HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/23 Item 19
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: A. RESOLUTION 1165 APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BF/OP #03 WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES TO
CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON DRIVE,
CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND ADDENDUM THERETO,
ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROPRIATING $150,000 TO
THE BAY FRONT FINE ARTS ACCOUNT AND $399,500 FOR
CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ACTION)
B.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
245,000 SQUARE FOOT
DRIVE.
RESOLUTION Ir.. ~5 Certifying EIR -90-10 AND
ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, ADOPTING
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
ADOPTING FINDINGS FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT AND SIDE
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, ENTERING INTO A PARKING
AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES AND FINDING ROHR
INDUSTRIES' PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 245,000 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AS APPROVED BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON APRIL 23, 1991, IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 52. (CITYCOUNCILACTION)
CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL
NO. 52 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
OFFICE BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON
SUBMITTED BY: Communi ty Development Director (,?,
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager/Executive Director G{
(4/5ths v6te: YES-K-NO___)
Rohr Industries proposes to construct a 245,000 square foot
office building at 850 Lagoon Drive to house industrial research,
design and corporate personnel. The project plans were reviewed
by the city's Design Review Committee, EIR-90-10 and an addendum
was prepared to address potential impacts of the project, and a
mitigation monitoring program was prepared for the project. One
cumulatively significant impact was identified, therefore, CEQA
findings and a statement of overriding consideration will need to
be adopted.
The project is located within the Chula vista Coastal Zone and
the Redevelopment Agency must approve the project plans via Owner
participation Agreement BF/OP No. 3 prior to issuing a Coastal
Development Permit.
1'1 -,
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
/q
4/23/91
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached resolution:
1. Certifying EIR-90-10 and addendum thereto, adopting
CEQA findings and a statement of Overriding
Consideration, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program set forth in Attachment I; and
2. Approving Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP #03 with
Rohr Industries, Inc., attached as Attachment II; and
3. Appropriating $150,000 to the Bayfront Fine Arts
account and $399,500 for certain public improvements.
B. That the city Council conduct a public hearing, consider
public testimony, and adopt the attached resolution:
1. Certifying EIR-90-10 and addendum thereto, adopting
CEQA findings and a statement of Overriding
Consideration and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program set forth in Attachment I; and
2. Adopting findings for a building height and side yard
setback variance,
3.
Entering into a
Industries, Inc. ,
parking
agreement
with
Rohr
4. Finding Rohr Industries' proposal to construct a
245,000 square foot office building, as approved by the
Redevelopment Agency on April 23, 1991, is consistent
with the certified Chula vista Local Coastal Program,
and
5. Approving issuance of Coastal Development Permit No.
52.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee
(DRC) reviewed Rohr Industries' proposal to construct an office
building at 850 Lagoon Drive (DRC minutes attached) and
recommended that the Agency approve plans attached to Owner
Participation Agreement BF/OP #03 as Exhibit "B" subject to the
following conditions of approval:
1. A signed and recorded agreement securing the easterly
adjacent SDG&E easement as a parking facility for this
proj ect shall properly be recorded prior to issuance of
construction permits.
\tt-~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
ICf
4/23/91
2. Developer shall provide one parking space per each 300 sq.
ft. of gross floor area as required by section 19.62.050.
3. A site plan showing the development of the SDG&E easement
parking facility shall be submitted to staff for review and
approval, and shall be installed prior to the occupancy of
the Rohr building.
4. A master landscape plan and implementation schedule
addressing the landscaping for the entire Rohr industrial
complex shall be submitted and approved by the city's
Landscape Architect for review and approval prior to the
occupancy of the Rohr building.
5. A variance requesting the proposed encroachment into the
side setback and building height shall be obtained prior to
issuance of construction permits.
6. A pedestrian circulation system connecting the subject
project with the proposed easterly adjacent parking facility
shall be submitted to staff for review and approval.
7. A set of 8-1/2 x 11 photographs of the model and all
graphics presented at the meeting shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to submittal of plans for plan
check.
8. Level of reflectiveness of the building's glass component
shall be acceptable to the Local Coastal Plan intent to
restrict said material.
DISCUSSION:
The project site consists of 11.6 acres of vacant property
located on the south side of Lagoon Drive approximately 400 feet
west of Bay Boulevard and adjacent to and east of the FIG Street
marsh (see attached locator map). Rohr proposes to construct a
245,000 square foot office building on the western portion of the
site with two underground parking structures and surface parking
for 760 vehicles on the central and eastern portions of the site
(see site plan - Exhibit B of BFIOP #03).
site Plan/Architecture
The building will be approximately 750 feet long and three
stories in height. It is architecturally divided into three
segments creating a main building adjoined by a north and a south
wing. The building skin will be composed of glass and
articulated stucco bands with spaced vertical fins arranged
evenly along the entire length of the building with the exception
\C\ -~
Page 4, Item I~
Meeting Date~
of the central section of the western elevation which will be an
all-glass element. Beige stucco, varied tones of green glass,
green mullions, and gray painted fins will be the main materials
used.
The glass proposed for use on the building has reflective
properties. Since the project, particularly the west building
elevation, is located adjacent to the FIG Street marsh, a
sensitive wildlife habitat area, the Design Review Committee has
recommended that glass with a reflective level consistent with
the regulations of the Local Coastal Program be used. As a
condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a
sample of the building glass to the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator for approval. The Coordinator, with the advise of a
biological specialist, will determine the appropriateness of
glass proposed.
Parkinq
A total of 762 parking spaces will be provided on site. An
underground parking structure will be located at the southeast
corner of the site and will accommodate 238 vehicles and another
underground parking structure located at the northeast corner of
the site will house 221 spaces. In addition, 303 surface spaces
will be provided. Approximately 20% of all vehicle spaces are
proposed to be compact in size.
Based on a parking ratio of one space per 300 square feet of
building area, 817 spaces will be required to accommodate the
project. To meet this requirement, Rohr proposes to provide the
deficit on-site parking, 55 spaces, within the SDG&E right-of-
way directly adjacent to the project site which Rohr has leased
with options for at least 15 years. It is recommended that the
City enter into the parking agreement attached as Attachment II
to ensure that the applicant will provide the number of vehicle
parking spaces required by the ordinance.
The attached parking agreement guarantees to the City that Rohr
will provide the required number of vehicle parking spaces on-
site and adjacent to the site on the SDG&E easement which Rohr
currently leases with options for at least fifteen additional
years. The agreement states that if the SDG&E easement for any
reason is no longer available to Rohr for parking then Rohr will
provide an alternate site, satisfactory to the city, for the 55
spaces. If, for any reason, no site is satisfactory to the City,
then Rohr has agreed to reduce the active use of approximately
16,500 sq. ft. of floor area in the office building to negate the
need for the 55 spaces.
\q-I.\
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date
"
4/23/91
Landscape/Open Space
The project's on-site landscaping consists of three major
features. The main entry way to the building entails a
hardscaped plaza stepped-up to the building's second floor
central lobby. Precast concrete planters to contain trees and
flowering plants will be arranged on both sides of the plaza.
Trees, shrubs
building and,
within the 65
create a site
and ground cover will outline the exterior of the
a large grove of flowering trees will be placed
foot front yard setback adjacent to the building to
entry feature.
Landscaping within the surface parking area will consist of a
bosque of trees to de-emphasize the linear shape of the parking
lot. Canopy type shade trees will be arranged to
compartmentalize the lot. Canopy trees, shrubs, and vines will
be planted along the perimeter of the parking structures to
screen vehicles. A substantial detention basin to collect on-
site storm water and irrigation run-off will be created parallel
to the westerly property boundary. This open swale will be
planted with xeriscape (drought tolerant) plant material which
has been approved by the U. S. Fish and wildlife Service. The
swale has been designed to provide a physical and visual buffer
between the FIG Street Marsh and the project. In addition, a
0.14 acre grove of environmentally sensitive riparian vegetation
(principally sandbar willow) that will be removed to grade the
detention basin will be reestablished within this buffer. (A
Coastal Development Permit for site grading was issued in
February 1991.)
The project's landscaping will be limited to on-site
improvements. The city's Design Review Committee, when reviewing
Rohr's proposal, recommended that the Agency require Rohr to
submit a Master Landscape Plan for the entire Rohr complex as a
condition of approval for this project. Staff has evaluated the
committee's recommendation and considers a master landscape plan
premature at this time. Rohr has been reassessing their existing
facilities and is currently restudying the layout of their
buildings as they relate to the functions of their operations.
As a result of that study and the current project proposal, staff
anticipates the development of a master plan for Rohr' s Chula
vista complex will be forthcoming and, it would be more
appropriate to develop a master landscaping program in
conjunction with that master planning effort. Therefore, it is
recommended that the submittal of a master landscape plan not be
required as a condition of approval for this specific project
proposal.
\'\ -5
Page 6, Item /q
Meeting Date~
Land Use
The project will accommodate approximately 1300 employees. Rohr
plans to move employees currently working at the Chula vista
complex to the new building and consolidate existing design,
research, and corporate activities. The site is designated as
Industrial:Business Park which allows the proposed administrative
offices and research and development activities.
Public Improvements
Rohr will be required to install public improvements to
accommodate the project. In addition to on-site improvements,
several off-site improvements will be required, including: 1)
extension of utilities to the site including the installation of
a sewer monitoring facility, 2) expansion of off-site water
facilities to provide adequate water pressure for fire service to
the project, 3) street improvements adjacent to the site, 4)
restriping and signalization of Lagoon Drive/Bay Boulevard
intersection, 5) cash contribution toward future improvements at
I-5/E street northbound turn lane to 1-5 and E street/Broadway
southbound turn lane to Broadway.
Several of the required public improvements are extensive, and
are required at this time because of the general lack of public
improvements in the mid-bayfront vicinity. Three major upgrades
including the extension of the Bay Boulevard water system, the
construction of a sewer monitoring facility, and the installation
of a traffic signal and pavement restriping at Bay Boulevard and
Lagoon Drive will cost a total of approximately $662,000.
Because Rohr's project is the first to be developed in the mid-
bayfront, Rohr will have to carry the financial burden of
installing these improvements even though future development will
benefit. For this reason, Rohr is requesting the Agency's
assistance in financing these three major bay front improvements.
staff has considered Rohr' s request and based on the financial
burden posed on Rohr at this time and due to the high potential
to recover the Agency's investment from future bay front
development, staff is recommending that the Agency participate in
financing the following public improvements.
1. Water Service. The fire code requires that the project be
serviced with water flow in excess of 5,000 gpm and that two
individual water sources be available to the project site.
The upgrade also will provide increased water flow for
future development of hotels, and other non residential
uses which require similar flows planned in the bayfront
area inclusive of the Port District's property. To meet the
required water service, a major link in the water line
located in Bay Boulevard south of J street must be
\C\ -10
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date
ICJ
4/23/91
constructed and additional water line upgrades and
extensions needed in F street. Sweetwater Authority
estimates the upgrade will cost $460,000 to $480,000.
Staff recommends that the Agency consider investing $240,000
(50% of estimated cost) to improve water service to the mid-
bayfront. In addition, staff recommends that a suitable
vehicle for reimbursement from future mid-bay front and Port
District development be investigated and implemented to
recover the Agency's expenditure.
2. Sewer Monitorinq Facilitv. The Metropolitan Sewer District
will be requiring one, possibly two, sewer monitoring
facilities within the midbayfront to meter the amount of
sewage that will enter the system from the midbayfront.
Since Rohr's project is the first development to be built in
the midbayfront, it will be their responsibility to install
the first monitor which also will serve other future
development. The cost to install the monitoring facility,
as estimated by Rohr's engineer, is $50,000.
Staff recommends that the Agency provide $50,000 for the
installation of the sewer monitoring facility (100%) and
direct staff to research and recommend a vehicle to
recapture the funds from future development that will
benefit from the monitoring facility.
3. Traffic Siqnal. The project is projected to increase
vehicle traffic at the Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive
intersection by 17%. This increase will warrant the
installation of a traffic signal and major pavement
restriping. The total cost of these intersection
improvements is estimated at $132,000.
It is recommended that the developer contribute their 17% of
the cost ($22,500), and the Agency finance the balance
($109,500). Also, it is recommended that the Agency
recommend that the City establish a reimbursement district
for repayment of the Agency's portion from future mid-
bay front developers.
The developer will be responsible for the cost of the following
off-site improvements:
4. Street Improvements
The Developer will be required to install street improvements
adjacent to the development site. The extent of the
improvements will be subj ect to the approval of the City
Engineer, however, it is anticipated that the developer will
\" -1
Page 8, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
fully construct the south one-half of Lagoon Drive, one-half
of the center median, and place approximately 15 feet of
pavement overlay on the side of Lagoon Drive. These
improvements will be installed along the site's frontage.
In addition, a transition from existing improvements just
eat of the railroad right-of-way westerly to the site will
be installed. The developer estimates these improvements
will cost $351,000.
5. Off-site street Improvements
The environmental impact report identified two off-site
intersections that would be slightly impacted from traffic
generated by the project. As mitigation, the developer must
contribute toward the construction of a right turn lane at
the 1-5 northbound ramp/eastbound E street and a right turn
lane at Broadway/westbound E street. Since the impacts
expected from the project are cumulative and projected to
occur in the future, staff is recommending that the
developer provide a cash contribution of $18,000 (pro rata
share) at this time. The city Engineer will continue to
monitor the intersections and, when appropriate, will
recommend actual improvements be installed. The developer's
contribution will be placed in a City fund to be contributed
toward future construction.
Buildinq Heiqht and Side Yard Setback Variance Request
In accordance with section 19.14.190 of the certified Chula vista
Local Coastal Program variances for height of structures and side
yard setbacks may be allowed provided that the variance is
consistent with and implements the certified local coastal
program and does not reduce the requirements to protect coastal
resources.
Buildinq Heiqht Variance
The height of the central building will be 47-1/2 feet, the wings
will stand 42 feet high, and the interconnecting building
segments will be 39 feet. The Central building height includes a
five foot parapet to vary the building's roof line and to create
a stronger design statement at the request of the Design Review
Committee. As a result, the central building element exceeds the
site's building height limitation of 44 ft. by 3-1/2 feet.
Because the parapet is a design feature only and it enhances the
structure and because the overall building height is within the
site's height limitation, staff recommends that the city Council
grant a 3 ft. 8-inch height variance for the central building in
accordance with the variance findings listed below.
\'\ - <g
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date
I,
4/23/91
Findinqs
(a) The applicant proposed an initial building design consisting
of a continuous top of building with an elevation of 42 feet
3 inches, a height below the site's 44 ft building height
limitation. In an effort to meet the Design Review
Commi ttee' s request to incorporate vertical archi tectural
features, the central glass core of the building was
elevated to 47 feet 8 inches, 3 feet 8 inches above the 44
foot building height limitation. The height variation,
though above the limitation, will enhance the design of the
building and aesthetic quality of the coastal area.
(b) The proposed height variance allows the applicant to provide
an enhanced building design. No additional building floor
area will result from the allowance.
(c) The added design enhancement will provide interesting
building silhouette from bay views at a mlnlmum variance to
the LCP height limitation which will not reduce or adversely
affect coastal resources.
side Yard Setback Variance
The proposed parking structures will encroach into the 20 ft.
Side Yard setback required along the easterly property line. As a
resul t the setback will be reduced to 10 feet. Because the
project was required to maintain a 50 ft. setback along the
westerly property line to provide a wetland buffer (rather than
the normally required 20 ft. setback), the building site was
reduced in area and less property could be used for on-site
parking. To accommodate the maximum number of vehicles on-site,
the parking structures were planned. As a result of the land
area reduction, the space needed to construct the parking garages
now encroaches into the easterly Side Yard setback. Staff
recommends that the City Council grant a variance for a 10-ft
Side Yard setback along the easterly property line to accommodate
the two parking structures in accordance with the findings listed
below.
Findinqs
(a) In an effort to meet the goal to protect coastal resources
and to satisfy environmental concerns raised by the u. S.
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant placed the
proposed building along the western edge of the 50 foot
westerly side yard setback to form a buffer between active
uses east of the building and the wildlife preserve on the
west side. This placement limited the space for arrangement
of on-site parking and access. The proposed variance will
\C\ -1\
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date
Ie;
4/23/91
assist the applicant in complying with parking and access
requirements.
(b) The site's westerly side yard setback, normally 20 feet, was
required to be increased to 50 feet to provide an adequate
buffer for adjacent sensitive wetlands (FIG street Marsh).
This requirement reduces the on-site buildable space and
flexibility of site planning enjoyed by property owners not
located adjacent to wetlands.
(c) The granting of a easterly side yard setback reduction, of
10 feet will allow the applicant to recover 30% of the land
area lost to the wetland buffer. The additional land will
be used to provide on-site parking.
Fine Arts
It is the policy of the Redevelopment Agency that a developer
within the Bayfront project Area contribute 1/2 of 1% of their
building valuation toward the development of Fine Art. The funds
are to be deposited in a pool of funds to be used at the
discretion of the Agency, in consultation with the developer, in
creating and funding significant works of art. Also, the policy
states that the Agency will deposit 1/2 of 1% of the proposed
building valuation into the pool of funds to be used for
significant works of art. In the event a developer commissions a
fine arts feature without Agency involvement, it must be
consistent with the ambience of the site and surroundings and it
will be considered as the developer's 1/2 of 1% credit to the
j oint Fine Arts Fund. Based on the proj ect' s valuation of
$30,000,000, Rohr and the Agency each will be required to deposit
$150,000 into the Fine Art fund for a total of $300,000.
Rohr is currently investigating the potential for construction of
an on-site work of art. Therefore, it is being recommended that,
as a condition of approval, the Agency allow Rohr to propose an
on-site feature prior to issuance of occupancy permit. If a work
of fine art is not approved by the time an occupancy permit is
requested, then Rohr would be required to deposit the fine art
fee.
Environmental Considerations
EIR-90-10 and an addendum discussing traffic, CEQA findings and a
statement of overriding consideration, and a mitigation
monitoring program were prepared for the project. On February
19, 1991, the City Council certified and adopted the
environmental documents prior to approving a grading plan for the
Rohr project site. The construction of the Rohr office building
is now presented to the Agency and will be presented to the
\C\-\O
Page 11, Item
Meeting Date
/'1
4/23/91
council and again, certification and
environmental documents will be required.
adoption
of
the
A mitigation monitoring program outlining mitigation necessary to
be implemented to mitigate potential impacts has been included in
Attachment I. Implementation of the program has been included in
the conditions of approval for the project. A requirement for
Rohr to enter into a third party contract with the City to hire a
Mitigation Compliance Coordinator to oversee the program also has
been included as a condition of approval to ensure that
mitigation is incorporated into the project activities.
Coastal Development Findinqs
state and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed,
and the proposed project has been found to be in conformance with
the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3
of the public Resources Code.
Based on the following findings, Rohr Industries I proposal to
construct a 245,000 sq. ft. office building at 850 Lagoon Drive,
as approved by the Redevelopment Agency on April 23, 1991, is
found to be consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program:
1. The project will provide the number of on-site and adjacent
vehicle parking spaces (through an agreement with the City
of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking requirements set
forth in the certified LCP. The project is a minimum of
one-third of a mile from the Bay I s shoreline and public
coastal park land. with adequate off-street vehicle parking
provided by the development and the site's substantial
distance from the bay's shoreline, no adverse impact on
public access to the coast line is expected to occur.
2. The proj ect is located adj acent to the F /G street Marsh.
However, a 50-foot setback has been maintained to provide a
buffer adj acent to the wetland boundary. In addition, the
building has been designed to be in itself a barrier that
will further buffer the wetlands from human activities on
the eastern portion of the site. In accordance with EIR-90-
10, mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that
the building and associated activities will not adversely
effect the adjacent wetland habitat.
3. Public improvements in accordance with the certified LCP
will be installed in conjunction with the project. street
improvements incorporated into the project will provide an
incremental increase toward improved access to coastal
resources.
\q...\\
Page 12, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
4. The project site is designated for Industrial Business Park
land uses. Administrative offices and research design
activities related to the industrial land use adjacent to
the south are in conformance with the certified LCP land use
element. Findings in accordance with the LCP have been for
a 3 ft 8 inch building height variance for the central
building element and a 10 ft easterly side yard setback
variance. No adverse affect on coastal resources are
anticipated due to the variances.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fine Art Fee
In accordance with the Bayfront Fine Arts policy, the developer
and the Agency are each required to contribute 1/2 of 1% of the
building valuation toward fine art within the Bayfront project.
Based on a building valuation of $30,000,000, the Developer and
the Agency are required to each contribute $150,000 to the
Bayfront fine art account for a total of $300,000. The
Developer's contribution may be in the form of an on-site feature
or as an alternative the developer may deposit an estimated
$150,000 into the Bayfront Fine Art Fund prior to issuance of an
Occupancy Permit. Funds for the Agency's portion are available
from the unappropriated balance of the Bayfront/Town Centre Bond
fund.
Tax Revenues
Based on the proj ect' s estimated building valuation of
$30,000,000, it is anticipated that the Agency will realize
$300,000 annually in tax increment from property tax. Provided
the building is placed on the 1992 tax roll, the Agency should
collect approximately $2,100,000 (present value) in tax increment
over the next 7 years. (Bayfront Redevelopment Project expires
in 1999.) Also, given a 40-year building life, approximately
$1,782,000 (at present value) over the balance of the project's
life span (33 years) would be collected by the City in property
tax.
7 years tax increment (Redevelopment)
33 years property tax (City)
40-year total revenue = (present value)
$2,100,000
1.782.000
3.882.000
NOTE: All revenues are based on conservative estimates. Present
value has been used throughout and no increase in property values
or interest on revenues has been added.
V\-ll.
Page 13, Item
Meeting Date
19
4/23/91
Expenditures
If the Agency accepts staff's recommendations to invest in
selected pUblic improvements, expenditures would total $399,500.
Water System
$240,000
Sewer monitoring facility
50,000
Traffic signaljrestriping
109.500
$399.500
If the Agency accepts staff I s recommendation to participate in
the financing of public improvements, an initial outlay of
$399,500 will be required.
Based on the proposed project valuation of 30,000,000, the funds
expended by the Agency toward public improvements would be repaid
by the project's tax increment in approximately two years
following building completion. The pay-out in tax increment then
may be recuperated by the Agency over time as future mid-bay front
developments paid their portion of the reimbursement, if a
reimbursement district or other repayment vehicle were set in
place.
Fundinq Source
In 1987, funds were approved for Bayfront utility relocation at
the northwest quadrant of 1-5 and E Street. To date, several
utilities have been relocated in conjunction with the Cal-Trans
1-5jE Street ramp project, however, undergrounding of the major
overhead 12KV and 69KV electric facilities has not been
undertaken. It is staff's opinion that further physical
improvement to the overhead lines is premature and major
undergrounding needs be reevaluated with the mid-bay front
project. Therefore, it is recommended that the funds necessary
to finance the recommended public improvements relative to the
Rohr office building project be reappropriated from the
unencumbered utility Relocation CIP account BF 42 to a new CIP
account for midbayfront public improvements associated with the
Rohr proposal.
(OPBF3)
\~ - \?:>
--
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
II
.
.
.
.
ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX
Vicinity Map
I'
I
1
1
Iv> .,.c..........:..;
i';> . ,. ;....:.:...:.
.'2:.
1
1
''0
I-
. 'C."\
I~
10
\l
I~
I..
1'6
\~
\
\\
RJ.vmid<C"""..
"t<i~i-~--'~-__
r~~". '\,,1 .~-
"= . Cl \ l-
tc. .r:.-.(.;
~ if<$' ,:N''''
-.-..
N
'S>
~
\q... '4
/9. J.t
LOCATOR MAP
, I
I
SAN mEGO BAY
..~
I,r' /---- ,-tv
i bL / /()() 200 300
.:~ I
,I ;
" SCALE' I" = ZOO'
: ~', I ;__.'
,;:
NO. DATE
I"
ROHR
( ~-~-r
I ....,- - r\
I II :i:
I ... /
/: I' ;------. ..' __ I I IZ'14-88
L/' . , ---=~ - I LEGEND
,.y ~- ~ -,
, ' ~ '" Rllf( SOIiVEY PT- - - - G
r-<' '- " , ',,- I SANDE/lS'STNIOIrS - - - A-,
. . '::~, "." I ~ IANDSEETABW
1 ' .' -~"i' '~. 5ANOEIIS' STI/OY flliEA5 L..J
.. I j /, ' "t, ~ "- I . WETIANPS - - - - c::::::::>
.:, :f; :1 '-'~, '-:.~ . _ ~. . lil{ff PTNO SANOfRS Elf V
_ ,"' { '{"..../ _ / I (p {J./J!
c-- [" ~. " "~-'. 2 5.92
.'. .I' ,~ ;<i:. ~',:'!~- .:. ~ 5 r~~
. "': 'Ii fJ-V.1 I' .'. "'- 5 4 552
'. '."'. '~::"'.'.' I - t. 5 530
;..:"--~ . .'~ --''''1/ 1 ~ 3.21
1 '.
I '. .
(\ r-"::::::::,.~--"
. _., J ',~---.:::::
L' [2~-:i-~$' . >
) I C:~~~iD51
/./. ,40,. . .9
8-{ -.::tj-j~'Z
AREA B -AREA -A --
40[;' .'
r"
i;
/
,.
.,
'.
....r--~I
:" C: I
I,
;0
, p
A-I
/I-l
B-f
B.2
o
,
11,
'------..,
'-.....
.,."
. '-",
. ,) : ;--"i .~
. F ftJClllJT~
. 'I"
-( 1
'1
\
l
. )
I
'-------
ROt;iR PARCEl
~50' S. D. G.& E. R/W
r'--'~--~~--'~
- -<
-'---'---~'-"~ --
'-,,'"
',-I.
.aAyaJ...VP,
l-
I .W
-'UJ'
0::.
.L.'
/r-,
__'~_ (J). -
,
,
- '-------=.=-.......'-.- - --~~-.~' ._- ~...
~~ ;
_.- u.
~
PRlNTED BY
WIlST8lDE BLVEPRl
INTERSTATE 1-5
AUG 1 1990
J-10812
_ ~~ RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
\ (...\... \s I //II~ I CIVIL ENGINEERS: PLANNING CONSULTANTS: SURVEYORS
MINUTES OF A REGlJL1\R MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
February 25, 1991
4:30 D.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Gilman, Members Flach, Alberdi, Landers,
Spethman
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Acting Associate Planner Luis Hernandez, Assistant
Planner Amy Wolfe, Senior Community Development
Specialist Pam Buchan, Planner Msryann Miller
B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairperson Gilman made an opening statement explaining the design review
process and the committee's responsibilities. She asked that all
applicants sign in and when they speak to identify themselves verbally for
the tape.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Gilman/Flach) that the minutes of February 11, 1991 be approved with
corrections as noted by Associate Planner Hernandez.
D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS
1.
DRC-91-52
Starboard Develooment. 800 Block of Laaoon Drive.
Rohr Office Buildina
Staff Presentation
Associate Planner Hernandez stated that a person from the Community
Development Department would present the project overview as well as
the items refined from the pervious meeting. He introduced Pam
Buchan, Senior Community Development Specialist.
Ms. Buchan gave a general overview of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
The Rohr project is in the Chula Vista Coastal Zone and is also in
the Redevelopment Project area for the Bayfront. The land use for
Rohr's 11 acres, which is designated "Industrial Business Park" is
designed as a transition from the general industrial area to the
less intense office park and residential land uses. Within the
Bayfront Specific Plan local bike and pedestrian routes are planned
which will be linked to 39 acres of park land. She also discussed
buffer areas around the marshes which will have pedestrian walkways
and lookout points, except for the west side of the Rohr building
due to the proximity of the marsh and the business park. All of
Chula Vista's departments have been involved in working with Rohr
for over a year on environmental issues. After this committee
approves the project, it goes to the Redevelopment Agency and to the
City Council on March 12.
\q-I~
DRC Minutes
-2-
Februarv 25. 1991
Committee Response/Discussion
Member Landers inquired about the total area included in the
Midbayfront Plan. Ms. Buchan defined the midbayfront area as the
midbayfront subplanning area of the Local Coastal Program. She
verified that all the dark area in the Land Use Plan is included.
Chu1a Vista has a specific plan for the dark area over which they
have jurisdiction; the Port District has a plan for the white area
over which they have control. They have a lease on the property
until 2009.
Mr. Hernandez clarified that the specific plan would cover areas
such as parking, signage, etc. similar to that for Eastlake. He
stated that while the Redevelopment Agency has not set architectural
style guidelines for the plan as a whole, there are architectural
guidelines for areas that are sensitive to the marsh and the
bayfront.
Anolicant Presentation - OVerview of Pro;ect
Mr. Ian Gill, Starboard Development Corporation, stated that since
the January 10 meeting they have eubmitted a revised formal design
review package to staff and have received certification of the EIR
by the Planning Commission. The grading plan and the coastal
development program for grading have been approved.
He briefly recapped areas of committee concerns which included (1)
reduction in potential traffic impact n "E" and "H" streets, (2)
plans to provide additional parking on the SDG&E right-of-way, (3)
locker rooms in the building for joggers (4) the comprehensive
master landscape plan will be completed in the future and (5) they
have revised the architectural design and will obtain a variance
enabling them to raise the central element of the building above the
44-foot height limitation. He then introduced Kathy Garcia,
landscape architect from WRT.
