HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1997/01/21
.r,:;--V:::i
'I"/C~~ r.'... "
oc\~l'e ~,,,"' ..
"\ {"'" , .~. .
e....C\ ~y)..~e, ',.'~ .
Tuesday, January 21, 1997 '~o'.';! :,'-, ,
6:00 p.m. '~r:'j ; "':, , ",'c!
(immediately following the City Council meeting) ,1U:'\'C -:Jj.J.-:>' o.
(')1\1:"-'
Regular Meeting of the Redevelooment Agencv of the Citv of Chula Vista
\",,,\ \ all' ....I.
. r-r","I. 0 '(\ \",e \ \ ~05'-
C\, '.;" , . 1 \"'3
, ~ ~,~,'.:, 3'{\ ,,'t \\,\e
rr\ 'J,
'. '\'Jj,~'"
<l .:' .,;:~~o:nci1 Chambers
).~ Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
Agency Members Moot _' Padilla_,
Rindone _, Salas _, and Chair Horton_
CONSENT CALENDAR
( Items 2 and 3 )
(Will be voted on immediately following the Council Consent Calendar during the City Council meeting)
The staff recommendations regarding the following item listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency, a member of the public or City staff 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 Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or 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.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be
discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 17, 1996 (Joint meeting); January 7, 1997 (Joint meeting)
3. RESOLUTION 1528 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-97-06 AND APPROVING
AN OWNER/TENANT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
MARINA A. PICCIONI AND KENTUCKY FRIED CmCKEN OF
CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AT
1305 TmRD A VENUE--Kentucky Fried Chicken is proposing to lease the
site, demolish the existing building and construct a new restaurant. Staff
reconunends approval of the resolution subject to conditions listed in the
agreement. (Conununity Development Director)
* * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * *
ADJOURNMENT TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At this time, the Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to the Council meeting.
*************
T .
Agenda
-2-
January 21, 1997
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted 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
Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or 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.)
Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
SUPS-95-02 - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
MUNICIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIAL
RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - MACE STREET
TRANSFER STATION, INC.--The applicant is requesting approval of a
Special Land Use Permit to construct and operate a municipal waste trash
transfer station and material recovery facility in the Limited Industrial - Precise
Plan Zone. Staff recommends approval of the resolution denying the
application to construct and operate a trash transfer/material recovery facility
at this site. (Conununity Development Director) Item continued from the
meetinl! of 11/19/96
4. PUBLIC HEARING
AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1529
DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY
FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within
the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the
Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you 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 Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to
the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up
action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
This is the time the Redevelopment Agency 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 Agency
Members. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
6. CHAIR'SIMAYOR'S REPORT(S)
7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on February 4, 1997 at 4:00 p.m.,
inunediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
[M:\HOMEICOMMDEVIAGENDASIOl-27-97 ,AGDI
Tuesday, December 17, 1996
11:54 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISfA
~~ CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Councilmembers John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla, Jerry R. Rindone, Mary
Salas, and ChairlMayor Shirley A. Horton.
ALSO PRESENT: John Goss, Director/City Manager; John Kaheny, Agency Legal Counsel/City Attorney;
Beverly A. Authe1et, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1524 APPROVING MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING DESIGNS FOR THE
BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT-On 08/29/95, the project plans were approved by the Agency as
part of the DbA with the developers. In June 1996, the DRC reviewed and recommended the plans for approval.
Project plans recently submitted for ,building permit approval had substantially changed without review by staff or
the DRC. On 11/25/96, the DRC reconsidered the project with compromise changes and conditionally
recommended the project for approval by the Agency. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community
Development Director)
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1524 OFFERED BY CHAIRIMAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived,
title read, passed, and approved lU1lU1imously.
3. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1525 APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
COX COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE REMODELING OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STRUCTURE AT 400 TmRD A VENUE-Cox Communications proposes to
remodel an existing building and construct a new structure at 400 Third Avenue. The project is exempt from
environmental review and is located within a redevelopment area. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Community Development Director)
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1525 OFFERED BY CHAIRIMAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived,
title read, passed, and approved lU1lU1imousIy.
. . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. .
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
4. PUBLIC HEARING: TO DISCUSS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL FOR THE RANCHO
DEL REY SPA ill-At the meeting on 12/10/96, Agency/Council voted to continue the public hearing to the
Regular Redevelopment Agency meeting on 1/7/97. (Community Development Director)
MSC (HortonlPadilla) to continue the public hearing on 1/7/97, approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
02 -(
T .
Minutes
December 17, 1996
Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICA nONS: None.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTlSl: None.
6. CHAIR'S/MA YOR'S REPORTlSl: None.
. Chair/Mayor Horton stated it has been a pleasure serving the City in 1996 and on bebalf of the Chula Vista
Council, they wish everyone the very best in 1997. She hoped everyone's holidays are filled with joy and happiness
and that the warmth of peace and bope the holiday season and throughout 1997.
7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:57 p.m.
Respectfully submirted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by:
'-Po::hi <h iL ~c0.~ nl4>
Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk
;;2-J-
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, January 7, 1997
6:54 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
- CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
Agency/Councilmembers John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla, Jerry R. Rindone,
Mary Salas, and ChairlMayor Shirley A. Horton.
ALSO PRESENT:
Sid Morris, Assistant Director/Assistant City Manager; John Kaheny, Agency
Legal Counsel/City Attorney; Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia
Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUrES: December 10, 1996 (Special Joint Meeting)
MSUC (HortonlMoot) to approve the minutes, passed and approved 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
3. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: TO DISCUSS CITY AND AGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR A 40 UNIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON 2.97 ACRES LOCATED IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA ill-On
3/7/95, the City and Agency entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement with Rancho del Rey Investors to
satisfy their affordable housing requirement for Rancho del Rey SPA III as mandated by the City's Housing
Element. Associated Agreements were also approved by the Council and Agency with Rancho Del Rey and Orange
Housing Development Corporation. The joint venture was unsuccessful in obtaining State and Federal Affordable
Housing tax credits. The previously approved agreements with Rancho del Rey Investors and Orange Housing
Development Corporation are no longer applicable. A new proposal was submitted by South Bay Community
Services to act as the sole developer with the contents of the new agreements being similar to previously approved
forms of these agreements, while the DDA is new. Staff reconunends approval of the resolutions. 4/5ths vote
reouired for Items a and b on/v (Community Development Director) Continued from the meeting of UIl0/96.
a) AGENCY RESOLUTION 1526 APPROVING A FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLAR ($478,280) COMMITMENT FROM THE LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND FOR A FORTY (40) UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENTAL
PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA ill - 4/5ths vote required.
b) COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18545 APPROVING A FIVE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR
($510,000) COMMITMENT FROM THE HOME PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FORTY
(40) UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENTAL PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO
DEL REY SPA ill - 4/5th vote required.
c) COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18546 APPROVING A 2.97 ACRE LAND DONATION FOR A FORTY (40)
UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO DEL REY
SPA ill AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING (1) THE CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND
ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH RANCHO DEL REY INVESrORS; (2) THE ASSIGNMENT OF
CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND (3) THE LOW INCOME HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN RANCHO DEL REY
INVESTORS AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES ALL WITH RESPECT TO 2.97 ACRES OF
;2 -3
Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 2
PROPERTY WITHIN SPA III PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT INTO A FORTY (40) UNIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX
d) COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18547 APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT WITH RANCHO DEL REY INVESrORS, L.P.
eJ JOINT COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18548 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION 1527 APPROVING A
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT & HOME PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FORTY (40) UNIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENTAL PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO DEL REY
SPA III
Agency/CounciImember Moot abstained from voting, due to a conflict of interest because his company represents
McMillin.
Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, gave a presentation on the affordable housing development. South Bay
Community Services will be the sole developer, and the proposed financing source was changed to utilize the
California Housing Financing Agency (CHF AJ bond coupled with a 4 percent tax credit from the State Allocation
Program. The new financing plan involves a commitment of an additional $350,000 of home funds to make the
project financially feasible. The architectural design was improved to be more compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, and more than five noticed public meetings and community forums were held. The actions today
are to approve the amount and form of City/Agency financing for the project and the related property transfer
fmancing development and regulatory agreements.
· Cathy Limbo, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Executive Director of South Bay Community Services,
spoke in support of the project because of over 40 percent of the families looking for affordable housing are
interested in three and four-bedroom apartments.
· Brad Birck, 615 "J" Street San Diego, CA, an architect with Studio E Architects, provided a diagram of the
proposed development and explained Some of the major concepts. He explained that 40 units are proposed, and the
three-bedroom units contain 1,140 square feet and the four-bedroom units contain 1,240 square feet.
· Ken Sauder, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Community Development Director for South Bay Community
Services, spoke in support of the project. He stated the Quatro Corporation will professionally manage Cordova
Village, the funding sources for this project require it to be well-managed, and the tenants will go through an
extensive screening process. At this point, there is a funding commitment from the Local Initiative Support
Corporation (LISC) and a letter of commitment for a construction loan from the Bank of America Community
Development Bank. They will be submitting an application to the California Housing Finance Agency for permit
financing and an application to the Tax Credit Allocation Committee for tax credits. He added that the contribution
of the land by the Rancho del Rey investors makes this project feasible.
Chair/Mayor Horton asked what would happen if they go over the budget, and who will they go to for additional
funding.
Mr. Sauder answered they would possibly look for a larger commitment from either the Tax Credit Allocation
Committee, LlSC, or the City. He feels confident the current budget is within the budget range; there is a 5 percent
contingency for hard costs and a 3 percent contingency for soft costs. He indicated they were seeking a 4 percent
tax credit and bond financing for this project.
ChairlMayor Horton indicated these were low percentage rates, and most projects have at least a 10 percent
contingency, with some projects as high as 15 percent.
.;2 - cj
Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 3
Agency/Councilmember Salas raised concern regarding the request for the City to allocate $350,000 from the home
fund, as opposed to the previous proposal of $160,000.
Mr. Arroyo answered this is an additional $350,000 from previous commitments the Agency/City made, which
beings the total to $510,000.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Glen Googins, Agency Legal CounseIlDeputy City Attorney, advised that the City's Attorney's office is extensively
involved with the review and preparation of the documents. A number of the documents required minor
modifications to reflect the changed funding and timing of the project. A new agreement is the proposed loan and
disposition and development agreement between the City, Agency, and South Bay Community Services, which
ensures that monies being loaned are done in the safest manner and used appropriately for development of the
.
project. He noted that one of the findings necessary is in connection with the subordination of the affordability
covenants; those need to be subordinated to construction financing and permit loan financing because of the lenders'
requirement; it is allowed under the redevelopment law, provided appropriate assurances are built in for the City
to step in and assume those loans in the event there is a default. The second finding involves the expenditure of
low and moderate income funds outside the redevelopment project area, and the resolution includes a finding to that
extent. He suggested augmenting the factual findings contained in that resolution to include the fact there are a
number of project areas which do not lend themselves to the development of affordable housing, in light of zoning
and other considerations, and development of these units outside the project area would be of benefit to those project
areas to the extent housing is not otherwise available in those project areas.
· Craig Fukuyarna, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA, representing Rancho del Rey Partners, spoke in
support of the project. He indicated Rancho del Rey was obligated to provide 23 low-income housing units, but
felt providing 40 units was more appropriate. Since the project has 17 additional units than what they are obligated,
and the amount of land they are committing and donating provides for development of the additional units, the
excess becomes a credit. In this case, part of those credits accrue to the City as part of a reimbursement, as well
as the residual receipt loan from South Bay Community Services, and reimbursement from Rancho del Rey Partners
through the sale of future credits. An example is if a credit sells for $30,000, the first $17,000 goes to the City
and the excess goes to Rancho del Rey Partners. The City and Rancho del Rey Partners are beneficiaries of the
sale of those credits.
· Robert Villareal, 2257 Tall Pines Drive, Chula Vista, CA, spoke in support of Cordova Village due to his
confidence in South Bay Community Services. He added this is a quality project in terms of style, design and
management.
· Chris Moxon, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Community Development Assistant for South Bay
Community Services; spoke in support of the project, because it is consistent with Chula Vista's consolidated plan
and housing element. He assists people with finding affordable apartments, and the majority of the faJ;Dilies seek
three and four-bedroom apartments which is scarce in Chula Vista. The result is that most families end up living
in overcrowded conditions.
· Anne Wilson, 450 "B" Street, San Diego, CA, Director of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (USC),
spoke in support of the project. LISC provides technical and financial assistance to non-profit organizations. Since
the San Diego program began in 1991, over $20 million was invested in the form of grants, loans, early working
capital, and equity investments in housing developments. In San Diego, currentiy they have over 850 homes and
apartments built by non-profits, with another 300 to 400 on-line. South Bay Community Services is one ofLISC's
strongest partners, and LISC has already committed $45,000 to Cordova Village. LISC has also discussed the
potential of committing up to an additional $70,000 or $80,000 to help with the front...nd costs of the development.
She added that LISC's standard contingency reserve is 5 percent for a new construction project and higher for a
rehab project or if site costs are involved.
c2-S-
T .
Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 4
. Barbara Worth, 1260 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Housing Advisory Commission, reported
that on 12/4/96 the Commission unanimously voted in favor of the project, because it complies with the City's
housing element. South Bay Community Services will have the tenants' interests at heart, the project will provide
affordable housing on the east side to low-income families, and the design blends with the surrounding community.
There being no further speakers, the public hearing was declared closed.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone expressed concern and felt there should be a contingency reserve of 10 percent.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the performance bond provides a safeguard, and there
is a condition that if the developer exhausts over 50 percent or more of the budgeted contingency amount, the
City/Agency will have the right to approve any additional cost overruns. This is a fully-graded zone and developed
site, there are no environmental issues or soils conditions to mitigate, and the four construction bids received were
within the budget limits.
ChairlMayor Horton indicated that she hadn't considered that the site was already fully-graded, which eliminates
some of the concern with the contingency.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked what was the alternative of continuing this for one week to attempt to obtain
a 10 percent reserve. He asked what was the nexus if Council approved this without the 10 percent contingency.
Mr. Salomone felt the issue would not be resolved in a week or two. If a 10 percent contingency is desired by
Council, he suggested including that in a motion to allow staff to creatively deal with that issue. Another option
is for the City to increase its participation to cover the 10 percent contingency.
Mr. Googins suggested as a condition to close, an additional determination be made by the City since there will be
more information developed through the application process. At that time, we will know if a 5 percent contingency
is sufficient to build the project. It would provide us with an additional safeguard, and if we make a determination
a 5 percent contingency is sufficient, the project will proceed. If the determination is made that a greater
contingency was necessary, the problem will be dealt with before releasing our funding.
MSC (RindoneIHorton) to add Mr. Googins' suggestion regarding the condition to close.
Agency/Councilmember Salas asked where would the increase in the City's participation come from.
Mr. Salomone replied it would come from the Redevelopment low to moderate-income housing fund or home funds.
Agency/Councilmember Padilla expressed support of the resolutions as offered, because of all the connected issues
that interrelate to a project like this, but the issue of how the City of ChuIa Vista's policy implements State mandates
regarding low to moderate affordable housing needs to be addressed. Some of the issues that need to be examined
are the manner of application, the State mandate, the economic impacts on the City and potential developers, how
the credits are established and values assigned, where it is applied, the degree and manner of the City's participation
of public funds in certain projects, and the use of low-mod funds from redevelopment areaS. He advised he would
be returning with the entire policy for examination and discussion.
Chair/Mayor Horton shared some of Agency/Councilmember Padilla's concerns and felt that a workshop would be
beneficial for Council to discuss these options:
VOTE ON MOTION: Approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
RESOLUTIONS 18545, 18546, 18547, 18548 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION 1527 OFFERED BY
CHAIRIMAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, titles read, passed, and approved 4-0-0-1 with
Moot abstaining.
c2~~
Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 5
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
- ACTION ITEMS
4. REPORT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
SCRIPPS HEALTH FOR THE EXPANSION OF HOSPITAL FACILITIES-On 11/1/91, the Agency approved
an OPA with Scripps for expansion of their hospital located at the northeast comer of 5th Avenue and H Street
within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area. In February 1996, Scripps submitted proposed revisions
to the OP A which would result in substantial downsizing of their expansion plans. Staff requests the Agency review
the financial impacts of the proposed changes and direct staff to bring back a proposal. (Community Development
Director)
Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, reported that Scripps entered into an owner participation agreement
with the Agency in 1991 and that agreement is currently in effect. As part of that agreement, a former
Redevelopment Agency required Scripps to pay the full cost of the property acquisition and relocation of use serving
facilities, which included Rollerskate Land and Fiesta Twin Cinema. The property settlement and acquisition
occurred in 1993, and development of the first phase of the hospital expansion and the first medical office building
should have occurred or been under construction by this time; however, since the early 1990s there have been
significant changes in the medical services industry which are generally characterized by a downsizing and
consolidation of facilities and a concentration on outpatient short-term care, as opposed to long-term hospital care.
The Agency and Scripps have agreed on deal points which are conceptual in nature and will require a considerable
amount of details to be worked out. If the conceptual deal points are approved by the Agency, they will function
as direction to negotiators for City staff to continue to work with Scripps to refine the terms and develop the
language for the revised owner participation agreement.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, indicated Scripps literally paid all of the fare of this project
and the enormous legal costs. There were a number of businesses with leases there, and it was one of the most
complicated redevelopment projects the City was involved with.
· James Leery, 9845 Irma Road, San Diego, CA, architect representing Scripps, explained that health care industry
is undergoing a revolution in San Diego, and the costs of health care are the heart of the issue. The difficulties it
presents to a planner is the uncertainty of what the land use needs will be over the next 20 years. The combination
of that site with the existing site, less the amount they will give to the school, represents approximately 13 acres.
If they build the first outpatient facility on the comer, they can still park the required cars on the surface of the site.
If the first facility is moved to the rear, they will have to build a parking structure with that medical office building.
Assuming they would leave the comer open for potential commercial or non-hospital use, a reversion would force
them to probably invest an additional $5 million with that first element, which makes the whole project come apart
financially. Senate Bill 1953 is asking hospitals to evaluate their seismic characteristics and certain components of
existing hospitals may have to be replaced. Scripps needs the flexibility with the planning to deal with these kinds
of things.
MSUC (PadillalHorton) to accept staff's report.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S): None.
d-7
Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 6
6. CHATR'S/MAYOR'S REPORTlS): None.
7. AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by:
~Cth1 Lf 1 D. ~t...'enk..
Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk
c2 -?'
REDEVelOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: SUPS-95-02 - Request to construct and operate a municipal
waste trash transfer station and material recovery facility at 187 Mace
Street - Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc,
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution ! ~ (). q Denying a Special Use Permit for a Municipal Solid
Waste Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility at 187 Mace Street
Director of Community)?evelopment (_S .
Director of Planning /dL
en, Moo"" JGt ~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_XJ
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc., (formerly Sky Trucking) (Applicant) is requesting approval of
a Special Land Use Permit. SUPS-95-02, to construct and operate a municipal waste trash transfer
station and material recovery facility at 187 Mace Street in the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise
Plan) Zone on approximately 4.7 acres of land (see Exhibit 1). The proposal includes the
construction of a new approximately 36,000 square foot building along the eastern property line
(see Exhibit 1 for a site plan).
An Initial Study, IS-95-14, was completed on this project which resulted in a mitigated negative
declaration (Attachment 2). Staff forwarded a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the
State Clearinghouse for circulation to State agencies. The review period began on August 16,
1996 and closed on September 16, 1996. The attached comment letter dated September 12,
1996 was received from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (included in Exhibit
4 - Correspondence). Two staff responses to the September 12, 1996 letter, one from the
Planning Department and one from the Conservation Coordinator, are also included in Exhibit 4.
Staff contacted the Applicant's attorney to request information as to whether the applicant would
prefer that a response and an Addendum be prepared incorporating this information for review by
the Redevelopment Agency at this time. Applicant's attorney requested that no work be done at
this time on the Addendum.
No action is needed on the Mitigated Negative Declaration if the Redevelopment Agency decides
to accept staff's recommendation to deny the project. If the Redevelopment Agency decides that
it does not wish to deny the project at this time, staff recommends that it be directed to complete
the necessary Addendum process, respond to the letter from the California Integrated Waste
Management Board, and otherwise prepare the Project for reconsideration first by the Planning
Commission and then by the Redevelopment Agency. This would give the Redevelopment Agency
the option to approve the project subject to staff recommended conditions and mitigation
measures.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached Redevelopment Agency
Resolution denying the application to construct and operate a trash transfer station/material
recovery facility at 187 Mace Street. (Attachment 1)
4- !
Page #2, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4-
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Under normal circumstances, the Project would
be heard by the Southwest Project Area Committee (PAC) instead of the Planning Commission.
Due to the fact that the PAC does not currently have enough sitting members to form a quorum,
the Southwest Redevelopment Plan makes allowance for projects to be considered by the Planning
Commission for a recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency.
1. On July 18, 1996, a City sponsored public forum was held for the area property owners,
businesses and residential tenants. The results of this public forum are included in the
Discussion section of this report.
2. On August 16, 1996, the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee and the Citizen's
Advisory Committee met and heard presentations on this Project. The Policy Committee
voted 3 to 0 and the Citizen's Advisory Committee voted 16 to 2 to support staff's
recommendation for denial of the Project.
3. On August 26, 1996, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 6 to 1 to take no
action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS-95-14 and recommend denial of the
project to the Redevelopment Agency.
4. On August 28, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to take no action on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS-95-14 and recommend denial of the project to the
Redevelopment Agency.
5, On January 8, 1997, the Applicant held a second public forum for area residents with the
intent to work toward the resolution of the area resident's concerns so that the project will
be acceptable to the community. The results of this forum are included in the Discussion
section of this report.
DISCUSSION:
1 , Site Characteristics/Existino Uses: At present, the site is being utilized as a semi.
tractor/trailer storage facility, a use existing at this location at the time of annexation of the
Montgomery Community into Chula Vista. A 9,800 square foot warehouse structure and
a 2,400 square foot office building currently stand on the site. Along the eastern boundary
a drainage way has been partially filled, which must be rehabilitated and brought up to its
original capacity and flow.
It should also be noted that the facility has been cited for violating County Health
Department codes and State law by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for allowing
about 75 cubic yards of municipal waste to accumulate on-site. Please note, however, that
staff is not recommending denial of this permit request due to such alleged unlawful
actions as this is generally not considered an appropriate reason for denial. This matter is
being mentioned in order to describe the current activities taking place on the site.
4'-d.-
T -
Page #3, Item: 4-
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
2. General Plan. Zoninq and Land Use:
Site:
North:
So uth:
East:
West:
General Plan
R&L1
R&L1
R&L1
R&L1
R&L1
Zonina
IL-P
IL.P
IL-P
IL-P
IL-P
Current Land Use
Truck terminal/trash transfer station
RV parking & industrial storage
Steel, welding, used machinery/indust. storage
Mini storage
Industrial business park
The subject parcel is located approximately 800 feet south of Main Street on the east side
of Mace Street and is 4.69 acres in size (see Exhibit 1, Locator Map), Industrial and
vehicle storage uses exist on the parcels to the immediate north.
There are two parcels to the south. On the westerly southern parcel, Otay Metal Mart
operates a heavy industrial business where used machinery is sold, steel is fabricated and
welding operations take place. The easterly southern parcel contains a residential unit, but
also appears to be used as a contractor's storage yard.
To the south of these two parcels lies the Otay River Valley, which is designated as Open
Space on the Chula Vista General Plan and as Parks & Open Space in the Montgomery
Specific Plan. Located in the City of San Diego, this area of the Otay River is part of the
proposed Otay River Valley Regional Park, which is a significant feature and plays an
important role in the future development of the entire southern portion of the City of Chula
Vista.
To the immediate east is a mini storage facility. Approximately 650 feet to the east of the
Project site is the Date Street residential area, To the northeast lies land apparently used
for agricultural purposes as well as several houses which front on Main Street.
The area to the west is occupied by an industrial business park containing various industrial
land uses. To the southwest at the terminus of Mace Street is a temporary industrial
storage facility which was approved through a special use permit (SUPS-96-05).
3. Proposal: Applicant is proposing to construct and operate a trash transfer station and
materials recovery facility, an Unclassified Use. The use, described in the Operational
Profile (Exhibit 2). will accept municipal waste, sort that waste, recycle those items which
are recyclable, and transport the remaining unrecyclable waste to a landfill. This work will
be done in an enclosed, approximately 36,000 square foot structure. Approximately 1,000
tons of municipal solid waste is expected to pass through the facility on a daily basis when
operating at maximum capacity. The operation will initially begin with 500 tons per day.
All waste brought into the facility is proposed to be shipped out the same day,
According to information supplied by the Applicant, the trash transfer station will generate
approximately 300 trips per day by all traffic arriving at and departing from the facility.
Some of the vehicles will be the neighborhood type trash trucks with 8 to 10 ton payloads,
while others will be the larger semi-tractor/trailer type trucks with 24 ton payload
capacities. Trash will be cross-loaded from the smaller trucks to the larger trucks which
will then move the trash to landfills outside the region. Exhibit 3 explains the traffic figures
and how they relate with the facility's planned maximum capacity.
4-3
Page #4, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
4. Analysis:
ISSUES:
. Consistency of the Project with the provisions of the Montgomery Specific Plan, the
Southwest Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
. Impact of a municipal solid waste plant and trash truck traffic on the character of
the Montgomery Community.
. Compatibility of the Project with surrounding limited industrial land uses and
residential areas.
Staff is recommending denial of this project because it is our opinion that 1) it is
inconsistent with the stated goals, policies and advisory statements of several plans; 2) the
proposal is out of character with the Montgomery Community; and 3) it will have a
negative impact on the general welfare of the community and surrounding land uses, This
is best conveyed through the required findings:
1 . That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
It is staff's opinion that this finding can not be made because the proposed use is not
necessary nor is it desirable for several reasons: 1) With the existence of a regional land
fill and the recent approval of a similar facility on Maxwell Road, this facility is not
necessary. 2) Enough facilities exist or will exist in more appropriate locations so as to
adequately serve the community. 3) The proposed use will not contribute to the general
welfare of the community because there is no apparent source of waste for this facility
from either the City of Chula Vista or the City of San Diego. All waste from both of these
cities is accounted for so far as disposal is concerned,
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
It is staff's opinion that, if approved, the existence of this facility would be detrimental to
the general welfare of the community. Staff believes the proposed use will have a negative
impact on the character of the community given its proximity to residential areas and paths
of travel. The Date Street residential area is approximately 650 feet to the east of the site
and other non-conforming residential units exist in the general vicinity which are closer than
Date Street, Trash trucks coming to and going from the facility would have to travel along
Main Street to either 1-5 or 1-805, thus bringing a large number of an undesirable type of
vehicle (trash trucks) into the very heart of the Montgomery Community, a type of traffic
not currently present in large numbers except for normal trash pickup,
Based on information submitted by the Applicant. it was determined that there will be very
little change in the overall number of trips generated by the proposed use YS. the existing
use. However, the character of traffic will be much different, At present, semi-tractor
4-cj
Page #5, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
trailers generate the most traffic trips coming to and going from the site. The proposed use
would change this character of traffic to primarily trash trucks,
3, That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
As described later in this report, the proposed use is an "Unclassified Use" subject to the
provisions of Chapter 19.54 of the Zoning Ordinance. As such, there are no specific
regulations or conditions outlined for this use which are applicable. Such regulations and
conditions would need to be imposed in a special use permit. While the proposed Project
may be able to comply with the City's general "performance standards" relating to
"Dumps," it is staff's opinion that such compliance would not be an adequate basis for
approving the project at the proposed location in light of the other factors discussed in this
report.
4, That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the general
plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
Applicable Documents: The City's General Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance, The
Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan
Genera/ Plan: The City's General Plan incorporates the Montgomery Specific Plan by
reference, and provides policy guidance for development in the Montgomery Community:
"The Montgomery Specific Plan shall constitute an integral component of the Chula
Vista General Plan, and shall be official land use policy of the City. Its text,
graphics, and elements shall be regarded as the comprehensive plan for the
development, redevelopment, and conservation of the Montgomery Community."
(Part 2, Page 11, Section D. 1)
"The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the constitution of City planning within
Montgomery, and shall govern all zoning plans, public works plans, subdivision
plans, transportation plans, development proposals, and capital improvement
programs affecting the community." (Part 2, Page 11, Section D.2)
MontQomery Soecific Plan: The Specific Plan identifies this area as "Research & Limited
Industrial." Based on the following goals, policies and guidelines, staff has concluded that
the Project is not desirable at the proposed location and is actually incompatible with the
desired development patterns laid out in the Specific Plan:
.
"II.
SUMMARY
A. Goals
15. Promotion of planned light industrial development within the
Main Street Corridor." (Part 2, page 13)
4-s
Page #6, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
1
.
"2.
Land Use and Land Occupancy
A review of the Montgomery Survey indicates that the land use and land
occupancy characteristics of Montgomery could be improved through the
implementation of the following proposals:
g. Notwithstanding the Specific Plans's proposal that Montgomery
remain an industrial center, it is essential that the existing wrecking
yards, junk yards, open storage areas, salvage operations, batching
plants and other marginal or heavy industrial uses be, to a
substantial extent, gradually phased out, or discontinued." (Planning
and Design Proposal E.2.g on page 16)
. "Otay Town is characterized by its pattern of mixed commercial, industrial and
residential land uses, This land use pattern which lacks order, and amenity, needs
substantial improvement, Implementation of the following proposals would
significantly improve Otay Town's land use patterns, spacial relations, and aesthetic
quality .
1) Heavy industrial and open storage uses should be gradually phased out, and
"clean" manufacturing, scientific, and technological industries should be
encouraged to replace them.
2) The Main Street Area, as delineated on the plan diagram, should be reserved
as a corridor of research and limited industrial uses," (Part 2, Page 29)
. The proposed Otay River Valley Regional Park is very near the subject parcel. In
recognition of the importance of this park, Goal 17 in Part 2 of the Montgomery
Specific Plan calls for the:
"Encouragement and establishment of an "Otay River Valley Regional Park."
The site is within the Focussed Planning Area (FPA) of the Otay Valley Regional
Park, but not within the boundaries of the Regional Park itself. Since the
southernmost property line is less than 250 feet from the Park, approval of the
project would limit the options in buffering. This would work against Goal 6 on
page 3 of Part 2 of the Specific Plan which calls for the:
"Creation of physical buffers which ameliorate the adverse effects of
changing land uses along interfaces."
It is staff's position that allowing a trash transfer station in close proximity to the
Regional Park goes against the stated goals of the Montgomery Specific Plan and
good planning practices.
ZoninQ Ordinance: For lack of another category, the municipal solid waste facility is being
processed as a "Dump," (as listed in Code ~19.54.020.G) which is considered an
"Unclassified Use" that can be considered for location in any zone, subject to the issuance
4- ro
Page #7, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
of a conditional use permit, This is the same categorization and process which was used
in the case of the Maxwell Road facility, which is located in an I (General Industrial) Zone,
An "Unclassified Use" is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and special
form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as set
forth in the various zones" (~19,54.010.A), The purpose of the conditional use permit
review is to "determine that the characteristics of such use shall not be incompatible with
the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas ..." (~19.54.010.B).
The reason the trash transfer station is considered incompatible at this location is more
ful)y explained later on in this report, Briefly, a trash transfer station is considered to be
incompatible not only with the permitted uses in the surrounding area, which are light or
limited industrial and residential land uses, but also with the character of the Montgomery
Community as a whole.
Under different circumstances, this proposal may be appropriate, even in an IL Zone. For
example, if the site were more remote from residential areas, on the periphery of the IL
Zone, not in the heart of Montgomery, and associated with other similar unclassified land
uses, such as the Otay Landfill, an application for a conditional use permit for a municipal
solid waste transfer station may be approved, as was done in the case of the Maxwell
Road site. By contrast to this proposed Project, the Maxwell Road site is:
. about 1,500 feet, separated by hilly terrain, and located downwind from the nearest
residential area;
. located on the same road as is used by all traffic going to and coming from the
Otay Landfill;
. in the I (General Industrial) Zone and is in the Otay Valley Redevelopment Area; and
. not in the heart of the Montgomery Community.
The fundamental issue in this section has been to stress that although the proposed use,
as a municipal waste trash transfer station, could be found to be compatible in an I-L Zone
given the correct circumstances, it is staff's opinion that it is incompatible at the proposed
location due primarily to the stated goals, objectives and implementing programs found in
the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan.
The Montgomery Specific Plan and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan are applicable to
the future development of the Montgomery Community/Southwest Redevelopment Area,
and both have stated goals that are to guide that development, Based on these goals, staff
has concluded that the proposed Project is not compatible with the future development
pattern of the area.
Southwest Redeve/ooment Plan: The Southwest Redevelopment Plan was created after the
Montgomery Specific Plan. As stated in the Five Year Implementation Plan - Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area:
"The [Southwest Redevelopment] Project area was created in order to 1) eliminate
conditions of blight which negatively impact industrial and commercial development
and 2) to implement the Montgomery Specific Plan," (Page 1, Section B,
Background)
4-- 7
Page #8, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
Repeated in the body of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan from the Montgomery Specific
Plan is the following redevelopment plan goal:
"Promotion of planned light industrial development within the Main Street Corridor."
(Compare to Goal 15 in Part 2, page 13 from the Montgomery Specific Plan, cited
earlier in this report.)
Besides the above, there are a number of "redevelopment actions" to be undertaken in the
Southwest Redevelopment Area. As outlined on page 4:
"The [Redevelopment] Agency proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of
blighting influences, and to strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and
the community through:
"6, The development or redevelopment of land by private enterprises or
public agencies for purposes and uses consistent with the objectives
of this Redevelopment Plan.
Since the Redevelopment Plan is intended to implement the Montgomery Specific Plan, the
proposed land use is also considered by staff to be inconsistent with this document and
therefore an incompatible use.
Section VI.G.8(617). page 19. of the Redevelopment Plan precludes incompatible uses:
"Incompatible Uses
No use or structure which is by reason of appearance, traffic, smoke, glare, noise,
odor. or similar factors incompatible with the surrounding areas or structures shall
be permitted in any part of the Project Area, except as permitted by the governing
bodies of the City."
The Location: The site on Mace Street is located approximately 650 feet south of Main
Street, within 650 feet of the Date Street residential area and approximately 1,100 feet
from Otay Elementary School. This is considered to be in the heart of the Montgomery
Community/Southwest Redevelopment Area. As such, the proposal to have trash trucks
and semi-tractor/trailers loaded with municipal waste moving along Main Street from 1-5,
1-805 and other primary connectors to Mace Street would be to transport waste into and
through an area of the City which does not presently accommodate such activity, an area
which the City is attempting to upgrade. Introducing this type of traffic is inconsistent with
the type of traffic normally associated with light/limited industrial uses.
Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding land uses were described earlier in this report.
It is acknowledged that several are heavy industrial uses, but these uses have been in
operation since before annexation of the Montgomery area and are considered to be pre-
existing, non-conforming land uses, which will eventually be phased out, The existing light
industrial land uses are conforming,
One of the primary factors arguing for denial of the application is the relative proximity of
residential land uses approximately 650 feet to the east of the project site. This is a criteria
q-?
Page #9. Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
which was used when the City studied various sites when it was considering a similar
facility. Because several of the sites were less than 1,000 feet from residentially zoned
areas, they were automatically rejected from further consideration. This is mentioned in
Section 6 of this report, below, titled "Similar Facilities."
5. Responses to the Notice of Public Hearino: To date several letters and one petition of
opposition have been received by the Planning Department. The letters and petition are
attached as Exhibit 4.
A letter dated September 16, 1996 was received from the City of San Diego,
Environmental Services Department (ESD) and was signed by Mr. Robert A, Epler,
Assistant Director of ESD. This letter outlines the City of San Diego's strong opposition
to the proposed Project. Besides reinforcing the points made in this report, Mr. Epler points
out that the "Mace Street Transfer Station is not included in the City of San Diego's
adopted Non Disposal Facility Element (plan) as a location where City Wastes are proposed
to be taken. ... It is our contention that this facility is not needed to meet the City of San
Die90's short-term or lon9-term solid waste management or disposal requirements." He
makes this point to stress that if approved, all trash brought to this facility will come from
outside Chula Vista. This is further stressed in the conclusion where he states:
"The staff recommendation to deny the application is strongly supported by
information in its report and public testimony before the Planning Commission, The
proposed facility is not needed for Chula Vista to manage the solid wastes
generated within its jurisdiction and it is not needed for the City of San Diego to
meet its waste management needs."
In addition to the written responses, at its meeting of August 14, 1996, the Planning
Commission opened the public hearing on this Project and took testimony from those
present on the basis they may not be able to attend the AU9ust 28, 1996 hearing, The
draft extract minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit 5.
6. Similar Facilities: Over the last two years, the City has studied various locations with the
purpose in mind to site a materials recovery facility/trash transfer station within the
corporate limits. Initially, fourteen sites were considered, but for various reasons all but
three were rejected. Ultimately, the study resulted in the conditional approval on March
19. 1996 of a special use permit, SUPO-96-01, for the Maxwell Road site located just
north of Otay Valley Road. This project has since been taken over by Sexton/Chula Vista
Sanitary Service and City involvement is limited to its regulatory responsibilities and not as
an actual operator of the facility, The staff report, resolution of approval, plans, diagrams,
etc., are available in the Planning Department for review for SUPO-96-01,
As opposed to the Mace Street proposal, the project on Maxwell Road is in an area that
is zoned General Industrial, on the same route as trash trucks currently take to the Otay
Landfill, is about 1,500 feet and downwind from the nearest residential area and is
separated from that residential area by terrain. These factors, amon9 others, combined in
an acceptable project, at an appropriate location, with few impacts to traffic or surrounding
land uses. The proposal on Mace Street does not meet any of these criteria.
4-9
Page #10, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
The Maxwell Road project is on hold until such time as the County makes more specific
determination regarding their solid waste facilities and the pricing structure for solid waste
disposal. Notwithstanding this delay in construction and operation of the Maxwell Road
project, the site in and of itself is a more appropriate location than Mace Street for the
reasons mentioned above and elsewhere in this report. If the currently proposed facility
is not constructed and SUPO-96-01 becomes null and void, the site would remain a prime
candidate for the sitin9 of a materials recovery facility/trash transfer station.
Another transfer station currently operates at 3660 Dalbergia Street in Barrio Logan, San
Diego just north of National City and south of the 1-5/1-15 junction. The operator, EDCO
Disposal Corporation, had applied to the City of San Diego in September 1994 to reactivate
and significantly enlarge a closed waste transfer station. Last November 15, 1995, the
San Diego City Council denied the request. The denial was based on that City Council's
desire not to amend their Nondisposal Facility Element and because of appeals brought by
area residents (Protecting Our Barrio) and a concerned group (Backcountry Against Dumps).
which the City Council supported.
7. Public Forums:
A. Prior to the project going before the Planning Commission for public hearing, on
July 18, 1996 a public forum was held in the Council Chambers at the Public
Services Building. Approximately 18 people were present. After a brief
introduction by City staff and the Applicant. those having an interest in the project
brought up issues of concern which are discussed in this report or Initial Study, IS-
95-14, Seven of those present were area residents or property owners, It was
staff's impression that all residents or property owners present were opposed to the
project.
B. On January 8, 1997, the project Applicant for the Mace Street trash transfer
station/material recovery facility held a second public forum for area residents and
property owners at 3648 Main Street. Approximately 30 people attended.
There was further discussion regarding issues raised by area residents which were
responded to by the Applicant's representatives. The Applicant's representatives
used aerial photos and a verbal description to compare their proposed project to
reportedly comparable sites including facilities in the Cities of Orange, Anaheim and
Stanton. They stated that discussion with appropriate city staffs in each locality
hosting these facilities reported no problems.
Staff's main impression was that area residents were still strongly opposed to the
project and are not open to mitigation measures, conditions of approval or design
standards which may improve the project. Their main concerns are related to traffic
impacts and image. They were also very concerned that the City is not upgrading
the streets in their area and that the value of their homes is going down and will
continue to go down if this project is approved.
