Conditions with Project Trips
Roadway ADT vlC
Capacity Volumes Ratio LOS
Segment Year 1992 92 + Project Year 1992 Year 1992
Bay Boulevard
"E" Street to "F" Street 7,500 13,500 1.&0 F
"F" Street to "H" Street 7,500 5,200 0.69 B
"H" Street to "J" Street 7,500 4,200 0.56 A
"E" Street
Bay Boulevard to 1-5 22,000 13,700 0.62 B
1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue 22,000 34,600 1.57 F
"F" Street
Tidelands Avenue to
Bay Boulevard 22,000 5,100 0.23 A
Bay Boulevard to
Woodlawn Avenue 22,000 5,900 0.27 A
Woodlawn Avenue to
Broadway 22,000 11,400 0.52 A
"H" Street
Bay Boulevard to 1-5 22,000 7,400 0.34 A
1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue 30,000 32,500 1.0& F
Notes: 1. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all CirqJ!ation Element facilities.
2. The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum stafldards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
* Sources: See Table 3-1, Figures 3-1 and 5-1.
* * Source: JHK &. Associates distribution of traffic based on existing
plus project conditions for Year 1992 (see Figure 5-4).
I fI -- , 'f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-5
Summary of Study Area Intersections Levels of Service
AM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Existing Conditions
Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
~ N/S Street E/VI Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
Bay Blvd./
1-.5 SB Ramp "E" St./Marina Pkwy 0.40 A 0.69 B
1-.5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.70 B 0.79 C
1-.5 SB Ramp "H" Street 0.48 A 0..53 A
1-.5 NB Ramp "H" Street 0..57 A 0.62 B
Bay Blvd. "H" Street 0.29 A 0.32 A
Woodlawn Ave. "E" Street 0..51 A 0..57 A
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.67 B
Broadway "F" Street 0.36 A 0.41 A
Broadway "H" Street 0.42 A 0.4.5 A
PM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Existing Conditions
Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Proiect
N/S Street E/VI Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
Bay Blvd./
1-.5 SB Ramp "E" St./Marina Pkwy 0.62 B 0.79 C
1-.5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.84 D 0.90 E*
1-.5 SB Ramp "H" Street 0.88 D 0.92 E*
1-.5 NB Ramp "H" Street 0.76 C 0.82 D*
Bay Blvd. "H" Street 0.47 A 0..59 A
Woodlawn Ave. "E" Street 0.68 B 0.7.5 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.68 B 0.7.5 C
Broadway "E" Street 0.78 C 0.8.5 D*
Broadway "H" Street 0.99 C 0.8.5 D*
Note:' IB<lieat. ~!i41~#~.lli~~~!l1t~~w!!ijjj.Yi!H$~mt~ll'1!!r~ mitigation to achieve acceptable levels of
service fo.rYear 1992 conditions.
I 11- ~ 'S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
I
-
Project Site
................
................
................
...............
...............
...............
..............
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
5.2
4.2
"
>
;:0
...
'"
1tI
LEGEND
>t ':
~:.,
.:4: :
n.: :
-:: :
os: :
c' .
._', 0'
w:' .;
",.: :.
::E\.::::..
,", ....
..::::::::~~;:~:::~:;::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...
::::::::: Four Lane Major
_ Class I Collector
____. Class II Collector
- Class In Collector
160.1
34.6
5.9
11.4
...
'"
~
"
'"
o
..
1tI
N
....
"E" Street
"F" Street
"G" Street
"H" Street
"I" Street
FUTURE STREET NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN THOUSANDS)
YEAR 1'92 CONDmONS
Source: JHK &. Associates
32.5
Gl
>
<
c:
~
'"
148.7 :a
o
o
~
, "J" Street
149.8
,(, -f;t ~'l'
Figure 3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Impact of Project Trips - Year 1992 P.M. Peak Hour
Impacted Intersections
Project's Contribution
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "E" Street
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "H" Street
1-5 Southbound Ramp at "H" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Bay Boulevard at "F" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
4.6 percent
0.9 percent
4.5 percent
4.7 percent
53.2 percent
Not Applicable'
,
The contribution of projected traffic at this intersection is negligible. However,
annual growth will play a vital part in the deterioration of the intersection. This
intersection has been disregarded in this analysis but should be taken into account
for future Chula Vista expansion.
Future Parking and Access Operations
The proposed project comprises 245,000 square feet of office space for 1,268 employees, and
includes provisions for a surface parking lot with space for 730 vehicles. Appendix D details
the specific types of uses and office space by department, which in summary, reveals that
this project more closely resembles a typical description of a corporate office/research
development use. However, the approach for analysis was to review the project under its
ultimate potential use, which could be a general office commercial use, which is consistent
with the approach used throughout this document.
The City of Chula Vista Planning staff has concluded that the City's parking standard for
general office use of 3-1/3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area should be used as a
minimum based on the proponent's contention that the building could be converted to
general office use in the future. However, since Rohr has submitted a list of the number
of employees for types of uses in this building, it was determined that the appropriate
standard to use is one based on occupancy, which is the City's employee-based standard of
one space for every 1.5 employees.
A comparison of parking standards for the City of Chula Vista and five other coastal
jurisdictions in San Diego County was made. These standards are shown on the next page.
3-55
90-14.01601/24/91
lID -j' r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jurisdiction
City of Chula Vista
Parking Standard for
General Commercial Office
3-1/3 spaces/1,000 square feet
1 space per 1.5 employees
5 spaces/1,000 square fee
3-1/3 spaces/1,000 square feet
4.5 spaces/1,000 square feet
3-1/3 spaces/1,000 square feet
5 spaces/1,000 square feet
4 spaces/1,000 square feet
City of San Diego - Coastal
City of San Diego - Non-coastal
County of San Diego
City of Oceanside
City of Encinitas
City of Carlsbad
Required Parking
(245.000 sq. ft.)
817
845
1,225
817
1,103
817
1,225
980
Based on the City of Chula Vista employee-based parking standard, the proposed project
parking supply is deficient by 115 parking spaces, or 13 percent; and is deficient by 79
spaces, or 10 percent, when compared with the City's minimum standard for general office
use. The ratio of standard sized cars to compact cars (80 percent:20 percent) is sufficient
to accommodate a varied mix of parked vehicles.
The only onsite traffic circulation design-related issue is the limited access to and from the
parking areas. Currently, the facility has two entrances/exits spread 210 feet apart on "F"
Street. The spacing is within the industry standard of 100 feet between access points.
However, with parking at 100 percent occupancy and commercial office traffic generation
peaking characteristics, delays may occur as vehicles utilize the only two egress points, both
leading onto "F' Street.
Bikeway Facilities
Two streets in the study area are targeted for bikeway development according to a Draft
Bikeway Plan (JHK, 1989): "F' Street, west of Broadway, and Bay Boulevard, both of which
currently have no bikeway facilities. In the 1989 report, it was recommended that Class II
bikeways should be provided on both roadway facilities. Class II bikeways are bicycle lanes
for preferential use by bicyclists within the paved area of the roadway. Bicycle lanes are
delineated by striping and signage. The City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards Policy
recommends that an additional total of ten feet of right-of-way be dedicated along routes
which are identified for Class II Bikeways. The Class II bikeways thus require five feet of
3-56
1(,-~8g
90-14.01601/24/91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dedicated pavement on each side of the street to provide the bike facility. Development of
this project would improve "F" Street to Class I standards and would also include a bike
lane. However, there is yet no provision for a bike lane along Bay Boulevard, which could
significantly impact the Bikeway plan recommendations.
Project Impacts-Build-out Conditions
Build-out Segment Operations
SANDAG has run a model to calculate traffic volumes given build-out of the Chula Vista
General Plan land uses and circulation improvements. In this model, the site and
surrounding area were anticipated to be developed with a park and retail center for a total
of 1,300 trips. It should be noted that the assumption used in the SANDAG model is
incorrect when compared to what was adopted. The General Plan actually designates the
site and immediate surrounding area for a park and industrial development. These uses
would generate 1,424 trips. Because of the very minor difference (124 trips) between the
adopted General Plan and SANDAG model, the model was used without correction.
To calculate the impacts under build-out conditions of surrounding cumulative development
and the project, the total number of trips anticipated by the SANDAG model (1,300) were
subtracted and the project generated trips were added (4,165), resulting in a difference of
unaccounted for trips of 2,865. The total number of trips resulting from surrounding and
project development were distributed to the build-out circulation system to determine
impacts. It should be noted that the project would generate a total of 2,865 trips that had
not been anticipated in planning by SANDAG, or by the City of Chula Vista in planning for
circulation under build-out conditions.
Figure 3-11 illustrates the project-generated trips distributed onto the build-out ADT as well
as future build-out road classifications. The distribution pattern of the trips generated by the
project was the same as the 1992 analysis. Given the future .ADT and classifications, an
analysis of roadway segments was completed. A summary of the results is provided in Table
3-6. As shown, the entire length of Bay Boulevard, "E" Street, "F" Street and "H" Street
would operate at LOS C or better and there would be no impacts.
3-57
90-14.01601/24/91
I(,-~"
................ I
.
...............
............... I
.............
hi' "'1
{( 7.~
.... .... ,
.'\::'t......:.:.:. '4.
............ ..:.:.:.:.;....
.... .... , ..
::". ':":' ,
""~"':\~:: \
.~:;~ ::~\ ~ i
~. ~: .!: I
~,:,' ca.
!l.\',,' ~:
~d ca:
.S.... .
a1' ..
,~: ~.
::,....:::... "1:l'"
.... ..... ca:'"
..:::::::~::~;::~::::;:~:;:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:::::~:~:~:;.~::~:~:~: :~. ~:~:;:;:;:~:~:~:~:;:~:~a~:~:~:::~:;:;:;:;;;~~:~; ~~.:.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Site
LEGEND
_ Six Lane Major
::::::::: Four Lane Major
_ Class I Collector
_____ Class II Collector
_ Class In Collector
'"
I
-
N
.
46.7
:.: .:.
.:. :.:
2 0 !:~ m m:" ".r....t
.......... ,. .='............f:r:......':l..~..::r.l:'...........:
.~.:...~.....:.....:.........-..................'\; .................................................:::
.... ,',
.... ,',
:~: :~:
~~~ ~~~
1I !:j "F" Street
1l.2
12.2
36.1
',' ','
,', ,',
',' ','
',' ','
.', "
~~ .~~ "G" Street
-----------. ------------
" "
" "
" "
:: ::
:: ::
" "
:: ::
" "
~ :~
::. ::
,:, ,: "H" Street
19.3
CI
>
<
c
~
lIS
-
215.8 "tl
o
o
~
,', ,',
',' ...
~~ ~~j
:: '::
" "
-------------
"1" Street
-----------
Source:
JHK &: Associates and City of
Chula Vista General Plan Circulation
Element, adopted June, 1989.
FUTURE STREET NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN THOUSANDS)
BUD.OOUT CONOmONS WITH PROJECT TRIPS
I II -J90
Figure 3-11
I
I Table 3-6
I Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis
Build-Out Conditions with Project Trips
I
LOS Cl
I Planning
Level
Capaci ty Additional
I Buildout Buildout Project Total V/C2
Intersection Conditions Volume** Trips*** Volume Ratio LOS
I Bay Boulevard
Between
"E" Street &.
I "F" Street 12,000 4,200 3,124 7,324 .61 A
"F" Street &.
I "C" Street 12,000 6,500 416 6,916 .58 A
"C" Street &.
"H" Street 12,000 6,600 416 7,016 .58 A
I
"E" Street
I Between
Bay Boulevard
&. 1-5 30,000 8,500 3,124 11 ,624 .39 A
I 1-5 &.
Woodlawn Avenue 30,000 25,900 500 26,400 .88 C
I Woodlawn Avenue
&. Broadway 30,000 21,500 450 21,950 .73 A
I "F" Street
Between
I Tidelands A venue
&. Bay Boulevard 22,000 5,500 200 5,700 .25 A
I Bay Boulevard &.
Woodlawn 22,000 10,800 425 11 ,225 .51 A
Woodlawn Avenue
I &. Broadway 22,000 11 ,800 400 12,200 .55 A
I
I /u-J'II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-6 (continued)
Sevnent Volume to Capacity Analysis
Build-Out Conditions with Project TTips
LOS Cl
Planning
Level
Capacity Additional
Buildout Buildout Project Total V/C2
Intersection Conditions Volume** Trips*** Volume Ratio LOS
"H" Street
Between Bay & 1-5 30,000 4,484 400 4,880 .16 A
1-5 & Woodlawn 40,000 36,000 100 36,100 .90 C
Woodlawn &
Broadway 40,000 19,179 90 19,269 .48 A
Notes: 1. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circulation Element facilities.
2. The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
Notes: * Source: See Figure 5-7 and Table 3-1.
** Source: SANDAG
*** Source: JHK & Associates Distribution of Traffic Based on Figure 5-7.
III -~'1j.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Build-out Intersection Operations
An ICU analysis was also completed to determine the level of service at specific
intersections. In this instance only the "worst-case" p.m. peak hour was considered. The
results are summarized in Table 3-7. As shown, the following intersections would operate
at poor levels of service under build-out conditions:
Impact of Project Trips - Build-out PM Peak Hour
Impacted Intersections
Proiect's Contribution
1-5 Northbound ramp at "E" Street
1-5 Northbound ramp at "H" Street
1-5 Southbound ramp at "H" Street
Woodlawn at "E" Street
Bay Boulevard at "H" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
4.9 percent
0.7 percent
2.02 percent
5.9 percent
7.1 percent
Not Applicable
As shown, these significant impacts are related largely to cumulative growth in the study
area. The intersections with unacceptable levels of service under build-out conditions (p.m.
peak hour only) are, with three exceptions, the same as those identified in the near-term
(1992) case. The intersections of Bay Boulevard/"H" Street and Woodlawn/"E" Street are
intersections which were acceptable in the near-term (1992 p.m. peak hour) yet worsen in
the build-out condition. The intersection of Broadway and "E" Street is slated for
improvement in the City General Plan following 1992. For this reason, it is assumed that
although the street will carry an LOS of D in 1992, service will improve in build-out.
H9;II~~.t9Rt;~9Rq~H9P:i~t:;milill~I~!1p9P'2rIl91l~~lmIY~nlii~kt~'.:.~llIl!~tIil
m~!M~I~t;#lii\~~9R:iti~P,!Igr;I~:Il!iqt~lmIY~J;\Y~~9mq9r(iifiil.~~lill1ip!li~
i9PP!~qii.I~:.i~~lil~p,~fliIJ~p,~IYI~:~y~:gll]~qjiii.~!~~nl~ii~A~,m~!@~qlj~
~~l~_!~~~lfl~!1qm~i~::;;.\~;:fgHrt~fl.Yl!:i$~~~~~9~I.:~~~n~Ii~~~it!i~f!,~I~~$~~lm
9P~r~Hql
3-58
90-14.016 02/01/91
1~-;!'I3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MITIGATION MEASURES
1992 Conditions
Traffic Circulation
There are six intersections identified in the near-term, 1992 case where intersections would
operate at a service level that is less than acceptable, i.e., LOS D or worse. With the
exception of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street, these intersections would operate at this level
of service even without project development.
The intersection of "E" Street and Broadway is projected to have a 1992, p.m. peak hour
LOS of D with annual growth and with project traffic. To mitigate this cumulative impact,
an exclusive right-turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound Broadway must be
provided. This additional lane would improve the LOS to C, facilitate smoother traffic flow
from 1-5, and would reduce the impact to less than significant. Because of the project's
small contribution (4.7 percent) to this cumulative impact, the applicant should be required
to provide a proportional amount of funds for this improvement based on the Benefit
Assessment District (recommended in the Cumulative Impacts discussion, Section 10.0).
The intersection of "E" Street and 1-5 northbound currently operates at an LOS A. With
near-term, annual growth in the City of Chula Vista, the LOS will drop to E. The project's
contribution to this impact is 4.6 percent. To mitigate this cumulative impact, the
implementation of two improvements must be made prior to or concurrent with, the
development of the Rohr project. This requirement is necessary due to the near-term
extremely poor conditions at this intersection.
These two improvements include:
. Widen westbound "E" Street at the northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-
turn lane from westbound "E" Street.
. Restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to provide an exclusive right-turn
lane and a shared left and right-turn lane.
3-59
9().14.016 02/01/91
I~ ~d9~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-7
PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU Analysis Build-Out Conditions
North/South Street East/West Street leu LOS
Bay Boulevard/
1-5 Soutbound Ramp "E" Street 0.83 D*
1-5 Northbound "E" Street 0.91 E*
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street 0.88 D*
Broadway "E" Street 0.77 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.66 B
Bay Boulevard "H" Street 0.84 D*
1-5 Southbound "H" Street 0.89 D*
1-5 Northbound "H" Street 1.15 F*
Broadway "H" Street 1.10 F*
Notes: Table constructed assuming 1992 Roadway Configurations without Project
Mitigation.
* Indicates those intersections which will require mitigation to achieve
acceptable levels of service in the future for buildout conditions.