Ms. Garcia pointed out amenities on the sketch which include outdoor
decks on the upper level and provision of benches in a little canopy
courtyard to increase outdoor seating. The sketch illustrated the
proposed planting which will hide the view of the parking deck
(which is four feet above street level) from the view of drivers on
Lagoon Drive as well as the planting along the F Street elevation.
So far no satisfactory way has been found to put plants on the
parking deck itself.
Sidewalk connections to the SDG&E right-of-way are being planned
for. Small covered trash containers will be located along the front
of the building and along the back patio. The dumpster located
within the building is big enough for the paper trash.
ft ..\1
DRC Minutes
-3-
Februarv 25. 1991
A grid will be placed in the pavement to enhance the main entry
area. Espaliers run up the walls to form a pattern i.n two
dLmensions; the entry is framed with trees.
Staff Presentation on Traffic
Maryann Miller from the Environmental Review Section of the Planning
Department referred to the addendum on traffic analysis. The
traffic reanalysis indicates 41 percent fewer impacts to the project
site and states that overall impacts to certain intersections
throughout the project site, although significant, are mitigable.
The percent of contribution the applicant will be making toward
improvement will be reduced and an implementation agreement will be
developed between the City, the Engineering Department and the
applicant.
Committee ResDonse/OiscuBsion
Member Landers inquired about the cumulative impact that the project
will create in relationship to the threshold which is created as
part of the growth management program. She expressed concern that
Nos. C & D on pg. 3-50 of the Engineering Report will meet the
threshold standards since the figures are projected only to 1992.
Ms. Miller assured the committee that the Rohr project will be
subject to the Engineering Department. s constant monitoring program.
The Department has a number of options they can exercise, including
restriping of certain intersections and making certain ~provements
in terms of the capital improvement program.
Mr. Hernandez stated that this 245,000 sq. ft. office building would
not have a large impact and Mr. Gill stated that because they are
basically thinking of long-term occupancy by Rohr (and not renting
part of the building to another tenant) they are really talking
about a redirection of traffic.
LandscaDina
Member Spethman raised a question about planting trees in precast
planters at the entry. Ms. Garcia stated that the trees are in pots
to give coverage at the two-three-foot level.
Vice Chairman Gilman inquired whether the parking structures could
be redesigned so tree-size planters could be supported. Mr. Gill
replied that due to the very high water table they would have to put
in footings. This means involvement in the de-watering program.
Under the EIR there are very serious problems associated with that.
The other fact is that if the effect to be achieved by putting
plantings on top of the parking structure is to provide additional
screening from F St. or Bay Blvd., that can be accomplished by
planting around the edge of the parking structure.
~'\ .. I~
DRC Minutes
-4-
Februarv 25, 1991
Vice Chairman Gilman asked how high the edge is on the parking
structure which is 4 ft. above grade. Mr. Gordon Carrier,
President, BSHA, replied that the step wall is about 1 ft. 4 inches
with a railing on top. The earth grade against it comes from curb
level and ends up within 6 inches of the top of the wall.
Member Flach inquired about drainage. Mr. Gill described the
drainage system that includes a retention area (which would be
covered with natural vegetation most of the time) capable of
collecting 200-acre feet of water in case of a lOO-year flood. All
drainage dumps into the lower F and G Street marsh.
Site Plan
In response to Member Landers' inquiry about Fire Dept. access to
the building, Mr. Gill stated that's a 12-inch loop system around
the building and hydrants on both sides. Ms. Garcia said they've
requested that vegetation be held back from the building and that
there be a gravel path along the two edges of the building that are
accessible to fire trucks.
EIR Mitiaation Measures
Member Landers inquired as to who would monitor the mitigation
measures listed in the environmental impact report. Mr. Hernandez
replied that Doug Reid will be the mitigation coordinator to oversee
certain stages of the project to be sure the mitigations are
incorporated. Doug Reid may be coordinating the hiring of the
person for the City. Ms. Buchan stated that the overall agreement,
which will include financing, will be brought forward to the
Redevelopment Agency and the City Council on March 12 for final
approval.
Applicant's Presentation - Architecture
Mr. Carrier introduced the topic, stating that they have tried to
address changes suggested by the committee. The building is a
background building due to Rohr's criteria and the fact that the
site itself is a wetlands area. Instead of putting reflective glass
(which was referred to in the report) on the outside of the
building, they will use opaque spandrel glass in areas where people
don't interact with the outside. The building was broken up to
illustrate the central point of entry; the rest of the building is
secondary to it.
Bob Davis, Chief of Design, BSHA discussed the sculptural quality of
the west side. They are maximizing the central portion of the
building by increasing the parapet to a 6 ft.- 6 in. high
fenestration which increases the feeling of the whole entrance to
the building. Mr. Gilman discussed the building texture. The gray
\C\ ' "
DRe Minutes
-5-
Februarv 25. 1991
fins run through the glass which will be in two colors and the fins
have been kicked out on the end modules, giving more shadowing and
three-dimensional effect, distinguishing them from the middle area.
Mr. Davis displayed the glass colors on color boards. Setting the
panels back and trading out light color to light color maximizes the
shadowing effect on the building.
In each of the insets of the entry a dark and even darker mullion
will be included. The three-dimensional quality has been enhanced
not only when the viewer is looking straight on the building but
also is intensified when one travels around the building as the
colors shift from gray to brown. The two end modules have the fins
which gives them more dimension than the middle area.
Committee ResDonsefDiscussion
Member Flach questioned the use of the other color chips displayed.
Ms. Garcia explained the exposed aggregate will be used on the
paving area in the front. The site plan sketch shows a lighter
color in the main pedestrian area and a darker color in front of
that which would transition it to the asphalt. The west side of
building will have coarse grayish-brown gravel for fire truck
access.
Mr. Gill summarized and thanked the committee for their patience.
He stated that signage will be included in ORe package but no
illustrations are available at this time.
Staff Summarv
Mr. Hernandez said that the presentation covered every issue
discussed previously and that was included in the letter to the
applicant after the meeting. Two elements of the five
recommendations they were unable to address are outdoor amenities
and the comprehensive master plan for the Rohr. Staff is
recommending that the comprehensive master landscape plan, rather
than the master plan, be incorporated in this project.
Concerning parking, Mr. Hernandez stated that of the total of 762
parking spaces, 156 are compact and 606 standard. The Planning
Committee has approved the project with compact spaces no higher
than 20 percent which this project has. The applicant will be
working to develop a lease agreement to insure that the easterly
adjacent SDG&E easement will be continuously available for parking.
If at any time the lease is not renewable, the agreement will make
provision to look for another place to provide the additional 55
spaces.
He briefly discussed staff recommendations and the current status on
landscaping on the parking structures, the need for outdoor trash
enclosures, the pedestrian circulation path, and architectural
\'\-lO
DRC Minutes
-6-
Februarv 25. 1991
design changes. He commented that there is a level of
reflectiveness on all glass; a determination will have to be made by
the person reviewing the LCP as to what level of reflectiveness will
be acceptable by the Local Coastal Plan.
Committee ResDonse/Discussion
Glass
is not
mirror
Ms. Cunningham believes the type of glass that is proposed
reflective. Mr. Carrier verified that the glass is not a
glass and said they would abide by the LCP.
Architecture
Mr. Hernandez recommended that the project architecture be reviewed
by the Committee and approved, denied, or continued at this time.
If forwarded, the conditions as stated must be included with one
added condition - that a set of 8 1/2 x 11 photographs of all the
models and graphics and material sample boards be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to submission to City Council.
Member Spethman inquired if there was direction from the
Redevelopment Agency or the City with regard to a possible
architectural theme on the bayfront as part of a long-term master
plan.
Ms. Buchan stated that design guidelines for the midbayfront area
are being developed. The theme is basically design criteria - just
a little more structured than the LCP which is fairly general.
There was discussion before the Redevelopment Agency about a theme
in the northern and eastern areas but no action was taken. Mr.
Hernandez suggested if the committee wants to develop an industrial
field unlike the Barkett development, this project could be a good
benchmark for that. Referring to the sketch, Ms. Buchan explained
how the Rohr development is a transition between General Industrial
and Office areas.
In response to Chairperson Gilman's concern that no surfaces which
could serve as bird perches would be part of the building structure,
Mr. Gill replied that the elements will be sloped so birds can't
perch on them. Mr. Carrier stated that a basic vertical theme is
used as opposed to horizontal ledges for that purpose. Horizontal
ledges are set back.
Member Alberdi suggested recessing two bays on either side to soften
the corners of the building. He expressed concern about pedestrian
scale breakup on the first floor. Member Flach mentioned shifting
the building modules on the property.
Mr. Davis said it is important that the two ends of the building sit
in the landscape. They are emphasizing the pedestrian circulation
system breaking down the buildings that then relate to the modules
of the building.
\~-'J..\
DRC Minutes
-7-
Februarv 25. 1991
Concern was expressed about the building articulation when viewed
from Marina Parkway. There was also discussion regarding the
location of the building.
Fish and Wildlife said their long-range plan is to build a six-foot
high fence along the edge of the property to protect the habitat.
It would also redirect the view toward the top story of the
building. Before any grading goes into effect, the fence is to be
installed in order to protect the marsh.
Mr. Hernandez stated that staff recommendation was to break the
silhouette of the building horizontally rather than breaking the
fabric or texture of the building.
Recommendations - Staff Summarv Report
4-c. Site Plan Member Gilman suggested locker rooms for an
additional tenant. Mr. Carrier stated another set would be
installed at the opposite end of the building at that point.
Member Gilman asked what recreational facilities would be installed.
Ms. Buchan answered that there are 39 acres of park in the build-out
over the bayfront and 14 acres of public parkland directly across
the street.
4-d. Master Landscape Plan Chairperson Gilman requested Rohr' s
Master Plan before another project is presented.
Ms. Cunningham stated that many of their staff members have been
involved with negotiations and would not recommend that the Master
Landscape Plan be linked to this specific project.
Mr. Gill stated that they have discussed this with the Redevelopment
Director. It will take time to work out a plan; there are three or
four other property owners involved, one of which is the Port
District. Rohr leases some property from them and the length of the
leases is only for a few years. The City has some specific desires
related to Rohr' s property, including the extension of certain
streets.
After further discussion of the staff recommendation, Member Landers
felt the Committee should agree with staff's position.
4-e. Landscapino Incorporated within the Parkino Structure
Committee was in agreement with plantings around the parking
structure as proposed by applicant.
\'\...11-
DRC Minutes
2.
-8-
Februarv 25. 1991
4-f. Trash Enclosure within parkina Facilitv Mr. Hernandez
expressed concern that because the trash collection room is elevated
it is inconvenient for disposal of landscaping material. Mr. Gill
stated they would put small enclosed containers in the parking
garages.
There is a very sophisticated trash disposal system within the
building_ Trash is going to be removed from the facility
immediately. Trash containers will be rolled out onto the loading
dock which will have a dock leveler to service various sizes of
pickups.
4a. Variance for encroachment Committee agrees.
4h. Pedestrian Circulation Svstem Submit to staff for review.
4i. Addition Level of reflective glass must fit in with the LCP.
4;. Addition Photographs of items to be included.
Committee Action
MSUC (Gilman/Flach) to certify ErR 90-10 and its addendum.
MSUC (Gilman/Landers) to accept the overriding considerations of the
CEQA findings.
MSUC (Gilman/Landers) to adopt the statement of overriding
considerations.
MSC (Gilman/Landers) (4 - 1) to approve the project with staff
conditions a - as is, b as tied to a, c & d as they stand, delete e
and f, 9 and h as they stand, and add i-that the reflective glass
shall meet the requirements of the LCP and j - that 8 x 10 photos of
all the exhibits, working drawings, and models shall be submitted to
the Planning Department.
DRC-9l-53
Arnold's Furniture. 568 Broadwav. Pole Sian
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Amy Wolfe introduced the subject which involves
the replacement of the existing pole sign which is approximately 50
ft. high and includes an internally illuminated 14 ft. wide by 16
ft. high sign cabinet. Arnold's proposes to decrease sign height
to 35 ft. and install a 6 ft. high by 14 ft. wide sign cabinet.
While the size is in conformance, staff feels the sign design is
incompatible to the building's architecture. Due to existing site
limitations which prevent the applicant from installing a monument-
type sign (which would be in conformity with DRe policy), staff
recommends approval of a pole sign subject to the following
conditions:
\ '\ - ~:?>
THE Cl1Y OF CHULA nSTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests. payments, or caJnpaign contributions, on lIl1matters
which will require discretionary action on the pan of the Oty Councll, Planning Commlssion, nnd all other
official bcIdic:s. Tho following information mUllt be disclosed:
1. lJ$t the nlUl1es of nil persons having a financial interest In tho contract, Le., contmctor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
Rohr Industries, Inc. a Delaware corporation
2.
3.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above Is a corporation or partnenhip, list the names of all
individuab owning marc than 10% of the shares in the corporation or ownlng MY partnership
Interest in the partnership.
Rohr Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation
If any persOI1 identified pursuant to (1) above Is non-profit DI'g!Ulization or a trUst, Ust the names
oE any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or benefieiaIY or
trustor of the trllit.
Reich & Tano. Inc.
100 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10017
-
4.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the pUt tWelve months? Yes_
No g If yes, please indicate persQu(s):
Please Identify ellch and every person. including any agents, employees, con~u1tllI\lS or independent
contractors who you have aasigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Ian Gill of Starboard Developmenf CorpoTation
~rt Sellqren o~ Rohr Industries, Inc.
s.
6.
Have you and/or yaw officers or agents, in the aggregate, contrfbuted more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding f;\leetion period? Yes _ No...!:.: If yes, state which
Councilmcmbct(s);
Porson is detlned a6: '.An)' indMJuatfllnl. co-partnership,Jolnt vtJIlUrl1, alSocia/ioII, ~oclnJ rJub,fraleT7lJ:ll orgal1/J:atfon, corpot'tJtilm.
urat", tnu~ n<<:eiver, syndical", thwand allY other CaliRI)!. ell)' and ccunny, clJy, numiclpalflY. d#rrlct ll1' othl!T polidcat subdivision.
Qr any QIM group or CQmbiMtlon acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Amch addltlollal pajlP-s as !(~l')')
R INDUSTRIES, INC.
Date;
March 20, 1991
BY" . ~ ./~ ~11'1
j nUlro of contractor/applicant
. t1. t1iller
Vice President & Treasurer
h. Print or type Mme of contractor/applicant
~'f \ (Rni"'!: l1{.l{),wj
v,-~ 1
* Not to our knowledge.
lA'll~,^,DlSCLOSB.'l'XTJ
'.
RESOLUTION ~
RESOLUTION APPROVING OWNER
PARTICPATION AGREEMENT BFjOP NO.3 WITH
ROHR INDUSTRIES TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE
BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON DRIVE, CERTIFYING
EIR-90-10 AND ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROPRIATING $150,000 TO THE BAY FRONT
FINE ARTS ACCOUNT AND $399,000 FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula
vista has considered the informatiion in EIR-90-10 and
Addendum thereto, CEQA findings and statement of overriding
consideration, and mitigation monitoring and reporting
program for the proposed project; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula
vista has reviewed Rohr Industries' proposal to construct a
245,000 sq. ft. office building at 850 Lagoon Drive; and,.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
vista has considered Rohr Industries' request for the Agency
to participate financially in the construction of certain
off-site public improvements which will be beneficial to the
Bayfront Project Area; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula
vista has reviewed Owner Participation Agreement BFjOP No. 3
attached as Attachment II and the project proposal plans and
conditions of approval, exhibit Band C respectively,
attached thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula vista as follows:
The Redevelopment Agency hereby:
1. Certifies that EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, CEQA
findings and statement of overriding consideration, and
mitigation monitoring and reporting program, attached as
Attachment I, have been prepared in conformance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
2. Approves Owner Participation Agreement BFjOP No.03
with Rohr Industries, Inc., attached as Attachment II; and,
\q -2.S
3. Appropriates $150,000 to the Bayfront Fine Arts
account from the unapropriated balance of the Bayfront/Town
Centre Bond Fund; and,
4. Reappropriates $399,500 from CIP account no. BF42
to a new CIP account for the Agency's participation in the
construction of certain public improvements described in
BF/OP No. 03.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
(rohresoa)
\ "-2fo
ATTACHMENT II
Recording Requested By:
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Bayfront Project Area
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(Space Above This Line For Recorder)
When Recorded Mail To:
BF/OP NO. 3
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
ROHR INDUSTRIES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a body
corporate and pol itic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"), and ROHR INDUSTRIES, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER").
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desi res to devel op real property withi n the CHULA VISTA
BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT Project Area which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of
the AGENCY: and,
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented pl ans for development to the City of Chul a
Vista Design Review Committee; and,
WHEREAS, said pl ans for development have been recommended for approval by said
Committee; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY hereby approves the development proposals as submitted by the
DEVELOPER; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY desi res that said development proposal be implemented and
completed as soon as is practicable.
NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement.
2. The property to be developed is described as 850 Lagoon Drive and legal
description is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.
3. The DEVELOPER covenants by and for himself, hi s hei rs, executors,
administrators and assigns all persons claiming under or through them the following:
A. That the property will be developed in accordance with the AGENCY approved
development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and on file with the
AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. BF/OP #03.
B. DEVELOPER agrees to apply for building permits within one year from the
date of th is Agreement and to commence construction wi thi n one year from
.the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER
fails to apply for such building permits within said one year, the
approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this
Agreement shall have no further force or effect.
\C1 -1..1
Paae I of 4
C. That in all deeds granting or conveyi ng an interest in the property, the
following language shall appear:
"The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors,
admi ni strators and ass igns, and all persons cl aimi ng under or through
them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any
person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national
origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy,
tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the
grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or
permit any such practice of di scrimi nat i on or segregation wi th reference
to the select i on, 1 ocat ion, number use or occupancy of tenants, 1 essees,
subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The
foregoing covenants shall run with the land."
D. That in all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the
property, the following language shall appear:
"The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him,
and thi s 1 ease is made and accepted upon and subject to the fo 11 owi ng
conditions:
That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any
person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, nat i ona 1
origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use,
occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premi ses herei n 1 eased, nor shall
the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or through him, establish
or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with
reference to the sel ect ion, 1 ocat i on, number or use, or occupancy of
tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises
herein leased."
4. DEVELOPER agrees that if either the AGENCY or the CITY OF CHULA VISTA proceeds
to form a Speci a 1 Assessment Di stri ct for the construction or mai ntenance of parki ng
facil ities, common areas or other publ ic facil ities which benefit the real property,
subject to this agreement, that DEVELOPER hereby waives any right he may have to protest
the formation of such Speci a 1 Assessment Di stri ct; Drovided, however, (i) that such
waiver shall be limited to DEVELOPER's interest in the real property described on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and shall not apply to any other real property in which
DEVELOPER may have an interest, and (ii) DEVELOPER shall have the right to participate
in the formation of any proposed special Assessment District. Said waiver shall not
preclude the DEVELOPER from protesting the amount of any assessment on such property.
5. DEVELOPER agrees to contribute 1/2 of 1% of the building valuation of this
project to be deposited in a pool of funds to be used at the discretion of the Agency,
in consultation with the DEVELOPER, in creating and funding significant works of art in
accordance with the Bayfront Fine Arts Policy, as such Policy is in effect on the date
hereof.
6. DEVELOPER agrees to accept the attached cond i t ions imposed by the Des i gn
Review Committee and Agency as described in Exhibit "C."
\ q-2i'
Page 2 of 4
7. DEVELOPER agrees to maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION.
"A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Developer shall,
at Developer's sole cost and expense, maintain the premises and
all improvements in first class condition and repair.
If Developer fails to maintain the property in a "first class
condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
or its agents shall have the right, after written notice to
Developer and Developer's failure to correct any deficiency
specified in such notice within 30 days after Developer's
recei pt of such not i ce, to go on the property and perform the
necessary mai ntenance and the cost of said maintenance shall
become a lien against the property. The Agency shall have the
right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the
property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax
Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill.
B. Developer shall promptly and dil igently repair, restore,
alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Premises
and all improvements to maintain or comply as above, or to
remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the
improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition,
remova 1, maintenance, replacement and other act of comp 1 i ance
under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as
"Restorat i on") shall be completed by Developer whether or not
funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant
contributions and shall place the building in the condition
existing immediately prior to the date of such damage or
destruction.
C. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. 'First class condition and
repair,' means Restoration which is necessary to keep the
Premises and improvements in efficient and attractive
condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the
condition which exists when the condition(s) in attached
Exhibit B are completed."
8. The AGENCY agrees to participate in the construction of certain public
improvements which will benefit the subject project and Bayfront Redevelopment Project.
Said participation shall include deposit by the AGENCY of apprOXimately $399,500 into a
Capital Improvement Project account to provide: I) $240,000 or 50% of the construction
cost of publ ic water service to provide adequate water service to meet the fire code
requi rements of 5,000+ g. p. m. for the project and other future uses proposed for the
Bayfront Redevelopment Project and Port District; 2) $50,000 or 100% of the construction
cost of a new sewer monitoring facil ity as required by the Metropol itan Sewer District
that will benefit the project and Bayfront Redevelopment Project; and 3) $109,500 or 83%
of the construction cost to install a traffic signal and pavement restriping at the
intersect i on of Bay Boul evard and Lagoon Dri ve (" F" Street). Agency's part i c i pat ion
shall be dependent on the condition that DEVELOPER complete said publ ic improvements
within two years from the date of execution of subject Owner Participation Agreement No.
SF/OP No. 03 and DEVELOPER provides documentation reasonably satisfactory to the Agency
of actual improvement costs. The participation shall be paid to DEVELOPER upon
substantial completion of the construction of such improvements within thirty (30) days
after DEVELOPER's presentation to the Agency of such satisfactory documentation.
\&\.- 2C(
Page 3 of 4
9. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein
sha 11 run with the 1 and. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without pri or approval of
AGENCY, to assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement.
10. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein
are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and CHULA VISTA BAY FRONT REDEVELOPMENT Project
Area as the same now exi sts or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree
that the provi s ions of thi s Agreement may be speci fi ca 11y enforced in any court of
competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY.
11. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
"AGENCY"
DATED:
By:
Leonard Moore, Mayor Pro Tempore
"DEVELOPER"
BY:
Ronald M. Miller
Vice President and Treasurer
BY:
Richard W. Madsen
General Counsel and Secretary
NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card.
WPC 4685H
Bayfront
\'\ - 30
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
That portion of Quarter section 172 of RANCHO DE LA NAC~ON, in
the City of Chula vista, County of San Diego, state of
california, according to Map thereof No. 166 filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Quarter section 172 as
shown on Record of Survey 9039 on file in the Office of the
Recorder of said County; thence along the Easterly boundary of
said Quarter section North 17'46'57" West 332,01 feet (Record
North 17'47'11" West 332.00 feet); thence l~aving said Easterly
boundary along the Southerly boundary of said Record of Survey
9039 and its Easterly prolongation, South 72 '11' 56" West (Record
South 72'12'12" West) 170,02 feet to the southeasterly corner of
Record of Survey 9039 and the TRUE POINT OF BEG~NNrNG of this
description; thence continuing South 72'11'56" West 1333.57 feet
(Record 1333.46 feet); thence continuing along the boundary of
said Record of Survey North 66'58'39" West 73.95 feet (Record
North 66'58'55" West 73.94 feet); thence South 84'48'01" West
339.66 feet (Record South 84'47'56" West 339.69 feet); thenoe
North 38'00'20" West 328.14 feet (Record North 38'00'25" West
328.08 feet); thence North 31'19'51" West 217.16 feet (Record
North 31'19'56" West 216.96 feet); thence North 72'03'09" -Ea;;t
(Record North 72'03'22" East) 703.95 feet; thence North 17.56'51"
West 299,96 feet (Record North 17'56'38" West 300,00 feet);
thence North 72'03'09" East 1182,28 feet (Record North 72'03'22"
East 1182.05 feet); thence south 17'46'57" East 946.30 feet
(Record South 17'47'11" East 946.06 feet) to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying Westerly of the Easterly
line of paroel 10E as shown on Record of Survey No. 11749,
recorded August 10, 1988, in the Office of the county Recorder of
San Diego County, and the Northerly prolongation of said
Easterly line.
\'~-3' 'Iq ..32.
(13381 -..:J.) i if ti^'CJO NOO~\il
~ '/ f
'tG~ u . -=-0 -.".'.... :1 ~ ~~~
I \ 1 "'/ II: I .t
\ I, L ~ C I
," J7 ~,--~'-
\ ...""., I
\ ~ ,.~l , := , I
\. - - 'l c ' I
) : I.', I
/ - tI I
; ~ I
i i c ,I ,.j. . I
! I I' - -. I
! l '" 3" r
/ I ' .f; c: ~~i i
1/ 1/ ' J I ~lI.~ I
; ,n I ( L____ ;
i ~ ~ 1 - I
. '( L" I" ' I I" I
:( ; ~ :. f :~\ C" f ~ I
I, If"j':, _____J :
',," \ ,,--------g::-'TJ---U--,-.J
II If r IF :';" :.;?~< ~;I!
"I, ,\1 l >\'' ',1; ~~~ ',:
l to S .- - --= ~
, 1::< ~/;J L~ u I
~! . .~
I ,.. ,
,i .'.
Ii /.> .
j //'/ ,,', ~~~' '
~j /,' ~
~ ! ~./
"!~/
"1'- '~1\llR! n
.! ~
'I ~
j 'I
I ~..
, .,
,
i
,;
'I
1
i
i
i
,i
1:
"
'i
i
i
i
i
,i
'i
i
i
i
i
,;
'i
i
i
, '
, ,
E',i
'ij'i
. '
, ,
, '
"
.,,,,,,'j,,,,.
""h '''1''''''-
,
,~ J'
,
~l
II
,I
J
-~~~-==Y~~-~'=;:~' ~~ .~ ~~~
.OC
lr----.
Ii
II
:f fi. ,l,; c..~
i v-- '!" ,
I 9 Jt 4-=~':::~=-:.=L...E~-~(L _ L~
r'~'; lC;'1-..j' i
r':"i-f"~=' :
. ... j ---.' ,
I ---- I
I "c: '
, l' '
',' . ~ - lj I
I ' ,
I '" ii' ,
, 'I !~ ,
I -- :: !!i : '1
i -Ii ~tM I ~A
1'1 "~ ' il
"I I
I I I
1 ,I ,
, c. ( I I
'I ' 'j , \ ~ 32. '
:j iLl ,-, ,;\ -,-~L -- ~.::,,-":-~~~;:-~ -A~
1
[I..'
-'.' 'J"
.,
c.:>
C~,
d
.
i
l
--.1~___/
'..
!. ~ l'
" .,f!
;,"~. ",
!lilll r
~ '
i""'..'.... ,mR'~T B
:\ \v f;;j";~1 ,"
" P,. h f; ~ ,", '; ,
~~.h 1,\ III fi' ~ ~,.~ R. - y
.1/
. - ':::::f- -~- ,"
. ' . . .- ,.
. . . . . . !
Qo"" ... ..." ~-r:
I
"I
HI
i
T='::-'::IL-'~--!(-Jl--jf---)i ----=c.oo:.:.--..."'_~. ,-.... -- ... ,- _
L...,..",~..,-j.-=_ -- __.-J 1) (:::; ... -== _ _~ _ .,'_.---r. ~
3^IClO NO
"'-b-.t-n ~
~----_._~--------
- -- - - - - - - - - - -- -~ -- --- -" -- --~~- ---;:_:- -
;(
.J-
~\ ....
\' ))
I .
1[11 .'
,([(I,: .
II\~
11\\
If/l.
Ilif'
,II, .'
lii:I'
11,
,1'1\
i .
\1
',I,J
i1,II
, I
'\\~
'\\. '.-
~,jJ
J
€l 81
" . ~=' I
I 1--
I.
I
I A
(c=-q I}
o ~ \'1-33/"."
~""____~ I
BC~
'1"""'Y'
~r
III
FUJII;,
I.Yl~r.1'
"\)
?
<"'l.
'1
)
)
'~
, ;11
.,
,~
t
r
(
(
n.'
~ . .) @;....
\ !P
t ~~ 1
p I.' I
~ i', "I j
J { , ,
/ - - - - 1 r -, !: ~,( )
>.1.:: I, I/"ij"~ (. \
:':r~"7J;~~t'i;:,i~'T)l B
,1:>' V ;;:",; ~,,'t' .
j , M'~. '''''i,
, h"'",' .~, '.' )
,
, '
" '11' I
.I. .
~ . '...
r ~~ 1: ';" ~~
, ,
i'l
" ,
I I
I
II,
. ,
I '
,
l~ I. !~ I! l' ~
il. I. ,. .',
~~.'!~';~~
I
" ' '
~,: ! ~J,~
fl'h
i i i
. I
I
z
o
>=
..
>
'"
~
'"
"
I-
"
o
..
z
o
>=
..
>
'"
~
'"
"
I-
'"
o
z
~I
'"
~
'"
Z
I-
"
o
..
z
0
>=
..
>
~,
i "';
xl::
, " ~~
li- "'1
ll,
z z "
0 I-
0 ! >= "
>= 0 ~Io
.. .. ..
> I > .. 0'
w , w ~;
II ~
J I '" I' ..'