8. Conclusion: Given the foregoing information, staff is recommending that the application be
denied.
L( - I 0
Page #11, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/21/97
4
FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a fiscal impact associated with the denial of the project other than
the loss of the potential economic benefits associated with the project. The applicant submitted
information to staff that indicated their project would bring the following net annual tax increment
to the RDA:
Southwest Project
Housing Fund
Total
$ 11,708
$ 2.928
$ 14,636
Fees:
$125,000
New Employees:
18
The applicant did not provide what the approximate earnings from the new employees would be,
however, it is assumed that the wages would be at or near minimum wage based upon the work
to be required at the facility, If the City instituted a host fee for this type of facility, it could have
unknown positive fiscal impact. Staff anticipates bringing this information forward at a later date.
Staff does not believe that the loss of the economic benefits associated with denial of the project
would or should override the planning, zoning and related negative impacts detailed in this report.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-95-02
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Initial Study 15-95-14
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of 8/28/96
Exhibits
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
Locators, Site Plans, etc.
Operational Profile
Average Daily Traffic Trips Summary
Correspondence
Extract of the Minutes from the 8/14/96 Planning Commission Meeting
(m:\homelplanning\martinlmacest\9502a.113l
or (n:\shared\commdev\9502a.113l
4-! (
T .
RESOLUTION NO. IS.;( 9
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION AND MATERIALS
RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and commonly known as 187 Mace Street ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 18, 1994 by Mr. Mark
Watton on behalf of Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc. (formerly Sky Trucking)
("Applicant"); and
C. Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit
WHEREAS, said application requested approval of a special use permit to construct
and operate a municipal solid waste transfer station and materials recovery facility
("Project") in the IL-P Zoning District at Project Site; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the advertised public hearing on
August 14, 1996 and continued it to August 28, 1996 after taking testimony from
those present on the basis that they may not be able to attend the August 28,
1996 continued hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reopened the advertised public hearing on the
Project on August 28, 1996, took additional public testimony and then closed the
public hearing after which they voted 7-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment
Agency deny the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution
SUPS-95-02; and,
E. Notice of Public Hearing
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said
special use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose,
was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and
its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
4-1;)"
F. Place of Public Hearing
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
January 21, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission
at their public hearing on this project held on August 14 and 28, 1996 and the minutes and
resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. DENIAL OF PERMIT
After full and independent consideration of any and all reports, evidence and testimony
presented at the public hearing with respect to the Project, the Redevelopment Agency
hereby DENIES the special use permit for the proposed Project based on the evidence in
the record and on the following findings.
IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The following findings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs
the issuance of special use permits. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
is unable to make findings in support of the Project as required by the City's rules and
regulations for the issuance of special use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets
forth, instead, the evidentiary basis supporting denial of the proposed Project:
1 . That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that whereas a trash transfer facility sited
at an appropriate location, would provide a desirable service for the community,
this proposal would duplicate services already provided by the Otay Landfill and will
duplicate the project approved at Maxwell Road, Chula Vista, pursuantto SUPO-96-
01; thus, the Project is redundant and not needed by the community. In addition,
approval of the Project would introduce trash truck traffic onto the main
thoroughfare serving the Montgomery Community, an undesirable characteristic of
the proposed land use. These factors are contrary to established policy and sound
planning principles, and are likely to have an adverse impact on the Montgomery
Community's character and general well being.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the nature of the use and its
incompatibility with adjacent uses, including the introduction of trash truck traffic
4-/3
into the area and through the Montgomery Community, the proximity of residential
areas approximately 650 feet from the site, the potential for negative impacts
related to noise and odors from a trash transfer operation, and the negative impact
on community character if the Project were approved would be detrimental to the
general welfare of the residents, property, and improvements in the area.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the proposed use is an Unclassified
Use pursuant to Chapter 19.54, but that said proposed use will not comply with
Chapter 19.54 of the Zoning Ordinance in that such use is not compatible with the
type of uses permitted in surrounding areas, and that there are no specific
regulations or conditions outlined for this use which are applicable.
4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the general
plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of SUPS-95-02 would have an adverse affect on the General Plan, the
Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan in that the
proposed use does not implement the goals, objectives, policies and suggestions,
nor is it consistent with the criteria specified in said plans. Such adverse impacts
are more specifically set forth in the staff report presented on this matter, which
such report is incorporated herein in support of this finding and the other findings
presented herein.
THIS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 21 ST DAY OF
JANUARY 1997.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~- ~~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
[(MM) M:\HOME\COMMDEV\RESOS\9502A.RES (January 16,1997 (11:33aml]
4-(<-1-
T .
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Resolution
No. SUPS-95-02
RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-95-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENY A SPEOAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE
STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use penrut was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on November 18, 1994 by Mr. Mark Watton on behalf of Mace Street
Transfer Station, Inc. (formerly Sky Trucking) ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a special use penrut to construct and operate
a municipal solid waste transfer station and materials recovery facility ("Project") in the IL-P Zoning
District at 187 Mace Street ("Project Site"); and
"-
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said special use
permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least 20 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing Was held at the time and place as advertised, namely August 14, 1996
at 7;00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter continued to August 28, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the hearing Was reopened on August 28, 1996 where the Planning Commission took
additional public testimony and then closed the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
determines to take no action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS-95-14 and recommends denial
of the project to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the
attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution and the fmdings contained therein.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant and the Redevelopment
Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CAUFORNIA, this day 28th day of August 1996 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas, Tuchscher, Willett
None
None
None
~
~bsef!i:r
(ro: \home\planning\martin\macest\9502pc. res)
/If -I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENYING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT
187 MACE STREET
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and commonly known as 187 Mace Street ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit was filed with the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 18, 1994 by Mr. Mark
Watton on behalf of Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc, (formerly Sky Trucking)
("Applicant"); and
C. Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit
WHEREAS, said application requested approval of a special use permit to
construct and operate a municipal solid waste transfer station and materials
recovery facility ("Project") in the IL-P Zoning District at Project Site; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission open the advertised public hearing on
August 14, 1996 and continued it to August 28, 1996 after taking testimony from
those present on the basis that they may not be able to attend the August 28, 1996
continued hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reopened the advertised public hearing on
the Project on August 28, 1996, took additional public testimony and then closed
the public hearing after which they voted 7-0 to recommend that the
Redevelopment Agency deny the Project in accordance with Planning Commission
Resolution SUPS-95-02; and,
(m: \home\plarming\manin \macest\9502ra.res)
/l ( - d-..
Resolution No,
Page #2
E. Notice of Public Hearing
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on
said special use permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
F. Place of Public Hearing
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
September 17, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby
[md, determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on August 28, 1996 and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
hereby DENIES the special use permit based on the following findings and all other reports,
evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed use.
IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The following fIndings are required by the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which governs
the issuance of special use permits. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista is unable to make [mdings in support of the Project as required by the City's rules
and regulations for the issuance of special use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets
forth, instead, the evidentiary basis denial of the proposed Project:
I. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the
neighborhood or the conununity.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby fInds that whereas a trash transfer facility
sited at an appropriate location would provide a desirable service for the
community, this proposal would duplicate services already provided by the Otay
Landfill and will duplicate the project approved pursuant to SUPO-96-01, thus
(m:\home\planning\manin\macest\9502ra.res)
/l ! --3
T -
Resolution No.
Page #3
rendering it redundant and not needed by the Montgomery Community. In
addition, approval of the Project would introduce trash truck traffic onto the main
thoroughfare serving the Montgomery Community, an undesirable characteristic
of the proposed land use. These factors are contrary to established policy and
sound planning principles, and are likely to have an adverse impact on the
Montgomery Community's character and general well being.
2.
That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
'-
The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the of the use and its
incompatibility with adjacent uses, including the introduction of trash truck traffic
into the area and through the Montgomery Community, the proximity of
residential areas approximately 650 feet from the site, and the potential for
negative impacts related to noise and odors from a trash transfer operation, and
the negative impact on community character if the Project were approved would
be detrimental to the general welfare to property, improvements and the populace
in the area.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The Redevelopment Agency hereby fmds that the proposed use is an Unclassified
Use pursuant to Chapter 19.54, but that said proposed use will not comply with
Chapter 19,54 of the Zoning Ordinance in that such use is not compatible with
the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas, and that there are no specific
regulations or conditions outlined for this use which are applicable.
Notwithstanding this fact, it may be possible for subject use to comply with
performance standards except that the Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that
this is not an adequate basis for approval of this Project as the other issues argue
against approval.
4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of SUPS-95-02 would have an adverse affect on the General Plan,
the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan in that the
proposed use does not implement the goals, objectives, policies and suggestions,
nor is it consistent with the criteria specified in said plans. Such adverse impacts
are more specifically set forth in the staff report presented on this matter, which
such report is incorporated herein in support of this fmding.
(m: \home\planning\manin \macest\9502ra. res)
,AI
tj
T -
Resolution No.
Page #4
THIS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS
15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Ann Moore
Acting City Attorney
(m: \homc\planning\martin\macest\9502ra. res)
/l ! - S-
Attachment 2
Mitigated Negative Declaration
for
Initial Study IS-95-14
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME:
Mace Street Transfer Station
PROJECT LOCATION:
187 Mace Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:
629-130-27
PROJECT APPUCANT:
Mace Street Transfer Station, Incorporated
CASE NO: IS-95-14
DATE: August 16, 1996
A.
Proiect Setting
,
The project site consists of 4.72 acres located at 187 Mace Street. The site is currently used as a
trucking terminal. Existing facilities include three small-frame office structures adjacent to Mace Street
and a 9,800 square foot warehouse structure to the east of the frame buildings. The latter has an
adjacent depressed loading dock. Other facilities include: a fuel island, a truck scale, and a truck
washing facility. The existing facilities are to be left in place with the exception of the fuel island and
the moSt soutlierly frame structure which interfere with the proposed access to the new facility. Along
the eastern boundary, a drainage area has been partially filled in. The Engineering Department is
requiring that final improvement plans be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. '
There are two parcels to the south. On the westerly southern parcel, Otay Metal Mart fabricates steel
and welding operations take place. The easterly southern parcel contains a residential unit, but also
appears to be used as a contractor's storage yard.
To the south of these two parcels lies the Otay River Valley, which is designated as Open Space,on the
Chula Vista General Plan and as Parks and Open Space in the Montgomery Specific Plan. Located in
the City of San Diego, this area of the Otay River is part of the proposed Otay River Regional Park,
which is a significant feature and plays an important role in the future development of the entire
southern portion'of the City of Chuia Vista.
To the immediate east is a mini storage facility. Approximately 900 feet to the east of the project site
is the Date Street residential area. To the northeast lies land apparently used for agricultural purposes
as well as several houses which front on Main Street.
The area to the west is occupied bY an industrial business park containing various land uses. To the
southwest at the terminus of Mace Street is a temporary industrial storage facility which was approved
through a special use permit (SUPS-96-0S). ~ted on the north is RV parking and industrial storage.
. .
/I;;L-(
-2-
Adjoining land uses to the south of the property are two parcels: Otay Metal Man, an industrial
business use where steel is fabricated and welding operations take place; and a parcel containing a
residential unit and a contractors' storage yard. T)1e area to the immediate east is a mini storage
facility. Located on the north is RV parking and industrial storage. To the northeast lies land used for
agricultural uses as, well as several houses which front on Main Street.
B. Proiect Descriotion
Mace Street Transfer Station, Incorporated (Applicant) (formerly known as Sky Trucking) is requesting
approval of a Special Land Use Permit to construct and operate a trash transfer station and material
recovery facility at 187 Mace Street. The proposal includes the construction of a new 63,000 square
. foot, 30 foot high building. There will be two depressed loading pits (pit floor 7"-6" below finish
floor), one each on the west and east sides of the building accessed by ramps from the north side of the
building. The pits will be separated by a 200 foot wide grade level tipping floor. A 9-ft. high
reinforced concrete push wall will separate the tipping floor from the loading pits. Truck ingress and
egress to and from the tipping floor will be through six 16 ft wide by 28 ft high roll-up doors in the
north wall of the building and two such doors near the center of the south wall.
Transfer Ooeration Descriotion
The facility will receive solid waste from co=ercial businesses, construction and demolition debris
from construction sites and green waste from landscaping operations. Conventional front or rear
loading packer trucks, trucks with roll-off boxes up to 24-ft long, small dump trucks, and small trucks
with trailers, etc., hauling these wastes will enter the facility through the Mace Street entrance, cross
the scales to be weighed in, and proceed to the transfer building. Some of the vehicles will be the
neighborhood type trash trucks with 8- to 10-ton payloads, while others will be the larger semi-
tractor/trailer type trucks with 24-ton payload capacities.
The transfer building is designed such that facility operators have the flexibility to direct these refuse
trucks to the north side of the building where they can be backed up through anyone of six door
openings and have their contents deposited on the tipping floor or to direct them to either the south or
north side of the building where they can drive directly into the building, deposit their loads on the
tipping floor and exit the opposite side.
After the refuse vehicles deposit their contents on the tipping floor, they will exit the building, proceed
to the scales for a final weight check, and exit the facility by way of Mace Street or, in the case of
vehicles with pre-recorded tare weights, will proceed directly to the Mace Street exit.
Once deposited on the tipping floor, the solid waste will be "floor sorted" by facility personnel to
remove, to the extent possible, all recyclable items such as corrugated cardboard, wood, aluminum,
ferrous metals, concrete and asphalt rubble, green waste,. etc. This material "will be loaded into large.
semi-truck trailers and shipped to recyclable material processing facilities.
Due to the nature of the ~terial (Le. construction demolition debris, green waste, and co=ercial
business waste), it is anticipated that approximately 20 percent of the solid waste entering the facility
will be recovered in this manner for reuse. The remaining, non-recoverable material will be loaded into
larl1e volume transfer truck trailers and shiooed to a facilitv-desilmated l.l!T1nfi11
- --.
-3-
The work will be done in an enclosed structure. Approximately 1,000 tones of municipal solid waste
is expected to pass through the facility on a daily basis when operating at maximum capacity. The
operation will initially begin with 500 tons per day. AIl waste brought into the facility is proposed to
be shipped out the same day. According to information supplied by the applicant, the trash transfer
station will generate approximately 300 trips per day by all traffic arriving at and departing from the
facility.' .
The hours for the transfer station are proposed to be from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. An estimated 8
employees per shift with 2 shifts are planned. One hunclred customers (incoming deposits) per day are
estimated based on 1000 toD:S of material per day with each customer averaging 10 - 12 tons. There
are an estimated 40 deli.Yeries (outgoing trips) per day based on 1000 tons per day. The service area
is outside Chula Vista but within the greater Southbay based on current Otay landfill usage.
Discretionary Actions
The site is zoned IL-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan). Discretionary actions required for project
approval include a Special Land Use Permit, Design Review, a streambed alteration permit from the
California Deparunent of Fish and Game and possibly a permit from the Aimy Corp of Engineers. A
state solid waste facility permit is also required from the Solid Waste Management Board.
Environmental Controls
At the Planning Deparunent's request, in February 1995 Hans Giroux of Hans Giroux and Associates
reviewed preliminary plans for the proposed construction of a materials recovery facility Itransfer station
at 187 Mace Street. Comments and recommendations on design features to minim;7e potential nuisances
related to odor, dust and noise from such operations were requested. The result of that request was a
document titled Mace Street Transfer Station Nuisance Imoact Potential.
Recommendations generally covered three main areas:
1. Mechanical ventilation of the MRF/TS structure to disperse as emissions at roof-top instead of
ground level.
2. Installation of a dust control fogging system to which odor counter-reactant (OCR) could be
added for additional odor control, and,
3. Compliance with City of Chula Vista noise standards from operation of any mechanical
equipment and from on-site operations of tIUCks and materials handling equipment.
These recommendations were accepted by the applicant and inco~rated as part of the project design. '
A discussion of these and other "environmental controls" or design features incorporated into the project
design follow. .
/l ;2 -3
-4-
Dust
Dumping the contents of refuse trucks on the tipping floor and moving the materials to sort for
recyclables can create dust clouds, especially if the contents include dirt or construction and demolition
debris. The negative pressure/roof-top exhaust will remove some of the smallest dust particles, but the
heavier dust may settle out within the building on workers and equipment.
The heavier dust will be controlled through the use of a manually operated "fme misting system" located
above and immediately adjacent to the transfer vehicle loading pits at the east and west sides of the
building. Water is sprayed under very high pressure through nozzles. The tiny water droplets
agglomerate the suspended dust and cause it to settle out faster within the transfer station. Chemicals
will be added to the water for odor control. These chemicals have, in the past, been mainly deodorizing
agents. Dust control may therefore have an odor control benefit with the addition of such odor-reducing
agents. Any evidence of dirt "track-out" onto Mace Street shall be removed by washing or sweeping
at the conclusion of each work day. Implementation of the above described measures and incorporation
of these design features will reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
"-
Odors
'"
Odors will be controlled through (1) the use of "odor eaters" [i.e., odor counter-reactants (OCR)]
dispersed through the misting system and (2) the mechanical system which will be designed to provide
complete air changes every 15 minutes.
There are several products available which, when dispersed through a misting system as noted, will
actually eliminate odors as opposed to simply covering them up. The system shall contain provisions
to add an OCR to be activated when refuse odor is detectable beyond the property line. Sufficient on- ,
site OCR shall be maintained to supply the system for 48 hours at chemical feed levels reco=ended
by the OCR manufacturer.
The ventilation system will consist of two rows of six roof-mounted, ,8,000 cfm exhaust fans located
approximately 20 ft and 60 ft, respectively, from the south building wall. Four of the fans will be
mounted on the low roofs directly above the transfer vehicle loading pits; the other eight will be located
on the high building roof above the tipping floor. Air will be drawn into the building through the north
(3,150 sq. ft.) and south (900 sq ft) door openings and exhausted through the roof by the above noted
fans. The total volume of exhausted air will be approximately 1.44 million cu ft every 15 minutes or
96,000 cu ft per minute (cfm). A fine water mist will be released as required to remove any dust
particles from the air above the loading areas, but will be controlled such that standing water will not
accumulate on the tipping floor. Water from the loading dock will drain into the sanitary sewer.
Implementation of the above described measures and incorporation of these design features will reduce
impacts to below a level of significance. '
Noise
kly noise generated within the transfer building from operating equipment, trucks depositing their
contents on the tipping floor, the sorting out of recyclable materials, or the loading of transfer vehicles
is expected to be attenuated by the building structure. Nine-ft. high reinforced concrete push waIls will
r- /f.;2.-L/ - - -
-5-
surround the entire tipping floor except where door openfugs occur. These walls are intended to deaden
the sound generated from within the building.
Door openings on the north and south sides of the building are approximately 211 ft and 80 ft,
respectively, from the' north and south property lines. These distances will further attenuate any noise
generated within the transfer building. .
Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be shielded as required to reduce operating noise to acceptable
levels. The City noise standards must be met. Implementation of the above described measures and
incorporation of these design features will reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
Hazardous Materials
The applicant will be required to prepare a hazardous waste management plan for review and approval
by the Conservation Coordinator at the time of the building permit issuance. Since household hazardous
substances such as paint, aerosol cans, batteries, etc., may be found in solid waste loads which have
been deposited within the transfer building, a prefabricated, fire rated storage cabinet will be provided
for the temporary storage of such materials. This cabinet will be readily accessible to floor sorters in'
the event such materials are encountered and will be emptied of its contents on a regular basis which
will not exceed 90 days. The contents will be appropriately disposed of off-site by a licensed hazardous
materials contractor. Hazardous materials will not knowingly be accepted at this facility.
Vectors
The facility will be swept clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day thereby
eliminating nesting and hiding places for vectors. In the event that evidence is found of the existence
of vectors, professional exterminators, under contract with the facility operator, will eliminate them
from the facility site pursuant to the requirements of their service agreement.
LOose Trash
Facility personnel will circulate throughout the entire site on a regular basis plucking up loose and
blowing trash that may have dropped off of trucks entering or exiting the facility thereby keeping the
grounds clean and free of blowing debris.
C. Comoatibilitv with Zoninl!: and Plans
The site is within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan Area and is within the Montgomery Community
which is governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The parcel is designated Research and Industrial
Manufacturing on the General Plan and is zoned llrP (Limited Industrial-Pre;:ise Plan).
For lack of another category, the project is being processed as a "dump" (in the Code fi 19.54.0200)
which is considered an "Unclassified Use" that can be considered for location in any zone, subject to
the iSsuance of a conditional use permit.
An Unclassified Use is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and special fOIm as to
make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as set forth in the various
/I ;;2. --:;-
-6-
zones" (g 19.54.010.A). The purpose of the conditional use permit review is to "determine that the
characteristics of such use shall not be incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas
and for the further purpose of stipulating such conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic
purposes of this title shall be served." (g 19.54.01O:B)
'-
Given the performance standards, and mitigation measures of this l;md use at this location as
, incorporated in the project design and description as well as additional mitigation measures of this
document, there is not substantial evidence that a "fair argument" can be made that there would be a
significant land use conflict bringing about an adverse change in any of the physical conditions within
the area affected by the project. Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defmes "significant effect on
the environment" as a "substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." With the granting of a Special Land
Use Permit for the project, which includes the mitigating project design features described herein and
incorporated as conditions through the other mitigation measures set forth herein, the project could be
compatible with the City's applicable zoning and pl~ and performance standards regarding special land
use permits. However, additional fmdings 'would need to be made under the City's conditional
use/special land use permit process in order to support the issuance of such a permit. Therefore, there
is a potential land use compatibility issue at a policy level (Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest
Redevelopment Plan, Dtay Valley Regional Park Plan) not resulting in a physical change in the
environment.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial stUdy conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project as mitigated
will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section
15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Concerns regarding additional truck traffic and potential impacts of the same have been raised by
adjacent residents and property owners. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed use
and determined there will be no additional trips over and above the existing use. (See attached Trash
Transfer Station, Average Dailty Trips Generated.)
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid sil!Ilificant effects
The proposed land use will be subject to initial and continuous compliance with the performance
standards as specified in the Municipal Code.
Drainage
Th~ preliminary drainage study indicated that impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance an!i
that flnal improvement plans which include design features such as the use of Fnhmat (interlocking
blocks with voids to allow growth of vegetation acceptable to the Resource Agencies) that improve the
flow, decrease the velocity, min;m;7e flooding and increase erosion control protection shall be
incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City, Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit.
.ft,;) -u,
-7-
Water
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the Sweetwater Authority must provide clearance that there
are adequate water facilities (tank, pipes, etc.) and fire fio,,:_ to service the project.
Hazardous Waste
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit a Hazardous Waste Management
Plan for the approval of the Conservation Coordinator.
Odor
The operation of the transfer station's mechanical system which will provide complete air changes every
15 minutes, and the use of odor counter reactants dispersed through the misting system in the facility
will mitigate odor impacts to less than significant.
No storage of readily biodegradable material on-site for more than 48 hours, the mechanical ventilation
system being continually operated at one-third or more capacity if any readily biodegradable material
is stored indoors for more than 24 hours.
Noise
The enclosure of the operation within a building structure, including nine foot high reinforced concrete
walls, and shielding the roof mounted mechanical equipment will reduce noise le.vels to below
significance. Four of the eight rolI-up doors rem.ining normally closed are to be opened only when
the volume of truck traffic requires additional access to prevent truck queuing. .
State and Federal - Permits
Permits will need to be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corp
of Engineers (if required). A state solid waste facility permit is also required from the Solid Waste
Management Board.
Trash
The applicant must purchase a mini-street sweeper to keep the grounds free of loose trash.
Dust
Pavement of all travel paths and barriers to any unpaved surface~ is requ~.
klyevidence of dirt "track-out" onto Mace Street sha1I be removed by washing or sweeping at the
conclusion of each work: day. A misting system for" dust control sha1I be instaI1ed capable of
maintaining average dust levels of less than 5 mg/m3 in areas of public or on-site employee exposure.
/1;)....-7
-8-
G. Mandatory Findim!s of Significance
Based on the following fmdings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a
significant environmental impact and no environmental imp~~t report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fISh or wildlife species, cause a flShor wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to pliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant orl:lnimal, or pliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
, The site is currently developed as a trucking terminal and used as an unpermitted trash
transfer station. As the California Department of Fish and Game wi)l want to review
whether the reconstruction of the drainage channel on the eastern property line will
impact the quality of the habitat downstream from the project, the applicant will be
required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit and will be required to satisfy the State
Agency should they require any mitigation prior to the issuance of a City grading permit.
It is the opinion of the City that the project does not have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, to reduce the habitat of a fISh or wildlife species
or threaten to eliminate any animal or plant community.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
Compliance with the conditions and/or mitigation that may be required from the
California Department of Fish and Game, the Solid Waste Management Board and
possibly the Army Corp of Engineers, in addition to the mitigation measures stated
herein, shall insure that as long as the project operates, the project will not have the
potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.
This project does not have the potential to be individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. The environmental imaIysis contafued in the Initial Study considered
potential cumulative impacts. It was determined that with project specific mitigation
measures regarding water, hazardous waste, trash, noise, solid waste (permits) and
biology (permits), dust and odor impacts would be reduced to below a level of
significance and would not be "cumulatively considerable" in combination with current
and future probable projects result in impacts which could be "cumulatively
considcI)lble." /1 ;;L _?
-9-
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project subject to design features and mitigation measures incorporated
herein will not cause substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings either
directly or indirectly to the extent that it will be required to meet all threshold standards,
performance standards and requirements of various City departments and by so doing will
assure that the quality of life is maintained.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Onranizations
City of Chula Vista:
Roger Daoust, Engineering
John lippitt, Engineering
Cliff SWaDson, Engineering
Steve Thomas, Engineering
Bill Ullrich, Engineering
Kirk Ammerman, Engineering
Garry William., Planning
Martin Miller, Planning
Steve Griffm, planning
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Doug Perry, Fire Marshal
Emmett Horsfall, Fire Department
Captain Zell, Police Department
Mary Jane Diosdado, Police Department
Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Department
Barbara Reid, Planning
Alex Saucedo, Building Department
Glen Googins, City Attorney's Department
ChuIa Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Mark Watton
County of San Diego, Local Enforcement Agency: Ken Calvert
SEe Engineering: Pat Lawrence and Harry Cain
Algert Engineering: Jim. Algert
II;L -9
-10-
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan
Sky Trucking, Annual Precision Tightness T3nk Test, August 12, 1994 (in compliance
with California Underground Storage Tank Regulations)
Mace Street Transfer Station, Nuisance Impact Potential, Hans Giroux, February 2, 1995
'(This study analyzed the potential impacts of: odor, dust and noise)
Revort of Preliminarv Environmental Site Assessment (phase I-ESA) - 187 Mace Street,
Chula Vista, California by Southern California Soil and Testing Inc. - March 9,
1996
Transoortation and Circulation Studv. Skv TruckimrlPacific Disoosal- 187 Mace Street,
Chula Vista, 5/27/96
~
Hvdrolol1:V. Hvdraulics. Main Street, Jim Algert
Channel Bank Imorovement Plan, (Blueline) Jim Algert
Water Consumotion Data, Harry Cain
o~~~
Signan&
.s/It:. ~ 7'f;,
ate
Environmental Review Coordinator
(b,\mac:.Dd)
AJ.. -10
TRASH TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS GENERATED
July 19, 1996.
File No. 1'8-61.1.
I. EXISTING USE-SKY TRUCKING
TRUCK COUNT . 183 ONE-WAY TRIPS/DAY . 366 TWO-WAY TRIPS
EMPLOYEE AND PATRONS. 17 X 2 . 34 TWO-WAY TRIPS
TOTAL DAILY SEY nuamQ nIPS . 400 '!'WO-WAY nIPS
II. PROPOSED USE - PACIFIC DISPOSAL INC.
t CAPACITY (TONS/DAY):
sot (500)
,8StfSSO)
100t(1000)
A.
TRASH TRUCK TRIPS
8 TONS/TRIP: 63X2 . 126
TRANSFER TRUCK TRIPS
25 TONS/TRIP: 20X2 . 40
107X2 . 214
125X2 . 250
B.
34X2 - 6B
.. 40X2. 80
Expected transfer station plant capacity is 850 tons/day and
maximum capacity is 1000 tons/day. The trash trucks can carry
up to 12 tons but would average less than 9 tons/trip. The
transfer trucks can carry up to 25 tons/trip. Therefore the
total two-way daily trips at capacity is:
Trash Trucks . 250 two-way trips
Transfer Trucks .~ ~wo-way trips
TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS
. 330 two-way trips
C. Employees & patrons in passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks
are expected to generate about 70 two-way trips.
TOTAL PR.OJXC'1' DULY nIPS AT CAPACI'l'r. 330 + '10 . 400 '!'WO-WAY nIPS
The total number of trips for this project at lOOt facility'
capacity (1000 tons/day) is the same number of trips as Sky
',Trucking's vehicular trips. The number of heavy truck trips from
Sky Trucking (366) versus the proposed project'. at the anticipated
daily work rate of 850 tons/day (214 + 68.282) represents. heavy.
vehicle net reduction of 84 trips (23t). The comparative heavy
vehicle reduction at full capacity 1836 trips (lOt).
(M: \lCK\ElGlllEER\ lWfIC\MCEADT. FIR)
/l~ -II
".
TIllS PAGE INTENTIONAlLY BLANK
~
..
,!
" ~
:~]
:-,
.
l
/
'.
;
, .
.
~().-Id-
,/
:r,,,.r;:..nrT.e"l= C:~~~ .::....5 V
'3711 ~~~:;;~~alJ
Ni"ft: Fioor
, long !leoch. CA 9OS07
310 '2b-05U
FAX 310A27-0SC5
SCS ENGINEERS
".~..,
--'
FAClUTY DESCRlmON
" .'
SKY TRUCKING COMPANY .
CHULA VISTA TRANSFER STATION
.~,
_.~f
SITE DESCRIP!10N
This 4.72: acre facility site is located in south San Diego County at 187 Mace Street in
the City of Chula Vista. The -L1haped- site is accessed from Mace Street which dead
ends approximately 750 ft. south of the facility entrance..'
The site is zoned '-L. Limited Industrial. which is consistent with the surrounding property
uses. Currently, the site is being used a.a trucking terminal. Existing facilities include
three small-frame office structures adjacent to Mace Street and a large metal warehouse
building to the east of the frame buildings. The latter has an adjacent depressed loading
dock. Other facilities includa a fuel island and a truck scale. The existing facilities are to
be left in place with the exception of the fuel island and the most soUtherly frame
structure which interfere with the proposed access to the new facility.
TRANSFER BUILDING DESCRlmON
~
The proposed transfer building will measure 230 ft in the east-weat direction and 160 ft in ,
the north-south directionI3S;800sq ftl. The building will be primarily of prHngineered
, .,
metal construction with reinforced concrete.walls Ilong' a portion of the north and south
elevations. The eave heights will. be approximately 33 ft and the ridge will be approxi-
. .
mataly 40 ft above grede. ~. .:. ~,.. :' ,;...::;"d; .'
'.;~:..' t.~ .........--..,.... .....
There will be two c1epre,ssed loadi~.~ ~f100r7'-6-~~ fi~~ ~O~l;';::a~'on
the west and eest aides of the building accessed by ramps from the north lid. of the
' ,
building. The pits writ ~"'p8r.ted by I 200 ft wide grade level tipping floor. A 9.ft high
reinforced concrete push waU will separate the tipping floor from the loading pits.
' . .'/1 ~ '- (3 .
c
c
sa INGINIHS -
Truck ingress ~nd .gresa to and from the tipping f1oDl' will be thr~h six 16 ft wide by
28 ft high roll-up doDl's in the north wall of the building and two such doors near tha
center of the south well.
TRANSFER OPERATION DESCRIPTION
..... -..,;.
The facility will r.c.ive solid wast. from commercial business.s. construction and
demolition debris from construction sit.s. and green wast. from landscaping operations.
Conventional front DI' r.ar loading paCker trucks. trucks with roll-off boxes up to 24-ft
long. small dump trucks. and small trucks with trailers. .tc.. hauling these wastes will
enter the facility through the Mace Street entrance. cross the scales to be weighed in. and
proceed to the transfer building.
The transfer building is designed such that facility operators have the flexibility to direct
these refuse trucks to the north side of tha building where they can be backed up through
anyone of six door openings. and have thair contents deposited on the tipping floor DI' to
direct them to either the south or north side of the building where they can drive directly
into the building. deposit their loads on the tipping floor and exit the opposite side.
After the refuse vehicles deposit their contents on the tipping floor. they will exit the
building. proceed to the scales for a final weight check. and exit the facility by way of
Mace Street or. in the case of vehicles with prHlcorded tIIre weights. will' proceed
directly to the Mace Street exit.
,.. .
Once deposited on the tipping floor. the solid waste will be .floOr sorted- by facility
, ,
personnel to remcrve. to the extent possible. all recyclal?le items such as old corrugated
cardboard IOCCI. wood. aluminum. ferrous meals. concrete and asphalt rubble. green
waste. etc. This material wiD be loaded into transf.r vehicles and shipped to racyclable
material processing faciliti.s. ' ~" . . "~
Due to the nature of the material (i.... 'construction demolition debris. green wast.. and
commercial business wast.l. it is anticipated that approximately 20 percent of the solid
... ~ ,.... "
waste entering the facility will be recovered in this manner for reUl8~
/' ;2.. -Ie;. '_ .
@
v
u
sa IHGK-C-
The remeining, non-recovereble materiel will be lceded into lerge volume (100% cu vel
capacity) transfer trailer. and shipped to a. hlcility-designated.lendfill. These transfer
vehicles will enter the facility by way of the Mace Street entrance using the bypass lene
and exit onto Mece StrHt after atopping.et the scales for final w.ight r.cordetion. '
"..'. -' .~ ~ ,,-.. . ", '.
.,' pC '. _.'"
'. ,'. ....
. ,
. .,' ,. .'~ ",::' ,:
Assuming that a aingl. 850F front-end Ioad.r can load one trimsf.r vehicl. (17.5 % ton
capacity) .very 15 minutes, the facility capacity. using two Ialding pita, .nd operating at
eO-percent .ffici.ncy (i.... allowing for personnel breaks. incid.ntal work stoppage. etc.)
will be approximately 1.260 tons per 10 hour day.
",~' ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
~
Oust, if any is created through the transfer operations d.scribed below. will be controll.d
,through the use of a manually operat.d Wfine mistingW .yst.m located abova and imm.di~
at.ly adjac.nt to the tranaf.r vehicl. lceding pita at the .ast and w.st aides of the
building. The misting .yst.m will be operat.d by hlcility personnel,who will be obServing
the loading operations at all tim.s. A fine wat.r mist will be rel.ased as required to
r.move any dust particl.s from the air above the lceding arees, but will be controll.d .uch
, ' . that Stending water will not accumulati on the tipping floor.
Odors
Odors will be controll.d through (1) the use of wodor eat.rsw (i.... odor counter-raacta~)
,,' dispers.d through the misting syat.m.nd (21 the mechanical syst.m which will be
designed to provide complete air changes every 15 minut.s..,,:'~,"
. ',,,,' ,"
Ther. ar. saverel products avenable whi~! ~n dispersed through a misting system as
noted. will actually eliminate odors as ~pO..d to simPly covering them up:.' ,
. ..'
: .' ....... .
'"
The ventilation .ystem will consist of two rowl of six roof-mounted. 8.900 cfm exhaust
hlns locat.d .pproxim~~~r.. 20 ft and 60 ft. fUpectively. from the south building wall.
/l d -/~
c
c
c
sa ENGlHEaS -
Four of the fans will be mounted on the low roofs directly above the transfer vehicle
loading pits; the other aight wDl be located on the high building roof above the tipping
floor. Air will be drawn into the building through the north (3,150 sq ft) and south 1900
, .
sq ft) door openings and exhausted throu.llh the roof by the above noted fans. The total
volume ofaxhausted air will be approximately 1:44 million cu ft every 15 minutes or
96,000 cu ft per minUUlcfm).
tm!n
, ,
Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating equipment, trucks
depositing their contents on the tipping floor, the sorting 0\Jt of recyclable materials, or the
loading of transfer vehicles is 'expected to be attenuated by the building structure. Nine-ft
high reinforced concrete push walls will surround the entire tipping floor except where
door openings occur. These walls are intended to deaden the sound generated from within
the building.
Door openings on the north and south sides of the building are approximately 211ft and
SO ft, respectively, from the north and south property lines. These distances will further
attenuate any noise generated within the transfer building.
Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be shielded as required to reduce operating noise
to acceptable levels.
HaZllrdoul Material.
The facility will not knowingly accept hazardous materials; however, sine. hOUHhold
. hazardous substances such as paint, aerO$ol cans, battaries, Itc., meY be found in solid
waSte loads which have been deposited within the transfer building,. prefabricated, fire
med storage cabinet will be provided for the temporary stOrage ,of such materials. .,:This
cabinet will be readily accessible to 11001' eorters in the event such materials are encoun-
tered and will be emptied of Its contents pn a regular basis which will not exceed 90 days.
The contents will be appropriately disposed of off lite by a Iicensad hazardous materials
contractor.
- "
.."
/!;;L-/G.
o
v
u
sa EHOIHmS -
Vectors
The facility will be swept clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day
thereby eliminating nesting and hiding placel forvectorl. In the event that evidence is
found of the existence of vectors. professional e,rtenninators. under cOntract with the
facility oPerator. will eliminate them from the fa~lity site JlUl'lUant to the r"Quirements of
their service agreemant. ~.
Loose Trash
.- ~ '"
. Facility personnel will circulate throughout the entire site on a regular basis picking up
loose end blowing trash that mey have dropped off of trucks entering or'exiting the facility
thereby keeping the grounds clean and free of blowing debris.
.,,~.:.
- .~..:.
'"
.'"'....;,...-
.,.~..-. :-:-- .-,'.
. ,...
~':~ '.
p'.' .
. ;-.:.:: '.<'~~/;;~.:\.'
:
/::"
.. ::.,.' , -,",- .
,-.... .-
oj-;-. . '-
. ........'~: "~~~~"
-:.-......
~/.
....-:....-
/ld.--/7
o
G
(;
;:11
,!It."
.. , J:' .. _~" . '., .
.:.~::':: ~,":;',;.::' . .
'. ..-.- .:....s:.:;.....<1. .
'.. .~.:.;,::..~.:-~--".:
.',
".:~..
'tJ
::%J
0
'tJ
- 0
CI)
l'T1
.0
I!!
l'T1 !
~
:! I
0
2:
'I CI)
1$
CIl
~ 0
c:
,- III "'l
~ CIl :c
"'l
-~ ..
!.
-
. -
.:~~'
Rm--'
t p~ TllANSFSI ST1J1OH
)( I i" FOR SOI1TH BAY _~GION. .
. :~
~I
"a
".0'
=-
- I~!. :....
;1 ",:
" '..' ~ ',''''
'.. - .... ~ " '. :...~f~/;~~~,-.:.
. :'--.; '.::...,..'
',;". . . ,'. -
, .
,111
.~
CIl
.' "'l
......
.' ,.
%.--:-'
..
-
.....
. -- "'~';:-'-':.;['" ~ , --
.- :~:--'.':"'-:
/I'd-
/<2
"
~ ..........,,,,.........- c....... BS
, ~'i,~~"CT~I~I.'!!..":.~M.~~_1!
m
~.
APPUCATION CANNOT BE \':'''CEPTED uNLEss SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO m nrro AN 8-1/2 X 11 FOLDER
INTI1AL STUDY
#brrifiiceu$b ",
caseNtS 'f:50ply I ,
.jt~
'pp&tNo (00440 ,',',',
~~~:;k~,f::~::;]~;
!?!!!~~,!!~-::j,:;[
City of Chula Vista
, Application Foml
A.