III -J95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
These mitigation measures would improve the operation to LOS C in the near-term, and
would reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant. Because of the project's small
contribution to this cumulative impact, the applicant would be required to provide a
proportional amount of funds for this improvement based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
The interchange at "H" Street and 1-5 both northbound and southbound would be severely
congested in the near future (1992) as well as under build-out conditions. Under current
conditions, LOS varies between A and C; with near-term annual growth in the City of Chula
Vista the southbound ramp drops to LOS E, and under build-out conditions, the northbound
ramp drops to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The primary contributor to this worsening
condition is the cumulative growth in the region. The project's contribution to the
northbound and southbound ramps is 0.9 percent and 4.5 percent respectively. To mitigate
the cumulative impacts, double left-turn only lanes onto "H" Street accessing both the
northbound and southbound ramps should be provided. This would improve intersection
operation to LOS C in the near-term, and would reduce the impact to a level below
significant. Because of the project's small contribution to this cumulative impact, the
applicant would be required to contribute a proportional amount of funds toward providing
this improvement based on the Benefit Assessment District.
The intersection of "F' Street and Bay Boulevard would operate at LOS D with
development of the proposed project and near-term growth. The primary reason for a poor
level of service in the future at this intersection is the four-way stop control at this
intersection, and the limited amount of capacity of the approaches to the intersection. The
project's contribution to this impact is 53 percent. To accommodate the increased traffic
flow, the intersection must be signalized, and Bay Boulevard north of "F" Street must be
designed for traffic only and on-street parking must be eliminated. Bike lanes must also be
included. The removal of this on-street parking would result in the loss of 31 existing
parking spaces. The City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department must decide where the
parking would be replaced. The existing eight-foot wide parking areas adjacent to the east
curb lines must be dedicated to normal traffic flow. The resulting cross section will provide
for one lane of travel in each direction, a center two-way turn lane, and a bike lane in each
direction. "F' Street must also be re-striped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard to
provide for two lanes of travel out from the intersection and three lanes in toward the
3-60
90-14.01602/01/91
III - ~ "'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
intersection. The three inbound lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one
through, and one shared through- and right-turn lane. The westbetlH6 ElHd northbound ~'I!
IH~figlli!'! approaches will also require modification to provide one left-turn lane, one
through, and one right-turn lane. West of the intersection, there must also be a five-foot
wide bike lane provided on the Rohr side of the street.
The pavement width of Bay Boulevard north of "F" Street is only 22 feet, however, and 28
to 34 feet of pavement is needed to accommodate the proposed double-left turn maneuver
from eastbound "F" Street. Thus, another 6 to 12 feet of road widening and pavement along
the east curbline of Bay Boulevard north of the intersection for approximately 100 to 200
feet would be necessary. This option may require the acquisition of a limited amount of
additional right-of-way. With these improvements, future LOS would improve to C and the
impact would be reduced to a level below significant. Because of the project's 53 percent
contribution to this impact, the applicant must provide 53 percent of the funds toward this
improvement based on the Benefit Assessment District. This improvement must be
completed before the Rohr building may be occupied.
Annual growth in volumes alone is expected to result in poor levels of service at the
intersection of Broadway and "H" Street. The project's contribution is negligible and the
applicant would not be required to contribute funds toward improving this intersection.
Parking and Access
The project requires from 79 to 115 additional parking spaces to meet local parking
standards. The applicant must meet this standard by reducing the size of the building and
number of employees; or by the use of additional subterranean or above-grade parking to
meet at least the minimum standard; or by the provision of additional, permanent offsite
surface parking adjacent to the site on the Rohr campus.
Since the demand for parking would be directly tied to the number of corporate employees
occupying the building, it is further recommended by the City of Chula Vista Planning staff
that the development agreement for the project include a limit on the number of employees
consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard and subject to an appropriated
third-party monitoring program. The number of employees could only be increased if
3-61
90-14.01602/01/91
/I~-.J'1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
existing parking was found to be adequate or if additional parking could be provided. The
parking demand should be monitored over a year following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building. The monitoring program should be comprised of a random survey of
parking demand, including a bi-weekly check on different days and different times of the day
as selected by the City's third party monitor. The applicant's Traffic Management Program
for this site must be completed as a condition of approval for this project.
The applicant should work with the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that access to and from
the site would be adequate. Through these discussions and prior to final design, the City
Traffic Engineer could recommend alternatives for additional access to the parking area
(possibly to and from Bay Boulevard with an easement through the SDG&E right-of-way
east of the site) if it is determined to be warranted by the City.
Bikeway Facilities
The applicant must work closely with the City Traffic Engineering Department during the
development of the off-site roadway improvement plans associated with this project to
ensure that adequate right-of-way is dedicated and adequate pavement width is provided to
allow for the implementation of the ultimate Class II bikeway facilities on "F' Street
adjacent to the project site. For Bay Boulevard, between "E" and "F' Street, it is
recommended that the City of Chula Vista coordinate the development of the new
recommended striping plan for Bay Boulevard which will provide for one lane of travel in
each direction with a center two-way left turn lane and bikelanes in both the north and
south direction.
Build-out Conditions
No specific mitigation is required for this project under build-out conditions as all of the
project impacts represent such a small incremental contribution to build-out conditions.
Implementation of the recommended Circulation Element of the General Plan would
provide the necessary capacity in the Bayfront Area.
3-62
90-14.01602/0//91
/fI-dyg
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Development of the project would result in generation of 4,165 trips of which 2,865 are not
anticipated in SANDAG or City of Chula Vista models for future development and
circulation planning. Traffic volumes in the study area are currently approaching or
exceeding capacity on roads east of 1-5, while roads west of 1-5 typically operate at much
lower volumes and flow more smoothly. With construction of the project and cumulative
near-term growth (1992) there would be six intersections where LOS would drop below C.
There are measures available to increase capacity at the five intersections and impacts
would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of these measures is not the
responsibility of the applicant. The intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F' Street would have
an LOS of D, which is considered a significant impact. Signalization, road widening and
restriping 6 to 12 additional feet would be required of the applicant to mitigate this impact.
In the build-out condition, cumulative growth would result in significant impacts to study
area intersections. The applicant is ftet responsible for mitigating these cumulative build-out
impacts ~g:.pli[$inrl!li;~,!;!i~;~~Ii;l1t9jlis~,lp!t~!!lH~~~~9~BlitIDRi$!ii
3-63
90-14.01602/01/91
I. - ~,,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5 AIR OUAIITY
EXISTING CONDmONS
Meteorolol:Y Irlirn:He Setting
The climate of Chula Vista, as with all of California, is largely controlled by the strength
and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The high
pressure ridge over the West Coast creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning
cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, clean daytime onshore breezes and little temperature
change throughout the year. limited rainfall occurs in winter when the high center is
weakest and farthest south. Summers are often completely dry, with an average of 10 inches
of rain falling each year from November to early April.
Unfortunately, the same atmospheric conditions that create a desirable living climate,
combine to limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the
large population attracted to San Diego County. The coastal onshore winds diminish quickly
when they reach the foothill communities east of San Diego, and the sinking air within the
offshore high pressure system forms a massive temperature inversion that traps .all air
pollutants near the ground. The resulting horizontal and vertical stagnation, in conjunction
with ample sunshine, cause a number of reactive pollutants to undergo photochemical
reactions and form smog that degrades visibility and irritates tear ducts and nasal
membranes.
Because coastal areas are well ventilated by fresh breezes during the daytime, they generally
do not experience the same air pollution problems found in some areas east of San Diego.
Unhealthful air quality within the San Diego Air Basin's coastal communities, such as Chula
Vista, may occur at times in summer during limited localized stagnation, but is mainly
associated with the occasional intrusion of polluted air from the Los Angeles Basin,
primarily affecting cities in the North County. Localized elevated pollution levels may also
occur in winter during cairn, stable conditions near freeways, shopping centers or other
major traffic sources. Such "hot spot" clean air violations are highly localized in space and
time. Except for this occasional inter-basin intrusion and localized air pollution "hot spots,"
coastal community air quality is generally quite good.
3-64
90-14.006 01/24/91
/1I-.jtJ tJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Local meteorological conditions typically conform well to the regional pattern of strong
onshore winds by day, especially in summer, and weak offshore winds at night, especially in
winter. These local wind patterns are driven by the temperature difference between the
normally cool ocean and the warm interior, and steered by local topography. In summer,
moderate breezes of 8-12 mph blow onshore by day, and may continue all night as a light
onshore breeze, as the land remains warmer than the ocean. In winter, the onshore flow
is weaker, and the wind direction reverses in the evening as the land becomes cooler than
the ocean. While daytime winds are mainly off the ocean from the W-NW, winds do, at
times, shift into the WSW or even SW. When this happens, air pollution emissions from
Mexico are carried across the border.
Given the scope of development and the lack of pollution controls across the border,
international transport is an important air pollution concern. Such cross-border emissions
do not generally affect the Chula Vista area because it takes several hours of transport for
such pollutants to react and become photochemical smog, but, like the pollution
recirculation from the Los Angeles Basin, it means that no matter what pollution controls
are implemented within the County, there may still be smog from other sources beyond the
County's control.
Both the onshore flow of marine air and the nocturnal drainage winds are accompanied by
two characteristic temperature inversion conditions that further control the rate of air
pollution dispersal throughout the air basin. The daytime cool onshore flow is capped by
a deep layer of warm, sinking air. Along the coastline, the marine air layer beneath the
inversion cap is deep enough to accommodate any locally generated emissions. As the layer
moves inland, however, pollution sources (especially automobiles) add pollutants from below
without any dilution from above. Any such CO "hot spots" are highly localized in space and
time (if they occur at all), but occasionally stagnant dispersion conditions are an important
air quality concern relative to continued intensive development of the Chula Vista area.
The intensity of development east of Chula Vista is small enough, however, that non-local
background pollution levels during nocturnal stagnation periods are relatively low. The local
airshed, therefore, has considerable excess dispersive capacity that limits the potential for
creation of any localized air pollution "hot spots."
3-65
9O-14.()()6 01/24/91
I ~ - 40 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Air Quality Setting
Ambient Air Ouality Standards (AAOS)
To assess the air quality impact of any proposed development, that impact, together with
baseline air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards.
These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of
safety, to protect sensitive receptors, i.e., the public health and welfare. They are designed
to protect those people most susceptible to respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the
elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and
persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate periodic
exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before
adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic ozone
exposure to levels at or even below the hourly standard can have adverse, long-term,
pulmonary health effects.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national AAQS, with states retaining
the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. Because
California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and
because of unique meteorological problems in the state, there is considerable diversity
between state and federal standards currently in effect in California. Both the state and
national standards are shown in Table 3-8.
Baseline Air Ouality
There are daily routine measurements of air quality distributions made in Chula Vista by
the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the agency responsible for
air quality planning, monitoring and enforcement in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB).
Table 3-9 summarizes the last five complete years (final 1989 data have not been officially
published) of monitoring data from the Chula Vista station located at 80 East "J" Street.
Progress toward cleaner air is seen in almost every pollution category. The only national
clean air standard that was exceeded throughout the five-year monitoring period was the
hourly ozone standard which was exceeded an average of three-to-four times per year (once
per year is allowable). The more stringent state standards for ozone and for total suspended
3-66
90-14.006 01/24/91
1"--,3()~
Averaging California Standards National Standards
pollutant
Time Concentration Method . Primary Secondary Method
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet 0.12 ppm Same as Elhylene
(180 ugtrn3) Photometry (235 ugtrn3) Primary Std. Chemilumnescence
8 Hour 9.0 ppm Non-dispersiv8 9.0 ppm Non-dispersiv8
Carbon (10 mgtm3) Infrared (10 mgirn3) Same as Infrared
Monoxide 20 ppm Spectroscopy 35 ppm Primary Stds. Spectrescopy .
1 Hour (23 mgtm3) (NoIR) (40 mgirn3) (NoIR)
Annual . 0.053 ppm
Nitrogen Average Gas Phase (100 ugtrn3) Same as Gas Phase
Chernlumi. Chernlurn-
Dioxide 0.25 ppm Primary Std.
1 Hour nescence , nescence
(470 ugtm3)
Annual . 80 ugtrn3
Average . (0.03 ppm) -
24 Hour 0.05 ppm . 365 ugtrn3
Sulfur (131 ugtrn3) Ultraviolet (0.14 ppml .
Pararosoaniline
Dioxide Fluorescence 1300 ugtrn3
3 Hour . - (0.5 ppm)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm . .
(655 ugtm3)
Annuai Size SeleC1lve
Geometric 30 ugtrn3 Inlet High . . .
Suspended Mean Volume Sampler
PanicuJal. and
Maner 24 Hour 50 ugtrn3 Gravimetric 150 uglm3 InenJaJ
Analysis Same as Seperation
(PM,.) Annual Primary and
Arithmetic 50 ugtrn3 Stds. Gravimetric
. .
Mean Analysis
Sulfales 24 Hour 25 ugtrn3 Turbidimetric
Barium Sulfate . . .
30 Day 1.5 ug/m3 - .
Lead Average AlDmic Atomic
Calendar Absorption Same as Absorption
Quarter . 1.5 ugtrn3 Primary Std.
Hydrogen , Hour 0.03 ppm Cadrnum Hydr. . .
Sulfide (42 ugtrn3) oxide STRaclan .
Vinyl Chloride 0.010 ppm Tedlar Bag
(chloroethene) 24 Hour (26 ugtm3) CoIleClion. Gas . . .
Chromalography
Visibility In sufficient amount to reduce the
prevailing visibility 10 Ie.. than
Reducing 1 Observation 1 0 mile. when the relative . - ,
Panicles humidity is Ie.. than 7O"f.
Applicable Only in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin
Carbon 8 Hour 6ppm NolR -
Monoxide (7 mgim3) . .
Visibility In sufficient amount to reduce the
1 Observation prevailing visibility' to less than .
Reducing 30 mil.. when the relative , -
Partides humidity is less than 700/..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-8
Ambient Air Quality Standards
I' ~~, ,jRB' Fact Sheet 38 (revised 7/88)
I
I Table 3-9
ChuIa Vista Area Air Quality Monitoring Snmm:ny - 1984-88
(Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maxima for Periods Indicated)
I
I Pollutant/Standard 1984 1985 1986 1981 1988
I QmIll::
I-Hour> 0.09 ppm 18 28 20 IS 11
I-Hour> 0.12 ppm 4 4 2 2 4
I-Hour <: 0.20 ppm 0 0 0 0 I
I Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.16 0.22
C..arbnn Monoxide:
I I-Hour> 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0
8-Hour> 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 1 7 7 7 7
I Max. 8-Hour Cone. (ppm) 4.6 3.9 5.1 3.4 3.6
Nitrmrcn Dioxide:
I I-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.21
I Sulfur Dioxide:
I-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
24-Hour <: 0.05 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
I Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.09
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.021 0.01 5 0.013 0.011 0.019
I Total Su~nended Particulates:
24-Hour <: 100 uslm3 0/61 0/61 1/61 1/30
24-Hour > 260 uslm3 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/30
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (uslm3) 88 96 119 100
I Lead Particulates:
I-Month <: 1.5 uslm3 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12
I Max. I-Month Cone. (uslm3) 0.60 0.38 0.28 0.19 0.13
Sulfate Particulates:
I 24-Hour <: 25. uslm3 1/61 0/54 0/60 0/51 0/57
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (usfm3) 18.0 15.4 17.6 13.3 17.2
4.
I Re$nirah1e Particulates (PM. 1m:
24-Hour> SO uslm3 3/51 5/61 3/56
24-Hour > ISO uslm3 0/51 0/61 0/56
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (usfm3) 104 68 58
I
80nn:e: California Air Resources Board, Swnmary of Air Quality Data, 1984-1988.
I Chula Vista Monitoring Station except for Lead & Sulfate Particles which are from San Diego APCD Island
Avenue Station.
I = no data
'" -,30'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and respirable particulates (dust) were exceeded on a somewhat higher frequency, but
overall air quality in Chula Vista is very good in comparison to other areas of the SDAB.
Air Ouality Mana~ement Planning
The continued violations of national AAQS in the SDAB, particularly those for ozone in
inland foothill areas, require that a plan be developed outlining the stationary and mobile
source pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego
County, this attainment planning process is embodied in a regional air quality management
plan developed jointly by the APCD and SANDAG with input from other planning agencies.
This plan, originally called RAQS (Regional Air Quality Strategies), was last updated about
seven years ago and called the 1982 State Implementation Plan Revisions (1982 SIP
Revisions). The underlying premise of this plan was that the County could have continued
economic and population growth and still achieve basin-wide clean air. The plan charted
the necessary steps to reduce the existing excess emissions burden as well as offset the air
pollutants associated with continued growth. The 1982 SIP Revisions recognized that there
were meteorological patterns under which County emissions were solely responsible for
ozone violations, and there were also conditions where inter-basin transport was a major
factor in observed air quality. The basic conclusion of the 1982 SIP Revisions was that
emissions would be reduced by the end of 1987 sufficient for all County-related ozone
violations to have been eliminated, but that violations due to transport from the Los Angeles
Basin would continue. The forecast that ozone violations from in-County sources would
cease by the end of 1987 was overly optimistic and such violations still occur. Emissions
controls from stationary and mobile sources were not implemented as quickly as anticipated
in the plan. In particular, the shift away from the single passenger automobile has been
much slower than necessary to achieve attainment of the federal ozone standard.
