HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1996/11/19
"I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City o.r CL:,/2 Vi3ta in the
:ommun;ty Deve:c:;-:':T:.~:'~'~ '_ ,-r!~ 3nd that I postej
~his Agendaf'i",:o'!ic8 U:-I \, . ,;; ,,;; 8J2rd at the
Tuesday, November 19, 1996 :~~~~/~f~/;~~~~~::~ ~fdJ?i~~~on
6:00 p.m.
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
-Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Joint Meeting of the Redevelooment Agencv/Council of the Citv of Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
Agency Members Alevy _, Moot _, Padilla_,
Rindone _, and Chair Horton _
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 20, 1996 (Joint Meeting), October I, 1996 (Special Joint
Meeting). October 8. 1996 (Special Joint Meeting) and October 15.
1996 (Joint Meeting)
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been adverlised 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
infavorofthe staff recommendation; complete the pinkform to speak in opposition to the staffrecommendation.)
Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
3. 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.--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. (Community Development Director)
AGENCY
RESOLUTION XXXX
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 putposes and follow up
action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
Agenda
-2-
November 19. 1996
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency
and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment
Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes.
STATUS OF FAMILY FUN AND RECREATION CENTER PROJECT
AND PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSALS FOR THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY AREA AT
THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF SR-54 AND I-805--An Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement (ENA) by and between Pacific Malibu Development
Corporation, Warner Properties and Council/Agency expired on March 15,
1995, and accordingly does not bind any party thereto. Since that time, staff
had completed development agreement negotiations; however. the developer
has not filed the necessary entitlement applications for the project. Staff has
been approached by several other parties interested in pursuing other
alternative proposals for the site. It is recommended that Council hear the
alternative proposal applicants and approve staff's recommendation.
(Community Development Director) Item continued from the meetine of
10/15/96.
4. REPORT
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
6. CHAIR'SIMAYOR'S REPORTCSl
7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on December 17, 1996 at 6:00 p.m.,
immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
1M:\HOME\COMMDEV\AGENDAS\11-19-96.AGD)
MlNUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Tuesday, August 20. 1996
8:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Council/Agency Members Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, and Mayor/Chair
Horton
ALSO PRESENT:
John D. Goss, City Manager/Director; Ann Moore, Acting City/Agency
Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk.
IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM BE CONSIDERED AT A TIME CERTAIN
OF 7:00 P.M.
2. REPORT REPORT ON THE REPAYMENT OF ONE PARK APARTMENT LOAN MADE
FROM TIlE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND--On 10/17/85 the Agency approved an
$850,000 deferred loan made to One Park Limited which covered cost for the underground parking lot for the 94-
unit residential rental project in Town Center 1. Over the past year, staff has been negotiating with the Developer
for the repayment of the loan which became due in May 1996 and is now in default. The Developer has presented
proposals for alternative payment plans which were not acceptable to staff. The Developer has requested to appeal
to the Agency. Staff recommends tbe Agency support the tenus outlined in Exhibit E of the staff report.
(Community Development Director)
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report. He reported on two positive
events that had occurred since the agenda packet had been sent out. One of those was that the Developer had
provided a counter offer that was substantially better than the one that was in the report. In addition, the Developer
had given staff a Cashier's check in the amount of $125,000 which was taken in the spirit of their commitment to
a resolution of the problem and not accepted on any condition of any particular deal. He asked Council to allow
the applicant to speak, then adjourn to Closed Session so staff, with their consultant, Steve Delaney, could briefly
review the new counter proposal, present stafrs response, and hear Council's wishes on the issue.
Council/ Agency member Rindone asked what the basis was for this to be heard in Closed Session.
Ann Moore, Acting City/Agency Attorney, responded that it would be to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of
pursuing possible litigation; in this case, foreclosure proceedings.
. Cheryl Cox, 647 Windsor Circle, Chula Vista, representing the applicant, Zogob Enterprises, spoke in favor
of the staff recommendation. She presented an overhead, stating that at present they were talking about an $850,000
loan. The $125,000 check was an attempt to present the intense desire of the applicant to resolve the outstanding
indebtedness. A new note would be created whereby the City would receive a payment per quarter on the principal,
with interest on the outstanding principal, and a stipulation that within three years either One Park Apartments was
refinanced, sold, or the amount of the outstanding indebtedness was paid. There was accrued interest on the
$850,000 principal balance, and the applicant was asking that it be established at $400,000 so the total amount of
the outstanding indebtedness was approximately $1.3 million. They were proposing that the tenus on the $400,000
be the same as the tenus on the initial note of $600,000, that included the principal paydown and quarterly interest
payments; again, all due within three years of signing the agreement. A benefit to that would be the City would
receive instant funds of $250,000, $125,000 of which the City had just received. The applicant would like to begin
paying down the principal. The property owner would have three years, which is sufficient time, to pursue
refinancing the property, or if need be, sell the property in order to payoff the outstanding indebtedness which
would be approximately $700,000. Furthermore, the property owner pledged to distribute no further funds to its
investors until the outstanding amount was paid.
d. - (
Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 2
· Richard Zogob, 344 "F" Street, Suite 101, Chula Vista, representing One Park Apartments, spoke in favor of
staff recommendation.
· Luis Maizel, 2111 Via Ladeta, La Jolla, representing One Park Apartments, spoke in favor of staff
recommendation.
Council/ Agency member Rindone stated that while the project was good and had benefitted the City in many ways,
Council was also responsible for ensuring that the fiscal responsiveness and the interest of all tax payers were
adequately addressed. He stated that in the new counter proposal there was a request to add to the principal balance
$400,000 in interest, but as reported to Council/Agency, interest on the principal balance as of 5/1/96 was
$452,000. He requested an explanation of the per annum payback on the interest. He stated that on page 2-3 of
the staff report it stated "The above described proposals were found unacceptable by staff because they ask the
Agency to be very leuient and accepting of the fact that the Developer withdrew $600,000 ont of the project and
distributed to the Developer's partnership as profits before paying off debt" and asked for a response to that.
Mr. Salomone responded that the $450,000 was as of May 1995 and that the actual current estimate of the accrued
interest was $521,000.
Mr. Maizel responded that the money withdrawn was actually just under $600,000 which was about 40 percent of
their investment as equity over a ten year period. It included not only a distribution for partners, but also for work
done as general partners in maintenance of the property. So the amount that was withdrawn was just over three
percent of the equity invested on a per annum basis.
Mr. Salomone said staffs counter proposal was very similar to the proposal already shown to Council/Agency in
that One Park Apartments would pay a $125,000 principal paydown. They had already submitted a check in the
amount of $125,000 and would pay the additional $125,000, totaling $250,000, upon signing a definitive agreement
with the City. They will then execute a note for $600,000, secured against the property with a six percent interest
rate and a quarterly paydown of $ 12,500, all due in three years. Staff felt that the amount of the accrued interest
should be exact and estimated that to be at present between $521,000 and $529,000. A note for the accrued interest
should be secured against the property with the same terms and conditions, including a principal paydown, as
outlined in the note for $600,000. Proof was to be provided of all adjustments of the interest rate on the First Trust
Deed for the life of the loan within five business days. There was an additional interest called a "kicker" and that
was for the City to be able to share in the upside. Staff would like that additional interest to be written as a new
loan secured against the property, accruing interest at six percent, all due and payable within three years. In the
event there had been no default on the other loans, the kicker loan would be forgiven at the time the other Agency
loans were paid in full. The owners would not make any distributions of any kind to themselves or to any related
parties until the Agency loans were paid in full. He was certain they had that in their proposal so it was not new
and there should be a cross default between all three loans. In his opinion, the project was a good project, it had
been managed well and had been fiscally successful.
Mayor/Chair Horton said that when the agreement was first initiated in 1985, the report reflected that the two
bedroom uuits would be renting for $458. She asked what the current rent was and what the square footage was.
Mr. Maizel responded that there was a formula to calculate affordable housing rents and they were charging $125
to $150 below that. The rents go from the low $6oo's to the high $6oo's. They have two different two bedroom
layouts. One was co-mingles, which were two master bedrooms with a living area in the center and the other was
more traditional with a larger master bedroom and a smaller second bedroom, all are around 900 to 950 square feet
and all have two bathrooms.
d.-d--
Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 3
""*""**
Mayor/Chair Horton stated the Council/ Agency would meet in closed session to discuss contemplated initiation of
litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. Council/Agency adjourned to closed session at 8:55 p.m.
and reconvened at 8:58 p.m.
Acting City/Agency Attorney Moore reported that the Council/Agency had decided to direct staff to pursue other
methods other than litigation at present and to come back within 90 days.
The Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency recessed at 8:58 p.m. and reconvened at 11:46 p.m
*****
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 25, 1996 (Adjourned Regular Joint Meeting); June 25, 1996
(Special Joint Meeting)
MSC (AlevylHorton) to approve the minutes of June 25, 1996 (Adjourned Regular Joint Meeting) and June
25, 1996 (Special Joint Meeting) as presented, approved 3-0-2 with Moot and Rindone absent.
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
5. PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., DATED
AUGUST 2, 1995 TO PROVIDE FOR AN AGENCY LOAN FOR PERMIT AND PROCESSING FEES AND
SHARING OF SOIL REMEDIATION COSTS - The Disposition and Development Agreement was approved by
the Agency/Council on 8/2/95 for redevelopment of the former Fuller Ford site. Due to protracted processing time
and added expense, the Agency is requested to defer payment of permit fees. The Agency conceptually approved
a loan for this purpose and autborized staff to negotiate specific terms. Staff recommends the Agency/Council bold
the public hearing and approve the resolutions. [4/5ths Vote Reouired! Continued from the meetim! of AUllUst
6. 1996 (Community Development Director)
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1512 and
COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18421 [1] APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P.,
AUTHORIZING A LOAN TO COVER THE COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND PROCESSING
FOR PHASE 1 OF THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AND EXTENDING THE TERMS
FOR SHARING IN SOIL REMEDIATION COSTS TO COMPLETE REMEDIATION; [2]
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA LAND SALE
PROCEEDS TO BE LOANED TO THE SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA AT THE COUNCIL APPROVED
INTEREST RATE FOR INTRA-CITY LOANS; [3] APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM SOUTHWEST
PROJECT AREA FUND TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P. AND TO FINANCE THE
AGENCY'S PORTION OF ADDITIONAL SOIL REMEDIATION COSTS; (4) AUTHORIZING STAFF TO
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO COMPLETE SOIL REMEDIATION
Mr. Salomone presented the staff report.
02-3
Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 4
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Josef Citron, 765 Bangor Street, San Diego, requested that the item be handled this evening with the four
Council/Agency members present approving the resolution because the item required a 4/Sth's vote. They were
ready to break ground. and the groundbreaking had been scheduled for the following Tuesday: the construction
lender was ready to fund; and they had an all cash buyer for the first unit who would be putting in a flower shop,
subject to the project being started.
Council/Agency member Rindone stated that when the project was initially presented before the Council/Agency,
there had been a four to one vote in support. He respected his colleagues any time they disagreed with a project
because that was why there were five members on a council, to allow the opportunity for each to give their thoughts
in the evaluation of projects and proposals and sometimes they agreed and sometimes they disagreed. He
encouraged Council/ Agency member Alevy to state how he felt on the project, but asked that he join the ~ority
of Council/ Agency in making the project possible.
Mayor/Chair Horton concurred and stated that Council/Agency member Moot's absence from this portion of the
meeting was due to the fact that he had to go to Los Angeles on business. Had she realized sooner, she would have
taken the item out of order, while Council/Agency member Moot was still present, thus ensuring a 4/5th's vote.
Council/ Agency member Alevy stated that he had problems with the business aspects of the project from the
beginning and still did. He had discussed these with the Citrons. Mr. Salomone, other members of staff, and
Council! Agency. He would vote in favor of the project because it was the will of the Council! Agency, therefore,
the will of the City. He understood that every project needed to be looked at separately and stood behind his
support of progressive things taking place in the City. He had some problems with the business arrangements and
thought that every time they looked at the project, they saw a dwindling net figure. He was bothered by the
increased cost of the units and hoped they would sell. He was also bothered by the company that did the soil testing
and felt that someone should have checked the soil where the hydraulic lifts had been, not just where the cars had
been parked. If someone had made a mistake, everyone would pay for it. He felt there sbould be some remediation
from tbe people that put the hazardous material in the ground in the first place.
Mr. Salomone responded that the City was bound under tbe Development Agreement to pursue the perpetrator, a
meeting was scbeduled with him that week and they had asked for their insurances. Staff felt it was a clear cut case
and would pursue tbat. The repayment of the loan would be due and payable in January 1998, whether or not the
units sold by then. The City would not take less than a second position lien on the property to secure the loan and
reserved the rigbt to withhold building permits for Pbase II of the project in the event that there was a default on
the loan.
Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney, stated that a couple of the items Mr. Salomone had pointed out were not
actually included in the agreement. There were some clarifications. He proposed minor amendments to Section
4.2.6 and 4.2.7 of the agreement which would be included in staffs recommendation. Added on to tbe end of 4.2.6
would be the following phrase: "only to a monetary lien arising from prior acquisition indebtedness in the
approximate of $200,000 and non-monetary liens and encumbrances reasonably approved by the Agency", then add
the following phrase on the end of Section 4.2.7: "(b) Agency shall have the rigbt to withhold building permits
and/or certificates of occupancy for business home units on lots 7 through 18 of Parcell." That was only in the
event of a default of the loan.
There being no furtber public testimony, the public bearing was declared closed.
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1512 AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18421, AS AMENDED BY STAFF,
OFFERED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER RlNDONE, reading of the text was waived, heading read,
and approved 4-0-1 with Moot absent.
c2-Lj
Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 5
6. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE AUCTIONHOUSE AT 780 BAY BOULEVARD LOCATED
WITIllN THE BA YFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND TO CONSIDER A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE AUCTIONHOUSE AT 780 BAY BOULEVARD LOCATED
WITHIN THE CHULA VISTA COASTAL ZONE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS--BAHA International proposes
to establish an automobile auctionhouse in an existing industrial building at 780 Bay Boulevard. Activities would
include two auctions per week and smog checks, minor tune-ups, and car washing related to the auctioning of
vehicles. The project is exempt from CEQA but requires a Redevelopment Agency Land Use Pennit and a Coastal
Development Pennit. Staff recommends adopting the resolutions subject to conditions. (Director of Community
Development)
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1513 ISSUING A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE AUCTIONHOUSE AT 780 BAY BOULEV ARD FOR A PERIOD
OF ONE YEAR SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18422 ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 71
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE AUCTIONHOUSE AT 780 BA Y BOULEVARD FOR
A ONE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
Mr. Salomone recommended tbat Condition Number 32 on the Special Use Pennit and Coastal Development Pennit
be cbanged to read: "that in tbe event of a legitimate legal cballenge, the applicant will abandon the use
immediately. "
Council! Agency member Rindone asked if tbere bad been a review by the Police Department.
Mr. Salomone responded tbat the Police Department bad reviewed it, and tbey bad tbe rigbt to go on the premises
to inspect tbe vebicles at any time.
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1513 AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18422 OFFERED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY
MEMBER RINDONE, reading of tbe text was waived, beading read.
This being the time and place as advertised, tbe public bearing was declared open. There being no public testimony,
the public bearing was declared closed.
VOTE ON RESOLUTIONS: approved 4-0-1 witb Moot absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None.
OTHER BUSINESS
7. CITY MANAGER'SIDIRECTOR'S REPORT/S) - None.
8. MAYOR'S/CHAIR'S REPORTlS) - None.
c2-:;;-
Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 6
9. COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS - None.
*****
Council! Agency adjourned to closed session to discuss conference with legal counsel, contemplated initiation of
litigation by the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c), Chula Vista Auto Park
developers - South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/HondalKia vs. the City /Redevelopment Agency based on
administrative claims filed on 11115/95, and subsequent requests for Preference Proceedings under the Disposition
and Development Agreement at 12:10 a.m.
*****
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12: 10 a.m.
CLOSED SESSION
10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: Contemplated initiation of litigation by
the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(C)
. Redevelopment Agency versus One Park Limited, et. aI.
11. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPA TED LITIGATION: Contemplated initiation
of litigation by the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
. Chula Vista Auto Park developers - South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia v.
City /Redevelopment Agency based on administrative claims filed on November 15, 1995, and
subsequent requests for Preference Proceedings under the Disposition and Development
Agreement.
12. REPORT OF ACTIONIS\ TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by
c;-~/ ~/-'~k7",
Carla J. Griffut, Acting Depu' Ity Clerk
d-.-(p
MlNUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October I, 1996
5;35 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Agency/Councilmembers Scott D. A1evy, John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla,
Jerry R. Rindone, and ChairlMayor Shirley A. Horton
ALSO PRESENT:
John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney;
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
3. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDING THE SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITYfIRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855 MAXWELL
ROAD DATED MARCH 19,1996, TO EXTEND THE PERMIT--In order to meet current market conditions,
John Sexton Sand & Gravel has proposed to phase construction of their proposed trash transfer facility now, and
expand in the future as the volume of trash processed at the facility increases. Sexton has submitted phasing plans
to City staff and the Design Review Committee. Sexton has also requested extension of their Special Land Use
Permit for development of the project to be coterminous with the Owner Participation Agreement. Staff
recommends approving an extension of the Special Land Use Permit to March 17, 1998. (Community Development
Director) Continued from the meetin~ of 9/17 /96.
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1515 AMENDING THE SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITYfIRASH TRANSFER STATION AT 1855
MAXWELL ROAD, DATED MARCH 19, 1996, TO EXTEND THE PERMIT TO MARCH 17, 1998
Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, indicated that the public hearing was advertised in the local newspaper
and notices were sent to local property owners. Mr. Kassman stated that the only action was to extend the special
permit, which has already been approved.
Chair/Mayor Horton commented that Sexton was proposing to build approximately half of the project now and they
plan to expand in the future as the volume of trash increases or warrants a facility expansion. Chair/Mayor Horton
asked how long this next phase would take for completion of the new expansion.
. Jim Devoe, 1815 South Wolf Road, Hillside, Illinois, representing the Sexton Corporation, answered that once
the need was identified, the additional construction would probably last 9 to 12 months.
Chair/Mayor Horton asked if that was just construction time or would there be additional review from the City, the
environmental agency or the State.
c2-7
Minutes
October I, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Kassman replied that there would be additional design review on the proposed extension of the facility and that
would probably take one to two months.
ChairlMayor Horton questioned why would there be an additional review if we already had a vision of what it was
ultimately going to look like.
Mr. Kassman answered they had a vision but the company mayor may not submit full plans for construction
because they wanted the opportunity to review the plans. If it appeared there was a major deviation from the plans,
as Sexton understood it now, they would like to have the option of bringing that back before the Design Review
Committee.
ChairlMayor Horton asked what would happen if in the future a crisis situation occurred and we fmd there was an
immediate need for expansion.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, answered that when we are talking about phasing the project, the proposal
for the first phase is 1,000 tons per day and that is more than triple the existing waste flow for the City of ChuIa
Vista. That first phase has the capacity to accept growth in the City for quite a number years, as well as accept
trash from other communities. We are currently at about 300 tons per day. The flfSt phase, even though it is less
than they originally anticipated, will accommodate more growth.
Chair/Mayor Horton asked with the changing environment with the county situation, could there be a situation where
there would be an immediate need for a service like this.
Mr. Krempl answered that when the first phase is constructed, it will certainly serve OUf needs; and it is anticipated
that if we do enter in a agreement with Sexton, the City would have the first priority on any capacity over anyone
else.
This being the time and place the public hearing was declared open.
There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone appreciated the direction we were going in. He shared concern that what the
transfer station could provide was a viable alternative, and it may be on a very short time frame than was
anticipated. He asked if they proceeded with what was before them tonight, when could they anticipate construction
of Phase I, assuming a very high profile or fast track approach, because we need to have this option available.
Mr. Devoe said currently he submitted to the State the permit for the operations of the transfer station, and they
have been working with City staff in trying to negotiate an agreement to where the City of Chula Vista trash will
come in. Mr. Devoe stated that Sexton hopes to start construction shortly after the first of the year or beginning
February.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked if there would be a public hearing on this issue.
Mr. Krempl said Council had acted on the permit, all discretionary approvals required by the City had been granted,
and we were only waiting for state approval and making application for the building permit.
Mr. Devoe said that actual construction of the facility could take up to a year, but they could certainly encourage
contractors to complete it in a shorter time if possible.
AGENCY /COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE OFFERED AGENCY RESOLUTION 1515, reading of text was
waived, title read, passed and approved unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE 1996-97 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR-The Redevelopment Agency budget was approved by
the City Council as part of the City budget process, but still requires the formal adoption by the Agency Board.
;2-7
Minutes
October 1, 1996
Page 3
Staff recommends approval of the resolution adopting the FY 1996-97 Redevelopment Agency budget. (4/5ths vote
required) (Community Development Director) Continued from the meetin!!: of 9/17/96.
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1519 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR BSCAL
YEAR 1996-97 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
John Goss, City Manager, gave an overview of the FY 1996/1997 budget report. He stated the Governor signed
legislation tbat basically stated the City will again receive supplemental subventions.
This being the time and place the public hearing was declared open.
There being no public testimony, the public bearing was declared closed.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone requested to continue this item to the Redevelopment meeting of October 15, 1996.
MSUC (Horton/Padilla) to continue the public hearing until October 15, 1996
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Nooe.
ACTION ITEMS
5. REPORT: REVIEW OF SEMI EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH E STREET
TROLLEY SQUARE, LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHOPPINGIENTERTAINMENT CENTER
BETWEEN E AND F STREETS WEST OF WOODLAWN AVENUE, AND ISSUING INSTRUCTIONS TO
NEGOTIA TORS-- The proposed shopping and entertainment center site incorporates the City's Public Services Yard
and reconfigures the E Street Trolley Station. Staff recommends the Redevelopment Agency defer further
negotiations on this project until more information is available concerning the status of the Public Works Yard and
development of the Bayfront. (Community Development Director) Continued from meetin!!: of 9/17/96.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, would like the Agency to table this item until further notice.
There was a letter on tbe dais which was faxed today from tbe applicant and tbey requested more time to address
some of the issues that we bave identified.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone supported the motion to table this but stated he did not feel this was the right
project in the right area. He suggested reviewing a report on where we are on tbe Bayfront because wbat we do
to our old City yard may be a factor that could relate to what we do in tbe Bayfront. He bad a great deal of
apprebension on this project and wondered wby we did mucb work on it at all.
MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to continue the public hearing until October 15, 1996.
6. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS:
John Goss referred to the Horner Report and indicated they wanted a response to tbe information by September 27;
however, we were still waiting for an estimate from the contractor, which was needed at this point in order to
proceed.
7. CHAIR'S/MA YOR'S REPORTS: None.
;2.-9
Minutes
October 1, 1996
Page 4
8. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by:
{Au th"o... ~UlI(L
Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk
c2--( 0
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, October 8, 1996
8:20 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public SelVices Building
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Agency/Councilmembers Scott D. A1evy, John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla, and
ChairlMayor Shirley A. Horton.
ABSENT:
Agency/Councilmember Jerry R. Rindone.
ALSO PRESENT:
Sid Morris, Agency/Assistant City Manager; Glen Googins, AgencylDeputy City
Attorney; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk.
BUSINESS
2. .JOINT COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18448 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION 1520 ADOPTING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-96-04 AND RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA VETERANS HOME, CHULA VISTA, NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-95-02 FOR THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-96-12 FOR THE
SWEETWATER UNION IDGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFlCE RELOCATION, AND
APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A VETERANS
ROME--State funding has been approved for the construction of a $32 million Veterans Home facility in Chula
Vista contingent upon federal funds being secured. In preparation for this project, it is recommended that the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and respective negative declarations be approved in order to
facilitate the development of this project which could begin as early as May 1997. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Community Development Director)
Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, stated the adoption of the proposed negative declarations and DDA for the
Veterans Home project will give the City an advantage to respond in a timely manner to the current project
schedule. On October 15, the State Department of Veterans Affairs will submit relevant documentation, including
evidence of a land transfer agreement, to the State Public Works Board for approval. It is anticipated that the
federal funds will be committed when Secretary Brown. of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, signs the
approval. The Chula Vista Veterans Home is considered one of the top five projects in the country, and letters and
support for this project were sent by all members of our Congressional Delegation. On behalf of the State, City
staff requested a waiver of the proposed impact fees of the Otay Water District and school district, and a report of
the outcome of the negotiations will be provided at a later date. Staff requests approval to pay for a sign to be
placed at the site identifying the location of the Veterans Home. He introduced representatives from the City of
Chula Vista Veterans Advisory Commission, San Diego County Veterans Advisory Committee, Veterans of Foreign
Wars Chula Vista Post. Chula Vista American Legion, and San Diego United Veterans Council who were present
at the meeting.
Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney, stated some of the changes in the document were requested by the State, and
the City and Agency propose the State be required to use the property only as a Veterans Home for 50 years. The
State requested this figure be reduced to 25 years, and staff recommends it is an acceptable reduction in the time
period. The Agency retains the right of first refusal if, in the 25-year period, the State converts the Veterans Home
~ -Ir
Minutes
October 8, 1996
Page 2
to an alternative use. In addition, the State made minor changes to the indemnity provision where they would
indemnify us against any kind of risks associated with the construction or operation of the Veterans Home, and he
found those to be generally acceptable. The State also asked that a Phase 1 environmental analysis be done as a
condition to close; that is a minor additional cost of an estimated $4,000 to $5,000 that staff recommends as
acceptable. In terms of getting the State to commence and complete the project within a certain time frame, the
State proposed they not be obligated to commence the project until four years after transfer of the property or
complete the project until six years after transfer of the property. Staff felt those time periods were too long
pending the nature of the federal funding and their fast-track procedure to develop the project, and we are currently
trying to reduce those time periods so in the event the project does not go forward, we would have the right to
regain title to the property for our own purposes. The State added a dispute resolution mechanism as an alternative
to certain legal remedies, and we added some additional language that would require the project to be built in
accordance with the concept and fmal set of plans. The State is not subject to our land use and control so we would
want to include in the process as much input and impact as possible on what the project will look like.
· Dan Kreyling, 9938 Chocolate Summit Drive, EI Cajon, CA, a member of the Second Veterans Home
Commission, commended the City Attorney's office, the City, and the Redevelopment Agency for the good work
done over the years in pushing forward to get the Veterans Home approved. He also announced an upcoming
meeting of the Second Veterans Home Commission to be held on October 18 at Sharp's Hospital in Chula Vista.
· Bill Ayers, 44 East Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing the San Diego County South Bay Veterans,
commended Glen Googins and staff for their work on this project.
Agency/Councilmember Moot asked if the State would act favorably to waive the elementary school district fee.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, answered it was a standard position, and we will make every
effort to petition the State to waive the fee. He believes this facility will not increase any impacts on the school
district; however, the employment will provide some of those impacts. He believes we may be able to persuade
the State not to impose the fee.
Agency/Councilmember Alevy asked if there was a way to reduce the substantial charges from the Water District.
Mr. Googins replied that fee charges against a public facility were not standard, but could be allowed under certain
circumstances. Negotiations were still pending with the Otay Water District, but in this case the City has argued
that the Otay Water District, under certain provisions in the Government Code, has limitations in the amount of fee
they can charge. They are proposing a fee in the area of $300,000; however, we are proposing a fee in the area
of $150,000 and will continue to negotiate with them. We are optimistic that the State will cooperate to assist in
getting the fees reduced as much as possible.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18448 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION 1520 OFFERED BY
AGENCY/COUNClLMEMBER MOOT, reading of the text was waived, title read, passed and approved
(4-0-1) with Rindone absent.
* * * Chair/Mayor Horton left the dais at 8:35 p.m. * * *
ORAL COMMUNICA nONS
None.
C2-IJ-
Minutes
October 8, 1996
Page 3
OTHER BUSINESS
3. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: None.
4. CHAIR' SIMA YOR'S REPORT: None.
5. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by:
,{J-tl~~
Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk
02--13
T .
MlNUTES OF A JOINT MEETING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYI
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CInJLA VISTA
Tuesday, October 15, 1996
8:37 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
\. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Agency/Councilmembers Scott D. Alevy, John S. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla, Jerry R.
Rindone, and Chair/Mayor Shirley A. Horton
ALSO PRESENT:
John Goss, City Manager; Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney; Beverly A. Authelet,
City Clerk; and Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE 1996-97 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The Redevelopment Agency budget was approved by
the City Council as part of the City budget process, but still requires the formal adoption by the Agency Board.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution adopting the FY 1996-97 Redevelopment Agency budget. f4/5/hs Vote
Reauired! (Community Development Director) Item continued from the meetinl! of 10/01/96.
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1519 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1996.97 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.
Mr. Goss stated this was the second year in a two-year effort to liquidate non-essential Agency assets, basically
fixed assets, to provide liquid assets in order to eliminate the Agency's negative funds balance. It also marked
another year, as with other parts of the City's operations, where the Agency tried to streamline the budget to better
align the operating expenditures and revenues. It also reflected the fact that the City Council adopted an overall
operating budget which had some implications for the Agency budget. While the Agency budget itself needed to
be adopted, staff had more up-to-date information than they had last June when Council adopted the City's operating
budget. The beginning balance of July 1,1996 would go from a plus $1.7 million to a plus $2.8 million; however,
with recent information of legislature passing the State's subvention bill, that basically would bring the State's
subvention revenues back to the Redevelopment Agency. It meant that both the RDA and housing parts would
receive additional revenue, and it also reflected the Zogob loan repayment. The projected end balance for this fiscal
year of RDA without restricted funds of $80,000 would increase to a projected $202,000, and instead of a projected
c2-rY
,...
Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 2
ending balance of $2.8 million, the RDA funds would be $3.2 million. In addition, the report lists some of the
projects and land sales undertaken, and there was also discussion of the priority of projects of the RDA. In terms
of the latter point, Council indicated a desire to have a workshop on overall City priorities and projects important
for the City's economic development.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone suggested having a separate priority budget workshop, and he asked Mr. Goss if
he could arrange that process at the next scheduled RDA meeting. We have made tremendous progress in the last
2-1/2 years getting the Redevelopment Agency budget in line with its resources. He asked what the main cause was
of going from an operating surplus in excess of $625,000 in 1996, to the proposed budget of having a deficit of
operating surplus in excess of $511,000. It was more than a $1.1 million jump, and he asked if staff could share
what the cost was.
Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist, answered that primarily they identified the property
tax reassessments from Rohr and from properties in the Otay Valley Road Project area that were unexpected. In
terms of their impacts that were coming on line this year, that was a big part of it.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone said that it should be ongoing, but should not create a surplus being turned into
a deficit, at least not in that magnitude.
Bob Powell, Finance Director, stated the operating revenues in 1996 were $4.7 million, and in 1997 only $4.2
million. It reflected the reassessments primarily which were Rohr and in the Otay Valley area, specifically South
Bay Chevrolet and some other large manufacturing entities.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked if we would anticipate the smaller number of $4.2 million for subsequent
years. Without one-time land sales, it would have a greater impact over a period of time.
Mr. Powell said we are hopeful as to whether in 1997 we would absorb the major portion of the reassessments.
There are still quite a few pending, but we are no where near the magnitude of ROM and the other ones in Otay
Valley.
Mr. Goss said the projects areas where there were improvements meant the assessed value would increase, but the
basic point is we have to reflect our expenditure patterns to reflect the fact that we would get less revenue. They
will need to look at that again when the budget is prepared next spring.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone illustrated the concern of not accommodating non-producing land which would
not help us and staff addressed that, but it was important to get the revenue in line with expenditures. He did not
understand the second line of the report as it transferred in and out from $2.4 million in 1996 to $2.9 million, and
he asked what caused that.
Mr. Powell said approximately $288,000 was the repayment of the general fund loan from Otay Valley, which was
classified as a transfer out of the Agency to the general fund. The other portion is a slight increase in the debt
service payments on the tax allocation bonds.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked if the $288,000 would be reduced and help mitigate the deficit for 1998.
Mr. Goss said that certainly would be an option if the decision was made.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked if that would be a one-time payout.
C2 -f::;-
Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Goss did not believe that it paid back the entire loan, but whether or not the Agency paid back any or all of
the loan, that is something done on a year-by-year basis. He thinks that at the time the decision was made, it was
looked at from a perspective of what was available in the Otay Valley project area, and it did have the funds at that
point to repay the part listed for this current fiscal year. Next year is a different story, and there may not be an
abiJi ty to do that.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone said there was a request to housing, which went from a surplus of $450,000 in
1996 to a deficit of $175,000. It created a surplus of the RDA from $1.7 million to an actual deficit in excess of
$114,000, and he asked for an explanation.
Mr. Haynes explained that in relation to 1996/1997, the housing fund received reimbursements from the home funds
and McMillin totalling approximately $754,000 which were not reflected. In FY 1997, the housing fund would not
receive those reimbursements. What the negative $175,000 represents is $300,000 going out for the Community
Housing Improvement Program, but it is offset by the first payment of the Zogob loan repayment of $125,000.
Agency /Councilmember Rindone requested in the future for staff to provide an explanation if there were significant
changes in the budget. He also mentioned the three properties Shangri-La, Campos, and the Marina Motorhome
Park were not included in the fiscal 1997 budget.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, commented that the Marina View Park deal would return
to RDA in a few weeks and Shangri-La was close behind, as they were in the final stages of negotiations. They
included a conservative figure of $250,000, although he thinks it would be more than that. He believes there is a
potential that the Campos and Marina Motor Hotel will be consummated during this fiscal year, but they were not
included.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone asked if there were other potential land sales of non-revenue producing RDA
properties that were not considered in the report.
Mr. Goss stated they identified those that were immediately apparent. As the RDA goes through the budget process
for next year, they will look at the inventory to see if there are others that should be included.
Agency/Councilmember Alevy asked staff if there was any consideration given with respect to the stadium for
multiple use, including the minor league baseball team.
Mr. Salomone answered that in the very near future the item would return to Council for their direction.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
CHAffi/MA YOR HORTON OFFERED AGENCY RESOLUTION 1519, reading of the text was waived, title
read, passed and approved unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AcnON ITEMS
4. REPORT STATUS OF F AMlL Y FUN AND RECREA nON CENTER PROJECT AND PRESENT A nON
OF PRELl!\fiNARY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY AREA
02.-(("
Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 4
AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF SR-54 AND I-805--The applicant has requested that this item be
continued to the Redevelopment Agency meeting on November 19, 1996. (Community Development Director) Item
continued from the meet;nl! of 09/17/96.
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the applicant wanted to continue this item to 1119/96.
MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to continue this item to 11/9/96.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: None.
6. CHAlR'SIMAYOR'S REPORT: None.
7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
8. SALE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
· Disposition of Agency-owned property at 760 Broadway (Parcel Nos. 571-200-13, 14, 15, 16, 17),
Redevelopment Agency Broadway Business Homes.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
by:
~~CL~UPfl~
Patricia Schwenke, Deputy City Clerk
d.-/7
HECHT
SOLBERG
ROBINSON
GOLDBERG
Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agencyj
City Council of the City of Chula Vista
Item #3
LLP
November 18, 1996
PERSONAL DELIVERY
The Honorable Shirley Horton
and Members of the Agency
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Mace Street Transfer Station. Ae:encv Meetine of November 19. 1996
Dear Chairperson Horton and Agency Members:
The purpose of this correspondence is to formally request a continuance of the hearing for the project
referenced above from your meeting of November 19, 1996 to January.21, 1997.
Our client is continuing its efforts to address the concerns of the community and the issues which have
been raised by staff. We apologize for the inconvenience of this request but the issues which have been raised
require a thorough response. We believe that the additional time will provide us with the opportunity to assure
the community, as well as your Agency, that this proposed project will be a benefit-to the community.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Should you or any member of your staff
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
.
Sincerely yours,
~ R. ?.,a
Charles R. Gill
Hecht, Solberg, Robinson & Goldberg LLP
CRG/mq
cc: John Goss, City Manager
Ann Y. Moore, Acting City Attorney
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning
Christopher Salomone, Director of Community Development
Lyle Haines, Community Development Department
Mark Watton, Mace Street Transfer, Inc.
ArrORNEYS AT L\w 600 WEST BROADWAY, EIGHTH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNlA 92101 TELEPHONE 619.239.3444 FACSIMILE 619.232.6828
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ..3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: SUPS-95-02 - Request to construct and operate a municipal
waste trash transfer station and material recovery facility at 187 Mace
Street - Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc.
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution Denying a Special Use Permit for a Municipal Solid
Waste Transfer Station and/Materials Recovery Facility at 187 Mace Street
Director of communr;' . i.. ~velopment ~ t S
Director of Planning 'If., ./."" {/-.',
'. "'\;'>"'r {;;1;
City Mana~ " (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No~.J
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,
1 996 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 by the Redevelopment
Agency at a continued public hearing. This would then give the Redevelopment Agency the option
to approve the project subject to staff recommended conditions.
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)
.3 -I
Page #2, Item: . "3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Under normal circumstances, the Project would
be heard by the Southwest Project Area Committee (PAC) instead of the Planning Commission.
Due to the fact that the PAC does not currently have enough sitting members to form a quorum,
the Southwest Redevelopment Plan makes allowance for projects to be considered by the Planning
Commission for a recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency.
1. On July 18, 1996, a public forum was held for the area property owners and business and
residential tenants. The results of this public forum are included in the Discussion section
of this report.
2. 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.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics/ExistinQ 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.
..3 - d.
Page #3, Item:
Meeting Date:
3
11/19/96
2. General Plan, Zoninq and Land Use:
Site:
North:
South:
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). 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.
.3 -3
Page #4, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
3
4. Analvsis:
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. With the existence of a regional land fill and the recent
approval of a similar facility on Maxwell Road, this facility is not necessary. Enough
facilities exist or will exist in more appropriate locations so as to adequately serve the
community. Also, the proposed use will not contribute to the general welfare of the
community. The use would place a heavy industrial use in an area planned and zoned for
limited industrial land uses and close to existing residences.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
It is staff's opinion that, if approved, the existence of this facility would be detrimental to
the general welfare of the community. 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 bring 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.
..3-4
Page #5, Item: ..3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
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 vs. the existing
use. However, the character of traffic will be much different. At present, semi-tractor
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 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 0.2)
Montoomery Specific 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
~-~
Page #6, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
3
15. Promotion of planned light industrial development within the
Main Street Corridor." (Part 2, page 13)
.
"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.
.,a - Co
1"
Page #7, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
3
Zonina 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
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
fully explained later on in this report. Briefly, a trash transfer station is considered to be
incompatible not only with the permitted uses in the surrounding area, which are light or
limited industrial and residential land uses, but also with the character of the Montgomery
Community as a whole.
Under different circumstances, this proposal may be appropriate, even in an IL Zone. For
example, if the site were more remote from residential areas, on the periphery of the IL
Zone, not in the heart of 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 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.
.d - 7
Page #8, Item: 3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
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)
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:
"Incomoatible Uses
No use or structure which is by reason of appearance, traffic, smoke, glare, noise,
odor, or similar factors incompatible with the surrounding areas or structures shall
be permitted in any part of the Project Area, except as permitted by the governing
bodies of the City."