BACKGROUND
1. Project Title f"~c@ StT~et TTRnp:;fpT' ~tRt; nn
2. Project Location (Street address ordescrlption) 187 Mace Street
Chula Vista
Assessors Book, Page &. Parcel No. 629-130-27
Brief Project Description Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station
( See Attachment)
4. Name of Applicant ~kv 'rTl1rJ.rino Tn,.
Address 187 Mace Street Fax# 234-2338 Phone 234-8744
City Chula Vista State CR Zip qlqll
S. Nmneof~p~~Agmt MRrk WR~~nn
Address 412 Crosby Street Fax# 234-2338 Phone 234-8744
City San Die20 State CR Zip q?ll~
~elation to Applicant r n n ~", ... Q'" to
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environment':
Review Coordinator.
a. Pennits or approvals required, ~
, ..
/ '
--'-. . --_/
.'
, .'
_ General Plan Amendment
_ RezonelPrezooe
_ Grading Permit
___ Tenwive Parcel Map ,
_ Site'Plan &. Arch. Review.,
_ Spe;:iaI Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. M~p
_ Redevelopment Ag~cy OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
/
_ Specific Plan
Conditional Use Permit
= Variance '
_ Coastal Development
_ Olber Permit
If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from
to
b.
~ Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map
_ Precise Plan' ,
_ Specific Plan
_ traffIC Impact Repon
_ Hazardous Waste Assessment
Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
Arch. E1evatiCIIS '
" -, Jlnl1<1'llpe Plans .
, = T=wive Subd. Map
_Improvement Plans
_ Soils Report
_ GeoIeclmical Repcrt
Ac2 -/9
_ Hydrological Study
Biological Study
- Archaeological Study
- .
NOise Assessment
- Other Agency Permit
= Olber
(
7. Indicate other applica:ions for permits or approvals thal are bein&'submitted al this time.
a. Permits' or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
Rezone,lPrezone
- Gradio Permit
- g
Tentative ParccI Map
- Site Plan &. Arch. Review
. = Special Use Permit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_Redevelopment Ageney OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
~ Public Project
_ Annexation
_ Specific Plan
. Conditional UP'
_ se enmt
Varimce
_ Coastal Development
Other Permit
1.
a.
Land Area: square footage 204. 296 or acreage 4. 6 q
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and pmpose.
~
b. Does the project involve the constrUction of new buildings, or will existing structure be
uti1ized?Existino St:THr.t:l1T"P~ wi" h'p .;n"''''''''p'''''I''ct'orl ;n+-n Heo
along with a new building.
2. Complete this section if project is residenti31 or mixed use.
a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Townhouse Condominiwn
b. Total number of structureS
c. Maximum height of structureS
d. Number of Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
-
Total Units
-
e. Gross density (OU/total acres)
f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
g. Estimated project population
h. Estimaled sale or rental price range
i. Square footage of strueture
j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or Slr\ICt1IreS
k. Nwnber of on-site parking spaces to be provided
L Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
L Type(s) of land use Tnnl1l1:t'T",,'C11
b. Floor area 4 9 , 000 Height of strUCtUreS(s) 4 3' -
c. TypeofconstrUctionusedinthestructure Eristinll structures - Bln~k
and metal buildin s. 'New 39,0005F build'
meta wit concrete wainscot.
/1 .;t - d-D
_."' _...n..___~
, I
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the onentation to adjoining propenies
and~ts Site access will be from Mace Street. Due to flag shap
of parcel, majority of activity will not be visible to Mace St
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 2.()
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 8
Number of shifts 2 Total 1 6
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate 100 Ba sed 0 n
1000 tons oer day with @8ch cu~tnmer ~VPT~o;no 10-12 ~nn~ each
h. Estimated number of deliveries per day 40 Based on 1000 tons per day
i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate G rea t e r Sou t h b 8 V are a
based on current Otav landfill tlS@BPe.
j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings None. All ac t i vi t y
inside facility.
- k. Hours of operation 6 am to 10 pm
1. Type of exterior lighting High pressure, sodium, downward directed.
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures '
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum,
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
h. Additional project characteristics
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
.
1. Will the project be requiIed to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)?
Yes. Transfer building will have an oder and dust control
system with a negative air pressure collector for the tippingifloor.
/l ;2 -c2(
WPC~~Oll.A..!,l~ l.Qlll,93) (Rd._Im93)
Page 3
2. Is any type of grading'or excavation of the propeny anticipaIed?" N 0
If yes. complete the following:
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
Onlv inrirlp"~~' ~m"'l~~~' fnr ~~" ~^?tj~~~. ~
0: E_E..
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of
energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
( See Attachment ~ )
",
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
o
S. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these
jo~. Approximately 15 positions, ran2in2 from a ~itp m~"~iQr
and accountant. eouinmpnt np~~~~~~. sun~rvi~nr ~nn l~hnr
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? Only fuel for loadin~ eQuioment ( di"",,' ,
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project?
( See Attachment A )
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of
access or cOIUlection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, II1d sewer lines; cut II1d fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. All improvements ar.. in 1"n ,,; ....
/1 ;L '- d d-.
\
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
\
,
1.
Geolol!Y
Has a geology study been conducted on the property?
(If yes, please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made?
(If yes, please attach)
J.:n
Yes
( .See Attaeh..d )
.'
2. . HvdrololZV
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? Y.. "
(If yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is .there lilY surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No
c.
Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
Yes. Draina~e from Main Street to Otav Riv..r in Rn lInlinfut
D fffr th . . draindirect1 . ard d' c nnel.
DeS IUnO om e project sne y m to or tow a omestlC water supp y,
lake, reservoir or bay? No
Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No
b.
d.
e.
Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. S tan d a r d des i g n
for industrial site to conform to existing regulations.
3. Noise
a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site?
Existin~ industrial uses surround site
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single-
family residences)? No.
4. Biolol!Y
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? No
b. Is the project site in a natUrlIl or partially natural state? . No
c. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes No (Please attach a copy.)
d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate loc:aiion, height, diameter, and
species of trees, II1d which (if lilY) will be removed by the project. . N 0 n e
.A ~ - ,;2.3
"""".-",~~Q1I..t..n.~IOlll.93)~I~)
Pile S
,......
5. Past Use of the Land
a. AIe there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? No
b. Are there any known paleontological resources? No
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or storCd on or near the project site?
Not on site. Not aware of any'p..rmitter near site. Site
does have permitted diesel fuel storage tank.
d. What was the land previously used for? Industrial Truck terminal
~nrl ~Tl1rk Rnrl tTRilPT nRrkino
6.
Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Th r e e b 1 0 c k
buildin2s of aoorox. 2440 S.F. one metal buildinQ aoprox.
9BOOS.F.,diesel fuel facility, truck scale and parking. area.
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
North
South
East
West
'-
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? No If so, how many1
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site1 Yes
If so, how many and what type'? 9. 3 office and 6 yard workers
8. Please provide any other information which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
see attachment A
A J.. -.,,2. Lj
l'a2e6
E. CERTIFlCA nON
.......)
--
or
I, conPJh~ or!~ .
4#1 u.
.-.ll,,~ C,,<)"'71cvV
Print name
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein COIltained are in all
respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been
included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for
attachments thereto.
,<b J'd7~ 'Y
or
I4fJt1J~~
Consultant or Agent Signature
.5-15-75
Date .
elf acting for a corporation, include capacity II1d compll1y name.
/1 ;2 - c:2 ;;;:-
. ~021.A.13~ 1tnc.:93) (w'Jl!P-93l
P~7
INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Name of Applicant 5 K. .
Address: I
City: 1 r';-",
Name of Authorized Representative (if signatory):
Address: 4/2 C~s-~y <7,
City -:5A ^" Of ,<......"
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount
,
Stale .,....
fl1il~ ~A?"'7"t.'"",'
Phone 2.3+-~'?+
Zip 91 :J"
Stale c....
Phone Z"3 ~ - 8 ">+tf
Zip 92.,_?
This Agreement ("Agreement.) between the City of Chula Vista, a chart=d municipal corporation ("City")
and the forenamed applicant foe an Initial Swdy ("Applicant.), effective as of the Agreement Dale set forth above,
is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas, the Applicant has applied to the City fer an Initial Swdy of the type afc.eref=nced ("Initial
Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting the Applicant to develop a parcel
of property; and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in ordc:r to process said Initial Swdy tIuough the various departments
and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services.); and,
Whereas, the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City fer all expenses it will incur in connection
with providing the Processing Services;
Now, therefore, the panies do hereby agree, in exchange foe the mutual promises herein conlained, as
follows:
1. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
The Applicant shall pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Service related to
applicant's Initial Swdy, including all of the City's direct and overllead costs related th=to. This duty of
the Applicant shall be referred to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay."
A. Applicant's Deposit Duty
As partia1 performance of the Applicant's Duty to Pay, the Applicant shall deposit the amount
aforereferenced ("Deposit.), . .
1. The City shaI1 charge its lawful apenses incurred in providing Processing Services
against the Applicant's DeposiL If, after the cooc:lusion of processing the Applicant's
Initial Study, any portioo of the Deposit remains, the City shall relUm said balance to the
Applicant without inlel'eSt therea1, If, during the processing of the Applicant's Initial
Study, the amount of the Deposit bec:omes exhaustCd, oe is imminently likely to bealme
exhausled in the opinion of the City, upon IlCltice ofsame by the City, the Applicant shall
forthwith provide such additional deposit IS the City shall calcu1a1e IS reasonably
-.:" "'"'/ to c:ontinue to provide Proc:essing Servic:cs. . The duty of the Applicant to
initially deposit and kl supplement said deposit IS herein required sha11 be known as the
.Applicant's Deposit Duty.,
n. City's Duty
The City shall, upon me c:onditiOll thal the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Pay oe the
Applicant's Deposit Duty, ase good faith to provide processing services in relation to the AppIicant'slnitial
Study applicalion.
~ d- - d--{p
._"-.Q~",~-
)
--'
A. The City shall have no liability hereunder to the Applicant for the failure to process the Applicant's
Initial Study application, or for failure. to process the Applicant's Initial Study within the time
frame requested by the Applicant or estimated by the City.
B. By execution of this agreement, the Applicant sha1I have no right to direct or otherwise influence
the conduct of the Initial Study for whic:h the applicant has appUed. The City sha1I use its
discretion in evaluating the App1icant's Initial Study applicalion withOut regard to the Applicant's
promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement.
III. Remedies
A. Suspension of Processing
In addition to all other rights and remedies wlUch the City shall othc:rwise have at Jaw or equity,
the Qty has the right to suspend ardIor withhold the processing of the Initial Study whic:h is the
subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study which may be the subject matter of
any other Pennit which Applicant has before the City,
B. Civil CoUection
In addition to all other rightS and remedies which the City sha1I otherwise have all Jaw or equity,
the City has the right to coUect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action,
and upon instituting litigation to coUect same, the prevailing party sha1I be entitled to r=lSOnable
anomey's fees had costs.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Notices
All notices, demands or requests p-ovided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement
must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party sha1I be deemed to
have been p-operly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail,
addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or cenified, with return receipt requested, at
the addresses identified adjacent to the' signatures of the parties reJll=SCnted.
B. Governing Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the Slate of
Califcmia. Any action arising under or relating to this Agr=nent sha1I be tI'Ought only in the
federal or state courts located in San Diego County, Slate of California, and if applicable, the City
of Cbula Vista, or as close thereto IS possible. Venue for this agreement, and petfonnance
hereunder, shall be the City of OIula Vista.
C. Multiple Signatories
If there are multiple signatories to this agr=nent 011 beha1f of Applicant, each of such signatories
sha1I be jointly and sev=lly liable for the petfonnance of Applicant's duties herein set forth.
D. Signatoty AullKrity
The signatory to this agreement bereby wmatllS and ICpfCSClIlS dIat it is the duly designated agent
for the App1icant and has been duly ItIthcxized by the AppIit:ant to execute this Agreement 011
behalf of the Applicant. Signatory sha1I be penonaIly liable for Applicant's Duty 10 Pay and
Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized 10 execute this Agreement by
the Applicant.
//;;2-;2.7
Page 9
WPC~O%l.A33 (Ie: Irno.93) (Ie: 1lln.9l)
~
E. Hold Harmless
Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold hannless the City, its eleaed and appointed officers
and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including
without \imitation al1Omeys' fees) arising OUI of processing Applicant's Initial Study, except only
for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of lhe City. incum:d by
the City. its offlCm. agents, or employees' in defepding against such claims, whether lhe same
proceed to judgement or not. Funher, the Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written
request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against lhe City, its off=, agents,
or employees. Applicant's indemnifcatioo of lhe City sha11 be limited by any prior or subsequent
declaration by lhe ApplicanL
F, Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
No suit or 8IbitratiOll sbal1 be brought arising out of Ibis agreement, against the City unless a claim
has mt been pmented in writing and filed with the City of OIuIa Visla and acted upon by the
City of Chula Vista in accord:lIlce with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of lhe Chula Visla
Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are
incorporated by the reference as if fu1ly set fonh herein, and such policies and proc:edwes used by
the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by the City, the Applicant sbal1 meet and
confer in good faith with the City for the pwpose of resolving any dispute over lhe termS of Ibis
AgreemenL
Now, lherefore, the parties heretO. having read and undersl.ood the terms and conditions of lhis agreement,
do hereby express their consent 10 lhe tenns hereof by setting their hand hmlo 00 the date set forth adjacent theretO.
City
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
. By:
Dated: .
Applicant (or authorized representative)
~ //'W~-"-
By:
#~
By:
Dated:
'5 ::-1-S--.'75
/Id-.-d-?
~ "_P.'t_R~.....1n
"
)
'-.-'
THE Cm' OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE SI'ATEMENT
Swement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which
will require discretiollalj' action on the pan of the City Council. Planning Commission, Illd all other official bodies.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons have a fin""..;.1 interest in the COIIII'acl, i.e., colllr1Clor, subcontractor,
malCr:iai supplier. .
IV/...
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporuion or partnership, list the IWIlCS of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporuion or oWl\ing illY pll'lllmhip interest in
the partnership. .
::]OJ-IIlI Cw I Li.-i.u ~-!
S4,..v"tt~ C-ttU,IN>t.;;I
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organizltion or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as di=tor of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or ll'UStee of the ll'USt.
,.,/...
4. Have you had more than 52S0 wonh of business traIISaCled with illY member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Coli1minees and Council within the pastlWelve months?
Ale. .
5. Please identify each and every person, inl:luding illY agents, employees, COIISU!tanlS or independent
contractors who you ha.x~ assigned to represent you \l,efore the City in this matter.
/I7A<Ub- Woll,~. (}.cnI!7';c,f'VIJr-
6. Have you IlId/or your officers or agents, in the aggreglle, contributed more than 51,000 to a Council
member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No J>4. If yes,.Jl1lC which Council
member(s): .
- is dofiood os: "lorry iDdivicIua1,lirm, co-pollIlOlIhip,joilll_, . '''''', 00<i0l cIal>. fnIImaJ ............... ...~Con,.......
lnIIl, JOCoiyer, syJIdic:m,1llis 0Ild I1rf -""""'l'. oily 0Ild COIlllly, oily, . 'I ';,y, _ .,odlorpoliljcol ~.,""l'-1JlIUP
or IOlIIIIbiIIoDonoaiDlos allDil."
Dlle:
5-15-'75
(NOtE: ADdlIlldilioml pile< os .........,.)
~N {'H'U-I"'~V
Prim or type DIllIe of COIIl1'IClor/lppliClllt
,A c2 -c:J...9
.,~""~l'>,'.""'.' ",.,..-........_
Case No. I S-q:;- 14
APPENDIX m
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L
Carrenl ZoninlZ on site:
North
South
East
West
b' a r i . PI an
IL-P Limited Industrial sub~ect to a Precise P an
IL-P Limited lndustrlal subJect to a Preclse:Plan
IL-P limited Industrial subiect.to a Precise Plan
IL-P'limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
Does the project confonn to 1he current zoning'? Yes. with the orantino of a Soecial Use Pennit
n.
General Plan land use designation on site: Research and Limited Industrial subject to a precj'se
North Research and Limited lndustrlal sUbJect to a PreC1S Plan P an
South Research and Limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
East Research and Limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
VVe~ Resparch and I imited Industrial subiect to a Precise Plan
'-
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Dagram? Yes, with the granting of a
Speclal Use Permlt
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to 111 area 10 designated'?
Pro;ect area is in close nroximitvto the Otav River and future Otav Valley Reaional Pa
Is !he project located adjacent to lilY scenic routes? No
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance !he scenic quality of the
route).
m $chools
If the proposed project, is residential, please complete the following: N/ A
School
Canacitv
Enrollment
Units
Prooosed
Geoerating
Factcn
.SlIIdeDts
GeDeraled
From Proiect
~~t"'Y
mOl' High
Seuior High
. IV. Remmks:
,.
.30
:J9
.10
---
ouE;-~~.. ..
. Auoust 16. 1996
Date
~D2UJU.~:!'>CIoC:llIlU3~ ,
A 02- - 3-0
PIp 1
Case No.JS.9S.14
ENVIRONMENTAL ClIECKLlST FORM
:
1. Name of Proponent: Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc.
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
.- .
City of ChuIa Vista:
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3, .. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc.
187 Mace Street
Chula Vista, CA 91911 ..
234-8744
4. Name or Proposal: Mace Street Transfer Station
5. Date or Checklist: August 16, 1996
- ....-..~
,..
-.or - - .-.... ~-
--- lw- ... '~- No
..... ......... ..... ......
I. LAND USE.AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or .0 0 181 0
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 181 0
plans or policies adopted by agencies
with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or .' 0 0 0 181
operations (e.g., impacts to soils Or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)?
.__._. ._n .. .-.
/I.;) -5-(
..~ ....1. Pap 1
P_aIJy
S1pUftant
Impad
_all,
SlpUftant
UnI...
M111pted
Les.llwI
SlpUftcont
Impad
N.
1m....
d) Disrupt or divide the physical 0 0 0 181
arrangement of an established ,
community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
Comments: The applicant must obtain approval of a Special Use Permit and Design
Review application. The applicant needs to obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit
from the California Department of Fish & Game and possibly a permit from the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers as a result of the improvements that are needed to the
channel on the eastern edge of the property. A State Solid Waste Facility Permit is
also required from the Solid Waste Management Board. The City Engineer will
confirm in coordination with the Planning Department that all impacts have been
mitigated to below a level of significance.
The site is within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan Area and is within the
Montgomery Community which is governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The
parcel is designated Research and Industrial Manufacturing on the General Plan and
is zoned ll..-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan),
For lack of another category, the project is being processed as a "dump" (in the Code
~ 19.54.020G) which is considered an "Unclassified Use" that can be considered for
location in any zone, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit
An Unclassified Use is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and
special form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes
of use as set forth in the various zones" (~19.54.0l0.A), The purpose of the
conditional use permit review is to "determine that the characteristics of such use shall
not be incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas and for the
further purpose of stipulating such conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic
purposes of this title shall be served," (~19.54.010.B)
"............
/l ;;2 - ~ d.-
PageZ
"-&11,
51pdll<Ont
Imp...
_&II,
SlpdDcmt
thlJ...
MlUpled
Leu.....
Slpdll-
Impact
No
Impact
Given the performance standards, and mitigation measures of this land use at this
location as incorporated in the project design 'and description as well as additional
mitigation measures of this document, there is not sUbstantial evidence that a "fair
argument" can be made that there would be a significant land use conflict bringing
about an adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by
the project. Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines "significant effect on the
environment" as a .substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance..
With the granting of a Special Land Use Permit for the project, which includes the
mitigating project design features descnbed herein and incorporated as conditions
through the other mitigation measures set forth herein, the project could be
compatible with the City's applicable zoning and plans and performance staD.dards
regarding special land use permits. However additional findings would be need to be
made under the City's conditional use/special land use permit process in order to
support the issuance of such a permit. Therefore, there is a potential land use
compatibility issue at a policy level (Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest
Redevelopment Plan, Otay Valley Regional Park Plan) not resulting in a physical
change in the environment.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 181
local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 0 0 181
either directly or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or
eXtension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 181
affordable housing?
Comments: The proposed project will not induce growth as it will service the existing
area. Housing will not be displaced as the existing land use is a truck transfer station,
-
/ld.-33
Page 3
Potentiall,.
P_aIJy SIJnIllcanl Leu !ban
SlJnlllant W... SIJnIll_t No
1m.... Mldllded Imp"" Imp""
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts .
involving:
Ii) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 18I
geologic substructures?
. b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction 0 0 0 18I
or overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 18I
relief features?
d) The destruction, covering or 0 0 0 18I
modification of any unique geologic or
physical features?
e) AJJ.y increasein wind or water erosion of 0 0 18I 0
soils, either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of 0 18I 0 0
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or
lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to 0 0 18I 0
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or
similar hazards?
Comments: The paving of this currently unpaved site could bring about an
insignificant increase in the erosion of soils into the channel to the east of the
property as a result of moving the unsupported fill. The improvements required prior
to issuance of a grading permit as discussed in Section F of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration under drainage mitigate any erosion to a level below significance.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
o
18I
o
o
"..........
,/fd- -.3~
Page 4
Po<onualJ,
Po<onualJ, Slpilllcmt Leu ....
SlpdJ100nl VDleu SlpUIcmt No
illlpoct M1Uplod illlpoct illlpoct
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 ~ 0
related hazards such as flooding or' tidal -
waves? -
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 I8l
alteration of surface water quality (e.g,.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water 0 0 ~ 0
in any water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 ~
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground 0 0 0 I8l
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 I8l
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 I8l
i) Alterations to the course or flow of D. 0 0 ~
flood waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 ~
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
--
A c2 -..3.s-
Page 5
_ally
Slp1llIcon'
Imp'"
PotmUal1r
Slp1llIcont
VnI...
M1dplOd
Leu......
Slp1llIcont
Imp...
No
Impact
Comments: The paving of this site could cause more run-off and as a result an
insignificant increase in the amount of surface water. This is a less than significant
impact. An updated soils study will be needed prior to issuance a grading permit. A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed in March of 1996 by Southern
California Soil - Testing Inc. reviewed features of surface staining of soil, the presence
of petroleum products and subsurface fuel storage tanks. There was no indication that
the degree of surficial contamination and possible subsurface contamination exceeds
that expected for sites that support commercial operations such as the subject site. No
further studies were recommended or appeared to be needed at this. time. With the
implementation of Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, drainage, all
changes in the rate and surface runoff will be mitigated to below a level of
significance.
V. AIR QUALI'IY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
o
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
climate, either loca~y or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
o
o
e) Create a substantial increase in
stationary or non-stationary sources of
air emissions or the deterioration of
ambient air quality?
o
o
o
18I
o
18I
o
D.
o
o
o
18I
18I
o
18I
b:Qac:c.dU.
/l d.. - 3--~
Page 6
-.or
-.u,. ....- 1.-_
....- two. ....- Jio
J.poct . - '.' -- J.poct
Currently, any significant increase of air poDu.tant "m;...,;ons is significant because of
an non-attainment condition, however, there will no increase in trips as a result of this
project. -
The operation of the transfer station's mechanical system which will provide complete
air changes every 15 minutes, and the use of odor counter-reactants (OCR) dispersed
through the misting system in the facility will mitigate odor impacts to less than
significant.
Comments: Giroux & Associates reviewed a detailed facility description and site .
drawings and conducted a site visit to view existing truck terminal operations. Their
observations and recommendations are as follows: .
. The open doors provide an inlet for air to circulate in the odor control
system and the odors are processed and exit through the ceiling exhaust.
. The existing operation shows evidence of dirt Otrack-outO from truck
terminal traffic. Pavement of all travel paths and barriers to any access of
unpaved surfaces is recommended. .
. The misting system with an OCR option is othe state of the art" in dust/odor
control:
.
.
Mitigation measures that have been included in Section F of the Negative Declaration
or have been incorporated into the project plans include:
. That four of the eight roll-up doors remaining normally closed be opened
only when the volume of truck traffic requires additional ,~ss to prevent
truck queuing.
. No storage of readily biodegradable material on-site for more than 48 hours,
the mechanical ventilation system being continually operated at one-third or
more capacity if any readily biodegradable material is stored indoors for
more than 24 hOlUS.
. Aity evidence of dirt "track-out" onto Mace Street shall be removed by
washing or sweeping at the conclusion of each workday.
. A misting system for dust control shall be in.stalled capable of maintaining
average dust levels of less than 5 mg/m' in areas of public or on-site
employee aposure.
. The system shall contain provisions to add an OCR to be activated when
refuse odor is detectable beyond the property line.
. Sufficient OCR shall be maintained on-site to supply the System for 48
hours at chemical feed levels r~~mended by the OCR manufacturer.
-
/ld2-37
Pap 7
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in: '.
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
b) Hazar4s to safety from design features
(e.g., shlUp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access
to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
-.or
p ''''7 ~
...."'- v..a...
-..s IIlIIlIpod
o
o
to._
-....
-..s
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pl.
JIopact
181
181
181
181
'.
181
181
181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent
of 2400 or more average daily yehicle
trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips. )
Comments: The Traffic Engineering Division has detetmined that DO additional trips
over the current use are expected and that reconstruction of Mace Street and Main
Street are Dot required as a result of this project. Attached to the mitigated negative
declaration is a detailed break-down of the projected average daily trips (AD1)
expected to be generated currently with the proposed use. Studies supplied by the
applicant and reviewed by the Engineering Department are referenced in Section H,
Documents.
o
o
/l;;2.-36'
Paae I
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
r 'A~
~ -. Ofl-..t I..I Or.at
~_ ._~ tw.. -_ .-- No
~ ._~ -.. ... IIIped
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive ~es, species of
concern or species that are candidates
for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)? .
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian
and vernal pool)? .
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation [J [J [J Il:O
planning efforts?
Comments: As the pad is already developed and used for a truck terminal, there are
no biologically sensitive resources on site. As there is a mitigation measure requiring
the applicant to reconstruct the adjacent channel, the applicant will be required to
obtain permits from the California Department of Fish & Game and the Army Corps
of Engineers, and to meet any mitigation measures that may be required as a result of
the same.
D
D
D
Il:O
[J
D
D
Il:O
D
D
D
Il:O
[J
Il:O
D
D
[J
D
D
Il:O
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy D D [J Il:O
conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a D D D ~
wasteful and inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral D D D Il:O
resource protection, will this project
impact this protection?
t......O..- ..&.~
/l.;z -39
p... 9
---'!1
r .~ "p-"I~ lMIOaIn
-L .~ twe.. -_ ""- No
...... Mtlpood ...... ......
Comments: The proposed project will not conflict with adopted energy CODseIVlltion
plans, use non-renewable resources and is not designated for mineraI resource
protection.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release. IJ IJ IJ ~
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to: petroleum products,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency IJ 0 0 ~
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
~
,.
c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 ~ 0 0
potential health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources 0 0 0 . ~
of potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 ~
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
Coinments: The applicant must provide a Hazardous Waster Management Plan prior
to issuance of a grading permit. The applicant's compliance will mitigate impacts to
below a level of significance, Access for fire equipment is also required.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
o
o
mI
181
o
o
IJ
o
V ...a...
/1 oJ - r./ ()
Pop 10
,. '.~
~ -. .11..... t..Oae
- _ '-.-of tw- IIpIfSCI:Id. N.
...... .....,..... J.pect J.pad .
Comments: Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating
equipment, trucks depositing their contents on the tipping floor, the IOrting out of
recyclable materials, or the loading of transfer vehicles is expected to be attenuated by
the building structure. Nine-ft. high reinforced concrete push walls willsulfound the
entire tipping flQOr except where door openings occur. These walls are intended to
deaden the sound generated from within the building.
Door openings on the north and south sides of the building are apprCDimately 211 it
and 80 it, respectively, from the north and south property lines. These 4istances will
further attenuate any noise generated within the transfer building,
Roof.mounted mechanical equipment will be shielded as required to reduce operating
noise to acceptable levels. The City noise standards must be.met Implementation of "
the above descn'bed measures and incorporation of theSe design features will reduce
impacts to below a level of significance. Four of the eight roll-up doors rem$ing
normally closed are to be opened only when the volume of truck traffic requires
additional access to prevent truck queuing.
XI. PUBUC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or resub in a need for
new or altered government services in any of
the following aretlS:
a) Fire protection? CI CI CI 181
b) Police protection? CI CI CI 181
c) SchooIs?- CI CI CI 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, 'CI CI 181 CI
including roads?
e) Other governmental services? CI CI CI 181
Comments: Prior to issuance of a grading pennit the Sweetwater Authority must
provide clearance that there are adequate '!4ter facilities (tanks, pipes, etc.) and fire
flow to service the project .
It:'- ..a.~
/I.;). - c./ I
Poaell
1 "~
-~...~
---
-.u,.
-.'fl_
tIIaI.-
.....,..-
t.._
- ""emf
..,...
No
J.poct
XII.
. .
ThresbOlds. Will the proposal advmeli
impact the City:S Threshold Standards?
As desCribed below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the
seen Threshold Standards.
o
o
o
181
a) Fire/EMS
o
[J
181
o
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of
Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response
time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units' must respond
to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an
average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The
proposed project will not comply with this Threshold Standard. The
estimated response time for this project for Priority 1 calls is 5:43 and 7:19
for Priority 2 calls.
Comments: The Crime Prevention staff of the Police Department state that they will
be able to provide an adequate level of seIVice for this ~ site and there is no
expected increase in personnel or equipment in order to maintain Police Department
services. Upon project approval, and prior to completion of. this project, a security
evaluation by Crime Prevention personnel is recommended.
-
.Ad-.-4J....
pqeU
-.n,
r '..111 - . "am I-_
~ Vol.. - O"-lf N.
...... ....i - '- ...... ..,...
c} Traffic 0 0 0 181
~.
The Threshold StaDdards require that all mtersections must operate at a
Level of Service (LOS) .C' or better, with the exception that Level of
Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two houts of the day at
signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a
LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F'
during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with
freeway ramps are exempted from this StaDdarcL The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold StaDdard.
Comments: The Engineering Department requires that the existing 6-foot-wide
roadway easement be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista. Along the frontage of
Mace Street the completion of curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway improvements are '.
required as well as the installation of street lighting.
Concerns regarding additional truck traffic and potential impacts of the same have
been raised by adjacent residents and property owners. The Engineering Department
has reviewed the proposed use and determined there will be no additional trips over
and above the existing use, (See attached Trash Transfer Station, Average Daily Trips
Generated.)
d} ParkslRecreation
o
o
[J
181
Comments: The Threshold standard for Parks and Recreation does not apply to this
prOject as the transfer station is not a residential use.
e} Drainage
.0
[J
181
[J
The Threshold StaDdards require that storm water flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering StaDdards. Individual projects
will provide l1ece~'1JY improvements consistent with the Drainage
Master P1an(s} and City Engineering Standards. The proposed will
comply with this Threshold Standard upon approval of final
improvement plans. .
.............. ....~
/i ;2 -'-13
Pqe13
-.zq
r '.'l7 - ..... .....o.n
- _ .~ tw.. ~&a~ No
...... -... . Ioopoct Ioopoct
Comments: The preliminazy drainage mdy ip.dicated that impacts can bc mitigated
to a levcl bclow significance and final improYemcnt plans will bc submitted prior to
issuance of a grading permit If a manufactured system is going to be used for
drainage improvements, the Engineering Departmcnt must approve the same.
f) Sewer
[J
[J
[J
I!!:I
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes Dot
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide
necessary improvemcnts consistent with Sewcr ~astei' Plan(s) and
City Engineering Standards. The proposed project complies with
this Threshold Standard.
'-
.
Comments: Following a review of detailed information forWarded by the applicant, it
was determined that no additional sewerage facilities services are needed to meet City
threshold standards.
g) Water
The Thrcshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission facilities are constructed concurrcntly with planned growth and
that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
[J
I!!:I
[J
[J
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water
conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
Comments:
Thcre are DO significant impacts to water.
--
/1~ - ~cj
Pop 14
-.ur
-.nr -"...- 1.-_
~_ .tt-..t nMu ~ N.
brpod U\tol"..-' brpod brpod
XIn. UTlLmES AND SERVICE SYSTE~.
Would the proposal ruub in a need for new :
.
systems, or substantial alterations to the -
folJowUig utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? D D D 181
b) Communications systems? D D D 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or D D 0 181
distn'bution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments:
There are no significant impacts to utilities and service systems,
XIV, AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
.. a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open 0 0 0 181
to the public or will the proposal"result
in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of 0 0 0 181
a scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 181
effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that 0. 0 0 181
could increase the level of sky glow in
IIIl area or cause this project to fail to
comply with Section 19.66,100 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spm 0 0 0 181
light?
~ ....~ /Yd.-tiS- Pop 15
r '-'7
-,. "v"'~ x-_
-J .~ tw... -_ .~ N.
IIIpId ---'. ~ ~ IIIp.c
Comments: The construction of a trash transfer station and resource recovery facility
in a limited industrial area will not by itself signmC8!1-tly impact the aesthetic value of
the area. -
'-
xv. CULTUIW- RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration 0 0 0 181
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse D' 0 0 181
pbysical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 D' 181
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing 0 0 0 181
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's 0 0 0 181
General Plan EIR as an area of high
. potential for archeological resourCes?
Comments: The proposed project is located in a previously developed industrial area
of the City and is not expected to impact cultural resources.
~
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will 0 0 0 181
the proposal resu1l in the alteration of or the
destruction of pa/eortto1ogical resources?
Comments: The proposed project is located in a previously developed industrial area
of the City and is not expected to impact paleontological resources.
11...1..- ......
/I.;;.-L(.(P
Pile 16.
.'
XVIL RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood
or regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational
opportunities?
c) Interfere with recreation parks &
recreation plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed project is not residential and will not impact recreational
opportunities in the area.
~
r .~ Iipd!ICIIIIl
-_ ....-.11 ~
Ioopoot IlIItIplod
[J
[J
[J
[J
[J
[J
'.
XVIII. MANDATORY FlNDINGS OF
SIGNIF1CANCE: See Negative
Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance. If an EIR is needed, this
section should be completed.
a) Does the project bllve the potential to D ~
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
or California histOIy or prehistory?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative Declaration.
b) Does the project have the potential to D [J
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative Declaration.:
x-_
-- .--
Iapoos
[J
[J
[J
D
[J
ND
Iapoos
~
~
~
D
~
r.....&...- ....,,,
/1 ~ - q7
Pop 17 '
r .~
-. ....-011(
J.poct
-..n"
.VW'cat
1laI-.
Ml1lpdod
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulativelY
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means th.at the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects,' and the
effects of probable future projects,)
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative Declaration.
[J
[J
d) Does the project have environmental 0 [J
effect which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative ~laration.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
1.-_
-_...~
J.poct
o
o
N.
J.poct
18I
18I
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incmporated into the
project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
All mitigation measures are either incorporated into the project description or are found
in Section F of the negative declaration,
Project Proponent
~~
Date
...........
/I..J . - i- <(;
PlIO 18
xx. ENVIRO?-.'MENTAL FACI'ORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factoIS checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated,. as indicated by ~e checklist on the following pages.
~'
0 " 0 .
Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Public Services
pIlInning .
0 . 0
Population and Biological Resources Utilities and Service
Housing Systems
. 0 0
Geophysical Energy and Mineral Aesthetics
Resources
".
. . 0
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
. . 0
Air Quality Noise Recreation
o
MandatoI)' Findings of Significance
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 0
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signfficant effect on .
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to
the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the 0
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
-
......... ......
;1:2 -49
f'qe19
T .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the 0
environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on th.e earlier analysis as descnbed
on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentialIy significant impacts" or
"potentially significant unless mitigatecI." An. ENVIiWNMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, .but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
fJ~
Signa~
I?,j, (; 1.",(-
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
. City of Chula Vista
I
'r .01.1.
/1.;) - S-ZJ
hie 20
R~T:"~ :~~-hr/j
DATE: May l8, 1995
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, ~ngineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (Diosdado)
community Development, R~dev. Economic Dev. only
"eurrent Planriinj. _ ~l"" .
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. Distriqt, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Other
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-l4/FA---2.21../DQ 140 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-____)
Revie~ of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
The Project consists of:
A privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station,
Location:
l87 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by ,June 1. lQQ; .
S~IJMY~
s..~4}-t
/1..2 - S-I
Comments:
::::).'''":
p-,
-
,
-
-.
.
t
.
. Case No. /5 -'15 -1#
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? ~ what is cbe rlre Dcp..tl..e.lt'l alimated
zeacti.on time? Two mil es. Fi ve minute!1.
:
B. W1ll the rlre Depm:ment be able to provide In ~ level of fire I".,,~;O" for the
proposed facility without In incZ'wc it equipment or pezsOMel? Yes
C. Remarks
'-
~2.7~
Fire Marshal
,
12/6/94
Date
. .
. .
. ~
.'-;
. /I,;) - ::,- d-
\.
'--
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTIDN
.'
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
dress 187 Mace
Plan File No.
Checker Horsfall Date 5/20/96
Tyv<:! Constr.
Occupancy
No. Stpries
Bld9.. Area
Th~: following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
~ "
~~. i:H~X~N~~lil9f1Xl9l'l~t>fAA~ Conunents:
j,il..'A'ccording to Section 903 of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code water tanks on private
.~.~ ..
) 'OC1erty are acce!'table for purposes of providing the required fire now.
L. Section 903,3 allows the water supply to consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks,
ele.~ted tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required
fi,7 flow.
Because the proposed facility will be provided with a fully automatic fire sprinkler
tern the required fire flow is reduced to 2625 Gallons per Hinute at 20 PSI residual
'T two hours duration.
4, Fire pump/s shall comply with NFPA Standard #20.
5. 'Water tank shall comply with NFPA Standard #22.
b Private fire mains shall comply with NFPA Standard #24.
) 7.. The fire sprinkler system shall comply with NFPA Standard #13.
.-
FP':-29
/I.,) -.5'3
,
,
?at. ,(O().~~j
"
ROUTING FORM
.'
......:..-.
. ':-~- .
....--~..
DATE: May 18, 1995
'.
.'-
TO:
Ken .Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
clitt Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolt, Asst city Attorney (Dratt Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department.
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
~.o'~t.icm;~!PQ'1-tc..j)e~~e!!.~~~~oslfa(;9j~,
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev, only
Current Planning .
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route torm only)
Other
fj;)
FROM:
Sa rba ra Rei d
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application tor Initial Study (IS- 95-l4/FA-....2.2l../DQ 140 )
Checkprint'Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FS-____/DQ )
Review of a Dratt EIR (EIR-____/FS-____/DP J
Review ot Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-____J
Revie~ of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- J
The Project consists ot:
A privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station.
Location:
l87 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and forward
-by' 1. 1 1 . ~ta oO/3/T)J.
.~ ;J.u-~ 0 . ,
. COllllllents: t<...e.-G.d.-
to me any comments you have
~d~~
orwt~ rw/eufL +'
/l d. -:.:,-V
\,
. )
, .
CHULA VISTA POUCE DEPARTMEl'.'T
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMEJI.'DATIONS
~-,.....~~' ..-..
----. ..
DATE:
M f'<<4.....y -u;, {q 11 S;
bt'"J.tLt f~_, till v', r-Mt,,~
~ :J....u., ;:r....... '" :'(:}z: II.
~'I:..l "t:n. ;.. \ cL;.c:U I 5 ~ P So
MAR 2 3 lSS5
TO:
VIA:
PLAN"""'"
. J 1...1'..\,..0
FROM:
.
~'d ~/(l~F
PROJECT: ~ '5. q..- - I Lf-
...&... The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time.
,
- Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit
crime prevention analysis.
- Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape and Lighting Plans
Site Development Plans
Comments:
*" M er.. \ CFs ,\" -+fu/>
,
AV, ~vc,~!; 11* e"l..h..r i:tf.1l5
M.A-'-""" t..-cl ;v'a..'i-<.~s. A- T \ <t, (
, 'b .\.. A.#.....,.,..,.
11~ ",'"", I U r-n-If 11,. ,\ ::t::!2 ~"",-,.,
.2. '-l '7,:, D-h t(:S \.. z.. ~ 1 \ q :;.,.;L<:,
N\a..~, 12... ~f=-s. ) 7 U.H>U
.
~':.; Z- I'A1.rtjJI-t-~ ~ 1 :3 t\1lS:~""\ ~rs.(,yJ-~ \ 'Z-. s..T~1J VeitfUE,- .