With the expiration of the 1987 target attainment date, the SIP Revisions are currently being
revised for a 1991 plan completion date. The new plan is designed to result in incremental
improvement toward a long-range attainment target date and to ensure that programs are
in place to continually off-set the emissions increases associated with continued growth of
the basin. Current planning calls for sufficient emissions reductions to meet the federal
ozone standard by 1996-97 absent a significant influx of pollution from the Los Angeles
Basin. The passage of the California Clean Air Act requiring future compliance with the
3-67
90-14.006 01/24/91
111- ~OS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
more stringent state ozone standard will entail additional planning and control to meet the
standard early into the 21st century.
The proposed office complex relates to the SIP Revisions through incorporation of sub-
regional development plans into regional growth estimates. If the project has been correctly
anticipated in the current SANDAG growth forecasts (the basis for SIP transportation
emissions forecasts), then it will not cause any unanticipated regional air quality impacts.
If, however, the proposed office development substantially exceeds the intensity of
development predicted for Chula Vista or occurs sooner than predicted by regional growth
forecasts, it will be inconsistent with the SIP Revisions.
IMPACfS
Vehicular Emissions Impacts
Land uses, such as those comprising the Rohr Office Complex, impact air quality almost
exclusively through the vehicular traffic generated by the development. Such impacts occur
basically on two scales of motion. Regionally, personal commuting will add to regional trip
generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the local airshed. Locally,
project traffic, especially at rush hour, will be added to the Chula Vista roadway system near
the development site. If added traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation,
is comprised of a large number of vehicles "cold-started" or operating at pollution inefficient
speeds, and/or is driven on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a
definite potential for the formation of microscale air pollution "hot spots" in the area
immediately around the project site.
The major project-related air quality concern derives from the mobile source emissions that
would result from the 4,165 daily trips that would be generated at project completion.
Given a typical office activity trip length of around 6 miles per trip (a combination of longer
commuting and shorter business trips), the project would potentially add 25,000 vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) to the regional traffic burden.
Automotive emissions can be readily calculated using a computerized procedure developed
by the California ARB. This model was run for the project assuming various build-out years
3-68
90-14.006 01/24/91
I" -130"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
from 1990 - 2010. The results from the model runs are summarized in Table 3-11 with the
model output for each run included in Appendix D.
Assuming build-out at the year 2000, project traffic will add approximately 0.5 ton of carbon
monoxide (CO), 0.04 ton of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 0.03 ton of reactive organic gasses
(ROG) to the airshed daily. Continued emissions reduction from the retirement of older,
polluting cars will gradually reduce the overall project regional emissions impact slightly, but
the project will continue to represent a small, and not negligible, portion of regional
emissions burden. This small percentage contributes to the cumulative emissions increments
that comprise the basin-wide burden, and which lead to the basin's continued violations of
clean air standards. The project thus represents an incremental contribution to a regionally
significant air quality impact.
Consistency with the growth assumptions of the SIP Revisions is also an important factor.
The SIP is based on generic trip making characteristics for specified types of land uses. The
Adopted Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) identifies an intensification of uses in
the Chula Vista Midbayfront of which this project forms an incremental part. As shown in
Table 3-11 development of the office complex would generate a very small percentage of
the basin-wide air emissions and is consistent with adopted plans for this site. Project
emissions are also less than the APCD's insignificance thresholds for ROG and NOx which
are the main ozone formation precursor pollutants. Given the consistency of the proposed
development with the LCP, the regional air quality impact would be less than significant
when considering the SIP.
While the project itself may have only a minimal individual regional impact, the increase
of traffic around the project site may create localized violations of ambient health standards.
To evaluate the potential for the formation of any air pollution "hot spots," the California
line source dispersion model, CALINE4, was used to estimate receptor exposure at various
intersections near the Chula Vista Bayfront. These intersections were determined to be
potentially impacted by site development traffic. This model was initialized with maximum
traffic and minimum dispersion conditions, with and without project traffic, in order to
generate a worst-case impact assessment. CO was used as the indicator pollutant to
determine if there was any air pollution "hot spot" potential. The results of the modeling
exercise are summarized in Appendix E. As shown, the hourly CO exposure near the three
analyzed intersections currently totals less than 2.0 ppm above the regional background
3-69
90-14.006 01/24/91
I ftJ -.3 f) -1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
level. Continued emissions reductions from newer, less polluting automobiles and
anticipated roadway system improvements would create a continuing reduction in future
microscale CO levels, despite projected increases in traffic levels. Future CO levels at most
locations would be similar to existing levels despite any projected traffic increases. If the
roadway system can accommodate increased traffic volumes, future microscale CO levels,
with or without the proposed project, will be similar to what they are today. Since the "With
Project" levels are well below any level of concern, any alternative development scenario
impacts with lesser intensity are not an important air quality consideration.
The large surface parking lot represents an area of emissions impact concern because a
large number of vehicles are "cold-started" at the end of each workday, An approximate
calculation of the CO impact from the entire lot emptying was completed as part of this
study. The assumptions made for this calculation and the model used are contained in
Appendix E. The model predicted a worst-case hourly CO level of 10 mg/m3. The state
CO standard is 23 mg/m3. Given the overly conservative (over-predictive) nature of the
input assumptions, and the fact that even with worst-case assumptions, hourly CO impacts
are well below the most stringent hourly CO standard, surface parking lot air quality impacts
are judged as not significant.
Construction Impacts
Secondary project-related atmospheric impacts derive from a number of other small, growth-
connected emissions sources such as temporary emissions of dusts and fumes during project
construction, increased fossil-fuel combustion in power plants and heaters, boilers, stoves
and other energy consuming devices, evaporative emissions at gas stations or from paints,
thinners or solvents used in construction and maintenance, increased air travel from business
travelers, dust from tire wear and re-suspended roadway dust, etc. All these emission points
are either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to project-related automotive
sources that their impact is negligible. They do point out, however, that growth results in
increased air pollution emissions from a wide variety of sources, and thus further inhibits
the near-term attainment of all clean air standards in the region.
The clearing of existing site land uses, the excavation of utility access, the preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly would create temporary emissions of dusts,
fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during project construction. In
3-70
90-14.006 01/24/91
111--,308
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
general, the most significant source of air pollution from project construction would be the
dust generated during demolition, excavation and site preparation. Typical dust lofting rates
from construction activities are usually assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per
acre disturbed. Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement
measures required by the San Diego APCD can reduce dust emission levels from 50-75
percent. Dust emissions rates, therefore, depend on the site disturbance area and the care
with which dust abatement procedures are implemented. If the entire 11.6 acre project site
is under simultaneous development, in the absence of any dust control procedures, the total
daily dust emissions would be around 1,200 pounds/day. With the use of water spray or
other dust abatement measures, daily dust emissions would average 300-600 pounds per day.
It should be noted that much of this dust is comprised of large particles that are easily
filtered by human breathing passages and settle out rapidly on parked cars and other nearby
horizontal surfaces. It thus comprises more of a soiling nuisance than any potentially
unhealthful air quality impact. Although a considerable portion of the construction activity
fugitive dust does settle out near its source, the smallest particles remain suspended
throughout much of their transit across the air basin. Construction dust is, therefore, an
important contributor to regional violations of inhalable dust (PM-I0) standards. Because
of its role in PM-I0 violations, fugitive construction dust emissions must be controlled as
carefully as possible. Despite the general care which should be given to construction dust
emissions, because the impact is temporary in nature (only during the construction period)
and because prevailing breezes will generally move settling dust away from the sensitive
marsh habitat near the site, project-related impacts for this issue are considered to be less
than significant if APCD requirements are followed.
Equipment exhaust would also be released during construction activities. Although the
construction activity emission rates may be substantial (especially NOx from diesel-fueled
trucks and on-site vehicles), they would be widely dispersed in space and time by the mobile
nature of much of the equipment itself. Furthermore, daytime ventilation in Chula Vista
is usually more than adequate to disperse any local pollution accumulations near the project
site. Any perceptible impacts from construction activity exhaust would therefore be confined
to an occasional "whifP' of characteristic diesel exhaust odor. These emissions would not be
in sufficient concentration to expose any nearby receptors to air pollution levels above
acceptable standards.
3-71
90-14.006 01/24/91
116 -,3tJ f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MITIGATION
The proposed office complex does not create an individually significant air quality impact
on either a local or a regional scale. There is, therefore, no requirement to develop any
unusual mitigation measures to off-set any project impacts. Further, since project impacts
derive primarily from automobile emissions characteristics beyond the control of project
proponents and local regulatory agencies, the potential for effective mitigation is quite
limited. However, the project incremently contributes to a regionally significant impact. To
mitigate this incremental contribution, transportation control measures (TCMs), and
temporary construction activity impact mitigation measures must be incorporated into the
proposed project. Measures that must be considered in project planning include:
1) Implementation of dust control measures during construction as required by the
APCD. Such measures include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as
removing any soil spillage.
2) Construction and Grading Plans must (1) limit construction to the hours between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. so that local pollution accumulation is minimized, and (2)
must prohibit construction truck queuing with engines running, by imposing
restrictions on entering the site or imposing fumes.
3) Rohr has an existing TCM program which they have stated would be formalized and
expanded to include this project. Such TCM should be aimed primarily at employees
on the project site, but might also include site visitors in certain instances. Measures
that should be evaluated for the TCM program include:
Ridesharing
Vanpool Incentives
Alternate Transportation Methods
Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel
Transit Utilization
Program Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain an LOS of "D" or Better
To be most efficient, these measures must be integrated into a comprehensive transportation
system management (TSM) program. Occupants of this office complex should be included
in the existing Rohr company-wide trip reduction program, and they should ultimately be
included in a comprehensive Midbayfront transportation management association (TMA)
if, and when, the Bayfront is built out.
3-72
90-14.006 01/24/91
/(, -,310
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Analysis of Significance
None of the project related air quality impacts is significant on a project specific level.
Implementation of the project will result in incremental contributions to a regionally
significant air quality impact due to CO, NOx and ROG additions to the airshed. Project
construction-related impacts (i.e., equipment exhaust and production of fugitive dust) are
both expected to be less than significant impacts. Dust production will require
implementation of APCD control techniques in order to be mitigated to a less than
significant impact.
3-73
90-14.006 01/24/91
I(,~.JII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
I ~ -31 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 ALlERNATIVES
CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project which
could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project," and evaluation of their comparative
merits. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any
significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even
if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or
would be more costly." CEQA also requires analysis of the "no project," or existing
conditions, alternative. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by "rule
of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit
a reasoned choice. The key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives
fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation. An EIR need not
consider an alternative with effects which cannot be reasonably ascertained and the
implementation of which is remote and speculative. The basic objectives of the project, as
submitted by the applicant are:
1. Management direction to be within easy walking distance of the Chula Vista
manufacturing operations.
2. Need to consolidate the administrative office functions from 19 individual buildings
and trailer complexes into one facility.
3. Need to reduce travel distances.
4. Need to upgrade facilities.
5. Need to accommodate a smart building environment.
6. Need to move off of Port District tidelands.
7. Need to consolidate off-site operations on-site.
8. No other adjacent vacant land parcel available of the size required for the
consolidated complex.
9. No capital outlay required to purchase new land.
10. New non-industrial image wanted for the new complex.
11. Site more compatible with proposed future development uses. (Both for Rohr
campus and adjacent properties.)
12. Moves non-manufacturing functions out of the center of the manufacturing operation.
13. Other on-site options not able to meet the January 1992 completion date directed by
Management.
14. Need to eliminate temporary trailer complexes.
15. Need to raze obsolete and maintenance intensive buildings.
16. Close proximity to the airport (within 10 miles).
17. Close proximity to where majority of employees live.
18. Able to use low cost existing co-generated power.
4-1
90-14.01501/24/91
I (, - 3/.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19. Able to tie to current on-site communication networks.
20. Able to use existing security systems and personnel.
21. Able to use already leased SDG&E parking areas.
22. Able to use existing drainage networks.
23. No stationary changes because of address changes.
Four alternatives are being evaluated for this project; the "No Project" alternative, the
Modified Design alternative which includes subsurface as well as surface parking, the
Reduced Density Alternative which responds to the parking deficiency impact, and three off-
site alternatives which evaluate whether a different site might reduce project impacts.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECf
Under this alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped. No impacts resulting
from development would occur with this alternative, as no change to the existing setting
would occur. Even though the proposed project would result in one incremental impact, this
alternative is not considered to be environmentally preferable for one major reason. That
is, existing uses of the site would continue, which include illegal trash dumping and habitat
degradation in an area intruding into the sensitive buffers of the NWR. Illegal off-road
vehicle use of the area could also continue. Also, the described project objectives would not
be met. The environmentally preferred action, therefore, is one that not only meets project
objectives, but also develops the project area in an environmentally sensitive manner,
screening inhabitants of the marsh area from potentially disturbing uses. Thus, even though
this alternative would not result in incremental impacts, the potential continuing impacts to
the NWR would continue, negating this alternative as an environmentally preferable
alternative.
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFIED DESIGN
The major difference between this alternative and the proposed project is the development
of subsurface parking in two garages which would increase the number of parking spaces
from 730 to 760. Figure 4-1 through 4-3 show this alternative's Site Plan, Grading Plan and
cross-sectional views of the subterranean garages. The location of the cross-sections are
identified on the Site Plan.
4-2
90-14.01501/24/91
/1,-$/'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ~ ; l.'~ @
~ i ~ ~ ~.. ~~
~i i It It" ~
h d Hi it ns II
- -- ~~ Ii ~~
- - n~ is e U
'I .1 ~, = ~ i HI I i ~II
. m ~ ~ ~ n~ ~ nU
____U1III u~--=ullmlll -ill II
--- ---;
~:i~IU' ,j
<
,
,
,
I I i ~ I: I 1 I
I
I
II .
- f _
~ --
:c ~
:=:" - -- \
I
I
I
I _
. - 0~'
": .-
.,
I .
I
..' rl. '
("'. ,. '---------
....11 ~
\.;. .
f)
III
I" ".3 /5
I
I
i
\1
.. .i\
!
.I
.,
I
\
;
I
,
. !
\
- I
,
.-<
,
~
~
.-
~
~
.-
'"
Q)
c:l
as
5=
"8!3
;::sp..
Il)
'.....
.-
NrI:l
Il)
.::=
~
c::
...
Il)
~
I
N
..j.
!l
5'.
u::
(L(L
"
")/~
~a:i
,~,1
"
~~ / --~
0/0 I 1.
iiii/ \\,
0:15
~f;t
~9
6\,
.~
Q
"0
Ji! c:::
::a.!S
o Po.
~gJ'
':0
N '"
~c5
.'"
'"
~
;;:
8 ,
-i9~-i9 )
N. ~la
.9
~ ~
, j '" .~.~ .;:: "
il g -e-e-e , LO'-
'"' 'e t' ~ +1
= "" ." 888 ;:... +1 .~
8 .9 , ~ ~
, 3 t ~ 0 -f- ,., .
- ~ ;; I i~c; II 11 Or..., : IC,~ ---
11 ;;; Q _l I I ~
0 <n eiil ' ,
, ,
In I~ u ,..
tr: 5 H n
0 -!3 Co 0
04..!l ;;;;;;
- ~.. -. . MH ~,.
n
- ]. -
.-
M
I
"<t
e
~ ~ So
.-
~
m
B
II
lil
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
iI'-
1
f
~
[ill
..
0( z
z 0
0 ;:
;: ~Ti 0
0 w
w on
on "
" z
z ;;
I' ;; z
lj\ z :
n :
iH
11I-,3lr
o
'"
=
o
, .-
... .....
bOU
.- 0
~CZl
Cl~
"00
0'"
l;lU
.- '"
"00
ObO
:s~
I C';l
Nt:)
~ =
-.0 CU
C';l 0
= =
... C';l
~l::
<~
.g
CZl
u
z
o
;:
o
w
on
"
z
;;
z
:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An analysis of the potential impacts from development of this alternative is contained below,
and includes each issue discussed for the proposed project.
A DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING
Impacts to drainage and groundwater and from grading are the same as those for the
project. Additionally, two parking structures are currently proposed, each with one level of
below-grade parking with finished floor elevations of 8.0 and 8.2 feet for the northerly and
southerly parking structures, respectively. The northerly parking structure is currently
proposed to be supported on spread or continuous footings founded entirely in competent
Bay Point formation soils, with a bottom-of-footing elevation of 5.5 feet (MSL). A total of
40,000 cubic yards of cut and fill would be generated and approximately 9,000 cubic yards
of import would be required to develop the proposed grades. The maximum depth of cut
and fill would be 11 feet and 7 feet, respectively, with an average change in grade of
approximately 2 feet.
The formational soils drop in elevation to the south, and at least portions of the southerly
structure will likely be underlain by up to several feet of compressible slopewash materials
unsuitable for the direct support of the proposed structure. Consideration is currently being
given to deepening conventional footings as necessary to develop proper embedment into
the underlying formational soils, or supporting the proposed structure on pile foundations.