The Location: The site on Mace Street is located approximately 650 feet south of Main
Street, within 650 feet of the Date Street residential area and approximately 1,100 feet
from Otay Elementary School. This is considered to be in the heart of the Montgomery
Community/Southwest Redevelopment Area. As such, the proposal to have trash trucks
and semi-tractor/trailers loaded with municipal waste moving along Main Street from 1-5,
1-805 and other primary connectors to Mace Street would be to transport waste into and
through an area of the City which does not presently accommodate such activity, an area
~ -'?
1"
Page #9, Item: .3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
which the City is attempting to upgrade. Introducing this type of traffic is inconsistent with
the type of traffic normally associated with light/limited industrial uses.
Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding land uses were described earlier in this report.
It is acknowledged that several are heavy industrial uses, but these uses have been in
operation since before annexation of the Montgomery area and are considered to be pre-
existing, non-conforming land uses, which will eventually be phased out. The existing light
industrial land uses are conforming.
One of the primary factors arguing for denial of the application is the relative proximity of
residential land uses approximately 650 feet to the east of the project site. This is a criteria
which was used when the City studied various sites when it was considering a similar
facility. Because several of the sites were less than 1,000 feet from residentially zoned
areas, they were automatically rejected from further consideration. This is explained in
Section 6 of this report, below, titled "Similar Facilities" in the subsection titled "Criteria
Used to In Choosing 1855 Maxwell Road."
5. Responses to the Notice of Public Hearinq: 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
Diego's short-term or long-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 August 28, 1996 hearing. The
draft extract minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit 5.
~ - C;
Page #10, Item: .3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
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 re9ulatory responsibilities and not as
an actual operator of the facility. The staff report, resolution of approval, plans, dia9rams,
etc., are available in the Plannin9 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, among others, combined in
an acceptable project, at an appropriate location, with few impacts to traffic or surrounding
land uses. The proposal on Mace Street does not meet any of these criteria.
Another transfer station currently operates at 3660 Dalbergia Street in Barrio Logan, San
Diego just north of National City and south of the 1-5/1-15 junction. The operator, EDCO
Disposal Corporation, had applied to the City of San Diego in September 1994 to reactivate
and significantly enlarge a closed waste transfer station. Last November 15, 1995, the
San Diego City Council denied the request. The denial was based on that City Council's
desire not to amend their Nondisposal Facility Element and because of appeals brought by
area residents (Protecting Our Barrio) and a concerned group (Backcountry Against Dumps).
which the City Council supported.
Criteria Used to In Choosing 1855 Maxwe// Road: In the staff report to Council for the
October 4, 1994 meeting, the criteria used in evaluating the sites was described (see
Exhibit 6 for a copy of this staff report).
7. Public Forum: On July 18, 1996 a public forum was held. Approximately 18 people were
present. Seven of those present were area residents or property owners and all were
opposed to the project.
After a brief introduction by City staff and the Applicant, those having an interest in the
project brou9ht up the following issues of concern:
* Traffic
** What will be the amounts and types of vehicles?
** Will the speed limit remain the same if the use is approved?
** Is there the possibility of street damage from heavier trucks?
..:3-10
Page #11, Item: .3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
Responses:
Exhibit 3 addresses the first question.
Staff: The speed limit on Mace Street is currently 25 MPH. This will
remain.
Traffic Study: The streets in the vicinity of the project are structurally
capable of carrying the proposed types of trucks.
. Odor
.. How will odor be controlled?
Response:
Applicant: If approved, the facility will be outfitted with reverse air flow
machinery and a misting system that will "eat" odors.
. Noise
.. Will there be excess noise generated by the land use or associated truck
traffic?
Response:
Applicant: No more than there is at present.
. Water Availability
.. The current water line is inadequate for the proposed use. Will the
applicant be upgrading the water line if the use is approved?
Response:
Staff: If the project is approved, the applicant will be required to install a
water tank on the project site to make up for the inadequacy of the water
line.
. The negative image of the neighborhood that will continue to be perpetuated if a
trash transfer station is approved.
Response:
Staff: Image is an important concern and is implied in the Montgomery
Specific Plan (see above references, specifically mention of "land use
patterns, spacial relations, and aesthetic quality" from Part 2, page 29).
. The devaluation of property resulting from such a facility.
Response:
Staff: The negative image, or perception, will also have an affect on
property values, according to some at the public forum. However, staff has
seen no compelling evidence to support this and therefore is not in a
position to make a recommendation based on devaluation of property
values.
..3-11
Page #12, Item: ...3
Meeting Date: 11/19/96
Of the above issues, traffic, odor, noise and water availability, among others, are addressed
more fully in the Initial Study, 15-95-14.
8. Conclusion: Given the foregoing information, staff is recommending that the application be
denied.
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 earnin9s 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 bring 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. Locators, Site Plans, etc.
2. Operational Profile
3. Average Daily Traffic Trips Summary
4. Correspondence
5. Extract of the Minutes from the 8/14/96 Planning Commission Meeting
(m;\home\planning\martinlmacest\9502a.113)
or (n:\sharedlcommdev\9502a.l 1 3)
.d - I d...
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,
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
J- (3
F. Place of Public Hearing
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
November 19, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission
at their public hearing on this project held on August 28, 1996 and the minutes and
resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
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, pursuant to 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
~ - 1 f
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.
Notwithstanding this fact, it may be possible for subject use to comply with
performance standards except that the Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that
this is not an adequate basis for approval of this Project as the other issues argue
against approval.
4. That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the general
plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of SUPS-95-02 would have an adverse affect on the General Plan, the
Montgomery Specific Plan, and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan in that the
proposed use does not implement the goals, objectives, policies and suggestions,
nor is it consistent with the criteria specified in said plans. Such adverse impacts
are more specifically set forth in the staff report presented on this matter, which
such report is incorporated herein in support of this finding.
THIS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 19TH DAY OF
NOVEMBER 1996.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
[(MMI M;\HOME\COMMDEV\RESOS\9502A,RES {November 14, 1996 (3:42pml)
cd -(~
/-/'
i
/'}
~J~
~
~~~-=
~~~-
'~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE-SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY of the City of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering a special use permit for the
propeny located at 187 Mace Street. The application, filed by Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc., (formerly Sky
Trucking) requests permission to construct, maintain and operate a trash transfer station/material recovery facility
on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) Zone, as depicted on the map
duplicated on the reverse side of this notice. Applicant is proposing to construct a new approximately 30,000 square
foot building to accommodate said land use. The gross floor area, including existing buildings will be approximately
45,000 square feet. According to the application, the trash transfer station will generate approximately 300 trips
per day when operating at its maximum capacity of 1,000 tons per day.
An Initial Study, lS-95-14, of possible significant environmental impacts has been conducted by the Environmental
Review Coordinator. A Mitigated Negative Declaration finding no significant environmental impacts has been
prepared and is on file, along with the Initial Study, in the office of the Planning Department. The City Planning
Commission considered this Project on August 28, 1996 and recommended by unanimous vote that the Agency deny
the request. This Project was scheduled to be heard by the Agency on October 15, 1996 but was rescheduled to
the date shown below at the Applicant's request.
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Martin Miller, Associate Planner, in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic
Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista Califomia 91910, or by calling (619)476-5335. Please include the Case
Number noted at the bottom of this notice in all correspondence.
If you wish to challenge the Agency's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Redevelopment Agency at or prior to the public hearing described in this notice. A copy of the
application and accompanying documentation andlor plans are on fIle and available for inspection and review at the
City Planning Department.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD
BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON
Tuesdav, November 19. 1996, at 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue
At which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of ChuIa Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation
to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for
meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific information at (619) 691-5101.
California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
Date: October 8, 1996
Case No: SUPS-95-02/IS-95-14
SEE LOCATOR MAP ON REVERSE SIDE.
M :\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\MACEST\9502RA.NOT
ci'-/b
/()-9-Qfo
/mcufJd
d!!tOUfl11JE~A
CALIFORNIA 919101(619) 691 5101
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Resolution
No. SUPS-95-02
and
Draft Redevelopment Agency
Resolution
T '
RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-95-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENY A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
STATION AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE
STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on November 18, 1994 by Mr. Mark Watton on behalf of Mace Street
Transfer Station, Inc. (formerly SkY Trucking) ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of a special use permit to construct and operate
a municipal solid waste transfer station and materials recovery facility ("Project") in the lL-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 [mdings contained therein.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant and the Redevelopment
Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CAliFORNIA, 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
Frank arantino, Chair
~'
. 12 1-<.
N cy Ripley, secreiC'; if
(m,lbomelp1anninglnwtinlma=tl9502pc.res>
/l ( - (
--.r .
Attachment 2
Mitigated Negative Declaration
for
Initial Study IS-95-14
--.r
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME:
Mace Street Transfer Station
PROJECT LOCATION:
187 Mace Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:
629-130-27
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Mace Street Transfer Station, Incorporated
CASE NO: IS-9S-14
A.
Proiect Setting
/
DATE: August 16, 1996
The project site consists of 4.72 acres located at 187 Mace Street. The site is currently used as a
trucking terminal. Existing facilities include three small-frame office structures adjacent to Mace Street
and a 9,800 square foot warehouse structure to the east of the frame buildings. The latter has an
adjacent depressed loading dock. Other facilities include: a fuel island, a truck scale, and a truck
washing facility. The existing facilities are to be left in place with the exception of the fuel island and
the most southerly frame structure which interfere with the proposed access to the new facility. Along
the eastern boundary, a drainage area has been partially 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 desigT'~tP.d as Open Space pn the
Chula Vista General Plan and as Parks and Open Space in the Montgomery Specific Plan. Located in
the City of San Diego, this area of the Otay River is part of the proposed Otay River Regional Park,
which is a signifIcant feature and plays an important role in the future development of the entire
southern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
To the immediate east is a mini storage facility. Approximately 900 feet to the east of the project site
is the Date Street residential area. To the northeast lies land apparently used for agricultural purposes
as well as several houses which front on Main Street.
The area to the west is occupied by an industrial business park containing various land uses. To the
southwest at the terminus of Mace Street is a temporary industrial storage facility which was approved
through a special use permit (SUPS-9CHlS). ~ted on the north is RV parking and industrial storage.
/l ,).. - (
;<
T
r-
-2-
Adjoining land uses to the south of the property are two parcels: Otay Metal Mart, an industrial
business use where steel is fabricated and welding operations take place; and a parcel containing a
residential unit and a contractors' storage yard. 'fPe 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 Descriution
The facility will receive solid waste from commercial businesses, construction and demolition debris
from construction sites and green waste from landscaping operations. Conventional front or rear
loading packer trucks, trucks with roll-off boxes up to 24-ft long, small dump trucks, and small trucks
with trailers, etc., hauling these wastes will enter the facility through the Mace Street entrance, cross
the scales to be weighed in, and proceed to the transfer building. Some of the vehicles will be the
neighborhood type trash trucks with 8- to 100ton payloads, while others will be the larger semi-
tractor/trailer type trucks with 24-ton payload capacities.
The transfer building is designed such that facility operators have the flexibility to direct these refuse
trucks to the north side of the building where they can be backed up through anyone of six door
openings and have their contents deposited on the tipping floor or to direct them to either the south or
north side of the building where they can drive directly into the building, deposit their loads on the
tipping floor and exit the opposite side.
After the refuse vehicles deposit their contents on the tipping floor, they will exit the building. proceed
to the scales for a fInal weight check, and exit the facility by way of Mace Street or, in the case of
vehicles with pre-recorded tare weights, will proceed directly to the Mace Street exit.
Once deposited on the tipping floor, the solid waste will be "floor sorted" by facility personnel to
remove, to the extent possible, all recyclable items such as corrugated cardboard, wood, aluminum,
ferrous metals, concrete and asphalt rubble, green waste,. etc. This material'will be loaded into large.
semi-truck trailers and shipped to recyclable material processing facilities.
Due to the nature of the ~terial (Le. construction demolition debris, green waste, and commercial
business waste), it is anticipated that approximately 20 percent of the solid waste entering the facility
will be recovered in this manner for reuse. The rem~ining, non-recoverable material will be loaded into
large volume transfer truck trailers and shipped to a facility-designated landfill. ./I,;). _ ;)..
-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 hundred customers (incoming deposits) per day are
estimated based on 1000 tons of material per day with each customer averaging 10 - 12 tons. There
are an estimated 40 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.
Discretionarv Actions
The site is zoned IL-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan). Discretionary actions required for project
approval include a Special Land Use Permit, Design Review, a streambed alteration permit from the
California Department of Fish and Game and possibly a permit from the Aimy Corp of Engineers. A
state solid waste facility permit is also required from the Solid Waste Management Board.
Environmental Controls
At the Planning Department's request, in February 1995 Hans Giroux of Hans Giroux and Associates
reviewed preliminary plans for the proposed construction of a materials recovery facility/transfer station
at 187 Mace Street. Comments and recommendations on design features to minimi7e potential nuisances
related to odor, dust and noise from such operatioIl$ 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. InstaJlation of a dust control fogging system to which odor counter-reactant (OCR) could be
added for additional odor control, and,
3. Compliance with City of Chula Vista noise standards from operation of any mechanical
equipment and from on-site operations of trucks and materials handling equipment.
These recommendations were accepted by the applicant and incorporated as part of the project design. .
A discussion of these and other "environmental controls" or design features incorporated into the project
design follow. .,
/l ;;2. - 3
--.r
-4-
Dust
Dumping the contents of refuse trucks on the tiPP'.ing 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 recommended
by the OCR manufacturer.
The ventilation system will consist of two rows of six roof-mounted, 8,000 cfm exhaust fans located
approximately 20 ft and 60 ft, respectively, from the south building wall. Four of the fans will be
mounted on the low roofs directly above the transfer vehicle loading pits; the other eight will be located
on the high building roof above the tipping floor. Air will be drawn into the building through the north
(3,150 sq. ft.) and south (900 sq ft) door openings and exhausted through the roof by the above noted
fans. The total volume of exhausted air will be approximately 1.44 million en ft every 15 minutes 01:
96,000 en ft per minute (cfm). A fme water mist will be released as required to remove any dust
particles from the air above the loading areas, but will be controlled such that standing water will not
accumulate on the tipping floor. Water from the loading dock will drain into the sanitary sewer.
Implementation of the above described measures and incorporation of these design features will reduce
impacts to below a level of signifIcance. .
Noise
Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating equipment, trucks depositing their
contents on the tipping floor, the sorting out of recyclable materials, or the loading of transfer vehicles
is expected to be attenuated by the building structure. Nine-ft. high reinforced concrete push walls will
/ld--Lj
-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 Zoning 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 ll.rP (Limited Industrial-~ise Plan).
For lack of another category, the project is being processed as a "dump" (in the Code ~ 19.54.0200)
which is considered an "UnclassifIed Use" that can be considered for location in any zone, subject to
the issuance of a conditional use permit.
An UnclassifIed Use is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and special form as to
make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as set forth in the various
/10l.-:.)"
.....
-6-
zones" (9 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." (9 19.54.0lCLB)
Given the performance standards, and mitigation measures of this l~d 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 fmdingswould need to be made under the City's conditional
use/specialland use permit process in order to support the issuance of such a permit. Therefore, there
is a potential land use compatibility issue at a policy level (Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest
Redevelopment Plan, Otay Valley Regional Park Plan) not resulting in a physical change in the
environment.
D. IdentifIcation of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project as mitigated
will not have a signifIcant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section
15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Concerns regarding additional truck traffic and potential impacts of the same have been raised by
adjacent residents and property owners. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed use
and determined there will be no additional trips over and above the existing use. (See attached Trash
Transfer Station, Average Dailty Trips Generated.)
F. Mitigation necessarv to avoid signifIcant effects
The proposed land use will be subject to initial and continuous compliance with the performance
standards as specifIed in the Municipal Code.
Drainal!e
Thb preliminary drainage study indicated that impacts can be mitigated to a level below signifIcance an~
that fInal improvement plans which include design features such as the use of Enkamat (interlocking
blocks with voids to allow growth of vegetation acceptable to the Resource Agencies) that improve the
flow, decrease the velocity, minimhe flooding and increase erosion control protection sha11 be
incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit.
/1d2-~ .
-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 flo~to service the project.
Hazardous Waste
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit a Hazardous Waste Management
Plan for the approval of the Conservation Coordinator.
Odor
The operation of the transfer station's mechanical system which will provide complete air changes every
15 minutes, and the use of odor counter reactants dispersed through the misting system in the facility
will mitigate odor impacts to less than signifIcant.
No storage of readily biodegradable material on-site for more than 48 hours, the mechanical ventilation
system being continually operated at one-third or more capacity if any readily biodegradable material
is stored indoors for more than 24 hours.
Noise
The enclosure of the operation within a building structure, including nine foot high reinforced concrete
walls, and shielding the roof mounted mechanical equipment will reduce noise levels to below
signifIcance. Four of the eight roll-up doors 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 - Pennits
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 surfaces is required.
Any evidence of dirt "track-out" onto Mace Street shall be removed by washing or sweeping at the
conclusion of each work day. A misting system for' dust control sha1l be installed capable of
maintaining average dust levels of less than 5 mg/m3 in areas of public or on-site employee exposure.
/1;2-7
'T
-8-
G. Mandatory Findings of SilmifIcance
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 or' 3nimal, 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 ~nim~l or plant community.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
Compliance with the conditions and/or mitigation that may be required from the
California Department of Fish and Game, the Solid Waste Management Board and
possibly the Army Corp of Engineers, in addition to the mitigation measures stated
herein, shall insure that as long as the project operates, the project will not have the
potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals. .
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.
This project does not have the potential to be individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. The environmental analysis contaii1ed in the Initial Study considered
potential cumulative impacts. It was determined that with project specifIc mitigation
measures regarding water, hazardous waste, trash, noise, solid waste (permits) and
biology (permits), dust and odor impacts would be reduced to below a level of
signifIcance and would not be "cumulatively considerable" in combination with current
and future probable projects result in impacts which could be "cumulatively
considerable. "
/l;2~2'
-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 indrrectly to the extent that it will be required to meet all threshold standards,
performance standards and requirements ofvarious City departments and by so doing will
assure that the quality of life is maintained.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Roger Daoust, Engineering
John Lippitt, Engineering
Cliff SWaDson, Engineering
Steve Thomas, Engineering
Bill Ullrich, Engineering
Kirk Ammerman, Engineering
Garry Williams, Planning
Martin Miller, Planning
Steve Griffm, Planning
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Doug Perry. Fire Marshal
Emmett Horsfall, Fire Department
Captain Zell, Police Department
Mary Jane Diosdado, Police Department
Martin Schmidt, Parks and Recreation Department
Barbara Reid, Planning
Alex Saucedo, Building Department
Glen Googins, City Attorney's Department
Chula Vista City SchOOl District: Kate ShursoD.
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Mark Watton
County of San Diego, Local Enforcement Agency: Ken Calvert
SEC Engineering: Pat Lawrence and Harry Cain
Algert Engineering: Jim Algert
/ld.--9
-"
-10-
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan
Sky Trucking, Annual Precision Tightness Tlmk 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)
Reoort of Preliminary 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. Sky TruckinglPacifIc Disnosal- 187 Mace Street,
Chula Vista, 5/27/96
Hvdrology. Hvdraulics. Main Street, Jim Algert
Channel Bank Imorovement Plan, (Blueline) Jim Algert
Water Consumotion Data, Harry Cain
IJ~~ i32/
Signan@
~11e. ~7"
ate
Environmental Review Coordinator
(b:Imoa:.DlI)
A;;2 -.I ()
July 19 r 1996,
File No. YS-611
TRASH TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS GENERATED
t. EXISTING nSE-SXY TRU~ING
TRUCK COUNT . 183 ONE-WAY TRIPS/DAY . 366 TWO-WAY TRIPS
EMPLOYEE AND PATRONS. 17 X 2 . 34 TWO-WAY TRIPS
TOTAL :DAILY SEY '1'1lUCXmQ '1'1lIPS . 400 '1'WO-WAY '1'1lIPS
II. PROPOSED USE - PACIFIC DISPOSAL INC.
\ CAPACITY (TONS/DAY):
50\ (5001
,85\(SSOI
100\(10001
A.
TRASH TRUCK TRIPS
8 TONS/TRIP: 63X2 . 126
TRANSFER TRUCK TRIPS
25 TONS/TRIP: 20X2 . 40
107X2 . 214
12SX2 .250
B.
34X2. 68
" 40X2. 80
Expected transfer station plant capacity is sso tons/day and
maximum capacity is 1000 tons/day. The trash trucks can carry
up to 12 tons but would average less than 9 tons/trip. The
transfer trucks can carry up to 25 tons/trip. Therefore the
total two-way daily trips at capacity is:
Trash Trucks . 250 two-way trips
Transfer Trucks .~ two-way trips
TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS
. 330 two-way trips'
C. Employees & patrons in passenger vehicles and piCk-Up trucks
are expected to generate about 70 two-way trips.
TOTAL PROJZC'1' :DAILY '1'1lIPS A'1' CAPACITYI 330 + '10 . 400 '1'WO-.1rAY '1'1lIPS
The total number of trips for this project at 100\ facility'
capacity (1000 tons/day) is the same number of trips as Sky
',Trucking's vehicular trips. The number of heavy truck trips from
Sky Trucking (366) versus the proposed project's at the anticipated
daily work rate of 850 tons/day (214 + 68.282) represents. heavy.
vehicle net reduction of S4 trips (23\). The cotl;larative heavy
vehicle reduction at full capacity i8 36 trips (10\).
(": \IO'E\EIGINEER\ 'lRAFFIC\IlACEADT. F'XR)
/lcJ. -If
~
, TIllS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
i
I
i
,
.
I
~
;-.
-6>-
. ~
.
Er,""TOfIrr,e",c. C:"$_ .:....$ U
'3711 ~ang Beocn al.J
Ni"It. Floor
long Booch. CA 90807
310 42o.Q5~
fAX 310 427{)8C5
SCS ENGINEERS
-.
. .'. ",~::'.
.;:-~
FAClUTY DESCRlmON
.~,
_.~;
SITE DESCRIP!10N
This 4.72:: acre facility lite is located in south San Diego County at 1S7 Mace Street in
the City of Chula Vista. The -t.:-wped" lite is accessed from Mace Street which dead
ends approximately 750 ft. south of the facility entrance;'
Tha site is zoned I-L. Limited Industrial. which is consisteitt with the surrounding property
uses. Currently. the lita is being used a. a trucking terminel. Existing facilities include
three small-frame office structure. 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 le~ in place with the exception of the fuel island and the most aOUtherly frama
structure which interfere with the proposed access to the new facility.
TRANSFER SUILDING DESCRlmON
The proposed transfer building will measure 230 ft in the east-west direction and 160 ft in
. . . ". .
. '."..... "". . - . ~ . -'
, the north-soUth direction 136.S00sq ftl~ The building will be primarily of prHngineered
. - .
metal c~onwith i~inf~d 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; , ~ ,-~ ;,;.<.::;"d;
~
'~:.. -. .,.......~...~~.:
There will be two depressed loadi~'~ ~'floor7'-6-~~fi~-'" ~~I;-::;a~'on
.', ,,_.','" ','. .". "
the west anc. east aides of the building accessed by ramps from the north lid. of the
building. The ~ ~iil bct....paj.t.d by a'200ft wide grad. level tipping floor. A 9-ft high
reinforced conci.ta pus/'! v.:allwill).parat. the tipping floor from the loading pits.
/I d- - ( 'd--
Ch;caga Cincinnati Kansas City las Angeles New York 1Narl~'k
Ph:'~"Ii)l Son F'::mc:,sco Seollle- Tempe Vancouver, B C. 'VVoshir'!gfon D_C
@
c
c
sa IHGlNEEtS -
Truck ingress ~nd .gress to and from the tipping floor will be t1v~h six 16 ft wide by
28 ft high roll-up door. in the north wall of the building and two such door. near the
center of the south wall.
"
-..
'.
TRANSFER OPERAnON DESCRIPTION
,-
--
The facility will r.ceive solid wast. from comm.rcial business.s. constrUCtion and
demolition debris from construction sites. and green wast. from landscaping operations.
Conventional front or r.ar loading pack.r trucks. trucks with roll-off box.s up to 240ft
long, small dump trucks. and small trucks with trailers. etc.. hauling these wast.s will
enter the facility through the Mac. Str.et .ntrance. cross the acales to be w.ighed in. and
. ,
proceed to the transfer building.
The transfer building is designed such thet facility operators have the fl.xibility to dir.ct
these refuse trucks to the north sid. of the building where they can be backed up through
anyone of six door opening.. and have their cont.nts deposit.d on the tipping floor or to
direct them to .ither the south or north sid. of the building where they can drive dir.ctly
into the building, deposit their loads on the tipping floor and .xit the opposite sid..
After the refuse vehicl.s deposit tI:MIir cont.nts 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 v.hicl.s with pre-r.cord.d tar. w.ights, will' proc..d
dir.ctly to the Mace Street .xit.
,.. .
~.
Onc. d.posit.d on the tipping floor. the solid wast. will be-floOr sort.d- by facility
personnel to remove. to the axt'nt possibl.. all recycJa~. it.ms such as old corrugat.d
cardboard IOCC). wood. aluminum. ferrous metals. concrete and asphalt rublil.. green
waste. etc. This material will be loaded into transfer vehicles and shipped to recyclable
material proc.ssing facilities. ' ,?", , . -~
Due to the l'lltur. of the mat.fialli.... 'construction demolition d.bris. gre.n waste. and
commercial business waste). it is anticipated thet approximately 20 percent of the solid
.,. . ." .". ".
waste entiring the facUity wUl be recovered in this manner for raUH~
/1d.--/~
2
o
o
u
sa IHOIf"W"J-
The remaining. non-recoverabla material will be loaded into large volume 1100:t cu yd
capacity) transfer trailers and ahipped to a facility-designated landfill. These transfer
vehicles will enter the flcility by way of the Mace StrHt entrance using the bypass lane
and exit onto Mace StrHt Ifter atopping .it the acales for final weight recordation. '
.-'.' .".
'~ . -;.~:~. '.
". .:' c."'
.....
Assuming that a single 950F front-end loader can load one tranifer vehicle 117.5 == ton
capacity) every 15 minutes. the facility capacity. using two laiding pita. Ind operating It
SO-percent efficiency (i.e.. IlIowing for peraOMeI breaks. incidental work atoppage. etc.)
will be approximately 1.260 tons per 10 hour day.
,::i ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Qyn
Oust. if any is created through the transfer operations described below. will be controlled
,through the use of a manually operated .fine misting" system located lbove and immedi-
Itely adjacent to the trlnsfer vehicle loading pita It the east Ind west sides of the
building. The misting system will be operlted by flcility personnel ,who will be observing
the loading operltions It III times. A fine water mist will be raleased as raquired to
remove any dust particles from the lir lbove the loading ereas. but will be controlled such
.,. that Standing water will not Iccumullti on the tipping floor.
Odor.
Odors will be controlled through (1) the use of .odor eaters. (i.e.. odor counter-relcta~)
, dispersed through the misting ayatem.nd (2) the mechanicII system which will be
designed to provide complete lir changes every 15 mi~el." "';O,~" ,
,
There Irl several products lveillble whi~! w~n dispersed through I misting system II
-. . .
noted. will Ictually eliminate odO/'l..1ippOaed to simPlY covering them up: ,"
. 4' _
; .. .""."
~
The ventilation system will consist of two rows of six roof-mounted. 8.000 cfm Ixhaust
fans located Ipproximlt.I~. 20 ft and 60 ft. respectively. from the south building Will.
:""-......
/ld-(rf
3
o
'..-....
c
c-
sa ENGINEEtS -
Four of the fans will be mounted on the low roofs directly above the transfer vehicle
loading pits; the other eight wnl 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
, .
Iq ft) door openings and exhausted throu,gh the roof by the above noted fans. The total
volume of exhausted air will be approximately 1:44 million cu ft every 15 minutes or
96,000 cu ft per minute lcfm).
ti2In
Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating equipment, trucks
depositing their contents on the tipping floor, the lorting ~ of recyclable materials, or the
loading of transf.r vehicles is 'expected to be attenuated by the building Itructure. Nine.ft
high reinforced concrete push walls willlurround the entire tipping floor except where
door openings occur. These walls are intended to deaden the lound generated from within
the building.
Door openings on the north and south lides 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 Material.
The facility will not knowingly accept hazardous materials; however, lince household
, hazardous substances such .. paint, aerOlol cans, batteries, etc., ~y be f~ in solid
waste loads which have been deposited within the transfer building, a prefabricated, fire
med storege cabinet will be provided for the temporary sterageof such materiall. .:This
cabinet will be readily accessible to floor eorters in the event luch materiall are encoun-
tered and wnl be emptied of ita conte~on a regular basis which will not exceed 90 daYI.
The contents will be appropriately disposed of off site by . licensed hazardous materials
contractor.
. "
-,-
/I ;2 - r .:;)
.
c
.
o
u
sa ENGlNtHS -
Vectors
The facility will be swept clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day
thereby eliminating nesting and hiding p1acel fOtvectOtI. In the event that evidence it
found of the existence of vectors, professional exterminator., under contract with the
facility oileratOt. will eliminate them from the facility tite pursuant to the re.Quirements 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 truclca entering or 'exiting the facility
thereby keeping the grounds clean and frea of blowing debris.
.+;.:.
- 0"'-:.
,...
.:-" ;-.;;....~,.
:'....,. ;-:-. .-;'~
." :"'.:" :.
...."'_. -.
-"'~<<
.;;-.: .
.0.::...... . ,",:f .:-."
: - :-,:,::' =,":,:'1:> ~:~ .'
-i:;:. ."-
, "; 'J..
:.,...'- ._'~~:;.-'
:
--
.:...--
-:-:-....-'
/Jd-.-/0
5
o
..,.,,_...,_.~~----.
, Ii
-~
!.
'I
"
::0
o
"
o
C/)
.~
~
111
~
::!
o
~
G
~
III
fIl
-I
, -
.:......
Gill--'
· PROr-voieO TRANSFER S1lI.lJOH
l< I i FOR SOIJTH BAY REGION '
. IMn....__
1-
-
-
fIl
o
c:
-I
:r:
'"
r'
~ '
~'. .
....
"
G
rm
I~
>,:,:",,{,), , .
". ...i . .1;......,~.1....
~.:-:_::..;=.;.~:--..-.
",..
",0
O'a
I!l ~ '.;:
II :"-"" '.'
. . ~ ':~~:~';'?' -"
" ~ -~. ~ :"\~'=:~/'~~;'."
. ~:~':i . "::- ~ ....
~I
".:'.:.....
" ".,
. :~
-'
,':>;:"_~~Y!': :~ :. . .
;2 ('7
FSEC.. ", I
..........,. ..........,.,.............. -.....
A"C.ITICTI - 1.I'.lnl _ CO.IUUCTORe
1M.. _ -.n......... ...,. .... __ .
-... _... I
!
'-
-
....
.~'~:""'",>
"' ."
II
'-
'"
~.
APPLICATION CANNOT B
PLAN IS FOLDED TO AT
\
E .:.."CEPTED UNLESS SITE , -
FOiOffi"u>Oniyii
INTO AN 8-1/2 X 1 1 FOLDER ,.,' CC.. Be
INITIAL STUDY
City of Chula Vista ,ppsLNol>O"I40,,""
Application Form .. i~!~~~~;"'~>;.;(~
..
r"R c e S t r e e t Tr A n " f e r ~ t A t i 0 n
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title
2. Project Location (Street address or description) 187 Mace Street
Chu1a Vista
Assessors Book, Page &. Parcel No~629-130-27
3. Brief Project Description Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station
( See Attachment)
Name of Applicant Skv Trnrkinr Tnr
Address 187 Mace Street
City Chula Vista
Nmneof~pmedAg~t MArk WAtton
Ad~ss 412 Crosby Street
City San Diel!o
~elation to Applicant r',.., n C! 11 1 ... D n to
6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmentl':
Review Coordinator.
4.
s.
Fax# 234-2338 Phone 234-8744
State CA Zip Q1Qll
Fax# 234-2338 Phone 234-8744
State CA Zip Q211~
a. Pennits or approvals required -
/.:
-. .---/
I
- ,
_ Design Review Application
_ Tenwive Subd. M~p
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
, Public Project
- Annexation -
_ Specific Plan
_ Conditional Use Pezmit
_Variance
_ Cout.a1 Development
_ Other Pezmjt
General Plan Amendment
_ RezonelPrezonc
_ Grading Permit
--'- Tenwive Parcel Map .
_ Site, Plan &: Arch. Review,.,
_ Special Use Permit
If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from
to
b. Enclosures or dOC1JTMllts (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
-2...:. Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map _,
Precise Plan ".. ',-
= Specific Plan
_ TraffIC Impact Report
_ Hawdous Waste Assessment
Arch. Elevatioos '
, ~ 'J1ntl.,..pc Plans ,
= 1CDwive Subd. Map
_ Improvement Plans
_ Soils Report
_ Geotechnical Report
Hydrological Study
- Biological Study
, - Archaeological Sbldy
- Noise Assessment
= Other Agency Pennit
Other
, /I,) /g'
Page 1
"l'C~~~lNIA''''D<c;''ST..~''-C:':''':93,.<!:'f,_I~,93) (Rd':J~93!,
""--"'T
( ,
7. Indicate other applicat'ions for permits or approvals that are being' submitted at this time.
a. Permits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
Rewne/PreZone
= Grading Permit
_ Tenwive Parcel Map
_ Site Plan &; Arch. Review
, _ Special Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tenwive Subd. Map
_Redevelopment Ageney OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
~ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
, Conditional Use Permit
_Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Permit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
a.
Land Area: square footage 204, 296 or acreage 4 6 9
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and pwpose.
~
b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings, or will existing structure be
ilized. ? E' .
ut . xlst1no- .!=;tTnr.tnTp.~ wi" ,",Po ;n,.nT"pnT"C~D'" .;"~,... ne!'o
along with a new building.
2. Complete this section if project is residenti3I or mixed use.
a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Townhouse Condominium
b. Total number of structures
c. Maximum height of structures
d. Number of Units: 1 bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
Total Units
e. Gross density (DU/total acres)
f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
g. Estimated project population
h. Estimated sale or rentli1 price range
i. Square footage of structure
j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structUreS
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
I. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
a. Type(s) of land use Tn"t1C!~T".-eII'
b. Floorarea 49,000 HeightofstructureS(s) 43'-
c. Type of construction used in the structure Eri s tin lIi s t r u c t u res - B 1 0 '" k
and metal buildinRs. 'New 39.000SF buildin2 will hp
metal with concrete wainscot.
/!d.--/9
PIItZ
~D2I-AS3(1of.I02D.93)(Iof.ID22S3)
\
. I
d. Describe major access points to the structUres and the orientation to adjoining properties
and streets Site access will be from Mace Street. Due to flag shape
of parcel, majority of activity will not be visible to Mace St.
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 2{)
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 8
Number of shifts 2 Total 16
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate 100 Ba sed 0 n
1000 tons neT day with each customPT RVPTRoino 10-]2 ton~ each.
h. Estimated number of deliveries per day 40 Based on 1000 tons per day
i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate G rea t e r Sou t h b a v are a
based on current Otav landfill useAQP.
j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings Non e . A 11 act i v i t Y
inside facility.
- k. Hours of operation 6 am to 10 pm
I. Type of exterior lighting High pressure, sodium, downward directed.
4. H project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed 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. Willlhe project be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District (APeD)?
Yes. Transfer building w~ll have an oder and dust control
system with a negative air pressure collector for the tipping
floor.
A ;) - d.-eJ
Page 3
wpc~Oll.""93 (ad: IOlll.93) (ad: 1021.93)
'"
2. Is any type of grading 'or excavation of the property anticipated?' N 0
If yes, complete the following:
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
Onlv inriripn~~' ~mn"~~~ fnr v~" ~~-~~-8&7 ete.
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
A ve:age depth of cut
Maximum depth of fIll
A ve:age 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, ranRinR from a ~itp m~n~gpr
and accountant. @au;nmpn~ np~~aTnr sun@rvlgnr Rnn 'ahn~
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or su~tances be used or stored within
the project site? Only fuel for loadinR eQuiDment ( dip"p1 )
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project?
( See Attachment A )
8.
Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of
access or cOMection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. All improvements are in tn ,,; t'P
wpc:F~Oll.U3 ~ IOl0.93)~ 10l19.l)
A d-_~~(
Pile 4
\
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.
GeOIOlrV
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)
Nn
Yes
( ,See Attached)
2. ' HvdroIolrV
Axe any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? v p "
(If yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is ,there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No
c.
Axe there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
Yes. Draina2e from Main Street to Otav River in An 1Jn';n~
D fffro th . . drain":--' . ani d' c nnel.
oes runo m e project sIte W1~uy m to or tow a omestIC water supp y,
lake, reservoir or bay? No
Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? N n
b.
d.
Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Stan d a r d des i g n
for industrial site to conform to existing regulations,
e.
3. Noise
a. Axe there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site?
ExistinR industrial uses surround site
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single-
family residences)? No.
,
4. BiololrV
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? No
b. Is the project site in a natUral 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 1ocalion. height, diameter, and
species of trees, and which (if any) will be removed by the project. . N 0 n e
,..,
/l d- - C}.,d..
, Pace S
~011.A.93 (Rd.1D20.93) (Rd.llJ22.93)
--.r
S. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? No
b. Are there any known paleontological resources? No
c. Have there been any haz.ardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
Not on site. Not aware of any-permitter near site. Site
does have permitted diesel fuel storage tank.
d. What was the land previously used for? Industrial Truck terminal
An" t-T"l1rk ~nn trRi1PT n~rkino
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all SlIUctUrCS and land uses cuncntly existing on the project site. T h r e e b 1 0 c k
buildin2s of approx. 2440 S.P. one metal buildin2 approx.
9800S.P.,diesel fuel facility, truck scale and parking. area.
b. Describe all SlIUCtures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
NOM
South
East
West
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? No If so, how many7
b. Are there any cuncnt employment oppoltUllities on site? Yes
If so, how many and what type? 9. 3 office and 6 yard workers
8. Please provide any other infonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
see attachment A
Ad--,;z3
wpc:F:~OlI..u3 (W,lDlll,9]l (W,1ll22.93)
Pip 6
E. CERTIFlCA nON
, )
~
I, as owner/owner in escrow.
-'
or
1, co~-:( or ~~ '
4#1 Uc
Ill.p?A..- vJ jdT"lOo'll
Print name
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all
respects tIUe 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.
-*.JjI~cr
or
;/afw~
Consuhan! or Agent Signature
.>'
.5-/S-'l5
Date'
.If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
/I ;;2. - d.- <-j
~021.A9l (ld,102U3)(Id,Im93)
Page 7
T
INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Name of Applicant: 5 K '
Address: I
City: () '1'-'<.-A, 1 r'~"
Name of Authorized Representative (if signalOl'y):
Address: 4/2 C/!.o So "" Y 7T
City -J"AN tJ,,L~
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount
Wc...,:"mj_~
State c...
Phone Z,3+'fj7+
Zip 91 'J/I
Phone Z'3~'6')ff
Zip <12.1_?
I
Stale c...<
/l1IJU ~Jt~~J
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Cbula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation rCity")
and the forenamed applicant for an Initial Study r App1icant"), effective u of the Agreement Date set forth above,
is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas. the Applicant has applied to the City ftI' an Initial Study of the type aforerefercnced rInitial
Study") which the City has required 10 be obtained as a condition to permitting the App1icantto develop a parcel
of P'''I'''rty: and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said Initial Study through the various departments
and before the various boan1s and commissions of the City ("Processing Semces"); and.