I, w >
!1 l- I- a: W:.~
.. , :1 .. 0 J"
.. z ",'"
" w '"
~
\&t-~~
.... ,
~
"r'
;.f~
"',', , ~j fI, ~,' ~. ~ """'IT 8
.'. \-". ~ We ~_Ai ,
:'," ,J" 1,'1i~/'&, ,
[:.~i/\t~ ~Mt~;
EXHIBIT C
BF/OP #03
Rohr Office Building
850 Lagoon Drive
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Developer shall sign and record, prior to the issuance of
construction permits a parking agreement between the city
and the Developer, on terms and conditions satisfactory to
the City of Chula vista and the Developer, providing one (1)
parking space per each 300 square feet of gross floor area
of the proposed Rohr office building as required by section
19.62.050 of the Chula vista Municipal Code. This condition
shall be deemed satisfied upon the recordation of said
parking agreement.
2. A site plan depicting the planned parking facility
improvements to the SDG&E easement area currently leased by
the Developer shall be submitted to staff for review and
approval, and said improvements shall be installed prior to
the issuance of an occupancy permit for the Rohr office
building. This condition shall be deemed satisfied upon the
issuance of said occupancy permit.
3. A variance allowing the proposed encroachment into the
easterly side yard setback and building height shall be
obtained prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed Rohr office building. This condition shall be
deemed satisfied upon the issuance of such building permit.
4. A pedestrian circulation system connecting the proposed
project with a proposed easterly adjacent parking facility
shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval in
connection with the Developer's submittal of the site plan
reference in paragraph 2 above. This condition shall be
deemed satisfied upon the issuance of an occupancy permit
for the proposed Rohr office building.
5. A set of 8-1/2 x 11 photographs of the model and all
graphics presented to the Design Review Committee shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to submittal of
plans for plan check. This condition shall be deemed
satisfied upon the submittal of said photographs and
graphics.
6. The level of reflectiveness of the proposed Rohr office
building's west elevation exterior glass component shall be
approved by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator,
\t\ .. ~5
with the advise of a biological specialist, in accordance
wi th the Local Coastal Program's intent to restrict said
material to protect coastal resources. This condition shall
be deemed satisfied upon such approval.
7. Developer shall incorporate into the project all mitigation
measures set forth in EIR-90-lO and addendum thereto.
8.
Developer shall incorporate the Rohr
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and shall enter into a third party contract
ensure implementation of said program.
Office
into the
with the
Complex
project
city to
9. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
Chula vista Municipal Code, and other state and local laws.
10. The Developer shall contribute funds in the amount of
$18,000 toward the future improvement of the following two
off-site traffic intersections: i) 1-5 northbound ramp at
"E" street, and ii) southbound right turn lane on to
Broadway at "E" street. Developer's contribution of $18,000
shall be deemed their fair share and no future contribution
toward these specific improvements shall be required based
on the project as approved in BFjOP#03. This condition
shall be deemed approved upon such contribution.
11. The Developer shall construct public street improvements
adjacent to the site and reasonable transition street
improvements in accordance with the standard engineering
practices and procedures and the requirements set forth by
the City Engineering Department's letter dated September 26,
1990 unless otherwise required by environmental mitigation
as set forth in EIR-90-l0 and addendum thereto or by field
condi tions. This condition of approval is based on the
project as proposed and may be modified in the event the
project is modified. If the project is not modified, this
condition shall be deemed satisfied upon the substantial
completion of the construction of such improvements to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12. The Developer shall contribute one-half of 1% of the
building valuation toward fine art within the Bayfront
Project.. The Developer's contribution may be in the form
of an on-site feature as an alternative the cash
contribution. If a work of fine art is not approved by the
time an occupancy permit is requested, Rohr shall be
required to deposit the cash contribution.
v\ - ~(.
I and
authorized representatives for Rohr Industries, Inchoate read and
understand these conditions of approval as required- by the
Redevelopment Agency as they pertain to the construction of Rohr
Office Building at 850 Lagoon Drive and agree that these
conditions be incorporated into Owner Participation Agreement
#BF/OP#03
Rohr Industries, Inc.
by:
by:
date:
date:
(Rohr)
c:Penelope
ta..-'31j,Q.j8
THIS PAGE BLANK
\~ - 3~
RESOLUTION -'(.1 S5
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND
ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS
AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION, ADOPTING MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPTING FINDINGS
FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT AND SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE, ENTERING INTO A
PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES,
AND FINDING ROHR INDUSTRIES' PROPOSAL TO
CONSTRUCT A 245,00 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING AS APPROVED BY THE REDEVLOPMENT
AGENCY ON APRIL 23, 1991, IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE
OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 52.
WHEREAS, the
(LCP) has been
commission; and,
city of Chula vista Local Coastal Program
certified by the California Coastal
WHEREAS, said LCP includes Coastal Development
procedures determined by the Commission to be legally
adequate for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits and
the city of Chula vista has assumed permit authority of the
Chula vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing
conducted on January 23, 1991
procedures; and,
was duly noticed
in accordance with
and
said
WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chula vista
has reviewed and considered the information contained in
EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, the candidate CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
monitoring and reporting program attached as Attachement I.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chula Vista,
as "approving authority," has reviewed Rohr Industries'
proposal for the construction of a 245,000 square foot
office building at 850 Lagoon Drive as approved by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula vista on April 23,
1991, considered Rohr Industries' request for a 10 ft.
sideyard and 3 ft. 8 in. height variance, and reviewed the
proposed Parking Agreement attached as Attachment II; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Chula vista:
\~-~4
A. The city council of the City of Chula vista hereby
certifies that EIR-90-I0 and Addendum thereto, CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
moni toring and reporting program attached as Attachment I;
have been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
B. The City Council of the City of Chula vista hereby
adopts the following findings and grants a building and
sideyard setback variance:
Findings - Sideyard Setback
a) In an effort to meet the goal to protect coastal
resources and to satisfy environmental concerns raised by
the U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant
placed the proposed building along the western edge of the
50 foot westerly side yard setback to form a buffer between
active uses east of the building and the wildlife preserve
on the west side. This placement limited the space for
arrangement of on-site parking and access. The proposed
variance will assist the applicant in complying with parking
and access requirements.
b) The site's westerly side yard setback, normally 20
feet, was required to be increased to 50 feet to provide an
adequate buffer for adjacent sensitive wetlands (FIG Street
Marsh) . This requirement reduces the on-site buildable
space and flexibility of site planning enjoyed by property
owners not located adjacent to wetlands.
c) The granting of a easterly side yard setback reduction,
of 10 feet will allow the applicant to recover 30% of the
land area lost to wetland buffer. The additional land will
be used to provide on-site parking.
Findings - Building Height
a) The applicant proposed an initial building design
consisting of a continuous top of building with an elevation
of 42 feet 3 inches, a height below the site's 44 ft
building limitation. In an effort to meet the Design Review
committee's request to incorporate vertical architectural
features, the central glass core of the building was
elevated to 47 feet 8 inches, 3 feet 8 inches above the 44
foot building height limitation. The height variation,
though above the limitation, will enhance the design of the
building and aesthetic quality of the coastal area.
b) The proposed height variance allows the applicant to
provide an enhanced building design. No additional building
floor area will result from the allowance.
\,\_ qC>
c) The added design enhancement will provide interesting
building silhouette from bay views at a minimum variance to
the LCP height limitation which will not reduce or adversely
affect coastal resources.
C. The city Council
enters into a Parking
attached as Attachment
of the city of Chula vista hereby
Agreement with Rohr Industries, Inc.
II; and,
D. The City Council of the City of Chula vista finds that
state and regional interpretive guidelines have been
reviewed and the proposed project has been found to be in
conformance with the public access and public recreational
policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code.
Further, based on the following findings, Rohr Industries'
proposal to construct a 245,000 sq. ft. office building at
850 Lagoon Drive, as approved by the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula vista on April 23, 1991, is found to be
consistent with the certified Chula vista Local Coastal
Program:
Findings - Coastal consistency
a) The project will provide the number of on-site and
adjacent vehicle parking spaces (through an agreement with
the city of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking
requirements set forth in the certified LCP. The project is
a minimum of one-third of a mile from the Bay's shore I ine
and public coastal park land. with adequate off-street
vehicle parking provided by the development and the site's
substantial distance from the bay I s shore I ine, no adverse
impact on public access to the coast line is expected to
occur.
b) The project is located adjacent to the FIG street
Marsh. However, a 50-foot setback has been maintained to
provide a buffer adj acent to the wetland boundary. In
addition, the building has been designed to be in itself a
barrier that will further buffer the wetlands from human
activities on the eastern portion of the site. In
accordance with EIR-90-10, mitigation measures will be
implemented to ensure that the building and associated
acti vi ties will not adversely effect the adj acent wetland
habitat.
c) Public improvements in accordance
LCP will be installed in conjunction
Street improvements incorporated into
provide an incremental increase toward
coastal resources.
with the certified
with the project.
the project will
improved access to
d) The project site is designated for Industrial Business
Park. land uses. Administrative offices and research design
\'\ - ~ \
activities related to the industrial land use adjacent to
the south are in conformance with the certified LCP land use
element. Findings in accordance with the LCP have been for
a 3 foot 8 inch building height variance for the central
building element and a 10 foot easterly side yard setback
variance. No adverse affect on coastal resources are
anticipated due to the variances.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
approves Coastal Development Permit No. 52.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
(Rohrreso)
\ct -q2-} 14. IfJ
ATTACHMENT I a., b., c., & d.
Same as Attachment I a., b., C., and d.
to Agency Resolution to approve
OP/BF No. 03
\Q.-~~
ATTACHMENT II
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this
is a conveyance to a public
agency of less than a fee
interest for which no cash
consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
Agreement Between the
City of Chula vista
and
Rohr Industries, Inc.
re
Potential Use Restriction on Office space
This Parking Agreement ("Agreement") between the city of"Chula
Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("city"), and Rohr
Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Rohr"), dated
April 15, 1991 for the purposes for reference only, and effective
as of the date last executed by the parties, is made with reference
to the following facts:
Whereas, the real property which is the subject matter of this
Agreement is commonly known as 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula vista,
California, and is legally described as set forth on Exhibit A,
incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and,
Whereas, Rohr is the owner of the Property; and,
Whereas, Rohr proposes to improve the Property with a 245,000
square foot office building, parking lot, and miscellaneous collat-
eral improvements, all of which are more particularly identified in
the following zoning document on file in the Office of the city
Clerk: BF/OP (Bayfront/owner Participation) No.3 ("Project"); and,
Whereas, the city's Municipal Code, Zoning Chapter, section
19.62 requires that a project of the size and scope of Rohr' s
proposed Project have 816 parking spaces; and,
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 1
\'1-4,\
Whereas, the project as proposed by Rohr permits only 760
parking spaces, so that the site is deficient in parking by 56
spaces ("Deficient Spaces") which, according to standard parking
space construction standards permitted by city, would require an
area of approximately 20,000 square feet ("Deficient Area"); and,
Whereas, San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDGE") is the
owner of a 15 acre parcel of property ("SDGE Parcel") the northerly
part of which is diagrammatically represented in the map attached
as Exhibit C, adjacent, in part, to Rohr's Property but consisting
of an area substantially greater than the Deficient Area; and,
Whereas, in February 21, 1981, Rohr has entered into a lease
agreement ("Parking Lease") with SDGE by which Rohr, their
employees, invited guests and visitors may occupy the SDGE Parcel
for the purpose ("Parking Purpose") of parking (and ingress and
egress thereto) their vehicles on the SDGE Parcel for so long as
they are visiting Rohr at the building on the subject Property;
and,
Whereas, said Parking Lease had a 5 year term prior to its
expiration and contains 4 five (5) year options to renew; and,
Whereas, the City is willing to permit the oversized project
with the proposed parking on the terms and conditions herein
stated;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. Duty to Keep Lease Current and in Full Force and Effect.
Rohr shall keep the Parking Lease, or at least the northerly
most 20,000 square feet of the area which is the subject
matter of the Parking Lease ("Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces Portion"), current and in full force and effect.
2. Duty to Use Good Faith and Best Efforts to Renew Parking Lease
Upon Expiation.
Rohr shall use good faith and best efforts to renew, on terms
and conditions satisfactory to Rohr and SDGE, the Parking
Lease with SDGE, or at least the Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces portion, at such time as it is scheduled for, or may
be, canceled or terminated.
3. Duty to Provide Alternate Parking Satisfactory upon
Cancellation of Parking lease.
3.1. Alternate Parking Area.
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 2
\C\-4S
As used herein, "Alternate Parking Area" shall be used to
define an area of equal or greater size to the Deficient
Area, designed and improved to permit parking spaces
equal to or greater than the Deficient Spaces, in the
close or immediate vicinity to the Property.
3.2. Duty.
In the event that Rohr, despite the exercise of good
faith and best efforts, is unable to continue the right
to occupy the SDGE Parcel for the Parking Purpose, Rohr
shall use good faith and best efforts to obtain the right
to occupy for the Parking Purpose of an Alternate Parking
Area which has been submitted to, and has been approved
by, the city, by and through their City Manager, or his
or her designee. In the event that Rohr secures the
Alternate Parking Area, this agreement shall terminate
and be of no further force and effect.
3.2.1.
without limitation of the City's remedies,
upon the failure of Rohr to use good faith and
best efforts to obtained an approved Alternate
Parking Area shall be grounds for requiring,
after notice, Rohr to implement "Office Area
Use Reduction Duty", hereinbelow described.
4. Office Area Use Reduction Dutv.
4.1. Identify Specific Area within Building for Reduction of
Use.
The Area within the proposed building on the Property
which is the subject matter of this section is shown on
Exhibi t B ("Potential Reduction Area"), attached hereto.
4.2 Duty.
Rohr agrees, for its successors and assigns, including
leasees, that if the Parking Lease is no longer available
for the Parking Purpose for any reason whatsoever
regardless of fault, and, within 90 days after written
notice from the City to Rohr, Rohr has not provided an
Alternate Parking Area according to the terms of this
Agreement, Rohr shall, upon written demand by the City,
terminate any usage except pedestrian circulation,
storage, and retrieval and deposit therefrom, of the
Potential Reduction Area. (This Duty shall be herein
referred to as the "Office Area Use Reduction Duty.")
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 3
t tt - "'I..
4.3. Record Agreement Giving Successor Lessees or Purchasers
or Lenders Notice of Potential Reduction of Use.
This Agreement shall be recorded upon execution of the
parties.
4.4 contain provision in Subleases.
In the event that Rohr shall lease or sublease all or a
portion of the building which contains the Potential
Reduction Area, the lease or sublease shall contain a
provision notifying the prospective tenant that some or
all of the area of the lease is subject to termination on
exercise of the city's rights under this agreement.
4.5 Burden Touches and Concerns Land; Binding on Successors.
The burden of this covenant touches and concerns the
Property, and as such is binding upon the heirs,
successors, and assigns of Rohr as if they had entered
into this Agreement directly and enforceable by the City
as benefiting any and all land adjacent thereto, or in
the vicinity thereof owned by the City, including but not
limited to the public rights of way which both parties
acknowledge would be substantially impacted as a result
of the loss of the Deficient Spaces.
5. Miscellaneous.
5.1. Proof of Title.
Rohr shall provide proof, satisfactory to the City, that they
have fee simple absolute title to the Property; and that this
Agreement has been recorded prior to interest of any subsequent
purchaser, lessee, or lender except for the interest of a purchase
money lender but then not to the extent that it is in excess of the
purchase price of the land at the time of Rohr's purchase of the
fee interest.
5.2. Attorney Fees.
In the event that litigation is necessary to enforce any of
the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
5.3. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the
contrary, in the event the City I S Municipal Code is hereafter
amended or otherwise changed to permit less than or equal to 760
parking spaces for the Project, the Duties herein imposed on Rohr
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 4
\'\ -41
shall be suspended during such time as said Code permits less than
or equal to 760 parking spaces.
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood
the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their
consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated: April 15, 1991
city of Chula vista
by:
Leonard Moore,
its Mayor Pro Tern
Attest:
Beverly Authelet
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Dated: April 15, 1991
Rohr Industries, Inc,
by:
Ronald M. Miller, Vice President
and Treasurer
by:
Richard W.
Secretary
Madsen, General Counsel
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 5
\ q -4 ~
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit c:
rohr5.wp
April 1,5, 1991
Exhibits List
Legal Description of Rohr Property.
Floor Plan of Office Building, marked for Potential
Reduction Area.
Map showing SDGE Parcel.
l G - 4~
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 6
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
That portion of Quarter section 172 of RANCHO DE LA NACION, in
the City of Chula vista, County of San Diego, state of
california, according to Map thereof No. 166 filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego county, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Quarter section 172 as
shown on Record of Survey 9039 on file in the Office of the
Recorder of said County; thence along the Easterly boundary of
said Quarter section North 17'46'57" West 332.01 feet (Record
North 17'47'11" West 332.00 feet): thence l~aving said Easterly
boundary along the Southerly boundary of said Record of Survey
9039 and its Easterly prolongation, South 72'11'56" West (Record
South 72'12'12" West) 170.02 feet to the Southeasterly corner of
Record of Survey 9039 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this
description: thence continuing South 72'11'56" West 1333.57 feet
(Record 1333.46 feet): thence continuing along the boundary of
said Record of Survey North 66'58'39" West 73.95 feet (Record
North 66'58'55" West 73.94 feet); thence South 84'48'01" West
339.66 feet (Record South 84'47'56" West 339.69 feet); thence
North 38'00'20" West 328.14 feet (Record North 38'00'2!;i" West
328.08 feet); thence North 31'19'51" West 217.16 feet (Record
North 31'19'56" West 216.96 feet); thence North 72'03'09" -Eoost
(Record North 72'03'22" East) 703.95 feet; thence North 17"56'51"
West 299.96 feet (Record North 17'56'38" West 300.00 feet);
thence North 72'03'09" East 1182.28 feet (Record North 72'03'22"
East 1182.05 feet): thence South 17"46'57" East 946.30 feet
(ReCord South 17'47'11" East 946.06 feet) to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying Westerly of the Easterly
line of parcel 10E as shown on Record of survey No. 11749,
recorded August 10, 1988, in the Office of the county Recorder of
San Diego County, and the Northerly prOlongation of said
Easterly line.
~" - SD
EXHI BIT B
J__.
,'-01
'.~..... ... ,. . - "'-
r
.
POTENTIAL REDUCTION AREA
l t\ -'5 l
/...-
i
I
THIRD FLOOR
~~~
.~
.
Ul
t-'
J.,
. .' .~C:'~~~~;
'ASHItLYBOUNl5'A"
\ .
.Om
II
-,-,
. ,j/;<"r' :Jt~ /:<~~;~B+d'F~?1:e~,<
-rrno~~~;:/:..,!j~;ir~~~i::\;;,>:X~'
I
...t.~ II
..,.t;:
, W:).~~t~Jr"6
TYPIC^'L~1)_a I:V,''tO'~[R:J
WlTH'lJ'~S"SQ. CUAJ:OlAH
.).,:.,-!2'...21 n
,
i
!
',.:,"
"t.'-
ROHR
- ~.__~.... _....... .t.:.
,.
>'-
"'
u.
'0
u
Q;
',.."--.,-.,' .
:SEC;"
162':;
~.'.
~ "
u
i7
rf\-~-~-~-\---V-~-~ ^.
I ~ - , ~
i ~ . ... \ \,:::,::: ::~::'iOQ~
~--~~--- _ ~_\__~ :x. ~ L \.
. !
t
~=
..,-."
I~
~
u
'" '<.~
'.',:
. '".'.:'<'~'
'~" '~:': ;~~~F::
.~~tit..i:'.':
,':;;,'
.ffo-'...~ZOtl/.. t,ilsreRi/:FiAid: ^y' .:.
~'''''''
:;,,~~'-'.:""_-';".:.'~:'~::;:'
ROIIII :r~s'[' rQn
'J~:.:; SI(
p 'i,.~l.:.c ~.:g.."
ING {i~'i'i..'u't/2r:, . ,.- .'
i .
., / .<,.~
111/// ".
c~. Q. He. 111-
I:iI /
"
Exi:
~
"R.R. SPUR H' t/W
Q'" 'SE" C'
. . ....;.
171
.~ I
I
I
. CORPORATION.
. .'~
-;;
N "
~ .
n~' ': -. !' ._' .~.~~
I ~ '/0. ,.... ~,~ .
J' _- 'W' . .' '.q>. . .
..... ~ -,\~'--f-'i:i~mm~H~~~N;[AS:Tm RmWAl-
~';;.l-- ,;.,-;.;:" ..- 'I . '.
'_i..~'.""(~~I"".n'O'OIL UN'1~_ :. '-.'_ -:--.'~
':'.' -<_:J; AMENO p'~?~~~~! ,t ." i'ooJ>.~ ! II
,. .--""1..,-...-1'.... ~
7~.H;W~"I" i"f ' I~___
. ; "dsOGut c;..L'
g ~M'O ~ T c'$ ~)[ R.:,j.. -,';
"
Rohr Office Building Required Spaces Portion
EXHIBIT "e"
. Z
.~ 0
~v~ ~
v.
... ....:
~..; .-.~_:- ~
Ct',6-"
,
"'0
:::i~
:z: Iz'
. 212
~I~ -
~ ~
0,0
~~
:...:-
,? .J
: . - if)
(XlSTlt<.:C 'It
~:41 ;;J. ~~ ~,
'; '/~J' \;yt\ ;:1:".' ~!.
::', :'~, ;~,~.~: ~?~.: [:~w;
t .Vi' dl:. 'i:;5' './_'(':
i:Ai i~f {~} }~:
:",.,,,li'cl" ~.,_1.._~~
Hi~ fiHil ~i
~ :7.;.:f~' \~;' ~.c~~., ~
i: ''3'.C.~t~ . 1:<~.
" ~~. -I'~
;' .q
1. .'~"".~i
~~~~;
\ ^'''),':;~''':I'~~;;
. .....,. ~~ ;"'~f;1-;; ~~lP
',' ~o~~,. ?tlif~:;t?~;
'.'; _ ,\ ," " U)_'i~~'{Ai;t;..
,: '~'.~~~~{~JJj;
ll::cr (j'ji'l,:"
ti ~~:jt\
w~ ..~:J......:-_~
..1"0::.,'>'..
WU ",Ic';.'
. 6 .a:.~~:~'t:C
d:S~ ,.,!,~);.,.,_w
.' =' 'j
~' '~~.*;'~~~~i ~
.1.~'~ Y-;1(~~'{
:~. ':g~ ~~~_~Kr~;i~
w, O\dry-:;':.J:
'0: O:~.~i/'>':~'
'Z'- ...i..:(~.,.
.<C
IJ).;
~.'
~--
.:'
l I
ATTACHMENT I
Irsh/ ~ I'
Rohr Office Complex
Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR # 90-10)
SCH # 90010623
Prepared for:
City of ChuIa Vista
Environmental Review Coodinator
276 Foruth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. (KEA)
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
February 1991
~~f?
~
, --- -- -.---
- -- ----
~~~~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
Final Environmental Impact Report
Contents
Summary
Comments and Responses
Draft Environmental Impact Report
/'t-fJ
SUMMARY
This report is the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Rohr Office
Complex project. The FEIR includes the Draft EIR (which has undergone public review),
the public comments received as a result of the public review, and the responses to these
comments. Changes to the Draft EIR which have been made as a response to comments
are indicated in the Draft EIR with shading for new text, and cross-outs for text to be
eliminated.
$-1
I q. S~
ST A Tf OF CAlIFORNIA-OFFICE Of THE GOVERNOR -_
Comment-A
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go~mor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 958U
Jan 04, 1991
RECEIVED
~
MARYANN MILLER
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 4TH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 92010
.IAN 8 1991
PLANNING
Subject: ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
SCH It 90010623
Dear MARYANN MILLER:
At
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review
period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies)
is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will
note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented.
Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment
package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please
notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the
project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond
promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code
required that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or
which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency."
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their
comments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for
your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information
or clarification, we recoI:llnend' Lhat you contact the commenting
agency( ies) .
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact
Terri Lovelady at (916) 445-0613 if you have any
questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
.--:-;>
r..:~~'.......--,.__,.,..""''' .-
'.. -."
David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
/Q,.55
Notice of Completion
.- ~.....
~-
SNHOnrNI.w
Moil,., $.... Clcarina"""", 140ll Tenll1 S...... S",..m,,"o, CA 95814 'H613 Sat. 90010623
...---;:,...".... _....RQ.b~r QfJj~e..C_Q!IIDlex _U!l_-.:....__~__
lAldAloncy: ._.... qtY. _t?~ .~hul~_ y'!~.~a C-.ct~ Marvann .Mi1L~~.___.
S d.Jno 2.76 Fourth .Avenue . _, (619) 691-5101
(":t~'.. .:.='" Cbu.1..a..~~i,'i..Y.~-~CA_ ?jp~-.1.~<I!9_____. Counry: San OieQo
-----------------------------------------
Pr.Ject ..........
C"unl)': .__ San DJego _~_. .____ Cil)'IN__ Commuftily: _ Chula _Vista
Cm"~U'otll: _~.Stree..tJBay Q9J.l.leya.r:Q..... TNlAcnt: 11.00
A.......'. p_, No. .56.Z~010-26_._ s"""., _ NfA Twp. NfA a..,,, NfA_ 8_, NfA
Wilhin2Mil..: S"'a.H...)'I:_..l.::~__ WllUWI)": San DieQo ~.!. Sweet~ater R'i"'Ver
ALr,oN:-1tLA..__....__u_. alihlll)'l: _.~Q!~~__ Se.....:.~~:~~e~ ~~~:~~~~~'er Elem;
---------------------------------~-------
Doeurn.. TV.-
CIQA, 0 NO'
O....y c...
ON., Doc
iXIll..n.,~
Os"pp......tllub.~,\1
o Ela <I'rior KH No.)
000...
NUA:
0"""
OM
o llo,^ E1S
OPONSI
01111I:
010... Ilooun_
o PUW lloaonona
Oow,__.
-----------------------------------------
L__I ...t.... TV..
00.....11 Plan ll,-..
DC."",.zPl...~
Oo,l'CttJ ".. e__1
o Communil)'''_
o SPICiRc P1-.
OMu.PltII
0_ Unil O'Volo.......
(JIM"- Design Review
0......
D-
O u..,....
o Lad 1>'..... (SUW;"....
'''' N.. Tnd.........)
0-_
a bd."..,....c
KJ eo.l&I '......M
o ow,
-----------------------------------------
,
00..._ ""
o a..i,*"UtJ: UIfiJI. Ap'u
(lOt..., J.~.~4~.UUO'"..== '''''0''''__
o C~I.1t I~~. ","Vel &.,Iqy.u
Olndutriall Sf~.== A4:"u:::= ~.u==
OEd"".1&aW _.
DRICIMu...i
OW_'""w., ,."..
a-............: .,.,..
0.......: 1I,...,
01'0_ r,..
OW__ r,..
O_W_,.".
(2)0..: 730 car OarKlny
.._wnn_
w.._
IUL. IUI
clU...luJT"."~
-----------------------------------------
....Jc.et I..... .._....... I" .........
a~LicIY"al
G AarleuI.... L...td
OAIrQt.laJity
O~Iic:a1IHllllO'iuJ
CiCUMW:t.one
Q DrIiNl..,AbiorylIlon
a &mnmiclJobt
OF....
o fkIod PI~In.
O-'-H.... I
n CIecNo.M:/1......
CJ MbwAl,
DHa...
o Pop.I"kInIJ~ 8.1_.
o PublleSW'#icuIt'lCilibu
Oa",.........ta
q~IIN"'''''''
D'.,u.: .)'....
OS.... C.,.""
OSoil_~....".....
o Solid W...
C1 TudcM......
[] T,,"cJCirc~
~V'pl..kJn
I1lw__
m.....J_y~...
[iJ W....-,.....
ex: WUcWl.
00.-.."'""",
o .....
;, ",lad". atrlCtl
------------------------~-~-
"...",....... UMrlZ......lII...,......... u.. Project site. is I?resent
disturbed from agricultural uses. The current.lonlng 1S !P
~~~neral Plan is R~$~arch & ltd. manufacturlng. The slte
~~~~~~m~~~~~~-----~---
The project is an office complex with surface parklng for 73
building would contain a maximum of 245.000 square feet of gr
not exceed 42 ft.. in height.
CLEAKINGBOUS! CONTACT.
STAn u:vu:tl BECAN:
DEPT. REV TO AGENCY:
AG!IICY" REV TO SCB
SclI COHPLIANC!
916/445-0613
T!IllU LOVELAIlY TllLLE'n'!:
aft' SIft
_ ~h.ourc.. qucy
..
_ ~Co..t&l
-
-~
JL... ...!-Con..rvation
___ ~P'hh , Game
- . L
.1l.- ZO /jQ
IZ-.J$.
..L-L
.L-~
p' .....Cl:x I.ETOKlI HOC VIm ALL COHHER'rS
AQHIl/APCIl:~ (R..ourc...-JjL,~)
- ~ ...........,., .u...--
,
- -
..
= · Ca,ltran. ,.1L
l' '1&
~
-
_ ~Food . AtJ
- .. llrlF...
..L. . I ~ "
b., sCRi..:..:..--=----- __..
~ .. III.-'",t' oJ" .;J~a, r .... - ,..;:l:t
----
aft' SNT
-
,
4.
w.
- ....1.
___ ~SVRCB:--Wtr Quality
___ -!-SWRCBr--Wtr Kights
_ ~R.g 0 11QC8 I q
170' .. ,
J
T
..
---
-~
.
___ ~St.t.
. i1i'
__. ^~~A_.
Land.
o
-
c"""'
w
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent A - State of California Office of Planning and Research
Al The acknowledgement from the Office of Planning and Research regarding
compliance with State Clearinghouse review requirements is noted.