1 fLv, ,r-ie" ~ . sLvu. cI. n...&-=t S tor" f'r. CIU\ ~ llkfttd- \PH IQ
~1~\.'\U "S , (\..9r CA.....l UIl'rr ~ (~~ .
cc; Brookover. SCA /l d2 - ~ -~-
\,
CEULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT
C It :r )( E P ll. E V B H T :r 0 N U H I '1' i .':- '_"
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
c
"
,~
FROM:
PROJECT :
August 31, 1995
Barbara Re~~Environmen~~ /
Brookover,~ a~d":':ft.~rs,
Mary Jane Diosdad~CPS
Initial study: 95-14 187 Mace street
-'" L" l
j-') "I ,_
,... --:;;J
t:~~. _'.
..:....It,........
J ~ I..:,
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
Investigations
-XX- The police Department and the crime Prevention unit will ~e
able to provide an adequate level of service for this
proposed site.
-XX- There is no expected increase in personnel'or equipment in
order to maintain Police Department services. .
-AX- Please forward additional information regarding this project
to the Crime Prevention Unit. '
Estimated response time for Priority 1 calls to this project:
Grid: 47 3.18% of CFS, 05:43 A.R.T. on P-1 Calls
Estimated response time for Priority 2 calls to this project:
Grid: 47 28.21% of CFS, 07:19 A.R.T. on P-2 Calls
Comments: From 01/01/95 thru 08/28/95 there are 1186 calls for
service within this grid area. 379 of these calls resulted in
crime cases.
Note: The estimated response times listed are above recommended
thresholds, within this project area.
Upon ap~roval, prior to com~letion of this project, I recommend
a secur~ty evaluation by cr~me prevention personnel.
Thank you for the opportunity to have input into this project,
if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
691-5127. .
cc:
Brookover, CAM
/l .;J. - ::J--r;"
CPTEl ROIJtlrlll fol"ll
01'11_. ru;fo-t
,
!{e. - (OU+a'Lj
ROUTING FORM
-.
.-, - .~.......,.,... I ~.~
- ~
-
~
DATE: May 18. 1995
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
cliff Swanson, .Engineering (EIR only)
lpll Ros~_n.b_erg.. ...Engi '1<>"'''; "9...(.EU...QDly.)
~oger-baoust, .Engineering (IS/37':.EIR/))
Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
crime Prevention, Police Department (Diosdado)
community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Other
FROM:
Ba rbara Rei d
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (15- 95-14/FA- 663/DO 140 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DO )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_)
Revie~ of Draft Neg Dee (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
The Project consists 0[:
A'privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station.
Location:
l87 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by .June J. Jqq5 ,
. Comments:
,/102 -S7
T .
(,
'--
Case No. IS.qs -N
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGl!\"EERlNG DIVISION
I. Drainage
A.
B,
C.
.,",011-151 IN A- ~-MAfPEP FIA:::C> RAn./. HaovE:~
Is th.e project site within a flood plain? ~ ~/!YJ ~~t t:',(J~""',:~!.!!ttb+r(f:I.
If so, state which FEMA Floadway Frequ~n6Y'Boun~~ ~ ~EL. I4,P 511'1-. .
t:=J",^",,",,~)/r:~'h1'~ riJ .
What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? U/'oIIMPt2bVlY) ~
DJ?AIAlA.<-~ Cfh4..l./J./F..l A-L.rJ:J..e ~l!.Lv. ~tJI.1r'SIt-V_ ~Ih v ~'n't:irJ OJ=: ~Ei.
:r;~U"l$ W CHuiAlI!!.L. WE'~7FP~~ ~z-:. CF ~,.r 0:1 "'1">b~"'S"7Z> ~ ~t:-r.
EXI9n/'olt:. /..O.Io,1:>tNc..~~ 7l> ~SE.W~. '.
Jli.te they adequate to serve the proJect. tJ~. .
If not, please explain briefly. MAJ7:'A.. r>~.'~e" c~. 't.lFL M/1<"r -- IM_~. A/..5o
. 1
5'Tl:-S~.J~/c. T>>+(J.lA~ I""P~~~ ""LL 'B!:: 1ZE.~rIZFD 7b A-b~lJAT"F1 Y
~\1"'J. ~FF Tl' tl:sw~"'.A~ ~/NA.<:I": p.4CIL rnF-c:. "'.JV."""AlI~~ 70
~t 1S"ili~1~6o~"'!ifesmptfon~~~lfu~~age facilities? SCJI2FA~t= .,:-u,..,;
~ MAr; ~J:::"'r "TZlo Onry 'R,t'e.e. -'1..10 ~A.1 ~M1lFL ~/1?:) D'TAY
R,II'':p.
E. Are they adequate to serve the project? y~,
If not, please explain briefly. ,,<IA.
D.
n. Transoonation .
A. What roads provide primary access to the project? MA-'M ~ "'fEr"
What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)?
Lfoi'> A-m- (~,c::'.c::. ~ ~V"C,c::'E:r:> E)(r~. A~ (~.
What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the.primary acces~ roads before and
after project completion?
Street Name
MA-tlol ~~
Before
. 1t:!.,.5C/D
After
(q.~c{D
,
Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Leve1-of.Service (LO.S.) ~C" design ADT
volume? If yes, please specify. No.
/l r9 -s.~
~~=fl(I.C.lml93)(Rcf.ICl2O.93)
Pqc2
)
~
Case No. r<;;-"tS-f':f
If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicab~, explain briefly.
NIA.
.
. D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? .Y ~c.
If no~please ~plain briefly. ^!f4,
E. Would the project ~ unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to
or in the vicinity of the project site? . ND .
If so, identify: Location ~/A,
Cumulative L,O.S. II{ 1.4 '
F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An
equivalent of 2400 or more average da.ily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will
have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that
all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance,
Yes X. . No
The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of
the proposed project? Yes X No
If yes, please describe. ~/A.
H. Is the project ~istent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan,
General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any .
other traffic impact studies fOr roadway segments that may be impa,cted by the proposed
project. y~.
1
1.
Is a traffic study required? Yes
Is there any dedication required? YE.<;;.
If so, please specify. EXr<BrrN,t:. tb FEer'_ Wr~~ ~t>W.4\1 r:~M~ sHia.u..
"Bf:E' z:::aE""f"'~7.) ""f7) -rf../F Crn' DC ~U'Ju. V/~~.
x.
No
~on9)(b!.I112U3)(W1D2ll.93)
.A ,.;2 - ~q
Pile 3
'- '
/":;>-w({
Case No. rS-1s-r'-f
l
/
K. Is there any street widening required? No.
If so, please specify. N.~.
L.
Are there any other street improvements required? Ya:;, AC-DAIf. ~E I">/J MACE
If so, please specify the general nature \If the necessary improvements. G'T7zEet.
~P1-€:T"1/'}~ OF Cu~ a..rrrrr:o 5i~wAL/l::. ANb "hJZJv~H/4Y IMPI2.r::JVE_
: I '.
M~. A:l.$o ,^,s;.~UJ.:r7f:>1t! t:x= S;"T1?fl:~ L.-'~"./r.,
.
M. Will the project .and re1aIed public improvements provide satisfactory traffic &ervice for
existing conditions and future build out General Plan conditions? (please provide a ~rief
cxplanati~~). e3K1s.n~,t; UJfJb~ ~ Y.E<;;;..
~ 1L.IJt, ~,r ,c1Ei1'::"'At__ ft.A.IJ CDUDf'T'fN.lc;, ~ YF<.._
ill. Soils
A. Are there any. anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? V/Jl4low^t .
B. If yes, specify these conditions. ~IA.
C. Is a Soils Report necessary? y~<, A Ntu..j <;;o"c.S. f4:Pn2:r Wlr..t- gF!" 1<EQU'~Fh
Fe>;?. -n+t:: ~D US~ .
IV, Land Form
A. What is the average natural slope of the site? ,. ~%
B. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? SbY- t{... .'tJ~'- >!;;rr1E ..., """"'-0
V. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that
a noise analysis be required of the applicant? N.o;
VL Waste Generation
t How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed pro~ per day?
~~ Solid '/I>6I._,c.rE!Mr" 'IJF~-n"",' m.vr~. U>H'~Je" -.",LUr Wlt.t. J>r~ l>F' S-ct...tt>
\ Liquid tws,JR=Ic.rEJ../r ''''~oI.'TT~ 'J:ZrVrry::t:> . '. ~ r;,EW~ 8'1
-. '-, . . ' I~ ~C;{l..rTY'S ~C#f.
. ~ \. \, What is the location II1d size of existing &ewer lines on or downstream from the site? .
~,'" \~\"i If .. . .
0,e~o '\Co;' 8 $ewF.i2. /....rAtE tlol MA/'..F ~E:r" WHfcJf- R"o,w.; >o~""(V., A#.J"" fiJTZ:itU.g
;;:..\\~.c\c.w /Z) A fl5"-r1Z.uN,,- 5EW#f:-'>. l.t.Alt=- 'bt>WAl~. ". .
...,.
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) VIJI4l/:JW,j-7ll ~
~J2'U1I..'El>.
,A c'2 - C:, 0
.
Case No. I5--qs-rtf
VII. National Pollutant Discharl!e Elimination Svstem (!I."'PDES) Stormwater Reauirements
Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Wa.ter Resources Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Permit? YFA.
,
. If yes, specify which NPDES permit(s) II1d explain why 111 NPDES permit is required. A 1J~
.(;PNF,I>L/...... . -p".FMfr Fl>(2..9'mIl.M'W~P !>rGo-".s,jo,~~ ~(A-~t>
""I'm .LJt>r \~A-'- Ac.rlflrT7E<. 1'5 1Zf'<?tJrLEb I'O~ TYE P~SE~ USE. MD T1I-t='
E><'~N'" USE. ~PUo.+tT'" ~Nt:>r~ I,.) 'Pe;, "!.I.L "''''''....'G4-ncN ~ ~~s
"
r::t:OAA rr c:.c~~ ff!:A. -nrt= Eil'1fJ:"r1N/:,. 1RJ...~~A1I: 6~~~.tM.-c::: Mer ~ JZ&J::~
Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? ()~/1J.
X Yes No
Additional comments IWwE.
vn. . Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other
issues. (t)Jr te.wtJ4/-E ~~l!:::a:.rrrN~ ~ ~L~V...E ~I:" A~r~-r:ue. rA~ ~IY
if;~~~~ff~Ef~~4!g~:
'y~ A 1"A-IZ&F-C- /-l,.,-r ~E'!"'-> r:;.,,~ Ar:>Pt-ICA-I.f:r'Ce,,: 2~ CoI!.JJF", of
- . .~'Pr2.0~ ~M"E ~.~AsJ 'l'rx~A.l.-kl~7)~,.r~~~ ~pJrwlrr- ~y.
~ l~ :;1~:r:~I~~~:::=~~D~=:~
(~\ ~/Z.J"L Sr::Crr"fcw.c;., FniC. MA.c..E _~!&"r' Jv.1h MArt", srtlF~'1-/~Y VA-LU:Y
\ r}\ "./ FGl4.t> MA-Y ~ 'IJ~.JA"IC.. r.." -mE Af.J'ru:.~ 77ZJ JC./oC.. I J>A-'bi1Jt; (g) /J/E..
Y~\ceq
~~~p,\ .
~\\ \o.\~. .
"\~~~. ..
~;g> !:J:;!J~~-
/lCJ-bl
€><fSTlkft:. LAAh,Alf.: '?>-v~ !)AA./~S Tl:l;+..f~ 9,..,[~y SfE:W,::-o .. CN.J-r'pAll'~
~J..JWAT'FL D(~~~; ~ -nl-E. .'5A-AJ fT76rI!.Y. ~FE"~i) WILL ^,~I 12E. 1=EJ2JJrr-rEt>.
- @~~u ~ :--\'te ~~Y\"I
5~~ ~~ t~~
~,~\C'O.J..ec. "10 \000 " "0
. ......\..., U\o.o o:::l. 0 OUQI\ ~ "',
VW\), ,,-((5194.'. ~. .
~~s~~
~'oC(\lJ), \\ \QJIC) PIF 5
~on.93 lRd.llI%l.93)(ld.lcgon)
.
, ,
-...-., ,.-..>
THIS PAGE BLANK
/1 ~ - ro d-..
MEMORANDUM
. August 13, 1996
File No. 0790-05-KY135
TO:
SUBJECT:
Barbara Reid, Associate P1anDcr
Elizabeth Chopp, Civil &gineer~
MACE STREET TRANSFER. STATION SEWER SERVICE
FROM:
In response to your inquiry regarding of available sewer capacity for the proposed transfer station
on Mace Street, we compared several similar transfer stations in order to determine the waste
water discharge, We estimated that the expected yearly water use would be approximately 9OO,0CXl
gallons. Then, subtraCting 10% for evaporation and assuming that the plant would be in operation
260 days per year (5 days per week) the esfimAtf"d daily wastewater divbarge would be 3115 gal.
per day(gpd). Applying a peak flow factor of 2.5 to tile average daily di""hqrge results in a peak
flow of 5.4 gal. per min. (gpm) or 0.012 cubic feet per sec, (cfs).
We COIK:lud.ed that the DatelFaivre Sewer Trunk Line could adequately handle tile additional peak
flow that would be generated by the proposed transfer station, The existing sewer flow in the
sewer trunk line at the restrictive section located near Faivre and 27th Streets (meter site # 133)
is 5.l4 cfs while the capacity of the trunk liDe is 6.05 cfs.
These numbers were used to estimate the available sewer capacity and should not be used to
determine any user and/or permit fees.
Please torttact Mario Ingrasci, Assistant Civil F:ng;.-.r, at 476-5376 en. 3142 if you have any
further questions.
MJI:mji
(M:\...\Sewcr\MACElnn.mem)
/1;2. -b3
-
-
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
505 G~RRE1T AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VlST.... CAUFORNIA 91912.2328
(819) <120-1413
FAX 1819> 42S-7.e9
May 8, 1996
OOVEANING ICARD
GEORGEH.W4'TERS.~ .
WARCJ..RET COOK WE1.SH. w:.E QWR
.w.IES F. DOUD. SA..
SUE JAARETT
IIUD POCICUNGTllN
.IAI4$ S. WOUOEWICZ
CARYF.W!lIG>Il"
WANDA "YEP:'(
'IIlEASUAER .
llW< J. REMS
SECRETARY
Mr. James Algert
Algert Engineering
428 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject:
CHULA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED RECYCLE FACILITY
187 MACE STREET
SWA Gen. File: CITY OF C~ULA VISTA (FIRE DEPARTMENT)
Dear Mr. Algert:
The 2125 GPM fire flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a 2-hour duration as required
by the Chula Vista Fire Department is not available on Mace Street to serve the above-
referenced project. As stated in the Authority's letter dated May 24, 1995, (attached),
the maximum available flow on Mace Street is approximately 850 GPM.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Russell Collins at 422-8395, ext. 639,
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~ J. v/l-
a;;~s L. Smyth .
Chief Engineer
J~S:RC:vls
pc:
Mr, Emmett Horsfall
City of Chula Vista
Fire Department
447 "F" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
enclosure: as cited
/1;;.-(Pcj
1::_11S7moao.m
.:iWEETWATER AUTHORIT'l
505 GARRETT A VENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912.2328
(619) 42\)-1413
FAX (619) 425-7469
-------
-----
- --':'"
May 24, 1995
f'.: '/", '0.-
....., ~ . J .C~
'-...JtJ
. . . . ~
.........,:..
Ms. Barbara Reid
city of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-14
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995
Dear Ms. Reid:
GOVEFlNING BOARD
BUD POCKllNGTON. CHAIRMAN
GEORGE H. WATERS. VICE CHAIRUAN
SUE JARRETT
EOWIN J. STEELE
MARGARET A. WEI.SH
JAMES S. WOLHIEWICZ
CARY F. WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
ClAN J. REEVES
SECAETARY.ADMIH1STA...TJVE AIDE
This letter is a reiteration of our original comments dated
January 16, 1995, concerning an Initial Study for the subject
project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is a
6-inch water main located on the east side of Mace Street,
adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that
there are two water services to this property. Enclosed is a
copy of 1/4 SEC. 23B map which shows the existing water
facilities.
The required 6750 GPM and the reduced fire flow of 3375 GPM with
a fully automatic fire sprinkler system, noted in the City of
Chula Vista Fire Department's comments, is not available to
provide fire protection for this project. In order for
Sweetwater Authority to deliver 6750 GPM, major system
improvements in excess of one million dollars would be required
, at the developer's expense. To deliver 3375 GPM, approximately
3500 lineal feet of 12-inch water main would have to be installed
at the developer's expense in Mace street, Main street and
Hilltop Drive. The maximum fire flow that Sweetwater Authority
has available on Main Street by Mace Street is 2750 GPM, with no
system upgrades.
For any of the above alternatives, the developer would be
required to reimburse the developer of Sunny Imports $2,240.14
for water system upgrades in Main Street that were previously
completed. Backflow preventers will be required on all existing
and new water services for this site.
/ic2 -bS-
A I":l...L,oo_ 1._
Ms. Barbara Reid
city of Chula Vista'
Planning Department
Re: WATER AVAILABILITY
187 MACE ST., CHULA VISTA
Hay 24, 1995
page 2
On Mace street. at Britton Ave., the maximum available fire flow
without any improvements is approximately 850 GPM.
If the OWner enters into an agreement with the Authority for
water facility improvements, water service can be obtained at a
pressure ranging from a maximum of 74 p.s.i. to a minimum of 49
p.s.i.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420-1413, ext. 639.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
:l~
L. Smyth
Engineer
JIS:RC:le
enclosure:
photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map
pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. Mark Watton
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, CA 92113
Ms. Carol Gove
Chula Vista Fire Department
476 F Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
k:\lourle\l.tters~ewtr..vl
/l d.. - ~ t;,
~~~C.C.l W""Il:.K AU I nUnl1
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912.2328
(6191420-14'3
FAX (6'9) 425-7469
GOVERNING BO....R.D
suo POCl(lINGTON. CHAo_RM...",
GEORGE H. WATERS, VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE JARRETT
EOWIN J. STEELE
MARGARET A. WELSH
J"MES S. WOL."'IEWICZ
CARr F. WRIGHT
January 16, 1995
WANDA. AVERY
TREASURER
O'AN J. REEVES
SECRETARy....D..INISTR...TIVE AIDE
Ms. Barbara Reid
city of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vi~ta, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY.
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-14
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995
Dear Ms. Reid:
This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the
subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area.
There is a 6-inch water main located on the east side of Mace
Street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate
that there are two water services. to this property. Enclosed is a
copy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map which shows the existing water
facilities.
The required 6750 GPM and the reduced fire flow of 3375 GPM with a
fully automatic fire sprinkler system noted in the city Df Chula
Vista Fire Department's comments is not available to provide fire,
protection for this project.
In order for Sweetwater Authority to deliver 6750 GPM, major system
improvements (storage pump station and pipelines) in excess of one
million dollars would be required at the developer's expense.
To deliver 3375 GPM, approximately 3500 lineal feet of 12-inch
water main would have to be installed at the developer's expense in
Mace Street, Main Street and Hilltop Drive.
The maximum fire flow available on Main Street by Mace Street is
2750 GPM with no system upgrades.
On Mace Street at Britton Ave., the maximum available'fire flow
without any improvements is approximately 850 GPM.
/Ic2-0!
A Public Agency,
'- --..,,- ....... - _.... . ......
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula vista
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-14
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995
January 16, 1995
For any of the above alternatives, the developer would be required
to reimburse the developer of Sunny Imports $2,240.14 for water
system upgrades in Main street previously completed.
If the Owner enters into an agreement with the Authority for water
facility improvements, water service can be obtained at a pressure
ranging from a maximum of 74 p.s.i. to a minimum of 49 p.s.i.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420~1413, ext. 639.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~ dtf--
L. Smyth
Engineer
JLS:RC:ln
k:\lorelei\wp51\reid.ltr
enclosure:
photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map
pc: Mr. Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. Mark Watton
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, CA 92113
!l.J-cO<?
BOARO OF EDUCATION
JOSCPH C. CIJMMINGS. PhD.
9WlON am
PATRO(A..lJllO
PAIIElA B. SMITH
~ A. SI'E'fIal
SUPERINTENDENT
1JBl/o.5.GD..PhD.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHll.D IS AN INDMDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
May 24, 1995
Ms. Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
,. .
;~:'.~~,'.I", -: ....
_0 j 70........
'-'::';.:;
r .
...../ .
oJ. ..
'. '.I; ::"~
'....
RE: IS-95-14/ FA-663/ DQ-140
Location: 187 Mace Street
Project: Privately Operated Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study for
the privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station project.
On December 7, 1994, the District responded to the Initial Study for this
project. It was stated that the project is located within the OtaylMontgomery
Schools attendance area, and that both facilities are operating at or near
capacity,
As mentioned in our letter, State law currently provides for a developer fee
of $.28 for non-residential area to be charged to assist in financing facilities
needed to serve growth. Since this project is a renovation of an existing
building, fees will only be charged on new square footage.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely, .t'
M~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
c~_
/1,2 -roCf
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
'130 Fifth AVlnul
Chuta Villa, California Dl0ll.28D6
(619) 69'-6500
Division of Planning and Facilities
-
"
-
.-
~
,. \{ ;~ .'
"0'
',~:';~ .
May 22, 1995
f~\o.-i.~\.~;"''''''
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Environmental Section
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9191 0
'- Dear Ms. Reid:
Re: IS-95-14/FA-663/DQ-140
The above subject project will nave an Impact on the Sweetwater Union High
School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government
Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to Issuance of building permit.
.5;'''4 ~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/ml
A;J-70
~
.,
<1lnuntg nf ffi'an ~i~Bn
F:. -:-~;:-;- ,.\/-:-,
---.I. ...::..w
TOM GARIBAY
DIRECTOR
(1'1) '''-2212
FAX: (111) 211-0411
LOCATION CODE 650
DEPARTMENT OF.PUBLlC WORKS
Dre 2 9 1994
PLAN N; N G COUNTY ENGINEER
COUNTY AIRPORTS
COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSIT SERVICES
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
lOUD WASTE
.
5555 OVERLANO AVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 12123-1285
December 29, 1994
city of Chula Vista
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Attn: Douglas D. Reid
Dear ~. Reid:
INITIAL STUDY FOR TRANSFER STATION AT 187 MACE STREET.
The County of San Diego is in receipt of the Notice of Initial
Study for a proposed municipal solid waste transfer station and
associated material recovery facility to be located at 187 Mace
Street in Chula Vista. The County appreciates the opportunity to
review this initial study and after review is recommending that an
Environmental Impact Review (EIR) be prepared prior to approval of
the proposed facility. There are a number of' reasons the county
believes an EIR should be prepared. These are listed below with
the impacts considered to be of concern.
1. Air Qualitv
The County believes that an assessment of air quality should be
completed regarding the proposed project. current Qtay Landfill
usage suggests .an average tons per day (TPD) from the proposed
service area (Greater Southbay) of approximately 913 tons. This
divided by.the average eight tons per load that conventional trash
collection vehicles hold would equal 228 round trips per day. If
each collection vehicle makes.two disposal trips to the facility,
that would equal 456 round trips per day. The addition of transfer
trucks' brings the ADT still higher. That level of traffic could
result in significant air quality impacts.
2. Odors
The Initial study states that the transfer building will
incorporate odor and dust control. . Recent composition studies show
that only 37 percent of solid waste is composed of pap~r. Further,
a composting: study done. by . Madison, Wisconsin in 1993 found
that the average household disposed of 211 pounds of food annually
/1;2-71
Mr. Reid
-2-
December 29, 1994
(see attachment). Even if one assumes, as the study did, that 50
percent of that food goes down the garbage disposal, that would
still leave several million pounds of food disposed each year in
the Greater Southbay area. It has been the County's experience
that these amounts of food products can produce offensive odors.
Also, a review of the area found that there are residential units
within approximately a half-mile and directly downwind of the
proposed facility. Consequently, the County believes that an EIR
level review needs to be completed regarding the potential for
odors at the facility.
3. Noise
The County recognizes that the area immediately surrounding the
proposed facility is zoned for industrial uses and therefore has a
certain built-in noise level. However, the County believes that
noise from the increased truck traffic would not necessarily be
incremental in nature. While it would be accurate to say that
heavy trucks now operate from the site, it seems reasonable to
. assume that many of the trucks only impact the surrounding area.
once or twice per day. Under the proposed project, collection
trucks could be accessing the site several times a day and noise
will be further intensified by the addition of transfer trucks.
The County believes that these circumstances can lead to unknown
and potentially cumulative impacts that require a more in-depth
review.
4. Traffic
The County has several concerns regarding the proposed project's
traffic impacts.
A.
First, the projected ADT appears to be
underestimated. Page 1 of Attachment A states that
an average of 500 TPD will yield a total of 84
,collection vehicle ADTs, while 1,000 TPD will yield
an ADT of 168. As pointed out in Number 1 above,
the County believes that the actual ADT would be
approximately 456 per day without a Passenger Car
Equivalent (PCE) factored in. If the standard peE
multiplier of 2 is added to account for the extra
impacts related to the collection Vehicles' weight, _____
the actual ADT would become approximately 913.
Further, since the average trash collection vehicle
holds approximately 8 tons and. the proposed
transfer vehicles. hold 25 tons, it would seem
reasonable to assume that there. would be three
times as many collection vehicle trips as transfer
,vehicle trips. However, the Initial study offers a
'ratio of approximately 2:1 by stating that 1,000
/!,;}-7d-
Mr. Reid
-3-
December 29, 1994
TPD would yield 168 collection vehicle trips and 80
transfer vehicle trips. Given the apparent
discrepancies regarding these figures, the County
would recommend that a traffic study be included as
part of an EIR.
B. Secondly, the Plot Plan distributed with the
Initial study show a distance of approximately 200
feet from the entrance of the site to the scale.
Given an approximate length of 30 feet for trash
collection' vehicles, a maximum of 6 trucks could be
. .- in line for the scale before the trucks are backed
up onto Mace street. Since trash trucks often tend
to come in waves, a waiting area. which accommodates
only 6 collection vehicles seems unrealistic. This
would be further compounded if a transfer vehicle
were attempting to enter the facility and not have
enough room to avoid waiting in line.
C, Third, a review of the project area shows a school
in relatively close proximity of the project site,
on the north side of Main street and residential
uses to the east. The County recommends, given the
, closeness of these uses, that a traffic study done
for the project discuss impacts to these apparently
incompatible uses.
5. Hvdroloqv
A review of the Project Location' Map for the site shows that the
southern area of the property appears to be within the 100 year
flood lines of inundation for the otay River and the proposed
facility will apparently be built up to the souhern property
boundary. Given that, there would seem to be questions regarding
the safety of the otay River if a flood occurs and inundates a
portion of the building. Also, based upon the location map
distributed with the Notice of Initial StUdy, the facility; as
proposed, would be only 600 feet from the otay River floodway at
its nearest point. Given these two factors, it seems reasonable to
expect that hydrological studies be conducted as part of the EIR.
6. Land Use
The County also believes that a discussion regarding land use
should also be included in the environmental document. This belief
is based upon the relative proximity of residential uses, a school
and parks to the proposed project site. It ,would seem reasonable
to question whether the proposed activity is compatible with
activities associated with residential use and what the impacts to
those uses might be.
Ad- - 73
T -
I
Mr. Reid
-4-
December 29, 1994
7. Other Considerations
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that
environmental assessments for a project be done at the earliest
possible opportunity. Given that the purpose of the proposed
transfer station is to transport solid waste to a disposal
facility, it is reasonable to expect that environmental studies
done regarding the project should assess impacts upon the area
surrounding the receiving landfill. The County would therefore
recommend that an EIR be required in order to assess the various
alternatives for waste disposal and include both truck-haul and
rail-haul methods unless they are specifically ruled out in the
EIR. In either case, the minimum requirement should be a
discussion of various options available due to the construction of
the transfer station. The environmental document should also
discuss questions regarding the potential for shared responsibility
with other jurisdictions using the landfill.
Conclusions
Given the number of concerns raised by the Initial study, the
County believes that an EIR should be required prior to any
approval for construction of the transfer facility. There appears
to be a number of questions that remain unanswered and that number
appears to be sufficient enough to require the preparation of a
comprehensive environmental document. . The County therefore
recommends that the City of Chula Vista require a full EIR prior to
project approval.
The County would be appreciative if you would include the County's
Solid Waste Division in the distribution of any future materials
regarding this project. If you have any questions, please call Jon
Rollin at (619) 974-2709.
Very truly yours,
E/2A~ 0 eJ
J A. MILLER, Acting Deputy Director
D artment of Public Works
JAM:JR:cg
Attachment
/!d-7t!
c_..:-::;__~.:...~...
.
Compas Investments, Incorporated
A ~ . ..........:.xA- ...........
........_. -
. .....~... ..... .......4 -
........ .-" .........:.-._.
...._-~
December 27, 1994
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review coordinator
276 Fourth Ave.
Chu(a Vista, CA 91910
--
RE: Mace St. transfer Station
Case No. IS-94-lS
Dear Mr. Reid:
1 am the property owner of parcel No, 629-130-30-00 located on the S.B COTner of Main
and Mace St.
The proposed use if approved, will have an irreperabJe negative impact for the community
of Chula Vista with additional potential adverse Environmental issues.
Please Keep me posted on this review as affects the development potential of my property,
Sincerely,
';i
~
...
,
'~'n' ....... ..........._.
_..
~~d. ~,~ 't flc.
_. ..~._ ,..._..' _. .W^_~_ ~
~.o...l,o ~
(619) 661-6467 ~ ~Wo..~
-...
/1.;2 - 7 S-'
2495 PaIoo ~ Jai Amerim, Suile I, OIly MaA, CA 92173
. .'
,
International Real Estate
[-.,. ~.-
"_ r._ !"\I_.
-'''""-~ .". ---:
'-~
A Division of IRE. Enterprises, Inc.
December 27, ~994
DtC~
v 0 7994
PLANNiNG
VIA FAX f69~-S~7~
Doug~as D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Mace st. Transfer station
Case No. IS-94-lS
Dear Mr. Reid:
'~
I was recently made aware of the above referenced proposed project.
As a property owner (3648 Main st.), I l!JIl concerned about the
potential adverse impact this project would have in the community,
not the least of which is traffic.
Please put my name and address on your list for additional mailings
and public hearings concerning this project.
\.
Sincerely,
INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTAT
~
Michael
MAV:clb
/1;;2 -7G
,.--"'_..... - - ,.t~ I~_ .~..,.. ......_....._ ~__. '.'___ ""... ,,!/:!'........ .._~."".,._..__,,__....... .,."..~....... ._, .__..'".
Cllndustrial I Commercial Properties - Sales & Leasing I Property Management Cl
"~
'-:.~- ....
II D",,''t TI"'QM7 ~u,. Wisfe,1' "
; .
JanUll!)' 27, 1995
.f:...
~ .... I, r
."\.",
Chula Vista Planning Department
Attn: Martin Miller
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9l9l0
/-. I .
1-1.,\
'.
. ..
RE: PACIFlC DISPOSAL c.u.P. STATUS
Dear Mr. Miller
Our citizen's group has been following Pacific Disposal's plans to build a mixed waste
transfer station in Chula Vista. It is our understanding that they have submitted an
application for a Conditional Use Pennit.
We are requesting to be notified, in a timely manner, of all upcoming public meetings
regarding this CUP, Please send notices to:
Donna Tisdale
Backcountry Against Dumps
P.O. Box 1275
Boulevard, CA 91905
My phone number is 766-4l70 and my fax is 766-4922. Thank you for your assistance.
,"-,
Sin~ly, ___
~ /c.;4t:-'~_
Donna Tisdale,
President
. DONNA TISDALE
P.O. BOX 1275
BOULEVARD, CA 91905
,...... -- ......""~...... ............_.~....""I~
/1;;"-77
~~ ~.c. ~\ce
DIANE RICHARDS
1783 BUCKMAN SPRINGS RD.
CAMPO, CA 91906
11'.1 en .47R..Q1 Ql;
i,
.,. - ;- _.: ~ - "~-:-"""-~-~-~-::::'-.,.. :-~~;;- ., ---~..'
1 c~ PRO"iIES '-s '.: " :. ;-;.,~.O,' "P~' 82 ,:.-
· ,.. ..... .'. ... ........ ::d,'~..; i~~ii{%0~11J:~~~i~I';.'~S."~.:'\
MACE' IND' USTRlALCENTER:Z';::,,:~~:~~~,?: .;,';'.',;:.:. ,~.;. '1
; . ., 36$1 Via Mercado Sul~ 16 La M~. CA 91941::~~,:~):}.;&~":~;J2;\;r:j:i~.:.~:~:;;St: ,~
. ~-' (6l9) 660.1952, fix (619). 650.6,14.2 .X,-'~0i~'/:::::~:/;'.i!5t':-,;.~~::. :.~.';':o::';" . t
. ~:.- ..
. . .._. . ~ '. r;
{';: ,\-
-; --Hr, .- - ~.
". . - . ..' ." .. . ~
, '
-, ."
. ~
7
" :...
January 5, 1995 '~ .
.,' . "... ..- ':._;'.::::'-".('-.;:
. .' ... ..... .
"
"'-~'I'- -. ~.
. . '.' '. . ::"~'.::->
En\'ironmeatal Review Coordinator
Douglas D, Reid
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vis1.ll. California 9l912'" -~ - .".d
".t' _ .. ,.".. .:J
. - -~'.:
RE: Proposed project t)-pe ft Municipal Solid waste transfer and associated rec;o~'cr)~ fa"i1itr'(;:'~,<;.'.\};" ; )~
Proposed propert). location "187 Mace St, Chula ViS; CAn . - ': ::--; ~:;':':~ ,~,:::\/~":J:.:::<i.~::~;", :,~
DellT Mr. Reid: ..<' ., ~_ . /~\ .--,jr:\<~' ':. : ~', ~~';f~,,-;
In reioponse to the letter Clf ''Notice of Initial Study" on theaoove referenced project, I ha,ve Iist~ ao'me;:<, "~' ,~~
CClnCtm.< I have for this type of use in tlus area. As per our telephone conve;'S3tior., due to the time':" ::,..;;~ ". -:',.,;"
constraints of receiving the notice on December 27, at 4:00P~1, you ir.dicated ~t I.sltould fax roo this. '~';,. ~~~"{
lener loC~Y, and it would be reviewed, J would appreciate tht opportudl)' to fon~:"'up.~i!h. ~~~~I~~':;<T?:\J
package ifnec~sary. ;'~.' ....... ", ~'.""<i{~~j~~.:1;~~.\':;;';~g~;)~
To give !oOm~ bllCkj;TOUnd on us, we own the properl}' directly' across the 'treet from thi~ propoSed .'O:'L';L,.-i:;r.::A
prCljecl, l70 & 180 Mace St., respectively. We built our IndusL>ial Cente'rs a'i3 have kept a. "'Bands On'; ..;~t: _:;~'J
attitude 10 Properly' MlU'12.l:ement Our buildi~g and driveways arekCpt clean. and :~good ~iPa~'J1:1iCre;.:;';~:':d':!
arc approximalely 70 tenants in our building, eIso a Camaker who lives On Site. ~?;;{; ::};=::i::;~}'f,:i ~~{ P/f"::'" ::<.f
. ." . ,: .... .-::-;....::.;\i..;-..::;./~.;:.:f~:.;:c;~.:)~~f;:?1f~lt'ff":~vS::,e;~~:j,:..:1
We have had some experience v.ith a similar tj'pe ofbusiriess, ~1s being propose~: lI. O.Fetlioriowns ':'~;,:::~;;~}~
proper!)' adjacent to ours. it is currently leased to Pacific Disposaf; tlUs propertY is 1:aid~a,c;uP; Since'Z0t~~j'J;,~
. 1990, Pacific aisposal has been using this property for the storage 'of rali off containers:and vel1icJes,~; :;1,:.: ,':c':: 'd:!
which is l'.nat their CUP allows. But in actuality; this tYpe of busineSs m,'olves much mOrt lhiiD ",ilat is(:.:'i::~-'g
stated. We have lost tenants, and d~ y,ith tenant ~ cOnc~g' the ~Oaor;:&nd ~oiSeieve1~;~:~r:'F~i
of the roll off con~i.ne:s and trucks... The ro~l Qff cOhteiners.~ CJi:lpty>.~ tm;re h'~ fes!d~Jeft:~iri:;-;J;~3.\i: :::~
whatever tht:)' ca..-ried ihat is very. offensive, as,JIre the .flies. tbatarc:irttraCted bY thiS resIdUe' .41S6;tlie. i.:~.;""~' "
Noise from the trucks ~~'Ving engines to lift the roll off containers off is appalliTig: :Anap:ie~~.;t'fH.::,t~>f,p:'~:: .~.
acknowledge, that if you have B truck, it Will need maintenance, which is DohUov.'Cd under Ligbt~~~?:{";;i:~;;O:' ' ~
industrial Zonil1/:. or under II C~. ~fIl'Oposed project will be even worSe due to the am.p1iiudC-o{thC'~;: ~:':: .
~Oj~i":', ':,~,":':.,.:~:'.-':'.::, ':"\ifI~..~.:/:~j~f~~~'~':~~f~~~1-.~~c~tJ~~~~~1Il~'1.,..:~j
i
- . -...... ..... C:1ge,' 'ot.! ~_-
I D1./8E.ll-;:35- :-lB:53.~. ~ ::l "-'
.,
- <.
l;,
: .~
'..".:-. "\
-....c.....
'-.,- ',.
.....
/
~
'-
j
y.
~
fi
J ,
:.";'
..
: ... ...-. .. - 'c. :c'E:;~+;~~iq~~t~s:~(~:\
Th~ subj.:ct property is L shaped, this ""iJl create i. traffic problem d~ ~ the PDlu.wuDf TrIlCI.: 1N:ff'5. ':":,'~... .~
The traffic=ted by the Trucks will create a ':bottJ~ neck" sIllllltil!11, with truekil backed ~ on Ihe.:.>.~~: ;::,' :'
. SITec-l. There must be a "In & Qut"driyc'way access to reducc the risk cf pottntial accideritsand traffic' ~~:,::-~, . .:
jams. Mace Street is a small street, and is not wide enougb to handle ''''o/Nnui Truck Traffic,"Tht:re if;':f:;::-. '.
Ko Traffic Light on Main Street. This type ofLargc TrUCk T~c.91ill~po1enfial accideiltut this ';.:>~": "
comer... : ;.~:'~ :' .:.,:>,'::; . ":&::'>'-/~~';:'n::~t+~!;~~:~.:'i;:~l~}~~~~~*~.;~i~~~f~~~~~}~1~~~F~
The proposed ~perty is o~y par;iall}' paved. At this ~~. Mace ~~, is:~'~e4 ill. ~.MIl ~~.,"if.':~<'~ .' .
whenever it rams due to Pacific Disposal, and Sky Tr=l-II1g. If you mcrease the vo1umeoflniW on ,::..,.,~..:;.
Mace Street. who i5 going to send the street sweeper evCI)" dByto handle'thfs rroblem?"AlSo;:Wchav~::;::::."r~
clocked ~ trucks from Pacific Disposal going 4SMiJes an how-on Ma~ St, Ima&lnel~#~~~:'''~'::<':;:::T: .: .
thoroughfarr. . .. ....: ':":\""~;'.?;;:~.Y:.~~:;~r~;~~f~r~::S~~~f~i~~i~{0{~ri:;,U;j~{. ',:
Thts propo:u4 projeL11lUds II Noise Study. The accumulation ofT rucks slowUtl; ~:!\\n; Speeam~ up; .:~... ~'fi . '
rt'wing their c-ngines for unloading containers, compacting wasic, \\iU he iuc:cdible, W~ lU'e.illread).:;'g:}:':~i.0:;; ...
\:xpcriencin8 U1C'se same problem$ \\;th Pacicfic Disposal. just Dot or1h~ Jna8llitudl<..c:':f;:::~{".:;,~:,.'?::"",;;:: C:'".;:.:',;"'.