Deepened conventional footings will definitely penetrate the groundwater table, thereby
necessitating temporary construction dewatering to form and construct foundation elements.
Pile foundations, if used for support of the southerly parking structure, would utilize a pile
cap bottom elevation of 4.7 feet, thereby reducing the likelihood that temporary construction
dewatering might be required.
Adequate design criteria are provided in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report
for foundation design, with consideration being given to variations in the groundwater table,
and design criteria are also provided for temporary construction dewatering if saturated soils
are encountered during the construction activities on site.
4-3
90-14.01501/24/91
/1I-3It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. BIOLOGY
Biological impacts and mitigation measures are the same as those for the project as there
are no changes beyond the addition of the two parking garages. Potential dewatering
impacts from subsurface parking construction would be mitigated by implementation of the
existing mitigation measure number 4 (pages 3-34 to 3-35).
C. VISUAL QUAUTY
The visual effects of the revised Rohr Industries Inc. Office Complex will be virtually the
same as those described previously for the proposed project. The proposed parking
structures will be below grade, and there will be no noticeable visual change to the overall
character and design of the site. In addition, the landscape plan for the revised site is the
same as the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed office complex, landscaping and
parking for the revised plan will result in the types of visual aesthetic changes described in
Section 3.3 of this EIR.
D. TRAFFIC CIRCUlATION
Traffic circulation impacts are the same as those for the project, since this alternative does
not result in increased traffic levels.
Parkin~
The alternative project proposes the same amount of square footage in office space, and
therefore, would generate the same amount of parking demand. The alternative responds
to the recommendation in the traffic analysis for the project to redesign the parking to
create as much parking as possible. Even with this design, the alternative would result in
a parking deficit of 49 to 85 spaces, or 6 to 10 percent (under the City's existing standards).
Access
The access issue is the same as that for the project, yet exacerbated due to the garages. The
Applicant must work with the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that access to and from the
4-4
90-14.015 02/01/91
J " ... & /1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
site would be adequate. Through these discussions and prior to final design, the City
Traffic Engineer could recommend alternatives for additional access to the parking,
including the structures (possibly to and from Bay Boulevard with an easement through the
SDG&E right-of-way east of the site), if it is determined to be warranted by the City.
E. AIR QUAlITY
The air quality technical report for this alternative is located in the second half of Appendix
E.
Vehicular Emissions Impacts
The revision of the plot plan from the 730 parking space design as the analysis basis for the
forgoing air quality report to 760 spaces could allow for slightly greater volumes of traffic
than previously anticipated. It has been assumed that the 30 "extra" spaces are surplus in
that the office complex floor area was not changed with the revision. It could be, however,
that the surplus space would encourage office occupancy of uses that are somewhat more
traffic intensive than the average values used for trip-generation in that the parking facilities
can accommodate a higher rate of vehicular access. In the absence of any definitive
information, the possibility of an increased frequency/intensity of site access encouraged by
parking availability was treated as an alternative to the previous analysis.
These amounts represent an incremental contribution to the basin, which continues to
violate clean air standards. Thus, this alternative also represents an incremental contribution
to a regionally significant air quality impact.
A subsurface/surface parking structure represents an area of impact concern because there
are a large number of vehicles "cold-started" at the end of each workday. If many vehicles
departing simultaneously create substantial congestion, then the combination of multiple
inefficient emissions sources plus limited localized dispersion potentially may create a
microscale air quality concern. With the structure, the public spends only a brief amount
of time such that ambient air quality impacts based on hourly or longer exposure standards
are not directly applicable. However, beyond the immediate structure boundary, there may
be points of extended public access that relate directly to state and federal clean air
4-5
90-14.015 01/24/91
IfI-.3~O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
standards. Within the structure, any employees working within the facility are governed by
occupational safety and health (OSHA) limits on worker exposure to carbon monoxide. The
federal OSHA standard allows for an 8-hour average exposure of 50 ppm compared to the
state and federal 8-hour ambient air quality standard or 9 ppm.
Based on an approximate calculation made of the CO level within the structure, and under
a worst-case scenario that every underground parking place turns over four times in one day
with a low ventilation rate, the OSHA standards would not be exceeded. Additionally, a
calculation of ambient exposure at the edge of the property lines was made assuming an
hourly turn-over of every space (surface and subsurface), and neither the subsurface, nor
ambient air quality standards were threatened.
In conclusion, though incremental impacts may be slightly worsened with this alternative,
they still remain less than significant at a project level. This alternative is not
environmentally preferable to the proposed project from an air quality perspective; rather,
it is considered equal to it or very slightly worse. The incremental contributions to a
regionally significant impact must still be mitigated with the same measures as proposed for
the project, including transportation control measures and all construction-related measures.
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - REDUCED DENSITY
The only difference between this alternative and the proposed project would be a reduction
in building size of 17,000 square feet, or a reduction from 245,000 square feet to 228,000
square feet. ai~t~H!!Hq!:I_~;@JSqiI~~P9B~lg~~~JI~~9A'iPHmPFI~9~~.l9y~q~;
The purpose of this reduction is to avoid the parking deficiency impact, and is based on the
maximum amount of parking that has been incorporated into the project design by
Alternative 2 - 760 spaces. A building with 220,000 square feet would meet the City's
minimum required parking standard of 3-1/3 parking spaces for every thousand IH~~~ feet
of gross building area. Based on the parking proposed for the project, 730 spaces, a
reduction in size of 26,000 square feet, or from 245,000 square feet to 219,000 square feet
would be necessary. However, the applicant has agreed to the greater amount of parking,
the 760 spaces, thus the 17,000 square foot reduction would be appropriate.
4-6
90-14.01502/01/91
/u '3;)/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This alternative would not substantially change the environmental analysis for any of the
other issues.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
The offsite alternatives are included in the EIR to evaluate whether environmental impacts
from the project might be reduced or eliminated at a different site. The offsite projects
assume that the proposed development would be the same as the proposed project.
The criteria used in evaluating the sites include environmental conditions at each site, and
the project applicant's goals and objectives for the proposed project (these were stated
earlier in this section). Though the applicant's goals and objectives are directly appropriate
for the proposed project site, the alternatives analysis looks beyond this area in order to
fully evaluate and compare environmental impacts.
The project impacts and incremental impacts compared in this analysis were those which
were found significant and mitigable; there was one significant and unmitigable impact
which was the incremental contribution to the loss of regional raptor foraging habitat.
The four sites evaluated include:
1. Port District - Chula Vista Marina (Port District Land)
2. Port District - National City Marine Terminal (Port District Land)
3. Tia Juana Street, near 1-5 and the Mexican Border (City of San Diego)
4. Eastern Urban Center - County of San Diego (City of Chula Vista's Sphere of
Influence ).
Port District - Chula Vista Marinll
This site is approximately 14 acres and is located at the foot of "J" Street on the bayfront
just east of the Chula Vista Marina, and adjacent to the south end of the Rohr facilities.
The site is flat, and generally disturbed due to the influences from the surrounding
developed areas. The Port District's designation for the site is Industrial-Business Park.
4-7
90-14.01502/01/91
I 11- ~ ~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
An initial review of the site indicated that no apparent significant environmental constraints
occurs at the site. Traffic accesses Chula Vista and surrounding areas via "J" Street and the
1-5 interchange at "J" Street. Traffic impacts would probably be similar to those expected
at the proposed site, with the greatest constraint being the "J" Street interchange, and the
capacity of "J" Street west of 1-5.
No significant biological resources exist on the site, in fact, very little vegetation remains due
to previous disturbance. Visually, bay views are already blocked from viewers to the east
by existing Rohr developments adjacent to the north and east of the site.
The greater size of this site compared to the proposed site could eliminate the potential
parking deficiency impact, and appears to be able to provide enough area for the proposed
building and surface parking. . No subsurface parking would be required at this site, thus,
the potential dewatering constraint could probably be avoided. Based on this preliminary
review, this site appears to be environmentally preferable over the proposed site due to the
avoidance of biological impacts, probable reduction in geotechnical/groundwater constraints,
and probable avoidance of the parking deficiency impact. However, potential traffic impacts
would remain.
Port District-Nationl.l City Marine Terminal
This site is located on the bayfront at the Port District's Industrial Marine Terminal/Marine
Related site in National City, just across the Sweetwater River north of the City of Chula
Vista boundary and the north end of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The
231-acre site is flat and completely disturbed. The port is considering changing the exiting
designation of Industrial Marine Terminal/Marine Related to Commercial recreation.
An initial review of the site has resulted in the conclusion that no significant environmental
constraints are immediately evident, with the possible exception of traffic circulation. The
site receives access from 1-5 via 24th and 32nd Streets. No significant natural features exist
on the site.
Impacts of the proposed Rohr development that would occur on the proposed site could be
reduced or eliminated at this site, including the deficiency in parking spaces as more land
4-8
90-14.01502/01/91
1"-J~3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
would be available for parking; and the incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat, as no
raptor foraging habitat currently exists on the site. However, new traffic circulation impacts
may result. From a natural resources perspective, this site would be preferred; however,
from a traffic perspective, it may be considered equal to the proposed project location, or
may even result in greater traffic impacts. Because this site is larger, subsurface parking
would not be necessary and potentially problematic dewatering may not be necessary. New
regional Water Quality Control Board regulations prohibit permanent dewatering to enter
the bay. Some of the project objectives would not be met with this alternative. In
conclusion, this alternative site is fairly equal to the proposed project site, as raptor foraging
habitat impacts would be avoided, but traffic impacts could be equal to worse.
Tia Ju""" Street
This property consists of approximately 90 acres which is currently used for agriculture,
scattered single-family residences, and a sand and gravel operation. Surrounding land uses
include light industrial, multi-family and single-family residences, agricultural land, The
Tijuana River, and the border with mixed uses (mostly residential) beyond.
The site is mostly flat and previously disturbed. Significant environmental constraints
include the River and associated riparian vegetation/habitat, agriculture, and the sand and
gravel operation. Depending on its location within this area, the 11.6 acre Rohr project
could either result in impacts to these sensitive resources, or could avoid some of these
altogether. Considering the number of constraints, however, this site is not considered
environmentally preferred over the project site.
E,,~tem Urban Center
The Eastern Urban Center, located in the County of San Diego, is also included in the City
of Chula Vista's General Plan as part of its Sphere of Influence. The General Plan (1989)
envisions this site for mixed uses including regional retail facilities, commercial office
building, residences and public recreation facilities. The site is located where the future
extension of Orange Avenue and SR-125 would intersect.
4-9
9IJ.U01S 02/01/91
1('-3~'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Most of this area has been disturbed by agriculture and is relatively flat. Access appears
to be the most significant constraint, though a site specific environmental analysis must
occur to positively identify whether potentially significant constraints exist. An initial review
identified no readily apparent constraints. This site may be less sensitive, and further review
would be necessary to accurately determine this potential conclusion. With this alternative,
some of the applicant's objectives regarding location of the project would not be met.
45 CONCLUSIONS
Alternative 2 - Modified Design results in a reduction of the significant parking deficiency
impact, otherwise, this alternative does not substantially reduce or eliminate potential
project impacts. Alternative 3 - Reduced Density results in avoidance of the significant
parking deficiency impact, otherwise, it also does not substantially reduce or eliminate other
project impacts. It must be noted that, after mitigation, the proposed project results in only
one incremental impact (to raptor foraging habitat).
Alternative sites may be environmentally preferable, especially the Port District-Chula Vista
Marina site. This site would eliminate potentially significant and unmitigable incremental
impacts to raptor foraging habitat, and appears to be able to provide adequate surface
parking. Traffic circulation may, however, be similar to the project impacts.
4-10
90-14.015 02/01/91
J(, - 3;)~
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 EFFEcrs NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
/(, -..3;)~
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 EFFECfS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
A preliminary evaluation of potential environmental impacts was completed by the City of
Chula Vista which identified potential impacts in the areas of geology/soils, groundwater,
drainage/water quality, agriculture resources, air quality, noise, biology cultural resources,
land use, aesthetics, utilities, human health, transportation and risk of upset. After further
study and evaluation, several of these potential impacts were found to be not significant.
The issue areas of aesthetics, circulation, parking, air quality, biology, and
hydrology/drainage were found to require additional study and are addressed in this EIR.
The issues that were determined to be not significant include geology/soils, agricultural
resources, noise, cultural resources, land use, utilities, human health, and risk of upset. This
section is included subject to CEQA section 15128 which requires that an EIR contain a
brief statement "indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project
were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR".
Each of the above-mentioned issues are briefly addressed in terms of potential adverse
impact and a judgment made about impact significance.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The project site has historically been farmed with row crops and was cultivated in the early
1980s. The development of this project would result in overcovering of the soil and
elimination of the site as an agricultural land use. The soils on site are Hueruero loam
which is suitable for growing tomatoes and truck crops but has a low (41) story index and
is not classified as prime agricultural soil. Because the site is small (11.6 acres) and is not
considered prime agricultural land, the loss of this minor resource is not considered
significant.
NOISE
Noise levels for the area would increase somewhat as the project would generate additional
traffic on "P' Street and onto the site. The nearest sensitive receptor is the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh which is located west of the proposed structure. As all parking and ingress/egress
would be focused on the eastern half of the site and noise would be blocked by the structure
itself, impacts would not be significant.
5-1
90-14.005 01/24/91
/fI-3jr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CULTURAL RESOURCES
An archaeological/historical survey was conducted recently for a proposed bayfront project
which encompassed this site. This survey found one previously recorded site in the project
area, SDi-6025, which included both historic and prehistoric elements (Reference Appendix
D, Results of an Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the
Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No.8, Brian F. Smith and Associates, October 24, 1989;
available at the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department). The results of
the survey indicated that this site was not significant.
lAND USE
The project is generally consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan. The issues of
compatibility with the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP) have been
addressed in Section 2.4, and as stated there, no major inconsistencies would occur.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Rohr employees are anticipated to use the surrounding public park and recreation areas,
especially during the lunch hour. The anticipated number of employees at this facility is
1,286, with some percentage of this expected to use nearby public areas. The actual amount
from this project is not considered significant, especially because most employees are
transferring to this facility from the adjacent campus. The City currently has no requirement
for commercial or industrial/business park projects to pay park fees, however, due to the
expected use of public areas, the applicant should contribute funds for improvements to
existing jogging/walking paths or to new paths.
UTIllTIES
The project would require connection of water, sewer and energy lines to existing services
adjacent to the site. SDG&E is committed to servicing all customers and has the necessary
facilities in the immediate vicinity. Sewage disposal is provided via the City of Chula Vista
and directed into the City of San Diego METRO sewage system. The City of Chula Vista
has an available capacity of at least 5 million gallons per day (MGD) and would be capable
of servicing the project with no significant impacts. However, an offsite sewer connection
5-2
90-14.005 01/24/91
/ll-~J&
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
and construction of a metering facility would be necessary to tie into the nearest Metro line,
which is a 78-inch main approximately 1,100 feet south of "F" Street in Bay Boulevard. g~
~p~#2~ntM!2P;1~n~~~f!~~m~~~~ThIQm~fi~:l1A~'lljm~;llll~g~f~IIIg~m,gil,1~~~Pi~;A~t
~~sli!l~lRf~P'!pj!q~lli
Water service to the site would be provided by Sweetwater Authority. No service
agreements have yet been accomplished, as Sweetwater Authority would need to prepare
a project-specific evaluation to determine service capabilities and needs (Briggs 1990).
Thus, water supply and infrastructure needs, and capability to meet these needs, have not
yet been determined,
HUMAN HEALTII
Development of an office complex with associated parking would not result in significant
impacts to human health as standard construction materials and operating technology would
be employed.
RISK OF UPSET
In May 1988, Woodward-Clyde Consultants completed a hazardous substance contamination
site assessment for the project site. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
potential presence of hazardous substance contamination on the site resulting from past or
present uses on the property. Based on their records review, field investigation, and
laboratory results, they concluded that several facilities near the site use hazardous materials
which have been cited for improper storage and disposal, and that on-site soil contamination
resulted from historic pesticide use, and volatile organic compounds in the groundwater
originated off-site, Because the levels of soil and groundwater contamination were below
state-mandated standards, the potential risk of upset impact was considered not significant.
SCHOOLS
In response to the Notice of Preparation, both the Chula Vista City School District (grades
K-8) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (grades 9-12) mailed letters of
comment to the City Planning Department. Both school districts clarified that non-
residential development would result in an increase in school enrollment. Based on their
5-3
90-14.005 01/24/91
,,,- .J~9
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
preliminary figures, the project would generate approximately 162 new elementary school
age children and 100 new high school students at an estimated cost to the districts of
$1,427,868 and $1,300,000, respectively. However, the State-mandated fees for non-
residential development would generate $25,380 for the City School District and $215,600
for the Sweetwater School District; far short of their estimated need. To comply with the
Districts' needs, the applicant must pay the state-mandated school fees, and is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
PUBliC SERVICES
The nearest fire station is approximately 1.25 miles from the site, and the estimated
response time would be 4 minutes. Requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department must
be met, including:
. Implementation of fire standpipe and fire hydrants.