90-14 01/25/91
,q-Sh
~'" vf Callhrnlll
Comment-.Jl
1IU11Mt1, TnlJ..~Ii.... _n~ HoIuIIna Aa-IU!\I
Memorandum
To
. STATE CLEARrNGHOUSE
0- , January 4, 1991
Attention T. ToIlette
File No., 11-50-005
7.9-8.6
District 11
From , DEPARTMENT OF TltANSPORTATJON
Subjed, Focused EIR for the
Rohr Office Complex - SCH
Caltrans Oistrict 11 comments are as follows:
1.
Locally funded Interstate Route 5 interchange improvements _
Our contact person for the initiation of feasibility studies
is Mike McManus, Chief, Local Funded Projects Branch, (619)
688-3392 .
Bl
2. Visual Quality - The extent of the visual impacts at Inter-
state 5 could not be determined. Our agency encourages
project sponsors to landscape highway rights-of-way when the
project-specific or cumulative visual impacts at those
highways are significant. Our contact person is Larry
Fagot, Landscape Architecture Branch, (619) 688-6092.
3. Encroachment permits are required for work within the
rights-of-way for Interstate and state highways. Early
coordination with our agency is strongly recommended for all
encroachment permit applications.
Tc.L-L-- :-
S T. CHESHIRE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
MO:ec
I t:t-5~
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent B - State of California De-partment of TraIl'ij)ortation. District 11
B 1 Caltrans District 11 comments are noted; these comments identify Caltrans contact
persons for (1) locally funded 1-5 interstate improvements, (2) highway rights-of-way
landscaping, and (3) encroachment permits.
90-14 01/25/91
State of California
Comment C
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA
Memorandum
Ms. Maryann Miller
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
fl~~
~,' \
Dr. Gordon F. Snow /'."'.c Qat.., '
Assistant Secretary for Resour,:i:s '. \:::-\
I -i Subject,
~ ....0 b
~., · 2: /.~t/
,? . ,.-\~:.>,.
, I I .. ~ ~ \ .......
Department of Conservation-Office of the Director ~~
December 5, 1990
To
Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the
Rohr Office Complex,
SCH# 90010623
From
Cl
The Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology
(DMG) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the Rohr Office Complex for the City of Chula Vista. This
Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts that will result
from the construction of an office complex on an 11.6-acre site.
The proposed development will construct approximately 245,000
square feet of office floor space and adjoining parking
facilities. The following report was reviewed by DMG:
o Draft Rohr Office Complex Environmental Impact Report, EIR#
90-10, SCH# 90010623, prepared for the City of Chula Vista,
prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., November
1990.
Our review of this report indicates that sufficient data are not
presented to properly review 'the site for earthquake stability.
We offer the following specific comments:
1. The Draft EIR does not provide any data on the potential
seismic or geologic hazards at the project site. The Draft
EIR indicates that the Initial Study by the City of Chula
Vista found that no geologic hazards would affect the
project site. However, as we indicated in our July 17, 1990
letter in response to the project's Notice of Preparation,
the project site may have potential seismic, liquefaction
and tsunami hazards. Although a preliminary geotechnical
investigation was performed for the project, the Draft EIR
does not provide data on the seismic setting of the project
site nor on the potential for liquefaction. These geOlogic
hazards may have a significant impact on the proposed
development. The potential significance of these hazards is
discussed in the items below. The Final EIR should address
these issues and propose mitigation measures, if necessary.
Technical data to support the conclusions should be appended
to the Final EIR.
2. The project site is located approximately 1-1/4 miles east
of a system of faults that may be a southern extension of
the Rose canyon Fault (Treiman, 1984). Although there has
been uncertainty in the past regarding the activity of the
Rose Canyon fault, recent trenching of the fault in the San
Diego area by Thomas Rockwell of San Diego State
,t:}...S'l
Dr. Snow/Ms. Miller
December 4, 1990
Page Two
University's Geology Department has provided evidence of
Holocene activity. In addition, recently released mapping
of offshore geology by DMG shows the Rose Canyon fault
offsetting Holocene sediments (Greene and Kennedy, 1987).
Thus, a seismic event on the Rose Canyon fault appears to
have a high probability of impacting the San Diego area.
Recent evaluations of the maximum credible earthquake (MCE)
magnitude indicates that the Rose Canyon Fault has an MCE of
magnitude 7 (Anderson, et al, 1989). A maximum probable
earthquake (MPE) of at least a magnitude 6.3 for the Rose
Canyon fault would be consistent with the recent data.
Based on seismic predictive equations (Joyner and Boore,
1988), the project site can expect peak ground accelerations
of approximately 0.40g and O.53g from an MPE and MCE event,
respectively, on a nearby segment of the Rose Canyon Fault.
The project site lies within Zone 3 of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC), which has a seismic zone factor of 0.3,
representing an effective peak acceleration of O.30g (Table
No. 23-I, UBC, 1988). Thus the level of ground motion
expected at the project site may-exceed the design standards
of the UBC for the San Diego area. Therefore, the Final EIR
should address the seismic setting of the project site and
provide mitigation measures, if necessary.
3. The project site is underlain by soils of the Bay Point
Formation and lies adjacent to a marsh. Portions of the Bay
Point Formation are considered to have a moderate potential
for liquefaction (Gray, et al, 1977). The Draft EIR
indicates that the depth to ground water varies from 5 to 16
feet below the existing site grade. Although the Draft EIR
indicates that a preliminary geotechnical investigation was
performed. for the project, no data are provided to
demonstrate that the potential for liquefaction on the
project site does not exist, or even that it has been
evaluated. Since liquefaction would have a significant
impact on the project, the Final EIR should provide data to
demonstrate the lack of liquefaction potential on the
project site, or provide methods to mitigate the hazard.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental
Review Project Manager, at (916) 322-2562.
VJ~ J- 0611f:::t
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
Dr. Snow/Ms. Miller
December 5, 1990
Page Three
DJO:RC:skk
cc: Roger-Martin, Division of Mines and Geology
Kit Custis, Division of Mines and Geology
References:
Anderson, J.G., Rockwell, T.K., and Agnew, C., 1989, Past and
Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego
Region, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 5, no. 2, pgs. 299-335.
Gray, C.H., and other, 1977, studies on Surface Faulting and
Liquefaction as Potential Earthquake Hazards in Urban San Diego,
California, DMG Final Technical Report, U.S.G.S. Contract No. 14-
08-001-15858.
Greene, H.G. and Kennedy, M.P., 1987, Geology of the Inner-
Southern California Continental Margin, DMG California
Continental Margin Geologic Map Series, Area 1 of 7, scale
1:250,000.
Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M~, 1988, Measurement, Characterization
and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion, in Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics II-Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation,
ASCE Geotechnical Special PUblication No. 20, edited by J.L. Von
Thun, pgs. 43-102.
Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and
Analysis, DMG Technical PUblication, EMF-83-K-Ol48, pgs. 80.
/9-5'
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
State of California. Department of Conservation - Office of the Director
C1 Comment acknowledged
The following is provided as a summary of geologic conditions for the project site.
GEOLOGY
Existing Conditions
The present-day configuration of the southern California coastline can be said to
have had its early beginnings during Cretaceous time (120 to 85 million years ago).
At that time, the southern California Batholiths intruded into existing Triassic and
Jurassic-age strata, causing uplift to the east, and subsidence to the west where the
deposition of marine sediments has continued through the last 60 to 80 million years.
The project site lies within the San Diego Embayment Graben, a structural block
down-dropped between the La Nacion fault zone (two to three miles east of the site),
and the "San Diego Bay faults" (one to two miles west of the site). The San Diego
Bay faults are generally believed to be a southerly extension of the Rose Canyon
fault zone, described below under "Seismicity and Geologic Hazards." The formation
of the San Diego Bay is directly related to the downward displacement of the San
Diego Embayment Graben.
Seismicity and Geologic Hazards
The major San Diego and southern California fault systems form a
northwest-southeast trending regional structural fabric, generally parallel to the San
Andreas fault zone, which extends over land from the Gulf of California to the
Bodega Basin north of San Francisco Bay. Structural geologists relate movement
along the San Andreas and associated fault zones (at least for the past five million
years), to movement along the boundary between the North American and Pacific
tectonic plates. As a result, the southern California region is subject to significant
hazards from moderate to large earthquakes. Ground shaking is a hazard
everywhere in California. Fault displacement of the ground is a potential hazard at,
and near, faults. Tsunamis, earthquake-induced flooding, and liquefaction are all
potential hazards in the San Diego Bay area.
The fault zones nearest the site which are mapped as "active" are the Coronado
Banks and the Elsinore fault zones. The nearest fault zone currently classified as
potentially active is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The California Division of Mines
and Geology is currently considering certain segments of this fault zone as active,
although this information has not yet been published by the State.
90-14 01/25/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The coastal zone of San Diego, including the areas along the periphery of San Diego
Bay, is currently assigned to DBC Seismic Zone 3. Based on recent information
from the Structural Engineers Association of San Diego, strong consideration is being
given to changing coastal San Diego from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
Coronado Banks Fault Zone
The Coronado Banks fault zone is located offshore from San Diego, approximately
10 miles southwest of the project site area. It appears to be part of a discontinuous
zone of faulting which includes the Palos Verdes fault near Los Angeles, and which
extends southeastward beyond the Mexican border (Greene et al. 1979; Legg and
Kennedy 1979). The total length of this fault zone is estimated to be approximately
130 miles and it is likely to be a strike-slip fault. Because of its mapped geologic
displacements, one-half of total fault zone length was used as the length of surface
rupture in order to estimate a maximum credible earthquake of surface wave
magnitude (Ms) 7. Offshore from San Diego, the Coronado Banks fault zone is near
an area where the epicenters of numerous local magnitude (Md microearthquakes
(ML 2.0 to 3.4) have been plotted. The Coronado Banks fault zone may be
associated with an Ms 6-1/4 earthquake during a typical 100-year period.
Elsinore Fault Zone
The Elsinore/Laguna Salada fault zone (approximately 40 miles northeast of the
project site area) is the nearest likely onshore source of a large earthquake. This
fault zone is generally characterized by strike-slip displacement. The total length of
the fault zone is approximately 255 miles; however, geologic displacements are
relatively discontinuous and sinuous compared to those of the other major active
faults. Therefore, it appears likely that the Elsinore fault zone would rupture in
shorter segments (as a proportion of total length) than the other major active faults
in the region. The general tectonic environment and expression of geologic
displacements along the Elsinore fault zone suggest that it may be subject to a
maximum credible earthquake of Ms 7-1/2, which would be associated with a length
of surface rupture of approximately 80 miles. The epicenters of numerous small
earthquakes of ML 3.0 to Ms 5.0 are located near the fault, suggesting that an Ms 7
earthquake is likely to occur on the Elsinore fault zone during a typical 100-year
period.
Rose Canyon Fault Zone
The most significant fault zone near the project site area is the Rose Canyon fault
zone, which is currently classified as potentially active. This fault zone has been
generally considered to exhibit no geologic displacement in the last 11,000 years
(Ziony 1973); however, some small earthquakes and microearthquakes have
epicenters on or near traces of the San Diego Bay faults (Hileman 1979; Simons
90-14 01/25/91
,q-ft,C
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1979). A series of these earthquakes occurred in 1985 and 1986. Moreover,
evidence of displacement on the fault during the last 11,000 years has been
reportedly discovered (Abbott 1989) near downtown San Diego, and at a site in Rose
Canyon. Consequently, it may be advisable to consider the hypothetical earthquake
hazard from the Rose Canyon fault zone. It appears reasonable to conclude that an
Ms 6-1/4 earthquake could occur during a typical100-year period.
Seismic Hazards
Ground shaking likely to occur during the anticipated life of the development would
affect uses on the site. Bay muds tend to magnify the effects of ground shaking by
amplifying the intensity of movement caused by earthquakes. Ground surface
accelerations and site period (the frequency of oscillation) would be likely to vary
somewhat across the site.
Liquefaction is a potential hazard in all areas underlain by water-saturated sandy
soils. Within the site vicinity, portions of the fluvial (Qal) deposits encountered in
the low-lying areas are considered moderately susceptible to liquefaction.
. Additionally, relatively clean sands were encountered within the formational soils at
depths of 11 to 26 feet below existing ground grade. Although considered relatively
dense in nature, these clean sands may be susceptible to liquefaction during severe
ground shaking.
Tsunamis and earthquake-induced flooding are also potential hazards within the San
Diego Bay, and a sufficient length of water surface exists within the bay to cause
earthquake-induced flooding within low-lying areas.
Seismic hazards are potentially significant. However, standard required design
criteria and conventional engineering techniques can be implemented to reduce the
risk. Some risk would always remain due to the uncertainty of future seismic events.
Site-Specific Investigations
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCe) has prepared two geotechnical reports
pertinent to the subject site: a preliminary geotechnical investigation dated May 13,
1988, and a more recent update geotechnical investigation, released July 24, 1990,
and revised September 7, 1990. These reports address potential constraints due to
seismic and liquefaction hazard. Refer to these reports for additional details on
these geologic hazards, and recommendations for mitigation. Any specific design
details intended to mitigate potential geologic hazards would be incorporated into
the grading plan, as specified by mitigation measures contained in Section 3.1.
90-14 01/25/91
Comment D
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sweetwater Harsh National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 335
Imperial Beach, CA 92032
Dec 6, 1990
city of Chula Vista
Engineering Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE:
Gentlemen:
LETTER
MARSH
LAGOON
OF PERMISSION TO GRADE AND PLANT WITHIN
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN CONJUNCTION
DRIVE, ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX.
SWEETWATER
WITH 850
The property identified by the Assessors Parcel Number 567-010-27
~ies within the Sweetwater Harsh National Wildlife Refuge.
We have reviewed The Grading and Planting Proposal as shown on
City of Chula Vista Drawing Numbers 90-991 and 90-1102. Because
this effort is viewed as habitat enhancement, consistent with
1)1 Refuge objectives, we hereby grant permission to grade and plant
on our property (t 200 Square feet area) as shown thereon. As
agreed, all revegetation actions will involve coastal sage scrub
species only. Planting maintenance must comply with provisions
as outlined in the appended Landscape Specifications, sheet 10;'
By:
By:
Title:
Date:
Marc Weitzel
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sweetwater Harsh National Wildlife Refuge
'\~~ \\~ \J~
Refuqe ManaQer
(\ {, ~,.,\~~.~
\.
cc: Kelly L. Birkes, Rick Engineering
,fi-/'/
..
PLANTING
~
THE PLANTING PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC, ALL PLANT MATERIAL lOCATIONS SHOWN
ARE APPROXIMATE. PLANT SYMBOLS AND/OR .ON CENTER" SPACINGS TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT QUANTITIES LISTED. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE ONLY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
CONTRACTOR. .
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND ROCKS IN ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS. FINISH PLANTING
SURFACE SHAll BE SMOOTH AND EVEN.
WEEDS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THEIR ROOTS, INCLUDINS BERMUDA GRASS.
WEEDS SHAll BE REMOVED FROM All PLANTING AREAS. WHEN NECESSARY TO ,
DISCOURAGE REGROWTH, THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD APPLY A SUITABLE'
HERBICIDE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. (ROUNDUP ,,'
HERBICIDE BY MONSANTO OR EQUAl.)
REMOVE ALL GRUBBED MATERIAL FROM THE SITE.
DELIVERY AND STORAGE
.
WHEN SOil AMENDMENTS ARE NOT INCORPORATED INTO TOPSOil PRIOR TO
DELIVERY, SOIL AMENDMENTS SHAll BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN THE ORIGINAL
UNOPENED CONTAINERS BEARING THE MANUFAcTURER'S GUARANTEED
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, NAME, ~TRADE MARK OR TRADE, NAME AND STATEMENT
INDICATING CONFORMANcE.fO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. IN LIEU OF
'CONTAINERS, SOIL AMENDMENTS MAY BE FURNISHED IN BULK AND A
CERTIFICATE INDICATING THE ABOVE INFORMATION SHALL ACCOMPANY EACH
'DELIVERY. .
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO "
CERTIFY ALL UNOPENED FERTILIZER PACKAGES ON SITE AND PACKAGES SHALL
NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTIL AFTER INCORPORATION INTO SOIL AS PER
SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED HEREIN AND ONLY WHEN DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE.
STORE SOIL AMENDMENTS IN A DRY PLACE AWAY fROM CONTAMINANTS.
SOIL TESTING
THE FOLLOWING SOILS TESTING LAB WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE fERTILITY OF
THE SITE SOIL AND MAY BE USED TO DETERMINE THE FERTILITY OF THE TOPSOIL:
SOIL & PLANT LA80RATORY, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 6566
n0l\t'~r,r r..... 0'1/,1'1 /(/-1,
SOIL Atv\EW 1ENTS
. AlLFiIT"5l0P.ES 3:1 OR STEEPER SHAll HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE CUBIC YARD
P~NE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENT
INCOf~PORAT!=DIN TO THE TOP 3'AND COMFACT~D PRIOR TO PLANTING OR
SEEDING.
HYDROSEEDING MATERIALS
All HYORGSEE9-APflLlGATIONS SHALL INCLUDE FIBER MULCH WHICH HAS BEEN
DYED GREEN. THE FIBER MULCH SHALL BE WOOD CELLULOSE WITH NO
INHIBITORS TO GERMINATION OR GROWTH, AND IT SHALL BE A HOMOGENEOUS
UNIF8RMLY SUSPENDED SLURRY WHICH WILL ALLOW THE ABSORPTION OF
MOISTURE AND PERCOLATION OF WATER INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL. FIBER
SHALL BE NONTOXIC TO WILDLIFE.
WHEN A WETTING AGENT IS CALLED FOR, IT SHALL BE 95% ALKYL POL YETHELENE
GLYCOL EITHER OR EQUAL, APPLIED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
SEED SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN SEALED CONTAINERS, LABELED BY
GENUS AND SPECIE. CONTAINERS SHAll NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTil
DIRECTED BY OWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. MIX. SHALL CONFORM TO
SPECIFICATION FOR PURE LIVE SEED; BULK POUNDAGES LISTED FOR THE
CONVENiENCE OF THe CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH
SEED SUPPLIER FOR PRE-SOAKING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEED WHIGH ARE
DIFFICULT TO GERMINATE AND SHALL ALSO PROVIDE SCARIFIED OR INOCULATED
SEED WHEN SPECIFIED. INOCULATED SEED MUST BE DRY BROADCAST.
HYDROSEEDING PROCEDURES
PRIOR TO SEEDING, THOROUGHLY MOISTEN THE ENTIRE SURFACE TO BE
SPRAYED. .
PREPARATION OF THE SEED SLURRY SHALL TAKE PLACE ON SITE. FIBER MULCH
SHALL BE PREPARED FIRST AND SEED SHALL BE ADDED lAST. THE SEED SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE MIXING TANK LONGER THAN THIRTY MINUTES.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF SPRAY SO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY ATTEND SPRAYING AND
SLURRY SAtv\PLES MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE TANK.
f--l c.~ L Y 5SE-DCD SUK'F~ $.t...1-L BE- kEPT
HOIST CONTI~WoW?LY -n-+~L-1C:::fHoI.Jr ntE-
GfERH I N6--T k:?~ .pER-IOD.
CONi J2..-b,.. c....-rv f<:-, L-1o....! LE:-SS OTt-lE f2.J---lIS E:. D I REc.TE-D
)
S>-t.6..W- r<:SSPRb.'l Atu, ~ ACEAS WIT+-1 I t-4 20 DA;Y5
STABILIZING EMULSION SHALL BE A NONFLAMMABLE,NONT()XIC,
CONCENl:RATED LIQUID CHEMiCAl WHICH FORMS A PLASTIC FILM AND ALLOW$
. NR AND WATER TO PENETRATE. THE EMULSION SHALL BE ~EGISTER.EDWITH HiE.,
DEPARTME!'IT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF CALlFORNIAAS AN
-AUXILIARY SOIL CHEMICAl.- STABILIZING EMULSION SHALL BE MISCIBLE WITH'
. WATER DURING APPLICATION, AND ONCE CURED, SHALL No'T' BE:
~~~~~ '
rlYDROSEED NATIVE MIXE~
MIX A: UPLAND COASTAL SCRUB MIX
LBS/ AC ' SPECIES PURITY % GERMINATION %
2 ARTEMISIA CALIFORNIA 50 60
112 ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS 90 70
2 COF4::.0f"::;;>1? ",5 SO
MA.RI T I MA
10
. ERIOGONUM FASICULATUM
10
65
2
LA?TMENIA
. CfI-ABRA TA
LOTUS SCOPARIUS
90
85
5
4CJ
60
2
MIMULUS PUNICEUS
2
55
30
PLANTAGO INSULARIS
95
75
4
STIPA LEPIDA
40
30
60.5 LB/AC
MIX B: AI" i- 0 h Retu-J'<' (".4 (.e,. fr
.
TEMPORARY
HYDROSEED
MIX
LBS/AC SPECIES
PURITY %
GERMiNATION %
60 PLANTAGO INSULARIS
98
40
:::KJ YL-~9IN~UWJS. 95
4 STWA LEPIDA 40
. .6Q..5 LBIAC
MlXB: ;VLljL 01'>. Re.{uJ<' fr-4re~f.,
TEMPORARY HYDROSEED MIX
LBS/AC SPECIES PURITY %
60 PLANTAGO INSULARIS 98
HYDROSEED SLURRY MIX:
WOOD CEllULOSE FIBER
20-20-20 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER
BINDER
2000 POUNDS / AC
400 POUNDS/AC
160 POUNDS/AC
1'-~3
75
30
GERMINATION %
40
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment D - United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dl The comment and the requirements contained in Mr. Weitzel's letter are noted, and
will he compiled within the project design.
90-14 01/25/91
Comment E
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011
(619) 691-5553
RECE\'JED
OE.C \ 9 \99]
PLANNING
l
J
1
\
"
PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT
December 14, 1990
Ms. Mary Ann Miller
Environmental Review
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92011
Dear Ms. Miller:
Coordinator
Re: EIR-90-l0/Rohr Office Complex
On June 21, 1990, I responded to a Notice of Preparation of an'
Environmental Impact Report for the above subject project
(attached). The district's position has not changed. I am
El requesting that any approval of this project be conditioned on its
successful annexation to our. district's Community Facilities
District No.5, providing that Government Code Section 65995 and
65996 are applicable.
Should you have any questions, feel free to give me a call at 691-
5553.
Res/jCtfUllY,
1f//lfV~K-
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Kate Shurson
I '7-~~
EXHIBIT B
REVISED 2/13/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment E - Sweetwater Union High School District
E 1 Director Silva's comment requesting annexation to the District's Community Facilities
No. 5 is noted. As stated on page 5-4 of the EIR, "The applicanLis currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing."
The question of whether or not the School Board has the authority to directly levy
a development fee on commercial or industrial projects is not part of the scope of
this EIR. According to Government Code Section 53080.1, the School District
governing board is required to hold public hearings and follow specified procedures
to adopt or increase development fees for commercial or industrial projects. The
imposition of such a fee is a matter for determination between the Applicant and the
School District. In the absence of failure to pay a School District-imposed
development fee, the City's environmental review process cannot stop a project due
to adverse impact. On the basis of the School District's factual assertions regarding
impact, it is concluded that this project creates impacts which are less than significant
and/or wholly mitigated by payment of the statutory fee for non-residential
development.
/t!-i:lS
90-14 02/13/91
BOARD DF EDUCATlON
OSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D.
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
JUDY SCHULENBERG
FRANK A. TARANTINO
SUPERINTENDENT
JOHN F. VUGRIN. Ph.D.
Comment--.E
CHULA "" ITA ELEMENTARY SCHf )L DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
RECEIVED
DEe I 0 /990
December 4, 1990
PLANNING
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Notice of Planning Commission Hearing - Rohr Office
Complex
Dear Ms. Miller:
Fl
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report for the Rohr Offi ce Complex
to hearing before the Planning Commission.
As stated in my October 19, 1990, letter (copy enclosed),
the Screencheck DEIR for. this project did not contain any
discussion relative to impacts on public facilities,
specifically schools. I have not received the DEIR and do
not know if this omission has been corrected, and impacts
properly addressed.
Ora ft
prior
The relationship between nonresidential development and student
enrollment has been clearly documented and this project will
have significant impacts on District facilities. My July
5, 1990, response to the project's Initial Study (copy
enclosed) stated that developer fees are not adequate to
mitigate these impacts, and recommended consideration of
an alternative financing mechanism, such as a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~m st\M-~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS :dp
cc: Tom Meade
Tom Silva
John Linn
19-111,
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D.
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
JUDY SCHULENBERG
FRANK A. TARANTINO
SUPERINTENDENT
JOHN F. VUGRWoI, Ph.D.
CHULA y ISTA CITY SCHOOL .tlISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
October 19, 1990
~ rn ~ @ O\Yl~ ~
OCT 2. 2. SI)
l/
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
City of Chu1a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 92010
RE: Screencheck Draft EIR - Rohr Office Complex
EIR-90-].4
Dear Ms. Miller:
I am in receipt of the Screencheck DEIR for the Rohr Office Complex
and your request for comments. The document, dated October 8, 1990,
was received in my office on October 17, with comments requested by
the 19th. Unfortuna te 1y thi s does not permi t adequate time to revi ew
the document.
It has not been the District's practice to comment on Screencheck
documents; rather, we provide initial input at the time the Notice
of Preparation or Initial Study is circulated. I refer you to that
letter (copy enclosed) for issues we request be addressed in the DEIR.
A bri ef revi ew of the document's Table of Contents revea 1s that the
impact analysis does not contain any discussion relative to impacts
on public facilities, specifically schools. Without a thorough analysis
of these impacts and inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures,
this document is inadequate.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~\L. S, "-u..s. G\"
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
Ian Gill
.
BOAnD OF EDUcA lION
JOsEPH D. CUMMINGS. ",.0.
SilMON Gt ES
PM nICK A. JUIlO
J\JOv SCflllLENBERG
mANKA. TMANrlNO
SUPEnl1l1ENDENT
JOlIN r. VUGnN. Ph.D.
CHULA .HISTA CITY SCHOO' DISTIUCT
~-
B4 EAST "J" STREF:T . CIIULA VISTA. CALlFOIlNIA 920 III . 619 ~25,96(J(J
EACH CIIILIJ IS AN INIJIVIUUAL OF GREAT WORTH
July 5, 1990
Ms. Maryann Hiller
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Rohr Office Complex - Notice of Preparation of an Eln
Case No. EIR-90-1~
Dear Ms. IHPer':
Thank you for the opportunl ty to pr'ovlde Input on the Ill'aft
Environmental Impact Report for the Rohr Office Complex.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project does uot
identify potential significant impacts on schools. The relationship
between non-residential development and student enrollment has
been clearly recognized by the State Legislature through
authorization of collection of school fees. A Joint study sponsored
by five South Bay schoo.l distrIcts, prepared earlier' this yeai'
by SourcePoint. further documents and demonstrates this
relationship. Based on this study, the proposed 211,500 sr]uare
feet of office space will generate approximately 162 new elementary
age children.
Per student facility costs to the District are estimated at $8,81~.
or tl,~27 .868 for this pl'oject. These costs far exceed develop!'I'
fees currently allowed undel' State law, Chula Vista CI ty School
Ilistrlct's share of these fees Is $ .12 per sr]uare foot, 01' $25,380,
far short of what is needed to provide facilities.
The District recommends alternative financing mechanisms Including
formation of or annexation to a I.le11 o-Roos ConmlUnlty Facilities
DistrIct and would be happy to discuss this furthet'.
If you have any questions, please contact my office.
Sincerely,
U'L~'-U-~~
Kate Shurson
DIrector of Planning
KS:dp
cc : Tom S il va
Terri Senner
Jq-G,?-
-:l
"'--~--
REVISED 2/13/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment F - Chula Vista Elementary School District
Fl Director Shurson's comments regarding impacts to schools and recommendation of
an alternative financing mechanism are noted. Please see pages 5-3 through 5-4 of
the EIR, and Appendix A for discussion of impacts, and inclusion of her letters,
respectively. As stated above in Response El, the applicant is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
The question of whether or not the School Board has the authority to directly levy
a development fee on commercial or industrial projects is not part of the scope of
this EIR. According to Government Code Section 53080.1, the School District
governing board is required to hold public hearings and follow specified procedures
to adopt or increase development fees for commercial or industrial projects. The
imposition of such a fee is a matter for determination between the Applicant and the
School District. In the absence of failure to pay a School District-imposed
development fee, the City's environmental review process cannot stop a project due
to adverse impact. On the basis of the School District's factual assertions regarding
impact, it is concluded that this project creates impacts which are less than significant
and/or wholly mitigated by payment of the statutory fee for non-residential
development.
90-/4 02/13/91
[?@cVD=O(ff}OO@L?
carbonless
(, (' C\ n ~
..._' f) -' . . .;...