.' . . '.' . ":, .:-......_.:;.~.~;~ ,:.~:,-:~::,:/..}~),~.~:~.~:;;._.,~.,,~>_~--,,::_:":.;..":"~~':~~r~.-'."
\1[U:~ Strl:'C'I do~s nN h.we enough street.lightini to handle these hours of ope1atioo, ~ TM:b .wili be '.~ ,<:>:
leaving before 6:00AM eYer)' morning. And will not shut dov,'11 operation u!ltil aftc:r JO:oOPM. '~::).::>:':~::.\:'
Guaranl~d, -' '. ":: " .r;:~~~;::~~~"~t.n:PJ!!f~x:~;~,;~~r:',:.f:~~'>:"
. Th" Water Main do....n Mace Street is a 6" Cast Iron Dead End Main. Due to it beii1g Cast Iro~ it is. :,,'c,.:',:' ., .
Corroded and does lIOt e\'en flow 6", The proposed project is to add 6O.000SF ofBuildiIig:"~.},'~'.t..~<\,;::,~:.:\,::,;".
Without re;.>lllcing this Water Main, it is putting Ilt risk the Fire ProtectiM of ow- Bl.lildiIig ana other:::,:~" '?";:'
huildings un Mace Street. . ..'. ..' :." ,i,.~'"~:-.~,::: -:::':"?'" .:' :c::: ~ < ": :.:
. '. . ."\!j;~":~'::.'::;:;i;;~';-;'~f0il'Ur,:.~,}?~:/~i:!~;:'i
In closing, this area is tp1Jt!d Light /ndllStritl/. The Cit). COWlcil has been trying to uJii-ade 1hisareatO}':::~~::';,:::: ,.;
be more IlCs\bl-tically pleasing. The subject propcrt)' is in the Southwest Redevcl,,)prnem Dis~ctt~:'<~'?'~n'.:'
allow this t).pe of project is against the zoning, and 'l\ill not accomplish what the Cit}' Council JW'Set ".~.~~~'::::r7
forth for thi~ area. A pr~iec1 of this magnituc!~ should be developed fW1her oui 'in'a,n unirlC~oi:POrated~ :,./:~:.:.;~;:..' ;:;.
area. 11 is ow-wish that a in-depth Emiromental Study be completed, includlngNoise,r~c Volume~~;1~'L:
including conge~1ion problem due to no traffic light &.. driveway Critrilnce, Odor, V.lter SupPly ;.Off~~;";;;~:;;;~:o>:
street parking. Jot size fur proposed 60,vOSF Building,lIIid health reasons (there is ~deatW laoadag ~:;:,:.'~:;,~{, ,
adiacent to this pro,r-m.') '.. . ',.'.: " . ,..~.;.. :. ~.!': . ""..'.:,::,;. '",.;.,=~;,~~:...:; .,:~';.."';:;;;;n.r;;::"":;,,, ':....;.~.".:
.., ...,......;.. . __....r.""':I_.~._."..... ..:.;-..'....;tj;...-.......' ...:.,.~_.-.-~~.J:'..,.,.~!.......-.~...1.:.....~...,_..... ~
.' .' . ". ',~.:' . ..,..'.:',.~it;.i~1~,\;i~X4:.;~l?;:0}~~~~;;~\~~W~2~~':~~b~~~;2j~{c~
ThIs type of property use will be a nllisl/ltceJor Dllr fttuUtii. arid'iDour opiniOn \\illllnwllUllt Dii;:::::.~~~.,"-;:';~ ."
. P~P.trfj' fOI .rcD1.al..and.,~e..~~..._..: -:;\~);i;/::.:::~f~::;~5;~f~~~~;t~S~~5!~~~~i.~r~~f~~:'('
As we own one fOun.~.OI better of~e street frontige~ Stteet:~.ak.J~I;i(fd.~~~~;l~:7-~:f=';;><
. :;;-~J~~~:S;~~~~~..li~,;
~oI~/ .....~. .\<1....,.. "_'''",_,~,"
. Vhian L Kr'~"ter Partocr'. .;~;. --":: .~;.::.~.::A;iJJ::t:..~0fh.~/J,~~;~\;~~?~{.i;~t~:f;~~!.~{::.:..~~~;:~:"!.:~iij~..!>~;~f~;;~:it~~<,\
. --eo. .: ". ~. ......-... ->........_ ....~>i~:::;'"-:..;r-'.-~'i.--'i'.::.:-;~~..;....~~;.;,...-:'2#...::~:..~.;;'-~r..~.:c.:.-!t.~~~%~ . ~:--:.._-:t.4
Mace Industrial Cen1et .-..' ..... .... '. - .~. ....-7. A,. ',.";; 'c',,' '."-':;:"-'''''., <..."..~~..&... ""'" ,.,;_..~ ~'<~l.f~
. .' -. ...., " . ~ ~.- -:.~.::..: ;~.~..~~~~;:.-.C~{.-:.:.:~%S~~.~::.?S;,~-~~i::~4:t~E::~~t:;~~:;~;:"~~~%~::~,i:-~~~~
~
l
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION STUDY
SKY TRUCKlNGlPACIFIC DISPOSAL
1a7 MACE STREET, CHULA VISTA
.
Pacific Disposal, Inc, proposes to construct a facility for materials recovery and waste
transfer at1 a7 Mace Street, Chula Vista. this operation would supplant the present use
of the project. Sky Trucking. The purpose of this study Is to define the change In truck
usage of Main Street due to the change In use of the aile. .
Sky Trucking is a year-round truck and material transfer operation. Daily logs and fuel
records are available for that operation whIch have been summarized In Table III:
Records show a seasonal variation In truck trips, both light trucks and semra. The
heavier use Is In the spring, summer and fall. The average use for eight months Is
approximately 45% more than for the winter months, The tabulated values are a
weighted average to reflect year-round ACT. The project usage Is taken from the CUP
Initial study and truck load averages were furnIshed by Pacific Disposal. A one-day traffic
count was perfonned on February a, 1996 and was supervised by A1gert Engineering.
The results of that survey are tabulated In Tables I and II.
The tabulated values In Table III show that In tenns of total traffic, the project will have
negligible effect on overall traffic on Main Street, both for light and heavy vehicle. When
truck loading Is factored in, the project will lessen the existing use. The heavily loaded
truck use will be 165 per day at1 00% project capacity. The existing heavily loaded truck
trips Is 183 per day, this analysis Is base.d on the maximum capacity of the facility of
1000 TPD. If the facility Is used at a more realistic level of a5% of capacity, the heavily
loaded trucks will decrease by 23% from the present usage. The overall truck usage
would decrease 11 % from present usage. Measured as ton-trips, (num~r of trips x
average gross vehicle weight) the existing usage Is 8034 ton-trips per day and the project
usage at 85% capacity Is 6146 ton-trips per .day (considering only aemra and trash-
trucks). Therefore, although the existing facility contributes approximately 18% of the
total heavy vehicle usege on Main Street, the project at 85% of capacity Is expected to
reduce that usage to approximately 16% In tenna of truck tripa and to approximately
13.5% of existing usage In tenns on ton-trips.
..:,......
//;;:) - '8' 0
)
'-
TAIL! t
1V.FFI C ClUlT STIllY
.""'1 STmT/lIlLLTllP
"EASTICUID"
CAlI 2 3 IEIII' . "I CI'CIICTCLfI IEl.ICI/ LA &ALL!
P1CX-l.I'S AX!:L AXEL Il.lWf
TIUCI:S TIUCI:S
A.-. 6,00-6,15 38 I 3 '1 2 0 4 0 0 59
6,15-6:30 " 2 2 5 2 0 4 , D 62
6,30-6,45 60 6 D 5 I , I D D 74
6,45-7:00 90 2 3 , 2 0 7 D , '14
7:00-7,15 79 D 2 7 2 D 2 , D f3
7:15-7:30 '11 2 2 6 4 D 4 D , 137
7,30-7:45 '48 3 4 4 D D 3 0 D '62
t,45-I,OO '63 5 2 7 2 0 4 0 D ,a
1,00-1:15 '86 II , 2 3 0 3 D 0 .206
1:15-1,30 '41 10 3 I 2 0 4 0 0 '68
1,30-1,45 114 4 3 1 , I 3 I 0 134
1,45-9:00 130 9 3 10 0 0 5 0 0 151
9,00-9,15 '17 3 2 I I 0 2 0 D '13
,,15-9,30 131 I 5 a 0 I 5 D D 151
9,30-9:45 241 , I 6 I 0 4 I D 27lI
':45-10:00 107 12 0 6 I 0 4 0 0 130
10:00-10,15 '41 , I 5 I 0 2 0 D 165
10:15-10,30 '01 2 I . I 0 0 4 0 0 116
'0:30-10,45 134 6 D I I , 2 0 0 '52
10,45-11:00 137 1 2 II 0 D 4 D D '61
11,00-11:15 176 2 4 6 2 , 3 0 0 ,,,
'1:15-11,30 154 4 2 7 2 2 4 I 0 176
'1,30-11,45 '51 5 3 10 I I 6 0 I '15
11,45-12,00 186 0 2 7 0 D 3 0 D '111
'.K. 12,00-12,15 ,.. 5 2 , 3 , 5 0 D 213
12:15-12,30 176 '0 , 7 , , 3 0 2 201
12,30-12:45 I" a D 6 2 0 2 0 0 I"
12,45-1,00 179 7 0 7 2 0 4 0 0 I"
1,00-1,15 117 I 6 5 I 2 3 0 I 220
,,15-1:30 155 I 2 5 I I 3 0 D 175
1,30-1,45 154 , 3 3 '0 0 2 D D '11
1:45-2,00 168 7 4 5 D 0 4 D D III
2,00-2:'5 171 5 I 6 4 I I D D '"
2,15.2:30 '10 6 3 5 6 I 2 D D 2D3
2.30-2.45 la 6 5 6 I 0 2 D D 2D3
2.45-3.00 211 5 3 10 2 2 I 0 D Z34
3,00-3,15 2IZ 5 2 2 2 , I D I 196
3.15-3.30 ZZ2 2 2 I D I I 0 I DO
3.30-3:45 251 3 2 '3 2 0 I D D Z69
3.45-4.00 231 2 I 2 0 0 0 D D ZJ6 "
4:lIO-4:15 303 a 2 3 I D 0 D D 317
4:15-4:30 III 4 2 2 I 2 0 D 0 ,,,
4:30-4:45 ,,, , D 3 , , 0 D D 2D2
4.45-5:00 205 6 2 D , , D D 0 Z'l5
5.15-5:30 345 5 2 '4 , D 0 D D 357
5,15-5.30 261 7 2 6 D D 0 D D 276
5.30-5.45 225 5 5 . , D D D D ~
5:45-6,00 ZI2 2 3 S , 4 0 D D 225
6.lIO-6:15 220 5 2 .;' I 0 D D 0 D zza
.:;....;
6:15-6:30 '" 5 5 " 5 0 D D D 225
mAL 1534 266 '20 294 57 Z7 122 5 . 91.63
/7 ~ cr
TAIL! II
TUF fie a:urr ITlIlY
110\1. STlEFT/IIIU,ra>
"IlESTJCUI)"
ws 2 3 ElII'S IUSES IIOTlIICTCLES IELQ/ LA SALLE IllleED TOTAL
Pla:-LI'$ AXEL AXEL Sl.QUI
TIll:a TIll:a
~.II. 6:00-6: 15 65 0 3 0 0 I 0 0 0 69
6: 15-6:30 73 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
6:30-6:45 lIS I 2 6 1 0 2 0 0 lzr
6:45-7.00 165 I I 5 0 2 3 0 0 177
7.00-7. IS . 140 I 2 6 I 0 3 0 0 153
7.15-7.30 170 3 I 5 4 0 4 0 0 lar
7.30-7.45 234 4 I 5 3 2 3 0 0 252
7:45-a:00 300 0 2 4 0 I 0 0 0 307
.:00-a:I5 174 7 :I 10 I 0 a '0 0 203
a:15-a:30 154 9 :I 5 2 I 4 0 0 17'8
.:30-a:45 .103 8 3 9 2 0 3 0 0 128
.:45-9:00 197 7 :I a 2 0 2 0 0 219
9:00-9: IS 114 7 4 9 I I 6 0 0 142
, 9: 15-':30 151 10 2 5 0 0 I 0 0 169
9:30-':45 142 8 :I 6 2 0 6 0 0 167
9:45-10:00 118 5 0 :I 0 I I 0 0 128
10:00-10:15 176 7 :I 9 I 0 5 0 0 201
10:15-10:30 99 5 :I 3 0 0 2 0 0 112
10:30-10:45 135 4 2 5 I 0 3 0 0 ISO
10:45-11:00 152 7 4 a 0 0 4 0 0 175
11:00-11:15 167 2 I 7 I 0 3 0 0 lal
11:15-11:30 143 3 4 10 0 I 4 0 0 165
11:30-11:45 169 3 I 7 I I 2 0 1 1as
11:45-12.00 161 6 I 9 0 0 6 0 I 184
f.lI. 12:00-12:15 169 10 0 :I 2 I 1 0 0 1116
12:15-12:30 181 . 2 7 0 0 3 0 0 201
12:30-12:45 166 7 I 6 2 I 4 0 I I.
12:45-1:00 171 5 0 _ 5 I 0 I 0 0 183
1:00-1:15 161 10 0 8 4 I I 0 0 las
1:15-1:30 190 5 0 2 I 2 4 0 0 204
1:30- I .45 165 5 I 7 4 1 2 0 0 las
1:45-2:00 ISO 7 2 6 3 0 4 0 0 172
2:00-2.15 175 12 I 7 4 I 3 0 0 203
2:15-2:30 165 4 I 3 0 I 3 0 0 177
2:30-2.45 155 12 2 I 3 0 I 0 0 174
2:45-3:00 190 7 2 7 I I 0 0 0 20Il
3:00-3:15 21. 4 I 2 1 0 0 1 0 Z27
3:15-3:30 lal 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 196
3:30-3:45 174 , 2 5 2 0 I 0 0 193
3.45-4:00 3 I 0 0 ,
176 7 5 0 0 192 ,
4.00-4.15 240 5 3 I I 1 0 I 0 252
4:15-4:30 131 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 147
4:30-4.45 193 3 I I Z 2 0 0 , ZD3
4:45-5:00 11/9 4 I 3 0 0 I 0 .0 1111
5.00-5:15 11/9 3 .0 4 Z 0 0 0 0 1\11
5:15-5:30 209 , 2 Z 2 2 0 0 0 226
5:30-5:45 110 6 2 2 I 0 0 0 0 '"
5:45-6:00 1611 5 I ,,, 0 0 O. 0 0 175
6:00-6: 15 173 I I ~;/~ ., I 0 0 0 0 179
6: 15-6:30 136 0 I , 3 0 0 0 0 '"
0
TllJAl 11219 ZT1 !7_ 249 .A . 66 25 IDol 2 4 9027
.,
, '
o
TUU III
......T Of EXISTIIG IolIJ ~ TJtUO: USEAGE Of IIAII STmT
P.U.'S/ Llp,t
ears _I'a
m
Llp,t
Trail
(3)
IIM"Y
_"a
(Z)
IIeaVy
. Trail
(4)
Total Vlhlcl.. I Total
..Total T~I'a/Tl'\ICb""",
. blat'" 11M
. he!fle ............. "
.. II:y TllCtl,.
" P.D.t.
l.lonttl"l
16753
t6I6
. . 1686
1686
0.5
5.9
11.5
2.3
lZ
71
18
17
atal 91
30
95
. . 1686
17.9
I. Pro]lCt etOOS CIpocfty) 100
16753
125 125 1686
0.5
'9.6
40
40
el) II'I:llcatal ...... lIe'ght . 30.IlOO II
(Zl Indlcat.. ...... lIefp,t . ao.1IOO II
(3l Indlcat.. ...... lIelght . 33.IlOO II
(4l Indlcat.. ,...... lIelp,t . 53,IlOO II
& '" Total Vtihlel.
& '" T~I'atTrucI:a/IUMa
I '" T~ 'atTrucI:a/IUMa
I '" '~latTructa.......
& '" T~"atTructa.......
I of Total Vehlcl..
I '" T~I'atTructa/lUlaa
Iota: TIle pro]lCt _ rd ulltl,. _ .... for . Z4 hour dIy. . TIle t...ffle CCllI'It fa for . lZ.5 hcu' doytl;. ,...Iod.
'or -=-ri_ ~'" t11la ohculd not dlatort theM .....Ita. howwr It aIIould be noted tllat _I .'atl,.
rd pro]oct lapet .... portlopa 251 1_ than . ahmrI.
187 1Iace:
ESAl. Analyala:
S Axl. Trlpo 5 Axl. Trlpo Total EIAL
blatf,. Uae batbaord: . 6Z 1.171.ZOO
bfat!,. Uae lIaatbaord: . 6Z '. '7I.ZOO
tlIllI Pro]oct 11M batbalnl: '25 40 1.D'1.9OO ..'
la ProJoct 11M 1Ioatba&rd: '25 40 ',1141.900
1Ioto: ProJoct \IN II ontlelpoted ot 1_ then loex '" apoclty.
- ..;,---
.-
/l d- - Y 3.
CI1Y CF 0i..1.A VISTA PASE. !I3
1$ - Gll
J:.-
-.
.. .-
~
c1c.~._~....u-:. .~ ~r:-~..t..... .,
... .. -- . . .." . -. . ..' 4-aL".,.p~
Itcf>T'ky .:. *'~~~,&. N'f.~'",..fTJ ~.... Wl.,-
rl ~_"
.. ~J'.~' 3310 "J'I!:ti-.~;., -....
. --- .-.
L .
o
.... _ MtSc:. "':\.._70 ~.!... '.-r~t!: ~l':':- ~~~
-, . . . - ._. R-o'-l. :TA,;;:- t.~ \
. -n....q<.. .J
.H"'l4-'d.c.. ~~ \}~r <p>'t1~~^Ao/= ~4-0't..v.~
-
.- \ .... V~~E~I ~r- ^CJr:,., 'k>1
-
....'"> ~....~r..,_~... (~""f1,,,,..,.~ OWU{.
~.
.'
..
--4.tM .
;-./7-'(,..
,-
-.
...
- - . "-
... ",.
.
. ..--
-.. . -
.- . .-... -.
./
--'
0.-
-'
.......
-'-/1'-;;;" -? t/
....../tfA
I :. Z
s?, zc-
5"3~ 8'
I) ht..DJ-f ~C;C /2ef/uf1.-I } Qro@ S>n=: -=.Io7z,cPS.,
J-/.P.=.. 507/~SL.t:... LP.--7~.D' L= IGrOl7O'(~'-HI2oAO(3~.s'JJ)
""8-1.95' \" '"",' ;lYht.0-c...o,;y-I/Yfl~'J'-7d,
187 HAcS ;51-'.J C, V.
. -.:.1. ~
2..)
:. T;, :: Q,Cj( h.... ...-"... S4HfJ.J. :;
. {e.:; (',9 L") o.3gS'
. I{
CAf'AC./ry' 6'F C{t--A/..J~ 0 F,c 6XS r .it
I.,. I I
/-fIN. &lr", WfOn{ - 7 ..J Ivl" -= 'Z4.~ ) v6.-r:>nt.: 7~
....A(2.n~ = /lSS,F. ) 5,AY A =-IOOS.r.H,N,
s'= /.2.S'o ) p... '3').~ < I'"'~ ~.4.~' J' 1'1= O.O'S3 HM
;'48~ '" r~ s~'- (B~ ,03-.0
,'. Q ~f. -= rr ~ /3 2.2..c..FS HNJfH vt-'(, /
vt Olt. IV~c.. c:.FS W{!! ,
I...JP.5l/ZOj)....( {. Ol>--o.JN~nZI:DJ~ IS ~rztD4.nr:rz.).', ~L
OVr!::>t.FWw l..J'<.A.- oc.c.utL <:2 Qr~~ - .f!f
,4+JoF.B.hnLQS1J =0,0::;7' i-/tN __
:5'TE: is 1.A.J177'l-rN JuOS.:>N i3AStN.J /v4---..;evcn. ciTJ4,ylZ.ll./81-n
E.5s<.:.."'>V-r:-/A<-<-Y /tf)Jrlcc:::,...l'.JANJ) 7'rte:. tVATVIZk'- C/"f-A.vJJcJ::C... t'S
CAf'A. a t...CO: cr= T?4 t:=.L N Co A P,t'1 ~..v.t+<- FLO 4A,) j 5 5 f'<=-IA-<-<-'I .5 H A-<-<-
Q'-'t4.N7ir/~ AI ve:ny '-vvJ IO....,C a-F- ~J,.JC(D..J7"flA.,.-z..o.v'.
.', S':>>-f~ D,va:n..s'o^-J.-(-o fr.-<-r-r /2..:J--A.O 8ASltv l'sAca:f'TfJc
I r;;;. ) ?.c:>t. Arn\[tf-e:o t4.YO~r....., f Tcfo or-$lT"'E""!
. t' .....
BASI N A I ~ Ntnl ~'I AI,,);J W~iCI!L'I ?"-,<..r<-<>~ co"F f.L<>'?ro:r-~ A
" DJl-AI,u, N.A~~ 10 HACE-'" Sr, :
A=-.{.77 Ac.., :r-C_: 0.'1... jL..= ,3,O';;'Trt..~t..,'/-{(A). k.
(lI''''C.,t0~SG: --Due. ~ P';'v,,&.j c; "\.I i.o9~) :, Q _ 4. ~ CF$ {O......,
"L..(;" /2" Q
-;-- = , J' . Eva:: I 2.8'S CF;
L<;v .
(~ CJfvl~ jlIS~ "....J/"~..J.5"..../ /'Pv4#tr<-.::..o.)C
LltPAC., ry
o,u l. y f-( r NO It...
" "
l:>A,S'N ~ i='~\N~
Lv,",'t...€:) 0,3 Ac..'l
ov~\.. 3,l.}..J1'- A.r Pi2.~r;,t.::,..Ji
c:. ':.. 0 . CJ J L::;. 3,0 '',/,fu., =)
TO D{1..A'Ntl.C.'
Q ~ 0,& CF,
11>0...__
... ~
13ASl/V c... YrLANS A c:.,'l.-QH ~ So'-''rTt-C\'t.'-'1 L.r L., ~~ ""'""
~ AO:nl(ti"lv' ?,/....:>!,z,"'L.-Y. DUE~' 11~C::1L~S-=:..i) (-(VINe... .Q F
f1i.o...:[e:-c.rA.1.€ll.. III S Pl<.-O!,,~t:::'O to !/l v<:::/1.r 17/'iJ.r j);1.1'4t/v.l.f6c
/
-r; ~ iJ,'L/:"J...J/l"c,r;:: UU(1..Sc.. ,.(, 7'7tr':: 5......~\r nt-:Jp,qUj/
Co,u...t::l1..: A:: 2. ~ A c.) C. ~ 0,9. )...J- : ~ ,0 'J'h7.
.A;) - 'i? ~ "
SKY !iZ.ucK.lA
;('1 f}1L-ULO G 'I ~ Y VII;( '..x.n:..s ~J
18'7 H/t.IG'~T c, V;
I
'0 -10.. 9r""
7f
~
(~
~ tE't....y !? OK.y 7/lrJc..KJNC (A/I"'~.).
, ./w,~. C2 ,Q,~o W ml Vl::' o.o'S~
;I~ ,
.
'-W.s..eQ.~o
LoJI~ VI ::co,o~
(0. <;; b f F. \3,),
1.7..
EAIZ-n( AND ;2v/S/S'-E"
9=~, ~acS~pc('YA)
~x..........."y .
~ rU::.t....4l'vS:l..y U)..J/~ .Co;...,/Aen!::7;J
. C-D 136UZ' C/1';J(#VE"l.. &1/bH
-,.'
Cfl-l..NJ...Jf:L c5'ec.ncY-J (HIN.),.
('. ro I
VI Ew U p.5 n2.E71-Jo.j Q AI i y It.
IL.
~
. .
/,W.,:>.Q..QI:"
\...w,,:>.C2 QSO(...~.03S)
(2. z.' F.?".)
w ~ \1\=0 .o3s;'
acs>oo~ao
xX'" ><'>< .......,.....'>(
:
5" e.: c.J!.<'~
/ " ,
=-G,.
I
G I 75'" .50<-- -nJ 4F- N. R.
(HAr'l.. AS A6'W'c).
A;) -?~
, I
-,...1--t~,
=. .=, I
=' ~. L'
E',:,",:.
'. d'"
.-.-.
..._-.....
,
~
-,-
..-.
I;:>r"..,!:.
.5,'::["-"',
CLOSED.CELL BLOCK
<C':=PSJ' '
.,' ... ....",; I
,~.::,:-J( Bj
....,.'."'T\~
"'='~
-,-
1oPVIE.....
i \
:Oi'
~.'~,L~~:.:Q f
$IOEVIEw
ESEARCH & DESIGN
:e 1980. Nicolon has initiated
j participated in a wide range of
earch projects to evaluate the
~ormance of Armorflex, including
following:
~etratech model tests - California,
J.B.A.
,eylstad field trials, Netherlands-
'1ijkswaterstaat Directorate of the
'.uiderzee Project, 1982.
-'
'; .~ u'::S
lo:re1e Spe:;!;, i Comp",,;ve I ' ' ~nsror.s :A.rea Sio:,- Wel~h:'. :Oper.
...tock Weighl Slren;It', MaIimum I '- n I Blo', . Area
Class Ilbs./cu. tt.llbS./SQ. in. Absorption! A I B I c I'Qr. . I,s dbS.lsq ft.: ,
.,
S-CIJSS 13::S: 13D.15o I ~JJO li2J~s':t; f: 1130 i 11.6 1':75 i CS:: 3i'3: 3--- I 20
, ';'".),
Open Cell ! 50S! 130.150 I 4DJO 12105.'," h 1130 111.6 1 6.0 I D 96 I ~='52 i 45-53 I 22
5-Clm I ~ 55 i 130.150 I 4000 12 105 'w II 1 130 1 11.6 105 1 095 3g.45 I 40'~5 I 10
,
Closed Celli 555 I 130-150 4000 12Ibs.-'cu ft 130 1'1.6 1 60 1 095 53.61 I 54.62 1 10
40 1 130,150 4000 I 121bs 'eu It li~ 115514.75' '7i 62.il I 35'~0 20
f{)pen j 50 I 130,150 4000 .... "Il!-lbs .' ~ 5.5'" 6.0 l.7i 81,s.: 46'53 1 20
jl!eU \ 60 130,150 4000 12ibs./cu.IL 17.4 15.5 i.5 1.ii 99-113 56.6~ 1 2Q
70 I 130,150 I 4000 12I's./eu. h. li.4 15.5 9.0' 1n1120'138 68'7B I 20
45.1 130,150 4000 12lbSJeu. It. li.4 15.5 OS 1n I iB-B9 43'50 I 10
Closed 55 130,150 4000 12Ibs./eu. ft. 1i.4 15.5 6.0 1.n I 94.108 I 53.61 10
Cell is 13D'15o 4000 12 "s.leu. It. li.4 15.5 i.5 I 1.n1120"381 6B,i8 10
B5 I 13D'15o I 4000 112 Ibs.leu. h.lli.4 15.5 9.0- 1.;; 1145,'6i I 82.95 10
e
~ Block height may vary .by approximately D.5~ based on local manufacturer's capabilities.
U Block weight may var by 2% based on t~e specific gravity of locally available aggregate material..
3. Wave Attack Tests, Report No.
M1910 - Delft Hydraulics
Laboratory, 1982.
4. Hartel Canal Trials - Rotterdam
Public Works Department and Delft
Soil Mechanics Laboratory.
5. River Waal Breakwaters, Arnhem _
Rijkswaterstaat, 1983.
6. "Design of Reinforced Grass Water-
ways," CIRIA Report 116, 1987
7, "Minimizing Embankment Damage
During Overtopping Flows," FHWA
Report-RD-88'181 prepared by
Simons. U and Associates, Inc.,
November 1988.
8. "Hydraulic Stability of Articulated
Concrete Block Revetment
Systems During Overtopping Flow,"
FHWA Repo,rl-FlD-89.199 prepared
by SimoCls,'U and Associates, Inc.,
JulyAS89.
,/
Research Proven Performance
Nicolon has carried out extensive
research into wave and open channel
flow conditions on Armorflex in the
1 'Uriited"States and the Netherlands. .
I Design manuals and computer pro-
: grams are available to assist in the
proper Armorflex block selection for
your hydraulic conditions. Design rec-
ommendations can thus be made on
the basis of specific research data
and sound engineering principles.
.
ARMORFLEX@
GEOPRODUCTS COMPANY
P.O. Box 441, 7367 Noche Tapatia. Rancho Santa Fe, CII 92067
Tel: 619 756-3050 FAX: 619 756-0284
JIM FISH, PH.D.
EROSION CONTROL" SLOPE STABILIZATION PRODUCTS
. IIRMORFLEX
'.~~.'."":\"""',",":" .
/Td -?7
, GEOBLOCI(
"'l"'".Q.\UI=O
Cellular Concrete Block
Revetment System
r">.-''':-I;.,'';::-_=:::~ ...,.Co...
"--~(\ C. r-..:;:>'J\....
;p
~~o~=~ eo:':\"'..an;s
August 8, 1995
city of Chula vista
Attn: Barbara Reid, Planning Dept,
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Mace Street Transfer station
Dear Barbara,
In February, 1995, at your request, we reviewed the preliminar:-
plans for the proposed construction of a municipal solid was"::,:
(HSW) materials recovery facility/transfer station (MRF/TS at I!,;
Mace Street in Chula Vista. We were requested to comment on a~c
recommend design features to minimize potential nuisances relatec
to odor, dust and noise from such operations. A copy of o:.'~'
initial evaluation is attached tor reference.
OUr recommendations covered three' areas as 'follows:
1. Mechanical ventilation of the KRFjTS structure to disperse a~
much of any emissions at roof-top instead of ground level.
2. Installation of a dust control fogging system to which od;::
counter-reactant (OCR) could be added for aclclitional od:;.,'
control, and~
3. Compliance with City of Chula Vista noise standarcls fre'.
operation .. of' . any mechanical equipment and from on-si'c,:
operations of trucks and materials handling equipment.
Subsequent to our evaluation, we received a more detailed facilit:.
description and site drawings from Mr. Pat Lawrence of seE.
Engineers. We also conducted a 'site visit on August 4, 1995 L.
view existing truck terminal operations.
,OUr observations and recommendations are as follows:
.1.
..,
The building orifimtation relative to prevailing winds wi:;
minimize odor escape' thrOUgh the access cloors.
/ld - f2?
-2-
2. The ventilation rate ("negative pressure") is a little weak
when all eight (8) doors are open. Not every door need be open
all the time such that partial dpor closure is reco1lUllended whe:-:
possible.
3. The existing operation shows evidence of dirt "track-out" frc~
truck ter1lli.nal traffic. Pavement of all travel paths anc
barriers to any access of unpaved surfaces is reco1lUllended.
4. The 1Ilisting system with an OCR option is the state of the ari:.
in dust/odor control. We would recommend that its proposed us:c
"as required" be given more quantitative standards.
.,
5. Noise control will be achieved by compliance with the municipa2.
code and by the site design itself. We believe that the nature
of the operation, the distance between source and receiver and
the intervening structures between the proposed HRF/TS wii;
preclude any noise nuisance potential.
OUr reco1lUllendations for any specific permit conditions are 2.,:;
follows:
L Four (4) of eight (8) roll-up doors shall relllain normal J '
closed and will be opened only when the volume of truck traffi~:
requires additional access to prevent truck queuing.
2. No readily biodegradable material shall remain stored on-sit~
for more than 48 hours awaiting disposal.
3. All roll-Up doors shall be completely closed on days when tts
MRF/TS is not operating.
4, - The mechanical ventilation system shall be continually operat,:,::
at one-third or more capacity if any readily biodegrade!::}_
material is stored indoors for more than 24 hours.
5. All travel paths, parking, container storage, and truck/trail,::~,
staging areas shall be paved with asphaltic or other concrete.
and project operations shall be barred from access to ar,~'
residual unpaved areas on the project site. Any evidence O!
dirt "track-out" onto Mace , Street shall be removed by washi~~
or sweeping at the concluslon of each workday.
6. A misting system for ciust control shall be installed capable c.:
maintaining average dust levels of less than 5 mg/'Iff in area",
of public or on-site employee exposure. The system shall
/ld. -?9
-3-
contain provisions to add an odor counter reactant (OCR) to be
ac::ti vated when refuse odor is detectable beyond the propert;'
line. Sufficient OCR shall be maintained on-site to supply the
system for 48 hours at chemical feed 'levels recommended by tte
OCR manufacturer.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosec
materials.
sincerely,
/i~b:.k~
Hans D. Gl.roux
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
"
HDG:ai
/lJ-C;O
:?.. .
Initial x.pact Evaluation
(Submitted February 2, 1995)
c
/leJ.-9f
l
KACE STREE'l' 'l'RAJISFD STATJ:OIf
JlUISAJlCE IKPAC'r Pu'l:MTJ:AL
~
Odor is a common characteristic of refuse handling and disposal.
Refuse odor formation is a complex process which depends on the
nature of lIaterial undergoing preliminary decomposition as well as
the envirolllllental factors that affect chemical or bioloqical
process rates. Factors affecting the reaction rate include
moisture, temperature, acidity, oxygen supply, and several other
rate-controlling Ilechanisms. No two containers of refuse typically
have an identical lUx of waste, and certainly do not have the
identical set of odor-formation physical and chemical parameters.
The normal"prccess of odor tOnlation is for amino acids to !)eqin
decompOsition very quickly. Nitro-orqanic and SUlfo~rganic
compounds typically create the most offensive odors during early
stages ot decomposition because they are formed in sufficient
quantity and the human odor recognition threshold is very low for
these materials. Uncooked animal tissue and biOlogical waste are
thus the most offensive odorants in typical KSW. During early
stages of refuse decomposition, most biochemical.proeesses occur in
an oxygen-sufficient state (aerobic) which generally is not
conducive to strong odor formation. In certain instances, oxygen
can be depleted and anaerobic processes may begin. AnaerObic. decay
often c;reates hydrogen sulfide with its rotten egg odor, as well as
forming volatile organic acids that have a sickly sweet odor
character. A bag of wet grass clippings, for example, IllllY begin to
compost soon after being cut with rapid heat formation and oxygen
depletion that quickly leads to a musty 518ell. If those same
clippings are aerated by being dispersedllJllOng .other IIllIterial, odor
will be minimal as long as the process remains aerobic.
In addition to a very complex character of refuse odor, people's
odor sensitiVity/acuity varies trom person to person and even by
time of day in the salle person. Odor quantification attempts to
overcome this problem by using a group of people in any odor
evaluation (called an "odor panel") and assigning the odor
threshold to that concentration of odorant When one-half of the
panel can detect the odor. Odor strength is quantified by
measuring how much dilution with clean air is required to reach the
threshold. The dilution ratio is called the nUllber of "odor units"
in the air sample, or the "dilution to threshold" (D/'1') ratio.
Thus, if one cubic foot of air with a recognizable odor requires !Ill
cubic feet of ac1di.tional clean air to dilute the sample enough for
on.. half of the odor panel to no longer detect the odorant, the air
sample woulc1 contain 100 odor units, or it would be a 100 D/T
sample.
- .~.
.._ .____ ....._~~.:;.._-.,W&.....Ka~~.-.ii.."ii...I:~.~ "."'.........
generation exceeding 90 dB at 3 feet without a propagation
barrier between the source and the receiver.
Ad. - crJ-
i
i -
-2-
At 2-4 OfT, odor is still very faint and people are often not
consciously aware of any nuisance. At 5-7 OfT, odor begins to
intrude into human consciousness and peop1e with good 01factory
acuity can often recognize the type of odor being encountered. If
the odor is unpleasant, 5-7 DfT is qenerally the threshold at which
people may beqin to complain about the odor. At 10 DfT, the
complaint frequency begins to increase noticeably. The nuisance
rule in the California Health and Safety Code as used by the San
Dieqo APeD in its nuisance rule (Rule 51) defines odor nuisance as
one that irritates or annoys "any considerable number of people".
At 10 DfT, the considerable number of people criterion is generally
considered to be met. For example, the South Coast AQHD in its
.CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (1993) specifies a 10 OfT level as the
odor threshold constituting a potentially significant impact.
Thus, a reasonable target level for Jlli.nimizing odor impacts is 5 .
DfT, and a significant impact wou1:d occur if an odor level exceeds
10 OfT. These threshold levels are the recommended significance
criteria used to evaluate odor impact potential.
Any odorant released into the atmosphere undergoes natural dilution
by turbulent processes during transport from the source to the
receiver. strong winds, a rapid decrease of temperature with
elevation and a large source-to-receptor separation maximizes the
dilution and minimizes the downwind odor level. Weak winds, an
increase of temperature with height (an inversion) and a small
distance separation between source and receptor maximizes impact
potential.
Potential odors from operation of the MRF/TS will result from three
primary sources, i.e.,
.
Tipping floor and processing lines for municipal solid
waste recycling
storage of residuals (non-rec:yclables) awaiting disposal
.
.
.
Handling of yard waste materialS'
Each activity has somewhat different odor characteristics. Given
further the i1llprecision in quantifyin9' odor. and its associated
nuisance potential, c1eterlllininq the size of the odor impact
-envelope" around a MRF is difficult. Environmental dOCUJllentatlon
for .everal proposed MRFs in Southern California contend that odor
impact potential is negligible. 'l'he contention is ~sed on project
design characterilitics and on odor monitoring experience lit several
existing MRFs. .
/1~-q:3
\,
-3-
Odor strengths from refuse handling have been studied at. a number
of facilities. Odors on the tipping floor of a large transfer
station were measured to be 20 DfT at 30 reet from the downwind
edge of the facility. (TRC Environmental Cons. , Odor Study for
Monroe, WA Transfer station, 1991.) This aeasurement is consistent
with our observations of a HRF tipping floor in Anaheim, CA which
found odor levels of 5 'O/T with peaks of 15 'O/T directly downwind
of the facility (08/25/92). Under more stable weather conditions,
odor levels were estimated to be up to three times higher.
However, the peaks were associated with yard waste that was
beginnine; to compost on site. . Tripling the more typical 5 O/T
level observed from the refuse tipping and 50rting brings the
observation very close to the Monroe observations. .
An odor strength of 20 'OfT was therefore. used as a .basis for
evaluat1nq impact potential for the proposed Chula vista HRF /TS.
Emissions were assumed to derive either from a dispersed, ground-
level source (a tipping floor with multiple door openings), or from
a roof-top ventilation system.
The EPA first-level computer dispersion model SCREEN was used to
compare roof-top versus ground~level odor dilution. For a ground-
level emissions source, the dispersion model predicts that it would
require 300 meters (around 1,000 feet) to reduce the 20 O/T odor to
the 10 O/T significance,threshold level. If, however, the same
amount of odorant is released from a roor-top vent on a large
building, the peak ground level odor concentration is only 16
percent (3.2 'O/T for the above example) of a ground level release.
These calculations support the conclusion that a semi-enclosed MR?"
structure with a rOOf-top exhaust air ventilation system would have
a less than significant odor impact. Even with minor leakage at
ground level where trucks enter and leave, the negative pressur<:
and rOOf-top discharge of ventilation air would maintain odor
levels of less than 10 'O/T beyond the project property line~
The data suggests that the HRF/Ts would not create a siqnificar.t
odor impact if the rOOf-top ventilation system maintains adequate
exhaust velocity/negative pressure to capture the bulk of any
odorous emissions. Final desiqn and sizine; of the system to
acco!lllllodate odor control has not been completed. If the truck
access/exit ramp and door is .in the lee of the building (facing
away from the prevailing onshore winds, we believe that an average
inflow velocity of 1 foot per second would adequately capture most
potential. odor release, Unless the applicant can demonstrate
. otherwise, we believe that fan sizinq (CFK) should meet the
following criterion:
CFM - opening size (sq. ft.) X 60
/1;2 - 9</
-4-
~
DulIping the conte~ts of refuse trus;ks on the tipping floor and
1II0ving the materJ..als to sort for reCYC2lables can create dust
clouds, especially if. the contents include dirt or construction and
demolition debris. The negative pressure/roof-top' exhaust will
remove sOllie of the smallest dust particles, but the heavier dust
will settle out within the builcUng on workers and equipment.