Whereas, the pmpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all ~pcnses it will incur in connection
with providing the Processing Sezvices;
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, u
follows:
1. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
The Applicant shall pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing SeMce related to
applicant's Initial Study, including all of the City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of
the Applicant shall be referred to herein u the · App1icant's Duty to Pay."
A. Applicant's Deposit Duty
As partial perfcxmance of the Applicant's Duty to Pay, the Applicant shall deposit the amount
aforereferenced rDeposit"). .
1.
The City shall charge iIs lawful ~pcnses incurtcd in providing Processing Services
against the Applicant's DeposiL If. after l/IC conclusion of processing the Applicant's
Initial Study, any portion of the Deposit remains. the City shall return said balance to the
Applicant without interest thereon. If. during the processing of the Applicant's Initial
Study, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhaustCd. or is imminently likely to become
edlausled in the opinion of the City, upon notice ofsamc by the City, the Applicant shall
forthwith provide such additional deposit u the City shall calcu1ate u reasonably
I~i to continue 10 provide Processing ScrYiccs. ,The duty of the App1icant to
initially deposit and 10 supplement said deposit u herein required shall be known u the
"App1icant's Deposit Duty".
n. City's Duty
The City shall. upon the condition thai the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty 10 Pay or the
Applicant's Deposit Duty,use good faith to provide processing scrvites in reIalion to the Applicant's Initial
Study applicalion.
Ad -d.s-
Paae 8
WI'C:r.~02I..u3 (101,1020,93) (W 11122.,!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 faihll'e 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 shall have no right to direct or otherwise influence
the conduct of the Initial Study for which the applicant has applied. The City shall use its
disaetion in evaluating the Applicant's Initial Study application without regard to the Applicant's
promise 10 pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement.
m. Remedies
A. Suspension of Processing
In addition 10 all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity.
the City has the right 10 suspend aOO/or withhold the processing aC the Initial Study which is the
subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study which may be the subject mailer of
any other Pennit which Applicant has befoce the City.
B. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity,
the City has the right 10 collect all sums which are or may become due her'eunder by civil action,
and upon instituting litigation 10 collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable
anomey's fees had costs.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant 10 this Agreement
must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests 10 be sent 10 any party shall be deemed to
have been properly given or served if persona1ly served or deposited in the United States mail,
addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified. with return receipt requested, at
the addresses identified adjacent 10 the'signatures of the parties represented.
B. Governing Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of
California. Any action arising under or relating 10 this Agreement shall be brought only in the
federal or state COUI1S 10cated in San Diego County, State of CaJifornia, and if applicable, the City
of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this agreement, atld perfonnance
hemmder, shall be the City of Olula Vista.
C. Multiple Signatories
If there are multiple signatories 10 this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each aC such signatories
shall be jointly atld seve:ally liable for the performance of Applicant'. duties herein set forth.
D. Signatory Authaity
The signatory 10 this agreement hereby wamnls atld ~ls that it is the duly designated agent
for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant 10 execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant'. Duty 10 Pay and
Applicant's Duty 10 Deposit in the event it has not been aulhorized 10 execute this Agreement by
the Applicant.
WFC~OlI.A.93 (W. 1020.93) (W. IlIl2Jl) /"l d-. - .;l.. Co
Page 9
~
l
E. Hold Hannless
Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold hannless the City, its elected and appointed officers
and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including
without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of processing Applicant's Initial Study, except only
for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, incurred by
the City, its offlCCZ'S, agents. or employees' in defe!lding against such claims. whether the same
proceed to judgement or not.. Further. the Appliciint, at its own expense, shall, upon wriUCn
request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents.
or employees. Applicant's indemnifcation of the City shall be limited by any pior or subsequent
decIat:ation by the ApplicanL
F. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
No suit or mbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City WIless a claim
has first been JXCsented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the
City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended. the provisions of which are
incorporated by the reference as if fully set forth herein. and such policies and procedures used by
the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by the City, the Applicant shall meet and
confer in good faith with the City for the purpose of resolving any dispute 0Vf:t the terms of this
AgreemenL
Now, therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the tenns and conditions of this agreement,
do hereby express their consent 10 the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
City
City of Chula Vista
276 Fo\D'th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
, By:
Dated: '
Applicant (or authorized representative)
~ IfWW?...K-
By;
#~
By;
Dated: ~ :- ( $--.]15
//;<-d,/
WI'C~OZI-Ol (Rot 102"-93) (Rot 11llUJ)
Pile 10
'-
1
, ,
"-."'
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Swement of disdosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributioll5, on all matters which
will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies,
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons have a financial interest in the COIllI'aCt, i.e., collll'llCtor, subcontractor,
malerial supplier. ,
IVl.A.
2. If any person identified punuant to (1) Ibove is a corporation or parmership, list the uames of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or oWI\ing any partnership interest in
thepann~p. '
~J.11l/ di/J...t,.iU~'f
S4,..v INt. C-tr U" ^'>"~-;I
3. If any person identified pursuant to (I) Ibove is non-profit organization or a tnlSt, list the names of any
person serving as dim:tor of the non-profit organization or as ttustee or beIleficia!y or tnlStee of the tnlSt.
1"/"
4. Have you had more than $2S0 worth of business tranSaCted with any IIlCtIIber of the City staff, Boards,
Commissioll5, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Ale '
S. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you ha e assigned to represent you fore the City in this matter.
W""?"T%>N - ':;..Jl.' r-
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council
member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No ~ If yes, .we which Council
memIDen~: .
.v
!'mo_ is dcfiDocl u: "Al:y iDdMdua1.1irm. co-pulll<nhip.joilll_. ........""".1OCiII cIull, fnImlaI orpDizaIiaIl, .....,ol..sioD........
INSl. JICOivor, &yDdicaIz, dlis IIId aD)' Dlber......,., ciry IDd COlIIll)', ciry, -""V'ity, cIimict or odIcr poIilicaIlIIbdiviIioa. or ID)' Dlber_
orCOlllbiDalio_l<liDIuallllit." '
Date:
5-17'95
(NOtE: AlDlCIl_ _ u DOCCSI&J)')
~N ('1-/1U.1,(1~V
Print or type IWIle of Quutl.aor/appliCatl1
/ld.-;(~
WI'C,',IHONEIPLANNING\STOREDIIC2I-A.9:lRd,I02O,93)(Rd,ICI22.93)
PaJell
'T
Case No. TS-q~-14
APPENDIX m
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L pment Zonin~ on site: I1-P Limited Industrial subiect to a Precise'Plan
North lL-P Limited Industrial sub~ect to a Precise Plan
South lL-P Limited Industrlal sUbJect to a Preclse:Plan
~ IL-P limited Industrial subiect.to a Precise Plan
West IL-P '.I.. imited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
Does lhe project confonn to the current zoning? Yes. with the arantina of a 50ecial Use Pennit
n.
general Plan land use designatian on site: Research and Limited Industrial subject to a Pre~ise
North Research and Limited lndustrlal subJect to a PreC1S Plan an.
South Research and Limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
East Research and Limited Industrial subject to a Precise Plan
VVe~ Resparch and limited Industri~l subject }o a Precise Plan
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use DiagI'Iri1? Yes, with the granting of a
Speclal Use Permlt ,
Is the project area desi~ for conservation or open space or adjacent to an aiea 10 designated?
Proiect area ;s in close oroximitv to the Otav River and future Otav Valley Reaional Par
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? No
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the
route).
m. ~chools
If lhe proposed project is residential, please complete the following: NI A
School
Canacity
Enrollment
UDiIJ
Prooosed
OeoeratiDg
Factors
, SIIIdeDls
GeDerated
From Proiect
FIHNonI"')'
1uIlior High
Se:llior High
IV. Remarks:
"
.30
:J!)
.10
U::L~, fR.:L . .
Director of . g or Rep:esentative-
. Auaust 16. 1996
Dale
WI'C:F.~mJl ca.t IaInlca.t IlQDJOl
A~-;2.1
PI&e 1
Case No.JS.9S.~4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
:
1. Name .of Propo~ent Mace Street Transfer Station, Inc.
2.
lead Agency Name and Address:
~~-.-' .
City of Chula 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 of Proposal: Mace Street Transfer Station
5. Date of Checklist: August 16, 1996
-oIly
SlJhlftcant
Imp'"
Potentially
SlpUll"""
UnI...
M1Upl<d
Leo,Ibm
SlpUll....,
Imp'"
No
Imp'"
d) Disrupt or divide the physical 0 0 0 ~
arrangement of an established :
community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
Comments: Thl} applicant must obtain approval of a Special Use Permit and Design
Review application. The applicant needs to obtain a Streambed Alteration Permit
from the California Department of Fish & Game and possibly a permit from the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers as a result of the improvements that are needed to the
channel on the eastern edge of the property. A State Solid Waste Facility Permit is
also required from the Solid Waste Management Board. The City Engineer will
confirm in coordination with the Planning Department that all impacts have been
mitigated to below a level of significance.
The site is within the Southwest Redevelopment Plan Area and is within the
Montgomery Community which is governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The
parcel is designated Research and Industrial Manufacturing on the General Plan and
is zoned IL-P (Limited Industrial-Precise Plan).
For lack of another category, the project is being processed as a "dump" (in the Code
~ 19.54.020G) which is considered an "Unclassified Use" that can be considered for
location in any zone, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit
An Unclassified Use is considered to possess "characteristics of such unique and
special form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes
of use as set forth in the various zones" (~19.S4.010.A). The purpose of the
conditional use permit review is to "determine that the characteristics of such use shall
not be incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas and for the
further purpose of stipulating such conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic
purposes of this title shall be served." (~19.S4.010.B)
h_oe.<l>k
PageZ
/f,;)-3!
"""'daDy
.'pdlI_
Impod.
PotenllaDy
61pdl1_
UnJ.u
Mid.....
Leu than
Slpdftcant
Impad
No
Impad
Given the performance standards, and mitigation measures of this land use at this
location as incorporated in the project design "and description as well as additional
mitigation measures of this document, there is not sUbstantial evidence that a "fair
argument" can be made that there would be a significant land use conflict bringing
about an adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by
the project. Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines "significant effect on the
, environment" as a "substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance."
With'the granting of a Special Land Use Permit for the project, which includes the
mitigating project design features described herein and incorporated as conditions
through the other mitigation measures set forth herein, the project could be
compatible with the City's applicable zoning and plans and performance standards
regarding special land use permits. However additional findings would be need to be
made under the City's conditional use/specialland 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
eitensionof 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.
Page 3
.........dok
/!;)-3:L
'.
Potentiall:r
Potendall:r SlpdlI<ant Leu......
Slpdtlc:anl UDJ... SlpdlI<ant No
IJDp04 M1~'- IJDpad IJDpact
III. GEOPHYSICAL Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts'
involving:
Ii) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 ~
geologic substructures?
,b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction 0 0 0 ~
or overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 ~
relief features?
d) The destruction, covering or 0 0 0 ~
modification of any unique geologic or
physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 ~ 0
soils, either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of 0 ~ 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 ~ 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 arid amount of
surface runoff?
o
~
o
o
b:..........
//.,2-33
Page 4
-oII1
-.n1 SlpUllCODl LeN lhan
SlpUll"",,, VDleu SlpUll...., No
...- Mld.- ...- ...-
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 181 0
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity) ?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water 0 0 181 0
in any water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 181
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground 0 0 0 181
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of D. 0 0 181
flood waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
..............
P"lIeS
/I ;;2 - 3.. Lj
-...........
......uollr
SlpUflc:ant
Imp'"
P_oIlr
SIp1llcan'
t1nI...
M1Upled
Leu lIw1
SIp1ll....
Imp...
No
Impad
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?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
climate, either localJy or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
e) Create a substantial increase in
stationary or non-stationary sources of
air emissions or the deterioration of
ambient air quality?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
181
o
181
o
0,
o
o
o
181
181
o
181
h.........d>k
Page 6
/l;2 -3~-
-.JI1
-..or ....- 1.-_
...- lw- ~ No
.... .. -~1 . .. ..... t.p.d
Currently, any significant increase of air pollu.tant em;mons is signmcant 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'. 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 "track-out" from ~ck
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 "the state of the art" in dust/odor
control:
.
,
Mitigation measures that have been included in Section F of the Negative Declaration
or have been incoIporated 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 additionallcctss 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 haulS.
. ADy evidence of dirt "track-out" ~to Mace Street shall be removed by
washing or sweeping at the conclusion of each workday.
. A misting system for dust control shall be installed capable of maintaining
average dust levels of less than 5 mglm' in areas of public or on-site
employee exposure.
. 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 Iystem for 48
hours at chemical feed levels rer.nmmended by the OCR manufacturer.
P...7
............
/lc2-3h
--.r
-.or
p- 1-"1 IIplIllconl 1.-_
..,..,,- ~ ...-- No
...... .,..~- ..... ...... ......
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal fesult in: -.
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic [] [] [] 181
congestion?
b) Hazar4s to safety from. design features [] [] [] 181
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access [] [] [] 181
to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or [] [] [] 181
off.site? '.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or [] [] [] 181
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies [] [] [] 181
supporting alternative transportation
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] 181
Management Program? (An equivalent
of 2400 or more average daily yehicle
trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips.)
Comments: The Traffic Engineering Division has determined that no additional trips
over the current use are expected and that reconstruction of Mace Street and Main
Street are not required as a result of this project. Attached to the mitigated negative
declaration is a detailed break-down of the projected average daily trips (ADl)
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.
--
L..l- ..."
P.8
/?d.-37
r '6'1:'
-.nr - - .--- lMo_
-- '-,- ~ -_ '-1*Irf, No
m,..s j-"l .~ m,..s IIopod
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to: ;
-
a) EndAngered, sensitive ~es, species of [] [] [] 181
concern or species that are candidates
for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 [] [] 181
trees)? .
e) Locally designated natural communities [] [] [] 181
(e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian [] 181 0 0
and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration 0 0 0 181
corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation 0 0 0 181
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.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
, a) Conffict with adopted energy 0 0 0 181
conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a [] [] [] 181
wasteful and inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral 0 0 0 181
resource protection, will this project
impact this protection?
Ir:'" '*1.
P.,. 9
/1r:2-d-?
......'.,-- ,
~-..c.'!7
r """17 -p-'A- IMItMn
IIpIfl..c tw.. - _ ....-s No
IIopoct ~ IIopoct IIopoct
Comments: The proposed project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans, use non-renewable resources and is not designated for mineral resource
protection.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release, 0 0 0 181
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to: petroleum products,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
.,
c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 181 0 0
potential health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources 0 0 0 181
of potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 181
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
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:
-..D7
~ ~~ .--- ........
-_ 'n-.t tw. ~_ .~ ",
IIIpect IIIlllpled IapId 1apId,
Comments: Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating
equipment, trucks depositing their contents an the tipping floor, the IOrting ant of
recyclable materials, or the loading of transfer vehicles is expected to be aUenuated by
the building structure. Nine-ft high reinforced concrete push wal1s will surround the
entire tipping flQOr except where door openings occur. These wal1s 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 it
and 80 it, respectively, from the north and south property lines. These cUstances 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 incoIpOration of theSe design features will reduce
impacts to below a level of significance. Four of the eight roU-up doors remaUrlng
normally closed are to be opened only when the volume of truck traffic requires
additional access to prevent truck queuing.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered government services in any of
the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181
c) Schoo1s?- 0 0 0 181
d) Maintenance of public faciljties, , ' ,0 0 181 0
including roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181
Comments: Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Sweetwater Authority must
provide clearance that there are adequate ~ter facilities (tanks, pipes, etc.) and fire
flow to service the project
k' ..a.~
/l~ -40
1'Ip11
'T
-.rI7
r' --"1 ~_ .ft......
-_ '-f.W"( tw-
--- IoDllpIod
1.-_
-1 'fl.c.d
J.pod
N.
IIapect
XII.
Thresholds. Wdl the proposal advmelj
impact the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the
seen Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
D
D
o
181
D
o
181
o
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able
to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5
minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated
that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire sta~on is 2
miles away and would be associated with a 5-minute response time. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: All Fire code requirements must be met including provision by applicant,
of required fire flow and provision of a water supply consisting of reservo,irs. pressure
tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the
required fire flow.
b) Police D D 181 D
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of
Priority 1 caIls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response
time to all Priority 1 ca1Is of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units'must respond
to 62.10% of Priority 2 ca1Is within 7 minutes or less and maintain an
average response time to all Priority 2 ca1Is 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 ca1ls is 5:43 and 7:19
for Priority 2 ca1Is.
Comments: The Crime Prevention staff of the Police Department state that they will
be able to provide an adequate level of seJVice for this proposed 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:
--
/Vd-c/I
Pap 12
-.n,
r -..rt: -......- I.._
...- lloI-. ~F.A-...t No
a.po.s 'a.I9...1.... IIopoct a.po.s
c} Traffic [J [J [J 181
....
The Threshold Standards 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 1-805 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 Standard. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Standard.
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} ParksIRecreation
[J
[J
[J
181
Comments: The Threshold standard for Parb and Recreation does not apply to this
prOject as the transfer station is not a residential use.
e} Drainage
[J
[J
181
[J
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects
will provide nete'r.'Y improvements consistent with the Drainage
Master P1an(s} and City Engineering StandBrds. The proposed will
comply with this Threshold Standard upon approval of final
improvement plans. .
Pqe 13
-
/;;)-4~
-~
-.ur
,. ~.1lr ~. .~ u.a.n
- 0<<- tw.. -....-- Ho
Iapo4 -..... ...... Iapo4
Comments: The preliminary drainage study j,ndicated that impacts can be mitigated
to a level below significance and final improYement plans will be submitted prior to
issuance of a grading permit H a manufactured system is going to be used for
drainage improvements, the Engineering Department must approve the same.
f) Sewer
[J
[J
[J
181
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide
necessary improvements consistent with Sewer ~aster Plan(s) and
City Engineering Standards. The proposed project complies with
this Threshold Standard.
.
Comments: Following a review of detailed information forWarded by the applicant, it
was determined that no additional sewerage facilities services are needed to m.eet City
threshold standards.
g) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and
that water quality standards are nQt jeopardized during growth and
construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
[J
181
[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:
There are no significant impacts to water.
--
Pop 14
/1;2 -q'3 '
...-.or
-.n,. -F"'--' ~-
- '<<- tw.. - .~ N.
0
Ioopo<I MItipIod Ioopo<I Ioopo<I
XIII. UTILmES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new -
-
systems, or substantial alterations to the -
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? C C C 181
b) Communications systems? C C C 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or C 0 0 IBI
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? C C C 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 IBI
f) Solid waste disposal? C C C 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 C C C 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 C C C 181
a scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic C C C 181
effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that C. C C 181
.-. could increase the level of sky glow in
an area or cause this project to fail to
comply with Section 19.66.100 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spm C C C 181
light?
~ .... Ad. -4rf Pop 15
.~
r '''~
-.u, ~..-- ~_
-J .~ l.JahII . ~. .,,~ Me
bIpllct MIlIpUd bIpllct IoopocI
Comments: The construction of a trash ~er station and resource recovery facility
in a limited industrial area will not by itself signifi~tly impact the aesthetic value of
the area.
xv. CULTUAAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration 0 0 0 )gI
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse D' 0 0 )gI
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 D')gI
cause a physical change which would
affect unique. ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing 0 0 0 )gI
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's 0 0 D')gI
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 )gI
the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The proposed project is located in a previously developed industrial area
of the City and is not expected to impact paleontological resources.
/I d.. -4~-
Pap 16:
L..L......- ......
.'
XVIL RECREATION. Would tM proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood
or regional parb or other recreational
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational
opportunities?
c) Interfere with recreation parb &
recreation plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed project is not residential and will not impact recreational
opportunities in the area.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative
Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance. If an ElR is needed, this
section should be completed.
a) Does the project hav~ the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or '
wildlife population toclrop 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 history or prehistory?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative Declaration.
-.ur
-.or 1IIpdII.... z-_
-_ ...-.-. u.:.a-. ~_ .~ No
..,... IlIltlpIod - -
o
o
181
o
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
.
o
181
o
o
b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental gOals?
Comments: Please refer to Section G of the Negative Declaration.:
o
181
k'- ...."
Pip 17 -
/fJ-4fo
'T
r .~
~l'fI--
IIIpOli
-.Dr
."...,.SIt
1JDI.o
IGtIptod
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulativelY
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable. means th~t 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 [J [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.-_
- - ._~ N.
IIIpOli IIIpOli
[J 181
[J
181
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
-
Pqe18
/1;)-47
xx. ENVIRONMENTAL FACl'ORS POTENTIALLY AFFECrED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated,. as indicated by tJ1,e checklist on the following pages.
~-
0 -, 0 .
Land Use and Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Planning ,
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 COUID 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 dgTIificant effect on .
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures descn"bed on an attached sheet have been added to
the project. A MITlGAlED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the 0
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI' REPORT is required.
-
.......... ....... "19
/lc:2-48'
--.r
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 "potentia'lly sign}ficant impacts" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACf REPORT is required, .but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
f1~
Signa~
~;, (; / ":"
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
. City of Chula Vista
, ,
~.
!
k" ~
Plao 20
/l d. ~rf 9
R~T:~ ~~-h~
DATE: May 18, 1995
':'.' _ 't
--
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Clill Swanson, $ngineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudoll, Asst City Attorney (Dralt Neg Dee & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (Diosdado)
Community Development, R~dev. Economic Dev. only
'eurrent Pllmriinlj, _ ~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. Distri~t, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Dralt EIR - II annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route lorm only)
Other '
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application lor Initial Study (IS- 95-14/FA--Ml./DQ 140 )
Checkprint Dralt EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review ol a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-_/DP)
Review ol Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-_)
. ,
Review ol Dralt Neg Dee (15- /FA- /DQ- )
The Project consists ol:
A privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station.
Location:
187 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and lorward to me any comments you have
by Junp 1. lClClS .
S~~?~
~~J.t
/);2-:::;0
~
Comments:
3~
"
.
,
.
Case No. /5 -q5 -;.1/
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. What is Ihe distance to the nearest fire station? ~ whir is the rue nq...b...lIl'. CJtimated
reaction time? Two miles. Five minutes.
:
B. W1lIlhe rue Depm:ment be able 10 provide 1ft IIdequIte level of fR ......-::f10C! for the
proposed facility without 1ft inaease in equipment or pmonne1? Yes
C. Remarks
~r.7~
Fire Marshal
12/6/94
Date
. -
. .
.' ~
._~~
/l d - ~-I
\..
'--
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
"
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
dress 187 Mace
Pl an File No.
Checker Horsfall Date 5/20/96
TYIi'=! Constr.
Occupancy
No. Stpries
Bldg. Area
Th~follOwing list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
~r:~~~x~N~~N~~x~Nx~~~1 Comments:
. :. . . - ~ .
'i.~'.il ..' A'ccording to Section 903 of the 1994 UnifOrm Fire Code water tanks on private
)'o~erty are acce~table for purposes of providing the required fire ~low.
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 ,~ 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 Minute at 20 PSI residual
"r two hours duration.
4, Fire pump/s shall comply with NFPA Standard #20.
5. Water tank shall comply with NFPA Standard #22.
6 Private fire mains shall comply with NFPA Standard #24.
> 7. The fire sprinkler system shall comply with NFPA Standard 1/13.
.-
FP':-29
/l ;( -:s d-.
..
\
,
'Ke. '("Ol).~~j
"
, .
ROUTING FORM
DATE: May 18, 1995
~"',__ --;'--0"
;~.-#
-
-:,-
t;' '.~' ".' _ ..- .
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, ABst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department,
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
..sd.8-~tiCJ1'J' ~!1>Q'1-n:.:'peP.!lr.e.-e~~!.:"ft.',1~Slfll!a~)~,
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/Dratt EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Other
e;J
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS-95-14/FA- 663/DO 140 )
Checkprint"Dratt EIR (40 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Dratt EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP)
Review ot Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-____)
Revie~ of Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DO- )
The Project consists ot:
A privately operated municipal solid waste transfer station.
Location:
187 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
"by,' I 111] . ~3- oO/~/Tr-L ~ ~ ~
,;." f.u. ~ - . d.. ./ tv.rL *
. Comments: K..~ ' orwt~ roC/V I .
,
/'1.;) - 03
,
\,
\. )
CHULA VISTA POUCE DEPARTMENT
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
n-,....~.'r-~-
--- . .
DATE:
1</0 /'t.u{..-y ""UJ 1 (q C, s-
j')'l.".(.(1 M_, tvtV'1 F'HI t1~
~ 'j....u., ~If .(:>....V.
~'\.T 't:n.. ~~ ~ch I 5 c.. P S.
MAR 2 3 lS~5
TO:
VIA:
PLAN"".,'"
1\.1110"'-"
FROM:
.,
~'d ~/(1~F
PROJECT: ~... q ~ - I '-(-
--S.- The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time.
-
Infonnation on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit
crime prevention analysis.
Please forward the following infonnation to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
Elevations
Floor Plans
(9rj'd
11
Landscape and Lighting Plans
Site Development Plans
Comments:
~ rVl~\ CFs \/'\ ~ Vi-""""'l~ rn-nPul
At0. ~lft,~!; a* e'4-t\l..r ~Q5 ..z~ ?,....,~~ \-z.. '.s
-kl AI.J.J:..t'Y\'
," =+k
) VI
A-lI-,rlV\ ~d;v'tt.~s. A--.
\ t."7 t\'1a..~ 1
12.- ~J=. S ) "7 u..,,,,-,
U<S<:.-:.; Z. MlrM ~ I :3 II< \s~"', ~H>r,:n1'$ J 'Z- I s..T~N VelffUES. .
1 iL~ ,~d' stnu d. ~ ~ l't''1. If, Ctu\ kcr ('"f~d-~"'/ l~
~ r 11\ u. 'So, (\.& r CA....l U Il" r ~ {~d....r .
cc: Brookover, SCA
/l ~ - s,1
CP'TED RoUling Fonn
FDiC;:': oc-:::;.
I,
CHULA VISTA POLICB DBPARTKBNT
C R I K B P R B V B N T ION U NIT J ,'":- __"
PLAN REVIAW RECOMMENDATIONS
c
'~-:J
-'-, u 1
;",."'l",_
''''-:::;j
DATE:
August 31, 1995 ~
Barbara ReA~..Environmen
Brookover,~ a~d.:;ft. i rs,
Mary Jane Diosdad~CPS
Initial study: 95-14 187 Mace street
~"
j-'.. ,..
"-'""-':'l"".'
"'-..,t..,'""'
J.kl..;/
TO:
VIA:
Investigations
FROM:
PROJECT :
-XX- The Police Department and the crime Prevention Unit will be
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. '
-XX- Please forward additional information regarding this project
to the Crime Prevention Unit. .
Bstimated response time for Priority 1 calls to this project:
Grid: 47 3.18% of CFS, 05:43 A.R.T. on P-1 Calls
Bstimated 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
/1 c1 - .s~-
CPTED Rout'~ fo...
PD/cp.I 06193
<
ffc-
rDu-l-1nj
.
..-
. ...
~ .'
. ~ ~I.'
- ~
ROUTING FORM
-
~
DATE: May 18, 1995
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, ,Engineering (EIR only)
If,al Ros~_n.b_~~g# ...Engi lJ"eri Tl:1...(JlU,.~y.)
~oger-Daoust, ,Engineering (IS/3~':EIR/))
Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
other
FROM:
Barbara Rei d
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS- 95-14/FA--2il./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 'pri vifelyoperated muni ci pal ' sol i d waste transfer station.
.......
Location:
187 Mace St.
.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by .June 1. 11111S .
Comments:
A ;2 - Q~
(
Y s- roll
Case No. IS.qS -f1f
'-.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
T/J?A-I&lA/""J; C.llA-A/d~1 AL.r:JJt:,. ~l!L,! ~lJ~~Y'_ ~RJ v ~':""~ os:: ~El-
"nI>Lr./.S -rz:> Cf./uJ"'t=.l . WE:~7F"t Y ~~ OF ~P" ~ .""At,,!> "Tl:> MACE 9rPE/!!'T'".
?.'K~hlY'ict='tt s~e~~ lJ:,. f7Nl.Y SEW~ . . "
If not, please explain briefly. I-lAJ'rJA... f'>h I~'~e' CMu.I"'~J Mt..::r BE lu_~. At..So,
S,n::-C;;~J':/~ ~L(UAr~ JMPI!l:>V9.A~ WILL BE t2.~Q' J'~b 7l:> A-b~UAT'FJ Y .
~~~
~~ ~~ TZl ~w~ "l::leA/~f'!: f:'1AC.Il.fT7"'-<" ,..........,.,......,"='J:"~._~7D
Al.ltT1'</t. se:WEL W.I~ /oIa.T BE ~~. ~ ili" ?....
at IS the location anO oescnpuon or eXlSImg-Otf-slte aramage lac ties. ~"I2FAC.~ ~I<o/
~ MAr.F ~~ n> Dra.y RIt'eI'L. ....1..10 ~IJ ~JJ1lFL pJ""JA1 ~ DTAv
]Z.,1/1I=&> .
E. Are they adequate to serve the project? Y!!6 .
If not, please explain briefly. ""/A.
1.
Drainage
No,N5r II{ A- ~-I-lAR"f;l> FI.a::o fUn.!. Ht1WEfIr!Ii!,
Is the project site within a flood plain? ~ m:;:tt'YJ ~~~ ~;oft:!J.-r t1.fftrl:A-Ttt#!
If s~, state which FEMA Floodway FrequrnWBoun~~ ~ ~~ W:: 5/1'/-. .
~ ~MM.~/r:~"-",,t-t. 1M .
What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? UIJ,MPtilbVFJ'> ML~
A.
B.
c.
D.
n. Transportation'
"
A. What roads provide primary access to the project? MA-,,,, ~#~
-
What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)?
401'> A-t:rr (~6<=; ~ r=st'C~Eb FE.l('(~, A~ I~.).
What are the Average Daily TraffIc (A.D.T.) volumes on the,primary ~ roads before and
after project completion?
Street Name
MAI"'~~,
Before
, It:!., 5'10
~
f<'1,'3c{O
.
Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Leve1-of-Service (L.O.S.) we" design ADT
volume? If yes, please specify. No.
/1 C). - ::;--;
PIF2
~ClISTOREl1>l=!l3 ~.lrnl.!l3)~.IOllI.!l3)
!:;;,-bi{
. ,
Case No. r~-"'f5-N
If the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "COO design volume is unknown or not applicab~, explain briefly.
NIA.
.
-
)
. D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? Y~c.
If not, please ~plain btiefly. ~t4.
E.
Would the project aea~ unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to
or in the vicinity of the project site? ' N~ .
If so, identify: Location ~/A.
Cumulative L.O.S. t.{.t4 .
Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An
equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips). If yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will
have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that
all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance.
Yes X ' No
F.
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. J.(,/A.
H. Is the project ~istent with the criteria established in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan, ,
General Plan Traffic Element, IIld all other pertinent traffic studies? Please ref=ce lilY
other traffic impact studies far roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed
project. , y~. '
1 Is a traffic study required? Yes)(, No
1. Is there lilY dedication required? Ye.;;.
'Ifso,pleases}lecify. EXI~'N"&:'~EI!!r_W("'l!! ~bWA'" ~M~ S"';"u..
~ ~J"')'/.&r'lE.l) -rTJ 7U~ t:rn' I:J1: CUI/LA- V/~~.
~D2Ul (Ref. ID2U3)(Rd.IIl2DJI3)
, /1 C2.. .., ~-g
Pa&e 3
'''I
'- '
YS-&t(
Case No. IS-1s-t'f
l
/
K. Is there any street widening required? No.
If so, please specify. t-JIA.
L. Are there any other street improvements required? Ya:;. Ac.oAlt: ~E 6M ~
,
If so, please specify the general nature 9f the necessary improvements. S'T7zEer.
~P1-EE:..-n/!}M OF c.(.J~~ r;,f.J'T"'f"'7:b ,5i~WA,.LIt::-; ~1JJ:> bJ2Jv~~y 'M~VE-
ME!.AJ-rr.... A-l.$~ IAI~"~,yJ ~ ~-n:>~~ '-'~,AI/:..
.
M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for
existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (please provide a ~rief
explanati~n). ~1s.r/AI,t; ~l>rri,.,.~.. Y.E~.
r:::urtJIZE.. ~J,t ~Ir ~afe'DAl- ftAIJ Cl>l.tDfTTF:I..ic;. ~ y~.
m. ~
A. Are there any, anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? 1I/J/4(oW~( .
B. If yes, specify these conditions. '1A.
C. Is a Soils Repon necessary? y~c;:. A IJE/..f ~1L5, f4:~ Wlt.L. 8E" 'RE1u,n=,.,
FO{Z.. ""T"1fe. ~D US~.
IV. Land Form
A. What is the average natural slope of the site? (.S%
B. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? SbY-.f"H'A/t="C- ~11'1E ....,~~)
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? No;
VL Waste Generation' '
~ How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed proit:ct per day?
i~) Solid '/i<JS<JFI&JC.ltEI.!r IAl,:,.,IfMA,.-n"",' ?'lI2h",~. ~"'i -...".A-Ur W/I..I..1>/<Rs<:F 6': Sot..rr>
.. \: ~:,~ Liquid ,,,,St)I'+JL:.fe.f.,.. /"'~,A."rT",.} "t::PN/JDF'b . " ,~;~~~_.,
, ~ \, \,' Whai is the location and sizC of eJtisting sewer lines on or downstream froni the site? ...... ---I ...... .
~,", \~\'1 ,.,'" "... ,^-_' ' '~___. . '
\e~o ~~ ~ !7ew~~ [AAI~ 114 MA~": =:JJr~~ w#tGU- Fcbw~ ~A~ ArIJ~ ~'~s'
;::"'\\c>-.C\c.W 'T?> A 15'/-r7Z-vf.lr.c.. !itElAl..:., L.lNl!!. "bt:>Wf\JCnzrAH.
".
Are'they adequate to serve the proposed project? (If no, please explain) VAIl'. rt>MJ - 7ll ~
~J2X.ftL'l!D.
~GlSTCRElND22.93IJd. 102193) (ad. JDlU3)
/ld .. 5'Gj'"
Pip ..
,~- 0i1
)
Case No. IS-'15-r<{.
~
~/
, .
VII. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) SlOrmwater Requirements
Will the applicant be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES Stonnwater Permit? YFA.
-
. H yes, specify which NPDES pennil(S) and explain why anNPDES permit is required. A foJ~
,C.r:..rF~Ll- ".,. . 'PFf2Mrr- Fz:,(Z.. 971:>Il.M' WNrFP 7>rc:r .s;..~&=; ~(An-l:>
Wf"f7.1 ..LJht ,<:rR/A-L ACT7Vr-rTEC, I~ 1Z.~-?tJtLF:.b 1:0~ -rYE P~Sf:.l> USE. NVb 71IF
Ex..(~"'.. VS~ ~Pu/"..A+Ir 1f.J'Dr~ IN "P&~ .'AI- t"~/'-"::A.-ndJ ~ foJPt::E.s
.
pt:iJAA rrt:.D~~ ~ T7fE: Et't<<J;-r/,..[/;. -rR.J...tGt:lJ..1J: f6J~~17'~ J.I4~ Mt:J"r ~ 1Z.J::J::!J
\
Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project? C>~I~
X Yes No
Additional comments NoME.
VII. ' Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts, mitigation measures, or other
issues. It) It ~...r&/'....E ~&A&.rr rN~~ -rlIF ""'A-<f'-lV~ rJi.L.dllC'I ArJo...a.(~""r.UE. EA j. ...41 Y
~~~ 'P2r:tPFJ!:N ~u~" wrl..L v.F C$,,? "u;.r> ~~ ""~~ n. <;-,~ a:: n<E. ~
~ ~
~~;jr~~=2-;:'~~S;:"
J>P J.. ~A-/U.";'t... Iol,.,-r otVU~ P'</"'nfE. A"PPt-(CAI.J.'r(.Ce~ 2~ C~FD of
'~~~ ~f7'E ~.~ArJ (lr1XJ<':TI2.JAt.- IV~ 'f)..:/'IUot?&.E. ~o""rr MAY
A\ j~ :;;~=:i~J$~:::=;:~~=:~
(~\ , S'T1z.J..JC7'V1l.I..r S~;';'rOM.o;:. ~ MAGIE -~~ htb MA:tAl sr2F,r/hraV vJ.rH'Y
\~\ ./ ~D MA-Y ~ 1/J~"77:.. ,....." 71+E AIJ-rIG~ 771.JJC.1€.. 1J'lL-"t>i/Jt:. (tj 7""UE
€)(lsr,A.ft:. l-AAh,AltC ~~ 'OAA-,AlS Tl> i+fl!! ~~y ~~J? .. CI'JI./'r7NlJ';:"
~'-/.lrr'FL "D'~~~;~ -nl-l?- .~~l2.y ~lE~ WI'l AI~/.~ ~fl.JJrrre.b.
ye..\~ q
~jJr;?J.
~...I.Y\ '
~\\ \~~
t~~1\ .
.
~ ~ '~Y\."I
,5 ~;\\~ ~ r~
"~\<::O-~~~O \~ \"0
.~\..,~ cJ.~o~~ "\
VW\" (')...{/sl '7-4, ' , ~.
~~s~~
~'iC{\\p\\\ \QJiJ P.,d
-\~C~ ~
t:r
~=:~ -
WI'C-~D22.93(1.f1.IQ1U3)(IoI.ID2ll.93)
, '. ' ,/!eJ.-00
--.r
TIllS PAGE BLANK
,
:MEMORANDUM
August 13, 1996
Filc No. 079(}.{)5-KYI35
TO: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
FROM: Elizabeth Chopp, Civil Enginecr~
SUBJECT: MACE STREET TRANSFER STATION SEWER SERVICE
In response to your iDquiry regarding of availablc sewer capacity for the proposed transfer station
on Macc Street, wc compared sevcral similar transfcr stations in ordcr to dctcrminc the waste
water discharge. Wc estimated that the cxpcctcd yearly water use would be approximately 900,000
gallons. Then, subtraeting 10% for evaporation and assuming that the plant would be in operation
260 days pcr year (5 days per week) the csrimotM daily wastewater divh~rgc would be 3115 gal.
per day(gpd). Applying a peak flow factor of 2.5 to the averagc daily dischargc results in a peak
flow of 5.4 gal. pcr min. (gpm) or 0.012 cubic feet per sec. (cfs).
Wc cozx:luded that the DatclFaivre Sewer Tnmk Line could adequately handlc the additional peak
flow that would be gcnerated by thc proposed transfcr station. The existing sewer flow in the
sewer trunk line at the restrictivc section located near Faivre and 27th Streets (meter site , 133)
is 5.14 cfs while thc capacity of thc trunk line is 6.05 cfs.
Thcsc numbers wcre used to estimate the availablc sewcr capacity and should DOt be used to
dctcrminc any user and/or permit fees.
Plcasc contact Mario Ingrasci, Assistant Civil F.J1gi~, at 476-5376 en. 3142 if you have my
further questions.
MJI:mji
(M:\...\Sewer\MACElrm.mem)
/fd.--ror
~.