. Inclusion of a 20-foot wide unobstructed access to all points within 150 feet of the
furthermost point of the exterior wall of the first story.
. Provision of fire flow at 5,200 to 6,000 gallons per minutes (depending on the type
of construction (Horsefall, 1990).
Police services would be incrementally affected by the project due to the presence of a new
building and new employment at the site. Police services would not be significantly
impacted, and the Police Department has not required any measures of the applicant.
5-4
90-14,00501/24/91
111-330
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNlFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcrs
'" - 33/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcrs
The proposed project and Alternative~ 2 inj:j~ (Modified Designj:il~.~II:I!l:mili
~i~~~qy~ly) would bffift ~U result in the same unavoidable impact. This impact is the
incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat by development of the project. No mitigation
other than no development is possible.
6-1
90-14.01702/01/91
I " - ,J.J ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
7.0 RElATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE
OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
1,,'~33
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
7.0 RELATIONSlllP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF TIlE
ENVIRONMENT AND TIlE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Economic and social pressures for growth in San Diego County are such that complete
protection of the environment at the expense of community growth and well-being is not
feasible. Therefore, a balance must be sought that accommodates the needs of the growing
population of the southern California region, while maintaining the integrity of the
environment. It is the degree to which this balance is achieved in a given development that
establishes the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
Development of the Rohr proposed project or alternative would intensify the uses of the
environment, while the maintenance of the area as open space would allow possible future
reclamation of the currently degraded environment and return of the area to a pristine
natural resource. The valuable natural resources include the unique marine and
wetland-associated habitats and species, and the proximity of the open spaces to the waters
of the San Diego Bay and the associated aesthetic pleasures.
The proposed site development generally has been designed to respect these existing natural
resources so that they are protected in a healthy condition for the future. Additionally, the
measures recommended to mitigate potential impacts to these resources should be
implemented and monitored to ensure their appropriateness and success.
7-1
90-14.010 01/24/91
1(,-33'1-
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 IRREVERSmlE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT
WIlL RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
I ~ - oJ 35
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 IRREVERSmLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES TIIAT WilL RESULT
FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Approval and construction of the proposed Rohr office complex would result in irreversible
changes to the project area and to the larger Midbayfront area. The project would develop
an urban use in an existing, largely natural setting which is adjacent to a highly sensitive
National Wildlife Refuge. This urban use would, of course, include the attendant traffic,
noise, visual changes, and other human-associated activities which ~9~~~ will not only
change the character of this area, but ~j.jJ:!:J will also infrin~e permanently toward the
margins of the sensitive biological communities of the NWR. The allowance for tn. these
irreversible changes is found in the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, with
which the proposed project is in compliance.
8-1
90-14.01801/24/91
I fI - !J316
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Jf,- 33':1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 GROWfH INDUCING IMPACI' OF TIIE PROPOSED PROmCI'
The Chula Vista Sphere of Influence area is within one of the fastest growing areas in the
County. In fact, the population of the sphere of influence was projected to increase by
approximately 65 percent by the year 2010 (SANDAG, 1989), 20 percent over the increase
projected for the San Diego Region. A July 1990 monitoring report indicates that in fact,
the Chula Vista's subregion population has increased by 4.18 percent over that anticipated
a year ago, while the adjacent National City subregion has exceeded their projected growth
by 2.6 percent. Occupied housing units for Chula Vista exceeded the projected numbers by
3.49 percent for the Chula Vista and 1.53 percent for the National City subregions. The
City's Growth Management Policy (City of Chula Vista, 1989) indicates that the location and
quality of this rapid growth should be reviewed annually by City staff to ensure orderly
progression and development of the planning area. The City's intent is for growth to occur
in a general west to east direction.
The proposed project will provide an administrative building for Rohr facilities, some of
which are immediately adjacent to the project site. Primary purposes include movement of
current employees from existing facilities, as well as possible new-hires. The proposed
project could provide new employment for individuals moving into the Chula Vista and
National City subregions as well as the County at large. The number of new jobs available
is not expected to be large, thus, growth inducement from this project is not anticipated.
Numerous development projects are planned or under construction in the City's Sphere of
Influence. One additional concern of growth management is that new growth occur adjacent
to existing development, rather than in a "leap-frog" fashion. The proposed project is
located adjacent to a variety of existing land uses to the north and east as well as to a
related Rohr facility to the south. Thus, the proposed project would fill in currently vacant,
previously disturbed space, rather than open up development in a new area. Though there
would be modifications to and increases in service demand, most facilities and services likely
to be required by Rohr are already in place on or adjacent to the project site.
9-1
90-14.011 01/24/91
I" .. .338'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.0 CUMULATIVE IMPAcrs
'''-33f:J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.0 CUMUIATIVE IMPAcrs
This section provides a summary of potential cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts "shall
be discussed when they are significant" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(a)).
Each of the resource issues analyzed considered project development within the Bayfront
area and, as appropriate, more distant locations. The summary for each project issue
describes the geographical area which was considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts.
BIOLOGY
The biological analysis included the entire southern California area, because the resources
under analysis are important to at least this area and, at most, the entire U.S. The
resources incrementally impacted are the raptor foraging habitats which are part of the
Midbayfront upland on which this project is located. The loss is considered incremental at
a project level, but one which contributes to a regionally significant cumulative loss.
Another concern is that the development of the Rohr office complex would result in the loss
of habitat expansion opportunities which occur in only a handful of locations in southern
California. This lost opportunity is considered an incremental impact which will continue
to increase in significance as similar sites are lost due to development. Further, the
proposed development may restrict the enhancement potential of the wetland areas under
federal management by creating a possible continual source of predators and other
disturbance factors (traffic, human activity, etc.).
lRANSPORTATION/ ACCESS
The traffic analysis considered the Chula Vista streets both west and east of 1-5. The
project's contribution in most cases to traffic circulation impacts ranges from approximately
two to five percent of significantly impacted intersections. In one case ("F" Street and Bay
Boulevard intersection) the project represents approximately 53 percent of the significant
impact. The project thus contributes incrementally to significant cumulative effects and, in
the one case ("F" Street and Bay Boulevard intersection and approaches), represents over
one-half of the significant impact. The applicant is responsible for providing a proportional
amount of funds toward the mitigation for all of the cumulatively significant impacted
10-1
90-14.01901/24/91
IlI-3"10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
intersections. The City should establish a Benefit Assessment District for transportation
improvements in this western and bayfront portion of the City. These funds would be
placed in a separate City account used exclusively for projects in this District. The
boundaries of the District, the land uses in the District and associated estimated number of
trips, and the costs for necessary improvements must be determined.
VISUAL AESTHETICS/COMMUNITY CHARACIER
The visual aesthetics cumulative analysis considered the Chula Vista bayfront area, from the
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge to the Chula Vista Marina area. With respect
to existing public views within and adjacent to the City of Chula Vista, the proposed project
would result in continuing alteration of the bayfront from a natural area to a continuation
of the surrounding otherwise urban environment. As such, a loss of bay views would occur
to viewers directly west of the project site, and an incremental change to the character of
the bayfront would occur. The size of the building and the landscaping plan are within
requirements of the City's General Plan, thus these incremental visual and character changes
are not considered significant.
AIR QUALITY
The air quality analysis considered the entire San Diego Air Basin. The issues addressed
in the air quality discussion (vehicle emissions impacts, construction fugitive dust impacts,
etc.) would all be less than significant on a project specific basis. However, the project
emissions would contribute to the basin's continued violation of clean air standards. The
project thus represents an incremental contribution to a regionally significant air quality
impact.
10-2
90-14.019 01/24/91
,,,-3"11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSUL lED
1"-3~J.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th Edition.
American Ornithologists' Union.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh Supplement to the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 106: 532-538.
Andrecht, Ken and Elizabeth Copper. 1988. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel.
San Diego, California.
Ashton, R. E., Jr. 1976. Endangered and Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles in the
United States. Soc. for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetology Circular
No.5.
Awbrey, Frank. 1987. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. San Diego, California.
Awbrey, F., B. Stewart, and A. Bowles. 1980. Behavioral and Acoustic Data, Purisima
Point Least Tern Colony, Vandenburg Air Force Base. Prepared for the United
States Air Force, Vandenburg Air Force Base, California.
Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press.
241 pp.
Bloom, Pete. 1990. Telephone communication to Keith W. Merkel. National City,
California.
Bowman, Roy H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. December, 1973.
Briggs, Bill. San Diego Unified Port District, Planning Department. 1990. Telephone
communication, October 31, 1990.
Burger, Joanna. 1986. The Effect of Human Activity on Shorebirds in Two Coastal Bays
in Northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13(2): 123-130.
Cade, Tom J. 1982. Falcons of the World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. Status Designations of California Plants
and Animals.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Annual Report on the Status of California
State Listed Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals.
11-1
90-14.012 01/24/91
1t.,-3t.13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CALTRANS. 1982. Sweetwater River Final Environmental Impact Report. Sweetwater
River Flood Control Channel, State Highway Route 54, Interstate Highway Route
5, Recreation Facilities and Conservation of Marshlands, San Diego County,
California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 109 pp. +
appendices.
Churcher, Peter B. and John H. Lawton. 1989. Beware of Well-fed Felines. Natural
History 7: 40-47.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan, Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program Phase III - A Division of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Title 19 -
Chula Vista Municipal Code Specific Plan. Prepared by City of Chula Vista
Department of Community Development. Amended April 1989.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Growth Management Policy, Chula VISta General Plan. June
1989.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Rohr Office Complex (EIR-90-10). 15 June 1990.
Conners, Peter G. 1987. Predator Management Plan for Chula Vista Bayfront. Prepared
for the City of Chula Vista. Chula Vista, CA.
Copper, Elizabeth. 1989. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. San Diego,
California.
Copper, E. 1979. Least Tern Breeding Season in San Diego County, 1979. California
Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California.
Copper, E. and R. Patton. 1985. California Least Tern Nesting, San Diego County, 1985.
California Department of Fish and Game annual report.
Copper, E. and R. Patton. 1986. A Report on Least Tern Nesting in Southern San Diego
County, 1986. California Department of Fish and Game annual report.
Dooling, Robert J. 1982. Auditory perception in birds. In D. E. Kroodsma and E. H.
Miller (editors). Acoustic Communication in Birds. Academic Press, New Y ork. Vol.
1, pp. 95-130.
Dooling, Robert J., James A. Mulligan, and James D. Miller. 1971. Auditory Sensitivity
and Song Spectrum of the Common Canary (Serinus canarius). Journal of Acoustic
Society of America 50(2): 700-709.
Edwards, Claude G. 1987. Monitoring and Observation of Avifauna at Sweetwater River
Mouth, Gunpowder Point, G Street Shore and Marsh Vicinity (unpublished field
notes). 1 August 1987.
11-2
90-14.012 01/24/91
Iii - 3'1'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Everett, W. T. 1979. Threatened, Declining and Sensitive Bird Species in San Diego
County. Audubon Society Sketches. July 1979.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76
pp. plus appendices.
Gronholt, Christine. 1987. Personal communications to Robin Putnam and Keith W.
Merkel during preparation of Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987c.
Grout, Daniel J. 1990. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. National City,
California.
Hinde, R. A 1954a. Factors governing the changes in strength of a partially inborn
response, as shown by the mobbing behavior of the chaffinch (Fringilla coelobs). I,
the nature of the response, and an examination of its course. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B 142:306-331 (as cited in Morse 1980).
Hinde, R. A 1954b. Factors governing the changes in strength of a partially inborn
response, as shown by the mobbing behavior of the chaffinch (Fringilla coelobs). II,
The waning of the response. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 142: 332-358. (Cited
in Morse 1980).
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities
of California. California Department of Fish and Game.
Horsfall, Emmett, 1990. Chula Vista Fire Department. Telephone communication, October
31, 1990.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1979. Red
Data Book, Vol. 3: Amphibia and Reptilia.
Jameson, E.W., Jr. and Hans J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of
California Press.
JRK & Associates. 1989. Draft. Engineering Report for the City of Chula Vista Bikeway
Plan. September, 1989.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1983. Final Analysis of Select Biological Issues Relating
to the Chula Vista Bayfront Plan. Prepared for the City of Chula Vista. 10 March
1983.
11-3
90-14.012 01/24/91
,(, - 3'1~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1986. Wetland Determination at Marsh North of F Street
in the Bayfront, Chula Vista, California. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. June
1986.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Studies of California Least Terns and Water-
Associated Birds at the Chula Vista Bayfront, San Diego County, California.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista and San Diego Unified Port District. December
7, 1988.
Jorgensen, Paul. 1987. Clapper Rail Census (unpublished data) 3 April 1987.
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. 1990. Draft City of Chula Vista Midbayfront LCP
Resubmittal No.8 Amendment Environmental Impact Report and Appendices. 1
August 1990. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Siang S. Tan. 1977. Geology of National City, Imperial Beach
and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California.
California Division of Mines and Geology. Map Sheet 29.
Kenney, Martin. 1990. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife SeIVice, Laguna Niguel, California.
Marcus, Laurel. 1989. The Coastal Wetlands of San Diego County. California State
Coastal Commission. 64pp.
Mayer, Kenneth E. and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife
Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Montgomery, Stephen J. 1987. Monitoring and ObseIVations of Avifauna at the Sweetwater
River Mouth, Gunpowder Point, G Street Shore and Marsh Vicinity. Unpublished
field notes.
Morse, D. H. 1980. Behavioral Mechanisms in Ecology. HaIVard University Press.
Cambridge, Mass. 383 pp.
Morse, D. H. 1970. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds.
Eeol. Monogr. 40:119-168.
Mudie, P. J. 1970a. A SUIVey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part
I: Description of the Environment and the Vegetation Types, June 1970. California
Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. W26 D25-51.
Mudie, P. J. 1970b. A SUIVey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part
II: Vegetation Analyses, October 1970. California Department of Fish and Game,
Contract No. W26 D25-51.
11-4
90-14.012 01/24/91
I (,-3"~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Nagano. 1982. Population Status of the Tiger Beetles of the Genus Cicindela
(Coleoptera:Cicindelidae) Inhabiting the Marine Shoreline of Southern California.
Atala 8(2): 33-42.
Neudecker, Stephen, Ph.D., compiler. 1989. Birds of the Sweetwater Marsh (175 Species)
as arranged in phylogenetic order according to the Thirty-fourth Supplement to the
American Birds; Supplement to the Auk Vol. 99, No.3. July 1982.
Onuf, Christopher P. 1987. The Ecology of Mugu Lagoon, California: An Estuarine
Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 85(7.15).
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1986. Study Design for the Monitoring of
Selected Biological Subjects in the Sweetwater Marsh and Upland Complex Chula .
Vista, California. Prepared for: California State Coastal Conservancy.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987a. Gunpowder Point, South Levee Road
Vegetation Characterization and Wetland Identification. National City, California.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista, Redevelopment Agency.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987b. Monitoring and Observation of the Birds
at Gunpowder Point, National City, California. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987c. Endangered Species and Land Use
Alternatives Analysis for the Preparation of a Biological Opinion on the Sweetwater
River Flood Control/State Route 54 Project. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1988. A Study of the Effects of the 1987 Del
Mar Grand Prix on Water-Associated Birds Inhabiting the San Dieguito Lagoon, Del
Mar, California. Prepared for California State Coastal Commission and 22nd District
Agricultural Association in Coordination with The Butler jRoach Group, San Diego,
California.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1990a. Report of Biological Resources of the
Northern Portions of the Chula Vista Bayfront & the Potential Impacts of the
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment & Proposed Development of the Mid-
Bayfront. Prepared for Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., San Diego, California.
20 July 1990.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1990b. An Evaluation of Avian Flight Activities
within the Chula Vista Mid-Bayfront and the Potential for Impacts from the
Development of Bayfront Uplands. Prepared for Keller Environmental Associates,
Inc., San Diego, California. 30 July 1990.
11-5
90-14.012 01/24/91
,"-3'fr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Remsen, J. V., II. 1980. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 54pp.
Rick Engineering. 1990. Drainage Study Rohr's Corporate Facility. Prepared for: Rohr
Industries. 14 May 1990.
Sadler, Amy. 1990. Supplemental Information for the Rohr Office Complex
Environmental Analysis. Memorandum to Mary Ann Miller, City of Chula Vista,
Planning Department. 31 July 1990.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1989. SANDAG Population and
Housing Estimates, Series 7 Population Forecast. 1 January 1989.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1989. San Diego Traffic Generators.
September 1989.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1990. Series 7 Regional Growth
Forecast MonitQring Report. July 1990.
San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980. Survey and Status of Endangered and Threatened
Species of Reptiles Natively Occurring in San Diego County.
San Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee. 1976. Proposed List of Species and Habitats
Requiring Special Protection and Study in San Diego County. Memorandum to San
Diego County Environmental Quality Division.
San Diego Unified Port District. 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Report (UPD #78102-
EIR-1). Report by Environmental Management Department.
Sanders, Dana R. 1989. Letter report to Art Sellgren detailing wetlands delineation
performed November 1988 on Rohr parcel. 12 August 1989.