TRIP
; TO
i ~tJ\o.( y 0.. II ^ ('J\ : '\ \.e-r ! V\OvV\~ rJiI F
;\111\ ~ R.CJ(f' I . T)~l/O~ ~e~ ~
J .' . . C;/:( ~:~ . M
: 1.1....:..;..:..~; '"""'""~...~...;.._...;,_-.:..;i.j..u.-:.-,;..,~:.:..:....~~,;..::.-",.~.....-.:.,;;:.. ~,.:~~~ ~"-o;....:;i.; _~....;;-,,:,:~.i~:':'~~.-~' ,~..~~J-: '".~", -"~'-::'j..~O;'i.-.:.-(~~~~";:.L~'"'~;i;j;.:.\;;"....:../...~~...-.;,../ r..:.:~':~':~:~":':.. 1
:! ,UBJECT ~~ F-IC~ GoMf'L g."IiZ - z..('\~ o-II<...J
i
i MESSAGE
~/"I;r M, /V'.J,ev: 17
4~:'j
'i~_of
. ~
.;
,
Ik ~~;"J D:v:~:,"", \v.... 0B../.'P~ -\-L ~-L:-,~ cL>rJ"
C- c'\ ~ S,-"I.:.yc,i- ~-t . cn.s -h~ <\ --\L, ~"';;. ~~ f:..
w-E'_ .s~lV\'.,*eJ <AI ~-\C.- ~ -v:rs T cO,..tLc::.-k. ......l.~ ~cJreA _0 J
(2. c,,^,I;) . Ple~ ,dd rUJ,4 ",JQ ~ ~~ (',,:') ( +c
~ <,\.d ~rh. S~M~W,,--Q - -\~~ (f-<'--
SIGNED. . /J ' yv1 ,.N 0,_ r '.
. ....... -_.' ~"""'''':''-'-'' --"_..,~.__._......:.,,,.,--_::::::::'!~~~:::~~ .._'., ..~-
REPL V
SIGNED
.. LCJ .-:/.,...9.
DATE
/
/
~'-"I V 0.'1.;: rn -: ~7~" ,~P..{;"!
Comment G
~rn@rnDW!rnm.
OCT 3 0 1900 U
l/'
MEMORANDUM
October 26, 1990
File No. YE-042
TO: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM: Clifford L. swans~eputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Engineering Review of EIR 90-10, Rohr Office Complex
The Engineering Division has reviewed the subject Environmental Impact Report and
hereby submits the following comments:
Gl
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
6.
1.
The subject EIR is incomplete. Many sections, most notably the ''Traffic
Impact Report," are missing. The Engineering Division considers this review
of the EIR incomplete and will provide a final review upon submittal of a
complete EIR.
2.
Page 2-4. Reference was made to Figure 2-3; however the figure is missing.
3.
It seems that this project will create significant changes to existing traffic
patterns, especially in the section of Bay Boulevard between "E" and "F"
Streets and at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street. The existing
ADT 4160 on "F" Street will be increased by 2450 to 6110 ADT.
4.
The developer will be responsible for the upgrading of "F' Street (from Bay
Boulevard to their westerly property line) to a Class I Collector as designated
on the General Plan and for dedicating the necessary right-of-way along "F"
Street. The required improvements to "F" Street shall include but not be
limited. to the installation of pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
lights,...etc.
5.
A "Traffic Impact Report" is being prepared as part of this EIR. Bay
Boulevard between "E" and "F' Streets will probably need to be widened to
handle the increased traffic volume generated by this project. This
requirement will be contingent upon the conclusions of the "Traffic Impact
Report" after that report has been reviewed and accepted by the City.
A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances,
policies, and adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit
issued by the Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work
and/or installation of any drainage structures.
I ,- Tl>
Maryann Miller
G7 7.
G8 8.
G9 9.
SMN/bb
[SMNIIROHR.DOC]
-2-
October 26, 1990
The following paragraph must be added under the "Mitigation Measures"
section on page 3-5:
"Development of the subject project must comply
with all applicable regulations established by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set
forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements
for storm water discharge. "
The draft ErR did not go into detail about extension of existing sewer mains
to service this project. The nearest sewer line is in Bay Boulevard south of
"F" Street and is over 1100 feet away from the proposed office building. The
developer would need permission from the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Sewerage System if a direct connection to the existing 78" RCP Metro sewer
line is proposed.
The proposed building falls within an inundation zone due to tidal waves. The
lowest finished floor elevation of the building must comply with the standards
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
EXHIBIT C
I
REVISED 2/13/91
----
---.--
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment G - Memorandu
Engineer
Ci of Chula Vist De u Public Works Director Ci
Mr. Nuhaily's request for addressal of all of their comments was completed as part of the ElR.
Locations where specific information is found in the ElR, or further information is included below.
G I The Traffic Circulation/Parking impact analysis is found in Section 3.4 of the ElR, and the
full report, prepared by JHK Associates (1990), is found in Appendix D.
G2 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G3 As shown on Table 3-4 of the ErR, the existing ADT on "F" Street will be increased to
approximately 5100 ADT between Tidelands Avenue and Bay Boulevard, and to 5900
between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue. It is important to recognize that the traffic
volume increases were based on a trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet as
recommended in the San Diego Traffic Generators Manual, September 1989, produced by
SANDAG. This trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet is for a large commercial office
complex in excess of 100,000 square feet. At this rate the project was projected to generate
approximately 4,165 daily trips.
After the public review period for the draft ElR, the City Traffic Engineer recommended
that a trip rate for a corporate office complex with a single user be applied to this project
rather than the large commercial office rate used in the draft ElR. This corporate office
rate as recommended by SANDAG is 10 trips per 1,000 square feet. Under this scenario
approximately 2,450 trips would be generated by this site rather than the 4,165 daily trips
. which were analyzed in the draft ElR. This lower trip rate represents a reduction of
approximately 41 %. This trip reduction will reduce the amount of impact that this project \
has within the study area, because both study area segments and intersections will
experience a decrease in amount of project-generated traffic than what was originally
~,Im""" Th" d=~~ h~~~, w;1I '"' ,h"ge 'he ro,d,,"" of <h, ",m, ""ly,I.,
rather, it will change the percentage contribution the project would have on impacted
intersections and segments. JHK & Associates, the traffic consultant, will develop an
addendum to the original traffic analysis report to document the new reduced impacts which
will result from the trip distribution rate of 10 trips per 1000 square feet. This information
will be forwarded to the City of Chula Vista upon its completion for their use in the
adoption of a developer agreement.
G4 Page 2-2 of the ErR states that "as part of the project, the south half of this ["F"] Street
should be improved to Class 1 Collector Road standards (74 feet of pavement in a 94-foot
right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a la-foot center turn lane, 8 feet of parking
adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at each side). The
improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, a bike lane, street lights
and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional five feet of pavement within
this ROW on the south side."
G5 These comments are noted. No additional response is necessary as the widening discussion
is included in both the ErR (pgs 3-59, 3-(0), and in the Traffic Report, Appendix D.
G6 This measure is included on page 3-5 of the ElR, in response to this comment.
90-14 02/13/91
I Cj- ':f-I
.
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment G - Memorandum City of Chula Vista. Deputy Public Works Director/City
En~neer
Mr. Nuhaily's request for addressal of all of their comments was completed as part of the
EIR. Locations where specific information is found in the EIR, or further information is
included below.
G 1 The Traffic Circulation/Parking impact analysis is found in Section 3.4 of the EIR,
and the full report, prepared by JRK Associates (1990), is found in Appendix D.
G2 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G3 As shown on Table 3-4 of the EIR, the existing ADT on "F' Street will be increased
to approximately 5100 ADT between Tidelands Avenue and Bay Boulevard, and to
5900 between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue.
G4 Page 2-2 of the EIR states that "as part of the project, the south half of this ["F"]
Street should be improved to Class 1 Collector Road standards (74 feet of pavement
in a 94-foot right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a to-foot center turn lane, 8
feet of parking adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at
each side). The improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
a bike lane, street lights and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional
five feet of pavement within this ROW on the south side."
G5 These comments are noted. No additional response is necessary as the widening
discussion is included in both the EIR (pgs 3-59, 3-60), and in the Traffic Report,
Appendix D.
G6 This measure is included on page 3-5 of the EIR, in response to this comment.
90-14 02/01/91
I ~- T iA
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
07 Mr. Nul1aily confirmed addressal of this comment.
08 Please see pages 5-2, 5-3 of the EIR. Also, the latter part of the comment has been added
to page 5-3, in response to this comment.
09 A tidal wave (tsunami) is generally considered to describe a destructive wave generated by
submarine earthquakes. A damaging tsunami has never been recorded along the coast of
San Diego County.
We are not familiar with an established "inundation zone due to tidal waves". However, as
noted in the Response (Cl) to Dennis J. O'Bryant (CDMG), tsunamis are potential hazards
within the San Diego Bay.
We assume the intent of the comment refers to inundation due to flooding, as defined by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our review of the appropriate
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the project site is located in an area
assigned a Zone "C" designation. Zone "C" refers to "Areas of Minimal Flooding". The
applicant will be required to comply with all standards established by the FEMA which are
found to be applicable.
90-14 0]/13/91
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
G7 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G8 Please see pages 5-2, 5-3 of the EIR. Also, the latter part of the comment has been added
to page 5-3, in response to this comment.
G9 A tidal wave (tsunami) is generally considered to describe a destructive wave generated by
submarine earthquakes. A damaging tsunami has never been recorded along the coast of
San Diego County.
We are not familiar with an established "inundation zone due to tidal waves". However, as
noted in the Response (Cl) to Dennis J. O'Bryant (CDMG), tsunamis are potential hazards
within the San Diego Bay.
We assume the intent of the comment refers to inundation due to flooding, as defined by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our review of the appropriate
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the project site is located in an area
assigned a Zone "C" designation. Zone "C" refers to "Areas of Minimal Flooding". The
applicant will be required to comply with all standards established by the FEMA which are
found to be applicable.
~I4 02/13/91
/q ,73
Comment H
December 12, 1990
TO:
Marianne Miller, Environmental Section Planning
Department /J
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreatio~
k fYY::. . 1 .
Shauna Sto es, Pr~nc~pa Management Ass~stant
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Draft EIR for Rohr Office Complex Expansion
HI
We have reviewed this document and appreciate the inclusion of our
concerns from the check print draft EIR. The concerns of this
Department have been met.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.
Ics
RECEIVED
DEe I 7 1990
PLANNING !
/'1- ~tf
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent H - Memorandum. City of Chula Vista. Director of Parks and Recreation
HI Ms. Stokes comment is noted.
90-14 01/25/91
, " T"
;1:_~JIlJI
Comment.l
I
PLANNING
COMMENTS RELATING TO EIR '90-10
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
I1
Why is the building being constructed?
objectives. Are ther~ ot11ers?
provides
Page
4..1
12
h'l1L-::re Ctl"e Lll~ fui...ur~ L':"'::":'Ul)dnt::; CUHll.ng [rom'; .J...~ this a
',~~i)jj:-;[_t.: .i.'~u.l.J.U": uL ~L"iil(;yce::; .::..r:oru Clut.::.ide ,Jrt~d::) or d relocdl.:lCJ!t u,t
~ :.: l. i..w.: ~~. '._i~ J.~ '.: r s !~,' 1. Lh 1. II :..h~;;; (}V(;:: r ,~~ 11 20111: Ch u l.Ll 'v' 1 S ;"'.\ '.; ijI:lJ,) 1 e~'; ;' The
Jr('':::tlt2:::.;t lmpclct Is Section 3.1 r:ircu1ation/~JarJ.:inq. Page .J-1
indic,:ttes a cons()l1.Jation of current employees lIJto one facility.
I3
Summary page 6/10 says 44 foot high building.
paqe ~-1. ~aY3 r!ui..i.d.:.n'j lle1.'Jl"iI.: ;:':'2 ~2 :>::-;:..t.. rd'd'---' _, '.;.~,11'::" ~!(..,t;;
1-'J:01'i..J~t,d '''. ,~tiid iJ!..(Jr'Oseu .jif i-,..10l. ;V'f:icli;' It ,:;ppc.:(!::. rill:' :iLll_)'w't:c1
i.~; 44 feet. The propo:::;ed 1::; 42 ft-'et. Recr.Jmmend
"IJ[lptl~t~" on VdY~ 6/10 to read "42-foot", Ma~e
corr~ctl(lrl Lo [JAye 3-JO.
Paxagraph
~ -,
L . ~
changing
sillillar
14
Fage . - 5.
~truL:tural
deposited?
:jl,H.':':{:: thE.' (ill .,~~it~~ '-;()Ll:;; ?r~? '-1Ut ~.\.,'::::~::.;ptdLle 1..01':
:,;,-;uVJ:.lorL, 'I'IIlere is this "unsuitable ::.loil" ':l01ng Lo be
IS
Frequent reference
clause or is th~re
th(> enVirUlll!tellt.
a pxotective
.i.ntroduced to
to "heavy metals". Is
d chanc~ of 11eavy metals
this
be i I1(,j
P,,,:;e
:3 --I) .
~J1at Is tIle possibility of major
iur t.he structure, oadw~y~, etc LhAt
on Jr~ti116g'.;.~, ed'J.lLOHliIf.:'nt
TIle words "If encountcr~d" bother
subgradi li':f
could !kt\U-j
(1 U,;,: i I]<j
rne.
16
mO(::l.f ~c:.-:-tt 10tlS
;lldjur 1Il~&dCLs
relnova]i'reCOlup~ctjon?
17
paqe 3-;),
.) t,'~1 lId,", i... ;...
?..:: 'j L~
Whci L
.is d
"biulogically
~nuu.::t~:y 'I>} L..
t.rctinf~c1 mCJlJ.j_ i.( r"":" h.l...-'
(.'.'
-{ ~
: J J.":"; '~..i. I.:.J. .:.. i t .i.. ; ".-... ~ --'- 0 n:.:; ;'
; 'i
~! i r ~ ~~ ''': _ ~
'1 ";.1~UlC;',ji.L":l~ly dlifdte" J:JOliltijI. -:' .," ,.i <-:'~.,~. L::I_
"it
18
':":;eJJl-:.r..:il cClllmeuL: Dues Hohr a.srl~e
J!l:~;i..;I..J,->' u ....,j ~_;'1":';":'; ,(ei,,'u....."_:' ....[ rlu':,
to tJ1e nliLiYdtlu;1 l:le~t~Ure~ ~tG
wl1ich ')jle~-:, \~U L.;i~Y ~':(__'ti:c 2_~~~,,~,~'
',;,'.i.
19
. . ,-,
/lP i-"'-~ (1,--,1. c'~
L'.)~ ~;j\-=i\_,,~C:-:_j""ll.ij '~:lF.
, I . ~ ~
.;. "......,. jj'"
( ....c..... :-;.';' 'ji, L.
I10
~"~:1(:l":.~ .~.-.1..I'-:' ..i.'_... ,.._ 'l.r'~..:,! ll::'I::::;;, l"j'..J.~ .:,"'./;..'L'-'u{:" :Lei tJ.'Je. . , . -'t;-'.,....,
;;.I' "'J,1\!.:; ._nr numel.:C:l.lS :SUec1t::':': :nure: ~:.i1:icd.lj.~ '_'__"("_'-1.-,j:_,:.., ,,_ _ ..:
~,,',::tte.r ur shoreline c.tl:'<2a.s of the bay and coasta.l aIea.~-;. It '(~..:t '~'.i
L)d-SIt:' ::::-~'..f LottClrH 1 t states" L.xygell ll='vt-'ls ill ::he w-aler Ct~tn 1.'.' l.
J._'_'JL._':.'(.l ',;l.:tl.. c.d."; ./"~.-,U.:..-c 1.::,. a m,.:t:c.:.::ilVe dlt-'.'-off uf the ::::.i:::;11 :il\J.
.i.n''Jt:';:C-::''t:lj;:atl';'::~;.'' ',l';-lCi~. .L...;' ';o.'l!,~-~l- j;'; li'l~;~"_,,,,,,'(j.
III
~ ,:,\ ':Jt.~
-;,j.
i'ihC:-1 t
"1,:'11
~tJLiU un L:...:;
,J t:: '-:'~...;'.l.; ;'J
1:1 ,_~
,
'...11.
:.J ,:1 . j ~. :.' :"
'~'J'
:2:~ .
'..t:
:"';':,i
, ,
i_ . J ~.:.
(,: f i.."
i_ill ~} j i (:'0
.,;;)t.ll..
"- ' . .:~ . -, ,.,
1;-
I12
"
,
l'_
dIll;
:,1.
,,'-' ~":"_,iJlj.... 1 J
"'"'S"-'
..' -.;
:, i.'/lJ l.
:1,:":
'"'
..l1.._
'"~ J..; '.'
'.l,
_' 1; ~_
J~- r5
~'<"._,",:' .
by' th", pound" for his study.
par'agraphs tl) ctj,scussiorl?
If
insignificant,
why df>vote
When the Report refers to predators they are referring to
sCQveng~rs, cats, dogs, coyotes, ;lnd raptors. Tn discU5sin0 tIle
113 height of the builcling, tlh:Y :-,t;cHi:.:;, lil(lLf: '",'_)i; ~,e(~j ,_,1 ~~;lE: lJ.:-tlance (11
tl.H-:' .raptoy. versus the prey, i';h;;~1 l::j t.he J ;,;.lC:':~'il:~ uE Lilt.... r.apLur
,j':::ti~'r tJle enddJ1SL>leu :_5L->t.'C.iI;';::';?
paye 3-37. Mitiyation measure 110. Appear~ exce~slve to require
HO}lr to lurld the full time ellforcement staff at Lwo lJr more
officers Ulltil lnore develOplnent comes to frultlurl. Wllil~ tJle
i~ea is sound, the respollsiLility should be tunded aDd operated
114 by tlle City. ReverlU~6 Inigl1t tie 0bt~illed through Llle Jeveloper's
fee:;..~, l bt~llt,:'ve t:lh.\t Chula Vl:::;td. 1;:.: J.:c::-;pu!J::5,ible to other
iderltified entitles for execution of current lclw. Don't yet
...:,noti"1er tfmult:i-jurisdictllirlaJ dyenc~I" .,;t.:..r:tt:u 'w'lt.h lL~ aSt:iuciated
DUreaLl(;lacy.
PCl':jt..' ~':-,.i(). i'ritigation ~ne,:L::"ur'~' !l13. I'.\nnll,.=,l. :=u:Jc' ~I) J>:- pdid by
Rollr't ~he owner is respotlsibl~ [or most of t!lese r~COlnluendatlons.
115 I don't belit"ve they n!::"t.:.'cl be enulUe.rdt8d. .sUinP. a.cl"> alrec{cly
J.!lclul.;ed in tdX~':::=i, 0...1-ie(:-: by contract, Would l:':' Lie undt:.r::;tood
tbe,::' the ne.w' u-",ner will '::tSSUilIe costs w.hell l'~ohr leclves~J
116
TA.Llle ::-1,
of'hJc'si te ~',::::: j'_
','h--"I.~_:
~ldVt
L'~erl !-::d,S .i.r2r
i ~
it
w'eJ::.e tc
pr L :",t;(:
117
Flyu[c' :-9.
included?
Fhy isn't
the Bay Blvd stretch betwl:'ell "E"
and
I':;'''
I?age :~:i9.
118 pt' r ':, ~:: .i..)n ;'
;u:e tLJf~ 11rolec:tionf5 of traffic uC1ti..::d (In 3. 1JQ:jL 3254
'1'1"11::: C1I'i C::::O;.J.:'; t::i:...iiil..:: ..:ld.j hi:;" 1..-..;-:.- '_;)(:(j<::'~;t::~u ',J.L.th ti'le
v~- ~.:.J
'-:".:':[:." ,
,:'.:'~";ULJ'" n t
i ;3
-,' l" i'
U'=.:tl:.ly
j c i :l'J
Lc'
-"
"- 1,_: ~ ;;'-j '.'
. ~: c
119
'if;,
.!:. I_~
. i.t. e.,:,! /
:au ~y.[t,;,=mlJlG1~~'
120
C .~:I':J t::'
-. , ,
...) -. U 1. .
~nl~~. ,= ;::::. tI-le
.jD':;,:E
.__.i'jllt (i1.: ....;:..y
t;'lt ',,: l '--J 'J:-- :J1..
~ '1 :_ I;: l._, t..:." ; l
.ll":'
i,':': U J ,-' \..: L .'
"l'
- "
.~ ,~'...: J: i.:J_1'::: k
'.' I'
\I.' 1 (li 1. CJ
'I','.t:! .'
~.:.Yt:;.' ..:' - r)j .
,-;1...'1 -"I
iC ,~'l. '_,'.'
;."1:'
c.
"
121
. !:';"":
_~;__ !_ '.t ;_, 1. .:.. ~', i _!-.:.;,.
-'
'_hr::- ~'_,('
,._,.,1_.
,: I -' '~. i . 1-' (' ~_J..i.
'.i,l' ._'.:,..'.-;,j j. J
!\c'. (,'
~ 'i '-i I'
1::1-'-""
,1(..,
~f <-tPi?tOVl'ldLe/
I t !lot, wildt: i.1llpact .~:() t);".:y ..,...'./(-;'
P"-:'~'.
I',"~
., .." L
/.;',
. \ ; ~-' ~
.;'-
.il"'.",
. -
J t... "- '--
~ !-..
122
,':1 .... L t' 1 ;..~ ~-~ .1. '.'; ~ it (J U ~ ~.
t:Cl l:cduc,~
::.IJ'_.'
. 1;'11) ~ i.." ,_.1:
.
'i;i;
."
,
1.._ i,. '. ~ '-..'-' '.-
d nj '~Ldi!":::i;"; ,jJ.l L-,;..iL 11U U1:" _-: :)l.llJ(':':::; tIc n.
J
":it..
~: ~' 1..': .I ~.
'I'
. ,- -, -,,: ~.
.'-;
123 ,-"
.,
, "
, i ,._~ '.. c:- .j ~ ~
,......
:,;,:/.;'
:.l:',
d.
-
. .,
_!..'J.
yolny to work off "H" Street, they yo to work off "F't Street.
124
[\..;Hj'e 4-1.
U i::;) t ;' .i. c t
i~ the "Need tu move off of Port
Alternative 4 Off-Sit~ nlay be
Lt ,_ ill '_lfl ~.i(h-~'_^i.i;',.:1~.:.'
Objective
tidelands."
5. IYhdt
"hile
i~:-~\Ii::-C.l;!~lelj~:<-.i.lly prcfe::.,;bJ,~, l~;
125
p ,-~ 13 e ..' . ; : _: " : u c; L:~ . . ~, _ j -! ; ,;1 C i~ ,
i.:m!;)l'_r~--t~e::;; truw 011e 2i::.,11L "CdlflVU.:...-." i_V
"campus" 13 just down Lhe str8ct,
s chu u 1 ,::; y:-..; l.t.: ;:1;"
>""hy i::: therr2 an L;1i?act on t,;-JC'
t);>::l~..: ~~-:, u
(: :~; ;"::.:, ().l. .:.. I::':::> l .i '-.' i j
~l :_v dlJU tLdL C';P."
~jit.: l~>-,-uj'-L:
126
l1itlgdtion I;tunitor. It dOE'fH1't ctppear tllat thi;:3 hcib 0Cen
prov.ili~d for by the applicant. DO~5..it need to b~ adJres3~d?
127 J. ~_;llpP!):;:--:-. .'ll~:::'r':'jo:tlvt': 2 -. HoJiilf':>l..l De:.::....!.':;n.
J 1- -'r"
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent I - Comments from RCC Member - John Kracha
11 The objectives of the proposed project are stated on pages 4-1 to 4-2. The applicant
has not submitted any other objectives.
12 The EIR analyses assume that all occupants of the building could be persons new to
this location, and not merely transferred from the adjacent Rohr campus. Rohr and
its consultant have stated that all persons to occupy the building will be transferred
from next door. Rohr, however, has not made a commitment to this, and even if
they did, the possibility remains that the building could be leased or sold in the
future creating a situation where all occupants could be new to this location.
13 The proposed building height is 42 feet; the allowable building height is 44 feet. The
EIR text has been corrected to indicate such.
14 Text has been modified to indicate that these soils "are not acceptable in their
present condition". These soils will require remediation prior to construction of any
structures. Specific remediation recommendations are a part of the geotechnical
investigation (Woodward-Clyde Consultants [WCC], revised September 7, 1990), and
include removal and recompaction, selective grading, and use of piles.
The WCC report also recommends the site be cleared of vegetation, organic matter,
trash, debris or other suitable materials, and that unsuitable materials generated
during clearing should be disposed of off site at a legal dump site.
15 Heavy metals are often found in the usual array of contaminants that typify urban
runoff, and are typically a byproduct of automotive discharges from both exhaust
gases and continual low-volume leaks of gasoline, oil, and other fluids. It is intended
that the cleansing system be designed to remove these contaminants prior to their
entry into the detention basin and subsequently the marsh area.
16 If compressible bay deposits are encountered in areas proposed for improvement,
remediation of those soils will be required prior to construction of roadways,
embankments, or engineered fills. These "subgrade modifications" are a part of
project grading. Subsequent mitigation measures of the Groundwater/Soils and
Geologic Units section discuss (Section 3.1 of the EIR) erosion control measures to
be performed during site grading activities.
17 "Biologically trained monitor" and "biologically aware monitor" have the same
meaning, Le., that the monitor is aware and knowledgeable of the resources that can
be affected by the actions and/or conditions that he/she is monitoring. There are no
qualification standards within the industry, but the individual should have a general
90-14 01/25/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
knowledge of construction techniques and a background in ecology or resource
management.
18 Rohr has not publicly commented on their response to the required mitigation
measures.
19 Appendices were included with the EIR, and were bound in a separate volume.
110 The EIR text states that "this area ~ (emphasis added) support refuge, foraging
grounds and spawning grounds...". Also, to answer the question "What fish?" the EIR
goes on to say on page 3-14, "The tidal channels, creeks, and even frequently exposed
portions of the marshes are utilized as spawning areas and nursery grounds by
numerous coastal fish and invertebrates."
111 The large amounts of decaying organisms originate from increased algal production
in a poorly flushed environment. While algal production is increased through inputs
of fertilizers into the marsh, water circulation in the marsh is not sufficient to remove
the excess dead algae, so decaying organic material accumulates. Refer to paragraph
2 on page 3-24 of the EIR.
112 Outdoor lunchroom facilities have the potential for attracting wild and domestic
predators and scavengers. Furthermore, where office complexes provide such
lunchroom facilities, feral animals tend to be promoted by well meaning individuals
that leave food out. Refer to Recommendations 13 and 14 of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
90-14 01/25/91
/'1 - 1-~
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
II3 No matter what the "incidence of the raptor after the endangered species," any
increases in the availability of perch sites for raptors has the potential for adverse
effects on endangered species living within the raptors' view from the perch site.
According to CEQA Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, any action
that threatens an endangered species is significant.
114 Predator management programs are site specific. In this situation, a predator
management program is currently being formulated for Chula Vista Investors
proposed project in the larger Midbayfront area. Rohr Industries would be a
participant in this or another program developed in the area; however, since Rohr's
proposed project affects only a small portion of the Bayfront's sensitive wetland
areas, Rohr Industries would bear a minority of responsibility under a Bayfront
predator management program. Refer to Recommendations 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and
17 of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
II5 Responsibilities for ongoing mitigation requirements are anticipated to fall on
whomever owns the developed property.
116 Table 3-1 has been moved forward in the text to follow its reference in response to
the comment.
II7 Acknowledged. The segment of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street
was inadvertently omitted from this figure. However, the daily traffic volume on this
segment is correctly labelled as 9,800.
II8 As stated on Page 3-52 of the EIR, the "E" Street/I-5 and 1-5/SR 54 freeway
interchanges were assumed to be completed and fully operational by Year 1992
which is the scheduled construction period for this Rohr Office Complex facility.
The completion of SR 54 and its connection to 1-5 will certainly reduce east/west
through traffic on major arterials in the northern portion of the City of Chula Vista
(Le., "E" Street and "H" Street). It has been estimated that this reduction may
amount to approximately 15 percent of the current traffic load on "E" Street due to
the diversion of east/west through trips to the new SR 54 facility. Also, by
comparing the values for "E" Street east of 1-5 from Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 you
will notice that future traffic volume projections are in fact reduced.
II9 Rohr has submitted a table showing projected uses. This table is located at the end
of the responses as Attachment 1.
120 The SDG&E right-of-way is located adjacent to the project immediately east of the
eastern edge of the project site. If the City of Chula Vista determines, through the
monitoring program, that parking demand at this site exceeds the supply, it is
possible that an agreement could be reached between SDG&E and Rohr Industries
90-14 02/01/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
and the City to allow Rohr to lease a portion of the right-of-way for overflow parking
in excess of the estimated demand.
121 The Clean Air Act of 1990 has not yet resulted in any revisions to the federal air
quality standards. Thus, the California standards remain, in most cases, more
stringent than the federal standards, and in a couple of cases, equal to the federal
standards.
122 Page 3-71 describes mitigation required of the applicant pertaining to transportation
control measures. And, as stated on this page, in order "to be most efficient, these
measures must be integrated into a comprehensive transportation system
management (TSM) program," which would relieve existing congestion to some
degree. Additionally, this project would be required to conform to regional
transportation demand management strategies established by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) Transportation Demand Management
Model Ordinance and/or other ordinances adopted by the City of Chula Vista in the
future.
123 See Response 12.
9<i-14 01/25/91
I '1- r 1
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
124 The applicant's objectives are stated in the EIR exactly as they were presented to the
City (no more explanation was provided, nor necessary). The off-site alternatives
considered these objectives as far as to what degree the objectives were
accommodated by the alternatives, but the major focus of the off-site analysis was to
compare environmental impacts of both similar and different types of locations.
125 See Response 12.
126 The Mitigation Monitoring Program would begin after certification of the EIR and
approval of the project. A statement regarding this procedure has been added to
Section 1.0 of the EIR.