The current state of the art in transfer station dust control is
through a water lIIist system. Water is sprayed under very high
pressure (= 1000 psi) through nebulizing nozzles. The tiny water
droplets ag-qlomerate the. suspencl.ecl. dust and cause it to settle out
faster within the transfer station. Chelllicals can be acl.decl. to the
water for odor control, These Chelllicals have, in the past, been
mainly deodorizing agents such as pine or citrus concentrates. A
nWllber of proprietary odor counter-reactants have been marketed in
the last t'ew years. Dust control lIIay therefore have an odor
control benefit with the addition of such Odor-reducing agents.
Hoise
Noise levels ,from trucks accessing- the site will not be
SUbstantially different than from the historic use of the site as
a truck terminal. Any noise iJlpact differences- would be due to on-
site noise generation.
"New" em-site noise sources would be frolll waste unloading. 0::-
loadinq activities, or from mechanical equipment associated wiu~
nuisance abatement. Loading/unloading is prilllarily associated wit~l
hydraulic systelllS to dump the packer trucks and to load the.
residuals disposal trailers. SOllle engine acceleration is often
associated with operation of the hydraulics.
Peak noise levels of 90 dB have been measured within transfer
stations with average levels of 80 dB. Attenuation by the solid
walls of a transfer station is 40 dB, such that peaks would be only
marqinally.' detectable and averages not at all with the existing
.baCkqrouncl. noise environment. Audibility would only occur along
the side of the building with the'truck access opening. .' Xf there
is a direct line of. sight from the equipment to an Off-site
r~ceiver, attenuation by sphericalspreacl.ing would produce nois~
levels of 70 dB peak/60 dB averaqe. However, because trucks wilJ
qenerally not dump their loads immediately adjacent to the access/
egress door, their. direct line of sight to any Off-site receive~
may be blocked even in the.direction of the door itself. Avera;g
A,) - 9;;:-'
1'"""....\..:-...;:;-.=.:::- . I ..;:;:;:
'~.......'_\ ~ r-..,;::.;;;..J....
. c'
t.
-5-
levels at 500 feet with partial blockage or intermittent exposure
would be perhaps 50 dB. This is consistent with daytime standards
for the city of Chula Vista~ While. it is highly preferable that
the accesS opening not face any off.i;ite, .noisQ sensitive uses, we
would not anticipate that noise standards 'would bQ violated even if
it did.
Mechanical equipment noise may derive from the proposed exhaust fan
used for building ventilation. If the tan is mounted on the roof,
noise may propagate freely in all directions Unless the tan housing
is partially enclosed. Calculation was made of the spreading loss
between the equipment and the nearest residence at.. 600 feet from
the source. The SUlIl of the spreading loss plus the standard (using
45 dB as the most stringent standard) is the allowable upper bound
on fan noise expressed as follows:
45 dB (standard) + 46 dB (spreading loss)
_ 91 dB (maximum noise generation at J feet)
If the fan noise is rated at 90 dB or less at 3 feet, it will meet
the standard even if mounted outside. If the fan exceeds this
performance standard, it will require partial enclosure or that it
be mounted inside the building.
vibration
Vibration from the proposed operations likely will not b~
perceptible beyond the building envelope. There are no vibratio~
sensitive residences or industrial prOduction processes that would
be exposed to any perceptible project-generated qround vibration.
~'B'I"IfIeI'ndations :
1. Ventilation. systems shall be sized. to maintain an averagE:
inflow of 1 foot per second on any building openinqs.
~. A water mist dust control system shall be installed with the
option to add deodorants or odor counter-reactants to the
water, it necessary.
3. Mechanical equipment mounted outdoors. shall not have noise.
qeneration exceeding' 90 dB at 3 feet without a propaqatio~
barrier between the source and the rQceiver.
/ld. -Cfrc
'T,..,....,-.. -
l
'.
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY"
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
(PHASB I. ESA)
187 MACE S'I:REET
CHULA VISrA. CAIlFORNIA
SUB:M.u 1..t;.LJ TO:
SKY TRUCKING
412 CROSBY STREEr
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92113
SUB:M.H 1..t;.LJ BY:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVaRDALE STREEI'
. ,
SAN DIEGO, CAlIFORNIA 92120
Providing ProfessioMl Erlgineering Servias Since 1959
)1;)-97
~~-~6-E6 10.10 FKOH,6~ CAL ~~lL ~STING
: (
, .' ~ SO\J11lERN CAllFORNlA-'
"':' ./ SllIL &: n:sm;G INC.
.. " ,
':.,," 62SO lm<daIe S","" SIn DioF. CA. 92120
ro Boo; fI)l!5Z7. Su Di<:o. CA. 911~
619-230-43ZI, FAX 619-28Q-U17
1D,,;16 :260 4717
PA~:ii 3/23
~.
March 9,1996
Sky Truclcing
412 Crosby Street
San DU:go, California 92113
SCS&T 9613010
Report No. 1
SUBJECI':
Report of Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (phase I. ESA),
l87 Mace Street, O1ula Vista, Califomia.
Gentlemen:
In response to the Iequest of Mr. James Algert of Algert Engineering and our Proposal
No. 965054, we have performed a PreliminaIy Environmental Site Assessment ~ I.
ESA) of !he subject property to assess the potenti2I presence of ~toxic materials. .
Our study was limited to a site .~.a!ssance and a :eview of &val1a;lle information.
SuIfaec/subsu:rface sampling or testing of soil, wa%e1', or other e...b.\..eot1S matcrla1s was
not within the scope of this study.
We urge you to read the entire report and 10 aml2Ct the IIlldersi,."IIed with any questions
. :. or conceros )'tlU may have pertaining to 1his report.
. . . ~ ...
:
A PIul.se I ESA comprises a ntlmber of individual elements whose basic wuie II1d extent
are detennined in =dance with the Slandard of care appIlcable to PhllSC I ESAs. The
mndard of care is commonly defined as the care applied by the ordinaIy practitioner at
the time and in the 1m!. where the ESA was performed. We believe that we have
.'_' .../1 9? - 1? __" ..' . ... .... '._
SCS&T 9613010
l
March 9. 1996
complied v.ith the appli!='lble standard of care and that we have complied as well with
Phase I ESA practices and service scope elements nx:ommended by the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Note that our services intentionaIlydid not include
any inquirles with ru~ to asbestos, radon, methane, wetlands or any other ancillary
hazardous matcri.als or conditions.
'-
The accompanying ~rt is an instrument of seMee of SCS&.T. The report summarizes
0tIt findings and relates our opinions with respect to the potential for hazardous mate.rla1s
to exist at the site at levels 1il:e1y to wanant mitigation pursuant to eu:n-ent guidelines
regulated by the County of San Diego anlJJor the State of California. Note that our
findings and opinions are based on information that we obtained on given dates, through
records review, site review, and related activities. It is possible that other information
e:dsts or subsequently has become known. just as it is possible for conditions we observed
to have changed after our observation. For these and ~scx-i"too<1 reasons, SCS&.T and
many of its peers routinely atlvise clients for ESA services that it would be a mistake to
place unmerited faith in findings and opinions conveyed via ESA repons. SCS&.T cannot
under any circumstances warrant or guaran~ that not finding indicators of any panicular
hazardous material means that this particularha%ardous material or any other hu2rdous
materials do not exist on the site. Additional research, Including invasive testing, can
'. reduce the risks. but no techniques now commonly employed can eliminate these risks
altogether. SCS&.T will be pleased to provide more information in this regard.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN',CAUFORNIA SOII:.AND ~G,. n;C..
:
:
Curtis R. Burdett CEO 11090
CRB:crb
cc: (4) Submitted
.Ad -99
KAR-eS-ES 10.11 FROM.~O CAL
L TiiSTING
10.618 :2Sr:J ( 7
PACE b/23
'..sc. ,
. I;.
" .
( .."
... ...
'..
!
SOUTHERN CALIFOllNll; '.
sOn.. & 'IE.S!'rnG, INC.
= lm<d&IeSIne'.s.. 0;.,0, CA 91120
EO. Bat !lOO627. SU Di<zD, CA 9l160-06Z7
619.w.43ll,rAX61 9-2:IIll-4717
REPORT OF PREU:MJNARY ENVIRONMENI'AL SII:E ASSESSMENT
EXISTING COMMERCIAL SITE
187 MACE STREET
CHDLA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
'-
,.
This IepOrt is an instrUl!lent of service of SCS&T. The ~rt pr=;nts the results of a
1'base I Environmmtal Site Assessment (ESA) of the subject site. peao.med for Sky
TIucl:ing. 'The services pe:rfortm:d included limited research, a review of specified
listings, and a site ~ce.
--
A Phase I ESA is conducted to permit fomula.tion of an opinion as to the po1=ltial for
hazardous materials to exist at a site at levels likely to warrant mitiga1ion pu=t to
regu1a1ioDS 'of the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division and
defined by the California Code of Regulations, OpilliOllS:dative to the ha=dous
nWeria1s pot.e:ltial given in thIs rqKlrt are based upon informalion detived from the mOSt
r=t site :recoDII2issance and from othe: activities n..vn~ herein. The client is
berewith advised 1ba.t the conditions observed by SCS&T axe subject to change. Certain
. indicators of the presence of Jwaxdous IIllI1e:rials ~y have been ~ ~ the time of the
mOst IeCent site ~ and ~y subsequently have become obseIYab1e.In a
similar manner. the r=areh effort eonduCled for a phase I ESA is limited. Accordingly.
it is possible that SCS&T's xesearch. whlle fully approptia!e for a Phase I ESA. failed 10
indicate the existence of iCll~Wlt information $0=. Assuming such $outCCS actually
/ld. -/()()
... ..... ..---..-..-.....
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996 .
Page No.2
exist, their information could not have been considered in the formulation of SCS&T's
iindings and opinions.
In essence, a Phase I ESA is a service ~ose basic elements arc detern1ined by the
standard of care prevailing at the time the service.was rcndcr=i in the area where it was
rendc:rcd. Because $l3ncjards of care can be identified only through retrospective inquiry,
. SCS&T has. assumed that. th~ standard of care is articulated by American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard.E1S27.
Problems have arisen in the past ..........."... people ~d orpnizations bave assumed,
improperly. that they could rely on a Phase I ESA report developed for another party, So
there is no confusion in this respect, recognize that Sky Tn1eking is the only intended
beneficiary of this report. Reliance on this report by any party other than Sky Trucking
could possibly result in reliance on assumptions whose CXtent and nature would distort the
meaning and impact of the findings and opinions related herein, in turn xesulting in
misinterpretation of these findings and opinions and unwise actions based on those
misinterpretations. SCS&T'S findings and opinions presented in this report may not be
relied on by any party except Sky Trucking. With the consent of our client, SCS&T is
available to contract ~th other parties to develop findings and opinions related 'specifically
to such other parties' unique risk management concerns.
The guidelines used to define "hazardous materials" wc:c oblaineltfrom the California
Code of Regulations. For the purposes of this report, the "vicinity- of the site is defined
as Ploperti~ located within an ~ximate one half-~e to. ono-~ .~ius of the_site. .:
a . .: .. . .. . ..
.-
SCOPE OF SERVICE
The $cope of our setVices included the following:
,. . .
Ad-IO(
~-~~-6o 10.12 r~un'~J ~~~
SCS&T 9613010
.... ...zO;)i .I.~u
.. oJ' c...:;:;...r .~ ( .I. ,
r,...,~.::;. i".....,;,
l
~.
Page No.3
March 9, 1996
1) Performing a visual reconnaissance of the exterior areas of the property for the
presence of noticeable gasoline, petroleum products, or other obvious toxic
materials.
2) Identifying properties within a close proXimity to reveal V1Y uses that may be
significantly hazardous to the subject site. Available governmental records were
reviewed for information concerning the p..optJ.ty or neighboring sites.
3) Contacting various pertinent governmental agencies, reviewing applicable lists,
:files, etc., with regards to any specific information pertaining to the subject site.
..
~
. .'
:
nDERAL SOURCES
- National Priority List (NPL)
CERCUS (CC)
NFRAP (NF)
Federal Facilities (PF)
- Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) .
Site :Enfo~ent nacldng System (SE)
- . Enforcement Docket SyStem (DOCKET/CDETS)
RCRA
:Resource Conservation RH;ove:ry Infonnation Systems (RCRIS)
Superfund Lie:ls (UENS)
Federal Enforceme:lt DoCkets (FD) ..
.....'-.-.
.' ... ..... ,'.'
.. . ~
.. 'CALlFORNIA STATE SOURCES .
- Annual Work Plan (BP) (previously known as Bond Expenditure Plan)
CAI.SIIES (previously known as Abandoned Sites Program
... .
Information System)
Huardous Waste and Substance Sites List (CORTESE)
Leaking UndergroundStori..o:e Tanks (L'I)
- Solid Waste Information System (SS)
/ld.- -(()d-.
. .
I
'-...
. SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
- ABlS03 Follow-Up Program
- California Department of Conservation
- Division of Oll and Gas
.. REGI~AL SOURCFS
Underground Tank Listing (LUSTS)
- Toxic Rel...~ (N1)
Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TCPCA)
Solid Waste Test Program (SWAT)
- Spills, Leai:s, Investigation and Cleanup (SUe)
Well Investigation Program WIP (AB1803)
- Hazardous Waste Information System (HWIS)
.. SAN DIEGO COUNTY 'RMMD LTSTINGS
- BE 58 Listing
- BE 17 Listin..
..
- Environmental Assessment Listing
.. OPERATING 'PERMITS
RCRA Gene:a1ors (RN)
. - . RCRA-TSD Facilities (ID)
SARA TItle m, sectipn:~13 (SA} "".".,
Nuclear RegIiIatory Com"";~On Licensees" (Nc)
- PCB Handlers !)olt..~a.se (Pil)
- Permit Comp}iance System (PC)
- AIRS Facility System (AF)
.. SeCtion Seven T:acldng System (PE)
.. . .
~:,. C FIFR.All'ScA :rIiekini System (FT)
- Fedcn1 Facilities Information System (FSIS)
/leJ.-(()3
Page No.4
,~R-~S-S6 10113 FROM.SD CAL F -L ~ESTINC
SCS&T 9613010
...
~
ID.S1S 28f'l ~717
PAGE 8/23
\-.
Much 9, 1996
Page No. 5
Chemicals in Commerce Information System (cr)
FINDS EP A Facility Index System (FN)
Hazardous Waste Information System (HW)
- Underground Storage'I)nks (UT)
,
OTHER SOURCR<;.
- San Diego County Agricultural Commission
- Restricted and Non-Restricted Permit Review
- San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)
- San Diego County Air Quality Management District
- Fire Dep2rtment
- Building Depanment
- W2!tt and Sewer Agencies
4) Analyzing available published maps, photographs or published material
pemining to the subject site or immediate loc:alized area.
...
City of Chula Vista
- Sewer and Drainage Maps
San Diego County
- Aerial Photographs
- Topographic Maps
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
- Aerial Photog~hs . . .
. United S~ Geological Survey (USGs)
- 'topographic Maps
Sanborn Pire Insurance Maps
**
**
..
..
~
.
5) Evaluation of existing hydrogeOlogical information. incl~ding the direction of
ground water flow and water table levels where available.
A d.. - I 0 cj
SCS&T 9613010
\...
March 9, 1996
Page No. 6
6) Reviewing any other pertinent data (soils, g~technical. environmental, etc.)
provided by client, pertaining to the subject site potential for ha%:ardous material
conl2mination.
7) Performing an assessment as to whether present er past ewners er tenants have
stored, treated, or discbarg=i ha%:arOous materials or waste.
8) Reviewing the site ownership and site tenant infermation to help identify past
owners or tenants that may have used ha:r.ardous materials.
LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT
It sheuld be noted that the scope of a preliminary environmental'site assessment normally
does not include analysis for asbestos, neioe, lead paint, methane gas or other anci1lary
hazardous material stUdies within any existing en-site struetures or exterior ef property.
The findings and opinions conveyed via this ESA report ate based on infermation obtained
from a variety ef sources enumerated herein, and which SCS&T believes are reliable.
Nonetheless, SCS&T can not and does not guaIantee the authenticity or reliability of the
infonnation it has received.
. . . ..". .,.
ThiS report is ~ot a comprehensive Site charactetiWioti ~d meuld not be consttued as
. . .
such.' The opinions presented in this report are based en findings derived from a site
recoJ'nil;~1;'>flce, a xeview of specified regulatory 'xecords and historical sources, and
comments made by interViewecs, SCS&.T has found indicators that suggest that hazardous
m"t~"I$ =ist 81 the site at levels likely to warrant rnitiption; the mitiption measures
c:un:ently utilized include proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials and lor
hazardous waste.
,Ad -!()S-
SCS&T 9613010
l
March 9, 1996
Page No.7
Phase I ESAs, by their very nature, are limited. SCS&T has endeavored to meet what
it believes is the applicable Standard of care and, in so doing, is obliged to advise our
client of Phase I ESA limitations. SCS&T believes that providini information about
limitations is essential to help the client identify and thereby manage its risks. These risks :
can be mio.,e-ated-but they cannot be e1imina~-through additional research. SCS&r will
on request advise our client of the additional research ~ttl1Ilities available, their impact
on risk, and their cost.
mnTJNG CONDlnONS
The ESA was limited both by ac::cess to portions of the site and by the availability of
~overnmental records and other applicable information sources,
FINDINGS
ON-SITE SURVEY
Site Description '
The project site is an L-shaped parcel of land 10C21ed adjacent to and east of Mace Street
in the City of ChuIa VISta. The site is ~titied as Parcel 3 of ~ Map 5ll4;. the .
. . As~$Or's Parcel Num~r is 629;130-27 and th~ size is 4.69 Beres. The, site haS
approximately 175 feet of frontage along Mace Street and ranges up to approxim2te1y 660
feet deep; the eastern P10perty line is approximately 440 feet long. The site is bounded
. on the north and south by developed commercial P"1Vperty and on the east by an unlined
dIainage channel with slopes up to approximately 10 feet high; a self-storage facility is
. across the channel to the east. The site currently supports several sttuctutes.that have been
llfiH",p-d in the existing and pievi.01.lS commercial operations at the site; these struct\.J.re$
/lr:2-I00
SCS&T 961.3010
March 9. 1996
Page No. 8
include three block or block and stucco buildings, a small stucco building. a metal
building, a concrete lQading dock and ramp, a truck sc:a1e, a fuel island, assorted concrete
wallS, and several concrete slabs (both with and without overhangs). Most of the portion
of the site that is not occupied by buildings is covered with gIavel and used for truck and
tr2i1er stOI2gC. The site is generally void of vegemtion ~t for landscaping on the front
portion of the lot (near Mace Street) and for a few small weeds that have been allowed to
grow in ~ locations. .
A ~ visit and observation was performed to detmnine the Cldsting subject site
conditions. The putpOsc of the visit was to observe for any indication of the presence of
obvious hazardous material contamination. The results of the site xeconnaissance revealed
. that automobile parts, tires, and petrOleum products ~"tt".tj with the ~sting trueking
operations at the site are present on-site. The hazardous wastes generated !rom the
existing commercial ope:ations at the site are currently stored in 55-gallon dntms on the
northeastern portion of the site. In addition, it mould be noted that one 12.000-g.allon
underground fuel storage tank: II$SO"""'..... with the trUCking operation is present.
OFF-SITE SURVEY
In addition to the on-site reconnaissance, re:presenwives of SCS&T obServed adj=t
. .. properties while located on public thorougbfms. Observations were made in an effort to
assess if facilities andl.or structures are l~ on these properties and, if so, if they are
. .- - . -......
operated by entities wh~ names suggest ~ they~ might use, stare, generate; treat, or
diSpose of ha%ardous materials in the course of their business. Numerous ~usinesses
within . the one-mile search ndius of the property utilize, stare, generate, or transpOrt
. ... . hazardous material.
Ad -( 0 7
~~-~~-~; ~~'.~ ~^-,~,~~ ~~- -
...~':='...J.~l.r
._.~.- .-.-
r".......~..:.. .....;./.:....;;
SCS&T 9613010
\.
March 9, 1996
Page No.9
RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDmONS
Information obtained indicates that some recognized environmental conditions presently
exist on and in the vicinity of the site. (A ~ environmental condition is defined
as the presence or likely presence of any hazardouS substances or petroleum products on
a {>. c.peay under conditions that indic:ate an e:risting %dease, a past release, or a material
threat of a ~ease of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on
the ~.oputy or into the ground, ground water, or suxface water of the property. The term
includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance
with laws). The site reconnaissance revealed that some petroleum products, motor vehicle
parts, and tires associated with the Cldsting ti:ucking W:ility at the site are present at the
site and that a 12,OOO-gallon underground fuel (diesel) storage tank is present at the site.
Another fuel storage tank (a lOoo-gallon unleaded tank) was apparently removed in 1986.
In addition, the site reconnaissance and review of available information indicated that
hazardous materials andlor petroleum products are used, generated, stored. treated, or
disposed of at the subject site and on close-proximity sites (within one mile of the site).
It should be noted that the subject site is listed as an environmental concern on one of the
Regional sources (the Toxic Releases list) and is listed on two of the Operating Permits
lists (Hazardous Waste Information System and Underground Stoxa:e Tanks).
A vai1able information indicates that the facility at the subject site failed an integrity test
in the past but apparently a site a.~~sn'lCnt was ~roUlled. the lOOO-gallon unleaded
gasoline was properly removed. and the case was closed in 1989. Other than the 1000-
pllon fuel tank; there is no in~rmation to necessarily. ~ggest that ~ on~site so~
. or close.:proid~ity sites .have significantly adversely i~ the Subjectpr<)~ tliough, .
. there is some indic:ationthat some surlicial contamination may have ............e:d. Portions
oftbe site's surface are stained with petrOleum produets and there is a possibility that some
minor Jl"<>kge may be associated with the commercial operations at the site, including, but
not ne~sXlrl1y limited to, fueling and servicing of the vehicles.
,:1
//;;. _10 g
,
T .
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. lO
Wed on such factors as the distance to the close'proximity sites, the topographic relief,
and the elevation differences, the likelihood of these off~site sources affecting the site is
considered low to moderate. This is considered normal for commercialloca1es such as
that at and near the subject site.
,
.,
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDmONS
GEOLOGIC S:b;lUNG AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The project site is 10""tf'ff in the
Coastal Plains. Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by
Quaternary-age sedimentary materials identified as stream temce deposits. The deposits
generally consist of brown to grayish~brown. medium dense to dense sands and sandy silts,
and sandy gravels. Underlying the ~ary-age materials, at an undetermined depth,
are the ye1lowish-bro'Nri sandy silts and SIlty fine sands of the Pliocene-age San Diego
Fonnation.
GROID\'DW ATER: A review of the State of California Department of Water Resources
Hydrologic Data indicates the subject site is loca1ed within the Otay Hydrologic Subunit
of the Otay Hydrologic Unit within the San Diego Drainage Province.
.. Depth to groundwater in this area may be at seven] tens of feet; however. perched
groundwater may be encountered at shallower depths.
.'
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
Aerial photographs were reviewed at the San Diego County offices and included the years
1!?28, 1970. 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1989. United States Depa.t1oent of Agriculture
photographs were reviewed for the year 1953, A summaI)' of the aerial photograph
. review is presented below.
/1;2-107
'R-~S-56 10,17 FROM,50 CAL
<..
lL TESTING 10,618 28f \717
PAGE
15/23
SCS&T 9613010 .
March 9, 1996
Page No. 11
A review of the 1928 aerial photographs indicates the subject site and much of the
surrounding property were vacant. undeveloped property or agricultural property. Mace
Street was present along the western bol,1ndary and the small trlbl,1t:ary drainage channel to
the Otay River was present along the eastern boundary.
A review of the 1953 photographs indicated that the site and most of the adjacent property
were used for agricultural purposes. Several small structures were obsetVed in the general
vicinity and o~ the western portion of the site. In addition, some structures which appear
to be greenhouses were also obsetVed on the western portion of the site.. The eastern
portion of the site appeared to be vacant land.
A review of the 1970 photographs mrcaled conditions similar to 1953 but inc::rcased
development in the surrounding area had oecurred.
A review of the 1973 photographs revealed the presence of the existing small structures
on the western portion of the site and the presence of another structure to the east (possibly
one of the remaining greenhouses) that has since been removed, It appears that the eastern
portion of the site was in the process of being prepared for development on the 1973
photographs,
A review of the photographs for Sl.~ing years (1978, 1983, and 1989) indicar.ecl that
the site apparently continued to be used for commercial purposes and that the surrounding
area bas ~dually been in~gly.d~elO~ for commercial uses.
--
TOPOGRAl'BIC MAP REVIEW
i The 19S~ and the 1972 editions of the County of San Diego .2ClO-scale maps were
:; reviewed. . A review of these maps indicated similar infonnation as that seen on the aerial
photographs. The 1904 edition of the United States Geological Survey San Diego
/ld-.. -Iro
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 12
Quadrangle (IS-minute series), the 1953 edition of the United Sta1es Geological Survey
San Ysidro Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), 2nd the 1967 edition of the United States
Geological Survey Imperial Beach Quadrangle [l.5-minute series) topographic maps were
reviewed and also indicated similar informition.
ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW
Applicable governmental records were reviewed as part of OUT scope of se:viccs. A
computerized Iecord search was performed by BBL Information Retrieval in February
1996. A copy of the report by BBL is presented as Appendix A. In gen~,the teSults
of the review of available governmental records indicate the presence of several businesses
within the search radius (one mile) that use, generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous
materials and/or petrOleum products.
Based upon the aforementioned reviewed information, there is no ;,,'!;""tion that any on-
site business or close proximity business has ~ted in significant on-site contamination,
other than the 10Cl0-gallon fuel tank that has been removed. Available information
indicateS that the facility at the subject site failed an integrity test in the past and that a site
assessment was performed and that the case was closed in 1989. However, as noted
previously, the subject site is listed as an environmenl3l concern on one of the Regional
sources (the Toxic Releases list) and is listed on two of the Operating Pcrndts lists
(Hazardous Waste lnfoImation System and Underground Storage Tanks). .
... -. -
. .
CITY AND COUNTY DIRECTORIES REVIEW
A representative of SCS&.Treviewed the Haines DiIectoty and the Polk D~tory
available at the City of San Diego Library to obtain information abo.ut previous occupants
of the site and adjacent properties. These directories were reviewed at intavals to attempt.
to identify past occupants of the site and adjacent properties whose corporate names
,/IJ.. -/((
~R-25-SS 10.18 FROH,SO CAL - -L TESTING
\..
101615 2r- "717
PACE 17/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. l3
suggest activities typically associated with the use, generation, storage, treatment, or
disposal of hazardous matcrlals.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIR. QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIS11UCT
The San Diego County Air Quality Management District was cont3Cted for rca>rds
pertaining to possible releases of hazardous substances to the atmosphere.
WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT.
~
The City of Chula Vista Water and Sewer Department and the County of San Diego
Health Department was contacted to obtain informatiOn regarding the source of water and
method of SCW3ge disposal at the site in order to help determine if on-site effluent disposal
may have contributed to possible site contamination. No infonnation was found to suggest
that effluent disposal at the site has been the source of possible surface or subsurface
contamination.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION
The San Diego County Agricultural Commission was contacted for recOrds pemimng to
pesticide usage. No record for use of pesticides or non-restricted chemical products would
apparently be available for review. It should be noted that these records are typically kept
. . .. ..
only for two or three years, and therefore, would DOt be applicable. to the project site.
..:
.
/ld-.-/ld-..
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 14
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
No transformen were observed at the site and no stains or other features indicative of
significant contamination were observed. Previous conversations with SDG&.E indicate
no probabl~ record of site PCB contamination. SDG&:B has inriiMltl'rl that individual
te$ting of ~y tnnsformen would usually be required to deternline whether PCBs are
p%eSent within the transfonnen. It is their opinion t:ha1 the probability of the p.e 5"4ce of
PCBs is snotim=Uy vt:ry low. It is also our understanding that in the tm1ilno.ly occurrence
of site con~tion as the result of PCB COft"'",illAtion, it would be the responsibility and
liability of SDG&E.
REGIONAL WILDCAT MAP
A review of the Regional Wildcat Map for wells dn1led for oiL/gas in San Diego County
did not indicate any wells listed in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.
SAmORN FmE INSURANCE MAPS
The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were miewed at the City of San Diego LibraI}' in an
, attempt to help determine whether the site or adjacent property was identified as having
undergtound fuellanks or being used for industrial putpOses:
. .
. , .~ ~. ... ~~.. '.1"
:
:~.. ;. . -
. .
..,
. .. ~ .-.,
'. CONCLUSIONS
SCS&T has perfonned a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the s\1bject site.
SCS&T has endeavored to perfonn this Phase I ESA in substantial conformance with the
/1,;)-113
~~-~=-=~ l~.~~ r^wn.~~ ~~~
\1.. IESTli-l...
iO.618 ::i::6,' '\(1"(
FAGE 15/.2~
SCS&T 9613010
l
March 9, 1996
Page No. l5
scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E 1527-93. Base<! on our agreed-upon scope of
services, the following conclusions are presented.
l) The site appears to have been used for ~gricultuIal and commercial purposes since at
least 1953. These uses have included ireenholises, storage, and trucking.
2) A site reconnaissance revealed the presence of features indicative of surficial and
possible subsurface contamination at the site. These featureS include surface $l2ining,
the presence of petroleum products, and subsurface fuel storage tanlcs. Th~ is no
indication .that the degree of surficial contaminalion and possible subsurface
contamination e;.;ceeds that e:q>ected for sites that support commercial operations such
as at the subject site.
~
3) A review of governmental agency lists and records inoi,.",,,,,,:
a) Records indicate a listing of one current 12,OOO-gallon underground storage tanks
for the subject site; a lOoo-gallon unleaded fuel tank previously was present at
the site but was apparently removed in the late 1980s.
b) Records indicate the presence of on-site businesses and close proximity
businesses which are identified as using, storing, generating, or disposing of
hazardous materials. The current trucking operation apparently disposes of waste
oil and mixed oil, dqreasing sludge, and used oil filters. At this time, there is
. ,
. no indication that, other than the l0Q0-gallon tank that has been removed, these
: sourCes have 'si~ificantly .adversely impac~ the ~ject site. . Based .on. the
distance to the close-proximity sites, the stratigraphic conditions, cl:2inage
gradients and elevations, the probability of on-site contamination from these off-
site sources should be considered to be low to modeme. Ovaall, the adjacent
. .
. (l-mile.radius) businesses should be considered similar to other commercial use
. areas and this risk is considered normal.
. ,"
,Ad- -lit.!
SCS&T 96130iO
Marc.... 9, 1~6
Page No. 16
It should be noted that the above summaries are based solely upon a review of <I\'aiIable
records and a limited site =nnaissance. It must be =gnizc4 that a preliminuy site
assessment (ESA) is not a comprehensive site invc:stigation. An ESA solely convey~ an
opinion of the site's potential for being contaminated by hu:udous materials. ESAs are
not perfumed to ascertain that a site is n-"'Ti1y ~ of contamination. The limited
ptcliminary nature and seopc of this report precllldes any definite detcnnination of the
. '
possible extent of site contamination. At this time, based upon our limited investigation,
the potential for site c:orrtamination appears ID be limited to that desctibed within this
report. However, it should be noted that them is always the possI'bility of contalIlinatiOll
from unl:nown or undetected sources which may unknowingly conb:ibute to site
contamination; .
:
-
/!eJ--((0,
SCS&T 9613010
l
March 9. 1996
Page No. 17
LIMITATIONS
TIME LIMITATIONS
'.
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a
property can, however, occur with the p"c~ge of time, whether they be due to natural
proce~ses or the work of man on this or adjacent 14operties. In addition, changes in the
Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the
findings of this'repon may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control.
Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of twO years without a
review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of ca~ and
skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession eunendy practicing under similar
conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that conditions often change and
that our conclusions are based on obServations and available infonnation. We shall not
be responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts of information
either in-correct, concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed from other sources. Our .
services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no wam.nty of any
kind whatsoever, ....~,ess or implied, is ~e ~r ~tencled in connection with the work
performed ~r to be performed by'us, or .by our proposal for ConSulting or oth~ ~~..
or by our furnishing of oral or wtitta1 reportS or findings.
Ad- -II~
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 18
REFERENCES
Aerial Graphics, Aerial Fote>-Map Book, S~ Diego County, 1982, 1984-85, 1986-87,
Sheet G-l7, Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate).
BBL, 1995. Environmental Record Search for the Mace Street Project, 187 Mace Stteet,
ChuIa Vista, California. dated February 21, 1996 (contains list of sources usecl).
California Department of ConseIvation, 1989, Regional Wildcat Map
Lenska Aerial Images, 1994, The Thomas Guide, Commercial Edition, Page'1330, Scale:
1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate)
San Diego County, 1958, 2OQ.Scale Map, Sheet 154-1749.
San Diego County, 1972, 2OQ.Scale Map, Sheet lS4-1749.
San Diego County. 1928, Aerial Photograph xxx:
San Diego County, 1970, Aerial Photographs 10-4 &.10-5
San Diego County, 1973, Aerial Photographs 21-5 &. 21-6
Sail Diego County, 1978, Aerial Photographs 27C-24 &. 2S~
San Diego County, 1983. Aerial Photogr2phs 567 &. 568
San Diego County, 1989, Aerial Photograph 34-189 &.34-191
San Diego Gas and Electric, Environmental Department
/!;J -1(7
SCS&T 9613010
l
March 9, 1996
.--- '
Page No. 19
Southern California Soil &. Testing, Inc., 199 I, Report of Preliminary Environmental Site
Assessment, Pacific Non'FentlUS Recycling, 199 1/2 Mace Street, Chula Vista,
California, Project No. 91130l7, dated November 5, 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial Photographs, AXN-3M-43 &. 44
U.S. Geological Survey, 1904, 15 Minute Topographic~, San Diego Quadrangle
U.S. Geological Survey, 1953,7 l/2 M"mute Topographic Maps, San Ysidro Quadrangle
U.S. Geological Survey, 1967,7 1/2 Minute Topographic Maps, Imperial Beach
Quadnngle
:
"
/7;t.-II?
T-
11{E, _ (OF muLA VISTA DISCLOSURE S....EMENT
You arc required 10 file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contrihutions, on all mailers whieh will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other omcial bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. Ust the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the suhject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subconlraclllr, material supplier.
tJ/('
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more lhan 10% of the sharc.~ in Ihe corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
\iO""I'lI CqII..I.".,)7~
7ArJdiPA. CrrltA.-lAl7e.y
/
3. If any person' identified pursuant III (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 beneftciary or trustor of the lrus\.
N/',q
.
4.
Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any me~er of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillees, and Couneil within the past lwelve months? Ycs_ No~ If yes, please inqicale person(s):
5.
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contraClors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City. in this mailer.
JlJ'A~ ~77'VN' &.1l~'-'7>vv-r-
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, conlributed more than SI,OOO to a Councilmember in lhe
current or preceding election period? Ycs_ No~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
· · . (NOTE.: Allam additioD81 pages as
Signature 0 co or/applicant
\j;'iN t!"7IU'-..J-;'~'7
. Print or type name of contractor/applicant
Dale: JI- W ~ fA,
/1.3-(
. P<nnn is tkfitl<d as: . All)' ;,ufMm.Q~ f"'... co.pDntl<nhip, joinJ v<7UlUC, lWocicui"'.sociDI chlb, ,...=",[ "'SGJlizmion, c"'1""DliOll, _'e, '""" reeeiva-, I)'I'dicaJ<,
this ond any other cowU)'. cily muJ cow&Dy, city t1uUliciptJliry, districr. or OIhCT polilical ~visiOlt, or DlIY olher 6'OUP or combUuuiOl' <<ling Af II WUL"
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSIKESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:05 p.m.
Wednesdav. August 28. 1996
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas,
Thomas, Tuchscher and Willett
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner
Griffm, Associate Planner Reid, Associate Planner
Miller, Senior Civil Engineer Goldkamp, Senior
Civil Engineer Ullrich, Conservation Coordinator
Meacham, Principal Co=unity Development
Specialist Buchan, Contract Attorney McCarberg
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSC (ThomaslWillett) 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
August 6, 1996. Chair Tarantino and Commissioner Ray noted that they had been absent for
the meeting but had read the information and felt comfortable to vote on the minutes.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Tarantino reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and
the format of the meeting, and welcomed Peggy McCarberg who was representing the City
Attorney's office for the meeting.
ORAL COMMU1\TICATIONS - None
/1';-1
PC Minutes
.2-
August 28, 1996
ITEM 1.
PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A MUI\TJ:CIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER AND MATERIAL
RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - Mace Street Transfer, Inc.
(Continued from meeting of August 14, 1996)
Assistant Planning Director Lee responded to issues raised in a letter which had been hand
delivered that day from the applicant's attorney. Regarding the "irregular Planning Commission
hearing held on August 14th in which testimony was taken," the applicant had been contacted
and advised that staff would be reco=ending continuance of the item, with the notation that
no action would be taken on the 14th. The hearing would be opened to allow anyone in the
audience who would not be able to attend the meeting of August 28 to provide testimony. Mr.
Lee asked those who had spoken on the 14th not to repeat themselves, but said they would be
allowed to speak again if they had further testimony.
'-
Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report, noting the surrounding land uses and the
adjacency to the Otay River Valley Regional Paik Mr. Miller stated that staff had been
concerned with three main issues: that the project is not consistent with the provisions of the
Montgomery Specific Plan, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan, and the
Zoning Ordinance; the impacts of a municipal solid waste plant and material recovery facility,
that the type of traffic attracted to such a facility would degrade the co=unity; that the project
is not compatible with surrounding limited industrial land uses and the residential areas further
to the east. Mr. Miller compared this site to the Maxwell plant near the Otay Landfill. It was
staff's opinion that the fmdings required for approval of a special land use permit could not be
made, as outlined in the staff report and the Redevelopment Agency resolution of denial.
Associate Planner Reid stated that at the Resource Conservation Commission meeting held
August 26th, five of the six Commissioners voted to not take action on the environmental
document and to reco=end that the Planning Commission deny the special land use permit for
the proposed project. One Co=issioner voted to approve the project, but did not take action
on the environmental document. Staff reco=ended that the Planning Commission not take
action on the environmental document and deny the project.
Commissioner Willett questioned the current generation in tons per day by the City. Mr. Miller
stated it was approximately 300 tons of municipal solid waste per day.
Commissioner Willett asked where the applicant intended to dump the left-over waste, into the
current landfill or out of state. Mr. Miller deferred to the applicant.
Co=issioner Willett asked if all the trucks leaving the area were enclosed. Conservation
Coordinator Meacham stated they would normally be required to be tarped, not necessarily
enclosed.
Regarding air circulation with the doors open, Commissioner Willett asked if there was any City
expertise for this type of building. Mr. Miller replied that the air circulation system was part
;4 4-d--.
PC Minutes
,
-~-
August 28, 1996
of the environmental analysis, as far as odors, etc. were concerned. Ms. Reid noted that Hans
Giroux, who had done a study of odor and air circulation and other potential impacts. The
design of the existing building plus the additional mitigation measures incorporated would reduce
any odors to a level below significance.
Commissioner Willett was concerned about the particles of dust not caught with the mist system.
Ms. Reid noted there were specific mitigation measures regarding dust, including pavement of
all travel paths and barriers to any unpaved surfaces. Any evidence of dirt track-out onto Mace
Street would be removed by washing or sweeping at the conclusion of each way. A misting
system would be required to be installed as a mitigation measure, capable of maintaining average
dust levels of less than 5 milligrams per cubic meter.