Schleidt, W. M. 1961. Reaktionen von Truthuhnern auf fliegende Raubvogel und Versuch
zur Analyse ihrer AAM's. Zeitschriftfur Tierpsychologie 18:534-60 (as cited in Morse
1980).
Sedway Cooke Associates et al. 1984. Phase II Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. Certified 27 March
1984. Amended April 1989.
Shalter, M. D. 1975. Lack of spatial generalization in habituation tests of fowl. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology 89:258-262.
Shalter, M. D. 1978. Effect of spatial context on the mobbing reaction of pied flycatcher
to a predator model. Animal Behavior 26:1219-1221.
11-6
90-14.012 01/24/91
I" - 3 'If
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Smith, James Payne, and Ken Berg. 1988. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Fourth Edition. Spec. Publ.
No. 1. September 1988.
Smythe, Jim. 1990. Sweetwater Authority. Telephone communicaion, October 31, 1990.
Soule, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox, eds. 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-
Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. 395pp.
Starboard Development Corporation. 1990. City of Chula Vista Initial Study Application
Form for the Rohr Office Complex. Revised 18 June 1990.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston. 336pp.
Stewart, G. R. 1971. Rare, Endangered and Depleted Amphibians and Reptiles in
California. Herpetology 5: 29-35.
Tate, James, Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds 40(2):227-236.
Thorne, R. F. 1976. The Vascular Plant Communities of California, in J. Latting (ed.),
Symposium proceedings: Plant Communities of Southern California. California
Native Plant Society. Spec. Publ. No.2. 1-31pp.
Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (U.S.A.) 1989. Transportation Analysis for Chula Vista
Bayfront. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 27 March 1989.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Code of Fed. Regul. Title 50, Part 17.11 and 17.12 (revised 1 January 1986).
Vener, Samuel. 1985. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. Chula Vista,
California.
Wallace, Roberts & Todd. 1990. Conceptual Landscape Plans for the Rohr Office
Complex Site. Plans include: Plant species list, plan views, and cross sections. San
Diego, California.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1987. Final Report
Conceptual Design for Chula Vista Bayfront Restoration and Enhancement Plans.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista, April 1987.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986a. Restoration &
Enhancement Plans for City of Chula Vista Bayfront - Task I Report: Synthesis of
Available Information. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 31 March 1986.
11-7
90-14.012 01/24/91
Ih -- 3'1'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986b. Opportunities and
Constraints Affecting Restoration and Enhancement Plans for the Bayfront Area of
the City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 3 Report Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 9
May 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986c. Specific Habitat
Objectives for Bayfront Enhancement Plans City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 4 Report
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 10 May 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986d. Enhancement
Alternatives Preliminary Design The Bayfront City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 5
Report Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 8 July 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Philip Williams & Associates. 1987. Vener Pond
Enhancement Plan, Prepared for: City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency.
White, Alice. 1985. Personal communication to Stephen J. Montgomery, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Willdan Associates. 1982. Impact of the Ashe-Slatt 500-kV Transmission Line on Birds at
Crow Butte Island: Post-construction Final Report. Bonneville Power
Administration, Contract DE-AC 79-80BP21135. Portland, Oregon.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed
Rohr Industries Office Complex, Southwest Corner of "F' Street and Bay Boulevard,
Chula Vista, California. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 24 July 1990.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Letter report to Mary Ann Miller, City of Chula
Vista, Planning Department, regarding hazardous substance contamination, site
assessment reports - "F" Street site, Chula Vista, California. Proj. No. 90511321-
CONS. 27 April 1990.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1988. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Rohr "F'
Street Property. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 13 May 1988.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1989. Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring Rohr
Industries. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 18 May 1989.
Zedler, Joy B., Phil Williams, and John Boland. 1986. Catastrophic Events Reveal the
Dynamic Nature of Salt-Marsh Vegetation in Southern California. Estuaries 9(1): 75-
80.
Zembal, R. and B. W. Massey. 1981. A Census of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in
California. West. Birds 12:87-99
11-8
90-14.01201/24/91
/" - 3~1J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Zembal, Rand B. W. Massey. 1985. Distribution of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in
California, 1980-1984. Amer. Birds 39(2): 135-137.
Zembal, Rand B. W. Massey. 1986. Light-footed Clapper Rail Census and Study, 1986.
Final Report, California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife,
Endangered Species.
Zembal, R, K. J. Kramer, R J. Bransfield, and N. Gilbert. 1988. A Survey of Belding's
Savannah Sparrows in California. Amer. Birds 42(5):1233-1236.
11-9
90-14.012 01/24/91
l(p - 35/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND UST OF PREPARERS
I ~- 3~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND liST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
of San Diego, California. Members of Keller Environmental Associates who contributed
to the report are listed below.
Diana Gauss Richardson; M.A. Geography
Lisa K. Capper; J.D.; B.A. Anthropology
Teri Fenner; B.A. Geography
Christine A. Keller; M.A. Geography
Ellen Miille; B.A. Social Ecology/Environmental Planning
Tim Fox; B.A. Geography
Consultants involved in the preparation of this report include:
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
Keith W. Merkel
Craig H. Reiser
Biological Studies
JHK & Associates
Daniel F. Marum
Brian Shields
Kent Trimble
Traffic Circulation Studies
Hans D. Giroux
Air Quality Studies
Group Delta
Walter Crampton
Robert Smiley
Groundwater/Hydrology
Studies
I hereby affirm that, to the best of our knowledge, the statements and information contained
herein are in all respects true and correct, and that all known information concerning the
potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been included and fully
evaluated in this EIR.
~()
Diana Gauss Richardson
Project Manager
12-1
90-14.013 01/24/91
1(,- 35.3
" ..
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
EIR-90-1O
CANDIDA1E CEQA FINQINGS
In accordance with Section 21081 of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Section
15091 of Title 14 of the California Administration
Code.
Prepared for:
City of ChuIa Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
February, 1991
,(, - 3S'l
"'I
..
TABLE OF CONlENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
II. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS....... 0.0....... 0......... 2
III. IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO
BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ........ 0 . 0 0 . . . 0 0 0 . . . . . .. 3
Ao Biology. . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .. 3
Impact ............. 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 0 . . . . 0 .. 3.
MitigatIOn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3
Finding . . . . . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . 0 . 0 0 . . . . . . 0 . . . . 0 0 . . .. 3
IV. SIGNIFICANT, MITIGABLE IMPACTS.................. 0........ 4
A. Drainage/Groundwater/Grading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Impact ................................................ 4
MItigatIOn .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
Finding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
B. Biology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 . .. 6
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
MItigatIOn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . .. 7
Finding .. . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 0 . . . .. 10
C. Circulation/Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Impact .................... 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. 10
MItigatIOn . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . 0 0 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . " 11
Finding .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . .. 13
Do Air Quality o. 0 0 0 . . . . . 0 . . 0 . . . 0 . 0 0 . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . 0 . . . 0 0 . . .. 13
Impact ........... 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MItigatIOn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F'd' .
In Ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
13
14
V.
INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS...................................
14
VI.
VI I.
THE RECORD
........................................... -.
Statement of Overriding Consideration
................................
14
15
- 11 -
90-14.02102/13/91
"-3~
".
I. INTRODUCITON
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project
shall be approved by a public agency when significant environmental effects have been
identified, unless one of the following findings is made and supported by substantial
evidence in the record:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
(2) Changes or alterations are the responsibility of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the Final EIR for the
proposed Rohr Office Complex (SCH # 90010623) and all documents, maps, and
illustrations listed in Section VI of these findings. The project's discretionary actions include
the following:
(1) Grading Permit
(2) Building Permit
(3) City Coastal Development Permit
(4) Coastal Commission Development Permit
The Rohr Office Complex Project site is an 11.6 acre site located within the Midbayfront
area in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is located sits east of the "F' & "G" Street
Marsh, west of the SDG&E right-of-way, north of Rohr Industries' existing complex and
south of "F' Street.
The "F" & "G" Street Marsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). The NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing
habitat for many types of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
- 1 -
9O-U.021 02/13/91
1(,- J5$
.....
endangered and/or threatened by State and Federal agencies. The project site is currently
undeveloped, but has been used for agriculture in the past and is littered with agricultural
and household debris. An abandoned irrigation system and several unimproved roads
transect the site. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
The proposed project includes the proposed construction of a 42-foot high office building
and associated parking area containing 730 spaces, a drainage system, and a road
improvements to "F' Street and Bay Boulevard. On-site landscaping will be provided and
a berm and detention basin will be created on the western portion of the property to
physically separate the Marsh from the project and protect it from surface runoff. A 6-foot.
high chain link fence will be located near the toe of the western facing slope of the berm
to prevent disturbance to the adjacent sensitive wildlife refuge area.
Alternative 2, the "Modified Design" Alternative, includes the development of a 245,000
square foot office complex with two subsurface parking structures, which provide partial
mitigation of parking impacts.
The following findings are applicable to the project and Alternative 2, as presented and
analyzed in the Final EIR. The findings have been prepared pursuant to Sections 21081 of
the California Resources Code, and 15091 of Title 14 of the California Administration Code.
II. CITY OF CHUlA VISTA FINDINGS
A. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR for the Rohr Office Complex project, and the record, finds that
changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate, avoid, or reduce the
level of identified impacts to a level helow significant and acceptable to the City, by
measures identified in the Final EIR.
B. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR and the record, finds that none of the significan! environmental
effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project are within the responsibility of
another public agency.
- 2 -
n14.021 02/13/91
, ,- 351-
".
C. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final ErR and the record, finds that no specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the ErR.
D. The Planning Commission acknowledges that these recommended CEQA Findings
are advisory and do not bind the City Council from adopting findings to the contrary
if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
ID. IMPAcrs FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MfTIGATE TO BELOW A LEVEL
OF SIGNIFICANCE
A Biology
Impact
Elimination of fallow agricultural fields currently used for raptor foraging and replacement
of them with approximately 9.5 acres of developed land would result from project
implementation. Because of the limited extent of similar coastal habitat and the absence
of currently accepted mitigative measures, the impact is considered to be an incremental
contribution to a cumulatively (regionally) significant impact.
Mitigation
No mitigation measures are available to reduce this incremental impact to a level below
significant. Any development on this site would result in the same incremental significant
impact.
Finding
Land use at the project site has been planned for the proposed type of use by both the
existing, adopted Local Coastal Program and the General Plan, and the proposed project
is in conformance with these plans. However, even though the project is jn conformance
with adopted land use plans, it, and any development, would result in the incremental
contribution to a cumulatively significant impact.
- 3 -
90-14.021 02/13/91
I (, - 3S'f
-
However, the City of Chula Vista in their statement of overriding
consideration has determined that the benefits derived from the
implementation of the project out weighs the incremental contribution to
a significant cumulative impact. Please refer to the statement of
overriding consideration following these findings.
IV. SIGNIFICANT, MTI1GABLE IMPACfS
A Drainage/Groundwater /Grading
Impact
. Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant flooding impacts may be
associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over capacity).
,
· Significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot
with oil, grease and other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "F'
& "G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern.
. Significant impacts may occur if surface runoff carries silt and sediment into the
Marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during
winter months, when the heaviest rains occur.
· Potentially significant impacts may result due to approximately 11.2 acres being
graded to provide flat pads for parking and the building. A total of 40,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill will be generated. The maximum depth of cut and fill will be 11
and 7 feet, respectively, with the average change in grade of approximately 2 feet.
· Significant impacts to the wetlands area on site could result if adjacent grading
introduces soils to this sensitive area.
.
Onsite soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable in
their present condition for structural support.
.
Saturated soils from groundwater, without remediation, may adversel:t affect building
support and may be an unacceptable material for building support and fill.
I'" 3 Stf
- 4 -
90-].1.0'21 02/13/91.
. .
Mitigation
. A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit issued by the
Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work and/or installation of any
drainage structures.
. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990)
must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department. All
recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the applicant..
This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and must be included
(or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas overlain by
bay deposits or other compressible overburden soils will require some form of
subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for use
in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the
use of surcharge fills to pre-compress saturated bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table; or foundation elements must be designed to extend through these
soils into competent bearing formational soils.
. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto
existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to
improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to pre-compress
saturated bay deposits.
. If saturated soils are encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering should be implemented in general accordance with the r:commendations
contained in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance with
RWQCB order 90-31 regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
Diego Bay will be required.
- 5 - 90-14.021 02/13/91
J ~ - j~D
,
· If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained
in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula Vista -Bayfront
Specific Plan must be implemented, and these must also be included (or referenced
to) on the Grading Plan.
· To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier system
must be placed between the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading
and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This
measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
· To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be constructed
along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. During
construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically trained construction
monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the integrity of the wetland. To
guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into tbe wetland, the
western slope of the berm must be hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting.
This measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
,
B. Biology
Impacts
· Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent
NWR lands
· Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff
.
· Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the
drainage system
- 6 -
90-14.02102/13/91
,It--?J'"
. .
. Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and human
presence
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
. An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Mitigation
. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub vegetation
between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer must be isolated
from human intrusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds
as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities occurring on the patio areas.
. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and grease
traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed
on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple-chambered.
. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as needed through the winter and
spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing,
as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must be conducted,
possibly through the mitigation monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is
occurring as required.
. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained
during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction
site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would assist in this measure. In addition, construction de-wa.tering should be
directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so
that clear water is released from the site through the regular desiltation basins.
- 7 -
9O~14.021 02/IJ/91
1~-.3(,~
. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be from the lists
provided by the developer. Should species substitutions be desired, these must be
submitted to the City landscape architect for review. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limoniwll or Carpobrotus
species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting
sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, must be restricted from use.
. A "biologically aware" construction monitor must be present for all phases of grading
and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed through the
City and would report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering,
Planning or Community Development Department if construction activities fail to
met the conditions outlined or should unforeseen problems arise which require
immediate action or stopping of the construction activities. This monitor must
continue monitoring on a reduced basis during actual outside building construction.
· Re-establishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site drainage swale
must be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and direct impacts of the
project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove straddling the NWR border.
Management of the riparian grove to retain wildlife resources must be coordinated
with the National Wildlife Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types
must be included in the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species
used in this habitat area.
· Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through vegetation
barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet encroachment must
be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western
property boundary.
· The project should be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula
Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators.
This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a
basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed develoPl!lent. This plan
should include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet
activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should include management of
predators within the adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development areas.
- 8 -
90-14.02102/13/91
,""3(,~
. A full time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront, or by other
funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management program, ensure
compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of
other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers
should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal
Reserve Lands. Officers s~ould have training in predator control and should possess
the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
It is recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection of the
entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the boundaries of
the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and the San Diego Bay. The
jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in this board are the City of
Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District, the Bayfront Conservancy Trust,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game,
Rohr Industries, and the owner of the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula
Vista Investors).
. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who is a
state-certified applicator.
. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the multi-
jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for the purpose
of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator
control program and mitigation programs for the project.
. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
- 9 -
/(,-3""
90-14.02102/13/91
.
. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a suitable substitute
are recommended.
. No extraneous ledges upon which rap tors could perch or nest can be included on the
western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west should not exceed two
inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are exposed to the wetlands must
be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct
any additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy incidence of perching
be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
.
Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the
western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum
required for security on the western side of the building.
,
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
C. Circulation/Parking
Impact
· "F' Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate at LOS B or above with
the exception of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F" Street, which will decline
from LOS C to F with the inclusion of annual growth and the project. The
intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F' Street would decline from LOS B to D with
the project responsible for 53 percent of this impact.
· 1-5 northbound at "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.6 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
- 10 -
90-14.02102/13/91
,'- '3t5
· 1-5 southbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (4.5 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
· 1-5 northbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (0.9 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
. Broadway and "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.7 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
. A significant parking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13 percent) under the
proposed project, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
occur.
Mitigation
. Bay Boulevard north of "F' Street should be designed for traffic only and on-street
parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wide parking areas adjacent to the east curb
line must be dedicated to normal traffic flow. "F' Street (Lagoon Drive) must be re-
striped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out
from the intersection, and three lanes in toward the intersection. The three inbound
lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one through-lane, and one
shared through- and right-turn lane. The westbound and northbound approaches will
also require modification to provide one left-turn lane, one through, and one right-
turn lane. Signalization is necessary at the intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Bay Boulevard for 100 to 200 feet north of the intersection would
be necessary to accomplish this measure. These measures would improve the LOS
to C. The applicant is responsible for providing 53 percent of the funds for this
mitigation based on the recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed In
Section 10.0 of this report).
. Implementation of two improvements must be made prior to, or concurrent with,
development of the Rohr project, which is necessary due to the near-term extremely
- 11 -
90-14.021 02/13/91
,/,-3(,b
poor conditions at this intersection. These improvements are to (1) widen westbound
"E" Street at the northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-turn lane from
westbound "E" Street; (2) restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to
provide an exclusive right-turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. The
applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
. Double left- turn only lanes on "H" Street to southbound 1-5 should be provided to
improve the operation to LOS C. The applicant is responsible for providing a
proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
.