-
-
SWEITW A TER AUTHORITY
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA 91912.2328
(819)~1413
FAX (Ill9) 43-7489
May 8,1996
GOVERHtNQ BOARD
GEORGE H. WATERS. CHAlRUAN .
WAAG.VlET COOK WELSH. VICf CHAIR
JAWES F. DOUD, SR.
SUE .....AETT
IUO POCI<UHGTON
JoWES $, WOlHIEWICZ
CAllY F, WRlG>lT
WANDA AVERY
TAEASlJIlER '
OWl ~ REEVES
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 Cf:lULA VISTA (FIRE DEPARTMENT)
Dear Mr. Algert:
The 2125 GPM fire flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressurefor 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, ~/I-
~::s L. Smyth '
Chief Engineer
J~S:RC:vls
-
.'
Mr. Emmett Horsfall
City of Chula Vista
Fire Department
447 "F" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
pC:
enclosure: as cited
1c_11I7moce.1II ,
/ld-.-0,;2"
A I:!!bl!c ~,ency,
~WEETWATER AUTHORIT't
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328
(619) 420-1413
FAX (619) 426-7469
GOVERNING BOARD
May 24, 1995
o,'f'- , .
'...., , J: ,qcJ-
'-v
BUD POCKLINGTON. C.....'RM......
GEORGE H. WATERS, VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE JARRETT
EDWIN J. STEEL.E
MARGARET A. WEL.SH
JAMES 5 WOLNIEWICZ
CAAY F. WAIGKT
-- -- .....-...---. .-
.
. --"
. "'-
WANDA AVEAY
TREA.5UREA
DIAN J. REEVES
SecAETARY....OUINISTA...TlvE AIDE
.........,:..
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-14
SWA Gen. File: Water Availability, 1995
Dear Ms. Reid:
This letter is a reiteration of our original comments dated
January 16, 1995, concerning an Initial Study for the subject
project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is a
6-inch water main located on the east side of Mace Street,
adjacent to the proposed development. Our records indicate that
there are two water services to this property. Enclosed is a
copy of 1/4 SEC. 23B map which shows the existing water
facilities.
The required 6750 GPM and the reduced fire flow of 3375 GPM with
a fully automatic fire sprinkler system, noted in the city of
Chula vista Fire Department's comments, 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 l2-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.
/!d.-cO.3
A Public Agenl:Y,
Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrau,..ding Areas
, '~-'-~'-"'-"'-~'^-" _._-~
Ms. Barbara Reid
city of Chula Vista'
Planning Department
Re: WATER AVAILABILITY
187 MACE ST., CHULA VISTA
May 24, 1995
page 2
On Mace street, at Britton Ave., the maximum available fire flow
without any improvements is approximately 850 GPM.
If the owner enters into an agreement with the Authority for
water facility improvements, water service can be obtained at a
pressure ranging from a maximum of 74 p.s.i. to a minimum of 49
p.s.i.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420-1413, ext. 639.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
L':~
Engineer
JLS:RC:le
enclosure:
photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map
pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. Mark Watton
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, CA 92113
Ms. Carol Gove
Chula Vista Fire Department
476 F Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
k:\llUrl.\l.tt.ro~ewtr..vl
,/Y::J-rot./
~WEETWATER AUTHORIT
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328
(619) 420-1413
FAX (619) 42>-7469
GOVERNING SOARD
BUD POCKl.INGTON. CHAIRM"N
GEORGE H. WATERS. VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE JARRETT
EDWIN J. STEE!..E
MARGARET A. WEL.SH
JAMES S. WOL.NIEWICZ
CARY F. WAIGKT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
OIAN J. REEVES
SECR(TARY.A.[)MINISTRATIV[ A'OE
January 16, 1995
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.
Tl).ere 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 re~ired at the developer's expense.
To deliver 3375 GPM, approximately 3500 lineal feet of 12-inch
water main would have to be installed at the developer's expense in
Mace Street, Main Street and Hilltop Drive.
The maximum fire flow available on Main Street by Mace Street is
2750 GPM with no system upgrades.
On Mace Street at Britton Ave., the maximum available fire flow
without any improvements is approximately 850 GPM.
A~:-bS-
A Publj(; Agency,
Serving Nanol1/l1 City, Chul/l Vista and Surrounding Areas
"T
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
~~
es L. Smyth
ief Engineer
JLS:RC:ln
k:\lorelei\wp51\reid.ltr
enclosure:
'photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 23-B map
pc: Mr. Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
Mr. Mark Watton
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, CA 92113
/ld--~Co
BOARD OF EDUCATION
XISEPH 0, CUMMINGS, Ph.D.
SiARON GIlES
PATRCKA.. .ux>
PAMElAB. SMITH
III<E A. SPEY!eI
SUPERINTENDENT
LBlA5.Gll..Ph.D,
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST OJ" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
May 24, 1995
Ms. Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
I ~ ~ .
i_:'..;" /",: ....
.... .; .
~ ,.0.........
'-':;:;;;
r- .
...../ .
., " \:; '~:' .....
....
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. J'
~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
c:w'll'lWWd:r.mem02
/1;),-07
-~
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vllta, California 81811.2886
(619) 681-5500
Division of Planning and Facilities
--:'
~
.-
';.
. 't~~~.
. . -,:~ . ,
, '-.,
,..,
May 22, 1995
....', ~ ... ,".' ......
t,' ",'.'
f.-I.,..>"
Ms. Barbara Reid
at}' of Chula Vista
Environmental Section
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Reid:
Re: IS-95-14/FA-663/DQ-140
The above subject project will bave 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 pennlt.
. Sfu''4: P
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TSlml
Ad--C:-,<6
~
.
R"7"r-r;:-"\I_:-.
--~1 ~LJ
DEe Z 9 1994
QInunit! nf ~an JBi~Bn
TOM GARIBAY
DIRECTOR
I'U) ....2212
FAJt(lt'12tl.041'
LOCATION CODE SSO
DEPARTMENT OF,PUBLlC WORKS
PLANNiNG COUNTY ENOINEER
COUNTY AIRPORTS
COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSIT SERVICES
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
saUD WASTE
-
5555 OVERLAND AVE, SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 12123.'285
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 Oualitv
The County believes that an. assessment of air quality should be
completed regarding the proposed project. current Otay Landfill
usage' sugqests 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:viahicles'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 ACT' still higher. That level of traffic could
result in significant' air quality impacts.
2. " '~?dors: :- "," .'~'
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
Ad.--(,9
0_",__
.~
Mr. Reid
-2-
December 29, 1994
(see attachment). Even if one assumes, as the study did, that 50
percent of that food goes down the garbage disposal, that would
still leave several million pounds of food disposed each year in
the Greater Southbay area. It has been the County's experience
that these amounts of food products can produce offensive odors.
Also, a review of the area found that there are residential units
within approximately a half-mile and directly downwind of the
proposed facility. Consequently, the County believes that an EIR
level review needs to be completed regarding the potential for
odors at the facility.
3. Noise
The County recognizes that the area immediately surrounding the
proposed facility is zoned for industrial uses and therefore has a
certain built-in noise level. However, the County believes that
noise from the increased truck traffic would not necessarily be
incremental in nature. While it would be accurate to say that
heavy trucks now operate from the site, it seems reasonable to
,assume that many of the trucks only impact the surrounding area
once or twice per day. Under the proposed project, collection
trucks could be accessing the site several times a day and noise
will be further intensified by the addition of transfer trucks.
The County believes that these circumstances can lead to unknown
and potentially cumulative impacts that require a more in-depth
review.
4. T,raffic
The County has several concerns regarding the proposed project's
traffic impacts.
A.
First, the projected 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 PCE
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
/1,;}.-70
Mr. Reid
-3-
December 29, 1994
TPD would yield 168 collection vehicle trips and 80
transfer vehicle trips. Given the apparent
discrepancies regarding these fiqures,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. Hvdroloav
A review of the Project Location'Map for the site shows that the
southern area of the property appears to be within the 100 year
flood lines of inundation for the otay River and the proposed
facility will apparently be built up to, the souhern property
boundary. Given that, there would seem to 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 faci1ity~ as
proposed, would be only 600 feet from the otay River floodwayat
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.. -7(
~
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,
~' OA
tJ;...~ - ~~
J A. MILLER, Acting Deputy Director .
D artment of Public Works
JAM:JR:cg
Attachment
/l d- - 7 d-...
b4 02: 41
"ClST C01MERCIAl
6196619214 P.02
4
Compas Investments, Incorporated
~ ~ . ~,..........:.x~- ..........._
........_. - ...........
...'....~~.,
. ..... _. ft ............:';""'.-.. .....__1-. .
December 27, 1994
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review coordinator
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 9191 0
"
RE: Mace St. transfer Station
Case No. IS-94-1S
Dear Mr. Reid:
1 am the property owner of parcel No. 629-130-30-00 located on the S.E comer of Main
and Mace 5t,
The proposed use if approved, will have an irreperable negative impact for the community
ofChula Vista with additional potential adverse Environmental issues.
Please Keep me posted on this review as affectS the development potential of my property.
'-,t
~
Sincerely,
"
.
A ;} - 7 3'
~~d~\~ctPc.
__....__~._..~~ ",.ft....' _.'~ --
. ~~-l,o ~
(619)661-6467 ~ ~~o...\f
TOTAl P. 02
--"'-
........ ..... .... ......-.
2495 Puoo de 1Ii~. Nit I, 0Iay.~. CA n173
. ~,
.~
-
-
Dte"
v 0 7994
PLANNING
International Real Estate
t-\.;...:...-: r:-! -\/__.._
_ ___! n_ .
....~
A Division of I.R.E. Enterprises, Inc.
~
December 27, 1994
VIA FAX #691-5171
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Mace st. Transfer station
Case No. IS-94-15
Dear Mr. Reid:
I was recently made aware of the above referenced proposed project.
As a property owner (3648 Main st.), I am concerned about the
potential adverse impact this project would have in the community,
not the least of which is traffic.
Please put my name and address on your list for additional mailings
and public hearings concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Michael
INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTAT
~
MAV:clb
/la-7tf
Q Industrial/ Commercial Properties - Sales & Leasing / Property Management Q
2320 Paseo de las Amencas, 11200, Otay Mesa, CA 92173, (619) 661-<<1681, FAX (619) 661-6685
"
,
\.
i
,Ii
~
.pt.
"-t. .
I.
II ~"n'+ Trash f)UI" Jrla+e.r "
January 27,1995
. ! ~ . .
~ ...." (
..,1.... .
Chula Vista Planning Department
Attn: Martin Miller
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
1-;, ,
-1'1\.\
'"
RE: PACIFIC DISPOSAL C.D.P. STATUS
Dear Mr. Miller
Our citizen's group has been following Pacific Disposal's plans to build a mixed waste
transfer station in Chula Vista. It is our understanding that they have submitted an
application for a Conditional Use Permit.
We are requesting to be notified, in a timely manner, of all upcoming public meetings
regarding this CUP. Please send notices to:
Donna Tisdale
Backcountry Against Dumps
P.O. Box 1275
Boulevard, CA 91905
My phone number is 766-4170 and my fax is 766-4922. Thank you for your assistance.
,.,
Sin:11!y, __
~ / c;..c1J..-
Donna Tisdale,
President
, DONNA TISDALE
P.O. BOX 1275
BOULEVARD, CA 91905
(619) 766-4170. FAX: (619) 766-4922
/l;2 -75"
~~ ~.c:.. ~\ce
DIANE RICHARDS
1783 BUCKMAN SPRINGS RD.
CAMPO, CA 91906
(619) 478-9195
" ____4"._'~__........_.h..U__-..*.
~-'~,--
~ ._. ,.-.~ .-.... c-....
. :r,_ _ '," _..:;'ft-~ __~1--.Jt ~ ;<1,.... .~ ...
,: el'eUiS:~ ~le:53,.- .&DSi42 ".,:t ~.', ~7~~ir~:~JFfff~?{,~;~:~~~~~~,:~::.,.~t.;\
MACE INDUS;~'t:~~ft:iJJ~~~~~~i'cl;,.\
~}~1 Via Mercado, SUite 16. La Mesa. CA 9~~~:~.,~c'~:;;:L~'~::'~r.~~:}': '. ,:,:'::j)/~}~,' 1
, (619) 660.1952, fax (619) 660.0142".....-<:__"'....,: >>,:,."~;,>;':;>.~ :. ", ,; "
.'
. ..--..... ,'.-:-:.. .' '. ,(' .;
.'- .:".....'.,-..- .',. -',' .', .
". ,.~ -,.~~:;:~~ ..~--./.; ,,' -""......,.,. .'
. .- .~'. -. '" - " . .
. -:--, .- -. _. ". . .....::~~<...:.~..~:;-::._~
Ef&~~:i::: ::mm" __ _ ,'~~0/i~if1~~~(~~~;;:~':_,i
RE: Proposed project t)'pe " Municipal Solid waste transf~r andassoci~ted ieqo~~~~ ~6ili~::~):~ '0~.: ::(?., .~:~
D<~::'::-rty ,o~oo "187 M~ St, ChW',V~ CA", __' .' ;"\-i~-';-~:?l
In rt~ponse to the letter (If ''Notice of Initial Study" on the 'above refl'r(nced project, 1 ~ve Jjst~,t9me.,;'<: ;'~'. ~~
c(lnct'm~ I have for this type of use in tlus Blea. As per our telephone conversatior" due to the tIme', "';;:L ~-,>"~
c(lnstraints of receiving the notice on December 27. at 4 :OOP}' t, you ir.dicated ~t I.sltould fax }'otithis.)j;::~ .':~
Jetter todllY, and it would be reviewed, 1 would apprecillte th~ crpportur.it;.'1(I follow up.~i!h. ~~mpl~c:)~';;~:~.J
packa~e ifnecessafy. " ,.' :",':/,,;;:'~~;;':<::~"ili'>'3::;:,:I-;-tf~
~ .? . '. '~...: ".;..... '. ':.~~::~'.'~~';::/-:-'~;~~0\:;-.{:;:~::...7:'-'~,~~~~?:--:...:<':~i~
To give ~111~ back~round on us, we own the property directly' across the ~treCt from this proposed 1":: ;:,:1).2'<'.: ~:~
pre>jecl, 170 & 1 &0 Mact' St., respectively. We built our IndUSLrial Centers a'13 have kept a ~Bands On~ ,";\t: -):':~
attitude to Property' Management Our buildillg and driveways are kept clean. andin,good rcJwi.-nier(:\:t:, <&
,~ apl'~Ximatel}' 70 ~nants in 07'buildinS. elso~. c.;~~'~G'7~,f:~i~.~~:~~],~~\1;S{i~~~~;~;~:~;J;#~.,::~:ii
We have bad some experience Vltith a similar t)'pe ofbUsiJ:\ess;~15 being propose~: R a.FcntoriOy,ns ~'i!\;:;;~:;l
property adj~ent to ours. it is currently leased to Pacific Disposal'; tJUs propertY is l:aid~ac;up; Sinc:e'Z~'iI';':;';.~
, 1990, Pacific Disposal has been using this property for the swrageof roll off eontahlers:and i4cles ';,;::>,:,':C'\ ::;<;!
which is what their CUP allows. 'But in actuality, this tYPe of business iii,'olves muc~ n10rCthim what is(:::'i:/-'S~
stated. We have lost tenants, and deal with tenant c~ts cOnceming'the'lodOr;,Jind ~oiSei.eVel~;:7i:~,".if'a
of the roll ofT con~i.ne~ and 1TUcks.~ The roll Qff ~iaitlers~ ~p~>"!1Itm;re h~ resjd~Jeftfr.on;::":0Y'{::-:;'~
whatever the)' ca.oried ihat is very,offensive, as.~ th~ "llies. ,that are :attraCted bjo tpls residue ,41So:~(L:~:;~ ~, '~'
Noise from the trucks ~~'Ving engines to lift the roll off containers off is appallmg. 'Ana jIlease'.:,jEf'X{f;Ji5>?:: '~,
acknowledge, that if you ha,'e a truck. it Vltillllecd maintenance, Which is Dotallowed undefLiglit~~{:':':~:;~i"{:':' -'~
industrilll ZoniTll:, or under B ~.~proposed ptOj~ will be even ~ise due to the amplitu&-o{thC<;~:~: ' ',~
proj~v . '.-; '.' :' J ~::'.;~ c,:, ~S.-.:,:.: ~i~i>~,:\~:,:::,>'f7'~,{--~J,;~'fi t~{;,-;Y~~,~~ffi1~~11'i~c~iJj~1~.f":
""'~',::;;/." .. t...., .' ..'. ~'f!ft3,~}.,...,,~....\-..... ..",-.....".,._""..."'-, ~....;f'..'-""'..'...',..
,:', ,\.~:~; c~,~":;.,,_,,,~~~,.:..~tZ..:';~;i:~f~i~g~fi?tsi~~~~~J~I~~j:,t~
_._-_........-----"'----~
"
~ .'
I;.
i.
"
n, ;:.
if
.'1...
..
~
.~
,J
.'~
.~~:.: . ~
.~ ..--~~ -- '_?'. .,~. '.
,
.
, 1 '
.
January 5,1995
.~ ,
'.".=-
.:,:-
,,'
.
"
"
\-'
,.--.;~
,-, ......-;-
The traffic=nted by the Trucks will create a "bottl~ lIeck" sIlllfln.D1l, witbtruc~ bac~l1op on the, ':';;'~i.; r:';'
sltW, There must be B "In & Out" drh-ev.'8Y access to reduce the nsk ofpolrnual accuientund 1IBffic,~;.,:~o'
Jam~. Mace Street is a small street, and is not ",ide enough to handle 'Volllmii Truck 1raffic':Thm is?;;,,.,,-: "
1\0 Traffic Light on Main Street This type of Large TrUCk Traffic \\iU(;~ potential accidents at ~ ,:::..:c .' " ,
comer.. ",.' "" ," , ,:'.0<~':'-/(:~'~-!::(t'.W~7:~{X~;~h*~~k:t~~;~(ij;e;~fl~~&;it~~~1~~;'~=::i'~i
The propo~ properry~' ~nl)' partially ~v~"At thi~, time;'Ma~S~ ~,;iD;~d irtiirl,ind~(li.;;W~::~:"'~
whenever It rains due to Pacific Disposal, and Sky TM~ing_ If you increase the,vo1u:me ortl)1~.~*:":} ~';<_. ":
Mace Street.. who i. going to send the street sweeper evei)' day to handle this rroblem!,::Also",~,~ve.,..: ',?(;". "::'~,:
clocked the trucks from Pacific Disposal going 4SMiJes an hour onMa~ St,Imagine,a1n4%:'~;:'::H.;:::::::.,::'_'-:'~
,thoroughfare.' ',', ".,':!~:.-:,:_ ','{'{:"~~~l~~2-~f;~~\:;:;:;~t~~;t~~J{~!g:;F~i;t~:r..,:1
rhls propostJ projeL11luds II Noist SIUdy. 'TIlt aCcumuiatiouof Trucks slowUIg "0\\11; ~g-up,:_:,:,;f,' '- ':
Tt'\"\;ng their l"ngines for unloading containers, compacting wastc, v.ilJ be incredible: \\,'~ are,iUread)' Y~tk'~~~';;;: "~
~\pcrielldng thcse same problems \\;th Pacicfic Disposal, just not oflhi:. mainitude,..c~.; f):::J~;,';,~,~;'~;'.:,:-;;';',' j::,:;::'.;" "
. -. - :':...;.-~.:~; -:.~.(,::.~'~r~ :-.f~:~~~;r~f/:",--~,;'-~-'...- ~>"~,.;.'> ..~::~:r~. . .._~
\ll\l:~ Strrc\ does nN h.we enough street Iightini to handle these hours of opeiauon. ThC Trucb:wiU be .~ ~:~'::;,:,:!:
)l:;\ving before 6:00AM every morning. And ",ill not shut down operation u!1til after 1 0:00PM. -:{'):::"':"[,'i',;: :_'~,~
Guaranleed. "J .' ',; " ;"+.;:';;:~+;}~\~d<.:;;\{<"~;~.~,:,3
/ -J . ~~ ~-~':r': '- :!~.~,~-<~:<:.:. '~;:~J;~' !-.?~-~~.~f~.:~.'i'PS:~~:~\':~,~ .-:{~~~_;. ":":'~;!
, Th" Water Main do....n Mace SlrCet is II 6" Cast Iron Dead End Main. Due to ii being Cast Iron, it is,'..'-...',:':,.:!'"
Corroded &lid does not mn flow 6", The proposed project is to add 6!J,OOOSF ofBuildiIig:"'.};,;'t:~.;\~:,:!,:~~.c.J;
"' . ,~. c..;. ,..
Without replllCin& this Water Main, it is puTting Illl'isll Ihe 111'e Proteclion of our Building ana other ,}:~, -:::>1
huildingsvn Mace Strect. ' ,'" < ",.".'. _:,'<',~,::];:<.<.,<~'~_:::-::.:'~
" ,,:' ,::;::)>,-",,:"<:;:;it'~:~:{;;T~t):1'.>:'J1r~::~;:\j
]n dosing, this ~ is z/)1ItJ.d Light Ind~iDl. The C.il): COWlcil has been trying t~ uPSrad7~Safea~i,r::ir1:,;j
be mor':'lIC;\h~"tJcally pleasing, The subject property I' lD the Southwest RedC'vcl.>pmcnt Di5~ct.To~::_,,;<":~ ~;'::;.,:
allow this t).pe of project is against the zoning, and ",ill not accomplish what ~ City .Co~ei1lUli -set.' ,::~;'~>i~:<,'~
forth for this area. A pr~iect of this rnagnitud~ should be developed further out in an unincorporated '.',,'.x:;:~;~":, ;.:,~
. ." ~ . . . . _ '". . ,'_, '..4..-~.~:i.I'.,.. '_:.
area, II is ourv.ish that a in-depth En\iromental Study be completed, includir>.gNoiSe, Tl3fiic Volume :';'J,~::f,;;/~:~
including ~nges'ti~ problem due to ~o traffic ~~t &driveway Citrance,Odor, Wet~ SupPiY;.Oft~,~'f1:;;;;~>:'i
s~ parking, Jot Size f.>r proposed 60,vOSF Bwldmg, and health reilSCJnS (tht~ b ~ldeDtlaJ boa.lDg;r':::.;,~L : .-:~
IIdj~1 to this prorl:rt)) " . . " ~:' ,.,".' ~')'~~::;t\:~'~~~~:~lsItB~j~~:~~~~J~~~i;~~~~~):i{.:'~~~::t
TIlls t)'PC of propeny use will be 8 nllistl1lcefol' 0111' tentinti, arid'iD our opinion ~;U 4nwlUllle DiU,~~~::;<,:-.'2. i,'.';'-; ",~
property for ~ntal and resale' .,'" '>.,:- '.:>. ~;';._. ':, 'i:' ,.:.j;,-,;,,~ .:i;.:. ;."~,;":;c:~t~;,;;y';:~...:::l;~R.;,>'J,,,,, ;:: ,':
. ~-," ..... '. -.: ; -- ".- . . ~---:'.:'-~:".~ :':~~.)~~~i~X',:-;:::}~{~fZ.~!~1~{.~~~~};~f~~:;qti:~~:C~i~~t?$$~.~f~ff~~~~~~~~2~~;~~::~?'<1
As we o~ on~ fourt.~or better of the ~ m;nug~~~~~~i~:dii~y=~'t~!2~,{:,:{
from th~ proposed project, plCllSC give our concem~ \he y~ur _5i.CoIis!t:!cra1iOn:::f~i4~~~~:~~~~:<:::~~j.\:: '<~
~y: '.' .:....>~P~/11Ii:r~~~,lf~~~E!JlIk'~~..i
- ~oI~~ ;<...."5'~i;},~;~.:;iH{;.<'.;~~4J~~;;:;j
V'\1an L. Krflill'ot.'ter, pOo~ ~-' ~ - ~ -- ., '-~:- .......~. "')',\; ~~,_-.,._... ~ ",' :.':":" {-' ~: ',;....?r~.;...........~~,.-:~:.,!I~-tt~~~:.,...d,.~_~
Macelndusui;i'Cem:t...., , '" ~ :, -;,...7!ff~,.:'..7:\;f,:']......_~"i-~::::-._~,.:;riii1f;i~~';;'-~...;~;.~:;}(;{{,:J;f;,
. .' ..' ~ ~:: .... }~-~~-;_. :-1 ~-. -f~~:: '. ~~ .;~:~.;--~:~~~~~:~;tC:-:;;:~~~;~:~~~~~~ #
- " . - - - - ~ -' ' . I' JII.. ~-; -...... ....i..h ...~~~..... ..'l--'~i:...
" ,,-.of ... .. . _~~......._..7- ~_..-:..-'.__.:,..;.~~~:._..'._...:<:;,: '~~.:..~?:~.' '~t}~-.-~.~~~.;~~~~~?~r.:~?:;.l_~~. ",-r.'"
'~
l
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION STUDY
SKY TRUCKlNGlPACIFIC DISPOSAL
187 MACE STREET, CHULA VISTA
.
Pacific Disposal, Inc. proposes to construct a facility for mater/als recovery and waste
transfer at 187 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 a1te. '
Sky Trucking Is a year-round truck and material transfer operation. Dally logs and fuel
records are available for that operation which have been summarized In Table 111:'
Records show a seasonal variation In truck trips, both light trucks and semrs. The
heavier use Is In the spring, summer and fall. The average use for eight months Is
approximately 45% more than for the wlnler months. The tabulated values are a
weighted average to reflect year-round ADT. The project uSage Is taken from the CUP
Initial study and truck load averages were furnished by Pacific Disposal. A one-day traffic
count was perfonned on February 8, 1996 and was supervised by A1gert Engineering.
The results of that survey are tabulated In Tables I and II.
The tabulated values In Table 111 show that In tenns of total tra1fic, the project will have
negligible effect on overall traffic on Main Street, both for light and heavy vehicle. When
truck loading Is factored In, the project will lessen the existing use. The heavily loaded
truck use will be 165 per day at 100% project capacity. The existing heavily loaded truck
trips Is 183 per day. This analysis Is base,d on the maximum capacity of the facility of
1000 TPD. If the facility Is used at a more realistic level of 85% of capacity, the heavily
loaded trucks will decrease by 23% from the present usege. The overall truck usege
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 aemrs and trash-
trucks). Therefore, although the existing facility contributes approximately 18% of the
total heavy vehicle usage on Main Street, the project at 85% of capacity Is expected to
reduce that usage to approximately 16% In tenns of truck trips and to approximately
13.5% of existing usage In tenns on ton-trlps.
"
.-::,._...
~.-/...
/I ;;2 - 7(j
r-l.1-' ,
-
)
'--
. TAlLE I
TlAFFIC tt'UlT Sl\.Dy
111.1. STUETIXILLTDP
"EASTJCUlD"
CUS z :s "1'1 IUSES II:lTllRCYCUS 1IIELIalI LA a.\LLE
P1a:-WS AXEL AXEL Il.lWI
nuca nuca
A.II. 6:00-6:'5 38 I :s I' 2 0 4 0 0 "
6:15-6:SO 46 2 2 5 2 0 4 I 0 6Z
6:SO-6:45 60 6 0 5 , , I 0 0 74
6:45-7100 90 2 3 9 2 0 7 0 , '"
7,00-71'5 ." 0 2 7 2 0 2 1 0 fJ
7,15-7ISO ". 2 2 6 4 0 4 0 1 1S7
7:SO-7145 '48 3 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 '62
1145-':00 '63 5 2 7 2 0 4 0 0 111S
':00-':15 1116 " , 2 3 0 3 0 0 Z06
':'5-':SO '4' '0 3 . 2 0 4 0 0 '61
':SO-':45 "4 4 3 7 I , 3 , 0 134
':45-9:00 'SO 9 3 '0 0 0 5 0 0 157
9:00-9:15 V7 3 2 . , 0 2 0 0 "3
9: 15-9:SO 131 . 5 . 0 , 5 0 0 158
9:SO-9:45 24' 9 . 6 , 0 4 I 0 Z70
9:45-10,00 '07 12 0 6 , 0 4 0 0 'SO
'0,00-'0,'5 '47 9 , 5 , 0 2 0 0 165
'0:'5-'O,SO '0' 2 , , . 0 0 4 0 0 "6
'O,SO-'O:45 '34 6 0 . , , 2 0 0 152
'0:45-":00 '37 7 2 " 0 0 4 0 0 '6'
'''00-''''5 '76 2 4 6 2 , S 0 0 ,,,
":'5-'h30 '54 4 2 7 2 2 4 , 0 176
1':SO-"145 '58 5 S '0 , , 6 0 , 185
",45-12,00 '116 0 2 7 0 0 3 0 0 '98
P_.. '2:00-12,'5 laa 5 2 9 3 I 5 0 0 2'3
12:'5-12:30 '76 '0 I 7 I I 3 0 2 20'
'2:SO-'2:45 ,,, . 0 6 2 0 2 0 0 ,,,
12:45-hOO ,." 7 0 7 2 0 4 0 0 ,,,
':00-'1'5 "7 . 6 5 . 2 S 0 I Z20
1:15-1:SO '55 . 2 5 , I S 0 0 175
':SO-"45 '54 9 S S '0 0 2 0 0 ,.,
'145-2100 '68 7 4 5 0 0 4 0 0 ,.
2,00-21'5 '71 5 , 6 4 , , 0 0 ,,,
2:'5'2ISO 'SO 6 S 5 6 , 2 0 0 ZllS
2130-2145 IllS 6 5 6 , 0 2 0 0 ZllS
2145-3100 211 5 3 10 2 2 , 0 0 ZS4
3100-3:'5 ZI2 5 2 2 2 , I 0 , 196
3:15-3ISO ZZ2 2 2 , 0 , I 0 1 ZSO
3ISO-3145 Z5S 3 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 J69
3145-4100 23' 2 , 2 0 0 0 0 0 Z36 "
4100-4:15 303 . 2 3 , 0 0 0 D 3'7
4115-4:SO ,. 4 2 2 , 2 0 D D '"
4:30-4145 ,,, , D J , , D D D 2D2
4145-5,00 ZD5 6 2 0 1 1 D D 0 ITS
51'5.5ISO 345 5 2 '4 , 0 0 0 0 m
51'5-5ISO 26' 7 2 6 0 0 D D D 216
5:SO-5145 Z25 5 5 . , 0 0 0 D 144
5:45-6:00 2'2 2 3 S 1 4 D D 0 Z25
6:00-6115 Z20 5 2 -", , 0 0 0 D 0 Z2I
.:,;....~
6115-6:30 '" 5 5 " 5 D 0 0 D Z25
toTAL 8534 Z66 120 ZP4 17 21 122 5 . "'"
/fd -79
~_.....",
;:
TAlLE II
TUHI C CI:LWT ITlIll
Ilol.11 ITIUT/HILLTCIP
"WESTICUID"
WS 2 3 IEllI'I IUSfI IIlTllICI'CLEI IELICIV LA SALLE IlIlCEIl TOTAL
PICI:-lI'I AXEL AXEL IUliUl
TIUCXS TIUCXS
A.H. 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 I 0 2 0 0 127
6:45-7.00 165 1 1 5 0 2 3 0 0 177
7.00-7.15 140 1 2 6 1 0 3 0 0 ,"
7.15-7.30 170 3 1 5 4 0 4 0 0 I..,
7:30-7.45 Z34 4 1 5 3 2 3 0 0 ZS2
7,45-.:00 300 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 307
.:00-.:15 174 7 3 10 1 0 . '0 0 Z03
.: 15-.:30 154 , 3 5 2 1 4 0 0 171
.:30-.:45 ,103 . 3 , 2 0 3 0 128
.:45-':00 197 7 3 . 2 0 2 0 21'
':00-9:15 114 7 4 9 I 1 6 0 142
':15-':30 151 10 2 5 0 0 I 0 '69
':30-9:45 142 . 3 6 2 0 6 0 167
9:45-10:00 II. 5 0 3 0 I 1 0 128
10:00-10:15 176 7 3 , I 0 5 0 201
10:15-10:30 99 5 3 3 0 0 2 0 112
10:30-10:45 135 4 2 5 I 0 3 0 150
10:45-":00 152 7 4 . 0 0 4 0 175
'1:00-1"'5 167 2 I 7 I 0 3 0 ,.1
11:15-11:30 143 3 4 10 0 I 4 0 165
11:30-1"45 169 3 I 7 1 I 2 1 185
11:45-12.00 161 6 I , 0 0 6 0 1 114
P.H_ 12:00-12:15 169 10 0 3 2 1 I 0 0 116
12:15-12:30 ,.1 . 2 7 0 0 3 0 0 201
12:30-12.45 I" 7 1 6 2 1 4 0 1 las
12:45-1:00 171 5 0 5 I 0 1 0 0 185
1:00-"'5 161 10 0 . 4 1 1 0 0 185
1:15-1:30 190 5 0 2 I 2 4 0 0 Z04
1:30-1:45 165 5 I 7 4 1 2 0 0 185
1:45-2:00 150 7 2 6 3 0 4 0 0 ln
2:00-2.15 175 12 I 7 4 1 3 0 0 Z03
2: 15-2:30 165 4 I 3 0 I 3 0 0 177
2:30-2.45 155 12 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 174
2.45-3:00 190 7 2 7 1 I 0 0 0 zoe
3.00-3.15 21. 4 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 ZZ7
3.15-3:30 ,., 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 196
3:30-3.45 174 , 2 5 2 0 I 0 0 193
3.45-4:00 176 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 t9Z ,
7 ,
4.00-4.15 Z40 5 3 I t t 0 I 0 ZS2
4:15-4:30 lsa 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 147
4:30-4.45 193 3 I I Z 2 0 0 t 2113
4:45-5:00 1119 4 1 3 0 0 I 0 0 t98
5.00-5.15 1119 3 . 0 4 2 0 o - 0 0 ' 198
5.15-5:30 Z09 , 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 ZZ6
5:30-5:45 leo 6 2 2 I 0 0 0 0 I"
5.45-6:00 168 5 I , .1 0 0 0 0 0 175
6:00-6:15 173 t I .:;:/~ '1 I 0 0 0 0 179
6.15-6:30 136 0 I , 3 0 0 0 0 '"
0
TOTAL 1219 Z71 .., 249 66 ZS 104 2 4 9OZ7
/I C) - "8'0
,
.
(,
,
i"-,
TAlLE III
1lIeWl' Of EXUTIIlG _ ~ TIIUCI: _ Of Mil mm
P.U.'S/ L''''t
cara .....
m
A. bl.tl,. 11M
,. _If Ie ....ferNUa "
2. Ity Tldtl,.
3. P.D.I.
4. .ant....
Total "
.. Project (tOllS Capec'ty) 100
(1) Indlcat.. '_1 wal"'t . 30,000 ,
(2) Indl cat.. ....... wal"'t . eo, 000 ,
(3) Indlcat.. ,...... wa''''t . 33,000 ,
(4) Indlcat.. ,.... wal"'t . 53,000 ,
o
IIerIy
"I'.
(2)
L1"'t
Traah
(3)
IIerIy
, Traah
(4)
Tot.1 Vahlel.. I Toul
"Total Tl'IIIIIIa.l'./TNCb..-n
12
71
16753
'686
IS IS '686
'686
D.5
5.9
n.5
2.3
'7.9
D.5
19.6
I of Total Wlhlel_
I of TraahI..I'a/TNCb..-n
" of TreahIa.I'l/Tl'\ICltIIIUIn
" of TreahIa.I'l/Tl'\ICltIIIUIn
I of Tr8IlIIa.l'l/Trucb..-n
I of Totll Vahlel..
I of T,.....,...../Trucb..-n
Ioto: The project..... rod exlltl,. ..... ... for . 24 hour dIy. ' The traffIc ClllI'It I. for . 12.5 hour daytl.. perIod.
For cOII"..I_ purpoa.., thl. ahould not dlltort thIH multi, "-wr It ahould be notad that _I _lltl,.
rod project ''PCt ... ~rMPa 251 I... than _ ahNI.
,.
17
30
95
IS IS '686
40
40
16753
'25 '25 '686
187 -.:
ESAI. Anllyal.:
! axl. Trlpa 5 axl. Trlpa Total ESAL
blltl,. 11M E..tboonI: IS 62 ','71,200
bl.tt,. 11M ....tboonI: IS 62 ','71,200
-tIlDI Project 11M hatboonl: '25 40 ',D48,900
,_ Project 11M ....tboonI: '25 40 ',~,900
Iota: Project UN I. antlclpatad .t I... than '0lIS of capacIty.
-.;,;../.:.....
/7:<-'6'(
"
.'
CIl'( IF CKLA VISTA PAeE 113
ys. - ~(\
. . ...
J:-
.. .
. .
~r..~_~...U'::.~ 'rn~r.~. .L.. ..
... .. --. . .... . _. . o' 4.o~o~
, tt:o .,. /s;-.y .,.~ _.-or . <; ,
- .=..~.BD'''''':~~...Y'J'' Ulo'-
rl -"
.. ~.{.~, 330 T;1-eU-'h?F, .....
(
.. __MISt::.. ~_70 J!-.P!' '.-I~~ ~l~~~~.
~ . . . . _ '0' f1i.o'-1.. :u.... ~~ \ '
, ~L..C,.fo, ..)
.l::if'-.'f4...Jc:.. ~~ \)~r <F.'>"t"l~~^~C?r= ~40\'V.'f
-
._ \ _... V S .:..E'tl ~,... ^ W =. 'i-of
-
""'";0 ~",c..-r-"f_~'" (~T",,,,..,. '-="' o...uc.
.......
-
.
.
--\.1W\ . '
10./7 -, I..
..- .-
-.
.o.
. -
...
.
~.-
-0. ,.
.
-? .
..... . ..--
-.. . -
... ..-... -.
./
__0-
."
~ ...........
.....
A;J - 'if d-.
'> -J tfA
,
lo-/V''j~('
"'8-1.95" \" '"".' ;(Yi?It.:rt..o(#'I-!/y/?t4NI...1d~
187 HAcS" ;5T.) c., v:
C.',;
/ , Z
53'Z.c::;;.
'7i3~ 8"
'. ..: L ~ .
."
;) hU>I--f ~ C; c /2 E:Pul'1.r 1 Q \ 0 @ 5> rc= - .I 072.. cp,> ,
;/. p. =- 507 I)..{ SL. 't., L. f _- 7 Q' D / L == /G, ot7'O' (?;41..I-dZ.oA 0 t3~.sflJ )
" -r:. = 0.'11 h..r. .-v s4 HtN. ~ "L-I." 12" Q , '>"'$ F"
' , -;-- -= , J' ~ ("vo == (,..() c ~
. 'Ie.~, Ii 11,;/" I o.3gS' L. "" '
\.',.; j (h'l4-1 CJfvtA )lISI)[ "NI=-.JJ/T"/ pvP.1t~c....,.