127 This comment is noted.
90-14 01/25/91
Comment 1
COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS - DRAFT EIR-90-10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
January 9, 1991
Decker: Table I-I, page 6-10, predator management program. Mitigation measures
not as detailed as in others.
11
Full er:
J2
Decker:
J3
Suggested closing parking lot when people weren't there to keep people
out. .
Are predator management programs site unique, or generic.
(Keith Merkel, biologist, explained predator management programs are
specific to the site on the resources to be protected. In this specific
situation, the predator management program is specific to the Bayfront
resources, not specifically the Rohr site. Rohr would be a participant
in the pro~ram which is focused on the entire Bayfront, not just the
Rohr site.)
Page 3-37. Full time enforcement staff of two more officers WOuld be
funded by revenues generated by the project and other development
within the Bayfront to conduct the predator management program. Is
this included in this particular EIR and project since it is the beginning
of management for the entire Bayfront project.
(Keith Merkel answered in the affirmative. They anticipated a two-person
staff requirement for the overall project. Rohr happens to be the first
one in on a much larger ica1e, a participant in a much larger program.)
Upon Commissioner Fuller's query, Mr. Merkel answered it would start with
two, but there may be more and Some part-time specialists. Two is
anticipated to be the minimum number.
Page 3-28, third paragraph, "human pet presence impacts." This is an office
building, and people don't generally bring dogs and cats to offices.
(Merkel:
outside.
Is an office building, but they have lunchroom facilities
People feed cats and dogs at the location.)
Carson: Why in the letter from the Chula Vista Elementary Schools it is indicated
that approximately 162 new elementary children will be generated from the
project, since it is an office building. People that will be employed?
New employees coming into the area that would generate the elementary
children?
J4
(Diana Richardson; Yes, indirect generation of students from new
employees.)
Where are the employees coming from--within the present structure of the
Rohr Corporation, closing up some buildings and transfer employees, or??
(Diana Richardson: The draft EIR aSsumed that because there would be
no guarantee that they would be all transferred Rohr employees from the
campus next door that they could be all new employees from a different
area. The EIR assumes this worse-case position because we have no
guarantee that all these employees will be transferred. There is no
commitment, not guarantee to do so in the future.)
It:t- :r7'
Carson:
Fuller:
Ca9111 as :
Carson: J5
Decker: J6
.Rohr has no game pla~? . Shouldn'.t they be able. to tell us that tonight?
(Richardson:. Rohr. has' indicated to "the City that they would be
transferring employees over; however. she understood from City staff
there had been no commitment to do so. The draft EIR needed to look
at the i~pacts if in the future Rohr sold.)
First letter in the packet from Kate Shurson indicates the relationship
betweer. non-residential development and student enrollment has been
clearly recognized by the State Legislature through authorization of
collection. of school fees. A oint stud s onsored b the five South
Ba School Districts re ared ear ier t is ear SourcePoint further
documents and demonstrates t is re ations lp. Based on this study,
the proposed 211,500 sq. ft. of office space will generate approximately
162 new elementary age children. SHr WANTED TO SEE A COpy OF THE
REPORT. How did they arrive at these figures.
Applicant may be required to pay fees that they should not be paying,
based on their figures.
Height of building - consistency.
Estimate of ADT - which estimate is being used? Two different estimates.
Grasser: J7 Traffic projection assumption - before or after total completion of SR 54.
(Dan Marum. from JHK & Associates. answered the assumption was what the
benefit would be on the total completion of SR 54 in the year 1992,
about a lS~ benefit on so~e of the east/west streets in the northern
portion of Chula Vista as a result of the connection to I-5.)
Decker: J8 Page 3-45. there will be a significant change in traffic patterns.
Was off-ramp onto liE" Street considered.
(Dan Marum answered the off-ramp would be reconfigured as a new
intersection at Bay Boulevard and "En Street. There would be a direct
connection into Bay Boulevard for the traffic that will be coming down
to Rohr.)
Decker: J9
Assumed there would be an increase in the number of trolley scheduling.
Understands there will be 8 per hour for peak. The EIR shows about
12.
Projected there would be a reduction in traffic volumes on "E" Street
to be as much as 15~. SR 54 is hooked up except for part of the last
interchange. We should have seen SOme kind of reduction on liE"
Street now.
(The Traffic Engineering Dept. of CV is currently conducting an after-
study; had done extensive before-study work on many east/west and
north/south arterials immediately south of 54. Good data base of before
conditions. They will prepare a report on the impacts of the opening
of 54 which currently exchanges traffic only to and from the north at
1-5 and doesn't allow the exchange to and from the south yet. They
assumed a full interchange at that location for the EIR.)
Tugenberg: ' Suggested that the EIR address the troffic impact at the intersection
J1'0 of Woodla'wn 1\ "F". ,It is practically impoSSible to make a left-hand
turn (going east) from Woodlawn onto "F" Street between 4 & 6 p.m.
Why wasn't consideratlon given to EastLake Industrial Park and the
El Rancho del Rey Office Park instead of San Vsidro and National City.
(Commission decided not to ask for more comparison because of cost.)
Letter from Dr. Gordon Snow, Dept. of Conservation, points out there is
no geology section in this ErR. He feels there is some sort of seismic
11quefication, etc.
(M~yAnn Miller: That will be responded to in the Final EIR.
Page 3-7 - how much does it cost the City to retain the biolgical
trained construction monitor to monitor the grading? Does that come
out of the fee that Rohr pays, or out of our tax dollars?
(MaryAnn Miller: The City would assume the overall responsibility
for making sure the monitoring is taking place, but it would be an
additional cost to the applicant.)
Casillas: 200 sq. ft. per employee - standard figure used for office buildings?
What is going to be done with the building?
J11
Decker:
J12
ea rson:
J13
J14
(MaryAnn Miller: That would have to be addressed in the Final EIR.)
Maximum number of employee~? Answer: Most recent figure 1,184 total
employees to occupy the building.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Ian Gl11 of Starboard Development
Corporation, office at 1202 Kettner Boulevard in the City of San Diego. I'm here
representing Rohr Industries as their developer. We also have members of the rest
of the design team here. We've got the president of BSHA, the architectural firm,
Gordon Carrier, and the project architect, Mike Gilkerson. We have representatives
from Rick Engineering, and from WRT, the landscape architect on the project. We
J15appreciate this opportunity of addressing you, and maybe I can provide a little
bit of clarification on a couple of the concerns that have been expressed here.
You1re absolutely right that lt would be foolish of Rohr not to have a detailed
plan in terms of how they are going to move into this building and, in fact, we
have been assisting them for the last 12 months in devising a detailed program
for relocation into this facility. And you're absolutely correct. For now, and
for the foreseeable future, it is anticipated that this is a relocation. There
are approximately 1200 employees from three critical business groups within Rohr--
commercial business, government business, and new technology--that are going to
be relocating into this new facility.
As to some of the questions relative to the trip generation factors and so on,
in point of fact I would like an opportunity, we would like an opportunity of
working with Keller's consultant to give some more information that might be
helpful in determining what the appropriate trip generation factor should be.
Because in point of fact what's being used is a stock SANDAG factor which probably
wouldn't be appropriate for this particular bUllding, even, although there is
certainly the possibility that has been pointed out. that long-term part of the
J ,- f(O
facility might be sub-leased, It probably would not be a true multi-tenant
facflity in which you might have 20 tenants. , It would stlll be more of a , .
corporllte-tjpe",tacflftY'becali'S61t"f.s. a_~igh~QuaJ1ty office bullding and so the
number of ,users would be more restricted as dictated by a higher economic rent.
So we'd certainly like the opportunity of working with staff and their consultants
to ensure that appropriate numbers of utilized prior to finali~ing the EIR.
In terms of Some of the other elements, the higher 200 sq. ft. per occupant number
relates to the fact that there is a cafeteria in the building, which is actually
a COmbined cafeteria and auditorium space for employees, and there are other
support spaces within the facility that in fact are not just primary office space.
In fact, if you look at what is primary office user space within the bUilding,
it isn't the 245,000 sq. ft. of space, which is actually the gross space in the
bUilding, but more like 153,000 sq. ft. And if you then apply the City's parking
standard to what would actually be more like the number of occupants in the building
and the real"usable office space, the number of spaces as proposed in the alternate
in the EIR of 760 should more than comfortably accommodate a ratio of more like
5 spaces per 1,000 rather than the City's minimum of 3.3.
We're basically here to ~nSwer any other questions you might have, and we'd be
delighted to provide any clarification you might desire.
Commissioner Tugenberg: Maybe you can clarify it. These 1200 employees. Are
they presently on-site at the Rohr facility in Chula Vista?
Mr. Gill: Yes.
COmmissioner Tugenberg: They all are. They will not be coming from Arkansas,
or Los Angeles, or outside the area. It shouldn't be an incremental addition to
the present-day traffic.
Mr. Gill: No. rn point of fact, it will be a direct transfer. Long-term there
will even be some demolition of existing buildings on the campus and probably
conversion, at least in the median term, to some additional parking or some other
use. So you're absolutely correct. Staff obViously has had to take the most
conservative viewpoint that, at least, theoretically, at some point in time Rohr
might sub-lease part or maybe even all of the office space in this faCility.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Grasser Horton directed staff to take the comments and written communications
and incorporate that into their final EIR.
Commissioner Fuller reminded staff that they would like staff to request from the
Chula Vista School District a copy of the report referred to in the letter from
Kate Shurson.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent J - Comments from Commissioners. Planning Commission Meeting of January 9.
1991
Jl Predator management programs are site specific. In this situation, a predator
management program is currently being formulated for Chula Vista Investors
proposed project in the larger Midbayfront area. Rohr Industries would be a
participant in this or another program developed in the area; however, since Rohr's
proposed project affects only a small portion of the Bayfront's sensitive wetland
areas, Rohr Industries would bear a minority of responsibility under a Bayfront
predator management program. Refer to Recommendations 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and
17 of Section 3.2 of the ErR.
J2 See response to comment J1 above. A rrurnmum of two full time predator
management officers for the predator management program is anticipated for the
entire Midbayfront area, however, additional personnel may be needed as the
magnitude of the anticipated predator problems becomes known. Also, part-time or
contract specialists may be needed for specific problems that the full-time staff
cannot alleviate.
J3 Co=ent noted; however, outdoor lunchroom facilities have the potential for
attracting wild and domestic predators and scavengers. Furthermore, where office
complexes provide such lunchroom facilities, feral animals tend to be promoted by
well meaning individuals that leave food out. Refer to Reco=endations 13 and 14
of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
J4 As stated in the minutes, the Draft EIR assumed that all employees in the building
would be new, as there is no guarantee that Rohr would always occupy the building.
The student generation is an indirect result of new employment. As stated in the
DEIR, Section 5.0, Schools, the applicant is currently negotiating with both School
Districts regarding appropriate fees for the anticipated impact to the Districts'.
90-14 01/25/91
1'1-1/
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
J5 The EIR has been corrected to accurately reflect the proposed 42-foot building
height.
J6 The proposed project will generate approximately 4,165 daily trips. This calculation
was based on a large commercial office building (in excess of 100,000 square feet)
trip generation rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet, as recommended by SANDAG.
The discussion of project impacts under built-out conditions contained on page 3-56
of the EIR discusses the future trip generation from this site as modified by the trip
generation that was included in the regional model for this zone prior to the
initiation of this project. Thus, an estimate of the difference between the previously
coded land use in this zone and the new land use proposed by this project for this
zone is calculated. However, the total trip generation for the site remains at 4,165
daily trips for the proposed project.
17 Refer to Response No. !l8.
J8 As stated in Response No. !l8, the interchange improvement project currently under
construction by Caltrans at I-5/"E" Street was fully accounted for in the Year 1992
traffic projections for this project and the circulation system in the project study area.
In other words, the direct connection of the 1-5 southbound off-ramp to Bay
Boulevard at "E" Street was utilized in our traffic analysis. This improvement project
will create a new intersection and the existing traffic signal at the southbound on-
and off-ramp intersection will be relocated to this new location. Also, the provision
of a loop ramp for westbound "E" Street traffic to access southbound 1-5 was included
in our analysis as well. As stated on page 3-47 of the EIR, at the present time,
approximately eight trolleys cross major east/west arterials in the City of Chula Vista
in the AM and PM peak hours. However, in the near future, one to three years,
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) anticipates the addition of two
more trolley vehicles per hour on the south line through Chula Vista. In the long
term, the number of trolleys on the south line could be increased further (potentially
16 trolley vehicles crossing these arterials in the AM and PM peak hours), resulting
in an additional loss of available capacity on these arterials due to the amount of the
accumulation of gate down time.
J9 The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department is currently conducting a
study to determine the impact of the completion of SR 54 between 1-5 and I-80S. The
study will also be conducted when the full interchange at 1-5 and SR 54 is completed
to connect with 1-5 to and from the south. At the present time the connection from
SR 54 limits access to and from the north on 1-5. The City Traffic Engineering
Department has completed an extensive study of the major circulation element
facilities in the northern portion of Chula Vista immediately south of SR 54. This
existing data will be used as the base condition to define baseline data prior to the
opening of this new facility. A series of reports on the positive impacts of the
90-14 01/25/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENfS
JIO The intersection of Woodlawn and "F" Street was included in the traffic circulation
analysis for this Rohr Office Complex Development. The most difficult movement
is ty'flieltily tfl~ mast 8iffi~lt mS",fillRfilritat this unsignalized intersection today is the Y-
southbound left-turn maneuver from Woodlawn Avenue to proceed eastbound on "F"
Street. This particular movement is typically the most difficult movement to execute
at T-intersections which are controlled by a stop sign for the minor street approach
(i.e., Woodlawn Avenue). This movement will continue to be difficult as additional
traffic is loaded onto "F" Street in an east/west direction.
The long term solution to the impact caused by higher volumes on "F" Street would
be to install a traffic signal at this location. However, the impact from this Rohr
Office Complex Development was not significant enough to warrant the installation
of a traffic signal at this location. The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering
Department will continue to monitor traffic flow at this location to determine when
signal warrants may be met in the future and the intersection will be placed on the
list of potential candidates for signalization.
JIl The comment refers to the alternatives analysis in the ErR, Section 4.0. The purpose
of the alternatives analysis is to compare environmental impacts of those at the
project site against those in a different location. This analysis chose two bayfront
locations, and two entirely different ecosystem locations in order to see the difference
in types and numbers of impacts from these both similar and very different
ecosystems. Certainly, there are a number of locations which could have been
chosen for study, but it was not the purpose of the analysis to look at every potential
site, but, rather, to provide an evaluation of differences between different types of
ecosystems.
JI2 See Response Cl.
JI3 As Ms. Miller stated in the response in the minutes, the applicant would pay for the
mitigation monitoring, and the City would be responsible for coordinating its
implementation.
JI4 See Attachment 1, which shows the anticipated uses of the building.
JI5 These comments are noted.
90-14 01/25/91
J If-1J.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
completion of SR 54 in its various phases will be generated by the Traffic
Engineering Department and reported to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This report will define the beneficial impact of the new SR 54 facility based on the
anticipated diversion of east/west through traffic on major circulation element
facilities in the northern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
Also refer to Response No. 118 for additional discussion of this topic.
9<1-14 01/25/91
Comment.K
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource COIlBervatlon Commiaaion
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, January 7, 1991
Conference Room 1
Public Services Bulldlna
CAll MEETING TO ORDERIROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a quorum ht 6: 10 p.m.
by Chairman Fo~. City Staff Barbara Reid call1ld roll. Present: Conunissioners Ray, Johnson, Hall, Fox,
Kracha. Absent: Ghougll8slan, Stevens.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUP (KrachalRay) to approve the minutes of November 1:2, 1990
with one correction: the word "Permits" should be added Sl the bottom of Page 1. The minutes of
November 19, 1990 were unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Lance Fry, Assistant Planner, provided follow-up information on Chula Vista 2000. After much
discuulon. the following recommendatioIIJ were made:
1. It was MSUP (Ray/Krach a) to support staff recommendation on the recycling effort.
2. It wu MSUP (Ray/Kracha) that council direct thlf pn~paratiun uf a citywIde open space and
parkland master plan and to emphasize l\le W~llIm area of the city for the purpose of further review
of the feasibility of open space and parkland acquIsition and development.
3. It WlI8 MSUP (Johnson/Hall) that Council support staff assistance to city volunteers dedicated
to the city trails tree plantlni program and other public lands; and identify a program coordinator
for this effort.
4. It Wll8 MSUP (KrachalRay) to encourage placement of citizens from envirunmentalgroups on
city committees and commissions dealing with environmental and open space Issues.
B.
The Rohr Office Complex EIR 90-10 was reviewlld by staff. After much dis~ussion, a motion was
made (Fox/Ray) to include the following: to recnmm~nd to lh~ Plarullng COlnmissi;m that Ktacha's
comments of inconsistencies of th~ EIR b~ Incorporated with the ex~~ption of the last ~omment
regarding support of Alternate 2; that Hall's question regarding paragraph 3-50 be clarified; that Ray
requesu that the Planning Commission not close the publlc review hearing until the Inconsistencies
and issues in the EIR are resolved; motion passed unanimously,
Kl
A motion was made by Hall 10 recommend an off-site alternative listed as #1 on page 4-7; motion
died due to lack of second.
C. It was MSUP (Fox/Ray) to continue the item regarding "Environmental Agenda for the 90s" to the
next meeting with review of previous minutll& back to July 1990.
D. It Wll8 MSUP (Ray/Johnson) to continue the budget dIscussion to tho next meetinll and have staff
clarify items regarding prlntlnll and binding. photography. and postage.
1<7-8'3
._____n _.. _.._._
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment K - Minutes. City of Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commission
K1
.
Kracha's comments are indicated as comment Letter I.
· Regarding the question on page 3-50 of the EIR, the text has been modified
on this page to amend this inconsistency.
· The public review period was closed on January 9, 1991.
90-14 01/01/91
ATIACHMENT 1
ROHR PROPOSED BUILDING SPACE UTILIZATION
I 9-'11./
LJ
~'J> 1;' ~,.: E
Ji t, _.)
tJ' ''? r ~:} "',
~. . '.'; i';...
API( ~ c' 1990
STARBOARD Community De\!r.I(lya;~!11 Gup.
STARBOARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
April 24, 1990
VIA FACSIMILE
Pamela R. Buchan
Senior Community Development Specialist
city of Chula vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vieta, CA 92010
De~r P~m;
Enclosed is a copy of the preliminary building program recently
completed by our architect defining space utilization and
allocation for the new Rohr office complex.
When we talked by telephone last week, you indicated that your
planning staff hact the perception that the uses for the new
facility were indulStri~l or R&D in n~ture, which called into
question the actequacy of the proposed parking ratio (one space per
300 square feet of building area). Their feeling was, as you
relayect it, that this parking ratio requirement is relevant and
adequate only if the uses to be housed within the new structure
will be commercial Office-type activities.
The detailed program enclosed not only lists the specific
dep~rtments which will be relocated into the new facility, but also
breaks down each department's functions and their related space
requirement.
As mentioned in our recent meeting with you, one of the major
reasons Rohr is anxious to see the new office complex completed as
soon as poro:ro:ible is to effect a relocation of the many office
staff, detailed in the enclosed program, who are currently located
in industrial type space allover the Rohr campus.
Rohr recognize5 the increa3ed productivity and efficiency which
will result from relocating their scattered office groups to an
appropriate office environment under one roof.
'202 KETTNe~ BOULEVARD. FIFTH FLa~R. S~~Ga, CALIFORNIA !:::H:::~'U'-:.:i:.:i88
'~"~l ,....,~.. 0-,.......-. I 7-- r::::J ....... ".' ..-...,..... .-.......... .......-.,....,,...,
Pamela R. Buchan
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Chula vista
Community Development Department
April 24, 1990
Page 2
You can clearly see from the enclosed program information that the
intended use tor the new buildings is pure office in a
predominantly open space system furnished environment.
If you would be kind enough to give your planning staff a copy of
the enclosed program, we believe it should completely address their
concern related to the adequacy of the on-site parking proposed for
the project.
If you or any of your staff have additional questions or require
furt er clarification on the enclosed information, please do not
hesi at 0 contact me or Ian Gill.
AS:moh
enclosures
ee: 109-10.2
1 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS
Senior Vice President
Vice Presidents
Directors
Managers
EmployeesfProgram Support
,Customer Reps & Support
Staff (estimate)
% Orowth/Set up area
Coffee c;enter
1/10,000
Research LJlbrary
Storage/supply room 1/20,000
Vuult
Mail stations
Reproduction/Plotter Rooms
1/20,000
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage
c. plotters
Small Conference Rooms
(for 6-8 people)
Medium Conference Rooms
(for 18.20 people)
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
320 s.f.
280 sJ.
150 s.f.
150 8.f
90 s.f.
100 s.f.
SUBTOTAL
~5 @ 2S s.f.
8 @ 192 sJ.
4@ 8s.f.
6 @ 320 s.f.
9 @ 144 s.f.
3 @ 364 s.f.
I qo-flD
NO. OF:
EMPLOYEES TOTAL
1 320 d.
4 1,120 s.f,
9 1,350 s.f.
62 9,300 8.f.
....211 87.390 s.f.
1047 99,480 s.c.
JQ.... 3.000 d.
1077 102,480 s.r.
5,124 sJ.
375 s.f.
200 s.f.
1,536 sJ. .
2,000 sJ.
32 s.f.
1,920 s.f.
1,296 s.f.
1,092 s.f.
Commercial Business Continued:
Large Conference'room
(for 30 people) 3 @ 624 sJ. 1,872 s.f.
Large lounge 1/20,000 3 @ 600 sJ. 1,800 s.f.
MIS Engineering Computers 1 @ 3,500 s.f.
Hard Files & Training Rm 3,500 s.!.
. Engineering Support
Computer 1 @ 2750 2.750 R.f
SUBTOTAL 11.5/177 ..r.
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 30.234 sJ.
Core Factor @ 1.165 25.775 d.
TOTAL 181/186 s.r.
2 TECHNOLOGY & NEW PRODUCTS
SQUARE NO. OF
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS FOOTAGE EMPLOYF.ES TOTAl.
Vice Presidents 280 s.f. I 280 s.f.
Directors 150 sJ. 3 4$0 s.!.
Managers 150 s.f 9 1,350 s.f.
Employees 90 s.f. ill 10.440 d,
SUBTOTAL 129 12,520 s.r.
% Growth/Set up area 626 d.
Coffee centers 1/10,000 2 @ 2S s.f. 50s.f.
Storage/supply room 1/20.000 6 @ 192 s.f. 1,152 s.f.
Mall stations: 8 s.f.
Tempest Rooms 2 @ 4,000 8,000 s.f.
Vault 500 s.f.
Library 1,000 s.f.
Reproduction/plotter Rooms 320 s.f.
1/20.000 320 s.f.
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage
c. plotters
Small Conference Rms 3 @ 144 d. 432 sJ.
(for 6-8 people)
Medium Conference Room 1 @ 364 s.f. 364 s.f.
(for 18-20 people)
Large lounge 1 @ 300 s.f. 300 s.f.
SUBTOTAL 25,272 s.r.
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 6,065 s.f.
Core Factor @ 1.165 ~71 ~.f.
TOTAL 36.508 s.fa
19-!:r
3 GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
SQUARE NO. OF
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS FOOTAGE EMPLOYEES TOT'~
Vice President 280 s.l. 1 280 s.l.
Director 150 d. 3 450: '.
Managers 150 s.f 9 1,350 r'.
Employees 90 s.f. fZ 4.230 s.f.
60 6,310 r ".
Government Reps
(estimate 2) 100 s.f. ..2 200 r "
SUBTOTAL 62 6,510 s.t.
% Growth/Set up area 325 s ,
Coffee center 25 s.f. 2S s'
Storage/supply room
(10 x 20) 192 s.f. 192 8 .
Mail station 8 sJ.
Reproduction/Plotter Room 320 sJ. 320 s
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage
c. plotter
Small Conference Room 144 s.f. 144 s .
Medium Conference Room
(for 18-20 people) 364 sJ. 364 s:
large lounge 300 s.f. 300 s.f.
SUBTOTAL 8,188 s
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 1,965 s:
Core Factor @ 1.165 1.675 s.c.
TOTAL 1J,.828 S,
4 CAFETERIA (service for 400 personnel)
EMPLOYERS/ROOMS
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
NO. OF
EMPLOYEES
TOTAL
Dining Room 6,000 s.f.
. Servery 1,200 d.
I<itchen, Dishwnshlng 2,600 s.f.
Kitchen Personnel
Restrooms/Change Rooms 200 d.
TOTAL 10,000 8.r.
I ,- it
DRAFf
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcr REPORT
EIR # 90-10
SCH # 90010623
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
January, 1991
10,-f9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
Pa~e
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARy...................... 1-1
1.1 Scope and Purpose of the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
1.2 Summary of Impact and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location and Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
2.2 Proposed Project ................................... 2-1
2.3 Consistency with the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3
2.4 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALySIS................. 3-1
3.1 Drainage/Groundwater/Grading ....................... 3-1
3.2 Biology ......................................... 3-10
3.3 Aesthetics/Visual Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-41
3.4 Traffic Circulation/Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-46
3.5 Air Quality ...................................... 3-64
4.0 ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-1
4.1 Alternative 1 - No Project ............................ 4-1
4.2 Alternative 2 - Modified Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-2
4.3 Alternative 3 - Reduced Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-6
4,4 Alternative 4 - Off-Site Alternatives ..................... 4-7
4.5 Conclusions ...................................... 4-10
5.0 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT........... 5-1
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL........ 6-1
IMPACTS
7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM........ 7-1
USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
8.0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT . . . .. 8-1
WILL RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
9.0
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
10.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................. 10-1
9-1
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED............ 11-1
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND LIST OF........ 12-1
PREPARERS
ii
111- (( 0
Figure
No.
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
4-1
4-2
4-3
liST OF FIGURES
Title
Project Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
Expected Zone of Perceived Threat Impacts
Key Observation Points
A: Southern View of Site From "F" Street
B: Southwest View From Nearby Restaurant
C: Northeast View Towards Site
From Bayside Park Near "G" Street
D: Southwest View Towards Site
From Interstate 5, Southbound
E: Southeast View Towards Site From
Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center
F: Southwest View of Site From "D" Street
Adjacent to Jade Bay Mobile Home Park
G: Southwest View From Condominiums
Located at Chula Vista Street/Woodlawn Avenue
H: Northwest View Toward San Diego
Bay From Project Site
Existing Year 1990 ADT (in Thousands)
Existing Street Network and Traffic Volumes
(in Thousands) Year 1990 Conditions
Future Street Network and Traffic Volumes
(in Thousands) Year 1992 Conditions
Future Street Network and Traffic Volumes (in Thousands)
Buildout Conditions With Project Trips
Alternative 2 - Modified Design Site Plan
Alternative 2 - Modified Design Grading Plan
Alternative 2 - Modified Design Subterranean Garages
Cross Sections
III
I f1 - 91
Follows
~
2-1
2-1
3-11
3-33
3-41
3-41
3-41
3-42
3-42
3-46
3-49
3-54
3-57
4-2
4-2
4-2
Table
No.
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
UST OF TABLES
Title
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Existing Year 1989 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
1990 Existing Levels of Service, Year 1990 Conditions -
Signalized Intersections
Existing Year 1990 Conditions Unsignalized Intersections
Levels of Service
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis, Existing And
Year 1992 Conditions with Project Trips
Summary of Study Area Intersections Levels of Service
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis, Build-out
Conditions with Project Trips
PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU Analysis Build-Out Conditions
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Chula Vista Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary --
1984-88
iv
I q - 9~
Follows
Page
1-2
3-49
3-50
3-51
3-54
3-54
3-57
3-58
3-66
3-66
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Notice of Preparation and Comments Received During Circulation
B Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Rohr Industries Office
Complex Southwest Corner of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista,
California; Drainage Study; Foundation Design Criteria
C Report of Biological Resources and the Potential Impacts of Development of
the Proposed Rohr Office Complex Site, Chula Vista, California
D Circulation/Parking Technical Report
E Air Quality Impact Analysis, Rohr Office Complex EIR, Chula Vista,
California
v
/ &(- 93
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
19-94/
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF TIlE REPORT
All governmental discretionary actions defined as projects by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) require environmental assessment. Those actions which could result
in significant physical impacts to the environment require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
This document is a focused EIR which addresses the potential impacts associated with
development of an office complex on an 11.6 acre site in the City of Chula Vista. The
purpose of this EIR is to provide an accurate and concise informational document which
analyzes the environmental consequences of approval and development of the proposed
project. The EIR is not a decision-making document, rather, the information herein is
intended to provide guidance to the City of Chula Vista decision-makers in their
consideration of approval of the proposed Rohr Office Complex.
The scope of the EIR was determined by the City of Chula Vista after preliminary
evaluation to identify issue areas of potentially significant impact (see Section 5.0 of this
document for issue summaries of topics not further addressed). Potentially significant issues
include:
. Hydrology/Drainage/Groundwater
. Biology
. Visual Quality
. Circulation/Parking
. Air Quality
The EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, and other
environmental summaries as required by CEQA.
The lead agency for this project is the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. CEQA
defines the lead agency as "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project." The City has solicited comments from responsible
1-1
90-14.003 01/24/91
J '1-9s
agencies and interested parties regarding potential environmental effects by use of a Notice
of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comments received as a result of its circulation
appear in Appendix A.
The environmental consultant responsible for the preparation of the EIR is Keller
Environmental Associates, Inc. of San Diego, California. Preparers of and contributors to
this report are listed in Section 13.0.