Double left turn only lanes on "H" Street to northbound 1-5 ramp should be provided.
This mitigation measure would improve intersection operation to LOS C. The
applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
"
. An exclusive right turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound Broadway
should be provided. This additional lane would facilitate smoother traffic flow from
1-5 and improve the operation LOS to C. The applicant is responsible for providing
a proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
· The applicant must meet the City's standard by either providing additional
permanent offsite parking; or by reducing the size of the building; or limiting the
number of employees consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard.
This limit could be increased if the proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces
under Alternative 2) is found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be
provided. In order to determine if the parking is adequate, the parking demand
should be monitored over a one year period following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building.
- 12 -
90-14.02102/13/91
, It.. ~-:J.
.
. .
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
D. Air Ouality
Impact
· Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant impact will result from build-
out project traffic adding approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NOx and 0.03 ton .
of ROG daily to the airshed. The NOx and ROG counts (the main ozone formation
precursor pollutants) are less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
threshold.
· Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional impacts resulting from
the clearing of existing site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporary emissions of dust,
fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during project construction will
occur. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-I0) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from construction
activities are assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If
the entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development, total daily dust
emissions would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
Mitigation
· Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) such as ridesharing, vanpool incentives,
alternate transportation methods and transit utilization must be incorporated into the
project.
· Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abate,ment measures
required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70 percent.
- 13 -
9O-I4.021 02/13/91
I ~ - 3" t
, .
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final ElK
v. INSIGNIFICANT IMPAcrs
In accordance with the evaluation provided in EIR-90-1O, and previous documentation
and/or standard requirements, the project would not result in any significant impacts in the
issue areas below; these issues have therefore not been discussed above:
1) Agricultural Resources
2) Noise
3) Cultural Resources
4) Land Use
5) Parks and Recreation
6) Utilities (water, sewer, energy)
7) Human Health
8) Risk of Upset
9) Schools
10) Public Services (police and fire)
VI. THE RECORD
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of the Planning Commission and
City Council relating to these actions include the following:
References and Persons consulted, included as Section 11.0 of the Final EIR, and the
Comments Received as a result of the circulation of the Notice of Preparation and
Draft EIR, contained in Appendix A and the Response to Comments portions of the
Final EIR, respectively.
- 14 -
90-14-021 02/13/91
I II.. ~ It'\
....' ..
.
STA1EMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
The decisionmaker, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, after balancing
the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the EIR and the Findings which remain notwithstanding the mitigation
measures and alternatives incorporated into the Project, determines that such
remaining environmental effects are acceptable due to the following:
A The need to expand an Industrial Business Park use in the Midbayfront area in
conformance with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program.
Boo The need to stimulate the regional economy by providing construction-related
employment and employment related to the Project's industrial, office and
commercial uses, all as more particularly set forth in the record.
C. The need to advance Chula Vista's environmental goals by decreasing current
acts of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation on the Project site.
illegal off-road vehicle use will probably also decline.
D. The need to increase the economic base of the City of Chula Vista.
riding
I iI-3 ~
Page - 15
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
n
2/19/91
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Coastal Development
Permit for Dixieline Lumber Company Controlled
Fill
RESOLUTION 1/1) 71/ Authorizing the amendment of
Coastal Development Permit No. 008A to Dixieline
Lumber Company for a Controlled Fill
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director (_S .
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: YES___NO-X-l
Mr. Jack Duncan, represent~g Dixieline Lumber Company, owner of
the property located northwest of the intersection of Fifth
Avenue and C Street, has requested an amendment to Condition of
Approval No. 7 on Coastal Development Permit #008A. That
Condition of Approval was imposed by the City Council following
the November 27, 1990 Public Hearing on Coastal Development
Permit #008A. That condition stated that the maximum time period
that the fill surcharge shall be allowed to remain on the project
site is 36 months. Due to uncertainty regarding economic
conditions at the end of the 36 month time frame and the
uncertainty regarding the availability of a proximate site for
the reuse of the surcharge material, the applicant is requesting
that the condition be removed from the Coastal Development
Permit.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council
resolution and findings therein:
approve
the
attached
1.
Finding that
Permit #008A
the policies
Program, and
the proposed amendment to Coastal Development
is consistent with and adequate to carry out
of the certified Chula vista Local Coastal
2. Authorizing the amendment to Coastal Development Permit No.
008A to Dixieline Lumber Company for a Controlled Fill
subject to the modified Conditions of Approval listed in
Exhibit A of the resolution. (Note: Condition #7 has been
deleted. l
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project, as proposed by the applicant, has not been modified.
The project entails placement of 202,150 cubic yards of imported
fill on the Dixieline Lumber Company property located northwest
/7" I
Page 2, Item ,.,
Meeting Date 2/19/91
of the intersection of Fifth Avenue and C street. A reduced copy
of the grading plan is attached as Exhibit A.
A Negative Declaration, IS-85-59, was issued on the project. A
copy of that Negative Declaration is attached as Exhibit B.
The proposed deletion of item #7 from the Conditions of Approval
would not change the staff recommendation on the issuance of
Coastal Development Permit #008A. Condition #7 was added to the
Conditions of Approval by the City Council following the Public
Hearing and was not considered in the staff evaluation of the
permit application. The requirement for removal of the fill
surcharge within 36 months is assumed by staff to be a condition
that was imposed for aesthetic and/or economic development
purposes. The applicant indicated by correspondence dated
December 14, 1990, his desire to have that condition of approval
removed.
Based on the following findings, the proposed project and the
proposed amendment to Coastal Development Permit #008A, have been
found to be consistent with the policies of the certified Chula
vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program:
1. The certified Chula vista Land Use Plan designates the
inland parcel, Subarea 6, as Non-Coastal Related.
Therefore, no adverse impacts on shoreline access, water
related recreational or visitor serving commercial, or
marine resources are anticipated to occur due to the
proposed development.
2. The site is not located adjacent to or near the coastline,
and therefore, will not obstruct any coastal views or
vistas, nor will the site Development reduce the amount of
parkland planned for the coastal area.
3. The project will not affect traffic circulation within the
Bayfront, or along the shoreline since the inland parcel is
physically removed from these coastal related areas.
4. The grading plan has been developed and conditioned to avoid
siltation into adjacent wetlands and disturbance to
identified riparian vegetation. These provisions, when the
plan is implemented, will ensure no adverse impacts to
wetland resources.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
I? - "2..
RESOLUTION NO. /'07'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 008A TO DIXIELINE LUMBER
COMPANY FOR A CONTROLLED FILL
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista Local Coastal Program (LCP)
has been certified by the California Coastal Commission; and,
WHEREAS, said LCP includes coastal development procedures
determined by the Commission to be legally adequate for issuance
of Coastal Development Permits and the City of Chula vista has
assumed permit authority of the Chula vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was noticed and held on February
19, 1991, in accordance with said procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the
approving authority, has reviewed the
controlled fill plan for grading,
Development Permit No. 008A on November
city of Chula Vista, as
Dixie1ine Lumber Company
and approved Coastal
27, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed deletion from Coastal Development
Permit No. 008A of Condition of Approval No. 7 has been
considered by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chula vista as follows:
The City Council of the City of Chula vista finds, based on
the following findings, in accordance with Section 13311 of
the California Code of Regulations that the proposed
amendment to Coastal Development Permit #008A, subject to
the conditions listed in the attached Exhibit A, is
consistent with the policies of the certified Local Coastal
Program:
1. The certified Chula vista Land Use Plan designates the
Inland Parcel, Subarea 6, as non-coastal related.
Therefore, no adverse impact on shoreline access, water
related recreational or visitor-serving commercial, or
marine resources are anticipated to occur due to the
proposed development.
2. The site is not located adjacent to or near the
shoreline, and therefore, will not obstruct any coastal
views or vistas, nor will the site development reduce
the amount of parkland planned for the coastal area.
(7-3
Resolution No.
Page 2
3. The project will not affect traffic circulation within
the Bayfront, or along the shoreline, since the inland
parcel is physically removed from these coastal related
areas.
4. The grading plan has been developed and conditioned to
avoid siltation into adjacent wetlands and disturbance
to identified riparian vegetation. These provisions,
when the plan is implemented, will ensure no adverse
impacts to wetland resources.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council of the city of
Chula vista hereby authorizes the amendment of Coastal
Development Permit #008A issued to Dixieline Lumber Company for a
Controlled Fill subject to the modified Conditions of Approval
listed in Exhibit A of the resolution. (Note: Condition #7 has
been deleted.)
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~
Chris Salomone
Community Development
Director
~.~J ~ ?-h(9'
Bruce M. Boogaa d
city Attorney
(Reso8)
/7 - t{
Resolution No. /607'1
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All slopes and grading activities must be at least 100
feet from identified wetlands.
2. The erosion control improvements, including the repair
of the existing silt stop sediment fence, shall be
implemented prior to on-site grading and shall be
maintained throughout the development process as
necessary to remove sediment from run-off waters.
3. The landscape plans for erosion control shall be
implemented as detailed on the plans and submitted to
the city which were prepared by KTU+A.
4. If the applicant opts to grade during the rainy season,
the applicant must submit monthly documentation, within
two weeks following the end of the preceding month, to
the City Engineer detailing the condition of the
erosion control measures if precipitation during the
month exceeds two inches.
5. The applicant shall post a cash deposit of $50,000.00
that is estimated to be sufficient to cover the costs
of any remedial grading and replanting of vegetation,
including any restoration of wetlands, or other
environmentally sensitive habitat areas that would be
adversely impacted by failure of the required erosion
control measures. The deposit will inure the benefit
of the City in case of non-compliance, as determined by
the City Engineer.
6. The applicant shall provide daily documentation to the
City Engineer of the condition of the erosion control
procedures for any 24 hour period in which
precipitation exceeds .025 inches. Such documentation
shall be provided within five working days of said 24
hour period. Failure to provide such documentation of
the occurrence of significant discharge of sediments,
in violation of the policy, shall constitute automatic
grounds for suspension of the applicant's grading
permit during the period of November 1 to March 31.
(CDP008A2)
17-~ /11"'1'
.
.
EXHIBIT A
rlf
f
. -
elT, tY """,T>>NU CITr
CJr1Q<- CM:.t.c II/VA
"""""".... ''''~
~
" "
-'1
~.""
-,......,
"C,~
-~-
-s. C) ~,
'l:"""~~~
0._, .
-0"""
~. ."..--;:...
0.;..-..--
~....~
"
"
.~'!\
j'ii .
l:ll 'Ii,
~ ~ ~..I
.; .~I
t ~~ f
t~11
q~ I
lh:~ I
,
,
I
.
l
i~i i
:in
U~ ~
"l~ t
-l
F
~
I..
~s --
0-'
:~r.
-!l;lls
~q..:
~; ~
,... :l;;,
- . I
~; a t.
I' ~~; I
""a..
.-
; E ~ ~~
r I i ~
t!: b
N- L
";' -I
~L Ii
rl ~-
- - f
II
-,
:i ~
i r ~:
--!-
.
~!::~
!It'"..
al
l'
,
1\
~~
~ <'~l
l.,:-;'
v. b
"
~~
s.~
~~
tl",
~
-
:a-:: --p
.-
t~
I
\.0
. ,
.
~';-
t~.
Ui
.L
'f~
~~
, ~
>;
- .
> r
-'il~l\'li~~~ ::~
...,;~ u.... ~t
~iil !';H 1~
"'Jt
~
.
.
..
Ilf
f ( ..~ y
~l
.
,.!It
, Ii
.
..
It
. ~il
: ;~
'i
"
il
~ ..
"
CffI' or MCT~ CffT
arr-or o.u;.c I'($T,A
,
~.
~
,
""
~e,
-~~
"so ~"
~~.~\\.
o._~ .
-'0'1;"'"......
~._""?~
H<:~ ~
",,,l::~ ,
I
.
.
.
"
..
.
I~i
-,
:ii.
~lill~
~qi~
~~
I~
,i
-+-
~~ r
: I ..
-,
:.
:~
~ i ~
'>;~~n ~
::t~"- .
__::lCl'" .
....""~ -<
i't~ 0 JJlz
~;... !il~
!:~~ !I:>
....~,.c iilZ
'!':;:(" ~ .~ 10
~;:!\)> i"l_
l:'''''Yl i 1m
~~~:: pI,z
...~~... ;-1"
-.-- 11-
E:~)> z
...""" ..m
R!':: ~ 'i '"
~... i . :0
,,- 'I Z
.....to!: . I
"~i I"
...::ic>
:....cr.
"1-
.
~ ~..~
~ ~ :~!
t!~h'l:
..'14:,,......
.t ,
" Ili l-I.:..
.. i' .
....
.' ~
,. ,
.~ .
q
.
~
-
:r.~ ..~
"
t.
(
~
,
"-~ l]
..,J /1'1/'1 I
RESOLUTION NO. 16074
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHOI(IZING THE AMENDMENT OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 008A TO DIXIELINE LUMBER COMPANY FOR A CONTROLLED FILL
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) has been
certified by the California Coastal Commission; and,
WHEREAS, sai d LCP i ncl udes coastal development procedures determined by
the Commission to be legally adequate for issuance of Coastal Development
Permits and the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta has assumed permi t authority of the Chul a
Vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was noticed and held on February 19, 1991, in
accordance with said procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as aPfroving
authority, has reviewed the Dixieline Lumber Company controlled fill p an for
grading, and approved Coastal Development Permit No. 008A on November 27,
1990; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed deletion from Coastal Development Permit No. 008A
of Condition Approval No.7 has been considered by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista as follows:
The City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista finds, based on the following
findings, in accordance with Section 13311 of the California Code of
Regu1 ati ons that the proposed amendment to Coastal Development Permi t
008A, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Exhibit A, is
consistent with the policies of the certified Local Coastal Program:
1. The certified Chu1a Vista Land Use Plan designates the Inland
Parcel, Subarea 6, as non-coastal related. Therefore, no adverse
impact on shoreline access, water related recreational or
visitor-serving commercial, or marine resources are anticipated to
occur due to the proposed development.
2. The site is not located adjacent to or near the shoreline, and
therefore, will not obstruct any coastal views or vistas, nor will
the site development reduce the amount of parkland planned for the
coastal area.
/7--/0
Resolution No. 16074
Page 2
3. The project ri 11 not affect traffi c ci rcul ati on wi thi n the
Bayfront, or along the shoreline, since the inland parcel is
physically removed from these coastal related areas.
4. The grading plan has been developed and conditioned to avoid
siltation into adjacent wetlands and disturbance to identified
riparian vegetation. These provisions, when the plan is
implemented, will ensure no adverse impacts to wetland resources.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby authorizes the amendment of Coastal Development Permit 008A issued to
Dixieline Lumber Company for a Controlled Fill subject to the modified
Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the resolution. (Note:
Condition 7 has been deleted.) ?e" L\~ ~\ a..<A-ioV' e,^ ~€..\o.rv~ 1,<1. l "l<il)
~ (.,,,,,J..~>no""'-,> o{- f\(>~vov..J ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
~~W~ ~
y Development
(;
~ ... J
Resolution No. 16074
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All slopes and grading activities must be at least 100
teet trom identified wetlands.
2. The erosion control improvements, including the repair
of the existing silt stop sediment fence, shall be
implemented prior to on-site grading and shall be
maintained throughout the development process as
necessary to remove sediment trom run-off waters.
3. The landscape plans for erosion control Bha11 be
implemented aB detailed on the plans and submitted to
the City which were prepared by KTU+A.
4. If the applicant opts to grade during the rainy season,
the applicant must submit monthly documentation, within
two weeks to11owing the end of the preceding month, to
the City Engineer detailing the condition of the
erosion control measures if precipitation during the
month exceeds two inches.
5. The applicant shall pOBt a cash deposit ot $50,000.00
that is estimated to be sufficient to cover the costs
of any remedial grading and replanting of vegetation,
including any restoration of wetlands, or other
environmentally senBitive habitat areas that would be
adversely impacted by tai1ure of the required erosion
control measures. The deposit will inure the benefit
of the City in case of non-compliance, as determined by
the City Engineer.
6. The applicant shall provide daily documentation to the
City Engineer of the condition ot the eroBion control
procedureB for any 24 hour period in which
precipitation exceeds .025 incheB. Such documentation
aha11 be provided within tive working days ot said 24
hour period. Failure to provide such documentation of
the occurrence of significant discharge of sediments,
in violation of the policy, shall constitute automatic
grounds tor suspension of the applicant's grading
permit during the period of November 1 to Karch 31.
(CDPOOBA2)
/1-/1
Resolution No. 16074
Page 4
--f-
;"'0'"
EXHIBIT A
.", '. <-
~~
;,
(
..
~
,~"~ll
l~~I't. .
III -I.. I .
',I
Iii
I:i'
hi
/'
\.
,
Resolution No. 16074
Page 5
J:67,_....t:n7
._4__"
-+-
. .
. .
t
/1-/a
:;11 ,
~
~~ ;Ut
~ I' ,
, Ii, ~
,'.
.' ,
'Il
l:i
iii
(.