Commissioner Willett asked if any scrubbers were required in the exhaust system. Mr. Giroux
of Giroux Associates, stated that the dust control system proposed for this operation was an
ultrasonic nebulizer misting system. He noted that it was considered to be state-of-the-art in
terms of dust control and waste transfer. It was fairly unusual to build one of these systems and
have that kind of dust control as part of the project condition rather than trying to fix the
problem that arose later.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the trash would be picked up, dropped off, and transferred
out the same day. He asked what provisions were there if trucks broke down and the trash
could not go out the same day it came in, Mr. Miller deferred to the applicant to answer.
Since the public hearing had been continued from the last meeting, it did not have to be
reopened. Chair Tarantino noted that all of the people who spoke at the last meeting had elected
not to speak at this meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission did have their testimonies
before them.
Chair Tarantino noted that the applicant had a group presentation, and that the speakers had 15
minutes in which to make their presentation.
Charles Gill, 600 W. Broadway, 8th Floor, San Diego 92101, representing Mace Street
Transfer, Inc., responded to comments made by Mr. Lee relating to the hearing of August 14.
He stated for the record that there was a notice given that the hearing would not take place and
that it had been rescheduled. He suggested that it was a hearing that did not necessarily have
appropriate public notice. Mr. Gill stated that the trash transfer station was not a heavy
industrial use, and in many jurisdictions was located in a variety of limited industrial/high tech
business parks and directly adjacent with common boundaries to high density residential
developments. The building was approximately 39,000 sq. ft., self contained, and all uses
would take place indoors. All that would change from the standpoint of the actual use of this
site is that the trucks bringing trash to the facility would drive into an enclosed building over
asphalt, and dump the trash onto a concrete floor in an enclosed building. Mr. Gill noted there
were no adverse environmental impacts that could not be mitigated. He suggested that the
proposed use in an entirely enclosed building was significantly better than the current use.
/It/-3
PC Minutes
-4-
August 28, 1996
There would no longer be truck storage; there would be no additional traffic; Chula Vista's
record for redevelopment in the area was not successful. This type of use in this location would
act as a catalyst for redevelopment of the area and would provide significant benefits to the City
and to the community.
~
Mark 'Yatton, Mace Street Transfer, Inc., 187 Mace Street, Chula Vista, described the
current use on Mace Street. He noted that some of the waste was going to other landfIlls outside
of the area, wherever it was competitive and where they could get a Title D landfill. The
existing use involved trucking not related to waste but cross-border trucking, trailer parking, and
freight-forwarding activities within the warehouse building, along with a fueling operation. This
generated approximately 400 trips per day. They proposed to exchange all of those present uses
for the proposed use. Trucks were not only covered, but most had scales on them. Everything
would occur inside the building within a controlled environment. He believed the dust issue
would improve in that the lot that was currently a decomposed granite-type of structure would
be paved. All the operations consisting of trucks entering and exiting, or employees parking
their cars, would be done on pavement. Mr. Watton said the principal thing for them as a
generator of waste was competitiveness, and the Maxwell Road site did not allow it to be a
competitive situation. They were designing something that they thought would result in less
tipping fees and free enterprise. Mr. Watton showed some slides of current areas where trash
transfer stations were being used, noting that some of them were next to condominiums and
immediately adjacent to residential areas. Based on demonstration of existing facilities in other
communities and actual experience of those operating facilities, he felt this project did fit a light
industrial use and fit and enhanced the Montgomery Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, and
the Southwest Redevelopment Area. Mr. Watton asked for approval of the project.
Commissioner Salas asked if all the sites were close to a residential area. Mr. Watton replied
that most of them were next to a mixed use. Most all of them were within a 1,000 foot radius
of residential.
Pat La\'\Tence, Director of Facilities Engineering for SCS Engineers, 3711 Long Beach
Blvd., Long Beach, showed some pictures of different facilities, showing the adjacent uses.
He noted that the facilities could not increase operations in any way unless the facilities were
improved. The buildings are well policed and inspected regularly for vector control and cleaned
daily. The Integrated Waste Management Board has regulations that requires the facility to be
emptied out on a 48-hour basis. In the event of a break-down, the operators have to do
something to clean it up.
Commissioner Salas confumed that the trash was dumped inside the building; not outside. Mr.
Lawrence showed a slide and indicated the entrance, exit, turn-around, and the area inside the
facility where the trash would be deposited. He mentioned that the facility was designed to have
a 15-minute air change, with 12 8,000 cfrn exhaust fans on the roof of the facility which were
low profIled, architecturally shaped and screened within the units themselves.
/1<-1-<1
PC Minutes
-5.
August 28, 1996
Commissioner Salas noted that the activity going on was not permitted and was unlawful.
Attorney Gill stated that there was a citation for trash that was outside of dumpsters. The
trucking operation currently existing is a legal non-conforming use similar to other uses in the
Montgomery area. The citation had been taken care of, had not occurred since, and would not
occur again. It did not go to the existing operation on the site.
-~
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator for the City, stated that he had called the local
enforcement agency to report the incident where there was trash on the ground. Other staff had
at least on one other occasion seen trash on the ground at the facility, and he had seen trash on
the ground at the facility but had not been able to get the local enforcement agency to respond
previously, on not more than two occasions. Regarding the legality of the facility, Mr.
Meacham quoted from the Municipal Code regarding removal of or conveying waste to the City.
Mr. Watton stated they were not involved with any trash generated within the City, and were
not in violation of any of the franchise agreements, or collecting curbside. Regarding the
citation, in the process of characterizing the waste stream to get the 15 % recyclable count, trash
had been dumped and they were going through it. The Health Department gave them a clean-up
notice. They had promptly cleaned it up.
Mr. Meacham clarified that the quote from the Municipal Code was not part of the franchise,
but applied to anyone removing or conveying waste to the City.
Commissioner Salas stated it is not a permitted use, and the Commissioners were not to base
their decision based on whether or not it is a permitted use.
Commissioner Willett was concerned about trash around the building, and with trucks with no
covers.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the 300 trips per day was at 500 tons or at 1,000 tons. Mr.
Watton replied that it was at 1,000 tons, the maximum design. In reply to Commissioner
Thomas, Mr. Watton said there were probably 40 trips a day for the 25-ton trucks and 125 of
the 8-10 tons, at 1,000 tons per day. There would be 500 tons going in. The trucks would be
counted twice because they would be going in and out.
Commissioner Ray asked how the Health Department was notified. Mr. Meacham stated he had
called the Health Department. He had received a call from the public.
Commissioner Ray asked if there had been other complaints in the past regarding trash on the
ground. Mr. Meacham stated he had received complaints in the past, had attempted to go past
the facility to verify that there was trash on the ground, and there would not have been enough
time for the Health Department to drive by the facility and see the waste on the ground. He had
notified them, but had not asked them to respond. Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr.
Meacham stated he had probably had three complaints in the past eight months to a year.
/l4-S-
T -
PC Minutes
-6.
August 28, 1996
Commissioner Willen stated that, in addition to the noise of the trucks, the wind would blow
the exhaust fumes toward the homes on Date Street.
Commissioner Salas wanted to know where the market for the product would be; the Maxwell
facility was not operating at 100 % capacity, and she felt it was adequate to meet the needs of
the community.
Mr. Watton replied that because they owned the property,. it put them in a different cost
structure. Regarding recycling and material markets, the markets were free markets. They
currently operated recycle facilities and scrap facilities, and the material went oversees out of
Long Beach. When the markets were high, it stayed on the West Coast.
Regarding noticing of the prior meeting, Assistant Planning Director Lee reported that the notice
had stated that the public hearing was being continued to the 28th. Mr. Gill had a copy of the
tape and the minutes. Mr. Lee asked if that testimony could be included as part of the record,
or if he would like to have those people testify again at this meeting. Attorney Gill stated he
was satisfied. He had listened to the tape. .
Sarah Luedtke, 1636 Jasper Ave., CV, asked if it was not Chula Vista's trash, why should it
be in an area within 1600 feet of residences and within 1200 feet of an elementary school?
Commissioner Tuchscher noted that was to be considered by the Planning Commission during
their deliberations. Ms. Luedtke: Where does Laidlaw dump? Mr. Meacham replied that
Laidlaw Waste Systems under City franchise collected approximately 85% of the City's ~olid
waste, which is currently disposed of at the Otay Landfill at the top of Maxwell Road. Ms.
Luedtke: Why is there a need for two trash collection areas? Who guarantees there will be no
rodents or insects? Who guarantees there will be no diminished values in a property? What
could Chula Vista gain in terms of the taxes, etc. that is more beneficial considering the cost of
what happens to traffic on Main Street, safety of children, more trucks, more traffic accidents,
the quality of life? .
Ray Mnicho~icz, 339 Palm Ave., CV, said he could smell the sewer coming off the ocean,
and was concerned about exhaust from the trucks going in and out of the transfer station. He
reiterated his concern about safety of children, the proximity of schools, and traffic. He said
he now had to detour to get on his own street.
Stan Ogus, 3732 Holiday Ct., CV, concurred with the two previous speakers.
Robert A. Epler, 9601 Ridgehaven Court, SD 92123, stated that he was the Assistant
Environmental Services Director for the City of San Diego, and spoke as an expert witness. He
operates the City of San Diego's solid waste management system and his department did the.
solid waste planning for the City of San Diego. The facility is next to the border of the City
of San Diego, and the proponent had indicated the trash would corne from the City of San
Diego. Mr. Epler stated there was no need for this trash transfer station with this tonnage to
meet the waste management needs of the City of San Diego, and no trucks operated by the City
/l '-I - to
PC Minutes
-7-
August 28, 1996
of San Diego would ever corne to this transfer station, if permitted. San Diego was concerned
because the applicant had never spoken to them about it, the photographs of their temporary
operation to him seemed in direct temporary violation of the State requirements, or pushing the
envelope strongly. He was in support of staff recommendation to deny the project. San Diego's
Planning Commission had denied a similar project which brought trash in10 their community to
transfer to another, and impacted their community when there was no real benefit to it. San
Diego had been sued by the applicant, but the judge had thrown the lawsuit out. He noted that
SCS in this case had designed an excellent facility for the wrong location.
Steve Palma, 176 Montgomery St., CV, stated he was speaking for 10 others, who he asked
to stand; approximately 20 others stood also. He felt a lot of progress had been done in the
Otay (Montgomery) Community, and thanked the Commissioners and the Planning Department
for their efforts. He confirmed there Was a school in the immediate vicinity, with residences
less than 500 feet from the proposed transfer station. Less than 1,000 feet from the project site,
a gymnasium was proposed, and Mr. Palma did not want 300 trash trucks impacting that area.
He asked the Planning Commission to deny the project.
~
Mike Vogt, 4932 Golf Glen Rd., Bonita, objected to the traffic, and stated there was no reason
to put the transfer station there. He owns an office building on Main Street opposite the site.
It is extremely dangerous to turn on Main Street. He was concerned about the image of the
area. Many of the buildings had been upgraded. The area had been in the worst real estate
recession during the last five years; he asked the Commission to give them time to realize the
goals and objectives the property owners had for the area. Mr. Vogt urged the Commission to
deny the project.
Mark Kroeger, 3691 Via Mercado, Snite 16, La Mesa, stated he was the property owner
directly across the street from the project; he owned approximately half of Mace Street. He had
complained to the City, the Air Pollution Control, Hazardous Trash, for four years about what
Pacific Disposal was doing on the site and the property at the end of Mace Street. He had seen
human waste sitting for weeks in the roll-up containers, uncovered. He had no response from
anyone. In the summer, the flies were very bad from the empty containers. He asked where
all of the trash tnicks would be kept during the night? The project showed no truck parking
overnight. The residents were fighting a traffic problem on Mace Street from Sky Trucking.
The trucks line up on Mace Street waiting for one truck to go in and one truck to corne out.
With no traffic light at the intersection, during rush hour traffic, the trucks were backed up siX
trucks deep waiting to get out onto Main Street. He did not feel this was a proper street for that
amount of traffic. Mr. Kroeger stated that the area was not zoned for this type of building. He
was concerned about whether truck maintenance was done on site, destruction of the streets by
the trucks, who pays for the damage done by the trucks, noise level, loss of tenants because of
noise, effect on worth of his property. He was also concerned about the water main. He had
to cut down the square footage of his building and sprinkle the whole building because there was
only a 6" main with low-water volume. He questioned whether a proposed tank would be of
large enough size to handle a garbage fire. He was concerned about fire protection for his
/64-7
PC Minutes
-8-
August 28, 1996
property. He did not feel the environmental study was thorough enough. A proposed park
would be less than 250 feet away, and the elementary school is 1200 feet away.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Salas agreed with the comments made that a lot had been done in the Otay area
recently. More improvements needed to be made. She saw no compelling need to put another
trash transfer station there. Needs are being met by the Maxwell Road facility.
MS (Salas/Ray) to not consider the EIR and adopt Resolution SUPS-95-02 recommending
that the Redevelopment Agency of the City to deny a special nse permit request for the
municipal solid waste transfer station and materials recovery facility at 187 Mace Street.
Commissioner Davis thanked Mr. Epler for corning and offering his expert opinion. She felt
that bringing trash from another city into Chula Vista and the wear and tear on Main Street and
the traffic within the residential area, the school, the proposed gymnasium and the park were
not conducive to what was being done. The existing use was non-conforming, but the City was
trying to change that. She did not consider this to be light industrial, with the traffic trips this
would bring with it. She supported the recommendation to deny.
Commissioner Thomas was concerned that the facility would bring diesel exhaust and fumes.
Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he had seen projects which had mitigated negative
declarations which showed more significant impacts; but his concern with the project was a
vision issue as to this particular area of the city. He did not take offense to the looks of the
buildings; they looked like they would fit within a light industrial zone. However, he felt the
city was corning out of the worst real estate recession in history and thought this area of town
had a great potential to do some high quality light industrial type uses. He was in favor of the
motion on the floor.
VOTE: 7-0 to deny
Associate Planner Martin noted that this item was tentatively scheduled to go before the
Redevelopment Agency for a final decision on September 17, 1996.
/ltj-~
ITIIIIm
I I
MAIN S1REET
~
"
Ii
t-
O)
W
U
<
:IE
PROJECT
LOCATION
-
CITY 0 CHULA ISTA
CI
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~: Mace St. Transfer Station . PROJECr DfSCRIPIION:
C9 SPECIAL USE PERMIT -
..
PROJECr 187 Mace street Request: A privately operated municipol solid .
ADDRESS:
waste transfer and materials recovery facility .-'.
SCAlf: Fll.E NUMBER: in !he ILP zone. - ... . - .-
..
NORTH No Scale SUPS-95-02 Related case: 15-95-14
_ . ...,s/ - f -
I '. ....-.- k
nL':'_~:' ...___ .::.+
i::::: .:--------.
:-: I - ...~-~... .-
,,~.. "? ".1.<;-' """",J .l.n...; :r.... ,..
'Jl-J1~:::'lY1S ~==~t'~11='~:!l; ::DV"':
.o.o.,....,t<I\~".l.C~!Q<~ .
...... ,.,.. ,..
'1llG ~ ! l:J
- ,...., ....::~~:.:..;. ;. .. ~ .
O;;j,"""':'T9O? ~~l:!7~~ .~: y -
Sc:;:lN'9N:l S:>S : i
~.
-----
1\I"t"ld ::l.iIS
"nll-
. -. ;------.-L-' _-1:.-- .._~ t -
, ------- "'-'--,,,,$""1
". __.~-"_'''''1 _ . -=:1==-
'F- ~---~-~=--::~~+H1 .,
,~
...e..
--. ~
--.......""
.,\
\\ I
.) \ I
I I
/ J I~
/ '
.--/ /
/
"
~
1
o
~
,-
,.
"
IllI
',-:-1 _.
..--j ,." - "=O=l:T-~
~ - - - .::- - .' - -
" /' "'., "" ,,~.:'~.:
,
"
..-
I.
I
'- /
y
,
i \
I i
I
T
I,t~
,
I
,\
,
i
I
,
~
..... "<'1-- ---
~ I
I
"'J
..
-. j 1'."'1 n ,. . ~
--------- --
. "..... /"O.D''''===,
~ ", - -.
I~
U
"I
:~
:>
I ~l
~ '!
. ~~
._...<,1.-,
i s
. I I
. .
I I
\ \
,
E I :-;;2...
J.:;;~I.1C; ;"'0']..1
. --
i
j"---
~
z
.~
,'j
IL
liJ
!-
t:)
.,...."-...
. ,
,
n'
r~
'~I
-.
:NI 'N:l'1"'1; ~ ~s: :;r.lV;-l
-~---
,..
<<;NOll,)?;
oc._ .....
-..=:~~-=; ~ ,
'ilIrN1'.r9C?,....j,~~....."G .. ~I"'
Sc:l::JN 19N::J S?S.':- i
n. ~
. I L
I~
l II
I I' .~ l: i'\-'~
.ml.
,
r t-1
I ,..
j ~~ II -=c--
-- . I
I
;
,
I
. ~
I \ ( ! l
, d l
r ~ I
I I I (-
, l I l
H . I I I
, 1
f
, .
... ./
b;J-=-'--
E 1- 3
u
~.~ I
-..
I
i I i
11 ill II !
iI !nii ii h
!~l!!ilq!Hl 1'1
>- HII'!I,,!,",. l
: I I ! I I I i I ~ ; I I I I t i
fi ~,~~,~~~~.~~.~~,~~~~,~
1 ---.-.-
..
I 1.
,
j
1 I
J.
,
j
- 1
'/
, ~ }
, 1
\
,
\
,
\
,
,
I
,
1::1
~
"I
._.-:"...............,....,..r-~..
')10.1' N:?:":' Y..l..; ~;~;N'r"I=!.ll:3~l; ;?",..j
-.:;.._._,.~. --
I~
So.,,:OI1"'/,:;'3 ~Qr~=!l.X3
..
'"
,/
. .. .--..--. ..-
.. ...- -..
.. -.---.
n..__.__.. '_
..- .. --- .-.-.
-.-------
.~.. --.- -
- - .----. --..-
.- -----.
- . .
-
i.._
\:
\
'"
!.
,
~
....-
E 1- 4-
~
- '~.::.:;'''Z'.;: ~ ~ iN'
t;.lW.l"l'J;toC")"'IV.l~I^,g,; .1
S~=3NI0N:! S?S: '. i
.......
~
==::-~-=--:=__: '.
.--.----,.'
-. e
- -------
II'"
, I'"
1'; li:1
. ili I il
d' "I
I,'
~ II .
Iii
----.
.--- -. - .
,.', -<"
.. _. ...
.'=."'..- ,"-' .)."
-.. . -.
--- .- ...-
-."--- .--.-. -. ....
.-. ....-..- .
-- -.--.-.----- -
_ .n..._ __ .
________u_
----
----..-.--- .
..
I'-
~:r
>-
X
"
~
, --~ '- ~ .
\,
scs ENGINEERS -
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
SKY TRUCKING COMPANY
CHULA VISTA TRANSFER STATION
. #'--
SITE DESCRIPTION
This 4.72:l: acre facility site is located in south San Diego County at 187 Mace Street in
the City of Chula Vista. The "L-shaped" site is accessed from Mace Street which dead
ends approximately 750 ft. south of the facility entrance.
The site is zoned I-L, Limited Industrial, which is consistent with the surrounding property
uses. Currently, the site is being used as a trucking terminal. Existing facilities include
three small.frame office structures adjacent to Mace Street and a large metal warehouse
building to the east of the frame buildings. The latter has an adjacent depressed loading
dock. Other facilities include a fuel island and a truck scale. The existing facilities are to
be left in place with the exception of the fuel island and the most southerly frame
structure which interfere with the proposed access to the new facility.
TRANSFER BUILDING DESCRIPTION. .
The proposed transfer building will measure 230 ft in the east.west direction and 160 ft in
the north.south direction (36,800 sq ft). The building will be primarily of pre-engineered
metal construction with reinforced concrete walls along a portion of the north and south
elevations. . The eave heights will be approximately 33 ft and the ridge will be approxi-
.
mately 40 ft above grade.
There will be two depressed loading pits (pit floor 7'.6" below finish floor); one each on
. the west and east sides of the building accessed by ramps from the north side of the
building" The pits will be separated by a .200 ft wide grade level tipping floor. A 9.ft high
reinforced concrete push wall will separate the tipping floor from the I.oading pits.
@
E';) -(
1
-
l
SCS ENGINEERS -
Truck ingress and egress to and from the tipping floor will be through six 16 ft wide by
28 ft high roll-up doors in the north wall of the building and two such doors near the
center of the south wall.
TRANSFER OPERATION DESCRIPTION
.
The facility will receive solid waste from commercial businesses, construction and
demolition debris from construction sites, and green waste from landscaping operations.
Conventional front or rear loading packer trucks, trucks with roll-off boxes up to 240ft
long, small dump trucks, and small trucks with trailers, etc., hauling these wastes will
enter the facility through the Mace Street entrance, cross the scales to be weighed in, and
proceed to the transfer building.
The transfer building is designed such that facility operators have the flexibility to direct
these refuse trucks to the north side of the building where they can be backed up through
anyone of six door openings, and have their contents deposited on the tipping floor or to
direct them to either the south or north side of the building where they can drive directly
into the building, deposit their loads on the tipping floor and exit the opposite side.
After the refuse vehicles deposit their contents on the tipping floor, they will exit the
building, proceed to the scales for a final weight check, and exit the facility by way of
Mace Street or, in the case of vehicles with pre-recorded tare weights, will proceed
directly to the Mace Street exit.
Once deposited onthe tipping floor, the solid waste will be "floor sorted" by facility
personnel to remove, to the extent possible, all recyclable items such as old corrugated
cardboard (OCCI, wood, aluminum, ferrous metals, concrete and asphalt rubble, green
.
waste, etc. This material will be loaded into transfer vehicles and shipped to recyclable
material processing facilities.
Due to the nature' of the material (Le:, construction demolition debris, green waste, and
commercial business waste), it is anticipl!t'ed that approximately 20 percent of the solid
waste entering the facility will be recovered in this manner for reuse. -
Ed. -;;2....",
@
\,
SCS ENGINEER.S -
The remaining, non-recoverable material will be loaded into large volume (100:1: cu yd
capacity) transfer ,trailers and shipped to a facility-designated landfill. These transfer
vehicles will enter the facility by way of the Mace Street entrance using the bypass lane
and exit onto Mace Street after stopping at the scales for final weight recordation.
.
r
Assuming that a single 950F front-end loader can load one transfer vehicle (17.5:1: ton
capacity) every 15 minutes, the facility capacity, using two loading pits, and operating at
90-percent efficiency (I.e., allowing for personnel breaks, incidental work stoppage, etc.)
will be approximately 1,260 tons per 10 hour day.
)1
:J
. . ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
~
Dust, if any is created through the transfer operations described below, will be controlled
through the use of a manually operated "fine misting" system located above and immedi-
ately adjacent to the transfer vehicle loading pits at the east and west sides of the
building, The misting system will be operated by facility personnel who will.be observing
the loading operations at all times. A fine water mist will be released as required to
remove any dust particles from the air above the loading areas, but will be controlled such
.. '.' that standing water will not accumulate on the tipping floor.
.- ~.
.~
Odors will be controlled through (1) the use of "odor eaters" (i.e., odor counter-reactants)
. dispersed through the misting system and (2) the mechanical system which will be
_. ~ -. ~- . - - . ...". ..' -.. "- --
designed to provide ,c9mpleteair changes every 15 minutes.
A
There are several products available'which, when dispersed through a misting system as
noted. will actually eliminate odors as opposed to simply covering them up. ..'
'::l
_ : .' The ventilation system will consist of two rows of six roof-mounted, 8,000 cfm exhaust
-fans located approximately 20 ft and 60 ft. respectively, from the south building wall.
.
E;J.-3
3
@
T
c.
SCS ENGINEERS -
Four of the fans will be mounted on the low roofs directly above the transfer vehicle
loading pits; the o.ther eight will be located on the high building roof above the tipping
floor. Air will be drawn into the building through the north (3,150 sq ftl and south (900
sq ft) door openings and exhausted through the roof by the above noted fans. The total
volume of exhausted air will be approximately 1.44 million cu ft every 15 minutes or
96,000 cu ft per minute (cfm),
~
Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating equipment, trucks
depositing their contents on the tipping floor, the sorting out of recyclable materials, or the
loading of transfer vehicles is expected to be attenuated by the building structure. Nine-ft
high reinforced concrete push walls will surround the entire tipping floor except where
door openings occur. These walls are intended to deaden the sound generated from within
the building.
Door openings on the north and south sides of the building are approximately 211 ft and
80 ft, respectively, from the north and south property lines. These distances will further
attenuate any noise generated within the transfer building.
Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be shielded as required to reduce operating noise
to acceptable levels.
Hazardous Materials
".'".
- . ,
The facility will not knowingly accept hazardous materials; however, since household
hazardous substances such as paint; aerosol cans, batteries, etc., may be found in solid
waste loads which have been deposited within the transfer building, a prefabricated, fire
,
rated storage cabinet will be provided for the temporary storage of 'such materia.ls. This
cabinet will be readily accessible to floor sorters in the event such materials are encoun-
tered and will be emptied of its contents on a regular basis which will not exceed 90 days.
. The contents will be appropriately disposed of off site bya licensed hazardous materials
. contractor.
. ., .
E ,;( - tj.
@
(
'-
SCS ENGINEER.S-
Vectors
The facility will be swept clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day
thereby eliminating nesting and hiding places for vectors. In the event that evidence is
found of the existence of vectors, professional exfermjnators, under contract with the
facility operator, will eliminate. them from the facility site pursuant to the requirements of
their service agreement.
Loose Trash
Facility personnel will circulate throughout the entire site on a regular basis picking up
. loose and blowing trash that may have dropped off of trucks entering or exiting the facility
thereby keeping the grounds clean and free of blowing debris.
.
E (2 -s
@
5
T
July 19, 1996
File No. YS-611
TRASH TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS GENERATED
I. EXISTING USE-SKY TRUCKING
TRUCK COUNT = 183 ONE-WAY TRIPS/DAY = 366 TWO-WAY TRIPS
EMPLOYEE AND PATRONS = 17 X 2 = 34 TWO-WAY TRIPS
TOTAL DAILY SKY TRUCKING TRIPS .. 400 TWO-WAY TRIPS
II. PROPOSED USE - PACIFIC DISPOSAL INC.
%- CAPACITY (TONS/DAY):
50%- (500)
85%-(850)
100%-(1000)
A.
TRASH TRUCK TRIPS
8 TONS/TRIP: 63X2 = 126
TRANSFER TRUCK TRIPS
25 TONS/TRIP: 20X2 = 40
107X2 = 214
125X2 = 250
B.
34X2 = 68
40X2 = 80
Expected transfer station plant capacity is 850 tons/day and
maximum capacity is 1000 tons/day. The trash trucks can carry
up to 12 tons but would average less than 9 tons/trip. The
transfer trucks can carry up to 25 tons/trip. Therefore the
total two-way daily trips at capacity is:
Trash Trucks = 250 two-way trips
Transfer Trucks =~ two-way trips
TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS
= 330 two-way trips
C. Employees & patrons in passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks
are expected to generate about 70 two-way trips.
TOTAL PROJECT DAILY TRIPS AT CAPACITY: 330 + 70 .. 400 TWO-WAY TRIPS
The total number of trips for this project at 100%- facility
capacity (1000 tons/day) is the same number of trips as Sky
Trucking's vehicular trips. The number of heavy truck trips from
Sky Trucking (366) versus the proposed project's at the anticipated
daily work rate of 850 tons/day (214 + 68 = 282) represents a heavy.
vehicle net reduction of 84 trips (23%-). The comparative heavy
vehicle reduction at full capacity is 36 trips (10%-).
;;'3~1
CM: \HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\HACEADT. FXRl
T
Ricb.rd L. R.Y'
Director
Suit<: 210
Tel 619t92,5055
Fax 6J9 492,5021
Environmental
Pro~r.il.ml; Djvil'ion
Suite 320
Tcl519492,5010
Fax 519 492.5089
~
Refuse Collection
Division
Sui", J20
Tel 61 9492.5059
F.x 619 492,5066
Refuse Disposal
Di\'i.~ion
Suite 310
Tel 019 492,5020
Fax 619 492-5041
.1\i<.}...
" 'K'
~). .
DIVERSIiY
Mr>G~IJSA.l.L~
THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
E~\~RO~MENTALSER~CESDEPARTMENT
9601 RlDCEHAVEN COURT, SAN DIEGO, CA 9212~1636
September 16, 1996
City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: MACE STREET TRANSFER STATION, SUPS 95-02
It had been my intention to testify before the Redevelopment Agency at its meeting of
September 18, 1996 regarding this matter in sunport of the staff recommendation to ~
the application. However, I now understand that, at the d~eloper' s request, this matter will
heard on October 15, 1996 when I will be in England. Since I will not be able to testify at
the scheduled hearing, I would like the following comments to become part of the public
record for this permit application and considered by the members of the Redevelopment
Agency Board,
GENER.;L
Solid Vlaste management activities and facilities are highly regulated under State law because
they significantly impact public health. safety and welfare, Under the California Public
Resource Code (PRC), Division 30, Waste Management, local jurisdictions are delegated
broad responsibilities and discretion in detenni.ni.ng the scope and means of providing solid
'waste services within their jurisdiction, Specifically, Section 40053 reafflI111S that the PRC
is not a limitation on the power of a city to impose and enforce reasonable land use
conditions or restrictions on solid waste management facilities in order to prevent or mitigate
potential nuisances. Section 40059 states that each city can determine the aspects of solid
waste handling which are of local concern, including, but not limited to, frequency of
collection, means of collection and transportation, level of services, charges and fees, and
nature, location, and extent of providing solid waste services. Taken together, these statutes
mean that your city does not have to allow someone to provide solid waste services or
develop a solid waste facility within your jurisdiction simply because they make a business
decision to do so unless the City agrees with that decision.
In this case the facility is proposed to serve a landfill in Arizona that needs trash, not serve
the needs of your community. Your community would receive the impacts of the proposed
transfer station, but not its benefits since it would be totally unnecessary for the management
of solid wastes generated in the City of Chula Vista.
IE 4 - I
C~_~aG~1'04"'
,...-....-.
Page 2
FACILITY SIZE
This facility is proposed to accept and process 1000 tons per day (tpd) of mixed municipal waste and
construction and demolition materials. The applicant has stated the waste will not come from the
City of Chula Vista; therefore, it must be assumed the waste would be generated primarily in the
City of San Diego, Additionally, the applicant does not clearly define 1,000 tpd, and this lack of
clarity can greatly affect the total annual tonnage that could be processed through the facility. The
applicant should indicate if this is an average daily tonnage or a maximum daily tonnage, and how
many days per week this tonnage rate is based upon.
At the Miramar Landfill, our average daily tonnage, based on seven days per week is 4,300 tpd. The
range is between 6,000 and 8,000 tons on Monday through Friday, 2,000 to 3,000 tons on Saturday
and 500 to 1000 tons on Sunday. If the Mace Street facility is permitted for an average of 1000 tpd
for seven days per week, but only accepts this 7,000 tons per week on five and one-half days per
week, the maximum daily tonnage and traffic could be as much as 30% higher than indicated in the
documents submitted with the application. Based on an average of 1 000 tpd, if wastes were accepted
five days per week this would be 260,000 tons per year and if based on seven days per week it would
be 360,000 tons per year.
If the facility were to accept between 260,000 and 360,000 tons of waste per year, this would be
equal to 18% to 25% of the total 1.4 million tons of waste disposed of annually in the Miramar
Landfill by the City of San Diego with its population of almost 1.2 million people, Currently,
approximately 70,000 tons per year of waste identified as being generated in the City of San Diego
is disposed of in the Otay Landfill. Therefore, as proposed, this facility could result in up to a five
fold increase in the amount of City of San Diego generated waste imported into the City of Chula
Vista.
On September 5, 1996, we received a copy of a Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the expansion of the capacity of the Otay Landfill from the County of San Diego's
Public Works Department. The proposed scope of the project included the following information:
. Increase the maximum permitted daily tonnage to 3,500 tons per day.
. Upgrade the site to meet US EP A and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle D landfill standards through the installation of a composite liner system.
. Increase the height of the landfill and its ultimate capacity.
If the landfill expansion and daily tonnage limit is increased, the Maxwell Street Transfer Station
is permitted at 1,000 tpd and the Mace Street Transfer Station approved fo~ 1,000 1pd; the City of
Chula Vista would have 5,500 tpd of solid waste transfer and disposal capacity for a jurisdiction that
generates less than 300 tons per day of solid waste or almost twenty times as much daily solid waste
management capacity as is required to serve your jurisdiction's needs.
It should be clearly stated that the proposed Mace Street Transfer Station is nl!1 included in the City
E~- d-
Page 3
of San Diego's adopted Non Disposal Facility Element (plan) as a location where City wastes are
proposed to be taken. The project proponent has not discussed the project or the flow of City of San
Diego waste to the project with City staff involved in solid waste planning. It is our contention that
this facility is not needed to meet the City of San biego's short-term or long-term solid waste
management or disposal requirements. City forces currently collect all residential refuse in South
San Diego in City trucks and would not consider rerouting its trucks to this facility.
RECYCLING
The application indicates that 20% of the incoming waste would be recovered for recycling through
floor sorting to remove recyclable materials from the mixed wastes.
Ibis claim is unsubstantiated and seems to be a level of recycling that could not be sustained with
the proposed technology. The North ColUlty Resource Recovery Facility at San Marcos averaged
less than a 20% recovery rate with a combination of both floor picking and extensive mechanical
sorting and hand picking lines. The proponent needs to explain how up to 1000 tpd of waste can be
safely processed through a facility of this size with crews large enough to hand pick and cany 200
tons or 400,000 pounds of materials per day to recyclable materials storage areas away from the
primary tipping area. Further the plans do not show any bunkers or storage areas for recyclable
materials and there is no discussion of how the materials would be processed for shipment and the
number of truck nips associated with such an activity.
A further example of why this recycling nwuber seems high is the recent submission by the
Fallbrook Recycling and Transfer Station to the COlUlty for inclusion in its NDFE. In that
application, the proponent indicated that floor sorting would increase their current
recycling/diversion rate of 8% to approximately 15%.
FACILTTYLOCATION
The proposed facility would be located off Mace Street in the Southern portion of the City of Chula
Vista and adjacent to the City of San Diego. Access to the facility would be from Main Street, the
primary major connector street between Interstates 5 & 805 via an unsignaliwi intersection. As
proposed, this facility would generate new and different traffic than cum:ntly uses these local streets.
The traffic study for the project is based on route type refuse collection vehicles with a unifonn 8
ton payload, yet the project narrative describes a wide variety of vehicles using the facility. A
potential major user of the facility is Pacific Disposal, a City of San Diego licensed hauler, who
currently operates nine roll-off type collection vehicles and no route type (sideload or rearload)
collection vehicles. Based on weighing hundreds of open top, lUlcompacted roll-off (dragoOn) box
collection vehicles, the City has established an average weight for 40 yard boxes at 6.5 tons per load.
This lower average weight for roll-offboxes would indicate that the traffic levels could be higher
than proj ected in the traffic study.
We are also very concerned with this proposed facility being located within 250 feet of the Otay
E4 -3
-
Page 4
River Park. The park is located within the City of San Diego and is designated as open space in both
San Diego and Chula Vista planning documents. This concern relates to the incompatibility of a
park and transfer station operation, prior improper filling activities on the property and the potential
impacts of grading and erosion impacting the park area.
COMP A TIBILTTY WITH ADJACENT LAND U~R~
The proposed facility would be located in close proximity to existini residences and a school. In
their presentation to the Planning Commission, the project proponents showed slides of a transfer
station operated by CR&R in Stanton, California as an example of the compatibility of a transfer
station with abutting residential properties. As the Regional Vice President for Genstar Conservation
Systems, I negotiated the purchase of this property, in a partnership with the City of Stanton, from
the County of Orange and its conversion to a privately operated transfer station. I subsequently
negotiated the sale of the property to CR&R on behalf of Genstar. During the interim, the General
Manager of the transfer station reported to me and I was the primary liaison with the City Manager
of the City of Stanton. During the time we operated the transfer station, we received complaints of
noise, odor and dust from transfer operations impacting the residences and dealt with trying to
minimize such impacts on an on-going basis. CR&R made major improvements to the facility by
fully enclosing its transfer and recycling operations; however, I am certain that the faCility still has
impacts on the adjacent residences because they are in too close a proximity.
The primary difference between the Stanton facility and the proposal you are considering is that at
Stanton the transfer station was built first in a vacant area with no adjacent residences or businesses,
If a planning error was made, it was in allowing residences to be developed adjacent to an
incompatible use that will continue to have periodic noise, odor and dust impacts on the residential
area despite the best efforts of the operator to m;n;mi7" such occurances. To allow a new transfer
station to be developed near to existing residences in Chula Vista would be to ignore the very clear
example of the incompatibility of such facilities and nearby residences as demonstrated in Stanton.
SAN DIEC',.o RF.SOURCE RECOVERY TRANSFER STATION
On page 9 of the Plenn;n!: Commission Agenda Statement for the meeting of August 28, 1996 is a
paragraph regarding a proposal by EDeO to increase the tonnage limits at its existing transfer station
on Dalbergia Street in the City of San Diego from 200 tpd to a maximum of550 tpd and to change
the type of materials accepted from dry, non-putricible wastes to mixed municipal wastes. The goal
of the project was for EDCO to bring wastes from its four franchised cities, Coronado, National City,
Lemon Grove and La Mesa, to this site where the loads would be consolidated and long-haul
transferred to the most economical disposal site available to EDCO. Based on staff evaluations and
recommendations and public testimony regarding the potential adverse impacts to the surrounding
co=unity, which is a mix of light industrial, commercial and residential, from the proposed
expansion of the transfer station, the Council made the required findings and denied the application.
On February 22, 1996, EDCO filed suitto overturn the Council action. On August 28, 1996, the suit
was dismissed by the judge upon dcrnu= by the City's attorneys. EDCO can still amend and refile
E4-4
Page 5
its suit, but has not done so to date,
CONCLUSION
The staff reco=endation to deny the application is strongly supported by information in its report
and public testimony before the Planning Commission. The proposed facility is not needed for
Chula Vista to manage the solid wastes generated within its jurisdiction and it is not needed for the
City of San Diego to meet its waste management needs,
Sincerely,
~
Robert A, Epler
As5istant Director,
Environmental Services Department
E 4- -s-
R='-:-~.T\':'=,,-,
July 8, 1996
"~I' 0 '.
, . 1"--
...' ....~~I ..:;:..'j
Case No: SUPS-95-02/rS-95-14
187 Mace Street
Chula Vista,Ca 91911
PI f\rq",'"", '
~~J"; ~:l\,..:.
To: Martin Miller
Associate Planner, Planning Dep.
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Mr. Miller
This letter is in response to the notice received, dated June
10, 1996, regarding a special use permit for 187 Mace Street
for a trash transfer station.
The concerns that we would like to address are as followed.
#1. As the proposing states approximately 156 trips per day
of trash trucks will transfer their loads. This breaks
down to approximately to one truck per every 3.-7 minutes,
using a an eight hour day. The average trash truck takes
from 12 to 15 minutes to unload its load at the County
Dump located in Chula Vista, causing a back-up of several
trucks at the dump site, the fear is that this will cause
a buck-up on Mace Street causing a blockage on a public
street of trucks awaiting their turn to unload and of the
blocking of driveways to other business in the area.
#2. The additional trash that often fly off of loaded, and
overloaded trucks that use the Mace Street, who will be
responsible for the trash scattered along the street per
day. The trucks also drip liquid from the loads that are
compressed, the liquid is a mix of every thing you can
think of and also dripped allover the road. Where is the
waste liquid from the site after the load is dumped
going, the sewer, or in the ground.
#3. What kind of odor control will there be. With 1,000 tons
of trash per day, and 156 trucks driving up and down the
street spreading it around the area. It will smell like
the County Dump. What will it do to surrounding property
values.
#4. What about pest control, flies, gnats, roaches, mice,
rats and the animals that feed on them, birds, snakes and
other pests.
#5. This area on Mace Street is a mixture of both
commercially and residents with young children.
E1-~
(2)
What kind of control will there be placed to protect them
(commercial and residences) from the above listed
problems that will come about with the trash transfer
site to be located at 187 Mace Street.