This report is a Draft EIR. Upon completion of the public review period of the Draft EIR,
the receipt of public comments, and the Planning Commission hearing on the Draft, the
Final EIR will be prepared. The Final will include this Draft as well as the public
comments, and responses to the comments. Prior to making a determination on the project,
the EIR will be reviewed and considered by the Chula Vista City Council (decision-makers),
who then have the authority to certify the EIR. Project approval is a separate action. If the
Council approves the project, and the EIR defined significant, unmitigable impacts, then
Findings of Overriding Considerations must be made, with substantial evidence present to
support the Findings. ~p.;y~n~. .P~gj.'~...~~I.!~~pp~o. v. .e.........i;YJ.n~p. 1,h..~~tty......Wm~mRt~m~i;!~~
...,........................................................................................................-..-.--..--.--,-........-,...-.......................".".
~~~. gil:. gg. n.....~.gm~grt. nggfg8I1t9~ff~$gy~!~$~r0i9ij,finlmQmtQttn~$i!~~$$fj.U
. .
9g!#P~~H9Ai9R~~~]lg~~!qDm~!i'!i~~i
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACfS AND MfTIGATION
This section provides a summary of the environmental analysis that was conducted for each
of the issue areas. Table 1-1 lists the potential impacts of the project and the mitigation
measures recommended to reduce or eliminate the impacts. As stated throughout the
report, all mitigation measures must be implemented and monitored via a Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
1-2
90-14.00] 01/24/91
/9-9"
Table 1-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
/mpads
lLv</ of Signiru:ona
After Miligalion
Mitigation M<asures
DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING (Section 3.1)
Drainasre
Less than significant impacts are expected from storm-
related surface flooding given the extreme conditions
necessary to generate such flooding in conjunction with
site elevation and a project-proposed protective berm.
Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant
flooding impacts may be associated with exceeding the
capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over capacity).
"-
...n
,
....0
1
Significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff
from washing of a paved lot with oil, grease and other
automobile,..relatcd solvent deposits would occur to the
"F' & "G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the
existing pattern.
Groundwater
Less than significant impacts are expected to the project
from the Bay deposits (potentially saturated soil) located
on site. A small portion of these deposits would be
graded. At present, no foundation work is anticipated for
this area. Should building foundations located below
groundwater or on highly saturated soils be necessary,
special precautionary measures should be taken to
counteract post-construction uplift pressures and
settlement.
No measures are necessary.
Project specifications propose a storm drain system and detention basin
sufficient to accommodate a worst-case 100-year flood event.
The storm drain system and detention basin noted above are proposed
to prevent runoff from entering the Marsh. The storm drain system will
route waters from roof drains and parking areas through a filter system
(cleaned each October) designed to capture grease, heavy metals and
other contaminants. The detention basin is designed to accommodate
2-acre-feet of water (sufficient to accommodate a 100-year storm event).
All recommendations regarding earthwork and foundations in the 1990
Woodward-ClydeConsultantsgeotechnical report must be followed. The
study must be reviewed/approved by the City's Engineering Department
and recommended mitigation measures must be a condition of project
approval, and must be included (or referenced to) in the Grading Plan.
NA
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 1 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
Level of Significana
Aftu Miligatiotl
Mingatjon M.asures
Soils and Geolo1lic Units
-
...0
I
-..0
OQ
Potentially significant impacts may result due to
approximately 11.2 acres being graded to provide flat pads
for parking and the building. A total of 18,500 cubic yards
of cut and fill will be generated. The maximum depth of
cut and fill will be 6 feet, with the average depth
approximately 2 feet.
Significant impacts may occur if surface runoff carries silt
and sediment into the Marsh during grading. This is
particularly problematic if grading occurs during winter
months, when the heaviest rains occur.
Building on bay deposits will require subgrade modification (removal,
compaction, and/or use of surcharge fLIts) to improve support capacity
and reduce long-term, post-construction settlement. All remedial
measures must be incorporated into the Grading Plan.
Saturated soils encountered during grading/construction must be dried
and de-watered prior to use as fLIt This measure must be included on
the Grading Plan.
All recommendations regarding grading and earthwork, surface drainage,
foundations and pavements contained in the 1990 Woodward-Clyde
Consultants geotechnical report must be followed.
Engineered fills, embankments, roadways and/or structural elements
encroaching into areas of bay deposits will require subgrade
modification (removal, compaction and/or surcharge fill) to improve
capacity of existing soils for use in ultimately supporting additional
engineered fill and/or structural improvements and to reduce long-term,
post -construction settlement.
To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a
barrier system must be placed between the property and the wetland
prior to initiation of grading and remain until the drainage diversion
system is in place and operating. If project grading occurs during the
winter season, the special provisions contained in Section 87.19.07
(Grading and Drainage) of the City of CllUla Vista Specific Land Use
Plan must be implemented. This measure msut be included on the
Grading Plan.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 2 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impaas
Uvd of Signiftcanu
Aftu Mitigation
Mitigation M<DSUTU
Significant impacts to the wetlands area on site could
result if adjacent grading introduces additional soils to
this sensitive area.
BIOLOGY (Section 3.2)
Drain3l!C and Water Quality Impacts
......
~
,
~
'l)
The proposed project would modify drainage patterns
within the Rohe property away from the wetland areas
west of the site into drains and a project constructed
drainage basin. Site runoff is currently the major surface
watershed source for the wetlands.
Less than significant impacts are expected to the 0.16 acre
of brackish marsh and the "P & "G" Street Marsh due to
the limited contribution of surface/freshwater input
relative to groundwater and tidal sources.
Significant impacts could result from the loss of seasonal
freshwater input, resulting in a reduction in extent and
vigor and potentially complete loss of the 0.14 acre willow
riparian grove located in the National Wildlife Refuge.
To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be
constructed along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the
wetland. During construction of this berm, the City must enter into a
three-party contract with a biologically trained construction monitor to
observe the grading and ensure the integrity of the wetland. To
guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into the
wetland, the western slope of the berm must be hydro-seeded and/or
covered with plastic sheeting.
No proposed mitigation.
Establish a minimum of 0.14 acre of riparian grove within the adjacent
drainage swale. Vegetation types must be included in the Landscape
Plan, with sandbar willow used as the principal species used in this
habitat area. Management of this riparian grove to retain wildlife
resources must occur through coordination with the National Wildlife
Refuge Manager regarding maintenance.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 3 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
lLvel of Significance
After Mitigatiotl
Mitigation M<asur<s
Potentially significant impacts resulting from
contaminated runoff (gas and petroleum residues) and
trash from streets and parking areas may inhibit
behavioral response and/or even result in death of species
in the Marsh.
Significant impacts could result from the influx of
pesticides and fertilizers into the Marsh via runoff,
resulting in direct death or the increase of some species
to a level either directly (if preyed upon), or indirectly (if
there is a loss of available suitable habitat), harmful to
others.
.......
..0
I
"
o
~
Significant impacts to local water quality as it relates to
biological resources due to changes in sediment transport
may occur. Such sediment has the ability to change
patterns of erosion or deposition as well as elevating
levels of turbidity in the bay. These impacts would occur
during grading, and, after grading as a result of the
project alteration of drainage patterns and flow volumes.
Wildlife Resource Inwacts
Less than significant impacts to avian flight patterns,
(disruption of raptor hunting activities and gull flight
corridors), are expected.
Waste such as paper, plastic and other human-source debris must be
removed from the runoff. The project applicant proposes to use oil traps
at points immediately prior to the flow of runoff into the Marsh. Traps
must be regularly cleaned (via removal rather than flushing) so that they
remain effective. A large drainage swale will serve to capture any
sediments passing through the traps.
Pesticides and fertilizers must be used appropriately and by professionals
(i.e., a state-certified applicator). This would result in a low likelihood
of compounds reaching the Marsh in quantities significantly deleterious.
Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides must be rapidly biodegradable and
noted on lists of chemicals acceptable for use near wetlands provided by
the EPA.
The project applicant has proposed the implementation of silt fencing,
sandbagging and erection of a protective berm with a capacity sufficient
to hold site runoff. If, during construction, substantial de-watering is
required, containment of silts and suspended sediments must be handled
through the desiltation basin (the drainage ~ale) or through partitioned
basins and stand-pipe drains.
Additionally, a "biologically aware" construction monitor must be present
for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems. This
measure must also be included on the Grading Plan. The monitor must
be employed through a three-party contract with the City, reporting
directly to someone in the Engineering, Planning or Community
Development Department. The monitor must continue monitoring on
a reduced basis during actual construction.
No mitigation necessal)'.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
NA
Page 4 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
lmpods
Levt!l of SigniJi=
After Mitigation
Mitigation M<~
A potential significant impact - the possibility of collision
with the building - may occur should large amounts of
reflective glass on large windows (resembling open sky or
water) be used.
Potentially significant impacts due to the human-
associated presence of dogs and cats, as well as people
themselves, could lead to site degradation due to prey
flushing, nest destruction and disturbance from the
presence of individuals on the low-lying patios.
"'"
.0
,
"""
\::lo
"""
Potentially significant impacts due to the generation of
food and/or trash attracting opportunistic scavengers
(e.g., ravens, gulls, starlings, black rats and opossum)
known to be aggressive predators/competitors may occur.
Use of non-native plants may also attract predatory or
competing species.
The project applicant has submitted a design which does not use
reflective materials or glass on the west side of the building where the
building will be adjacent to highly renective water.
Mitigation of animal-related degradation is possible through
implementation of an effective predator management program which is
not only necessary for mitigation for this project, but any project which
potentially impacts the resources of the National Wildlife Refuge. The
cities ofChula Vista and National City, as well as the San Diego Unified
Port District and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will need to cany
out a joint powers agreement in order to successfully implement the
mitigation measures. The Conners (1987) predator management plan
should be used as a basis. The final plan must include the use of fines
and must include management of predators within the marsh as well as
on site. Two or more National Wildlife Refuge officers should be hired
(paid for in part by th< applicant) to cany out the program.
Human impacts would be reduced by buffering the patios from direct
view of the adjacent Marsh lands by hillocks of native scrub vegetation.
Outside lighting must be directed away from Marsh areas or any
reflective surfaces on the western side of the building. Lights should be
limited to the minimum required for security on the westerly side of the
structure.
Maintenance of covered trash containers in the patio area via a
janitorial program sufficient to keep the containers from exceeding
capacity must occur. The project applicant has suggested landscaping
materials compatible with the region and of minimal concern with
respect to providing predator habitats.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 5 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
Uvd of SigniJicanu
Aftu Mitigution
Mitigation M<asures
Though the 44 !!}foot high building is not expected to be
used as a primary perch for hunting peregrine fa1cons, it
may be perceived as a threat, resulting in avoidance of
the area by birds sought by raptors. This would affect not
only the prey species, but also the predator population.
This is considered potentially significant.
Elimination of fallow agricultural fields currently used for
raptor foraging and replacement of them with
approximately 9.5 acres of developed land would result
from project construction. Because of the limited extent
of similar coastal habitat and the absence of currently
accepted mitigative measures, the impact is considered to
be cumulatively significant and unmitigable.
-
...n
,
......
~
JJ
A beneficial impact is that the presence of the proposed
project could decrease current acts of vandalism, illegal
dumping and habitat degradation on site. Illegal off-road
vehicle use would probably also decline.
Threatened and Endaru!ered Soecies
Less than significant impacts on a project level are
expected to the Peregrine Falcon from loss of foraging
habitat.
Potentially significant impacts are expected to occur to
the light-footed clapper rail from further inhibiting their
re-establishment in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh.
Potentially significant impacts to the Belding's savannah
sparrow would occur from enhancement of predator
activities.
Implementation of effective predator control measures is necessary (see
discussion above). In addition, no ledges on which raptors can perch or
nest can be located on the west side of the building. The roof crests
exposed to the wetlands must be nixalite. Rohr must commit to
correcting problems which may be noted.
No proposed mitigation.
No mitigation necessary.
No mitigation necessary.
Predator management program and restrictions on human and pet
presence must be implemented.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact on a
project specific level, but
cumulatively significant.
Beneficial effect.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 6 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
lLv<1 of Signifirona:
AftO' M"lligation
Mi6gatiotl M.=
AFSI1IETICSfVISUAL QUAUfY (Section 33)
Less than significant impacts would occur from
construction of the proposed office building. The
proposed building will be visible to residential viewers as
well as to short-term viewers traveling along roadways,
dining at area restaurants and/or staying in a project area
mote\. In some cases, the proposed building will partially
block existing views to the bay. Overall, views in the
direction of the proposed office complex are light
industrial to industrial in nature, consistent with the Rohr
project.
CIRCUlATIONfPARKING (Section 3.4)
......
..()
,
"-
C)
Ua
1992 Conditions
"Ft Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would
operate at LOS B or above with the exception of Bay
Boulevard between "E" Street and "P Street, which will
decline from LOS C to F with the inclusion of annual
growth and the project. The intersection of Bay Boulevard
and "F' Street would decline from LOS B to D with the
project responsible for 53 percent of this impact.
No mitigation is necessaty as no significant impacts have been identified.
However, further screening is inherent in the project design's vegetated
dirt berm along ~F' Street. In addition, trees and native shrubs will
partially shield the building and provide some continuity with the
adjacent Marsh vegetation.
Bay Boulevard north of "F' Street should be designed for traffic only
and on-street parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wide parking
areas adjacent to the east curb line must be dedicated to normal traffic
flow. "F' Street (Lagoon Drive) must be re-striped to the east and west
of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out from the
intersection, and three lanes in toward the intersection. The three
inbound lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one
through-lane, and one shared through- and right-turn lane. The
westbound and northbound approaches will also require modification to
provide one left-turn lane, one through, and one right-turn lane.
Signalization is necessary at the intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Bay Boulevard for 100 to 200 feet north of the
intersection would be necessary to accomplish this measure. These
measures would improve the LOS to C. The applicant is responsible for
providing 53 percent of the funds for this mitigation based on the
recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed in Section 10.0 of
this report).
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 7 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impaas
~l of Significmra
After Mitigmion
Mitigmion Measura
[-5 northbound at "E" Street: Incremental contnbution
(4.6 percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will
result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
-
~
I
.......
~
~
1-5 southbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution
(4.5 percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will
result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
1-5 northbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution
(0.9 percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will
result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
Broadway and liE" Street: Incremental contribution (4.7
percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will result
from the proposed project and annual population growth.
Implementation of two improvements must be made prior to, or
concurrent with, development of the Rohe project, which is necessary
due to the near-term extremely poor conditions at this intersection.
These improvements are to (1) widen westbound "E" Street at the
northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-turn lane from
westbound "E" Street; (2) restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E"
Street to provide an exclusive right-turn lane and a shared left- and
right-turn lane. The applicant is responsible for providing a
proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit
Assessment District.
Double left- turn only lanes on "H" Street to southbound 1-5 should be
provided to improve the operation to LOS C. The applicant is
responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
Double left turn only lanes on "H" Street to northbound ]-5 ramp
should be provided. This mitigation measure would improve intersection
operation to LOS C. The applicant is responsible for providing a
proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit
Assessment District.
An exclusive right turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound
Broadway should be provided. This additional lane would facilitate
smoother traffic now from 1-5 and improve the operation LOS to C.
The applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of
funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
Less than significant impact at a
project level. Once mitigation is
achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Less than significant impact at
the project level. Once mitigation
is achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Less than significant impact at a
project level. Once mitigation is
achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Less than significant impact at a
project level. Once mitigation is
achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Page 8 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
Level of Significanc<
Aft",. MitigaJion
Miligation M<OSU1'<S
A significant patking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to
13 percent) under the proposed project, or 49 to 85
spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would occur.
AIR QUALITY (Section 3.5)
VehiaJ1ar Emissions IrnoadS
'"
~
I
......
~
Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant
impact will result from build-out project traffic adding
approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NO, and 0.03
ton of ROG daily to the airshed. The NO, and ROG
counts (the main ozone formation precursor pollutants)
are less than those noted for the APeD's insignificance
threshold.
Less than significant impacts would occur from emissions
at the large surface parking lot. The practice of "cold-
starting" vehicles at the end of the work day would result
in a worst-case hour1 CO level of 10 mgjm3. The state
standard is 23 mg/m .
The applicant must meet the City's standard by either providing
additional permanent offsite parking; or by reducing the size of the
building; or limiting the number of employees consistent with the City's
employee-based parking standard. This limit could be increased if the
proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces under Alternative 2) is
found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be provided. In
order to determine if the parking is adequate, the parking demand
should be monitored over a one year period following 90 percent to full
occupation of the building.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) such as ridesharing. vanpool
incentives, alternate transportation methods and transit utilization must
be incorporated into the project.
No mitigation necessary.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 9 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
lmpacts
Level of Significana
After Mitigation
Miugmion MetlSU<<S
Construction Imoacts
Less then significant impacts will result from equipment
exhaust released during construction activities. Because
daytime ventilation in Chuta Vista is more than adequate
to disperse any local pollution near the project site,
project emissions would not be in sufficient concentration
to expose nearby receptors to air pollution levels above
acceptable standards.
-
...c
I
......
~
It
Incremental contributions to potentially significant
regional impacts resulting from the clearing of existing
site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating
temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust
and other air contaminants during project construction
will occur. Construction dust is an important contributor
to regional violations of inhalable dust (PM-tO) standards.
Typical dust lofting rates from construction activities are
assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre
disturbed. If the entire 11.6 acre project site is under
simultaneous development, total daily dust emissions
would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
No mitigation necessary, however, measures should be incorporated into
project construction pennits to reduce interference with existing traffic
and prevent truck queuing around local receptors. Operations should
be limited to daytime periods of better dispersion so that localized
pollution accumulation is minimized.
Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement
measures required by the APeD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70
percent.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 10 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I 9 -If:) 1-
2.0 PROJECf DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECf LOCATION AND SETfING
The applicant, Rohr Industries, Inc., is proposing development of an 11.6 acre parcel with
an office complex. The project site is located in the City of Chula Vista, approximately 10
miles south of downtown San Diego and four miles north of the Mexican border (see Project
Vicinity Map, Figure 2-1).
The site itself is located just east of San Diego Bay, west of Interstate 5 (1-5), south of "F"
Street (Lagoon Drive), and north of existing Rohr facilities (see Figure 2-1). An SDG&E
transmission line extends north/south along the eastern property boundary; limited parking
is allowed within the transmission line right-of-way (ROW) for Rohr employees only. The
"F' & "G" Street Marsh, a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), is contiguous with the western property boundary. The NWR is considered a
sensitive estuarine environment, as it provides habitat for many types of plants and animal
species, including species listed as endangered by state and federal agencies.
The site is currently undeveloped, but has historically been used for agriculture.
Agricultural and household debris litter the site, particularly in the west-central area.
Abandoned irrigation lines criss-cross the site. Several unimproved dirt roads are located
around the perimeter and transect the parcel. A fence exists on the southern property
boundary and the southern portion of the eastern boundary, between the site and the
existing Rohr facility. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea
Level (MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
22 PROPOSED PROJECf
The proposed project involves development of an office complex with surface parking for
730 automobiles. In conjunction, "F" Street would be improved to a Class I collector street
as designated in the Chula Vista General Plan, and a drainage system would be installed
to convey site drainage away from the "F" & "G" Street Marsh.
2-1
90-14.004 01/24/91
,q-lfJl
ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX
Vicinity Map
RJ"mi4.C"""ry
,---.,.----~
""I ~ Ior",,- _ .~__
rI:>>/~ -......1 -
~ri<'--' 0 tJ \,",.:.
J'<f+-(l"'-~_r
,-
I
I
I
Itn
\~
.'Z
I
I
\'0
-
. ~
I. Q
10
\\
Ii
Ir
Ig
I~
I
i\
.......
..:..'.-....
.:::~r;Ci?~.
..........
.":.";'"
'I:P
~
/9 -/09
N
~
Figure 2-1
........
~
,
"
.....
~
~.------.,.:: '
-... -.....,...., ..:/'~.. ". ..
'-.. .. .
L;;i~.m
/ ~,~;;j-- ~~~~~.>.-i
. DRAINAGE ~
. SWALE
/"
'1
!
'-... .<Ji
~/7.
~.('O
'~-',""". "J
.......-.
"
I
, ,
"\'
EXTE~.;-?--
L,DECK. '_.Jj.
~-c....'
""
----- -
!
J
I
.~-
Ir.""t-
~.'
.-' .
.
",
"
mADITlONAL
lANDSCAPE
ENTRV
FEATU~
.. .. , .
.- ......
f"". ._... _..
~ROS --~y. ...~~~~~..~.. ...,. -.,. '.
-=-~. EN1'RY
~SIGN
, STM,lP[O
_ l~ -CONCRETE
, PP,VING
SHRUB
SCREEN
~~'f,t...
Site Plan
Figure 2-2
The proposed office building would contain a maximum of 245,000 square feet (gross) of
floor area with a 0.48 floor area ratio. The building height would not exceed 42 feet. As
illustrated in the site plan (Figure 2-2), the building would be placed on the western portion
of the site, with surface parking to the east. This placement of the structure is intended to
provide a buffer between the parking area and the marsh. The majority of the site (11.2
acres) would be developed with the proposed building, parking and landscaping; a 0.4 acre
marsh area would remain undisturbed.
"F" Street, which borders the site to the north, would provide access at two ingress/egress
points. Currently "F" Street is not improved to City standards. As part of the project, the
south half of this street would be improved to Class I Collector Road standards (74 feet of
pavement in a 94-foot right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a 10-foot center turn lane,
8 feet of parking adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at each
side). The improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, a bike lane,
streetlights and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional 5 feet of pavement
within this ROW on the south side.
In addition, a drainage system would be installed to convey storm runoff and irrigation
runoff. This system would involve creation of a linear landscaped detention basin on the
western property boundary. Water would be conveyed from the site, via storm drains, to
the northern end of the basin. Grease, oil and other contaminants would be trapped by a
triple baffle box at the point of discharge. Water would then enter the detention basin, and
travel slowly to the southern end. This slow flow would allow silts and other particles to
settle. During the dry season, all irrigation water would percolate and/or evaporate.
During storm events, water would be conveyed to a storm drain in "G" Street. No runoff
from the site would be allowed to enter the "F" & "G" Street Marsh.
To create the western slope of the detention basin and provide a physical separation from
the Marsh, a 3- to 5-foot high berm would be formed along the western boundary of the site.
The base of the berm would vary in width from 20 to 50 feet. Slopes to the west would be
no steeper than 3:1. The detention basin between the berm and the building would vary in
width from 50 to 80 feet. To ensure no access to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh along the
western boundary, a 6-foot high chain link fence would be located near the toe of the west-
facing slope of the berm.
2-2
90-14.004 01/24/91
I q -II/
23 CONSISTENCY WITH 1HE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN (LCP)
The project site lies within the coastal zone of Chula Vista and is subject to the Chula Vista
Bayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP). An LCP, as defined by the California Coastal Act,
is "a local government's land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and
implementing actions which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement
the provisions and policies of, The Coastal Act at the local level." The Chula Vista Bayfront
LCP is divided into six subareas for planning purposes and the site is located within the
Midbayfront subarea. The project site is designated Industrial: Business Park in the
Midbayfront LCP. The SDG&E ROW easement to the east of the site is designated as
landscaped parking and the "F" & "G" Street Marsh is designated wetlands. A strip of open
space between the site and the Marsh is designated on the LCP as a wetland buffer. This
strip is located on the recently established Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
The Industrial: Business Park designation allows for the following uses as defined in Section
19.84.09 of the LCP:
Administrative Commercial
Food Service Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
Business and Communication Service Commercial
Retail Business Supply Commercial
Research Development Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Custom Industrial
Essential Service Civic
Parking Services Civic
Community Assembly Civic
Special Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
Development intensity is also regulated under the LCP. The Industrial: Business Park
designation allows a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a floor area ratio (FAR)
of 0.5. The front set back must be a minimum of 30 feet, side set backs must be a minimum
of 15 feet for exterior and 20 feet for other side yards. The building height limit is set by
Section 19.85.01. The subject property has a maximum building height !~m~~ of 4 stories or
44 feet, whichever is less.
The LCP also contains a Circulation Element and roadway cross-sections are established by
Section 19.86.01. "F" Street, also called Lagoon Drive, is described in the LCP with a
prototypical cross-section within 95 feet of right-of-way (ROW). The cross-section includes
a median, two traffic lanes, a bike lane, a sidewalk and landscaping.
2-3
9O-14JJ04 01/24/91
I 9 -lla
The proposed project is generally consistent with the LCP. It is an industrial/business
facility with an FAR of 0.48, less than the maximum 0.5 allowed under the LCP. Its
proposed building height (approximately 42 feet) does not exceed the height allowed under
the LCP and the set backs are consistent. The landscaped open space and 0.4 acre marsh
area would provide buffer between the building and "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Proposed road
improvements would be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan; however, the General
Plan cross-sections vary from the cross-sections contained in the LCP. While the ROW is
the same in both documents, the median, lane and bike lane widths are slightly different.
This issue is addressed fully in Section 3.4, Traffic Circulation/Parking.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives are evaluated in the EIR (Section 4.0). One of these, the proposed
Modified Design Alternative, is analyzed on the same level of detail as the proposed project.
The three alternatives are:
1. No Project - this alternative would leave the site in its present condition, and no
development would occur.
2. Modified Design - this alternative is shown on Figure 4-1, and is a design proposed
by the applicant to mitigate potential parking impacts of the proposed project.
Impacts from this alternative are addressed in detail in Section 4.0.
3. Reduced Density - This alternative would reduce the proposed building ~il. site from
245,000 square feet to 228,000 square feet. The purpose of this alternative would be
to avoid the parking deficiency impact by meeting the City's minimum requirements
for parking.
4. Possible Locational Alternatives - Four locational alternatives were evaluated to
determine whether the applicant's proposal might result in fewer environmental
impacts in a different area. The impacts from these alternatives are also discussed
in Section 4.0.
2-4
90-14.004 01/24/91
/9 -113
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
/9-11'1-
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf ANALYSIS
3.1 DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING
The following discussion is based on several technical reports prepared for the Rohr project,
the latest of which are contained in Appendix B. Rick Engineering completed a report
entitled Drainage Study, Rohr's Corporate Facility (May 14, 1990) and Woodward-Clyde
Consultants prepared the Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Rohr Industries
Office Complex, Southwest Comer of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard (Jlily 24, ~Rt~mp~r0i
1990).
EXISTING CONDmONS
Drainage
The 11.6-acre project site is located near the eastern shoreline of San Diego Bay, south of
the mouth of the Sweetwater River. A salt marsh, the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, exists just
west of the site, but the site itself is typically higher in elevation, varying from 8 to 20 feet
above mean sea level (MSL). The project site slopes gently to the southwest and
approximately 75 percent of the area is covered with vegetation, primarily grasses and small
palm trees. There are no drainage facilities onsite, so all runoff flows overland. Runoff
from the site flows south to an off-site swale located within the existing Rohr facilities, just
north of Building 61 (located southwest of the project site). From this swale, runoff flows
west into the "F" & "G" Street Marsh at the southwestern edge of the project.
The existing storm drain system in the area includes a 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
located in "G" Street, just south of Building 61, which connects to a 54" RCP that conveys
flow into the salt-marsh. An 84" RCP is located in "H" Street that conveys additional storm
flows from the existing Rohr facilities into the bay, south of the project site. Both of these
facilities are near capacity.
3-1
90-14.00911/09/90
/9 -I/S
Groundwater
The site is located in the coastal plain adjacent to southeast San Diego Bay and within the
Lower Sweetwater Hydrographic Sub-unit. Groundwater in this sub-unit is designated by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as having existing beneficial uses for
municipal, agricultural and industrial service applications. The groundwater underlying the
site is beneficial primarily for groundwater recharge applications.
Borings to locate and monitor groundwater' were undertaken by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants {~ffiM) in March 1988 and in March and April of 1989. Groundwater was
encountered in all wells and the measured depth to groundwater varied from 5 to 16 feet
below the surface. The groundwater gradient flows to the southwest, similar to the existing
topography. tNr~Y!~Wgf)~R~~%Bt~R9!ftHii~!gqj.l~~Hg~~9~%9iiHR\n~~~9n~~~~
~~I~i~nt~{f!}Yi,~!}gIH&B~~~I~gl!~!nllJ9~~~~~P;~~19g9Wg~~fgHtn~~!~~!ii~~g~~p
!mP~9~~q;~B%~~~1~A~9Rti9g~f9r~n~~~~~9n!n~~9Rr~~f~i~gq9~~~m~~~~~r
~~lpl~~!P;~~~!iig!~p~!9Y;rw~!!~;~~~~f~~mRli~!gi~pt~~gf)~g~'f9i'!r'\Y~I!~pp~i~!}9
99n~~~!~1~9~~gtttfi919fq~!9~l1iR#%Pil~!1~K~~~19f~Hi~~1lj~Ei~~~9~!9nliKi!
q~%m!!8)!g~~m~R~fi!!~~f\H~t!)i9f9fiB!Hgg}y~!~[~!~Bg~rA~i
Soils and Geologic Units and Site To!,ography
Elevations on site vary from 8 to 20 feet MSL and slope gently from the northeast to the
southwest. The site is underlain by the Bay Point Formation (a Pleistocene age Marine
Terrace deposit) which consists of medium dense to very dense, silty to clean sands with
interbeds of silt and clay. A surficial soil is present that consists of a silty sand topsoil layer
overlaying a clayey sand to sandy clay residual soil layer. The topsoils were found to be up
to 2 feet thick and the residual soils up to 4 feet thick.