G:1f'Ac:/yY 6'F Cf(~J,J~ oFf- ~.sr __it
~/N. &/7""' w/OT1{ -: 71 .,;J;;,,:: "Z4,-;;1 ) i)6."I"n.t= 7.~'
..'fAt1lE)~ = liS s.F. ) 5AY A:=. /00 $."-, HIN,
S." /. zS'''o ) P '2 '31.~ .; r::: ~: 4.~' J' J-1 = 0.0'3.'3 HM. .
f.4~ '" r~ s~t. ,(B~ ,03 -.o.\.r,
,.. QCAr", -= ./'"' =/3 Z'2..c..FS kINfH'wIH.. /
lA Ol?. /l."!G. cFS W(!! ',0
uP5nzOJ)...( ~ Dl>--JN~nZtDJ'^-f /S, t::,(ltrXre:fZ-) . "f
OVc;!:)'lFw:>c..J ~, ~ oc..c..utL CE Q ''''d .- .f:TiP
,J.-tvo F. B. hnLQS/) :=. () ,s;: '7 t J....(,N -cI--
z..) 5, rr=: is {.A.J /77'1-oJ J,-, 0 S,o,...J i>,ASfN.J ;4.......;evC11- <:1174. y 12/1/ 81- n
E.5Se..--ru-r/A <-<-V Aj)JI'\C(~:JJ;- J/4N./) /tTC.. tVArvlZ*'- C-I-N4NJ../c!:Z.. IS
CAPAt3/....G: cr= T)4(::J,uG AP.oI1.,..~AJ.+<-FLOv.:>.J =SI'cZZ:.1A-<<-'1 SHA-<-<-
Qv,(Nnrf~ AI VC!::rly t-or.-J 771--t~ ~ ~J"JC(Do..J7'1l..;4"rt-oA.J',
,'_ S':>"'" a: D, v c:n.s'o-VN fJ+-<-M /2..>->4. 0 iJASI,v IS Aca:t'~et..E.
I r;;. ) ?o::>t.. ArrACtk:o rNo,e.o-Lor.:...., t- TOfo tn="-$tn::"" \
- .' ..., .
~ASIN A I~ NtrO.~'1 A/Vr:) we.mtl..'l ?cl-'{'T'<-'>tJ ",""F r.l..<>,I'.m-r~ A.I,J~
\\ VAA,;..J~NA't"Y~ 1-0 HAcs- sr, :
A =-' l.77 Ac.. . .J. C.~ 0.'1.,' )L. .=3,O'/{nz, ,;:;'t.. .k,;,). T~..,
(U."C.,1..0V,c:. '1/vC: -f.r, 'V.i.v,...,i ~"'\,,( 'ioy.;,) :.' Q -=-' 4. ~ :::'F5 ;0 h'AC
" ,-
DAS,}oj ~ FL-,:,v..Js
Lv....'.';.€:.) 0.3 Ac...\
C,ltp ,A c., ry
o,lo..J'-y NrAJo/L.
O-v ~\.. 6A}VI'- A. r P i2.~SL!'r-J i
c:. ~ 0.9 J L:- 3,o'J;k,. =)
To
D ItA' I\.u\ c.~
Q ': O.eCFs
100...__
.. ~
I~AS(/J c.... Yfl....NS A Clt.-o~~ ~ :5o'-''fTt<\'t.L'I ~r L1 '-'~ G>"-'lV
,~ AO~((i"", ?IL.:>~~,-<-Y. DuE~' 11'-.lC.1l-~H~i) {r(\!'''')('- ,oF
f'/io..J'E~Y--A,l.€ll. l"r/ s P~r'()~~ f3 !/l vEl1.r ~T" V,t.,4,lvl.fle:
/ .
y; ~ .iJJz..A'Jo.J/\r,rE: U<J(tSe.. At 7'7'tE: 5","I'R'Ol\r !1t-oPo!.ll'fY
c(),1..J....t~,.L: A = 2.~ Ac.) C. ~ 0 ,9) L = ~,o into /I ;) -<t3
(''''C.IlL!::r.~~ V'-'t: ~ ~VII'-'(.. ~ 2,7 Cn.
Q'
, -
10(;) -
b.BCF5
.--:::.
'>< .
,
-
,
(~
(,
SKY /iZucK..1J..
;(YtJlt:..:)LOG 'I ~YtJl/fir.AJc..S ~J
/8'7 HA&'~r c, V-
I
10 -Iv- 9S'"
~
~IE''-i !? OK.y TilUCKJNC (A/I"'~.).
~W.~ . C2 ,Q.oo &oJ ml Y1::. O.O~~
'-w.~.eQso
lAJIT4 1.11::. 0.0>>
( o. ..: Co I F. \5, ).
/,<.
c/uZ.nt AND ;Zv/3/5c..E:"
.,::>=~ S'/(Jc= Sl..OPc (tYP.)
~/",,",'- .
~ 0::.~7""VEi:l..Y U)..J/~ ,eo,<..,/.t4e:ru:p
, W t3 6 u;;;- C/h(,/o/N&l.. &m>H
~-
CtMNk.Jt;L 6ec.nD-'\.J (HIN.).,
(I. to I
VlE"w U?.5Ti2C7'J-J..{ G AI iy It.
~.
, .
w ~ \1\::. .o3S
/,W.~.QQI_.O
\....w,-:,.C2 QSO('1-\~.o3s-2
(2, Z' F.B.)
00>00 A::)Cl 0
X 5< ><''X: ......,....'>(
:
,
G 170 Soun.l 6F-N.~.
(HAr'l.. AS A6uve).
II d- -Fc(
,...or"::.........::......... :::_'-'_"-
-.
-=1=C -
,u
,-, .' I E
.__' f..--'
~,~::~~~'; i
-' '= .~,
-A-
10<'...(....
E..: "-~ .",
i L C
.... ....~-7-._--:---
S;~E ....Eo..
CLOSED.CELL BLOCK
~;:;=/"~ 1
-U:::;::::::':1r B
J ,~. w____~ I
- ....~i. : :"':'""':""_-..
/. \
:011 .
\
10:
, '"
END VIEW
rITTI\ b
bi\'iJ+-:-:N j
SlOE VIEW
-A~
ToP VIEW
:ESEARCH & DESIGN
nce 1980, Nicolon has initiated
ld participated in a wide range of
search projects to evaluate the
Jrformance of Armorflex. including
e following:
Tetratech model tests - California,
U,S,A,
Leylstad field trials, Netherlands-
Rijkswaterstaat Directorate of the
Zuiderzee Project, 1982.
-'
,......lliIUill~^ OIU(;1"\. .:;,tJt:l,;!lil,;Gi.lujl~ \..1'ipICal YCiIUt::;;,j
-
Specific I Compressive I , mlnal ~ Gress I
l J::rete I : ~nSjons Area' : Bloc, Weiihl" !Open
,
...Iock Weight St"nglh I Maximum '-- n, Blo~k I iArea
,
Class i Ibs./tu" II. Ibs./sq. in. Absorption A i B I C sq_tt ! Ibs. !lbs.lsG_tt.1 .
"
S.CIJSS 13~S ~ 130,150 4DDD 12lbs_.Icu tl '30 1'16 4 75 I 0 98 31-36 , 32'37 I 20
I
Open Cell I 50S I 130-150 4000 12lbs"cu tl 13.0 116 60 098 45-52 I 4553 I 20
S.C12SS 455 I 130.150 4000 12lbs ,.leu 11 130 116 4i5 093 31-45 40,45 I 10
Closed Cell 555 I 130-150 4000 12lbs)cu ft 130 116 6.0 098 53-61 54-62 10
40 I 130-150 4000 121bslcu II 174 15.5 4.75 1.77 6nl 35-40 20
fOPen) 50 130.150 4000- ll!-Ibs " ,15,5- ' 6,0 1.77 81-94 46.53 20
.," ~tti
60 130-150 4000 121bsJcu. It 17.4 15.5 7,5 1.)7 99-113 56-64 20
70 I 130-150 4000 12lbs./cu, tl, 17.4 15,5 9,0' 1.77 120,138 68-78 20
45, 130'150 4000 121bsJcu,lt, 174 15,5 4,75 177 78-89 4J.50 10
Closed 55 130-150 4000 12lbs./cu, It. 17.4 15,5 6,0 1.77 94,108 53,61 10
Cell 75 130-150 4000 12lbs./cu, It. 17,4 15,5 7,5 1,77 120-138 68-78 10
85 130-150 4000 12lbs./cu, tl, 17.4 15,5 9,0' 1.77 145-167 82-95 10
~
. Block height may vary by approximately O.5~ based on local manufacturer's capabilities.
.. Block weight may va?, by 2% based on t~e specific gravity of locaffy available aggregate n'!sterial..
3, Wave Attack Tests, Report No.
M 1910 - 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. Li and Associates, Inc..
November 1988,
8, "Hydraulic Stability of Articulated
Concrete Block Revetment
Systems During Overtopping Flow,"
FHWA Rep01t-RD-89-199 prepared
by SimOlls.Li and Associates, Inc.,
JulyA1389.
//
Research Proven Performance
Nicolon has carried out extensive
research into wave and open channel
flow conditions on Armorflex in the
Uriited'States and the Netherlands, '
Design manuals and computer pro-
grams are available to assist in the
proper Armorflex block selection for
your hydraulic conditions, Design rec-
ommendations can thus be made on
the basis of specific research data
and sound engineering principles,
ARMORFLEX@
GEOPRODUCTS COMPANY
P,O, Box441, 7367 NocheTepalia. Rancho Santa Fe. CA92067
Tel: 619 756-3050 FAX: 619 756-0264
JIM FISH, PH.D.
EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE ST ASILlZA TlON PRODUCTS
. ARMORFLEX
. ARMOR FORM
. ARMORLOC
..........-,...-
/1;)-<6:;-
. GEOBLOCK
. GEOWEB
. GEOTEXTILES
,~:'f...Cl.ur....1.ll.AJ_L!:.
Cellular Concrete Block
Revetment System
-T
GEOPRODUCTS COMPANY
..__f:.O:"k:._.~_L
-AUG--08-19SS 17:24 r;=oux 8. RSSOC.
~ ;;;~;";.;;';;;~c;;;..l=;,
t-". ,-.,~
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 prelilllinar'
plans for the proposed construction of a municipal solid waste
(MSW) materials recovery facility/transfer station (MRF/TS at 10.""
Hace 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 for reference.
OUr recommendations covered three' areas as follows:
1. Mechanical ventilation of the MRF/TS 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
counter-reactant (OCR) could be added for additional
control, and;
O~r....
~-,
odo~'
3. Compliance with city of Chula Vista noise standards fre,:
,operation'of'-any lIIechanical equipment and from on-sit:
operations of,trucks and lIIaterial~ handling equiplllent.
Subsequent to 'our evaluation, we received a more detailed facilit'.,
description and site drawings frOlll Mr. Pat Lawrence of seE;
Engineers. We also conducted a site visit on August 4, 1995 t~
view existing truck terminal operations.
,OUr observations and recommendations are as follows:
~l.
~
'I'he building orientation relative to prevailing winds wi:'
miniMize odor escape thrOUgh the access doors.
/l d-- - ?i~'
17744 Sky hrkCirck. Suite 110. /rvizN:, QIifonu. 92714 . PboiJe (114) 8J/-8009 - Pu (7/<1) 8JI.g6/~
'H~U~-~~~~ ~('L~
j,. :-"U"';/, c. i-i..:;):;,.v......
,..::..:::
,-,
-2-
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 ITS wil;
preclude any noise nuisance potential"
OUr recommendations for any specific permit conditions are a'J
follows:
1. Four (4) of eight (8) rOll-Up doors shall remain normalJ~
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 tr~
MRF/TS is not operating.
4. 'I'he mechanical ventilation system shall be continually operat,:,;:
at one-third or more capacity if any readily biodegradebl_
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 of
dirt "track-out" onto Hace Street shall be removed by washil-,';;
or sweeping at the conclusion of each workday.
6. A misting system for dust control shall be installed capable c.f
maintaining average dust levels of less than 5 mg/m' 1n ares:,:
of public or on-site employee exposure. 'I'he system shall
/lCJ.. -?7
-. --..',---<-.- -.._._-._-_..__.__...---'--------_.....~.
,AUG-B8-1995 17:25
GIROUX & RSSOC.
P. ~,__
1,-
-3-
contain provisions to add an odor counter reactant (OCR) to be
activated when refuse odor is detectable beyond the propert;'
line. Sufficient OCR shall be maintained on-site to supply the
system for 48 hours at chemical feed-levels recommended by tr.e
OCR manufacturer.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosea
materials.
sincerely,
., .
(~b..~
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Assooiates
HDG:ai
/1d~f~'
.;. ;~
''":S>.. -,.
Initial lJIpact Evaluation
(submitted February ~, 1995)
..... --.,
',-,.....
/1:2-5"9
~
AJr<l6-199S 17:25
GIRD:..D<& PS$X.
C.
p,~s
IIACE STREET TRAJlSFBR STATlOH
JfUI:SAJlCE IKPACT 1'U'xMTIAL
~
Odor is a common characteristic of retuse handling and disposal.
Refuse odor formation is a complex process which depends on the
nature of material undergoing preliminary decomposition as well as
the envirollllental factors that afrect chemical or biOlogical
process rates. Factors artecting the reaction rate include
moisture, temperature, acidity, oxygen supply, and several other
rate-controlling IKIchaniSlll$. No two containers or reruse typically
have an identical mix ot waste, and certainly do not have the
identical set ot odor-formation physical and chemical parameters.
The normal'process of odor formation is for amino acidS to bagin
decompOsition very quickly. Nitro-orqanic and sulfo-orqanic
compounds typically create the IDOst offensive odors' during early
stages or 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 offenllive odorants in typicaJ. HSW. During early
stages or refuse deoomposition, most biochemical ,processes 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
orten creates hydrogen sulfiC1e with its rotten egg odor, as well as
forming volatile organic acids that have a sickly sweet oC1or
character. A bag of wet grass clippings, for example, _y begin to
compost soon after being cut with rapid heat formation and oxygen
depletion that quiCkly leads to a musty 5IIell. If those same
clippings are aerated by being disperseC1 uong,other material, odor
will be minimal as long as the process remains aerobic.
In addition to a very complex character of refuse odor, people's
odor nnsitivity/acuity varies froJll person to person and even by
time of day in the slllle person. Odor quantification attempts to
overcome this problem by using a group of people in any odor
evaluation (called an "odor panel") anC1 assiqning the odor
threshold to that concentration of odorant vben one-half of the
panel can detect the odor. Odor strength is quantified by
measuring how much dilution with clean air is requireC1 to reach the
threshold. The dilution ratio is calleCI the nWllber of "odor units.
in the air sample, or the "dilution to threshold" (D/'1') ratio.
Thus, if one cuDic foot of air with a reooqn!zable odor requires !I!I
cubic feet of additional clean air to dilute the sample enough for
one half of the odor panel to no longer detect the odorant, the air
slllllple would contain 100 odor units, or' it would be a 100 DfT
sample.
- ';J. ..... .____ ~..-~--:.,:;: ...,..",-':-.;a .-___'^'z. '.;I..~""""nV'1;"UWTW iiC,....'"y-
generation exceeding 90 dB at J feet without a propa9ation
barrier between the source and the receiver.
./"
/1;2.-10
,
TOTR.. P. 0S
RLG-0a-1995 17: 26
r; IROUX & RSSOC.
p.e,
-2-
At 2-4 OfT, odor is still very faint and people are often not
consciously aware of any' nuisance. At 5-7 D/T, odor beqins to
intrude into human consciousness and people with good olfactory
acuity can often recoqnize the type of odor being encountered. If
the odor is unpleasant, 5-7 D/T is generally the threshold at which
people may begin to complain about the odor. At 10 DIT, the
complaint frequency begins to increase noticeably. The nuisance
rule in the California Health and Safety code as used by the San
Diego APeD in its nuisance rule (Rule 51) defines odor nuisance as
one that irritates or annoys "any considerable number of people".
At 10 OIT, the considerable nUlllber of people criterion is generally
considered to be met. For example, the South Coast AQMD in its
"CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (1993) specifies a 10 OIT level as the
odor ,threshold const! tuting a potentially significant impact.
Thus, a reasonable target level. for lIIinimizing odor impacts is 5
OIT, and a significant impact woul'd occur if an odor level exceeds
10 O/T. These threshold levelS are the recommended significance
criteria used to evaluate odor impact potential.
Any odorant released into the atmosphere undergoes natural dilution
by turbulent processes during transport from the source to the
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 HRF/Ts wil.l result from three
primary,$ources, i.e.,
.
Tipping- floor and processing lines for municipal solid
waste recycling
Storage of ,residuals .(non-recyclables) awaiting disposal
.
. ~ .- - -, - .
.' ,Handling of yard,waste materials'
..
Each activity haS somewhat,different odor characteristics. Given
further the imprecision in' quantifying odor, and its associated
nuisance ' potential, . 'determining the size of the odor ilDpact
-envelope" around a MRF is difficult. . Environmental documentation
for .everalproposed HRFs in southern California contend that odor
impact potential is negligible. The contention is based on project
design characteristics and on odor monitoring experience at several
existing KRFs. -
/i:2-9(
"
RUG--B2-1?95 17 : Z7
r, I ROUX & RSSGC.
P.c
(
-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 D/T at 30 feet from the downwind
edge of the facility. (TRC Environmental Cons., Odor Study for
Monroe, WA Transfer station, 1991.) This measurement 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 lIlore stable weather conditions,
odor levels were estimated to be' up to three times higher.
However, the peaks were associated with yard waste that was
beginning to compost on site. Tripling the IlIOre typical 5 D/T
level observed from. the refuse tipping and sorting brings the
observation very close to the Monroe observations. '
An odor strength of 20, O/Twastherefore: used as a basis for
evaluating impact potential for the proposed Chula vista MRF/TS:
Emissions were assumed to derive either from a dispersed, ground-
level source (a tipping floor with multiple door openings), or frolf'
a roof-top ventilation system.
The EPA first-level computer dispersion model SCREEN was used to
compsre 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 D/T odor to
the 10, O/T significsnce threshold level. If, however, the same
amount of odorant is released from a rOOf-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-enclosec1 MRF
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 sugqests, that theHRF/TS would not create a significar.t
odor impact if the rOOf-top ventilstion system maintains adequate
exhsust velocity/negative pressure to, capture the bulk of any
odorous emissions. Final design and sizing ot' the' systelll to
aeeo_odate odor control has not been completed. If the truck
access/exit ramp, and door is 'in, the lee of the builcUnqCfacing
away from the prevailing onshore winds, we believe that' an averaga
inflow veloei ty ot 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: "
"j ... ,~
,
CFM - opening size (sq. ft.) X 60
/td -qd-.
~"-'....--u;:;:-...:;;;:;; ~ (.~;;;:,
U~K'-"'-"'''' ..;... r';;:"~--,,--.
r.t...';;
~)
-4-
~
DulIlping the contents of refuse trucks on the tipping floor and
moving the,' materials t.o sort for ,. recyglables 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
will sett.le out within the building on workers .and equipment.
. ,-"-
The Current. state of the art in transfer station dust control is
through a water mist system. water is sprayed under very high
pressure (= 1000 psi) through nebulizin9 nozzles. '!'he tiny wat.er
droplets agglomerate the suspended dust and cause it to settle out.
faster wi thin. the transfer station. Chemicals can be added t.o the
water for odor control. These chemicals have'~" in the past, been
mainly deodorizing agents such as pine or citrus concentrates. A
number of proprietary odor counter-reactants have been marketed in
the last few years. Dust control may therefore have an odor
control benefit with the addition of such Odor-reducing agents.
Boise
Noise levels J from' trucks accessing the site will not be
Substantially different than from the historic use of the site as
a truck terminal. Any noise iDpact differences. would be due to on-
site noise generation.
"New" on-site noise sources would be from waste unloading' or
loading activities, or from Dechanical equipment associated wi~~
nuisance abatement. Loading/unloading is primarily associated wi t~:
hydraulic systems to dump the packer trucks and to load the.
residuals disposal, trailers. SOllie 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 try, the, solid
walls of a transfer station is 40 dB, such that peaks would be only
marqinally."detectable al!d ,averages not ~t all with the existing
baCkground' noise: environlll~t ~ ,. Audibility would only occur, along
the side of the building with.the't.ruck access opening. '.Xf ,there
is "a direct. . line . of ,sight frOD the equipment to an ort-site
receiver,. attenuation byspherical"spreadin9 would produce noisG
levels of 70 dB peak/60 dB average. However, ,because trucks will
generally not dump their loads illllllediately adjacent to the access/
egress door, their:direct,line of si9ht. to any off-site receive~
llIay be blocked even'in the.direC?tion of the door itself.. Average
/1;)-93
-
RUG-08-1995 17:29
, ,.., r RO.D< & RS5OC.
t.
P.2--
-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-site, .noise sensitive uses, we
would not anticipate that noise standards 'would be violated even if
it did.
Mechanical equipment noise Day 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 fan housing
is partially enclosed. CalcUlation was made of the spreading loss
between the equipment and the nearest residence at ,600 feet from
the source. The SUlII of the spreading loss plus the standard (using
45 dB a5 the most stringent standard) is the allowable upper bOund
on fan noise expressed as follows:
45 dB (standard) + 46 dB (sprellding loss)
_ 91 dB (Daximum 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 ground vibration.
~ftdations: .' -: :
~, .,','..
1. Ventilation', SY5telll$ shall be:, sized, to' maintain an, average
inf,low of 1 foot per second on any bUi.ldi,ng openings.
"
2.
A water lIist dust control system shall be installed with the'
option to add deodorants or odor counter-reactants to, the
water, if necessary.
3. -.-
Mechanical, equipment lIounted outdoors shall. not have noise
generation exceeding' 90 dB at 3 feet without a propagatio!'l'
barrier between the source and the rClcei ver .
/!:J.-9cj
TOTI'1L ;o.~
MAR-09-S6 10.09 FROM.SO CAL_~OlL TESTING
/: ~
",
"..,pC
~
10lB18 2E!.0 4717
,
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY --
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
(PHASB I . ESA)
187 MACB STREET
CHULA ~A, CAIlFORNIA
SUBMu J..bI.) TO:
SKY TRUCKING.
412 CROSBY STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92113
,. SUBoou U:.1) BY:
SOUTHERN~OR.NIA SOn. AND TESTING, INC.
. .-.. ,..,,, ~......-
6280 RIVERDALB STREBT
'.--' ... - ~ : - ._ t_ ,
SANDIEGc>. CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing ProfessloMl Erlgineering Services Since 1959
fl;J.-9S-
'T
PAGE
2/23
KAR-0B-SS le.1Q FROM.SO CAL ~~IL TaSTING
: (
. " ~ SOllIHERN CALIFORNIA"
. .-
':, .." SbILknsrING,INC.
. "
.,..... 6210 RmrdaIeS....s... DitF. CA 92120
EO. Boo fiXI027, Su ~ CA '21~
61~321,FAX619-~17
IDdilS 2913 4717
PACE 3/23
~.'
March 9, 1996
Sky Trucking
412 Crosby Street
San Diego, California 92113
SCS&T 961.3010
Report No. 1
SUBJEcr:
Report of Prelimirwy Environmental Site Assessment (phase I . ESA),
187 Mace Strcel, OluIa Vista, California.
';:
Gentlemen:
In response to the ~uest of Mr. James Algert of Algert Engineering and our Proposal
No. 96S054, we have petfonned a PIdiminaxy Environmental Site Assessment ~ 1-
ESA) of the subject property to assess the polelltial presence of hazardousItoxic maIcrials. .
Our study was limited to a site .econnaissanc:e and a. miew of avana~le information.
SuIface/subsurface sampling or tesling of soil, water, or o1he:r c..ba.l!!OI1S materla1s was
not within the scope of this study.
We urge you to read the mtiIe report and to amtact the undeISi:ned with any questions
: "" or ~cems you lI12.y bave ~g to this report.
.-
A p~ I ESA com.prises a nUl1lbet of indi~dual elements whose basic nanm, and extent
are dclemlined in accordance with the standard of care applicable to PhllSC I ESAs. The
standard of care is commonly defined as the care applied by the ordinary practitioner at
the time and in the area where the BSA was performed. We believe that we have
..,. ... ...- "..
/1<:2 ~q0
MAR-0S-S6 10.10 FROM.SO CAL -OIL TESTING
l
10,619 2P- 4717
PAGE
4/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
complied with the applicable standard of care and that we have complied as well with
Phase I ESA practices and service scope elements recommended by the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Note that our services Intentionally did not include
any inquiries with Il;;$peCt to asbestos, radon, methane, wetlands or any other ancillary
ba22rdous materi.a1s or conditions.
The accompanying ~rt is an instrument of =vice of SCS&T. The rqx>rt summarizes
our findings and relates our opinions with n:spec:t to the potential for hazardous mau:rlals
to exist at the site at levels likely to warrant mitigation PUISlWlt to eunent guidelines
regulatcd by the County of San Diego 8ZlMor the State of California. Note that our
findings and opinions are based oninformatif)ll that we obtained on given dates, through
records r=view, site review, and related activities. It is poSSl"le that other information
~sts or subsequently has become known, just as it is possl"le for conditions we observed
to have changed after our observation. For these and associated reasons, SCS&T and
many of its peers routinely advise clients for ESA services that it would be a mistake to
place unmerited faith in findings and opinions conveyed via ESA reportS. SCS&T cannot
under any circumstances warrant or guarantee that not finding indicators of any panicular
hazardoUs material means that this panicularhazarc10us material or any other hazardous
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 p1cascd to provide more information in this tegard.
..
R~tful1y SU:b~i~~,. . .,
SOUI'HERN.CALlFORNIA SOlI: AND~G~ INC.
.-~ .-.. ;-,' . -' - "-'-' .: ",-.. .
:
".'
...
Curtis R. Burdett CBG 11090
CRB:cro
cc: (4) Submitted
/I:2-q7
....
~
MAR-ea-as le,11 FROH,.O cAL
',5C. ;
":r ...
" ,
~ .,'
.. .,'
'..
~
:
!
L TSGTI NG
ID,alB 2Be ( 7
PACE ./23
SOU11lERN CAl..lfOllNlAt
SbIL,\ 'IES'ItNG, INC.
CO RmrdaIeStrlet, Sul Iliefo, CA 92120
EO. BlIl600627. Su ~ CA '21~
61'~21.FAX619-2l1)..(717
.~)
REPORT OF PREI...lMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SIr.E ASSESSMENT
EXISTING COMMERCIAL SITE
. 187 MACE STREET
CHDLA VISTA. CALlFORNIA
-,
INTRODUCTION
This !epOrt is an Wll'IUlICI1t of service of SCS&T. The ~rt ~ts the results of a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessrn=t (ESA) of tho subject site, ped'o.med for Sky
Tnlcldng. The services perfonned included limited research, a review of specified
listings, and a site =naiSSl"ce.
A Phase I ESA is conducted to pennit fonn~on of an opinion as to the potential for
hazardous materials to exist at a site at levels likely 10 wmant mitigation pursuant to
re:u1ations 'of the CoWlty of San Diego Hazatdous Mate:iaIs Management Division and
defined. by the California Code of ReguIalions, Opinions telative to the Iw:ardous
materials polelltial given in this rqxnt lIe based upon informa%ion derived from the most
r=t site l""""""";$S&Dce and from other actiVities ~ herein. The client is
herewith advised that the COIlditions ~ by SCS&T lIe subject to change. Certain
~ '. . -., ." . '-:' -':"'....:-, :;i _ .....l '-. " ..~.:... _ .
. indiClltOI$ of the presence of huatdous materials may have been ~ at the time of the
. . ,
mOst IeCetlt site IeCOl'Ill3issan and may subsequently have become obscnab1c. . In a
similar manner, the research effort conducttd for a phase I ESA is limiled.. Accordingly,
it is possible that SCS&T's research, whl1e 1Ully appropria1e for a Pl1asc 1 PSA, failed to
indicate the existence of iDlpo.tlnt infonnation sources. Assuming such soun:es actually
/I J.- - 9 ~ on -,., .---. '-.-_. ..
HAR~08-8S le.ll FROM.50 CAL_SOIL TESTING
10.S18 2~_~ 4717
PACE 8/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996 .
Page No.2
exist, their information could nOl have been considered in the formulation of SCS&T's
findings and opinions.
In essence, a Phase I ESA is a service ~ose basic elements are determined by the
$l2I1dard of ~ prevailing at ,the time the service was rendered in the area where it was
rendered. ,. Because st3nQards of care can be identified only thIOugb retrospective inquiry,
. '. ,-., ~. . ", . >, ,..... ". , .., .
, SCS&T ~ assumed that. th~ .st3n~ of. care iSarticu1atr:d by American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard lSlS27.
" Problems.have arisen in, ~e,,~. ~n..., people. ~d orpni22tions have assumed,
improperly, that they could rely on a Phase I ESA report developed for another party. So
there is no confusion in this mpeet, recognize that Sky Trucking is the only intended
beneficiaJ:y of this repon. Reliance on this ~ by any party other than Sky Trucking
could possibly result in reliance on assumptions whose extent and natutc would distort the
meaning and impact of the findings and opinions reIa.ted herein, in turn resulting in
misinterpretation of these findings and opinions and unwise actions based on those
misinterpretations. SCS&T'S findings and opinions presented in this report may not be
relied on by any party except Sky Trucking.' With the consent of our client, SCS&T is
available to contract ~th other ~tties ~ d~elop findings and opinions related .specifically
to such other parties' unique risk management concerns.
'. ...:..-
The guidelines used to define "hazardous xnaterials" were obtained from the California
Code of Regulations. For th~ ~ses of mu. report, the wvicinityw of the site is defined
as 910perties lOcated within an ~ximate one ha1f-~e to. ono-~ .~ius of the ~te.. "
. . . . :. .
. -
.,.:.:;.::__.~ ,;. '.
~;~- . .'. "..~. .,_.:. ~""-~. ;;:.':~ ::~,:;.
.," ;:-
- .r'-
. -...--. ..-,.'
.-'- .~-" " ".~'"
SCOPE OF SERVICE
. .:.. .~"i. .- t.. ~:-_'~'...
The scope of our setviteS included th~ following:
~ -- ..- '.. -. .. - .
/1;)-Qc;
T
~R~09-8S 10.12 FROM.SO cAL~~'L TESTING
I....
10,818 2P~ "717
PAGE
7/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
~,
Page No.3
1) Performing a visual reconnaissance of the exterior areas of the property for the
presence of noticeable gasoline, petroleum products, or other obvious toxic
materla.ls.
2) Identifying properties within a close proXimity to reveal any uses that may be
sigcificantly hazardous to the subject site. Available governmental zeeords wefe
reviewed for information amcem1ng the Ploperty or neighborlng sites.
3) Contacting various pertinent governmental agencies, reviewing applicable lists,
filCs,etc., with reg8rds to any specific information pertaining to the subject site.
** fEDERAL SOURCES '
- National Priority List (NPL)
CERCLIS (CC)
NFRAP (NF)
Federal Facilities (FF)
. Emergency ResponSe Notification System (ERNS) ,
Site Enfo~ent nacldng System (SE)
. .ElIforcementDoclcCt SyStem (DOCKET/CDErS)
RCRA
- Resource Conservation Recovery Information Systems (RCRIS)
Superf\ind Liens (UENS)'
Federal EnfOri:einCrit Do'-"'..t~ (FD) ,',
.......J.
:
."
.,
-, -:~~..<; ,.... ': .' ~<,-.:: ,-.
~ "', " -,' ," ".
. -'~ . .
>,- ,",
.
~ '::.':/;:
-.. .
** .CALlFORNIA STATE SOURCES .
- Annual Worle Plan (BP) (previously known as Bond Expenditure Plan)
CALSITES (previously known as Abandoned Sites Program
,-, -." .
Information System)
Ba2:ardous Waste and Substance Sites List (CORTESE)
. Leaking T.Jndergrouitdsumge Tanks (L'I)
Solid Waste Information System (SS)
/ld. -100
MAR~0S-BS 10,13 FROM.SO CAt OIL TESTING
'-
10.919 2 4717
. SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
. AB1803 Follow-Up Program
- California Department of Conservation
- Division of Oil and Gas
.... REGIONAL SOURCES
Underground Tank listing (LUSTS)
- Toxic Relf'l" (Nl)
- Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (l'CPCA)
Solid Waste Test Program (SWAT)
. Spills, Leaks; Investigation and Cleanup (SUe)
- Well Investigation Program W1P (ABl803)
- Hazardous Waste Information System (HWIS)
.... SAN DIEGO COUNTY HMMD LISTINGS
- BE 58 Listing
- BE 17 Listing
- Environmental Assessment Listing
... OPERATING PERMITS
. RCRA Generators (RN)
,. . RCRA-TSD Facl1ities em)
SARA TItle m, 8ectipn:~13 (SA} ,..,. .
Nuclear ~ Commi~oti Licensees' (Nc)
. PCB Handlers Dil<>l:lase (PB) ,
- Permit Comp]iance System (PC)
- AIRS Facility System (AF)
;: " ..' SeCtion seVen TraCking System (PE)
(.., :-, ~ ~ : _ _ _ _' ", r. ,
~"-'FIFRAJTSCA :rrackini System (Fl)
- Fede:a1 Facilities Information System (F'SIS)
/ld-!CJ(
o
'''---'-+
PAGE 6/23
Page No.4
, ,
SCS&T 9613010
IAR-~8-B6 10,13 FROM,SO CAL ~ "L TESTINC
l
Page No.5
ID.6IB 281'1 -'0717
PACE
6/23
March 9, 1996
Chemicals in Commerce Information System (CI)
FINDS EP A Facility Index System (FN)
Hazardous Waste Information System (HW)
- Underground Storage Tanks (Ul)
-
OTHER SOtIRep..';
- San Diego County Agrieu1tuta1 Commission
. Restricted and Non-Restricted Permit Review
- San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&:E)
- San Diego County Air Quality MlII1agement District
- Fire Department
- Building Department
- W~ and Sewer Agencies
4) Analyzing available published maps, photographs or published material
pertaining to the subject site or immediate localized area.
..
City of Chula Vista
- Sewer and Drainage Maps
San Diego County
- Aerial Photographs
- Topographic Maps
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
- ~erial Photog~hs , . ,
. UnitCd S~ Geological SIJI'Ve)' (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,
'."~' ;:~;..,./". .
- ~- '.':. ....,- '
/J d-- - I () d-.
MAR~09-96 10.14 FROM,SO cAL_SOIL TESTING
ID.619 2S0 4717
PAGE 10/23
SCS&T 9613010
I....
March 9, 1996
Page No.6
6) Reviewing any other pertinent data (soils. geotechnical. environmental, etc.)
provided by client, pertaining to the subject site potential for hazardous material
contamination.
7) Perfcrming an assessment as to whether present or past cwners cr tenants have
stOred, treated, cr discbarg=i ha:z:arctous rnate:rials or waste.
8) Reviewing the site ownership and site tenant information to help identify past
owners or lellants that may have used hazardous mate.:rials.
LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT
It should be noted that the scope of a preliminary environmental 'site assessment ncrmally
does not include analysis for asbestos, ndOD, lead paint, methane gas or other ancillary
hazardous material stUdies within any existing on-site str\ICtures or exterior of property.
The findings and cpinions conveyed via this ESA report are based cn information obtained
from a variety of sources enumented herein, and which SCS&T believes are reliable.
Nonetheless, SCS&T can not and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the
information it has rec:eived. '
~, ' :
. .. .I ~ '-., '"'; .~".
,"
.'
. . . . .....
ThiS report is ~ot a' coinprehensive Site dwacterizaticti ~d mould no.t be construed as
, '
suCh:'.lbc' opinions' presented in this ~ are based on findings derived from a site
" IeCOnlIili <$ll"ce, a review cf specified regulatory' xecords and historical sources, and
comments made by interViewccs.' SCS&T has found indiCB.tOts that suggest that hazardous
',,;,..t"';ll.lS eldst at the site at,leVels likely to warrant mitiption; the mitip%ion measures
currently utilized include proper hanclling and disposal of ba%ardous materials and lor
, '" hazardous waste~, - - .., "
.A d. -I {)3
'''''''"-'
'AR~09-86 10.14 FROM.SO cAL SQIL TESTING
~
10.818 280_4717
PAGE
11/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
-'
Page No. 7
Phase I ESAs, by their ver:f nature, are limited. SCS&T has endeavored to meet what
it believes is the applicable Sf2nda%d of care and, in so doing, is obliged to advise our
client of Phase I ESA limitations. SCS&T believes that providini information about
limitations is essential to help the client identify and thereby manage its risks. These risks '
can be mitigated-but they cannot be eliminll~-througb additional rese8rcb. SCS&T will
on request advise our client of ~e additional research opportuniti.es available, their impact
on risk, and their cost.
't
mnTlNG CONDITIONS
The ESA was limited both by access to portions of the site and by the availability of
~overnmentaI records and other applicable,informalion sources.
:rnmINGS
ON-SlTE SURVEY
. ,
Site Description .
The project site is an L-shaped parcel of land located adjacent to and east of Mace Stteet
in the City ot' Chula VISta.. The site is i~tified as Parcel 3 of ~ Map 5114;, the ,
Assessor's PaIce1 Num~ is 629;130-27 and the size is 4.69 icres. The site haS '
approximately 175 feet of frontage along Mace Street and ~ges up to approximately 660
feet deep; the eastern property line is approximately 440 feet long. The site is bounded
" on the north and south by developed commexcia1 pioperty and on the east by an unlined
drainage channel with slopes up to approximately 10 feet higb; a self-storage facility is
" across the channel to the east. The site currently supports several structureS,that have been
urill,.,..d in the existing and previous commercial operations at the site; these structuleS
/ld.--/Ocj
MAR-~S-B5 10.15 FROH.60 CAL SOIL TE5IIH~
---
IlJ' C..:;;j 4,;OoJ .... {1.1
c~.....L. .....,..::~
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996 .
Page No.8
include three block or block and stucco buildings, a small stucco building, a metIl
building, a concrete loading dock and ramp, a truck scale, 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 ~ covered with gravel and used for truck and
trailer stoIage. The site is generally void of vegetation except 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 scatt,ued locations. , .
A . site visit andobscrvation was petfonned to dcttnnine the existing subject site
conditioll$. The purpose of the visit was to observe for any indication of the presence of
obvious hazardous material conwnination. The results of the site reconnaissance revealed
,
, '
, that automobile parts, tires, and petroleum products associated with the wsting trucking
operations at the site are present on-site. The huardous waste5get\e1'ated from the
existing commercial operations at the site are currently stored in 55-gallon drums on the
northeastern portion of the site.' In addition, it should be DOted that one 12,OOO-gallon
underground fuel storage tank associated with the trUCking operation is present.
',"- ~ ,
OFF-SrrE. SURVEY
~.., In addition to the on-site reconnaissance, Iepresentatives of SCS&T obServed adjacent
/. properties while loca~ on publicthoroughfMes. Observations were made in an effort to
',:.:' assesS if facilities and/or structuxes, are loca~ on these properties and, if so, if they are
",~.,~ btentitieswh~ ~es sugg~t ~,they)n~ht ~ '~~ gcii~~, ~t, or
, ';;diSpoSeof ba%ardous.rnaterlals inthe.coUTSe.of their busi1lcss. NumeroUS ~~csses
" ," within' the one--rnile search radius. of the pI~ utilize, store, generate, or transport
"d aterial
. ha:zar 011$ m '. ,<.:
, ~. -." ..