Resolution No. 16074
Page 6
PASSED, APPROVED, aJ1d ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this J9th day of February, 1991 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Counci 1 members: Moore, Nader, Rindone
Councilmembers: None
Councilmembers: None
Council members: Malcolm
~L'!a!rNo~
Mayor, Pro-Tempore
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
)
)
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16074 was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the Ci ty Council he1 d on the 19th day of February,
1991.
Executed this 19th day of February, 1991.
~~ { ~f4fV-
ever y uthelet, City er
" ,
Resolution No.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All slopes and grading activities must be at least 100
feet from identified wetlands.
2. The erosion control improvements, including the repair
of the existing silt stop sediment fence, shall be
implemented prior to on-site grading and shall be
maintained throughout the development process as
necessary to remove sediment from run-off waters.
3. The landscape plans for erosion control shall be
implemented as detailed on the plans and submitted to
the City which were prepared by KTU+A.
4. If the applicant opts to grade during the rainy season,
the applicant must submit monthly documentation, within
two weeks following the end of the preceding month, to
the City Engineer detailing the condition of the
erosion control measures if precipitation during the
month exceeds two inches.
5. The applicant shall post a cash deposit of $50,000.00
that is estimated to be sufficient to cover the costs
of any remedial grading and replanting of vegetation,
including any restoration of wetlands, or other
environmentally sensitive habitat areas that would be
adversely impacted by failure of the required erosion
control measures. The deposit will inure the benefit
of the City in case of non-compliance, as determined by
the City Engineer.
6. The applicant shall provide daily documentation to the
city Engineer of the condition of the erosion control
procedures for any 24 hour period in which
precipitation exceeds .025 inches. Such documentation
shall be provided within five working days of said 24
hour period. Failure to provide such documentation of
the occurrence of significant discharge of sediments,
in violation of the policy, shall constitute automatic
grounds for suspension of the applicant's grading
permit during the period of November 1 to March 31.
(CDP008A2)
I ':/- -/.3
Item 17
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
7. The applicant shall
fill surcharge material
permit.
make a good faith effort to remove the
within 5 years of issuance of this
8 . Five years from the date of issuance of this permit, the
City Council shall review the status of work on the project site
and shall require the applicant to undertake any remedial
activities necessary to maintain public health and safety.
cdpoo8a3
/1- -1'1
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL for the purpose
following items:
WILL BE HELD BY THE
of considering the
Coastal Development Permit No. 51 for a grading plan that
entails approximately 11 acres of undeveloped property
owned by Rohr Industries. Project is located adjacent
and west of the SDG&E right-of-way approximately 450 feet
west of Bay Boulevard on the south side of F Street which
is within the Coastal Zone. Environmental Impact Report,
EIR-90-10, of possible significant environmental impacts
has been conducted by the Environmental Review
Coordinator. A finding of no significant environmental
impact has been recommended to the city Council and is on
file, along with the Environmental Impact Report, in the
Planning Department.
Amendment of Coastal Development Permit No. 008A that was
issued to Dixieline Lumber Company, located northwest of
the intersection of Fifth Avenue and C Street which is
within the Coastal Zone. An Initial Study, IS-85-59, of
possible significant environmental impacts of Coastal
Development Permit No. 008A has been conducted by the
Environmental Review Coordinator. A finding of no
significant environmental impact has been recommended to
the City Council and is on file, along with the Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, in the Planning
Department.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received
by the Community Development Department Office no later than 5:00
p.m. one day prior to the hearing date. If you wish to challenge
the City'S action on these Coastal Development Permits in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to
the public hearing.
within ten days following the Coastal Commission's receipt of the
ci ty' s action on the above coastal development proposal, said
action may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission by a
qualified appellate. If the City is not notified within the
prescribed time element of a pending appeal, the City'S action will
be deemed final and a Coastal Development Permit issues.
Said public hearing will be held by the City Council on February
19, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services
Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, at which time any person
desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: 1/25/91
Beverly A. Authelet, CMC
city Clerk
I?~'~
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA for the
purpose of considering Coastal Development Permit #51 for a
grading plan that entails approximately 11 acres of undeveloped
property owned by Rohr Industries. The project is located
adjacent and west of the SDG&E right-of-way approximately 450
feet west of Bay Boulevard on the south side of F Street which is
within the Coastal Zone. A copy of the Coastal Development
Permit application is on file for inspection in the office of the
Community Development Department.
An Environmental Impact Report, EIR-90-10, of possible
significant environmental impacts has been conducted by the
Environmental Review Coordinator. A finding of no significant
environmental impact has been recommended to the City Council and
is on file, along with the Environmental Impact Report, in the
office of the Planning Department.
Any petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be
received by the Community Development Department office no later
than 5:00 p.m. one (1) day prior to the hearing date. If you
wish to challenge the City'S action on this Coastal Development
Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at or prior to the public hearing.
within ten (10) days following the Coastal Commission's receipt
of the City'S action on the above coastal development proposal,
said action may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission
by a qualified appellate. If the City is not notified within the
prescribed time element of a pending appeal, the City's action
will be deemed final and a Coastal Development Permit issued.
Said public hearing will be held by the city Council on February
19, 1991. The hearing will be at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
vista, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: 1/25/91
Beverly Authelet, CMC
City Clerk
(PHNotic3)
'1.../~
BAY FRONT MAILING LIST
Mr. William Barkett
Chula Vista Investors
864 Prospect St.
La Jolla, CA 92037
5652901900
Sadakich Kubota & Kaoru Kubota
Trustees
9751 Talbert Ave.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
5652902200
Aracely Hayes
1063 Del Mar Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92011
5652904000
Stratford Properties II
11022 Santa Monica #260
Los Angeles, CA 90025
5653101400
Southern Pacific Land Co.
%Tax Commissioner
1 Market Pl aza
San Francisco, CA 94105
5653101500
California First Bank, Trustee
% McDonalds Corp.
P. O. Box 66207
AMF O'Hare Air 60666
5653101600
California First Bank, Trustee
P.O. Box 1 09
San Diego, CA 92112
5653102500
Ioannis Merziotis, George Merziotis
Voula Parashos
% Gus Pappas
203 Church Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
5670110400
James & Elizabeth G. Cappos
965 "F" Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Revised 7/19/90
/1..;/r
5670212900
George W. Von Tobel, Trustee
1912 S. Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89104-3106
5670213700
El Toro Associates
% Orville O. Nix Jr.
P. O. Box 824
De Soto, TX 75115
5670213800
California Hotel Properties
Ltd. Partnership
% Tollman-Hundley Hotels
730 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
5670220100
Rados Bros.
P. O. Box 15128
600 N. Tustin
Santa Ana, CA 92705
5670223600, 5670220100
Rados Bros.
P. O. Box 15128
600 N. Tustin
Santa Ana, CA 92705
5670311500
Seymour Rabin
Seymour Rabin, Trustee
Reder ED!
6181 Caminito Pan
San Diego, CA 92120
5670900300
Prudential Overall Supply
P. O. Box 11210
Santa Ana, CA 92711
5670900400
Stanley A. & Susan P. Krystek, Trustees
736 "F" Street
Chul a Vi sta, CA 92010
5670903000
Frances A. Zwahlen, Trustee
28 Lake Helix Drive
La Mesa, CA 92041
Adela L. Schneider
541 Sea Vale Ct.
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Rohr Corporation
P. O. Box 878
Chula Vista, CA 92012
Paul Webb
California Coastal Commission
San Diego District
1333 Camino del Rio South
Suite 125
San Diego, CA 92108-3520
Department of Interior
Interior Building
"c" Street between 18th & 19th Streets
Washington, DC 20240
San Diego County Department of Public Works
5555 Overland, Bldg. 2
San Diego, CA 92123
Attn: Dale Hofland, Coordinator of the
CalTrans Corp. Project
Gary Halloway
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Department of Transportation
Nassi f Buil ding
490 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
Coastal Conservancy
The California State
Melanie Denninger
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
State Department of Justice
San Diego Office
11 0 West "A" Street
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
1~.;/f
California Coastal Commission
S. D. Coast District
1333 Camino del Rio South
San Diego, CA 92108-3520
Attn: Ms. Deborah Lee
State Department of Justice
1515 "K" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
State Dept. of Fish & Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Environmental Services
CALTRANS
Di stri ct 11
P. O. Box 85406
San Diego, CA 92138-5406
Fish & Wildlife Service, US
24000 Avila Road
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Attn: Nancy Kauffman
CALTRANS Headquarters
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mr. Ron Hein
Associate Wildlife Biologist
Department of Fish and Game
111 - 27th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
300 N. Los Angeles St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Jay Powell
S. D. Chapter-Sierra Club
1549 El Prado
Balboa Park
San Di ego, CA 92101
Laurens Silver
Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund
2044 Fillmore Street
San Francisco, CA 94115
Mitchel Beauchamp
Pacific Southwest Biological Services
P. O. Box 985
National City, CA 92050
Mr. Allan Jones, Deputy Director
City Administration Building
202 "c" Street, Fifth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
San Diego Unified Port District
P. O. Box 488
San Diego, CA 92112
Attn: Tom Firley
Roger Post
Director of Planning
National City Planning Dept.
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, CA 92050
Bay Land Company
625 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
El Torita-La Fiesta Restaurant
2450 White Road
Irvine, CA 92714
SANDAG
Security Pacific Plaza
1200 Third Avenue, Ste. 524
San Diego, CA 92101
Western Salt Company
P. O. Box 149
San Diego, CA 92112
Dept. of Transportation
Di stri ct 11
Jim Cheshire
2829 Juan Street
San Diego, CA 92138
11'1'
Inland Industries
% Jeremy Berg
964 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 921Dl-6127
rHDB
620 "c" Street, Ste. 400
San Diego, CA 92101
State of California
Department of Fish and Game
Region 5
Fred Worth ly
245 W. Broadway, Suite 350
Long Beach, CA 90802
Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corp.
3230 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite 100
Brea, CA 92621
William & Edith Burgess
547 Sea Vale Ct., #B
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Industrial Properties
875 Prospect St.
La Jolla, CA 92037
Resident
4 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Olga Naccarato, TR
6649 Cominito Lindrick
La Jolla, CA 92037-5814
Pathway Inc.; Coleman Mtg.
9879 Hibert St. #A
San Diego, CA 92131
Dixieline Lumber Co.
3250 Sports Arena Blvd.
P. O. Box 80307
San Diego, CA 92138
South Bay Village Ltd.
% Hanken Cono & Co.
6526 El Cajon Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92115
Ratner Development Co.
% Greenwald/McDonald
2635 Camino del Rio South #107
San Diego, CA 92108
Whittingham, Thomas Jr. & Dorothy M.
527 Sea Vale Ct.
Chula Vista, CA 92010
562-210-05/562-300-02; 565-010-12/
15/567-010-07; 567-011-01
S.D.G.&E.
land Management
P. O. Box 638
Chula Vista, CA 92012
565-290-39; 562-300-11; 567-022-16;
567-021-11; 567-031-18/22;
567-090-43/47; 562-210-12/14
S.D. Imperial Valley RR
743 Imperial Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
567-031-03
San Diego County
Dept. of Planning and land Use
5201 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
567-090-02
South Bay Irrigation District
505 Garrett
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Kenneth Cubota
9715 Talbert Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Ms. Theresa Stewart
7821 Obrien Street
la Mesa, CA 92041
Rick Ghio
Vice President
Anthony's Fish Grottos
Central Offices
5232 lovelock Street
San Diego, CA 92110
James Trefren
San Diego Unified Port District
P.O. Box 488
San Diego, CA 92112
WPC 2543H
, ?,~ 0
· 8688861
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC.
February 13, 1991
John Goss, City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Goss:
.
In conformance with Section 9 of the Franchise Agreement between
our company and the City of Chula Vista, please consider this
our Notice of Intention to apply for a rate increase for refuse
collection in the City effective 4/1/91. The increase will be
based on the CPI for San Diego County for the period 1/1/90
through 12/31/90 and this document will not be available until
the latter part of February. We will submit our new Rate Schedules
at that time.
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the impending
increase within the time frame stipulated in the Franchise
Agreement.
Yours truly,
a I3lI
Don Blind
cc: G. Asmus/Asst. City Manager
.
P.O. BOX 967, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92012 (619) 421.9400
.
;2()b
~~~
~
'-- -- ----
-----~~
-----
THE CI1Y OF
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
CHULA VISTA
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITI'EE APPUCATION
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_____ Board of AppeaLs
Chi ld Care
_____ Cmsm on Aging
_____ ELderly & Handicapped tmt
_____ Int. Friendship emsn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
Planning emsn
Town Centre Proj. Area emt
Board of Ethics
Civil Service emsn
_____ Design Rev tmt
______ Growth Mgmt. tmt
_____ Library Board of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area emt
Resource ConSy ems"
* OTHER RAYFRONT CONSERVANCY TRUST
_____ United Nations Day tmt
(CITIZEN AT LARGE)
Charter Review
Cut tural Arts
Economic Dev.
Hl..I'Ran Ret. emsn
Mobilehome Issues tmt
Parks & Rec emsn
_____ Safety emsn
Youth emsn
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME:
JUDY SCHULENBERG
CHULA VISTA
ZIP:
91910
HOME AllDRESS:
UES. rlloNE NO.
____ BUS. PHONE NO.
REGISTEREDVOTERINCIIULAVISTA? ~_
yes no
no YOl: LIVE WITIIIN TilE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? +
1I0W LONG?
no
.Youth Commission Appllcanls ONLY: School Attending
Grade
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD
PRESENT EMPLOYER
POSITION
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPLE AREAS m' INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCE(S) OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE
CA." YOU BRING TO THOSE AREAS?
WHAT WOULD YOIIHOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION?
I am ramiliar with the responsibilities as....lgned to the Board/Commission or Commlt~ on which] wIsb to serve.
SIGNATURE
-.ov...- ~ / A - ,
DATE
INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS
Thank you for your interest in serving the City
Please read the following information BEFORE
Board/Commission/Committee application.
OUALIFICATIONS: While previous experience and education in the
areas assigned to the Board/Commission/Committee are considered in
the appointment process, your background is not the only
determinant. Other interests, previous and current employment, and
familiarity with Chula vista and the community are also relevant.
Furthermore, YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
REGISTERED TO VOTE IN CHULA VISTA AT THE TIME OF YOUR APPOINTMENT.
of Chula vista.
completing the
A description of the functions and responsibilities assigned to
each Board/Commission/Committee is available in the Office of the
Mayor/City Council. If you would like additional information
regarding the areas covered, please ask the Secretary to the
Council for an additional information sheet.
Before applying, you should cheCk the time and dates when the
Board/Commission/Committee regularly meets and how much time you
may be able to devote to this service. Each Board/Commission/Com-
mittee has a staff secretary and they will be glad to answer your
questions regarding the time involved.
If appointed to a Board/Commission/ ,.. Ie that
you will be designated in the City's Conflict of ~. JCode and
be required to disclose some financial interests. Your principal
place of residence in Chula vista; real estate two miles outside of
the city limits, government bonds and mutual funds are exempt from
reporting requirements. If you have additional investments and
financial h<Jldings; information may be obtained from the City
Clerk's Office or the City Attorney's Office regarding disclosure
requirements.
APPLICATIONS: Applications are available in the Office of the
Mayor/City Council and the City Clerk's Office. Applications are
valid for two (2) years and are open for public inspection.
Upon completion of your application, please mail or deliver to the
Office of the Mayor/City Council, city Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA, 92010. Should you have any questions, please call
the office at 691-5044.
bcapplp2
Rev 4/90
RESOLUTION NO. 1't>7.s-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO REFRAIN FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BOOKING
FEES AUTHORITY UNDER SB 2557
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Governor and California Legislature have
attempted to shift State and County financial responsibilities to
cities under provisions of SB 2557 including the authorization of
the County to charge cities for booking fees; and
WHEREAS, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will
consider implementation of the booking fee authority on Tuesday,
February 26, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and the California Legislature have
avoided their financial responsibilities by enacting measures that
are poor public policy, which rob from one local government to
finance another, and result in no real solution to the continuing
financial problems facing all levels of government in California;
and
WHEREAS, in the spirit of cooperation between cities and
counties, Chula vista requests the County to refrain from
implementation until cities have had the opportunity to input on
the content of the law and together cities and counties have had an
opportunity to look at other legislative options; and
WHEREAS, SB2557 is vague regarding whether booking fees covers
"booking fees or" other applicable charges as opposed to "booking
fees and" other applicable charges; and
WHEREAS, San Diego County is proposing a rate significantly
higher than other counties which will pose significant hardships on
local cities; and
WHEREAS, all 457 cities in California balanced their budgets
only to find their budgets will be subsequently thrown out of
balance by cost shifts and revenue losses designed to balance the
budget of the State.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Chula vista supports repeal of SB 2557 and supports
alternatives that will provide adequate long-term funding for
cities and counties.
zz-. -I
\.
l
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council of the City of
Chula vista requests the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to
refrain from implementation of booking fees until the County and
affected cities can co~sider together other legislative options.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
David Malcolm
Councilman
~-LA ~~ L ,./tml
Bruce M. Boogaard ~~y
Attorney
2..2.q - ~
,\ \
Iv'