There are approximately 75 small businesses located on Mace
Street that employ some 200 people, the trash transfer will
cause some if not all to re-Iocate, because of the
additional traffic, odor and pests that will come about here.
We hope because we live and work in this area of Chula Vista
(Otay) that we don't become a dumping area for businesses
that the city doesn't want elsewhere. Theres room on Otay
Valley Rd. east of here on the other side of Fuller Ford and
SouthBay Chevy that could be used most is still open area.
Theres room by the county dump thats already set up, also
east of here off of Otay Valley Rd.
~
Sky Trucking has been here for years and has been on the most
part a good neighbor and business for the area, some small
problems have occurred in the past with their trucks taking
more than there share of the road, double parking, etc. but
these are small as to what is planed with 156 give or take
trucks a day, just turning onto Main Street from Mace Street
sometimes takes 5 or more minutes and with that many trucks
leaving will be just as bad as trying to get in. All one has
to do is to look at Nelson and Sloan trucks that drive
several trips a day up and down Main Street and Main is a4
lane
road, the rocks that falloff loaded an unloaded trucks,
their slow moving holding traffic back, and the other trucks
from the other trash companies spilling overloaded trash from
their trucks heading for the County Dump all cause some
problems on the Main Street and then you look a Mace and you
have only two lanes, its just to small.
We hope Mr. Miller and the Planning Commission that you take
note of our concerns and address them at the hearing.
Thank You
Alex & Luz Hernandez
163 Mace Street
9WI~ Vista, ~191Y
--n~.,t-~ /.("~
Jesus & Maria Mariscal
145 Mace Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91911
Eq-7
~ t/l(~ .
(3)fI>>r~~ ~/k~~
Rogeliof & Virginia Oropeza
135 Mace Street
Chula Vista Ca 91911
tt
Evelyn Breedlove
465 Parkway
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Property OWner
163 Mace Street
g~
Wesley & Jennifer Breedlove
1653 Sombrero Way
San Diego, Ca 92154
Business OWners
163 e re
~~
Ricardo & Catalina Mariscal
125 Mace Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91911
~~/}1~
~~
Sam & Gloria Perry
163 Mace Street
.~~~t~l
E-4-~
KROEGER F A.MIL Y PROPERTIES
MACE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
3691 Via Mercado, Suite 16, La Mesa, CA 91941
(619) 660-1952, FAX 660-6142
July 8, 1996
R,=::,r-r-'tVt:.D
-~-
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Martin Miller
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
1111 ~ .; r"'.c
'..'v_.L _ 1.:):J::l
PJ t..~."lt .'i-..1 ':
_..J i.'j.J ~'_1
RE: Case No, SUPS-95-02/IS-95-14, Special Use Permit site address-I 87 Mace St.
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to you concerning the "Notice of Public Hearing" I've received on the above referenced site,
Previously, on December 27, 1994, we received a "Notice of Initial Study" for the same proposed facility. At
that time I wrote a letter to Douglas D, Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator listing concerns we had for this
type of use in an incorporated area. And frankly, I am surprised that the Environmental Review Coordinator
finds no significant environmental impacts, Unfortunately, the impact this type offacility would have on the
community where the proposed site is located is significant,
This proposed site is in a Light Industrial Zone. There are industrial buildings on this street, and also some
residential. Our building is located at 170/180 Mace Street across the street from the proposed waste transfer
site, We have approximately 70 tenants in our building, also a caretaker who lives On Site, We maintain a
"Hands On" approach to our building, and in fact, do all our own Property Management. We strive to keep our
property clean and in good repair, Our tenant concerns are of utmost importance to us, Some of our tenants
work up to 18 hour days to keep their business going in today's economy, In effect, our tenants are "on-site"
more than "off-site". It is very important for them to maintain peaceful occupancy, and a safe and healthy
environment to work in. It is our believe, and our tenants', that if this waste/transfer station is allowed, that their
environment would be compromised.
We have had some experience with a similar type of business, as is being proposed, The property adjacent to
ours is owned by H,G, Fenton, and is currently leased to Pacific Disposal, this property is under a C.U.P. The
use of this property is for the storage ofroll off containers, and vehicles, which is allowed under the C.U,P.
What is not stated under the C.D.P. is the "Odor" and Noise Level" of the roll off containers and trucks, Even
though the containers are empty, the residue left in them gives off an offensive odor, and flies and other insects
are attracted by this residue, Our tenants have become inundated by the flies and odors, and have expressed
concern for their health. If this is occurring from the left-over residue, what will 1,000 tons ofactua1 waste per
day cause? What are the restrictions for the time allowance after the waste has been dumped out and is waitirig
to be sorted? In addition, the noise from the trucks revving engines to lift the roll off containers becomes
unbearable, In addition, trucks always need repair and maintenance, which is not allowed under Light Industrial
Zoning.
E4-Cj
The subject property is L shaped. The volume of trucks in and out of this facility ,,,ill create a "bottle neck"
situation ,vith trucks backed up on the street. Mace street is a small street, and is not wide enough to handle
Volume Truck Traffic. There is no traffic light on Main Street, to help handle the large numbers of trucks
entering and exiting Mace St. The applicant for the proposed facility has indicated an approximate of 156 trips
per day of trash trucks v.'ith 8 to 12 tons of waste in each load, This means in an eight hour work day, at the
proposed 156 trips per day, that every 3 minutes a truck will be entering or exiting Mace St. This does not even
take into account the transfer time at the facility. It is very probable that there will be trucks accelerating and
decelerating up and down Mace Street every minute of the day! The asphalt on Mace Street does not have
enough "Base Material" under it to support the truck thoroughfare this will turn into, The proposed property is
only partially paved, At this time, Mace Street is covered in dirt and mud whenever it rains due to Pacific
Disposal and Sky Trucking, If you increase the volume of trucks on Mace Street, who is going to send the street
sweeper every day to handle this problem? Not to mention the pot holes! Also, the trucks on Mace Street have
been clocked at going 45 miles an hour,
This proposed project needs a Noise Study. The accumulation of Trucks slowing down, speeding up, revving
their engines for unloading containers, compacting waste, will be incredible, We are already experiencing these
same problems with Pacific Disposal, but nothing compared to the magnitude this project would generate.
The water main down Mace Street is a 6" Cast Iron Dead End Main, Due to it being Cast Iron, it is Corroded
and does not even flow 6" of water. The proposed project is to add 63,000 SF of building. Without replacing
this Water Main, it is putting at risk the Fire Protection of our Building and other buildings on Mace Street.
In closing, this area is zoned Light Industrial, The City Council has been trying to upgrade this area to be more
aesthetically pleasing, To allow this type of project is against the zoning, and will not accomplish what the City
Council has set forth for this area, A project of this enormity should be developed further out in an
unincorporated area, We ask at this time for the application for this Special Use Permit be denied. And at the
very least an in-depth Environmental study be completed, including Noise, Traffic Volume to include congestion
problems due to no traffic light and driveway entrances to proposed property, Odor, Water Supply, Off street
parking, lot size for proposed 63,000 SF of Building, and health reasons as there is 70 plus tenants in our
building alone plus residential housing adjacent to this property,
This type of property use would be better served in an unincorporated area, A suggestion would be to build this
facility on top of the completed land fill in Otay,
This type of property use will not only be a nuisance, and a disturbance of our tenants occupancy, but could put
their health at risk. Peaceful occupancy and a safe, healthy environment should be taken for granted,
This proposed type of property use will devaluate our property for rental and resale purposes,
As we own one fourth or better of the street frontage on Mace Street, and are located directly across from the
proposed project, please give our concerns your utmost consideration.
~~IY'.J p~ .
~~~7 uurr-c
Kroeger Family Properties
Et../-( 0
r\QnV\.\V\~ LCt;tlVy\\:;S/6v\
i elL) 0-(" C.~u\1A Ul<:;~Vj
! . NoJ f Jt /9-
I . O~'\ -l\l<Q.. f>~o(fo5Q.L 6V\.-{,k~,_ .
h ~ S:,l\ d WClSJ"<-=fY~h s,r~ Y 0vo.d ..
;., ;;~~~~\C{,L ,RecocLeY.:.l-}ctC'l \i~~__ . ...
r: ~ ~tJ -{'^~ . ,1 L-r ZOVl~__,.,_.~u_....
Q: < =0.CtS~4f-. sup . CfS-Dd-, /1 S 9'L(--:/4 .
w~ -l~.Q., 'f-e..S\(*Q.V\~s CAyot)l-\d.
~~ \ s ..p r- 0 ~.Q. c- -T $ \ ~ ~ . . .
. 0. R.e... CI. ~C{l t s -t -L~ ~\:> rrofo~q L
i a dJ r.e.5> 0 :cJ.t-:ti JiJCz It\,H... " ,
i Iq,x 1:f11~ py, cv, lntlly 6d~
I 333~ ~4 I FVi~' ~(/ .. ..., ,
~.J~? a./vt' c,!,..s-;.:., !ev! ;vL/h..- ~ u.l~ \ . ,
-.533 ~ t1-LD-C A $ r.~g:j I '. . . ...
0340 -A\ ((:XUS~ tV i f9l9f1 €51P)jeJ. .
. 3335 A\-voca 6), tv (Ja{/dla.! Ii~--y-
3.3{/ ~A..J.:2 !~ 7~~__
3323 ft1 [;OCO .~ 'l~~ u~.th & ~~ ti{/tI7UJ~~,_.
'? 7l CI II (V~V1" ~r ..... . \ ~7Z,z-~.d., .'.O'~. ~.~ . u..
1/ ,I ~~
I ' I ,.,..,'.:u .. .-.' ., ..:..,-'--.---.--:-:...::, _...:c.J~. ..-----.--.., . '. <~"-.-.,...
/, ".' . ,. -. 'C. ..-.-,-.-- __..un __--.:_u_ .~'m,. ,______,__, ......,___
I
!
.--. ...-- -~------_._-_. ..---.-.----- -.---- -----------
\ !
I, '
I '"
I
I... .
I ',> "
I
I
~- - - - ----------------------~~
. ;:::-.~!z ,... '. {,_" _.__ ___'__n.'_.
L= ~- ,. -- -------..-
"- ; . .
I
. - ,
I
i
'-
-P\ Clr\ v"\ \ VI. ~ co vv'\ vV'\ \ S Sf 0 VI
C J .j. "'t () --9 C h u I 4 LJ I') i 'A
_ , ,.. .pectQJ - 8'-I-'lf
OVl -l~.~ ~rc)?C>SQL_OV\..i...~&.n,n _
o _ ~\l ol ;(,0 C\sA~-{'Co..v\5-Gy_,~Y'tJ_J1'la.J~r'4C ...
L!.J ~ [) ('. 'I' I
> g). ~~CoU~~"" _:ttlC, 1'i-"'}_..11':d-=l.~>.Q,..--LL~Z.otU~_
o q 2: .J--h.. ~ I .
() 1:' ~o..s-e.~ SU f-, -CJ S_-"O,2.i_JSn,.,9-Lj~/~L_..
t:l f ~- n ,We.- -t.~\.<40__.Y:-eS~~<€v:\-\.~n_,Qr()oMcL___
i --th "5 f~~~cf ." 51i~ .,... .. . '___.'nh.,..
cAy-~ O'~Q\V\s-f-=tl\\'~ Prof\JosqL..,__
G. & 0. r ,0> c.'.(.'1 /lJ ((lrv-,..e.... \J . .
~,'7 5 D d~ s4 ! c' J \',,~ "- qn"",. ~ S
1 0p--1 Dale <J~ C[J.,~p~ ....,
~ '3 fI s Jf)~ s.f- kU[ ~ ()~ ',un,
3 fc) UA.+e S1 k: u! ~ ,.. , _"..
:- 3 (.,,!~ DA+e 5-1-. Ie U::J!!=twrui.- '._,
~ ~~~Ytk~ d, I~~ fJ~~~~~-=
: ;;~~:::C;d .I~~ .. ..~n__~
..;~ ~(33~s'~::~-;~-=/f-L;t~~~~
I) ;;I~q. /Q--o'-""i~;;;-~r~~-- 6~~4~~~n~~_n__,.n..
.1'-1 I. ~... "J_nn,~~,_i/,_~n_n__'-:-_,____
.. { 3i~ ~?UO~vJcup-." ,- ,L!. .l~-~r~~~..___,a,-
. ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ell ~'" tJ<tk('---
I ~ ~ 3!. /f!;::::,k , ~t:~'(;~=r~o-~~
, ~
,
P.O. Box 3066
Chula Vista, Ca 91909
August 5, 1996
,.
,-- ~.
Martin Miller
Planning Dp.pt.
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
!:.~. ,
. '-0 .
.-.. . 7;:,.:.
F.,
- r,
Lrui"' . "
IVII.t.....
Dear Mr. Miller;
I wish to express to you my strong opposition to the proposed
recycling plant on Mace Street.
I own eight houses in Broderick's Otay Acres which is located to
the east and down wind of the proposed plant; These houses are all
tenant occupied with young families for the most part. We are
concerned about the dust and traffic hazards that will be generated
by the stream of trash trucks that will be using Main Street. There
is no safe way to move that much garbage so close to residences.
Such a plant should be located near the dump or in the dump, and
not so close to where people live and breathe.
I own the houses at 150-154-156-158 Date St. which are almost
directly downwind from the plant. I also own the houses at 371-375
Palm Ave., and the houses at 1845-1851 Rios Ave.
Thank you,
~ ..--
. ~
- ------....;.""..-
Charles B. Tutton
(619) 420-7080
E4-/3
-'..--------.
"'-." --,-
t. fj 1 3 ,~~ .
---.- -
'/ of;;L
11 It Yo It.. Sri / R- Le y fh I?-ID ,.j
'---
:-:;---- ;
,", f
. ,
'-__I
G... tJ " LA.. G- H
; S € IJ ~ ~G ,I t.! .1 y L1. -.:::> d
M . O~ fTc..(. r r<..OMI 'Se
To
, Lo 0 IC. '.A F. I~ 0 ~
""' "'-- ~Ol4 TH 'crlu.. '- A
V,Si4
13 e-Fc) (l.e-
EL.€cre"D
eL~c.. TtONS; ~l.<.' t..)t1-sf'o..J YO (..(,. Ge{-
Yo "'- 7f: IT Pi";;> c.. y . Fo f!?.. GeT .t .t / '.W ~
~
Vo /oJoi .\
I'-' e-e'b' f1 .G-l1te7Sf1Ge- l~tt~S i:cR.
'5TI9 TliJ;.) .,(J~' -H' - - -
. . . I ./. (:; {- 00 "I 0 ~ hit! D STIi!:.J::;-eT
(C. V. fc..4-;d/JiuG- ~cPT F( '-e jc S&P S _ 9' _ oS-)
(3 "- oJ (i i,;j G -:;2. o'l> e?J ~ I V C:!!.. M l ~ I A-N J::> ~ C<. c...
0'1> O(lS. ~ :.it+c t4~ . .
- .
--L s"' A-is 0 'T.I ~e yo ""',' ::?:> 0 :s 0 hlElt-f I,J G l'fe,o(.(T
f H-e-. G-11- S 'Sr7f7/0 k) . u I L e SIP (l..S It~ 1:>
L>le'S~c- .?/,.{hP OP.eRA7"foAJ 5'(Z.~ FclC
. ..
rru'o ho B (LES; TMT S' 'f'i.l,(,.,J ff"b IIJ (O I't-
TfZ...l..(.cK. . 'SID P. C<:2..~l<.tJe-1L 0 r- Ot'-t'hJG-e I#JJ)
I--!tI_L/ZJP;) I~C~S /.,t'9K/~c:. u.. 'T,-<~IJS
} V lJ {f c; ~ U!; LS : A-LL u C' /h..JD H /l- L- /7) P
~ ~CE'~' h/J IN. .147J'O O'<"~N~_ 'ht'h.JY
, .
LPG 11- s' .TI'1-11.J K: e{Z. 'S 72-t;OJ iJ oJ t;;. (L P /1-;V:D
-p ow,J Tt+E:;-- STIZez:,.~_ hJHfCH :5HolA-lJ)
'E.t.f -ftf
/..J 0 v<.. '- '"J)
;;L 0 F ;;L
/tPPCZEClrrlC:; YO......(L AI(t;;;4n'DAJ
T'Zl ,HIs' .'h~/( 'C;:tC-.
ee'. ~C1w1UL
-EA-.f},.u.L /J ~f
I~'II ;-1-(,--,- 'T'D f' ~.
:C~ ,-14' thoS"ni" C;r<.t='
.9 (9/1- ~-3 0 Y
E Lj- -i~
:~----~"'~',- -
'"T-" .
Mayor Shirley Horton
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton:
I am writing this letter to bring to your attention two problems I feel are
very important to our part of this city.
First is the proposed "Trash Transfer Station" that is being proposed at 187
. Mace St. I am opposed to this plan. I have some serious doubts about this
plan. Where is the trash coming from? Where is it going? Most of all, why
is this plan being proposed at a place that is so close to our neighborhood.
The notice' I received, stated that 156. trip a day by big trucks would be
common.
~
This brings me to my second complaint. Our neighborhood is being overrun by
trucks using the diesel pump at Hilltop and Orange. These trucks come from
the meat plant at Hilltop and. Main. The trucks are so loud, we had to move
our family room to the west side of our house so we could talk normally.
City crews have repaired Hilltop Drive two times in the past year because
these trucks are so heavy that they actually roll up the asphalt on the
street. My neighbors and I have experienced damage to our homes, because
trucks actually shake the foundations. I have personally witnessed these
trucks drag racing from Orange to Main on Hilltop. They use their "Jake
Brake" at all hours and I have even had words with some of the drivers when I
ask them to pick up the trash they throw down when they stop in front of our
house to check their oil, tires, etc. As I understand, after several calls
to Chula Vista Police Department, trucks are not allowed to park in
residential areas, but when I call Chula Vista Police Department, nothing
happens. Why is commercial traffic being allowed in an Rl residential area?
This problem is so bad that I am considering selling my property and moving
to another neighborhood. I am positive that the proplem with the trucks will
depreciating my property value. No one would buy the house with this
problem.
Thank you,
Mike and Jerry Kelley
3749 Festival Ct.
Chula Vista, CA 91911
619-427-1914
c: Senator Steve Peace
Congressman Bob Filner
County Supervisor Greg Cox
Assemblywoman Denise Duchenby
Assemblyman Steve Baldwin
Department of Motor Vehicles
California Highway Patrol
.i.
L1-(("
-
" D~n''i' Trash ~u,. Wfa+e,. "
August 21,1996
VIA FAX & CERTIFIED MAIL
Martin Miller, Associate Planner
PlaMing Dept., Public Sernces Bldg.
Cbula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
RE: CASE NO. SUPS-9S-0ZlIS-9S-14 MACE STREET TR..\.NSFER STATION
PLEASE READ THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD AT THE BEARING
Dear Mr. Miller,
On advice from our attorney, to protect our legal position, our citizens' group is sending
this letter staling our position for the record. We strongly oppose the Mitigated Negative
Declaration finding of no significant environmental impacts from the proposed trash
transfer station to be located at 187 Mace Street, Our objeaion is due to the very real
potential for waste to be hauled from Mace Street to the proposed Campo Landfill, on the
Campo. Indian Reservation. This action wi1I put at risk the Campo/Cottonwood Creek
Sole Source Aquifer. Our federally designated aquifer is the only supply of wateT fOT the
rural communities (people and livestoclc) surrounding the Campo Reservation. We have
been fighting this landfill, and the threat it poses to our water supply, since 1989.
Attached, is a copy of a letter from Pacific Disposal, Inc_, to Mayor Tim Nader, dated
September 13, 1994. The letter, signed by Jorge Holland, President of Pacific Disposal,
!nc" discusses the site at 187 Mace Street, the met that they are funding it and they have
a contract with Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. for disposal at their Campo landfill.
On August 2, 1995, I sat in a courtroom downtown and listened as Jorge Holland pleaded
guilty to insurance fraud, was ordered to pay $15,000, given 120 days in custody of the
Sheriff' and 3 years probation. This is not the kind of person we want associated with such
a controvmiallandfill in our midst.
Weare aware that Pacific Disposal was purchased by SanililI wbich has since merged with
USA Waste, one of the most aggressive companies around. But., it is stil1 a concern to us
that Jorge Holland is somehow involved in the Mace Street filcility. Especially with the
c;ontinued involvement of Mr. Mark Watton who must be a close friend as he sat in the
eounroom with Holland when he pleaded guilty to insurance fraud,
DONNA TISDALE
P.O. BOX 1275
BOULEVARD, CA 91905
(619) 76&-4170. FAX: (&19) 76&-4922
ELf -/1
DIANE RICHARDS
1783 BUCKMAN SPRINGS RD.
CAMPO, CA 9190&
(619) 478-9195
....~-
MillerlMace St. Transfer Station
8-21-96 Page 2
Our group has UDCOvered nUmerous questionable activities related to this landfill. We are
oow in the process of trying to get Campo's federal pennits revoked becauSe of the
indictments and ongoing federal investigation of Mid-American Waste Systems, their
officers and associates, regarding illegal campaign contn'butions and illicit kickbacks on &
landfill contnlct in Gary, Indiana. The attached Waste News article (May 6, 1996)
discusses the indications "...federal authorities in Southern California lire conducting their
own investigation of the company's activities there" We provided a lot of information to
authorities and believe more indictments are justified.
For years, we argued that with Campo being built on federa11and, and the real possibility
of a company going bankrupt, the owner's of the traSh would be liable for any
contamination of our wells. Our concerns were not taken seriously and Mid-American is
now close to bankruptcy. Today, their stock was trading at 13/22. We feel this will be an
ongoing potential problem with any new vendors and should be fully disclosed to potential
customers. The City of Chula VISta is well aware of OUI' intentions to file suit against any
city proposing to send their waste to Campo,
We request that you notify us, in writing. as to any involvement by Jorge Holland, Sanifil~
US/\ Waste, or any other major waste company which may be using a third party front to
get their foot in the door in San Diego County. Our water is worth fighting for and we
plan to continue to do so,' .
Please advise us, in a timely manner, of the upcoming hearing of this issue by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City ofChuJa VISta or by any other body.
Since.r~ ..-----
~ / ";e/J..--
Doona Tisdale,
President
cc with enclosures: Mayor Shirley Horton
John Moot .
. Steve padilla
Jerry Rindone
Scott }J~
SDSWMA
,c4-1?
-
PACIFIC DISPOSAL, INC.
'1991/2 Mace Street
Chula Vista, CA 92011
(619) 221.8060
Fax: (619) 476.0768
Mr. Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista. Ca. 91910
September 13. 1994
Mr. Mayor '
We at Padfic Disposal, Inc. thank you for the opportunity to present to the City Council
our proposed transfer station plans.
). Site
. We have Joc-Rted a site at 187 Ma'ce StrC'et in the City of Chula Vista. This site is in nn
industri'al area- encompassing 4.75 acres, . , -
2. Facility
The fadlity will 40,000,sq. ft. in size Imdn roof-\\ith room' for expansion for a MRF
slntion. This fadlity "ill have the capadty to hnndlc 300,000 lOllS per year.
3, Funding
Pacific Disposal. Inc, is fully funded for. the completion of this project.
4. Dump Sites .
We have a contract with Mid.Anlerican Waste Systems for their Campo. ea, l:mdfill and
h.we an agreement \\ith SOllthwest Disposal for 1000 tons per day at their Somerton Az.
landfill.
5. Pricing
We believe' we can achieve a tipping-fee for the City of Chula Vistll's waste of 542.50 per
ton all inclusive. This fee is based on both Mid.Americans Call1po site Rnd SOlithwest's
landfill in Arizona. '
6.'Operatlonal stllrl'Up . , . .
We project that we'\\;I11X! in operalion 18 mOOlhs from tht' dily-of approvill of 11Ind \I"C
by the Cit)' of ChuJa Vist:!.
Ec.f-/9
--_."-_.,~----
~~c
.,.t" .
._l~
In closing we would like to extend to you the opport\ll'1ity to view om pl~n$ln detail Rnd
would make ilvaih,ble to City Stilfr. any and all documents thill relMe to this proJect.
)0" ~ P",ido"
Pad I Disposal. Inc,
E c/ - ;)..{)
>--
~
~ u
> >.
~ 8 c..
u 0
~ ~ u
~
~ ~ "
<- -
Q '" -
N
~ ,. ~
~
'1 0
" :::..
.. ,~
.,.
!. -0
,I 0
8 ~
-
< .~
~
"
-0
y
~
~ -:::;
-..... .' 0
y
c..
E
0
-=
>-,
"'::l
U
"
:t
-
~
~
,~
-e
c::
-
ti
l:
ti
en
~
'"
E
" ~
-
'" e--
" e--
~ ......
'2 ~
'0 ;..,
'" "
- :2
0
"'"
.g
~
0
c..
u
--
-
__ ....::;:~+~-.:u)O..,...,.;-._;:: r...:: "'":~- -'o.O"='~::'~
;; E w 0 ,...l:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c: C >-'... =:.i ~ e III .. 'I: Iw.: c.: I:Q __ i.) ~ ~ fJ:: ~
... f,) u _.... t t: ~ Co. 0 - -- '- .-'- f u5 r. "g 0 ;; ~ ::'i' e;: 9. .. ... E 0 ~
;: ~ -5 == .; -;:: C::;l e '-' . S ~ ~ ::: D l;.!1 Co . _.:.I... >. ... _ Q. ... j;,. ...
. ~c ~o~~B~.~~~EC ~Eto~P~ ~~'5~ ~~E~~~;~
~~~-g "Z:;",>. L.e.~fol;t ~bt~5.::~ECI: ..._Cole -"a~C::""O".
Q"o_" ~~~ec~c~~co ~a~...o~~~ o~~o ~-uC~Q~i.
"'''::lI:lo.r: ..Jv=~V~ C.__....cO" ::;B~.- Ill..... 1O&l_O
.lC~-gfol~"" ~t.l..::l'iO C,le~':::"O-'~..("''''''.c t:::l""cbl"8
c-'~~ _~~>'Iw.~._~_~ folE...E~:g: .~~~ ~_o~oo
'= eo: __...... L.. ~ ;;:; c ~~ ..= tlQ ""0 ~ ~"O 0 .. "'C (1'J... ~ - C:._ ~:::?,:-." - :.:: - ~E <5
lo.='o_... 0 __...>'0 _'" .... ....-_ C; - ."'l::lt:J..... .....-'" 'il I/)
tz..o~.= po..,"'I;1"'c-tr,t'" 0'" ..:E lp - ::>._--r;:I., 1lI.&J...~....:=.A.......
C a: c.~ ~c'" c ....5 -- 0.; c: Cu Q ~ =- "C" e =..... eI ~..c.. _. ,,-.. c. 0 ~ o.~" E.'- to'::..
_ C - Q. E .- ~ 1:0 - .;.... c &:; I,l ~ ... .- - - ~ 0 ...
l,l"CIt:l~ c~"",,'C c;.I-;lt:<;;...c ..c"O-o...t>...EQI:~g~ .e"f"~...,.~~'o
E s:: E ~ L. 0 0 u E,.) ~ t.D to If') .- '" '- C :;l bCI 0 ~ ~ be ~ bD e'~ ~ 8 ~ Q. ~ < co; ~ 0 !!
==v _- -._ .0 t.I :::.... . 0......-::. -: .0_ ........ - .. .., '" I'l II _ .. _ Cl _
V - ,,- - .. - 1.1 - .- -- > ~ v - C C
... v . ...., 111._ '" V c.> - WI . t: . :t: ..::: ~ &I c:; >.- 0 Vi ... ---'J: 11.... j C -
C > C _... c . ~..r; ~ 0. ... Q. ~... to <OJ >, 11 ~ &1. VI C c; ii"l: Q..! - c -= ci c
5 II =~ ~~Cf.).1:: 1l"'Cl ttcE;~ cC')~'E; lIIf-o:~ EU ~< ~c: a eE-- E-o ..... tr(l..... >..
u58~~ oa~~~.~~E~~~ ~o~ B~~~ ~8~< :~~!!iJa
IV e 5- >......... Cl &J ~.. c. >. t.l . C' ,..:. w -0 >.."tJ ~ IIU':" 0 - g
.. .o:>oE"""E-'e- ..,'oCC .u..--t:g-- ~~C"." ~.oc...
~ -o"""o'=c~ .~.: U~!~ - f';.-tl ~.q~o
t) ~ v. u ~ fJ.: = ,~ == ~ 'C ,i - .~ .:. .s ~ Cl.i.. IV 0 .... .- ceO 'W; 0
~ i~!~:~~ ,~!~~!E~~~~~ c~~~l~ -~=f~
~ 0 >,~ ~ - ($ Wl._ '::1" "" -< ~ . ~ 10 C' .,.... c 5 - ::"0 c.. r-.
...~r-o~....:go.....<~"'-iI:.;.sc;:. ""...co 11] o.s~ ..
::) C. Q.'; C C ..~.- - 0 "" ,~..c ,- c: 0 c - 'C ~::! ~ ~ bO -.... 0:: "'0
_'" .Ec~Il~_~~Il-L.""~-~=8~ 1V5-~~~C eoc.~c
4.l..c ~lII,!::t;E=C1..QC:"'.CllC_~&lU...tI.. Elllcu"'O::: 4I.o.Jo~c~.
"'~ u- ... 1Il.2;'i::C:Cl.5:l.e>..o~~cu..._ <..c..ccc- ..u 0
~ E G,1::1 .. m .- "Q ... ~.. ::: L.- M c: ~ ~ . Co tI.. .. . c:; ~:5 ~ 0 :
.s o-5.o~;,g~~o.~t'e~E gee: ~.s.!6JE. - -
~c ;a..,~'i:~.oi:"t1~:cc:;~-~~g\lt.E=, =:g.v.z;=t: ~i5g~E
..':: ,2 c: tQ.w ~ E,O,) ~";,~ ~:::: .. c ~ ~_ c..'-' E....; ... 'i:.;.. ... ~ - lIS u C).....
__ ~ II L. c: 0'- c ~ v ~ .s "" ='..... -4'- >t ... IS) ... C... N ... E
~ ~...; o.::l e.= ~ 8 ~ '.:I f CJ .D ~ ~ I'l"N ~ ~ c 11:'= ~ 0: II ::l g _ !! .. ...] ~~
_ (,pen eoO &.. ." c.=:....&,- ",S'i:<~ II~"E.~! III ..c_~~ '" u.... c"lO.:=..... d..
.- en 8 E >. ~ - ~ -.I' r' ... -..' .... 0 - .,... - 1,/ ~ 0
"'c '-c~o_b:l" 2~c~^gC"'''-_''E.~''--C: ~''''Ilr_ -~ ...
e - .- III ~ 9 "'4 _ .. Ie.... Cl ~ =' .- c.-=":" 0 tall .
~ ~ ,S :;5 g,:: ~.s ~ Q ~::i ~ St 'i -fl 8 ~ (;) -g c.~ '(j < ~ z.! 2 C
\:;l
~
u
:l
"
.:
-
-
u
E
:l
}
CI' .....' ~ . ., eln
tI) s.!~ e::E._Ee..=r-..
-:;~"O -:5~Qt.I~$~
:: ~ tpc" 0 _1Ig
. ~I:lCl "':l:'''=''Q~~
Q) ~ c ':;'..550.,_";
.... c: tlCc = ::'ij..:::1?;~
e.:", t:;;:: ~ c.lia:
10"0 ~ E i '" cO
= .- c:~e .Clm-::SC:!'ii~
."= U 'i po.,-:, :::: ,2::; I:l
~ lwo.! ~;~':1:-5
fa 5Co&1C. "-1;1'-
c.......-e~.~Io:"~
e -'l:goC:"C":'
(.) ti~E:3uq8,;3
~::z.,~!!~lC I:
5'~--~t= ~ ~= ~~
= nh 0 ~~~'''II .
C') ,_. . to .... 5
~ E E ~ ,5 ->.. ~ ~ c-
CO = -QCU_-c= r~-;;:=~
i.="i.~t --.......
< c'-O l;l E .== ~';o
f.) .- .-o::~ c:,~ 8 "l:l.~'i~
. ..!~-5t.! ~~~"i
c 0"';l-:5.... S! c ..0-.1
.l! -G ~ ~..." .c .2 ~ c
._ ~ c-.:iI,~.= -.= ".~
III i ~ tIJ .- '- t.i ; 0 :=-
.. . E5"'C:~0;,~ ~E
_ ~ ,_='-"'0 .1= ~ ~~ 0
Q) .~o~g6-5~ww
e :t::>~-.::=~:;; fl< UI c_
1l'-~IC-.tI-.
II ~ 1'" ~-=: ""0':: >. c:
E ~~l=:~;iE~~
= ~E.'c~~ :r:tolJ
c ..:. S ".. :; !!'=
e"'2c:OClClC:~C:
< . __ .".::- ~~ ~-:1
..... ~.!-g'i={,?E~
E_..." lIlO
. ~ 1~ ~~i e,i,r.o:l1-
~.,,;: Il~. c:
::Ev~~::.co
-= C) 1.:.2"~C:a"
"8 ..... f.~o-e
CD .E~.!~.ac" l
._ . i.~.!! c." 5'.'"
... ~ -:.~., -5;: ~ ~ .
~ -1\ n~llt~il
.::: \tt1IN :S; . 111'-- ~ "'_!J
E 4- ;;LI
I"
.//
.
-
Excerpt from Draft Planning Commission Minutes of 8/14/96
ITEM 2,
PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A MUNICIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER AND MATERIAL
RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - Sky Trucking (Continued
from 7-10-96) (To be continued to meeting of August 28, 1996)
Mr, Lee informed the Commissioners that staff was working on the environmental analysis, the
Agency meeting had been rescheduled, and staff requested continuation of SUPS-96-02 to the
August 28 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that again the public hearing should be
opened for those who wanted to speak and could not return on August 28, and then the item
should be continued to the meeting of August 28.
Chair Tarantino opened the public hearing. He noted that anyone who spoke at that meeting
would defer their chance to speak on the 28th.
Mike Kelley, 3749 Festival Ct., was opposed to the trash plant. There were already a lot of
trucks in the neighborhood. It was less than three blocks from his house; Otay Elementary
School nearby, noise, pollution, blocking of streets, V-turns already out of control; 156 more
trucks trips daily; if low on fuel, the trucks would go to the nearby gas station to refuel.
Thought the trucks were killing their property values. There had been diesel spills from the gas
station down to Main Street. Fire Department puts sand on it. A motorcyclist had gotten into
the diesel fuel and had an accident. Main Street will be even more dangerous.
Frederick G. Payea, Jr., 1641 Hilltop Dr., opposed because plant would be close to residential
neighborhood, Why not locate it near the dump on Main Street. It would bring odors, vermin,
rats, rodents, flies.
R. L. Boyd, 1575 Hilltop Dr., reiterated other comments; concerned about diesel fumes;
parking across the street; three schools within five block area of plant; children's safety;
extremely dangerous; that part of C, V. is being made into a slum with this action; already have
two half-way houses in the area. It's enough. Time to change things.
Patty Diaz, 231 Date St., concerned that traffic is already bad from Nelson Sloan and Laidlaw;
new bus lane in front of their business on Mace; 40 mph traffic on Main; pollution.
Ulysses Gonzales, 1605 Hilltop Dr., said that placing the project would be detrimental to the
community. There were three schools in the area and there would be more traffic, there had
been a shooting on Hilltop in his driveway. Hilltop was very close to main and that traffic
would eventually go up Hilltop. He would not want his children walking down any street with
trash trucks, etc., that could possibly harm them. He thought it was a 1:>ad plan. He thought
it should be placed near the dump on Main Street past I-80S.
Ana Maldonado, 169 Date St., was concerned about the traffic, speed of traffic, proximity of
schools, flies, the water already smells, and the project would not be good for the community.
E 5-!
PC Minutes
-5-
August 14, 1996
Fausto Maldonado, 169 Date St., said he was opposed to this plan, He could see why they
were having problems with the environmental plan, The speakers had talked about their
concerns with the children. The river could be affected. They had been promised a park behind
them, They had seen no evidence of that. The traffic \Vas bad. There should be a stop sign
on the exit from Date onto Main, because Main became a hill between Melrose and Hilltop and
the trucks and cars go very fast. On Date and Otay Valley Road, there had been dozens of
accidents because they don't see the post. That had never been changed. The field was not
developed, and could be a two-way road. They did not even have a sidewalk. He was
concerned that Otay Elementary School would be too close to the plant. He thought it would
be better as a park, or somewhere for the children to play.
~
B. Rosie Bystrak, 24 Tourmaline St., stated that her back yard faced Main Street. They have
a problem at night when they hear the semi trucks that honk to warn people they were going
through the light because they couldn't stop. She has also heard the screech and bang when
someone did not stop. She wanted to know where the trash would come from, where it would
go, why must it stop there if it was a transfer. It was in close proximity to their neighborhood.
They already have mice and bugs, a sulfur smell when it is humid and hazed. To have a dump
site would make it worse. She wanted some explanations, She wanted her neighborhood
protected.
John Arinas, 375 Date Street, lives east of the site, and said he had not gotten notice until the
first of August, He had collected signatures but would bring more to the next meeting. People
in the area of Date and Palm were not aware of it. They had questions regarding health,
environment, rodents, With the amphitheater, the water park, and the whitewater, he did not
think this trash site would not be appropriate. The recycling place made it easier to put this
trash place in, He believed the transfer should be east by the trash dump site. If the City
wanted this co=unity as promised to them when they annexed to the City in 1986, he believed
the City should at least put in their streets, sidewalks, and parks. It seemed like they had to
band together to resist the trash site, They had not received any paperwork until the last minute.
He was definitely opposed.
Sal Lukey, 1636 Jasper Ave., asked if on the 28th she could ask questions and to whom.
Chair Tarantino informed her she would have an opportunity to speak during the public hearing,
and staff or the applicant could answer her questions.
Assistant Planning Director Lee pointed out that Martin Miller was the project planner and
anyone who hp.d questions before the 28th could call Martin at 691-5101 and he would try to
answer their questions. Or if they needed research that staff could assist on, staff would try to
accommodate them. He noted that the staff report would be ready on Thursday, August 22.
If anyone would like a copy, they could call Nancy Ripley at the same number and leave a
message to get a copy mailed or to pick up a copy.
E5-~
PC Minutes
-6-
August 14, 1996
Ms, Bystrak: returned to the podium to ask if notices had to not have to go to all residents. She
made copies and passed the word around, She asked staff to let the people know the distance'
for mail-out.
Mr, Lee said that under State law, the City was obligated to notify within 300 feet of the
property bounilliries of an application. By City policy, that notification area had been expanded
to 1,000 feet on large-scale projects. Assessor parcel numbers were used for verification of
ownership and residence. Both are notified in accordance with the assessor's records. In
addition, in this case, there was a public forum held in July. The purpose of those forums was
to have the applicant propose on a more infonnal basis to the public and give them a chance to
ask questions. City staff are there to infonn people of the process that would take place in the
notification.
Ms. Bystrak: said that in the vicinity where this building was to be built, she thought the closest
house may be 1,000 feet. Mr. Lee said Date Avenue was approximately 650 feet to the east end
of the property. Everyone on Date A venue should be on the mailing list.
Ms, Bystrak: said that those north of Main Street would not have gotten any kind of notice. D-
Haul had gotten a notice, but anybody else beyond that point would not have gotten any. These
were neighbors who lived just behind the area. She was concerned and had passed the word
along.
Mr. Arinas said that on Date A venue there were only four houses connected to Date Street,
where nobody had gotten notice. There were no houses around Mace. He thought the
notification should be changed.
Chair Tarantino noted that they could comment at the meeting of August 28.
Mr. Maldonado said that regardless of what anybody said regarding the distance, once the plant
was there everyone beyond 1,000 feet would know. They couldn't rely on luck to be at the
meeting. They had to rely on people's good will to do something right.
MSC (DavislWillett) 5-0 (Ray excused; Tuchscher not yet arrived) to continue the public
hearing to August 28, 1996.
E'5-3
- '"'T----' ,_.._~,'