.
fld--(OS-
~
IAR-e9-8S 10,15 FROM.SO cAL'~~IL TE8TING ID,818 2P~_4717
. 1..,
SCS&.T 9613010 March 9. 1996
RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
PACE 13/23
Page No. 9
Information obtained indicates that some recognized environmental conditions presently
txist on and in the vicinity of the site. (A r.ecognizcd environmental condition is defined
as the presence or likely presence of 8tly hazardous substances or petroleum products on
a p.opertyunder ooilClitions that indicate an existing IClease, a past release, or a material
threat of a ~ease of any ha2ardous substances or petroleum products into structures on
the }/I-opelty or into the ground, ground water. or surface water of the property.1'be term
includes hazardoussubst3.nces Or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance
with laws). 'The sitereco""ltl.....'1<:e revealed that some petroleum productS, motor vehicle
parts, and tires associated with the eJdsting trucking filcility at the site are present at the
site and that a 12,QOO-gallon undCrgroUndfuel (diesel) storage tank is present at the site.
Another fuel storage tank (a lQOO-gaIlon unle:ade4 tank) was apparently removed in 1986.
In addition, the site reconnaissance and review of available information indicated that
hazardous materials and/or petroleum products are used, genented, 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 PcnnitS
lists (Ha:zardous Waste Information System and Underground StOI3JC Tanks).
Available information indicates that the facility at the subject site failed 8tl integrity test
in the past but app3rently a site assessment was ~fo.llled, the lQOO-gallon unleaded
psOllne was properly removed. and the Case was closed in 1989. Other than the 1000-
'C. '_:,.".. ., ..... .-" '_ .. ,_ j.,_ _ .
., 'iaIlon fuel tank, there is . no information to necessarily. suggest that these on-site sources
. Oi-c1ose:proXi;nity sites 'have si~ficantly adversely i~ the SUbj~ ~ tliougb. .
. '
"..., .."-'. " . -..... ','
'::.. : th~ is some indication"that sOme Surficial contamination rnay have ...........ed.<Portions
. , "of the site's sutfaceare stained with Petroleum products and the.re is a possibility that some
minor lealcllge rnay be assooi'l~ with the commercial operations at the site, including, but
not n~ssarl1y limited to, fueling and seMcing of the vehicles.
,~
,
/Vd. - If) ("
MAR-~B-S8 10116 FROMISO CAL SOIL TESTING
--....,
10_618 280 4717
PAGE
)
Page No. 10
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Based 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 modente. This is considered nonnal for commercial locales such as
that at and near the subject site.
,
..
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDmONS
GEOLOGIC S:t;J. UNG AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: 11Ie project site is located in the
~ Plains, Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by
Quaternary-age sedimenwy materials identified as stream tertace 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 yellowish-browri sandy silts and Silty fine sands of the Plioeen~age San Diego
Formation.
GRQUNDW ATER: A review of the State of California Department of Water Resources
Hydrologic Data indicates the subject site is located 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 several tens of feet; however, perched
ground~ter I\'Iay be encountered at shallower depths.
.\DIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
Aerial photographs were reviewed at the San Diego County offices and included the yeus
1~8, 1970. 1973, 1978, 1983, and ~989. . United Slates Department of Agriculture
..... photographs were reviewed for the yeas .1953. A summary of the aeri~ photograph
. ., .. '..-'. .....F _' - .-.. :.'.~., ..,,; ",' n ,. . "" .
:. review is presented below.
" ., -.: '''''...:..... ."_",'C _ .._. ....
/I~-/Ol
......-...".....-.,.".......,..-.
14/23
:
lAR-29-86 10.17 FROM,SO cAL
C
IL TESTING 10,618 2ar~"717
PACE
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 propeny or agricultunl propeny. Mace
Street was present along the western bou~ and the small tributary dIainage 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 putpOSCS. Sevenl small structures were obSCIVed in the general
vicinity and on the western portion of the site. In addition, some struetutes which appear
. . e,
to be greenhouses were alsoobsetVed on the western portion of the site. The eastern
portion of the site appeared to be vacant land.
A review of the 1970 photographs revealed conditions similar to 1953 but increased
development in the surrounding area had occurred.
A review of the 1973 photographs revealed the presence of the existing small stIuCtures
on the western portion of the site and the presence of another structure to the east (possibly
one of the remaining ~ouses) that has since been removed. It appears that the eastern
ponion of the site was in the process of being prepared for development on the 1973
photographs.
A review of the photographs for Sll~ing ~ (1978, 1983, and 1989) indicated that
the site appaiently continued to be used for commercial purposes and that the surxounding
area has gradually been increasingly d~lo~ for commercial uses.
. '.
:. .
:
TOPOGRAPBlC MAP REVIEW
t The .1958 ~,th~ 1972 editions of, the County of San Diego, 200-sc:a1e maps were
,1 reviewed. , A review of these maps indicated similar informatiOn as that semon the aerial
photographs. The 1904 edition of the United States Geologicai. SurVey San Diego
. ',.
/ld -IO~
HAR-~9-86 le.l? FROH,SO cAL~'OIL TESTING
ID.S1S 2~-' 4717
)
PAGE 16/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 12
Quadrangle (lS-minute series), the 19S3 edition of the United States Geological Survey
San Ysidro Quadrangle (7.S-minute series), and the 1967 edition of the United States
Geological Survey Imperial Beach Quadrangle (7.S-minute series) topographic maps were
reviewed and also indicated similar information.
ENVIRONMENTAL REcORDS REVIEW
Applicable governmental records were reviewed as part' of our scope of services. A
computerized~ribrd ..~ ~ petfonned by BBL Information Retrieval in February
1996. A copy of the report by BBL is presented as Appendix A. In general, ,the results
of the review of available governmental records indicate the presence of several businesses
within the search ndius (one mile) that use, getlera.te. store, ~ or dispose of hazardous
materials and/or petroleum products.
Based ,uponth~ aforementioned reviewed information, there is no j~tli""tion that any on-
site busmCss or close proximity business bas ~ted in significant on-site contamination,
other than the l000:;ga1lonfuel tank that has been removed. Available information
indicateS that the facility at the subject site failed an inte&rity 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 environmental concern on one of the Regional
sources (the Toxic Releases list) and is listed on two of the Operating Pcnnits lists
(Hazardous Waste Inforllia.tion s9stem and Underground Storage Tanks). " . ,
- ,", ......" ......
". .t...: ':j~ ~.',,;':.~.~__:,
.' ..
.... "' . ~..,.-.
;: ',-,
cITY AND'COUNrvDIRttroRIEs REvmW
. - . ~ ....-,
-
A rePICSClltative' ~f SCs&T ;reVleViCd the Haines Directory and the Polk Djn,ctoIy
available at the City of San Diego Library to obtain information abO)1t previous occupants
of the site and adjacent properties. These directories were reviewed at intervals to attempt.
to identify past OCC1.Ipants of the site and adjacent properties whose coxporate names
.Ad-. -(oq
-T
:AR-~9-88 10.18 FROM,SO cAL --~L TESTING
\.
10.818 2"--- "717
PAGE 17/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 13
suggest activities typically associated with the use, generation, storage, treatment, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICl'
The San Diego County Air Quality Management District was contaeted for records
pertaining to possible releases of hazardous substances to the atmospbexe. . . ,
WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT,
The City of Chula Vista w~ and Sewer Dcpanment and the County of San Diego
Health Department was contacted to obtain informatiOn regarding the source of water and
method of sewage disposal at the site in order to help determine if on-site effiuent 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 sw:face or subsurface
contamination.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AGRICULTURALCOMMlSSION
:
The San Diego County AgricultuIil Commission was contacted for recOrds pertaining to
pesticide usage. No teCOrd for use of pesticides or non-restricted chemical products would
appaIClltly be available for review. It should be noted that these xecords arc typieaIly lce.pt
. . .' ..
only for two.or three years, and therefore, would not be applicable, to the project site.
<
'-
:,;,.
<,
'.
'. '-.
-....'.." "
. ...l.
,Ad- -lid
MAR~09-86 11!l,I8 FROM.SO cAL' " IL TESTING
IO,61S 2f "'J'l717
PACE 18/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 14
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
No transfonners were observed at the site and no stains at: other features indicative of
significant amtamination were observed. Previous conversations with SDO&.B indicate
no probabl~ record of site PCB contamination. SOO&B has in";,.,.I"'" that individual
, teSting of ~y transformers would usually be xequircd to dctcnnine whether PCBs are
. . present within the transformC:s. It is their opinion that the probability of the 91e5f,lCJe of
, PCBs is Sl"'; mcally Very low. It is also our understanding that in the 1m1;lMly QCCl.I1'l'el1Ce
, of site Confamit?tion as the result of PCB contamination, it would be the xesponsibility and
liability of SDG&E. '
..". ,', ~ .
REGIONAL WILDCAT MAP
A review of the Regional Wildcat Map for wells dn1led for oiVgas in San Diego County
did not indicate any wells listed in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
. ':!;tie Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were micwcd at the City of San Diego Library in an
attempt to help determine whether the site or adjacent property was idenlified as having
~und fuel tanks or being used for industrial pUtpOses:
. -'. '~rL-.;.:~'-.::;-~" _ :;,::).:.; :.lJ~ ~,'.'U
-},"u'
:
r!: E&'
,.- ':.~ :. sv', . .'.~:.:
.. ",." ",-,". -, .'. -.",
-'~L" "..,-,~,... ~.:...,.-,..-.,:~- -/... ~<l,: "."~
,
- ., ", .. .... ..-~. --
CONCLUSIONS
, .
. . .... ....., . ~ ,- ."
~-' ..:.~. ,... '~dL.{~:.., ""
SCS&T has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the subject site.
SCS&T has end~vored to perform this Phase I ESA in substantial conformance with the
/!;)..-I/(
1AR-09-96 10,19 FROH,SO cAL r- IL TESTING
10,618 28'" 1717
PAGE 18/23
SCS&T 9613010
(
March 9, 1996
Page No. 15
scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E 1527-93. Based on our agreed-upon scope of
services, the following conclusions are presented.
1) The site appears to have been Use4 for agricultural and commercial purposes since at
least 1953. These uses have included ~otises. stonge, and trucking.
2)' A site reconnaissance revealed the presence of features indicative of surficial and
possible subsurface contamination at the site. These featureS include surface staining,
the presence of petroleum productS, and subsurface fuel storage tanks. Them is no
indication 'that the degree of surficial contamination and possible subsurface
conl3lTlination ~ceeds that ~ for sites that suppon commercial operations such
as at the subject site.
3) A review of governmental agency lists and recorcU indicates:
a) Records indicate a listing of one current 12,<>OO-gallon underground storage tanks
for the subject site; a l00Q-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-sire businesses and close proximity
businesses which are identified as using, storing, genenting, or disposing of
ba%ardous materials. The current trucking operation apparently disposes of waste
oil and mixed oil, de&reasing sludge, and used oil filters. At this time, there is
, no indica?on ~I other than the l()()()..pllo~ ~ ~t has been removed. ~
: sourCes have significantly 'adversely impacted the subject site., Based ~ the
distance to the close-proximity sites, the Stratigraphic conditions, drainage
gradients and elevations, the probability of on-site contamination from these off-
site sources should be considered to be low to moderate. Overall, the adjacent
, .
, (l-mile-raclius) businesses should be considered similar to other commClCial use
areas and this risk is considerednonnaI.
. ~.
A;J..,-/I;)..
..r'~-~cl-bb ~~"~~ ~ft_M.~~ ~A~ b~l~ 1~6IIN~
10oii18 .;;l:.d;.) 4.717
-----
rA;:;E: 2,,/~;J
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
pa,ge No. 16
It should be noted that the wove summaries are based solely upon ll. review of availlble
records and a limited site reconnaissance. It must be recognized that a pre1imirwy site
assessment (ESA) is not a comprehensive site investigation. An ESA solely conveys 2.n
opinion of the site's potentia.! f~ being contaminated by ha%:ardous materials. ESAs ~
not perl'onned to ascertain that a site is 1l...........Tily Cree of contamination. The limited
preliminary nature and scope of this :report precludes any definite determination of the
. ,." . .
possible extent of site contamination. 'At this time, based upon our limited investigation,
.' _,'. ,7. .
the potential for site c:OntaminanonllppCllIs to be limited to that described within this
repOrt. HOWeV~: it Should be noted that there is always lhe possibility of c:onwninBlion
from 'unl:nown or und~ sources which may Wlknowingly contrlbute to site
contamination; ,
,'.
:
/!d-.-!13
~R-~9-96 10,2~ FROM,SO cAL SOIL TESTING
10,618 280 4717
PAGE
21/23
SCS&T 9613010
~
March 9, 1996
LIMITATIONS
Page No. 17
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"~qge of time, whether they be due to rianIral
~~st's or the work of man on this or adjacent p%operties. In addition, c;hanges in the
Standards-of-Practic:e 8tId1or Govemment Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the
findings of this. report may be invalidated wholly or in part by c;hanges 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 care and
skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession eam:ntly pncticing 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 information. We shall not
be responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts of infonnation
either incorrect, concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed from Other sources. Our '
services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no waITanty of any
kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work
performed ~r to be performed by'us. or .by. Olll: ~sa1 for ConSulting or oth~ ~~,
or by our furnishing of oral or written repon.s or findings.
, '
/1d -11'-/
MAK-~~-5S 10.21 FROM.SO CAL SOIL ~E5~lNG
IOdi1B 2.Bf3 4.717
-, 1
PAC;E 22/23
SCS&T 9613010
March 9, 1996
Page No. 18
REFERENCES
Aerial Graphics, Aerial Foto-Map Book, S~ Diego County, 1982, 1984-85, 1986-87,
Sheet G-17, Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate).
BBL, 1995. Environmental Record Seaxch for the Mace Street Project, 187 Mace Street,
ChuIa Vista, California, dated Febnwy 21, 1995 (ex>ntains list of sources used).
California Department of Conservation, 1989, Regional Wildcat Map
Lens1ca Aerial Images, 1994, The Thomas Guide, Commercial Edition, Page'1330, Scale:
1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate)
San Diego County, 1958, 200-Scale Map, Sheet 154-1749.
San Diego County, 1972, 200-Scale Map, Sheet 154-1749.
San Diego County, 1928, Aerial Photo:raph XXlt
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 Photographs 567 &. 568
San Diego County, 1989, Aerial Photograph 34-189 &.34-191
San Diego Gas and Electric, Environmental Department
fI'}'-II~
'T
AR:0B-BS 10,21 FROM,SO CAL ~tL TESTING
. SCS&T 9613010 C . March 9, 1996
IC.GIB 280-4717
PACE
23/23
',-'
Page No. 19
Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 1991, Report of Preliminary Environmental Site
Assessment, Pacific Non-Ferrous Recycling, 199 1/2 Mace Street, Chula Vista,
California, Project No. 9113017, dated November 5, 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial Photographs, AXN-3M-43 & 44
U.S. Geological Survey, 1904, 15 Minute Topographic MapS, San Diego Quadrangle
U.S. Geological S\,Irvey, 1953, 7 1/2 M"mutc Topographic Maps, San Ysidro Quadrangle
U.S. Geological Survey, 1967,7 1/2 Minute Topographic Maps, Imperial Beach
Qlladrangle
:
~
,.- ..
,A;2 -lito
Attachment 3
Disclosure Statement
THE, _ (OF CHUlA VISTA DISCLOSURE S..,.EMENT
You arc required to file a Statement of Disclosure or certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
conlrihutions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other orncial bodies, The following information must be disclosed:
1. List lhe 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, subcontractor. material supplier,
tJ/,.
2, If any person" idenlified pursuant III (I) above L~ a corporalion or partnership, Iistlhe names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership,
W"IrJ t..,tl../'4,J 'j .::r
7Al'oJdS!-< C-.-r,fA,1"'7f:..Y
I
3, If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust. list the names of any person
selVing as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee orbeneftciary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
,
4.
Have you had more than S2S0 worth of business transacted with any me~er of the City staff, Boards, Commis1, sions,
Commillee5, and Council within the pastlwelve months? Ycs_ Nor=-lCycs, plcascin~icate person(s):
5,
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this mailer.
;Jhaq..... ~77T>N' ~'V1W"7>tN__
6,
Have you and/or your oCliccrs or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than SI,OOO to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding elcction period? Yes---,- No~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
,'-
" · · (NOTE: At~ additional pages as
Signature 0 co or/applicant
...y;;'iN t! '1' UI.v~~ '?
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
Date:
JJ - "Z.8 ..}J><,
" Pmotl is dcfUu:d as: "All)' individuDl, [mn. co.pmrtu:r>hip, joinJ _, =o<iQJi",~ socUIJ club. fr.'ao../ ~liuz'ion, corporDlion, estQl~ '""" reed..." J)ftdiclU<,
/his GIld lI1I)' otha COllIII)', city OIul COlll"'Y. city mwuciJl"lity, tWlric, or OIher po/idem ..bdil'ision, or OIlY Olloer voup or cornbbwiOllllCling tlS G wUJ. .
, /l 2 -t. .
-T
Attachment 4
Minutes from the Planning Commission
meeting of 8/28/96
~'
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:05 p.m.
Wednesdav, Aurust 28, 1996
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth A venue. 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 (ThomasfWillett) 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 COMMUNICATIONS - None
_..__..........-..-..m ',.
PC Minutes
-2-
August 28, 1996
lTEM 1.
PUBLIC HEARING: SUPS-96-02; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A MUNICIPAL WASTE TRASH TRANSFER AND MATERlAL
RECOVERY FACILITY AT 187 MACE STREET - Mace Street Transfer, lnc,
(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 recommending continuance of the item. with the notation that
no action would be taken on the 14th, The hearing wouid 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 iand uses and the
adjacency to the Otay River Valley Regional Park. 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 wouid degrade the community; 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 findings required for approval of a special iand use permit could not be
made, as outlined in the staff report and the Redevelopment Agency resoiution 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 recommend that the Pianning Commission deny the special land use permit for
the proposed project, One Commissioner voted to approve the project, but did not take action
on the environmental document, Staff recommended 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 soiid 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.
Commissioner 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
PC Minutes
-3-
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 wouid 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 Pianning 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.
..,- -"'--"'-""---''''''-"'-.'
PC Minutes
A-
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 'Vatton, 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 currentiy 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.
Commissi-oner 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 confirmed 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 cfin exhaust fans on the roof of the facility which were
low profiled, architecturally shaped and screened within the units themselves,
"... .'"'T~.~",,,.,, -.-....-..---.-.-..--........-.-.., ..... -...-....---.---..-..
PC Minutes
-5-
August 28, 1996
Commissioner Salas noted that the activity going on was not permined 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 abie 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 permined use, and the Commissioners were not to base
their decision based on whether or not it is a pennined 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,
PC Minutes
-6-
August 28, 1996
Commissioner Willett 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 Chuia 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 solid
waste, which is currently disposed of at the Dtay 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, 3i32 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 come 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
PC Minutes
-7-
August 28, 1996
of San Diego would ever come 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 into 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 V ogt, 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
goais and objectives the property owners had for the area, Mr. V ogt urged the Commission to
deny the project.
Mark Kroeger, 3691 Via Mercado, Suite 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 Poliution 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 roli-up containers, uncovered, He had no response from
anyone, In the summer, the flies were very bad from the empty containers, He asked where
ali 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 come 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
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 ciosed.
Commissioner Salas agreed with the comments made that a lot had been done in the Gtay 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 use permit request for the
municipal solid waste transfer station and materials recovery facility at 187 Mace Street.
--
Commissioner Davis thanked Mr, Epler for coming and offering his expert opinion, She felt
that bringing trash from another city into Chuia 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
deciarations 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 coming 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.
Exhibit 1
Locator Map
and
Site Plan
..,..... ,
[]]J]I]
I I
MAIN STREET
,
, ,
~'
Ii
0-
m
w
CJ
'"
::E
PROJECT
LOCATION
-
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~, Mace St. Transfer Station , PROJECT DESCRlI'I1ON,
C) SPECIAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT 187 Mace Street Request: A privately operated municipal solid '
ADDRESS,
waste transfer and materials recovery facilily .-
SCI-.I.f, FIlf NUMBER, in the ILP zone. -- - .-
l NORTH No Scale SUPS-95-02 Related case: 15-95-14
- E 1-(
,.,~
. j -.
f ..
....
'" '"
eo
"~.,, V? '....1..., ...,....., '.l.;]...~ ~..... .19'
)NI 'I\lDTvlS ~~::i;t.l'li~l j33~H; 3JYl-J
-,~...... -....,..
..........-......
... 1IQ,j~,"OIJ....Lo;.~.L(l;<o.:nw
. .T,.....
'i.1INJ."l"I9O') 1VJ.~~''''o.e
S?:!~~NI9N:J S::>S
-+--
"1
NV-'d 311S
",",,-
'".- -- ....L-~.._-~- --L-- r
' - _ ___1_ u_
. ------ -.,........_._ -"'_..nora
.. '. ' .. , '--=r:::::
. F~ '-*=- _u~-=g;;p---;;:;: = - ,..-;;..~+m.
1
,
~. ~:-,
. ,
, ,
, ,
~.
.............
~,.
,~
I'
/
IU.L..:::.:......:I
..
--......... "
,\
,\ I
''-') ',,' I
1 ,
Ii I~
" ~I
..__...J. .tJ" - tJ=::G~O"-.-t:)
-c:::-- --f'-; - .~ ~
"/" -,:'-.
,
I,
I
'\ /
"
,.-
_.
v
.r.
1\
I i /
I ,~/ / I
, j ,/ I
I ! ~"'--"-~'-l
:! ",--- 17~ ,: ~ ')\ II
-. -- ' ~I ' '0: .._ /1:
'" J: - - - - -. -- c...:. - -- _ // / / I
" "" /" "1_0 ,.D..:.:G-.-.:'l:=== ~/ "
'/, , ,/. . I
" \.- - .... . ~.........i1 - - - - D - - . . ~/ I
/ IX; 08 :jJ J~.:ulJ:]]J~ J, .. RLUIIJ-' _ _ ~
! ~ ~ f f".' ""."-,
I I
11 I
. !I_ i JI!:
. _?
i~': ~'
, ~~ I
i ~ ~:~
I ' ., . ~ i
i$ ~ ~,~ . . ~o t
i~ ~.Il~~'o'" ,.. '.-
I 8 ~I! . .' d'l ! I K,
.' ~os:'o · '; ~IRI~ i 'I
L:1"", - ,.._- - \ \
. ,
. I.;.
(;'
~~_~, ,I. ',' ,,',
"
.. '-~
"_... ,
E I -;2..
\>
.la:;!W; 3~VW
'"
;--.--
~
z
,~
,'j
[L
IU
!-
~:)
"
i:'
"
~.
f;
..~., _....;:.;.~..- .'
. .. ,. i:.
-r~~".
.
'.
~
,i
..<r......
,-"'''.~.."..,.,.,.......".-~..
Jt.,!1 IDIIYlS ~l .1.:BmS ~
I , _"oC".-o-..~
c;NOI.L?3S
m_
~
-......--.. .
_...::.:.':: ~ Ii If\''
lil.......l~,..,.l"B-1'(:l~I^"i3 ~.1
Sc=ElNI9N3 S:JS' ,'i
, I ! ,
II
~ II
I I;
,
i
I ~~
I I
-- ,
I
;
,
! 1
I ~ ( ! I
, d l
i ~ I
I i I ('
1 I l
I H . I I i
, I ~
, .
/'
I;J -
,E I -3
.~
.
.,>,j
...-;..)0
!
i I i
P !ill n !
Ii, L !ll n II
I H,lIlil.Li !I
: liln!I~I'n!ild!
-l.ltlll Hnlid
fi ~.&~~.~~~,~~.e,~~~~~
~
"
'"
I
..
J ~ ~-_.__.
.
I 1.
.
~
j
. I
j.
,
j
.
J 1
;/
, ~ -
, J
I .
I
I
,
,
,
,
I
,
,_.-::...,s.."'""......~~..
?"l~ N,:):l''f'lS ~=:!~~l l=~lS 3')''"'',..J
"""'_.OQ,..c-..........,.,.
,~
S"'OI1'r'/,;:rl3 ~OI'~:UX3
'"
'"
,I
....---- -
__.n.__ _
- -----.
..._--.__...~
'.-:
- -, ,",'
- -.------".
..I. .'___
l.,.
,.
t
.-
~
Ji
~
........
--=t-.,.--:-.==-- ~:..
=1'=== =..::_--=-=~ ,.>
.~,:.~._::-:::~:.:....:.... ,-
c---=-=_- \
'1;" -:-:-
EI-L/
~
,
,
,
,
,
.J
,
,
>
~
-..-. ---. , ,iN'
lijJ.......J.~.;'i~~';;;e ,1 ,I
S~;:J'3NI9N'3 S?S" " i
~
!{ --- 00'7"'
',..
Iii:
1,1,I:i
I !;
.--.. ---- '''''''j
-. ... _... .
-.. - -. .
--. .- .-.-
....~..,..- .--..-...-.......
.-. . ....-. .-. .
--_.- --.-----..
~ "_U'..__._. , .
_n _ .._._
-.. .. .- ._-.
- .
..
\0-
"I::
~
-'
Exhibit 2
Operational Profile
, '~
A TT A 0--1 " ,'~ NT I
\.
scs ENGINEERS -
-
FACILI.TY DESCRIPTiON
SKY TRUCKING COMPANY
, CHULA VISTA TRANSFER STATION
. '..---- .
".
. ,'"
SITE DESCRIPTION
This 4,72:1: 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
threesmall.frame office structures edjacent to Mace Street and a large metal warehouse
building to the east of the frame buildings. The latter has an adjace[lt 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 1t in the east-west direction and 160 ft in
the north-south direction (36,800sq ftl, The building will be primarily of pre-engineered
'.' .' -- . '., .,. '-. -. .
" metal construction with.reinforced"col:tcrete,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~O 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. ~he north side of the
,building.: The pltswil/ be separated by a ,200 1t wide grede.'eveltipping floor, A 9~ft high
reinforced concrete push well will separate the tipping floor from the ~oading pits.,
@
E d..-I
;;.
1
. .0.
.T .
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.
..f.....
Oiicedeposited on'the tipping floor, the solid waste will be "floor sorted" by facility
personnel to remove, to the extent possible. all recyclable itemssucii as'old corrugated
',- ..
cardboard IOCC), 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 materialli.e:, construction demolition debris, green waste; and
commercial business waste); it is anticip~fed that approximately 20 percent of the solid
waste' entering the facility will be recovered in this manner for reuse.:
@
E.;2.-;;J.:..
2
~
SO ENGINEERS -
The remaining, non-recoverable material will be loaded into large volume (100:t: cu yd
capacity) transfer Jrailers and shipped to a facility-designated landfill. These transfer
vehicles will enter the facility by.way of the Mace Street entrance using the bypass lane
and exit onto Mace 5tre.at after stopping at the scales for final weight recordation.
n
J~
.
>l
Assuming that a single 950F front-end loader can load one transfer vehicle (17.5:t: ton
capacity) every 15 minutes. the facility capacity. using two loading pits. and operating at
90-percent efficiency (I.e.. allowing for personnel breaks. incidental work stoppage. etc.)
will be approximately 1.260 tons per 10 hour day.
:I
'.-1.' -,.',
-...,:.....'-.;..to ~.r' ,,,;"',", . }.,
.,' ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
- - , ,... - _. ~. - ~ .,. , " , ~
i~
'.-.'
'.;. .... ", _ '-"-'. .'
",~
o
11
Y
tl
il
Dust. if any is created through the transfer operations described below. iNiII be controlled
through the use of a manually operated "fine misting" system located above and immedi-
, . ately adjacent to the tran~fer v.ehicle loading pits at the east and, west sides of the
bu!lding,; T!l.e_l"(listing system will be operated by facility personnel who will ,be observing
the loading operations at a.l! 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.
,.~~-- .. ""- " . -.' ..'. .
I(
),
}j
).
,Qdm
'1
Odors will be controlled through (1) the use of "odor eaters" (I.e.. odor counter-raactants)
i dispersed through the misting system and (2), the mechanical system which will be
-...... ..--.--.: ~_.,... ... -..:........~ ,_.... ... ..,' .--.....,,- "-. - , . .' "
~,:, desig!l!l~to pr.C?y!dl!_~C?mple~l!,lIi~ change~every15 minutes.
A
:;.. .~~:,.:.:i; ;,"-~;;:-:. ~ -
. :; ..:_:: c:. 1':";-:7,"; ~
~-'
.
.'T~re are several products.availabla Which. when dispersed through a misting system as
,l!oted..wiU actually I!IIminate. odors as .opposad to simply covering them up. i:, .
T
.;~~ ;;'. C.., ',.-;;l'~ ;_f; ?c:; :;~;': ,<:-':'/f ~ :..,~.<~ :'~>.:';?::: ;',
:l
,~,.;; The ,vel)tilation systeJ'!l. will consist of two rows of six roof-mounted. 8.000 cfm exhaust
. . . .
. " . -
'fana located approximately 20 ft and 60.ft. respectively. from the south building wall.
'I
>
E;2.-3
@
r
iI
<,
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~her 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),
H2i.u
Any noise generated within the transfer building from operating equipment. trucks
depositing their contents on the tipping floor, the sorting out ofrecyclable mllierials, or the
loading of transfer vehicles is expected to be attenuated bV 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
S'O 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.
: :c._
Hazardous Materials
~":;.._.~-,..,..~,,.,.. L.~;':" ,~'.., ".
,. t, ~C. _"'" , ..
."" ",,"'-"'
',... ,,~.- .... -, ~...,
".;' ('. ~~ ~- ..:..
The facility will not knowingly"accept hazardous materials; however; sinceh'ousellold
hazardous substances sucti aspalrit: aerosol'c:ans'; batteries; etc:,dmay 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 8lienisuch materia is are encoun-
tered and will be emptied of its contents on a regular basis which will not exceed 90 days.
~:-' 'cThe contents will beappropriately'disposed of 'Off site bY'8 licensed hazardous materials
,t:contra'ctor.' r~' ~... ;.;'~ r :".~ '..:',b-',!.,: ,-'C. - . ,'':'; ~":~. t.;.~. ~ _ ,,', .'.. ;.- ~,::.:;,,~i .~,"';~~
.;.....
E ;).-Lj-
@
. ;:'
4
(.
)
'- -
SCS ENGINEERS -
Vectors
The facility will be swept clean of all trash and debris at the end of each operating day
thereby eliminating nesting and hiding pia ells for vect'ors. 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 ;).~ S
5
@
-T
Exhibit 3
Average Daily Traffic Trips Summary
T '
July :19, :1996
File No. YS-6H
TRASH TRANSFER STATION
187 MACE STREET
AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS GENERATED
I. EXISTING USE-SKY TRUCKING
TRUCK COUNT = :183 ONE-WAY TRIPS/DAY =
EMPLOYEE AND PATRONS = :17 X 2 =
366 TWO-WAY TRIPS
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\(:1000)
A.
TRASH TRUCK TRIPS
8 TONS/TRIP: 63X2 = :126
TRANSFER TRUCK TRIPS
25 TONS/TRIP: 20X2 = 40
:107X2 = 2:14
:125X2 = 250
B.
34X2 = 68
40X2 = 80
Expected transfer station plant capacity is 850 tons/day and
maximum capacity is :1000 tons/day. The trash trucks can carry
up to :12 tons but would average less than 9 tons/trip. The
transfer trucks can carry up to 25 tons/trip. Therefore the
total two-way daily trips at capacity is:
Trash Trucks = 250 two-way trips
Transfer Trucks =~ two-way trips
TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS
= 330 two-way trips
C. Employees & patrons in passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks
are expected to generate about 70 two-way trips.
TOTAL PROJECT DAILY TRIPS AT CAPACITY: 330 + 70 . 400 TWO-WAY TRIPS
The total number of trips for this project at :100\ facility
capacity (:1000 tons/day) is the same number of trips as Sky
Trucking's vehicular trips. The number of heavy truck trips from
Sky Trucking (366) versus the proposed project's at the anticipated
daily work rate of 850 tons/day (2:14 + 68 = 282) represents a heavy.
-,' vehicle net reduction of 84 trips (23\). The comparative heavy
vehicle reduction at full capacity is 36 trips (:10\).
(H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\HACEADT,FXR)
C 3. -I
.
-. _.....~--
Exhibit 4
Correspondence
-T '
State of California
California Environmental
Protection Agency:\j}~~~;.
/~:> \'-'~ -'<v
N:?(, '
I,
I
r.,
"~<:
~"
T
'-'<? ,
":",).. ./,)~
, vJl6i
/
.\,~.>\
\ '
y\
r;-,'
\(..;\
,-I
r,
1--,
/'" ~/
^.,IY/
-r(\;- /
~~/
MEMORANDUM
To:
Chris Belsky
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA
Date: September 12, 1996
Douglas Reid
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
From:
~ annie H, Blakeslee
nvironmental Review Section
Permits Branch
Permitting and Enforcement Division
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Subject: SCH# 96071113 - Supplement to the Proposed Negative
Declaration for the Mace Street Trash Transfer Station,
San Diego County (SWIS# 37-AA-0926)
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff have
reviewed the supplement to the proposed negative declaration (ND)
for the project cited above, ,The proposed project consists of
establishment of a new enclosed solid waste transfer station,
with a capacity of 1,000 tons per day, A 63,000 square feet, 30
feet high building is to be built to accommodate waste processing
activities. The 4,72 acre site, located at 187 Mace Street is
currently used as an unpermitted waste transfer facility,
Reconstruction of a drainage channel and removal of a fuel island
is also included in the proposed project,
Staff offer the following comments regarding the ND:
I
As indicated in our earlier comments, it would be helpful if
the ND included a map of the site [please refer to CEQA
Guidelines section 15071 (b)], indicating where the 63,000
square foot building is to be built, as well as vehicle
ingress and egress (haulers and employees), site grading,
and any other proposed or existing structures,
-
)
~
1)
L
1
~
{
If any leachate is generated onsite, how will it be
controlled and managed (please refer to Title 14 California
Code of Regulations Section 17534)?
x
It would be helpful if the document described waste
diversion activities such as separation, storage and
processing, as well as separation and storage of household
hazardous wastes.
The ND indicates that the drainage channel is to be
reconstructed, and states that potential impacts can be
mitigated via use of Enkamat, to be incorporated into the
project, The is very little information regarding this
drainage channel in the ND, and no discussion of potential
impacts pertaining to this part of thee proposed ,project,
Where on the site is this channel? '
Page 7 of the Environmental Checklist contains a brief
discussion pertaining to air emissions, and states that
there will be no increase in trips as a result of the
project, It appears that this project is already
operational, The Average Daily Trips Generated sheet
included as part of this document indicates that 400 two way
trips per day are anticipated, The former ND indicated that
there would be 40 trucks per day leaving the facility, Which
number is correct? Has there been any road widening or
improvement, or installation of signals to accommodate this
traffic?
Page 10 of the Environmental Checklist, includes a brief
discussion pertaining to Hazards, The Comment states that
the applicant must provide a Hazardous Waste Management Plan
prior to issuance of a grading permit, and that the
applicant's compliance will mitigate impacts to a level of
insignificance, There is no discussion identifying
potential impacts, and no discussion of any specific
mitigation measures,
There is no discussion in the ND pertaining to
of the fuel island, If encountered, how would
soils be handled, remediated or disposed of?
site is the fuel island?
the removal
contaminated
Where on the
Where is the waste to be landfilled, and would there be a
substantial increase in incoming waste at any of the
landfills, necessitating the need to revise a solid waste
facility permit? The ND alludes that the waste will be
taken to Otay Landfill, but is not definitive,
Please note that in 1989, with the enactment of AB 939, the
Solid Waste Management Board became the Integrated Waste
Management Board,
'~-
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document, We ask
that our comments be responded to, and that we are notified of
the proposed date of adoption of this document, and approval of
the project, please call me at (9l6) 255-4708 if you have any
questions regarding these comments,
cc, Ken Calvert, LEA
Debra Jayne, San Diego RWQCB
--.-.->.."
~~~
~
""'""~~~
""=>.-~~~
ON OF
CHUlA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
November 14, 1996
Jeannie H, Blakeslee
Environmental Review Section
Permits Branch
Permitting and Enforcement Division
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Re: SCH# 96071113, response to your letters of comment on the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Mace Street Trash Transfer Station,
Dear Jeannie:
This letter is in response to your comments received on September 12, 1996. I have
reiterated your questions and responded to each below, I have also attached a copy of a
letter from Robert Epler, the Assistant Director of Environmental Services at the City of
San Diego, which was forwarded to our Planning COIllmission, In addition, you will find
attached a letter from Michael Mecham stating specific concerns he has expressed
regarding this project, As we previously discussed, the Planning Department's position
is for denial of the project, If the Redevelopment Agency wishes to approve the project,
the project will be sent back to the Planning Commission which could involve the
inclusion of conditions and a recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The questions and responses are as follows:
Question 1: As indicated in our earlier comments, it would help if the ND included a map of the
site [please refer to CEQA Guidelines section 15071 (b)], indicating where the
63,000 square foot building is to be built, as well as vehicle ingress and egress
(haulers and employees), site grading, and any other proposed or existing structures,
Response: The site plan we provided to you on October 3. 1996, showed the location of the
proposed structures, vehicle ingress and egress, and the location of the drainage
channel.
Question 2: If any leachate is generated on-site, how will it be controlled and managed (please
refer to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 17534)?
Response: Waste will be deposited on a concrete tipping floor inside a completely enclosed
(M:\home\planning\keith~b.letter)
pagel
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(6191 691.5101
building, It will then be loaded by means offront-end loaders into transfer trailers
which are also inside the completely enclosed building. The floor will be dry-
cleaned at regular intervals thereby eliminating the formation of leachate due to
wash down water. In the event that minimal amounts of leachate are formed due
either to the dust-control misting system, inadvertent release of fire sprinklers or
other sources, it will drain to floor drains located inside the building, The leachate
will then be carried through on-site sewer lines to a clarifier (also located on-site)
which will filter out solids, oils, etc, The effluent from the clarifier will then drain
into the City's sanitary sewer serving the facility, The clarifier will be cleaned of
residuals as needed, Such residuals will be properly disposed of at an appropriately
permitted landfill,
Question 3: It would be helpful ifthe document described waste diversion activities such as
separation, storage and processing, as well as separation and storage of household
hazardous waste,
Response: As waste is deposited on the tipping floor, it will be spread out by means of front end
loader(s) such that recoverable items can be hand-sorted, This "spreading of the
waste" will also facilitate the removal of household hazardous wastes,
Items recovered from construction demolition such as wood, metal, concrete, asphalt,
dirt, etc. will be placed in roll-off containers located inside the building at the edges
of the tipping floor, When filled, the roll-off containers will be transported off-site to
processing facilities or end-users, White goods such as refrigerators, water heaters,
etc, will be handled in the same manner.
Items such as paper; corrugated cardboard; aluminum, ferrous, glass and plastic
containers, etc, will be removed to the adjacent material sorting and baling building
where the various items will be hand sorted from an elevated conveyor. Materials
such as paper, corrugated and aluminum will be baled and temporarily stored for
shipping, Other items will be temporarily stored in roll-off containers for delivery to
other processing facilities or end-users. Baled materials will be temporarily stored
inside the building (paper, corrugated, etc,) or in appropriately screened areas near
the loading dock (aluminum, plastics, etc,) as permitted by local governing agencies,
Roll-off containers will be stored in appropriately screened areas as permitted by
local governing agencies,
Household hazardous wastes recovered from the tipping floor or the material sorting
and baling building will be temporarily stored in prefabricated, fire-rated cabinets
and subsequently removed to appropriately permitted solid waste facilities,
No processing of recovered materials, other than sorting and baling, will be done at
this site, It is anticipated that approximately 20 percent of the waste entering the
facility will be recovered and shipped to processing facilities or directly to end-users,
(M:\home~lanning\keith\ib.lenef)
page2
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Question 4: The ND indicates that the drainage channel is to be reconstructed, and states that
potential impacts can be mitigated via use of Enkamat, to be incorporated into the
project. There is very little information regarding this drainage channel in the NO,
and no discussion of potential impacts pertaining to this part of the proposed project.
Where on the site is this channel?
Response: The site plan that was provided to you on October 3, 1996 indicated the location of
the channel on the property, The channel improvements will alleviate upstream as
well as downstream impacts such as flooding, erosion and siltation.
Question 5: Page 7 of the Environmental Checklist contains a brief discussion pertaining to air
emissions, and states that there will be no increase in trips as a result of the project.
It appears that this project is already operational. The Average Daily Trips
Generated sheet included as part of this document indicates that 400 two way trips
per day are anticipated. The former ND indicated that there would be 40 trucks per
day leaving the facility. Which number is correct? Has there been any road
widening or improvement, or installation of signals to accommodate this traffic?
Response: Traffic Generation
The correct number of two-way trips generated by this project would be 400, This
number is generated by totaling the following numbers:
183 one-way trips/day x 2 =
] 7 employee trips/day x 2 =
Total
366
.11
400 trips per day.
Roadway Issues
The Engineering Department states that street improvements will include completion
of curb, gutter and sidewalk along project frontage as well as installation of street
lighting,
Question 6: Page 10 of the Environmental Checklist includes a brief discussion pertaining to
Hazards, The Comment states that the applicant must provide a Hazardous Waste
Management Plan prior to issuance of a grading permit, and that the applicant's
compliance will mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance, There is no discussion
identifying potential impacts, and no discussion of any specific mitigation measures.
Response: A Phase I Site Assessment was performed by Southern California Soil and Testing,
Inc, on March 9, 1996 and was provided to you on October 3, 1996, That
assessment concluded that there was no need for further testing of the site.
Question 7: There is no discussion in the ND pertaining to the removal of the fuel island, If
(M:\home\planninglJc.eith\jb.letter)
pagu
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
encountered, how would contaminated soils be handled, remediated or disposed of?
Where on the site is the fuel island?
Response: Applicant's site plan does not show fuel island as part of the plan, Prior to issuance
of a grading permit, the applicant will be required to submit completed/approved
permit forms allowing removal of fuel island and accompanying underground tank,
A Phase I Site Assessment performed in March of 1996 by Southern California Soils
and Testing lnc, 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 and subsurface contamination exceeds that expected for sites
that support commercial operations such as the subject site,
Question 8: Where is the waste to be landfilled, and would there be a substantial increase in
incoming waste at any of the landfills, necessitating the need to revise a solid waste
facility permit? The NO alludes that the waste will be taken to Otay Landfill, but is
not definitive,
Response: All of the trash that is taken through the Mace Street facility will go to the
Copper Mountain landfill in Yuma, The applicant would prefer that they
not be restricted to only taking the trash to the Copper Mountain Landfill,
however, that is their current plan,
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to call me at 619/691,
5104,
Sincerely,
12-/1:..6.. #4/
Dougllf,D, Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista, Planning Department
cc: Martin Miller
Barbara Reid
Mark Watton
Charlie Gill
(M:lbome\planning\keith\jb.lener)
page4
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
..__,~_'_.'__'_~'~' "..._.___,...."'.....,.,..,.._.u...,_ _...
L
~f~
~~
,~~~
MEMORANDUM
mY OF
CH..IA VISfA
DATE:
November 12, 1996
TO:
Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
Martin Miller, Associate Planner
FROM:
Michael T. Meacham, Conservation Coordinator
(619) 691-5122 PH (619) 585-5612 FAX
~
SUBJECT:
Mace Street Proposed Materials Recovery Facility, 11/1/96 Memo
The lack of detail in the applicants project description has made it very difficult to analyze the solid waste
benefits and risks of this facility. That process has been made even more challenging by apparent changes in
the project description. Staff has offered to meet with the applicant to provide technical assistance regarding
the City's progress in implementing its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, The applicant has not taken
advantage of that opportunity. Without that coordination, the project is not likely to efficiently or effectiveiy
add to the City's or the region's ability to meet state mandated landfill diversion goals,
At our previous meetings with the applicant, I have requested basic information regarding the general, sources
and categories of waste that the applicant expected to handle at the facility. The applicant was also asked to
describe any processing or recycling that would take place at the facility and what if any use the existing
buildings would have, The applicant was unaware of what components of the waste stream were most likely to
require the facilities services, what type of vehicles were most likely to utilize the facility and what the existing
buildings would be used for. The applicant has also described "floor sorting" as the only form of processing
that would take place at the facility. The November I, 1996 letter, answer two (2), demonstrates significant
changes in the operation of the project or an inconsistency in the information provided, If these are changes,
they have been made without any additional effort to work with the City Conservation staff to determine the
City's or the immediate region's solid waste needs. The ultimate design, operational standard and ability of the
facility's operator to work with the City will determine whether or not this type of facility compliments or
conflicts with the needs of its surrounding community.
mtm:transfer
mace, I I
Printed on post-consumer content recycled paper, Naturally!
'T
S~F _~ '95 C:::;~5=-r", ~I"'i"'l;::;'; S~KV D::i.RE:CTOR(61SJ.::1S2 51321
Richard L. HaY'
Director
Suite 210
Tel 619 492.5056
FilX 6J9 492-5021
Environmental
Programs DiviF>ion
Suite 320
Tel 619 492-5010
Fax 619 492.5089
Refute ColI~ction
Division
Suite J 20
Tel 619 492.5059
Fax 619 492-5068
Refuse Disposal
Di....i~ion
Suite 310
Tel 019 492.5020
Fax 619492-5041
~!-\
.", }t...
~ .
DIVERSITY
8tN:;s 1JS AU. 1'OOfll'1ER
P.2/6
THE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
E~\~RO~MENTALSER~CESDEPARTMENT
9601 RIDGEHAVEN COURT, SAN DIEGO. CA 92123-1636
September 16,1996
City ofChula Vista
Redevelopment Agency
276 Fowth 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 5uul'ort of the staffrecommendation to ~
the application. However, I now understand that, at the developer's request, this matter will
heard on October IS, 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.
GENERAL
Solid waste management activities and faciiities 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 determining the scope and means of providing solid
v;asle services within their jurisdiction, Specifically. Section 40053 reaffirms that the PRC
is Dot 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
potentia! nuisances. Section 40059 states that each city can detemline 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 Dot its benefits since it would be totally nnn"CeSSary for the management
of solid wastes generated in the City of Chula Vista.
O~"~d~""
E4 - (
, _..,___..,._._d"~"'_"_'"
5[P 15 '95 02:47PM ENVIR 5ERV DIRECTORC519J492 5021
P,3/5
Page 2
F AClLTTY 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 m.YiWUID 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 1000 tpd, ifwastes were accepted
five days per week this would be 260,000 tons per year and ifbased 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:
o Increase the maximum permitted daily tonnage to 3,500 tons per day.
o Upgrade the site to meet US EPA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (ReM)
Subtitle D landfill standards through the installation of a composite liner system.
o 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 tpd; the City of
Chula Vista would have 5,500 tpd of solid waste transfer and disposal capacity for ajurisdiction 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 Sc:rve your jurisdiction's needs,
It should be clearly stated that the proposed Mace Street Transfer Station is D!!1 included in the City
E4-.,;;L
-'~; AV ::;0 W..:.........:::.,--.. L,1......r;. ..::;>Lr,y ;.)J.r\.;...\....'-":-.'OJ.::.I..:..::;>c.. :';'U':"J.
r-'.~/o
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 Diego's short-term or long-term solid waste
management or disposal requirements. City forces cUITently 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.
This claim is unsubstantiated and seeInS to be a level of recycling that could not be sustained with
the proposed technology, The North County 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 band pick and carry 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 trips associated with such an activity.
A further example of why this recycling number seeInS high is the recent submission by the
FaIlbrook Recycling and Transfer Station to the County 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%,
FACILITY LOCATION
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 unsign~H't"~ intersection, As
proposed, this facility would generate new and different traffic than currently uses these local streets,
The traffic study for the project is based on route type refuse collection vehicles with a uniform 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
cWTently operates nine roll-offtype collection vehicles and no route type (sideload or rearload)
collection vehicles. Based on weighing hundreds of open top, uncompacted roll-off (drag-on) 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 projected in the traffic study.
We are also very concerned with this proposed facility being located within 250 feet of the Otay
E4 -3
~
5~P :5 '95 02:43P~ ~~YI? 5E?V DI?EC1U~(519)452 5021
t""'.:J/b
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, 1bis 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.
COM? A TIBILJTY WITH ADJACENT LAND mm~
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 oftbis 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 minimi.." 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 Planning Commission Agenda Statement for the meeting of August 28, 1996 is a
paragraph regarding a proposal by EDCO 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 of 550 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, co=ercial and residential, from the proposed
expansion of the transfer station, the Council made the required findings and denied the application..
On FebIUary 22, 1996, EDCO filed suit to overturn the Council action, On August 28. 1996, the suit
was dismissed by the judge upon demUI1'er by the City's attorneys. EDCO can still amend and refile
E 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,
Or"", J/r C;JL-.---,
~\A~
Robert A, Epler
Assistant Director,
Environmental Services Department
~.
L4-S-
"T
R=':=:\i'::::-~
July 8, 1996
Case No: SUPS-95-02/IS-95-14
187 Mace Street
Chula Vista,Ca 91911
'lit 0 -, 1.....--.
_'>J_ ,-I ..:J:.."b
PI AN"'''''' '
_..J ;-.l;J\...:;.
To: Martin Miller
Associate,Planner, Planning Dep.
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Ave
ChulaVista, 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.~ 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 inChula 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 1iquid,is~amix 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 seweri, 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 pes~s. __ '
"
#5. This area on Mace Street is a mixture of both
commercially and residents with young children.
E cf -~
...-..--......,...--.->-..-
(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
S9i1~ Vista, ~191Y
-;f1tyr 1-i/Ji5 /.l'~
Jesus & Maria Mariscal
145 Mace Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91911.
t;. '.
tlJt~"" .
(;) 6Uf--l~ ~/$r~~
~t./-7
Rogeliof & Virginia Oropeza
135 Mace Street
Chu1a Vista Ca 91911
it
Evelyn Breedlove
465 Parkway
Chu1a Vista, Ca 91910
Property OWner
163 Mace Street
@~
Wesley & Jennifer Breedlove
1653 Sombrero Way
San Diego, Ca 92154
Business OWners
163 e re
~4.
Sam & Gloria Perry
163 Mace Street
C~la Vistp, C~911
_~.i5 ~
Ricardo & Catalina Mariscal
125 Mace Street
Chula Vista, Ca 91911
---fdL~ /}1~
~~
E ~ -c:z
"T
KROEGER FAMILY PROPER TIES
MACE INDUSTRIAL CENTER
3691 Via Mercado, Suite 16, La Mesa, CA 9] 941
(619) 660-1952, FAX 660-6]42
July 8, 1996
R'=".....r-IVEO
.......--~
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Martin Miller
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
n II ~ "i 1"":aC'
.,.:,....)_.L _ .:1:;:>
PI ^\!f,';;""l:
_r.J to J.. ,"_1
RE: Case No, SUPS-95-02/IS-95-14, Special Use Permit site address-I 87 Mace St.
Dear Sirs:
I am \\'Iiting 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 of roll off containers, and vehicles, which is allowed under the C,U,P,
What is not stated under the C.U,P. is the "Odor" and Noise Level" of the roll off containers and trucks. Even
though the containers are empty, the residue left in them gives off an offensive odor, and flies and other insects
are attracted by this residue, Our tenants have become inundated by the flies and odors, and have expressed
concern for their health. If this is occurring from the left-over residue, what willI ,000 tons of actual waste per
day cause? What are the restrictions for the time allowance after the waste has been dumped out and is 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 Industria1
Zoning,
EtJ -9
'"T
The subject property is L shaped, The volume of trucks in and out oftills facility will create a "bottle neck"
situation with 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 with 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, Weare 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, _1 ,P~ .
~~~7 uu~
Kroeger Family Properties
C4-IO
PiC\. VI. r\ l V\ ~ Co (;1;1 h'\ \ ~SID V\
elL) o~' C~u\V\ Ul<;t~
. lJJ.J f Jt /96
(. O~'\ --l\t~ ft:o(fosQ.L 6'V\.--i.~'-9-,__ .
p f-1 ~ l \ ot Wa..5+ "L=tY(AIA. (~; r ~ y Q Vl oC
;':.;; . ~ "'-~v-: \ C{.L .. _ R e. CD sJ--e .~.~-fy. C'l \ i1 ~ __. .. .. . ..
L ~. !!rJ -1,^~ . ,1 L-r._ZOVl~__ -!---.:..._.~..--. .
_ _. ~~ . CLC~s~4ifS0p _'15-00-.. I SCfLL~/LJ ..
. W ~--l"^--.Q..,'f-e.s \ 0\ ~V\~ ~ C\YO() V\J .
'I-Ch \ s,.pro :)<Q.0+ ~ \~~ . .
, 0.R.e.- C\, qQl t <;{ i.J1. \' 5 Yrofos-qL
i a cl.J. r.e5::> 0 !t!i +-rl JLJez Vl,t -e.... . ...'.
1 I~ 1rn~ Vv-. . cv, Ihe I (y, Dacr-rte1 . ___
I 333;L ~4. . ..~tf I~ . ~ .._ __u
I I. J I. . [/
J 3~ t fA- / tI f C'I, .3-1:.. Ie vj MI Ii- VA-- uL-\ I' _
-.538 ~t4-LQ-C A ,2/ c.v,rr:. .. I ... .'
o~o -A\ (C{la s~ cv : ~J €5l>Q~l/e/, '.. ....
. <53t-S 1\\ lOCO' 6>+. t Vi wci/a! 1 ~;-,t?J)~
3)5l~.:z+' '. I 7~~---
I .' IlI?..- .... ..-..---.----
33 ,3. ~ ~()C~~ -t:;'~_ ~~>_e~ & rfw~.. #MIrZi1~___
, ~7 rll{^laSqi"::>(.-~-_~: .....~~~;Zz_~~._---
, . ,c: . .. -.:, co.:; .: '.',' ,_ ..... '.' ;;.- ,I.., . .... ~ '..' ""."-,::~':
_ )' i.~ ~-,~::~-_~_~~~_-j_U~~-~=-T';- '_ ._~,_._u_~=~_~_. . '________~~-_~
I. '.' . ..... .. .'. ,: .'. . "':.-' . .
. '-. - -: -.... '-..' .- .:. ".., .'
. . - n_____._._.___. _...__u________.__.__ ___
~" --'
, , ' , --;:-..... ~'<
--~--'".:.' -~~.-~_-:.';.. --.~.~.~-~_.:.._----=--...-._~-~_._.:..~ -----.- .~-_._----.
"
r-., \
.-
).--::.-~.....:__ . ._:.:_.....,-:._~~~_-_'._. .~:~,'._..~_...._ ......_____ .._______n________-------=:....:.___._______
\, "
',. ~
~).:..-..::.:;;-,>.:~~'--~. ,-'----<;--~ "~-:.
{' 1
. .
.-....----.....-----...----...-
,- .~ \,-1,
~ ...., ".
I"j-: d-. '... ." '
. ,er'-f- --I { -- m__________..-:------:-----.--
"J .__: !" '. .. ....: .. .. : . "
1..._.
.p.\ o..n Y\ \ VI. ~ CDvv'\ \IV'\ \ S SI () V\
CI-/."l e>-P Chu 14 UI'>-tY\
'. - ____ _ " u.. ,.p~l-Qcl- 8"-I-::qb
Oil -l~~ ~1r.O~D5a.L_oV\.__=(J"\&n___, ,.,
osL ol A.0 C{sJ'L_{'C.o-.vlS-Gr::-_Cl.~J -I11ClJ~t-:-(c{C '",.
L:J ~ () ('. 'I' I J I 1 p
?:: ;l? ~.e..coc..;<e..y~ -:tctC"'t-'r--4~-~V\.~u_ -L.._..z.DtU~__u,
~ ~.2 ~a.5-e.-4=P. Su f-, tJ s-=-Q-2.'0~-[s-.---9J/=t~L_--- ,
tJ ,'; ~- --W~-tJ'-<4:u_X-eS~tA<€v:\-\--s,__Qr()C)~cLn_
, .-t/\ I .. -1.../ '
I L.-h 1.5 fro~~cl,...Sli~ .1..,,__.. ,."" _u_u__u___. _,
'I' o.y~ QCjCtIV1$-f-=tt'l'<:> r(o(-\?oSqLm~_._
, c. ol 0-,- -e :>>, Co,.!.,! /1J ((lrI.-'\ ~ \J
I ~:15 Dctie. ~A, !c,J,. \,~~ lb~o.~:n:
" 3 ~~ Dale.J7: ~,LJ,i~P~_n__" ______
~ 3~S j{)~., ~ I~u~ ~ ()~, 'n'uu__
I 310 DA-+e Sf, K: Ui ~., '.. _U___m__
' I' I . ,
:- 3~;~ ,tJA+e 3-/-, ,',' leu :~~iM~,u.__
~ 31 S-~AP ,', ' IclfJc-f/~ :- ---'-:..~n~:JA.-n_'-
3~4-X trA-tL ci I(l\f! _. ~~_~_~~_\__
," 3'71'1.'3 '"DA -to C I " I (!.~ ' . .~,_ _________
,q /16. ~np-.~, e. V__m c-~t/, " _ _ .~__:~u:,:':~_;-m-n---
(D ?I '1 "};J,'~, " rdC'1\ U"7~/VY-
' iT,J.J.) f 3~(h~ ~o--Jt.-- ('-.v "~ ----~ ;_41'ct1v, .(V---.----
. I ~ ~- 3 """}'-- 67 ~ -;-~- -71" -----
..; ~ ;~f~a::;~;r-~ v. -, ;;;-t:Z~~':-;--~=__
.'5 I ~~W'1H~i,;1t,;-~~ fn~--
{b S'lY ~ Mf-' -- C ~ ~1Yt, AJ~-----__no_
\ ' 33 10 ~ ,OJ ., _ ~Y. ~~___~ ____u_~____
~
P.O. Box 3066
Chula Vista, Ca 91909
August 5, 1996
,"
,'-.
!..~~ ,
"- ,- (j .
. I j....... ~
:2~j:..
Martin Miller
Planniilg Dp.pt.
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
p'r
L,...j'J" , , "
IYII',......
Dear Mr. Miller;
".J ~
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
bv 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,
'~,,' ~'" ; ..-'
/'0 ,--- ' '
~(J___~_
, ,
. . ',... -"";", ~ . "'" t.'
,
Charles B. Tutton
, (619) 420-7080
. -.. ....
. '> .....~
(".'
E 4 -/3
"T'
Aug, 12 '96 8:58
FRED&R ITA_ PRYEA
FAX 5154277151
p, 1
- -----
.--.. .-
j,'-
-----
----
"
----
-/ of;;L
"'" .
"') 1 3 ;:':'
L-
nit-yo It. StitfLLey fh,,-/~,J
'.0-
-:-:;--.- (
::',:1 !
"_-:'_J
r;. tJ " u. r; 1-1
J 5 € IU :::'~GH ,/ ! -' y
. 0<.4. A-c..L, ~t!OMIS6
To
_ Lo 0 IC. '.1'1 F. I = L) ..,...
~ "'- ..JOu. TH "Crl-c..c.. '- A
V,Si4
l3 e- 'F c) te..e-
EL€CTfTD
eLec. T10";SJ /Ski t..J++sAJ Yo t.<.. G~'-""
Yo",- 7C It P IJ:> i..'y . Fo I<!.. GeT .'.t.t ',~ e-
L)" J.)o, }JcCD' ~ .G-l1te"BI1Ge- 1(t:..~~S;::i!:R.
STA Tl'o;..) tJ---. -H' - - -
. '..1 . / ,e (- 0 Q "lOr 1'1140,) S-'-ICJ:;--;E'T
(e. 1/. f':!tAJ/Ji.v(;;. ~€PT F((.,e~:svPS_'9'_oS-)
(3/Z.,,.)~iIJG ~o'l>PJ'~ V
.:'( C(Z.Ml~ I
C) "b (j fl S, -r.-z,: ,I t-h;' 1tK.e71 . '
/4P.J 1:>
F;, C<. <...
- -
-L. S" Aiso ''T.~l.1e :yov.....:I:>o ::SOhe.lt-IlA..JG rt(6auT
., ~. G-If- $ S77fitc ~ . <S" 17.. 6T
L>/~'S~,- ?UM P 0 P.eP.A7'/.oAJ
- , '
ftt.ctD h081Le-S/;' Ttl-lfTs "-ri<~,Je'Z> IAJ,o A-
T 1Z...l.{.c k:. .;s, D P. (. ~,d IVJe-1L 0 t= 0 ~1bJ t;:..e ~
/-IU.L/bP;) l~c~s /..,I4K/~~ u. "Tt.<.I!./..JS
J Y /.J ilc~'-eLS : A-r..L (,.t.p ~ H/(...l.-iDf
~ ~ E'"E-~ . h//I tU, . ~'b 0 ICI"1-,.JG=C , . h t'h.J Y'
. .
LPG It s . - .T~ I:: e;-{l.$ 1?-u AJ iJ oJ r; l..<- P /t;.V:O
. ,
-p ow,J Ti/l!1 ST/.Zeb-~_ ,WH(cH S'HourJ>
.' ~ 1-": ({-.
S7'D ((..5 ltiJ '])
SIZe/>
F(J1t-.,
"
: ....=:..:.-:',^.:.;.&.~_.
~u9,12'96 9:07
FRr "IT~ PAYE~
FAX ,-. "14277151
P. 2
;;;.. of ;L
P O'T "B &' A- f..." 0 w -e-"-;) I AJ 11- ~ (i~ 1'b~IU" I,q. "-
IV e /GH Eoti-i-h 0'1:> 1I (L .A-~c,-o we;-"o (-0 -p~
I
JJ c-It~ (j N~. {'3€"1wf:'"c,J n u(l.!4ftt..u..J~ FnJ'U
, HAl N S7Y-en.-r, ~ Ve-fZ-/J. IGoff! 0 (L e:1hS-,z.),
YOt4. I-I--ttvE A- 'DA-~)'G~Cu.S e)<P(..oStV~'
S'" I (7..<. 1+ 71 ~ ,J ..?oJ I1/T I AJ C. /""'D ff.,t P P e- JJ
-p(,J..TTING- oufl- ;-ht-4~ I ~ .:::TEPu"bY;
. f."J 0 c.<... '-- D
It P P CZ f. C I rr 77:: Y () lA.. (L A...,,-r:: ~'O A.J
T"/H-tS' .'hffltr::;,c.
"
.::!f",A<<<L /J ~f
Jf-'I ( H(t..'- "7"D P u..' .
;C#-u. ,-14' thS"ni, C:~t='
. 9/911- ~-~ 0 y
cc '. CitfJ QaulUL
E:q -IS"
::.,-'.-;'.- t .___'--.._
,'~'-' ..,,--_...._~--^'-,..., -"""II''' ~..+...~
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 50 loud; we had to move
our family room to the west side of our house 50 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 oi~, 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 R1 residential area?
This problem is 50 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.
Ec/-!Co
~~y-~2-96 THU lo;d2 AM SAD~lh~.
619 766 4922
P.e2
. -
#I Diln'-t ~Ih ~u,. MI+", "
August 21, 1996.,
VIA FAX & CERTlFIED MAn..
Martin Miller, Associatc Planner
Plaming Dept" Public Services :a1dg,
ChUla VISta Civic Center,.. .
276 FciurthAvenuc ,,';, ." '."- -.
Cliu1a VISta, CA 91910 __;"c. __
.-:"\,.;.
RE: CASE NO. SlJPS-.95-0ZIIS-95-14MACE S1REET ~SFER STATION
PLEASE READ THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD AT THE HEARING
We arc aware that Pacific Disposal was purchased by SaDifill wbich has since merged with
USA Waste, one of the most aggressi~ companies around. But, it is stD1a concern to US
that Jorge Holland is somebow involved in the Macc Street fiIcility. ~ with the
wntinued involvement of Mr. Mark Watton who must be a close mend IS he sat in the
cO\llUoom with H01la.od when he pleaded guilty to insuranCe fraud,
DONNA TISDALE
P.O. BOX 1275
BOULEVARD, CA 91905
(619) 766-4170. FAX: (619) 766-4922 '
;:;'L(-f/
DIANE RICHARDS
1783 BUCKMAN SPRINGS RD.
CAMPO, CA 91906
(619) 478-9195
-T
HU~-::'2-96 IMU le:8~. ........ ::;....,_"..r........
MiIIerlMace St. Transfer Station
8-21-96 Page 2
Our group has UDCQvered nUmerous questionable activities related to 1his landfill. We are
now in the process of trying to get Campo'ldederal permits revoked bceauSe of the
indictments and ongoing federal investigation of Mid-American Waste SysteIllS, their
officers and' associates, regarding illegal campaign contn"butions and illicit kickbacks on a.
landfill contract in Gary, Indiana. The attached Waste News article (May 6, 1996)
discusses the indications "...federal authorities in Southern Ca1iforoia are conducting their
own investigation of the company's activities there" We provided a lot ofinfonnation to
authorlties 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 fuUy disclosed to potential
customers. The City of Chula VISta is well aware of our 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, Sanifill.
USA 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 ofthe City ofChula VISta or by any other body.
Since!~ ' . ,-...
~ /";q.^-
Donna Tisdale, .
President
. r _ ,.
ee with enc!05UteS: Mliyor Shirley Horton
. John Moot . '
. Steve padilla
JerrY Rindone
Scott lJevy
SDSWMA
"
C 4 - (q
-"'_'->-_..... ,"v ,'" "~. _'- .'-'~ ......-, ~'o-,__. '_.
"
-~.;" . """-' ., -''';'-
r" . 0....
-
PAelFIC DISPOSAL., INC.
.199112 Mace Street
Chula Vista, CA 92011
(619) 221-8060
Fax: (619) 476.0768
Mr. nm Nader. Mayor
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista, Ca, 9191 0
September 13,1994
Mr. Mayor '
We at Padfie Disposal. Inc. thank you for the opportunity to present to the City Council
our proposed transfer station plans.
\. Si te
.
. We hnve IQC'Rted a site at 187 Ma'ce StrC'ct in the City of Ch\lln Vista, This site is in nn
. ,
industri'al area- encompa~sing 4.75 acres.
2, Fadlity
The fadIity will 40,000,5'1' ft. in size \IndC'r roo[.\\;th rOOOl- for t'xpllnsion for a MRF
stntion. This fadlity \\ill have the capadt~. to handle 300,000 tOllS per year,
3, Funding
Pacific Disposal, Inc, is fully funded for, the complction of this project,
4. Dump Sites .
We have a contract with Mid.American Waste Systems for their Cnmpo. Ca. hmdfill and
have an agreement \\ith Southwest Disposal for 1000 tons per day at their Somerton Az,
landfill.
5. Pricing
We believe' we am Rchi~e a tipping-fee for the City of Chllla Vista's waste of 542,50 per
ton all inclusive. This fec:. is based oh both Mid.Alllericnns Campo site Rnd Southwest's
landfill in Arizona. .
6.'Operatlonal start.up . . . '
'vVe project that we- "ill be In operation I S months from the d~y-of approval of land 1I'c:.
by the Cit)' of Chula ViS!:I.
134-(9
,-.,. .~~1::::;-22-S6 Th0 16;(:;4 A:-i E>,":":'J~lr~C.
~ -.
"
'T'" .
:;1
6:.50 7t:-t:>.4S::'Z
In closing we wOllld like to e.'(tend to YO" the opportunity to view our pl;lns In detail Rnd
would make available to City Stafr, any and all documents that relate to this proJect.
)0,& ~ P",id~l
Pac! I Disposal. 1m:,
')
E ~ - d-.()
p.es
,.'
I;
I
!
H U Co -:. ~ - ':. 6 T M V ~ ~ ; 0::: 4 k :-, .b':" D ~ . r~ ~ .
>-.
~
-= V
~ >
~ 8
"'" v
~
.. -0
...
...
i '"
-;:;
~
-j 0
" t>.
~ ,::2
l. -0
,. 0
8 ~
-
So
< 't;
"
"'0
....
u
:::
-0
0
....
Co
E
0
..::
2
o
v
..
u
e-
N
....
\0.,
"'::l
U
u
~
-0
~
:E
:e
c:
.
~
-
U
i:
U
ell
'"'
-
;:;
E
u ~
....
~ C--
'"' C--
:>: .....
~ -..5
-0 >.
., "
- ~
0
t>ll
.::
-
...
0
t>.
"
c:::
:;".::' . ow .... .;o.,.;;,L
~ w, ~Eo'-'O"""lIo<,"~ &'-. -.: ....". .C'...-.o
I:: ~c ~ ~~~~u~c~- _~e~ ~-- ~~~~ -o.e~~--
., E 10:1 e -'.! ~ 51 :: W: ~ ~ Ci ~.::; ::: -.l ".~ ~ --: f..,., 0:= ~.- iii _ U Co ~ l};'::"'9
"'C t ~ =:; .; -c c: ;; :; E:'; _ S P.. ~ ;: ~ '5 _!i 5. Cf.L!i ~ .....ij -.; :E c t: Q '" t E 0 ~
... _ IlJ _ _ _ v .. .. c: r. e ~ _ > -. 0 Co> .,;:: ._ ...... ., _ c....c: w -' ~_
. c t:;, co.... I.l u ~.- J:::'" C "" ~ 0 0 - .... '" K 0 01'" '1:'" ... - ~ .
~'gci5-g ~zt:~>n.o'~'~~~ ~~.c::5..:::~E; E::::!&lr: A5;-o~::olG.
~.,. ~~...~C ...'- ~.~~C~~~ g~~o ~-o "Q~o
0_ "":::ICD.~lo.;:;;"":I:le:;: C'-"'=.o.l:O" -.J8.r..- ... ~'''''''".!!8'
.l(a.."'O" ~-..l 1'l~.D~O ClO:S:'= ......."Cl < ...,u J:. E:::IoucW.
::~f::... _....,,..,L...\,,._""_... &Ie Il-.J ~IC &.1>.- -.,_ocnoo
IC 1e"""Z r.... 0 C = 0 "'.- - tIC I..r 0 ... ... c." en" vi.s= r::" ~:::~." 0'1 ._ ... III 0
'" :::-:: . c - 10 n >.. ~""tl -- 0 -- r::... ~ ., ~ .. ."'tl aJ :::; C:::l' ~ .. - - . E Ih
u.. o~.= ,,0-.1': co:bCB ~., c.. 0 ~_~ E~l.; :>'.~ WI eA i.~~i...o~-
i:;~ gE-.~g,g:';~2Sc ~t~~!~::'E 'CIO~~ .E.see~...:S'5;
e c: e w "'" c '!: u e ~ ~ U"ij. ~'ij '" ~ C :t btI 0 0 0 t.s ~ C::.., c: c ~ a. "tl ~ M W 0 _
-::"-0 1,l:::-.JIooOIWI't.C-- ...:._ ... ..-~~-4,;:;."'~lle eu_ ... .....ceo.
'''e'i'u- .-;:Ie IL~ '" U S,c,. g,-';:t: .~~- ~ ~-; >',,:;0-;;>'" ~.~"-::;j c.... ..s
>c....~ '.!s.J::"" ... -.J o~ ....~"'.J: Ill>..\:: ii.z:-._ - ~~-
g ~ g: ~ ~ ~.!! 1:: ., 11lC ~ ; ~ "" g ~ E i ! f-oo.!l E ~ :; < .... c': E'" E "" ..:"~ 1lO.~ . ~
uoo-~ ~Q~~c.~uE~~~ ~OIO 8So~ ~Bo< ~~~_~~~~
ill ~ "" . ~ . ....... 4P u....: t:!')'" t.l ;... s:: .':'''"'g >a"'C >. ".,:,. Q -:: 0
~ ~oE~E-'~ .....~Cw .u~~-- ~Ut:~.~ ~.O~-
.. ~ 0';; Il tlCl E tIS:.= . ~ "'" E: tI.., 0 _ .., ._> . .. .,,, .a 0 Cl _
CI "'0 C -- U _... - "C. _.&l 0 _ '" ..... U,J:J "."e--
t) ,,~u ~ u._ - '_'-. C . il '': .r. ~ .- c.. . t.l - ... .- ceO' .- 0
en .~Cl"-II:J8 "'l;I1)'''IIIl''~..Q-.l'....~ .",..."'1:5'" _c_lIlo
EGl...vco .C.1""'~_..t'l c: ':u"l;l c..--'epc:.a ",.-tQ.f.
. >,,- ~ _ ~'-:;i""'" ca 10 ~ ., C 1lS.- s: E - ..."'tI.. r-.
v.l 0 or-- 0 ~- . Co < o,J "'" .'- 0 w. u.r: 0."'0 c";t.......
.....;. -_ .J.....o '- -"..,~~c- . ~'lIIII!w...1l 0_--_
_ g.~.oC= .....-.;;-O.".~..c:.-c:-.l'Oc= C;>,Go.blI ",-O'U"'C
-l;! ..!!ec~l.Ii11l-::)bOt:-"1:~:E-..~8. "'",c'""'l..! ~oQ.c~
~~ .9w~~~~f~.E~:Gr.~~~t~ eZJ~d~ ~~~~.
l.s Ell:; ~ '" ~ ~ ...:5 i: ..~::: t- '" ~ c: E '" ~ Q, Do ~ . J;j ~'J:. ~ .
E"c o...~=cE]~~,,8g=iit~j28.s] ~~~c~: ~~Eo~~
o -.. EoW _IP) .......ltlllJ"'.. E .- 8'lJ_ -- '-...
'::'oT:: c ~ _ ~ c ~ ".... ~ - 0 Q"D. >..- c" ....: Lo ......." '" " .. E U 0...
- ......0... -u ::J.;)"'=, -v........ -....1)... .. t't ...
l ~.. 0. ~ 8.&: ::: g i:: = f ~ -? ::: Co M Q) ~ .. t: ...: ~ 0 '" :s ; - t:!" .: t':=
e "'~ SoD I.. .cp C.-- "._ C ~ w,S o.~lIS. -I: :"2 '" u_ E"Oi" 11.
~ c-o~-; ~=~~ 8.e:~Qc:~]~ =E:r;~. ~ti:'i: n ~~'~.!~:s:O(j ~
OOc "'..c~.J:.Oc O~:)O ~~-=o.....'" CJwc._<u _"0,,,
<..)~._ _..c....c.~c u........ ..~uu...., ~Q,~lJ 10 400_.....,
~
r<'I
U
::l
..
..
-
.
-
u
E
:::
~
:.,.. oJ'~ 0 _Clh
o~~ "E.-Eo,='"
":i3"'O -5:>lt1~S;t
j ~ "= ~"e o-&:
. -;:.... c>';, c> eg!! .
oJ = _ ~.;;) :> _,,-- ..,
'I- c tlIClo = ~'u~C"II::"
8.s", Ei~ Wc.l~
cO:> ""eo .0
C .- ~C. .tee .
~e E.; .!log g..c"iioll
== -.'i~.!8.g~':~:-5
fa e a 3 t ~ e fc::E ! i
ell -'e:Coc-::E
IW 'I' c: 0 S E ., c: .0
~ &1::J ... 8 . ~
(.) ~~~~U; 1:.
-e ~s~{:! 5=s.~
= c.~... o",,~o...
OJ . -. 'II: -", II E
= C'lEf~.5.~ ~~=_
ca - 0 ",~ ,,- ,,- ,-
--=:i.~~ 0.
~ ~o 0 c 0 "g:
<.s..., ;;;; .E= c'~
U .- "'O'IlCIIs:::.~8 "'CI.;&..!:
. "..'='":11 ..~~-
"=. ='- t~ '" l: 10
~o-;,~ ~ & "'8-
.!i.J:;cP=-.o::",o c
._ == e'te.g,= ..::: ~';;
... e" i-_" -';'0'; ~o l!''''-
,,51.-i ;';:.!! E
Q) !:~'; U g:S Bo;; E
C) r:J~-'::.~~ e<: lIlI c_
G.... '" c- . CI-.
IS" ;:;... 1tIO-"O-!;:..".c
E ~~l~;~~i!~~
= .EGc". a=~!oI
c.:.s =..9 te=
C ]l~O~~C~~
.. "'-"CS.- "e.
... ".!"...::: eo!!
E_ w ; ..
~ <-o~E.fo'il"
. 1" :2li h'~:;:i. g
-= :E.Jfl;o=...o
C It: .. .::
e .-...: c--
i ...... "~O'l\.
. CD .e~~~-c.. \
._ IE !i~C..!].:~
:E.. 1(1).!~~i;;;;C,,:
~ va-I! e:c:2.... e
1:! ~iilP
~.ti-__z;~_e
E 4- - ;;:L(
/'
/?
tn
Q)
.
'-
Exhibit 5
Extract of the Minutes from
the 8/14/96
Planning Commission Meeting
Excemt from Draft Planning Commission Minutes of 8/14/96
ITEM 2,
PUBUC 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) (fo be continued to meeting of August 28, 1996)
Mr. Lee informed the Commissioners that staff was working on the environmental analysis, the
Agency meeting had been rescheduled, and staff requested continuation of SUPS-96-02 to the
August 28 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that again the public hearing should be
opened for those who wanted to speak and could not return on August 28, and then the item
should be continued to the meeting of August 28.
Chair Tarantino opened the public hearing, He noted that anyone who spoke at that meeting
would defer their chance to speak on the 28th.
Mike Kelley, 3749 Festival Ct., was opposed to the trash plant. There were already a lot of
trucks in the neighborhood, It was less than three blocks from his house; Otay Elementary
School nearby, noise, pollution. blocking of streets, U-turns already out of control; 156 more
trucks trips daily; if low on fuel, the trucks would go to the nearby gas station to refuel.
Thought the trucks were killing their property values. There had been diesel spills from the gas
station down to Main Street, Fire Department puts sand on it, A motorcyclist had gotten into
the diesel fuel and had an accident. Main Street will be even more dangerous.
Frederick G. Payea, Jr., 1641 Hilltop Dr., opposed because plant would be close to residential
neighborhood. Why not locate it near the dump on Main Street, It would bring odors, vermin.
rats, rodents, flies.
R. L. Boyd, 1575 Hilltop Dr., reiterated other comments; concerned about diesel fumes;
parking across the street; three schools within five block area of plant; children's safety;
extremely dangerous; that part of C,V. is being made into a slum with this action; already have
two half-way houses in the area. It's enough, Time to change things.
Patty Diaz, 231 Date St., concerned that traffic is already bad from Nelson Sloan and Laidlaw;
new bus lane in front of their business on Mace; 40 mph traffic on Main; pollution,
tnysses 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:Jad 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:s- (
'..T
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 envirorunental plan, The speakers had talked about their
concerns with the children. The river could be affected. They had been promised a park behind
them, They had seen no evidence of that. The traffic was bad, There should be a stop sign
on the exit from Date onto Main, because Main became a hill between Melrose and Hilltop and
the trucks and cars go very fast. On Date and Otay Valley Road. there had been dozens of
accidents because they don't see the post. That had never been changed. The field was not
developed. and could be a two-way road, They did not even have a sidewalk. He was
concerned that Otay Elementary School would be too close to the plant. He thought it would
be better as a park, or somewhere for the children to play,
B. Rosie Bystrak, 24 Tourmaline St.. stated that her back yard faced Main Street. They have
a problem at night when they hear the semi trucks that honk to warn people they were going
through the light because they couldn't stop. She has also heard the screech and bang when
someone did not stop, She wanted to know where the trash would come from, where it would
go, why must it stop there if it was a transfer. It was in close proximity to their neighborhood.
They already have mice and bugs, a sulfur smell when it is humid and hazed, To have a dump
site would make it worse, She wanted some explanations, She wanted her neighborhood
protected.
John Arinas, 375 Date Street, lives east of the site, and said he had not gotten notice until the
first of August. He had collected signatures but would bring more to the next meeting. People
in the area of Date and Palm were not aware of it. They had questions regarding health,
envirorunent, rodents, With the amphitheater, the water park, and the whitewater, he did not
think this trash site would not be appropriate. The recycling place made it easier to put this
trash place in, He believed the transfer should be east by the trash dump site. If the City
wanted this community as promised to them when they 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 defmitely opposed.
Sal Lukey, 1636 Jasper Ave., asked if on the 28th she could ask questions and to whom.
Chair Tarantino informed her she would have an opportunity to speak during the public hearing,
and staff or the applicant could answer her questions.
Assistant Planning Director Lee pointed out that Martin Miller was the project planner and
anyone who had questions before the 28th could call Martin at 691-5101 and he would try to
answer their questions. Or if they needed research that staff could assist on, staff would try to
accommodate them. He noted that the staff report would be ready on Thursday. August 22.
If anyone would like a copy, they could call Nancy Ripley at the same number and leave a
message to get a copy mailed or to pick up a copy.
E-:) d-
'T
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 boundJiries of an application, By City policy, that notification area had been expanded
to 1,000 feet on large-scale projects. Assessor parcel numbers were used for verification of
ownership and residence, Both are notified in accordance with the assessor's records, In
addition, in this case, there was a public forum held in July, The purpose of those forums was
to have the applicant propose on a more informal basis to the public and give them a chance to
ask questions. City staff are there.to'inform people of the process that would take place in the
notification.
Ms, Bystrak said that in the vicinity where this building was to be built, she thought the closest
house may be 1,000 feet. Mr. Lee said Date Avenue was approximately 650 feet to the east end
of the property. Everyone on Date Avenue should be on the mailing list.
Ms. Bystrak said that those north of Main Street would not have gotten any kind of notice. U-
Haul had gotten a notice, but anybody else beyond that point would not have gotten any. These
were neighbors who lived just behind the area. She was concerned and had passed the word
along.
Mr. Arinas said that on Date Avenue there were only four houses connected to Date Street,
where nobody had gotten notice, There were no houses around Mace. He thought the
notification should be changed,
Chair Tarantino noted that they could comment at the meeting of August 28,
Mr. Maldonado said that regardless of what anybody said regarding the distance, once the plant
was there everyone beyond 1,000 feet would know, They couldn't rely on luck to be at the
meeting. They had to rely on people's good will to do something right.
MSC (DavislWillett) 5-0 (Ray excused; Tuchscher not yet arrived) to continue the public
hearing to August 28, 1996.
L S-3
'T
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 11/19/96
4
ITEM TITLE:
REPORT Status of Family Fun and Recreation Center project and
presentation of preliminary alternative proposals for the Lower Sweetwater
Valley area at the southwest quadrant of SR-54 and 1-805
SUBMITTED BY:
Community Development Director I:\\-~
, '/(V
Executive Director -9 kol51,
L')
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No-.2Ll
BACKGROUND: An Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ("ENA") by and between Pacific Malibu
Development Corporation and Warner Properties, the City of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment
Agency was approved on November 15, 1994, The ENA expired on March 15, 1995, and
accordin91y does not now bind any party thereto, The agreement was executed in order for the
parties to negotiate the terms and conditions for sale of the Agency-owned parcels in the Lower
Sweetwater Valley area for the purposes of developing a Family Fun and Recreation Center
project, A map of the Lower Sweetwater Valley area is included as Exhibit A alon9 with a site
plan for the fun center project (Exhibit B).
The Agency originally purchased the property for potential low and moderate income housing
purposes, however, it was subsequently determined that the site may not be preferred or viable
for such uses. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Agency will transfer the property to the City
prior to any sale to a developer. The Agency has indicated that the proceeds of the sale will be
applied to the Veteran's Home project.
Since that time staff completed, in principle, the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
negotiations for the project which was presented to the Council/Agency during a Closed Session
meeting on September 5, 1995. It was the expectation of all parties at that time, that the
developer would begin processing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other required land-
use entitlements all of which would then be presented concurrently for Council's formal
consideration at an appropriate public hearing.
However, for a variety of reasons, the developer has not made application for any of the project
entitlements to date. Additionally, staff has been approached by other parties interested in
pursuing alternative development proposals for the site. Therefore, this report serves to provide
an opportunity for the Family Fun Center developer to update the Council/Agency on their project,
and also afford an opportunity for other interested parties to present their conceptual project
proposals for discussion, Staff has provided notice to the surrounding neighborhood (1,000 ft.
radius) of the nature and content of this item.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has provided four options for consideration which are presented on
page 4 of the report. It is recommended that the Council/Agency adopt Option 1 which is to: 1)
require Warner Properties, by minute resolution, to immediately (within 7 days) provide evidence
of financing and file for all entitlements for the proposed project; and 2) that if Warner Properties
4- /
Page 2, Item 4
Meeting Date 11/19/96
is unable to perform, staff is to come back to the Council/Agency for more formal consideration
of other proposals or options for the site.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Staff was advised in early 1996 that there was the strong potential that the Family Fun Center
developer may not be able to perform under the existing financial arrangement, and that Warner
Properties would begin to search for other potential financial investors, At this time, staff would
be hesitant about proceeding with the developer (even if applications are filed for the EIR and
related entitlements) until such time as they can demonstrate that financing for the project is
available. Staff would not want to place development rights for the Agency-owned parcels in
jeopardy of being entangled in a third party legal dispute. It is expected that Warner Properties
will update the Council during the meeting about their progress in this regard.
Alternative Proposals
Staff had been approached about several alternative potential projects for the site; one of which
has dropped out (Bonita Valley Christian Center). Additionally, staff was recently advised of an
interest by the existing KOA Campground owner to expand his facility to include the Barnabas
Foundation parcel (adjacent to KOA), as well as the interest of the local neighborhood to use the
Agency's parcel as a "nature park", Provided below in alphabetical order, are brief summaries of
the development concepts as discussed and presented in general terms to staff by the potential
applicants, The proposed applicants will present preliminary information about their projects and
address any questions that Council may have, Inasmuch as this is all preliminary and conceptual
information, staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate the viability or appropriateness of such
proposals nor are prepared to indicate what sort of specific entitlement process would be
necessary to evaluate and process the proposed projects,
KOA Expansion/Nature Park
Included as Exhibit C is a concept proposal from Ted Bell, Kampgrounds Enterprises, Inc"
to expand the existing KOA campground facility to include the 18 acre parcel currently
owned by the Barnabas Foundation located immediately to the east, The KOA proposal
contemplates that the expansion parcel would be used for 4 basic uses: 1) expansion of
the existing developed tent/cabin areas (1-2 acres), 2) expansion of the RV storage area
(2-4 acres), 3) a new open/group area (10-13 acres), and 4) creation of ponds and open
stream-like drainage (1-2 acres within the open/group acreage).
The expansion of the tent/cabin areas and RV storage areas are self-explanatory and would
be located immediately adjacent to the existing uses. The "Open/Group" area however,
would be the dominant land-use and is contemplated to be an open park like area with
minimal paving and structures that would be used to accommodate larger camping and day
use groups such as RV rallies, youth groups, and other special events.
~-:A
Page 3. Item 4
Meeting Date 11/19/96
Nature Park
Provided as Exhibit D, is a proposal advanced by a resident of the surrounding
neighborhood suggesting that the Agency's 14 acre parcel (located immediately to the east
of the Barnabas property) could be purchased by the City's Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fund and kept in a virtually natural state for use as a "nature park".
The park could include a walking/jogging trail and could be accessed through 1st Avenue
and the Sweetwater flood control channel which is part of the City's greenbelt system,
The proposals for the KOA expansion and Nature Park are presented together since they
are proposed for different parcels, could be developed jointly, and are generally compatible
and similar in nature. However, the proposals do not include any plans for the landlocked
Mross parcel of approximately 6 acres immediately to the east of the Agency's parcel
closest to the 1-805 freeway. Any development of the valley needs to account for and
include access to the Mross parcel. In the event that the Mross property would be
considered for inclusion as part of the Nature Park proposal, the last appraisal of the
property (prepared for the City in May 1994) set the value at $250,000 or $1 .OO/square
foot.
South Bay Pentecostal Christian Community Center
South Bay Pentecostal, currently located at 395 "D" Street in Chula Vista, has indicated
the desire to construct a "Christian Community Center" over the entire 38 acre site.
Included as Exhibit E is an overall summary of their proposal along with a preliminary site
plan. The phased project is envisioned to include a main church auditorium and multi-
purpose room, day care facility, outdoor recreational facilities (softball, soccer, tennis,
volleyball), Christian Academy (K-1 2), gymnasium, and seminary, The project is envisioned
to be developed with emphasis on maximizing open space and minimizing visual impacts
on the surrounding neighborhoods. Senior Pastor, Art Hodges III, is a resident in the area
and has indicated that he has been active in and understands the concerns of the
surrounding neighborhood, Although the South Bay proposal applicant has not discussed
acquisition of the Agency's parcel, staff understands that discussions have been held with
both Barnabas and Mross.
Although the above described projects could potentially bring some unique benefits to the
community, staff was still desirous of providing Warner Properties additional time to provide
evidence of financing and file the appropriate applications when this item was originally scheduled
to be agendized last month.
Family Fun and Recreation Center Project
Staff still believes that the Family Fun Center, along with the badly needed recreational ballfield
facilities, would provide a substantial overall benefit to the community as a whole both in terms
of additional recreational and family entertainment facilities for the public and increased revenue
to the City, Staff is also confident that the project can be designed, conditioned and monitored
effectively in order to help alleviate some of the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood relative
to traffic, crime and noise,
4-3
._~..
Page 4, Item 4
Meeting Date 11/19/96
The developer worked with the City for a long period of time while the City was sorting out other
potential uses for the site including the Veterans Home and a mobilehome relocation park, among
others, Their patience in this regard has been returned with the City providing them ample time
since the proposed DDA terms were discussed with Council over a year ago, However at this
point, the developer has had enough time and staff believes that if the developer is not able to
perform now, then the chances are likely that they won't be able to perform in any reasonable
timeframe, The developer is well aware and appreciative of the City's patience and understands
that failure to perform immediately could result in the City abandoning their proposal and going in
a different direction,
Council/Agency Options
Provided below are four basic options for Council's consideration.
recommendation,
Ootion
is staff's
Option 1,
Require that Warner Properties immediately (within 7 days): 1) present evidence that all
remaining financial issues have been resolved; 2) that financing for the project has been
secured; and 3) file for all planning and land-use entitlements including the Environmental
Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment. In the event that
Warner Properties fails to perform, staff is to come back to Council with a more formal
consideration of other project proposals and options for the disposition of the Agency's
parcel and overall development of the Lower Sweetwater Valley area.
Option 2,
Direct staff to cease any further formal consideration of the Family Fun and Recreation
Center project, and direct staff to begin negotiations and evaluation of one of the other
alternative proposals and come back to Council within 15 days with a status report and
recommendation on how to proceed,
Option 3,
Direct staff to cease all consideration of any other project proposals at this time, and issue
a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the site,
Option 4,
Direct staff to cease all consideration of any project proposals and wait to see if any other
viable opportunities arise in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action (option 1) of this report
which is to merely require the Family Fun Center developer perform immediately. Obviously, there
has been a substantial amount of staff time associated with this project along with the expense
for outside attorney fees for negotiation and preparation of the virtually finalized Disposition and
4-1
Page 5, Item i
Meeting Date 11/19/96
Development Agreement, The fiscal benefit of the Family Fun Center project is primarily the
development of recreational facilities that otherwise would be borne by the Parks and Recreation
Department, Option 2 would not have an immediate fiscal impact but could result in other legal
fees/costs very quickly in the event that the preliminary analysis and negotiations lead to more
formal actions to proceed from Council. The economic benefits associated with Option 2 have not
been determined since the proposals are still conceptual in nature. Options 3 and 4 do not have
a fiscal impact since staff could prepare and issue the RFP, but their would be a significant time
delay before any project would be presented for Council consideration,
Regardless of what direction is taken, the fact remains that the Agency's Low/Mod Housing Fund
needs to sell its' parcel as part of the transaction for the Veteran's Home project. In the event
that the property is not privately sold, then an internal property transfer arrangement will need to
be completed. Pursuant to the same May 1994 appraisal for the three parcels, the value was set
at $1 ,OO/per square foot, or $620,000.
(lh) M:\HOME\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\1 1-19-96\ffcupdat.113 [November 14, 1996 110:23am)]
4-::,-
.....
PROJECT LOCATION
LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY "SPECIAL STUDY AREA"
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
, .
.....
...._1
-,
o
~
Lowerr SWfttwaterr Valley
Iif;5
FIG. 2
if -Co
..._~
1 ~l)
g
~
(0)
[ilR]
CCQJ
={]
~:::J
t-?
~
u==
W
~
WD
t@
lr-..J
-~
~.~
L:;;:;:J
c;:;'"
-- ,
"
~ \69
........... f 1:' I
ig;~
...~ II 3 :z:
..- ~" ~
(;II ~U
o_m
N.~
i~m
...!!:lClll
.-
;;E
r1JTI[-
4-"7
.fi-=-d
~
T
i~~~~~
p,o BOX 1580 ~
i-i:?,;-;,~92038'580 _ ~
, ___L .
- .
Kampgrounds Enterprises, Inc.
EXHIBIT C
Franchisee of Kampgrounds of America. Inc.
111 NORTH SECOND AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
TELEPHONE (619' 427.3601
November 5, 1996
Mr. Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
City ofChula Vista
276 4th Ave,
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr, Salomone,
Would you please review and include this proposal with the information regarding the
development of the lower Sweetwater valley in the vicinity of the KOA Campground for
the City Council meeting of November 19, 1996,
If you have any questions or suggestions please give us a call as soon as possible,
Thank you, A /7;)
):gj A?-~/'/ ~ /&2f:J/
Ted & Mike Bell
Kampgrounds enterprises mc,
12- 4-q
November 6, 1996
KOA Expansion proposal for adjoining 19 acre parcel in the Sweetwater Valley
For several years the community surrounding the vacant land in the lower Sweetwater valley in the
vicinity of the KOA campground has had to deal with numerous development proposals for that land,
Most, ifnot all, have been met with strenuous objection by community members and for one reason or
another have failed. The latest round of development proposals include a Fun Center,
Church/Seminary, and Modular homes, None are supported by most residents in the community or
KOA In an effort to put a stop to the endless rounds of development proposals, community members in
conjunction with the Owners of the KOA have decided to take a proactive approach and suggest our
own development for the valley, We believe This development will be acceptable to the majority of
local residents, give the community most of the elements they have sought and give KOA a viable
economic base to justifY purchase of the 19 acre adjoining property. Concurrent development of the
Nature park and the 19 acre parcel by KOA would resolve the use of the Majority of the valley,
Summary of uses for the property:
There are four primary elements of use that would occur on the expansion property, These are uses
that are compatible with current operations of the KOA campground: I, Expansion of developed
tenting and/or kabin areas, 2. Expansion ofRV storage areas, 3, Creation of open/group area, 4,
Creation of ponds and related drainage areas. These proposed uses are described below:
Use
Aprox area
covered
1-2 acres
Location
Expansion of developed
tentlkabin area
Expansion ofRV storage
Open/group area
Ponds and drainage
directly adjacent to existing park
2-4 acres
10-13 acres
1-2 acres
directly adjacent to existing storage areas
balance of property not otherwise used
within the Open/group area
Description and Justification of uses:
1. Expansion of existing developed tent/kabin areas
While overall occupancy and demand for camping sites has weakened over the last ten years,
our summer occupancy for tent and kabin sites is fairly strong and we can justifY the investment
in additional sites, Design features for these sites would resemble current park appearance with
emphasis on suitability for small groups such as scout, and church outings, This area would also
serve as a transition zone to the open/group area and include space for recreation activities such
as horseshoes, and volleyball,
2. Expansion of existing RV Storage areas
Expansion of the RV storage areas is a key element in the overall development plan, Currently
our existing storage facilities are at capacity and we anticipate that if we had more space
available we could utilize it. Expanded storage is the primary income source which would allow
us to justifY purchasing the 19 acre parcel. It is the only way we could offer to keep the balance
of the property in a relatively open state with low intensity usage, Storage is utilized by both
out of town visitors and by local residents. The combination oflocation, amenities and low cost
4-9
has made this a popular feature, Our intention is to use natural perimeter screening and
intersperse trees and shrubs within the storage areas to soften the view ofRV roofs,
3. Creation of Open/Group area
The open/group area would be the dominant land feature on the 19 acre parcel. The concept
behind this would be creation of an open, park like area primarily covered with grass and
interspersed with trees and shrubs, Paving and structures would be minimal. The primary use
would be to accommodate larger camping and day use groups on an infrequent and short
duration basis. A similar concept was used successfully some years ago at Optimist field which
is now a part of Rhor park, Proposed types of uses and their estimated frequency are shown
in the following table,
Tvoe of GrouD Est. # of Frequencvof Duration
peoDle Use of Use
Large RV rallies 200-400 4-6 per year 3-5 days
Small RV rallies 80-200 5-10 per year 3-5 Days
Church groups 40-500 2-3 per year 2-3 days
Family ReunionslPicnics 20-100 8- I 2 per year 1-2 days
Youth groups 40- ] 00 2-4 per year ]-3 days
Amenities that would be incorporated into this area would include one centrally located multi-use
building that would have meeting/pavilion space, restroom, and kitchen areas. Low leve] safety lighting
would provide about 2 foot candles oflight. A small toilet building to be jointly used by the groups and
the adjacent nature park would also be built. This open/group concept would be a revenue producer both
to KOA through use/camping fees and to the City through enhanced T,O, Tax and other tax revenues
(est. $20.000/yr increase), However. it would not create sufficient revenue on its own to justifY the land
cost.
4. Creation of Ponds and drainage
To enhance the appearance and generate interest, water features would be incorporated into the
open/group area, In concept, this would be a pond or series of ponds that would be created with a
natura] look, Limited use for recreational fishing, paddle boats, etc, would be assumed. Swinnning
would not be allowed. Incorporated in to the pond design would be a provision for an open, stream-like
drain to accommodate runoff generated by Las Flores Dr, and the property itself.
Other amenities and issues
Provision of pedestrian access to the Nature park from the Las Flores St. area would be provided along
the perimeter of the 19 acre parcel through a walking trail.
The remote toilet building mentioned in the open/group area would be built and maintained by KOA and
made available for use by groups visiting the Nature park,
Prepared by/Contact: Ted or Mike Bell, Kampgrounds Enterprises inc.
III N. 2nd Ave" Chu/a Vista. CA 91910
Phone: 427-3601
~ 4- (0
~. .....~;._-_.,~<.".__._-_.,. ..,.---..--."..
KOA Expansion Proposal
~
4-((
._._---~--.....,._.._.._--_._----"-'---_.__.~.-
November 5, 1996
Dear Members of the Chula Vista City Council,
Please consider Ted Bell's plan for expansion of the KOA. We have lived
in our home on Corte Maria Avenue for 12 years, We have a view of the KOA
from our backyard and livingroom. Ted has always kept the area neat, tidy and
pleasing to look at. As a neighbor he has been one of the best.
Ted listens to the needs of the surrounding neighborhood and works with
the community, We would look forward to the KOA expanding in the valley and
hope you will give him this opportunity, Expansion of the KOA would enhance
the view of the valley from all vantage points and would be compatible with the
neighborhood
Thank you,
I -
(i , L'I' -, I 'r I
~'-i{;L-<. / (, IN (, \".L/e
Dan and Sandra Renk
.1/..5 Co ,,]<-' i(",-,;" 1/",-
CJ'WI(( V :,I"J (/1 71(1/(1
/~," c'(
;--;''>< ;f-,/./ I,
,/ ) /), /')L" ,(c~~
~-c. lL.i." / /
Attachment I.
1 4 -( ~
-_._-_."--,,.._.._.,._~--_.. .
October 7, 1996
Dear fellow Lower Sweetwater Valley neighbors,
After last Tuesday's review of development options that will be presented to the
Chula Vista City Council, it came to mind that we may be missing a golden opportunity
if we do not strongly support the Bell's KOA expansion plans. Of all the proposals that
I've heard over the last ten years, this is by far the least offensive. During this time the
Bell's have been by our side strongly supporting our efforts to fight development. With
the expansion of their campground. they would have even more interest in helping us
fight development of the remaining properties,
Highlights of my thoughts are as follows:
· We are not infringing on the rights of property owners to develop their property, The
Bells are willing to purchase the property at current appraised value, clean it up and
landscape a large portion to appear as a park. Granted, they would also expand R V
storage, but would increase landscaping for all storage areas with a net result in a
more pleasant, "green" appearance, Look at the great job they have done with their
present sight (10 years ago it was pretty ~arren). I would trust them to maintain their
expansion in a very appealing manner.
· The Bells are strongly opposed to easement access from Second Ave, to the city
property and should have legal control to eliminate that access with their proposed
expansion. This access limitation could help our nature park proposal make more
sense. They do, however, want to allow our neighborhood public pedestrian access
around their proposed expansion to the nature park! green belt,
· The Bells are willing to work with us to fine tune a plan that we can live with,
including their potential neighbors on Las Flores. They are also willing to commit
resources to help develop the nature park. In fact, with their help, and a serious
neighborhood effort, we might possibly be able to make all improvements that would
be necessary for a nature park on the city's property at no cost to the city!
These comments are based on what I remember hearing at last Tuesday's meeting
and on questions I asked the Bells after the meeting, however please confirm their
intentions directly with them. I am certain, however, that the Bells are only willing to
present their expansion proposal to the city council if they get the support of our
neighborhood, Without our support and without their proposal, the chances are greater
that some other development may eventually get approved. If that happens it could hurt
KOA's business to the point that they may have to sell out to other developers, Where
would that leave us?
Family scouting and school commitments prevent me from attending any further
weeknight meetings, so please accept my above comments in in whatever way you feel
may be appropriate,
~~
Bruce Collin
58 Corte Maria
Attachment II.
~ 4 -/3
".....'..'"........-..--."..-..-"....
( )/c'f..'~. /J /99 tc.
(
jfQ-<<'~~U <-I ~/~_~~J ...A.-~Vl xi~, C'LtScc<:.~
.-<k--,-<-t.. E'__ Iq,'/-j~(::-Vo.LLJ 0<-lC<JJ .-L~'--'-'-~Y
)i4, ....->' Ct~..L~~ a..-c~cy1.-Jft{ DH\ ~.,fcz-'"f-:-0<j_
~L"'e:' ~"'~_[~_l!.._lCj~) Cf.-1 't-<_\'"-::-'-Vt ,,:tlLt
~--\' c>-i~J..:~"'\ -- <J. r?-v,-,c "-. !
C~~ ;Ct~~-'wu I ~i'<~H_L,-"I0jC;l-&(y-a1-'r
L-'-t.....-\ .~c_. ("-.'''\ L~'-L.1; 0)1 CL LC.c'-.., ..t.. LC;;(', ,./
, '-..I~ ('-r /
...L>)..-L-,,'-t,C-;,} ,,./\..L..(;- L L--1'L~-i--LL..t.-V .A..c- . Jc"t..-<.,LJ:.;: .
;top Ie <.;>-1..-1.-'""'<:.\ (-tF~l<.' ''''''1 2/..2+ ~ l) cu,:: L<._ ,.~. d-.+
_L"..,_A 9:b /o\,J.- [C.t-'.Ie .lJ}-il;_~'/l) '~2
(~t ..l~cjlL\..rL'.(, . '0
j,JlIL--v, /< (,I) f:L<.'-:f,)--0ceJ k....../\..-'<{,,",,-,--,<-.
..LC'<'-~-. {( Co"<-<'-\ I C-'-~-H__J. ~A~.c_ .....<.---...'-'-::-- _
A-- ,-~.....-t>-CL'1 --'l.".L. LL<:~ O.....r9-71Q..c...-tL!i...J L
" f "I l .?
CL..- .~'-1.A.L P"f::-">L<-u.....r:.. ~~ (..'--U-l
.1~-jQ-l-4o-...j .... .
CLtQ (-~{o ('--'-'.1 ~DL--Ld .J"'--c.t.L'-L__ J....L'_,l'-'-l
iQ.l<.: ,)-I'-V\ A-L)--lol-'-<-l (-f-...L.(: CL CL LJ-:ii-i-"'-"f
f{ 0 II J.e<--.J -- S-.U'.V\ =-- .-<.-t.'..cL<:..c.--t.1..-L-c..
cLJ...oL.....:.L-~.1 ~rt.;...;s.L~ 4U,.. C't-
_XLLL_3 '1;- _L\....(."IA-(t~ "-.L . '-
\A1:~!L' J1-d..l rCL I ~ .~ ,L<-( J)-)!~/4.c'L'-"-..Cf
..~tJ4'L'LL-<-t:5t, _eCL L<'C"'l-.1 ~ ,L('~* L~.._t.-"1
\l"~) C:ILLU_ ~ f<c\( .~" (k-L-\ ' /1,-~~!p-<1
Jr\~(-l'l_q.~k .-ttc...t <'..tA.<, .0y.-1.: l:lJcLL_(:
.A.U ,_<tic (~f'-(<l ' .
I/Z'C--.-J/ JjL<-j'J. 1-(U0>.1
Attachment III.
~ 4 -( if
~_.__.~.".._""_._'~---_.,---_.~._--_."-~........,...--_.__.._.-._-_...~~_.-
EXHIBIT D
November 5, 1996
Mr. Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr, Salomone,
Would you please review and include this proposal with the information
regarding the development of the City property in the lower Sweetwater valley
for the City Council meeting of November 19, 1996.
If you have any questions or suggestions please give me a call as soon as
possible,
Thank you,
~cL"-{, 7/( ,7h.C- ~-IL
Sandra McHale-Renk
45 Corte Maria Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
426-3117
ere- 4-fS
~" ..- .-',' ," -..--.,. ,.,_.... -_...,.,~-_.._'~._~. .-.----~..,...,,~---."-.__,r'--.---.~.-"-"---~-...-
Proposal for Lower Sweetwater Valley Nature Park
Concept:
The neighborhood surrounding the Lower Sweetwater Valley has
expressed a desire for a nature park to be situated on the city's 14 acre parcel
and including city property in the 1 st Avenue canyon with the surrounding
acreage to be used in a compatible manner. The nature park would provide the
surrounding community with a much needed area to observe nature, exercise
and access to the city's "greenbelt" along the Sweetwater River. It would also
provide an area for the local elementary schools to study nature (wildlife, vernal
ponds, etc.) and provide access to the Sweetwater River to allow wetlands
study.
We envision an area left in it's natural state with a walking/jogging trail.
Access would be by foot through 1 st Avenue canyon and by way of the greenbelt
on the Sweetwater River. Ted Bell (KOA) has offered to provide security to lock
a gate on the river access at a specific time after dark. In the event that Mr. Bell
purchases the adjacent property, he has offered to provide access and
maintenance to a restroom on that property for school, nature and volunteer
worker groups,
Several neighbors have suggested calling it Rosebank Nature Park to
give the school more of a connection to it.
Acquisition:
We propose that the city purchase this site from the Redevelopment
Agency with Parks Acquisition and Development funds.
Initial Development:
The neighborhood has suggested that clean up and access areas could
be developed with volunteers from the neighborhood with help from Ted Bell.
He has offered use of trucks, tractors and operators. Additionally, this could
qualify for public service workers through the San Diego Probation Department.
The walking/jogging trail could be offered as an Eagle Scout or service
organization project.
Maintenance:
The suggestions from the neighborhood include volunteer work parties, a
small donation given by neighbors of about $10 a year, public service workers
through the San Diego Probation Department, trucks and trailers with operators
from Ted Bell, scouts and service organizations,
tf L/-/~
..' ,_____.~.__~.4_.._.._,___,___... ... .'... ' .._.,_____.....,,__,._.'.._.. - .~
Pro po 5 2-d
}1~~~
D
I a r-l
-..,,-.
. ,
.. .
. ...;
......
l.owvr SWfttwatC2r Valley FIG.
-p- 4-/7
....~_'__._.___.___.__~". n_'_". .__0_'
E~P~M
EXHIBIT E
November 7, 1996
COMMUNiTY Of Vf LOPMUIl
DlI'AP [MENI
NOV 7 1996
Community Development Department
Lyle Haynes
236 Fig Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5047
Dear Lyle,
This letter is in response to your phone call requesting an update
concerning our interest in developing the Lower Sweetwater Area into the
Christian Community Center,
Our interest and desire to move forward with said development as stated in
our July 23, 1996 has not abated.
In fact, between the postponements of our scheduled presentations to City
Council, we have been working vigorously with the affected neighborhood
groups, our design engineers, and the other two property owners, to
maintain our forward momentum towards seeing the Christian Community
Center become a reality.
We are ready and anxious to proceed.
Sincerely,
/1 _-
--~~ -~
L
Arthur E. Hodges III
Sf. Pastor
PS - If you need to reach me, feel free to call my cell phone at 894-8184,
1iZ
4-1?
Christian Community Center
fulfills the Chula Vista Community Develoument's Mission Statement
The Community Development Department creatively plans and facilitates physical
improvements, economic development and social benefits which enhance the quality of life for all
people in the Chula Vista community. To achieve our mission we:
Create public/private partnerships to develop recreational, cultural, educational, and social
amenities,
o Partnership:
bZ1 Christian Community Center is the only project proposal for the Lower
Sweetwater Area that has initiated dialogue with the affected neighborhoods and sought to work
together with neighborhood and city from concept inception,
o Recreational:
bZ1 A one mile greenbelt with walking/jogging path surrounds the entire,
bZ1 Two softball fields,
bZ1 Regulation size soccer field encircled by a 1/4 mile running track.
bZ1 Three tennis courts,
bZ1 Three volleyball courts (beach and grass).
bZ1 Gymnasium with:
J Double basketball court.
J Health club-type facilities (weights, aerobics, sauna, etc.)
J Two racquetball courts,
J Swimming pool.
J Separate dressing rooms for men, women, boys, girls.
o Cultural:
bZ1 Multi-national church congregation (over 20 nationalities) presently includes
Spanish language services and Filipino (Tagalog) language services, has plans to
add additional language services in future.
121 State-of-the-art auditorium will host dramas, musicals, recitals, and other
special presentations, besides regular worship services,
Project of South Bay Pentecostal Church · 395 D Street · Chula Vista · 585-0600
4-(9 -iL-~ ~
Page I
Christian Community Center
fulfills the Chula Vista Community Development's Mission Statement
o Educational:
bZI Conference / Retreat Center
I.ZI 150 Student Pre-School / Daycare
bZI 200 Student Christian Academy
I.ZI 200 Student Seminary
o Social:
I.ZI Wedding facilities.
I.ZI Banquet facilities accommodating 500 sit-down guests.
I.ZI Commercial Kitchen.
I.ZI Dining/Meeting Hall overlooking lake.
I.ZI Picnic area.
Develop, finance, and preserve affordable housing opportunities.
I.ZI Dormitory housing for 200 Seminarians and some staff.
Provide assistance to local, non-profit organizations who are working to meet diverse
community needs.
o Local, Non-Profit Organization
I.ZI South Bay Pentecostal Church (4th & D) has been in local area since 1955.
o Working to Meet Diverse Community Needs
I.ZI We operate South Bay's only 24 hr. Teen Crisis Line (l-800-96-TEENS).
I.ZI Producer of Chula Vista's "Harvest Fest" (Halloween night alternative at Chula
Vista Bowl) in conjunction with Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and Koby's
Swapmeet.
Project of South Bay Pentecostal Church. 395 D Street. Chula Vista · 585-0600
1-20 or ~ ~
Page 2
Christian Community Center
fulfills the Chula Vista Community Development's Mission Statement
I.ZI Regular services held at area retirement centers (Chula Vista Inn, Ross Care,
Paradise Manor).
I.ZI Regular services held at area detention facilities (South Bay; R. J. Donavan;
East Mesa's Minimum Security, Medium Security, Maximum Security; Central,
Descanso, Los Colinas Women's, Men's; Vista)
I.ZI Regular services held at 32nd St. Naval Base Chapel; S.D. Rescue Mission;
S.D. Women's Rescue Mission; God's Extended Hand Ministries.
I.ZI Provide free counseling services.
I.ZI Provide food assistance to local needy families.
I.ZI Provide motivational speakers for area schools (1996 - Anthony Clark, world's
strongest man)
Promote a business environment conducive to generating local tax revenue, employment
opportunities, and a balanced community.
I.ZI Host several conferences each year which bring in hundreds of out-of-town
guests using local hotels, restaurants, businesses.
I.ZI Project will provide construction, employment, and maintenance opportunities.
Revitalize blighted or underutilized areas of the City.
I.ZI The Lower Sweetwater Area has invited nefarious activity problems for
neighbors because of its undeveloped condition.
I.ZI The Christian Community Center project will be ideal in changing this area
into a beautiful park-like setting that will enhance surrounding neighborhoods
and their property values.
I.ZI The Christian Community Center project will have the lowest negative impact
with the highest positive yield, benefiting the local area. With less than 3 acres of
building, leaving over 29 acres with no structure, this development will preserve
the ethereal feeling of open space.
I.ZI Strategically located at the 1-805 gateway to Chula Vista, this development
will be a unique crown jewel to Chula Vista's Community Development.
Project of South Bay Pentecostal Church · 395 D Street · Chula Vista. 585-0600
4 ~:2-.1 ~4]~ ~
Page 3
Christian Community Center
Com onents and Phasin
Auditorium:
'1,000 seats.
'3,000 seats (phase III).
.Approx. 26,500 sq. ft.
Elementary
.Approx. 4,200 sq. ft.
.K through 6th grade.
Junior High
.Approx. 4,200 sq. ft.
. 7th through 8th grade.
Phase I
MAIN AUDITORIUM BUILDING:
High School
.Approx. 5,100 sq. ft.
.9th through 12th grade.
Foyer:
'Approx. 6,000 sq. ft.
GYMNASIUM BUILDING:
Kitchen:
'Approx. 3,200 sq. ft.
'Indoor Olympic size swimming pool.
.Two full-court basketball.
'Separate Men's, Women's, Boys, Girls
dressing rooms.
'Aerobics room.
'Weight room.
.Two racquetball courts.
.Approx. 1,500 sq. ft. foyer
Multi-Purpose Room:
'Approx. 21,000 sq. ft.
DAY CARE BUILDING:
'Approx. 150 children
'Approx. 11,500 sq. ft.
Phase IV
Phase II
SEMINARY BUILDING:
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES:
'Approx. 200 students
.Approx. 16,000 sq. ft.
.3 - Tennis court.
.Soccer field.
.1/4 mile track.
.2 - Softball field.
.3 - Volleyball court. (sand/grass)
STAFF I SEMINARY HOUSING:
'Approx. 30,000 sq. ft. (4 buildings)
Phase III
MISCELLANEOUS:
Offices I Administration
.Approx. 6,000 sq. ft.
P-l .Green belt around entire perimeter of
property
P-l .Standard I handicapped parking spaces.
P-2 .Concession I snack bar at ball field.
P-4 'Lake with running stream.
P-4 .Gazebo with deck at Lake.
ACADEMY BUILDING:
(Approx. 200 students)
~l...l""'lo.J.~~
Project of South Bay Pentecostal Church · ~ ~treet · Chula Vista · 585-0600
L( -.:2-d- ~ 1fI51
\f
!
I
"
Ii
"
~
j
ll<
~
en
p::
fil
tii
~
.~
.~~
~ t/-c13
-
-~
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that a Public Meeting is scheduled before a Joint Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency regarding the
status of a proposed Family Fun and Recreation Center project for the Lower Sweetwater
Valley area. The site is located immediately east of the KOA Campground generally bounded
by 1-805, SR-54, and Second Avenue.
The meeting has been rescheduled to Tuesday, November 19, 1996, immediately following
the City Council meeting which begins at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California. Please be advised that the previously scheduled meeting date
of October 15 has been changed to November 19, and therefore, there will be no discussion
of this item on October 15.
Please note that this is not a public hearing and no decisions or commitments will be
made about the development of the Lower Sweetwater Valley area. This public meeting
is to provide an opportunity for the potential developer of the Family Fun and Recreation Center
project to update the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on the status of their project, as well
as an opportunity for any other interested groups to present their preliminary project concepts
for the site as well. Any interested members of the public will have an opportunity to speak on
this item.
Specific questions about the proposed meeting should be directed to Lyle W. Haynes, Assistant
to the Community Development Director, Community Development Department, at 691-5047.
Dated: October 8, 1996
~s-~
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
m:\home\comrndev\haynes\document\lswvpub2.not
fff 4 -2<-(
..""~~"-'-"-~-~._.--"'-_.'"--"---"'-~'
.
0
t
~ ~
x
l:J
::0
en
~
~
~
I: 888
)!
~
r-
-"
1
l.
~
r:>
~ " 0
. . .
z
. .
~ [
~ z .
! a
CC>R.NERSTC>~E
MASTER SITE PLAN FOR
CHVRCI-I DEVELOPl.\.riENT INC.
I
CI-I r<-I c:.TI,.."t-l c:.ot1 t1 U tJ I W Gci--lTe..f':..
CHULA VISTA, CA.
iAIRiCIHln':lf'llCO'Jt'
llB'Z'&lilS1t'OOO
n:m..n:.nlC>"R''n"
3837 WESSON RANCH RD.
Phone:209/577-3531
MODESTO,CA. 95356
Fax; 208/577-3531
, - -,...~~._-_._~.,~..._"._-,.._~-~._-
.- .
-
~
.i>
.-
[;>
~
u;
5
z
'"
~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that a Public Meeting is scheduled before a Joint Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency regarding the
status of a proposed Family Fun and Recreation Center project for the Lower Sweetwater
Valley area. The site is located immediately east of the KOA Campground generally bounded
by 1-805, SR-54, and Second Avenue. The meeting is to be held on Tuesday, September 17,
1996, immediately following the City Council meeting which begins at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
Please be advised that this is not a public hearing and no decisions will be made about
the development of the Lower Sweetwater Valley area. This public meeting is to provide
an opportunity for the potential developer of the Family Fun and Recreation Center project to
update the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on the status of their project, as well as an
opportunity for two other interested groups to present their preliminary project concepts for the
site as well.
Specific questions about the proposed meeting should be directed to Lyle W. Haynes, Assistant
to the Community Development Director, Community Development Department, at 691-5047.
Dated: August 30, 1996
~L, ~
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
m:\home\commdev\haynes\document\lswvpub.not
q - (3
-'T--