The sandy portions of the Bay Point Formation soils are suitable for use at finished grade
without remedial measures. The clayey portions of the surficial soils are moderately to
highly expansive and should not be used at finished grade. The residual soils are also
slightly expansive. Excavation can be accomplished with light to heavy ripping using heavy-
duty excavating equipment.
3-2
90-14.00911/09/90
J '(-lIb
Soft, unconsolidated, compressible estuarine "bay" deposits appear to encroach across the
westerly site boundary near the northwest and southwest corners. Loose, porous slope wash
soils may exist in the topographic low near the center of the southerly site boundary.
IMP ACfS
Drainage
Site hydrology poses three potential constraints to on-site development in the Bayfront area:
. Flooding of low-lying areas from tidal highs, resulting from extreme
barometric lows, combined with wind-driven waves
. Flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain
facilities
. Contribution of contaminated runoff into the sensitive "F' & "G" Street Marsh
The site itself is located on relatively elevated land, east of the extremely low-lying marsh.
The building pad is proposed for 13.2 feet MSL. Along the western property boundary, a
5 to 6 foot high berm is proposed between the Marsh and the detention basin. The
conditions necessary to create on-site flooding include extremely low barometric pressure
combined with high velocity wind-driven waves. Given the extreme conditions necessary to
generate such flooding, the elevated condition of the site, and the protective berm, this
potential impact is considered remote.
The existing 42" RCP located near Building 61 in the Rohr facilities is currently operating
near capacity. If overtaxed by contributions from the proposed project, flooding could occur.
Because the detention basin and flow conveyance facilities have been designed to
accommodate the additional flow given the worst-case lOO-year flood event, the potential
impact is regarded as less than significant.
Development of the site with an office complex would result in paving and otherwise
covering a major portion sr tHe elcitiag 9(~R~~jq~~~Hg ground surface, thereby reducing
infiltration and ultimately resulting in increased runoff. Also, the constituents of the runoff
would be altered. With the creation of a paved lot, oil, grease, and other solvents from
3-3
90-14.009 11/09/90
19-1lr
automobiles would join storm runoff. If this runoff is uncontrolled and allowed to flow in
the existing pattern, this contaminated runoff would enter the sensitive "F" & "G" Street
Marsh, which is regarded as a potentially significant impact.
As part of the project, a storm drain system and detention basin is proposed to prevent
storm runoff from entering the Marsh. The storm drain system would consist of a series of
inlets and pipes to convey all the water from roof drains and parking areas into the
proposed detention basin. This basin would be located to the west of the office complex,
adjacent to the marsh. Before discharging into the basin, the water would be filtered
through a cleansing system consisting of a triple box with baffles serving to trap suspended
grease and heavy metal particles. The baffle box and basin would be cleaned ~~ each
X~~i~HI'~;Slj~~ October.
During dry weather periods, from May to October, flows would be retained within the
detention basin and reduced by evaporation and percolation. During the October
maintenance period, the stop gate would be removed and winter storm flows would be
conveyed out of the detention basin. An 18" RCP would carry site flows south to the
existing 42" RCP near Building 61.
The detention basin has been designed to accommodate 2 acre-feet of water, which is the
lOa-year storm event. Because the existing 42" RCP is approaching capacity, the conveyance
system has also been designed to maintain the water surface elevation in the detention basin
equal to, or below, the lOa-year hydraulic grade line. This design is intended to allow
gradual draining to the existing system, without flooding.
As currently proposed, the storm drain system and detention basin would capture all
contaminated runoff, remove the grease and heavy metals and divert the runoff away from
the Marsh. With implementation of the storm drain system as designed, there would be no
adverse impacts to the Marsh from contaminated runoff.
Groundwater
The presence of groundwater affects both the construction and design of foundations for
structures if the foundations are located below groundwater level. Subterranean slabs and
3-4
90-14.00911/09/90
It:; -/1'1'
other foundation elements located below groundwater levels experience buoyant forces
which can result in uplift pressures. Special precautionary measures to restrain the slab
from lifting must be incorporated into project design. The presence of a high groundwater
table also results in saturated soils. Saturated soils, without remediation, are all jj:!iy
#q%\#!~\#~*~~~~FfD!J:l!i1g~gpRgm!H!qgj,~MJ:1~gp unacceptable material for building support
and fill.
soils sf tRe Bay c:leI3Bsits. Based BE a J3relimiBary re~:ie'N of the site, Bay depesits ".vere
ideHtified iIl tile HElrtllY/est IlIld sOl:ltll'''''est eElrRers Elf tile site. BilGed ElIl a re'/ie',,\, Elf tile
gradiag plans f-or the site, the detention basin may encreacll en these dellS sits, tllereBY
reEj1:liriag remeElial graEling. Otller;;ise, tile rest wS1:lld remain in its earreIlt state. If
saturated soils are encountered dming grading, then this sail ffiUGt Be dried and de watered
prior to l:lse as fill.
1,I:;w.Pp~tlS!'!I~~t*Qt~~@r~!ffi!;~p::11Y:l:!!~l1P~~qi~~R~~;~p!'i~1~Y~lg~p~!9~tgt~g~p!M;~il
~~19'fil~p.~g~gg:tgl~~1!gl:9~~iQfI,il:J:l~;&I'~~t:~9t!P.~D'g!tp.,~!1Y~n9~gHlg;IYP~rgmg
~~I:.r~~i;%~p~~~y~!*;ii!~Bgt~HgtIYl:!lgmii::I~~flI,$~Ht~ffl:AE~!'inyptgP9~~~~!;!R~
~j.'!'PP!i!f~~q9P~Pt~~q~ri?p!!!'IH9~I'iil~pi~gj!iq~g~PYf~~YI~H99!~lp~j.'~nt~~y:~g!i
Kg.YP~I~94~im~p.@P9~~g!Ptpt;tt;ggyp.g~1~Yfl,Y9~gt;~i~l~~1(1i~&~i
~~~giD'llq9pgl~9A~9tPpirt~l~Y~Y9Ptqtn~~9Ylgi!in9@1~~itp~t;!9f!~9f:lA~~9p.;9~rly
~~I:~~t~w.f!11~~!YR~~q~!~~PRYHP~ly%t~1~~~!9~$9Ip!~~~~~ls~19:P~~~I~~~t~~~
H~'i#~gp~~!ntp~1[p;~$~1j.~$!;!P91~tQtf%9[1n~A!11~~~gpP!i!;~gf1n~Rj:igp~.~9~~gstg~~i
W9H~!g~f!!~!~n~~lrf~A~lY9~~Rgg!Y~H!gq~~p~n~II9ggY~BY9'9!!II'9g~mifl,~jj,~I~m~q
9~~!qRPj:i~l!!~[~!PR~g!p~p~~Ptg~~~j:jnq~rl.YipgJ:g.t!9jj,!!~~9n~igf~yppq~~~~~~P;9P9~~q
~;i)~gt~ip~pil~~{)gng~~igg~;!?~~n~gFi;jpy%,qt!9rtll~fiit~Hiii~lq~f!i~~lYP~f!~~[g!~tn~
mgY;p.gi~~~f~gp~$i!p~r$9Yn~I~!t~~III1%!PP9rm$!;!~1I!illgg9!l'ig~~npg!{)Kqr9l!!B9
S9~1IStf9gn9~nqn~1~I~g~iR1I~~9Hnq~l!9j'i$i!~g.lg%9[~HPP9~9~1g~~9g1g%t~Yl1l19,ijg
~tI9!~[~iig't!I9:'9~y!~gRil~lpRgtt9m@~~y~ngng~;~;Lf~%W~~~t!l'1i[~gRsin&~p~
I11{~n~gI!1p!!tl~!PP9t~lpq~~flI,~1!9j'i9~~%~!l'j:i!II~gq~~~f!l'9:HH;!l'pi
3-5
90-14.00911/09/90
I f:J -119
D~~sri~~eria'."'ar~..pi:o\Tidedin'.tht\.JUlY"1990 .'~O(:idW#~~gY<l~~n~u,lt~ts~~poi:1~(:it
foutidatiotidesJ:gn, With ~ons1detatiori being giv(iritqyatiatiCinSfritli(igro)itidVffl#~rtiible; and
d~~Jg~'FPt~riaar~!l1SgproVi~~g1qr~~piP9~,ary!=~~~~9Jl9(iVf~t~rlIlgJr~wtatt;<lsq4s~~~
eri~o1int~reti4~ripg ..thec6nsti'ti!:tioIiaCti'vUie!:Ori~it~:
Soils and G~ologic Units and Site Topograpby
'f"- CCUJcte (J
Construction of th~ offic~ complex would involve grading to flrc:PAIC- lI. Rat ~ad for saffat"e
parkin~~~bUilding~Ei1il-- Approximately 11.2 acres would be graded and tbe
remaining 0.4 acre would remain in its natural condition. After grading to prepare the site,
elevations would vary between 10 aReB ~~p9.lg feet, except in the detention basin where
elevations would vary between 6 and 12 feet. The building complex would sit at an
elevation of 13.2 feet Msq~nq~p~1'9RW;jg~*1i!~~~~9nI9~~~g~~~~I~Y~;igg9.t~iQ
~R4~*r~~;9r;H~~p.m'i@F1Yi!!.TI9~qR1!!~Ilyp~*ipg~~IF]H~~~i:t~~p~F]!y~ly.
l. total of 18,500 eHBie }'ards of eHt aRe fill WaHle Be geReratee aRe grlleiRg VloHle Be
balaReed OR site. The mwcilRHm deptH of CHt aHe fill wOHle Be II reet, '",itH tHe II'Jerage
deptHltflprolflmately 2 reet.
If9]~q~~~J~Q~I~!s'yw;~~p.~I~!!.TI9'~11~919IRli~_t$g'~!\9~PPF!Il;1~!ly.:g!mQ
SHP!BYi~9~g~~rnpglw;9Hlq~[~9M.~[~ql9.~Y~I9.PIH~p'[qRp.~~ggr~g~~i.~I_yi
9~p1!!g~.I~~Aq~UW;9HI4flii~;~t~n90~~~~!EiB~~~x~lY:i~I~B~M@t~g,~Ii~Bg~!P
~~~~...q~~pP:r~m~t~!Ye~~~ti
There is the potential for impacts to the Marsh if surface runoff carries silt and sediment
into the marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during the
winter months when the heaviest rains occur, and this is considered potentially significant.
Also, on-site soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable lB
rn~l.tPt~~~!\.t.!19H9!~!!-lB for structural support, thus, potentially creating significant impacts
to structures. As previously discussed, there is the potential that saturated soils may be
encountered during grading. Bay deposits have been identified in the westerly site
boundary, and loose porous slopewash soils have been identified in the topographic low near
the center of the southerly site boundary,
3-6
90-14.00911/09/90
"-I,tJ
MITIGATION MEASURES
A ge~i~~9graqiJlg.and .~ri~~~pl~l}W:U$tl1~P"~Pffi:~~}4~Flig~qlW9#~t!:l~~~4~~Yjl\}~
Miiiiidg~1.Coae;.Su.6di\iiSiriri.~~~lj.llli..~ppli~able Qi'9iriillices,po1ici~s;.~~(l.lid~p~~4~~a*iiafdS~
Said p]ilptiluSfbel,ipproved ari.dii:.petniitissuedqy ~1l~ElJ$.irieedrigDMSip#pfi!:lfto the
start o(~iiy .gTaa1rig work..iindl9(iJl5t~latiQn. ora#YQr~iriiige ..~triictUres.
Drainage
Potential significant impacts to drainage resulting from project construction and operation
include contaminated runoff into the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, and potential flooding of low
lying areas. Inherent in the project design are measures, listed below, that would ensure
that all runoff from the site is captured, cleaned and diverted away from the sensitive "F"
& "G" Street Marsh, and that runoff would be detained during storm conditions:
1. minimum storage capacity of 2 acre-feet
2. a cleansing system at the point(s) of discharge into the detention basin to
capture grease, heavy metals and other contaminants
3. a regular maintenance schedule to service the cleansing device I1pg~y#1
at tHe eRe ef tHe eTy seaseR (!*!:lg!m~n{! October) .... ..... ... ... ...
4. a conveyance system from the detention basin to the existing Rohr facilities
that is capable of delivering flows under the IOO-year flood conditions without
flooding
Also, development must comply with all applicable regulations;~i;!9lH9~pg!:Ag~ established
by the Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for storm water discharge.
Groundwater /Soils and Geologic Units
Potentially significant impacts were identified: (1) to the Marsh from grading, and (2) to
structures from compressible, expansive, and/or saturated soils. Mitigation measures 4,5;
Q~n9i fIftEI-6 would reduce Marsh impacts to a level below significant. Mitigation measures
I, Z;?!m9~ ftftti--3 would reduce structural impacts to a level below significant.
3-7
90-14.009 1l/09/90
19 -/~
1. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1990) must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department.
All recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the
applicant. This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and
must be included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
2. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas
overlain by bay deposits 9~9IgtPQI~t~~U:!1!!:g'l~r~~~M~ will require
some form of subgrade rnodifiCaiioriioirnproveihesupporicapacity of the
existing soils for use in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or
structural improvements. Soil improvement may include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-compress
saturated bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table; or foundation
elements must be designed to extend through these soils into competent
bearing formational soils.
3. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching
onto existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade
modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce
long-term, post-construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely
include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the use of
surcharged fills, to pre-compress saturated bay deposits.
tll'II'IIIIRr~\1~1~111~llilrill~llllfI11~9m~~9f
$)) If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions
contained in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula
Vista Bayfront Specific Plan must be implemented, and these must also be
included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
pi To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier
system must be placed between the property and the wetland prior to
initiation of grading and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place
and operating. This measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
1i'1 To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be
constructed along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the
wetland. During construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically
trained construction monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the
integrity of the wetland. To guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce
sedimentation into the wetland, the western slope of the berm must be
3-8
9O-14JJ091l/09/90
/ 9 - I ~~
hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting. This measure must be
included on the Grading Plan.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project site currently drains via overland flow to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. With
project development and reduction in surface permeability, the amount of flow would
increase. The resultant drainage would contain potentially harmful contaminants and would
result in potentially significant impacts to the Marsh. As part of the development, a
drainage system is proposed to capture, clean, and divert drainage away from the Marsh.
This diversion and detention system would mitigate impacts to below a level of significance.
Silt and sediments could enter the Marsh during construction and be carried with site
drainage after construction. Recommended measures, including placement of a construction
barrier, development of the westerly berm, revegetation of the berm's west side immediately
after grading and compliance with all city LCP requirements for grading during the rainy
season, must be implemented to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a level less
than significant.
Saturated, expansive, and/or compressible soils may be encountered, potentially creating
impacts to structures. Remedial measures as outlined in the 1990 Woodward-Clyde
Consultants report, and as listed in the mitigation measures, would reduce these impacts to
below a level of significance.
3-9
90-14.009 11/09/90
I 9 -1;;.3
3.2 BIOLOGY
The following information is summarized from a study prepared by Pacific Southwest
Biological Services (PSBS) describing the existing biological conditions on the site and the
potential impacts associated with development of the proposed office complex. The
complete report is contained in Appendix C.
The site was surveyed six times between July and September, 1989, and again in July and
August, 1990, by biologists from PSBS. The site surveys were focused on verifying a
previous vegetation map (Sanders, 1989), and examining the current status of the wetlands.
In addition to these field investigations, data collected during previous studies of the site and
surrounding area were utilized to provide seasonal information regarding distribution and
use patterns of the various sensitive species known to occur within the study area. Primary
among these other studies are two biological technical reports prepared for the Chula Vista
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 (PSBS, 1990a and 1990b). Other surveys are listed in
Appendix C.
EXISTING CONDmONS
The site has a long history of agricultural use. Much of the wetland area around the "F" &
"G" Street Marsh has been filled in the recent past. Dumping of trash has been common
practice in the area and vegetable fields were historically treated with pesticides. Recent
studies have identified the presence of residual low concentrations of DDT and DDE in the
surface soils of the site (Woodward-Clyde, 1990). The remnant fields currently support
stands of Russian Thistle and Five-hook Bassia. Trash dumping continues to occur in areas
along "F" Street; however, a recently installed guard-rail along "F" Street has limited this
action somewhat.
Botanical Resources
Vegetation
The historically high levels of agricultural use has resulted in disturbance of the majority of
the uplands within the Rohr site. Naturally vegetated lands of the site are limited to the
existing brackish marsh and small riparian grove along the western boundary of the site.
3-10
9O-14.()0701/24/91
19-1.2 J/.
Adjacent to the western edge of the property lies the coastal salt marsh of the "F" & "G"
Street Marsh (Figure 3-1). Although the previous agricultural use of the site is not a direct
benefit to most of the marsh species, the presence of weedy plants along the wetland
periphery indirectly benefits marsh species by allowing unrestricted movement between
foraging areas, by providing a buffer from human-associated activities and by providing many
species with forage (seeds) and cover.
Disturbed Fields
The predominant vegetation within the Rohr parcel consists of disturbed fields dominated
by weedy plant taxa including Russian-Thistle (Salsola australis) and Five-hook Bassia
(Bassia hyssopifolia), Short-pod Mustard (Brassicageniculata), and Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare). Also present are several exotic grasses including bromes (Bromus spp.), Slender
Oats (Avena barbata), and Bermuda-Grass (Cynodon dactylon) which occurs extensively
along the lower portions of the site.
Riparian Grove
A small grove (0.14 acre) of young Sandbar Willows (Salix hindsiana) occurs at the far
southwestern corner of the site and straddles the boundary between the Rohr property and
the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. This stand is quite young and may be expanding
based on previous reports which mapped its location approximately 100 feet west of the
Rohr property line (Sanders, 1989). While the dense growth of the grove precludes most
understory plants, species associated with the fringes of this vegetation include Tree Tobacco
(Nicotiana glauca), Bermuda Grass, Saltgrass, Curly Dock and Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca
grandiflora) .
Brackish Marsh
Brackish Marsh occurs within a small swale at the northwestern corner of the site. This
area, formerly a portion of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, was historically isolated by the
deposition of fill and is now fed by freshwater runoff from the adjacent fields and fill area.
This area supports such alkaline tolerant species as Southwestern Spiny Rush (funcus
acutus), Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and Curly Dock (Rumex crispus). Also present in this
drainage swale is an abundance of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnson
3-11
90-14.00701/24/91
11-1;)S-
200
o
400 Feet
",;--"~..:.-.' . 10':::::>;
...'.,.... J ." .,...",,"
1!1~IKi~ll
,f''''~,~''''''-'' ..."...} "'1'''''
~ '~~:~':;:~{'~:i":\:~f,+~;f,',:,2~
",,~~~t '~"',' .,' ",l'" 1 ,I" - ;l-:':T-~
: ;t~'~~~{~' ,~:~?~f\~X/~1, '- '" ',-' -, ,
'I.:
I "
. " I
. i ,-'
;
I.'
'" :lli~~
I ."....,...... ..,.
It .,~;~.,~?;~'f::!;f:::!:~
f I Rg:iff'B/:;'X ';
~, ,,'
.:~ ~
.,
...;~~'gi'!:!~.::..~;.;.~'.r~.,..'.:'.t:.'~..;..~!,.,.....:.;.1.~.............~..:..,d....}.: :
..".-:.;,,:,:;,,!,:.},/\-,: ~~
'-:;":':/~;::'-;/-~<>;::.i~~'b:~'_;rl\~ S'x.}?:!;. . :'~
. F ~ClJljJ&'~ ...., ",'" i:::i;;;~: {,
. .!i!iil!l :ri~::~r:'~:::~,::,,::::,::~,; Iii i
r
. "\ . .ii:-'--'. Li:"~~!:.~!Y~{~~~1)~i1~~~~{iii~~~~;.~.:r.~>>.~~~:iitl'.J1f~~tt\~i&r.t'.ti~gt~~ffi ~~~~ :~~~;j;j.f11~.~~..~;'/. ~..
"1:'\ f . : ' ' ";':; ;' " ",' _1,"";'- J '[': ", '\);>'Xf, '
VE~~^~L-I'c" ". .i~~~E~:':RES:RCES ". [vY~~':,-\;:,'~~l!'
E2l Disturbed Yields Ita Blending'. Savannah Sparrow ~\,I .' . 'I t;,..' '
ffil Utbaoized Areal; ~ SOulh......m Spiny Rush ~ jJ.,',.. .....::.
~ ::::hs::arsh 00 California Sea-bllte ""cC:=::;;:~~;~ . Ci::t:::~:::~~O
1m Willow Riparian GfOIYC
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
Jf1-Ij.f,
Figure 3-1
Grass(Sorghum halepense). Other species such as Cocklebur (Xanthium strnmarium), Curly
Dock (Rumex crispus), Sea-blight (Suaeda califomica), Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale),
and Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) are also represented in this area. This area has
retained the wetland soil characteristics associated with its salt marsh origin and vegetation
diversity appears to be limited both by competition for primary space as well as soil
salinities.
Coastal Salt Marsh
The "F" & "G" Street Marsh located just west of the property boundary is dominated
primarily by Pickleweed (Salicomia virginica), but also include a diverse assemblage of
subordinate elements including Annual Pickleweed and Glasswort (Salicomia bigelovii and
S. subterminalis), Arrow-grass (Trigloclzin maritima), Saltwort (Batis maritima), and Sea-
lavender (Limonium califomicum). At higher elevations, unvegetated salt panes are
common. Vegetated areas in these locales include Salt-cedar (Monanthochloe littoralis),
Saltgrass, Alkali-weed (Cressa truxillensis), Sea-blight and Alkali-heath (Frankenia salina).
Numerous tidal channels meander through the adjacent marshlands, both increasing the
complexity of the dominating mid-marsh habitats and providing unique resources for fish
and invertebrate fauna. Along the channel meanders and in low-lying bench areas near the
larger tidal channels, vegetation is dominated by Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). Within the
upper fringes of this marsh the uncommon California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa) occurs.
Flora
Fifty-one plant taxa were observed on the Rohr property area (see Appendix C, Table 1).
Of these, 36 are non-native weeds, and an additional 9 are opportunistic natives typically
associated with disturbed or successional habitats. The large number of non-native plants
is due to the extensive prior agricultural use and the high level of disturbance which has
occurred in the area. The sensitive Southwestern Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight
(Suaeda esteroa) are also present. Sensitive plants are discussed in more detail in the
Sensitive Biological Resources section of this report.
3-12
90-14.00701/24/91
J' -/~?-
ZooloiPcal Resources
General Wildlife Habitat
The primary wildlife habitat occurring on the Rohr site is disturbed fields. Minor elements
of Brackish Marsh and Willow Riparian Scrub overlap the western boundary from the
National Wildlife Refuge. Also considered in the proposed site development were the
Coastal Salt Marsh habitats of the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh as the proposed
development may result in off-site impacts.
Disturbed Fields
Disturbed uplands occupy over 99 percent of the site. These areas are typically
characterized by dense weedy vegetation and narrow dirt roadways. Weed abatement
activities occur on an infrequent basis as ordered by the Chula Vista Fire Department. The
fields are occupied by an abundance of rodents and lagomorphs including the California
Ground Squirrel (Spennophilus beecheyi), Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae), Desert
Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and Brush Rabbit (S. bachmani).
Raptors were observed to forage extensively over the open fields with the predominant use
being by the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus).
This pattern of heavy raptor use was observed throughout the Midbayfront region (Pacific
Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). Seed-eating birds, including numerous finches
(Carduelis and Carpodacus spp.), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), and a variety of
sparrows, make use of the fields while insect gleaners utilize the fields, shrubs and trees.
The few scattered Acacia and palm trees and tall shrubs are important structural elements
in the upland habitats which provide singing, foraging, and sentry points to numerous avian
species.
Brackish Marsh
These marshlands exhibit several characteristics similar to those of the salt marshes;
however, the wildlife species making use of these areas differ sufficiently from that of the
classical salt marsh areas to warrant separate consideration. The Brackish Marsh areas of
the Rohr property are limited in extent and support extremely short-lived seasonal surface
3-13
9O-14.(J()701/N/91
/9 -1,;;1
water. These areas are visited during the rainy season by herons and egrets, Red-winged
Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) and song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Because brackish
marshes do not receive regular tidal flushing, they lack the macro-invertebrates and fish
found in the salt marsh habitats. Most of the vertebrate species utilizing these areas rely
on the seasonal productivity of marshes. Mammals found in association with these areas are
similar to those observed or expected in and around the salt marshes. These include the
Raccoon, California Ground Squirrel, and a variety of small rodents. Stands of Saltgrass
occurring in this wetland harbor the sensitive Wandering Skipper (Panoquina errans).
Riparian Grove
The small grove of Sandbar Willow located at the southwestern site boundary supports
limited wildlife activities. These trees are densely growing seedlings and clonal divisions
typically associated with emerging riparian habitats. The small size, low stature and
monospecific nature of this area limits its value as a distinct community. During the course
of the survey, avifauna detected in this grove were limited to Song Sparrows, House Finches,
and Lesser Goldfinches. An unidentified medium-sized mammal was also present in the
thicket. As this grove matures it would be expected to attract substantially more use by
wildlife.
Coastal Salt Marsh
Coastal Salt Marsh wildlife habitat is coincident with the distribution of salt marsh
vegetation (Figure 3-1). Characteristic species of these habitats include the Belding's
Savannah Sparrow, which occurs as two resident pairs in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh, the
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), the Marbled Godwit (Limosafedoa), the Great Blue
Heron (Ardea herodias) and the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). Along the
fringes of the marshlands, terrestrial mammals including the Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus
audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and Botta's Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys bottae) forage on the lush marsh plants; also present in these areas is the
sensitive Wandering Skipper Butterfly (Panoquina errans).
Restricted circulation at the "P" & "G" Street Marsh plays a great role in limiting the
diversity and productivity of this marsh relative to other marshes in the Sweetwater Marsh
complex; however, this area does provide supporting refuge, foraging grounds and spawning
3-14
90-]4.00701/24/91
1'-/~'7
grounds for numerous species more typically associated with open water or shoreline areas
of the bay and coastal areas.
The tidal channels, creeks, and even frequently exposed portions of the marshes are utilized
as spawning areas and nursery grounds by numerous coastal fish and invertebrates. A
diverse and abundant community of resident invertebrates persists in the salt marsh habitats
as well. Most notable are the concentrations of California Horn Snails (Cerithidea
californica), Fiddler Crabs (Uca crenulata) and Yellow Shore Crabs (Hemigrapsis
oregonensis ).
Resident bivalves and tidal channel polychaetes (marine worms) and crustaceans are
generally restricted to the tidal channels near Marina Parkway.
Fauna
Amphibians
Only a handful of amphibians are expected to make use of the Rohr site and these would
be restricted to the wetland areas on the western boundary of the site. They include the
common Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla), Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps spp.) and
Western Toad (Bufo boreas). Because of the marine influence of the wetlands on the site,
amphibian activities are expected to be extremely low. No sensitive amphibians are
expected to occur on the property.
Reptiles
Five reptilian species have been noted on the Rohr property (see Appendix C, Table 2).
These include such common species as the Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus
multicarinatus), the Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and the Common
Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus). The high degree of disturbance would be expected to
limit the potential for other species. No sensitive reptiles would be expected to occur on
the Rohr site.
3-15
90-14.00701/24/91
/9-130
Birds
Fifty-seven avian species have been observed or reported from the Rohr property (see
Appendix C, Table 2). In addition, a host of other birds which would not be expected to
make use of the site have been observed as fly-overs or within the adjacent "F" & "G" Street
Marsh. Some of these birds reflect migratory movements of passerines and/or incidental
transitory occupancy by other species. A variety of the species noted are all but extirpated
from the Chula Vista Bayfront region, although they occur more frequently at interior
locations.
Eleven raptors, and four species of owl have been recorded in the northern Chula Vista
Bayfront in recent years (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990a). Of these, nine
raptors and all four owls have been observed to forage over the Rohr site at one time or
another.
There has been an apparent decline in usage of the area by several of these species over
the past few years. Notably, these include the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Red-
shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus) and American
Kestrel (Falco sparverius) (Merkel, pers. obs.). These declines are probably related to the
reduction of prey (including Desert Cottontail, California Ground Squirrel, and Pocket
Gophers) associated with the more frequent and intense management of field habitats in
the Bayfront. There has been an increase in the activities of the endangered Peregrine
Falcon, an event undoubtedly related to the 1989 successful nesting of the species on the
Coronado Bridge, the first in San Diego County for over 40 years. Other raptorial birds
have maintained an apparently stable level of incidental occurrence in the Bayfront region
as migratory movements and wide' home ranges carry them over the Rohr site. Raptor
nesting in and around the Bayfront is limited to that of the common Red-tailed Hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), the American Kestrel, the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularis) and
possibly the Red-shouldered Hawk; however, none of these raptors nests on the Rohr site.
Also nesting in the area are Common Ravens (Corvus corax), Scrub Jays (Aphelocoma
coerulescens) and Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus); three semi-raptor-like species
which constitute important predators in the area. Burrowing Owls have been known to nest
on the steep banks of the northern Bayfront, throughout the disturbed lands on Gunpowder
Point, and on the "D" Street Fill. Efforts to eradicate owl nesting on the "D" Street Fill,
3-16
90-14,00701/24/91
/q -13/
near the California Least Tern Nesting Colony, have been fairly successful, and currently
nesting burrowing owls are a fairly uncommon sight in the Bayfront (E. Lichtwardt, K.
Merkel, pers. obs.). This species is, however, more commonly seen on the Chula Vista
Wildlife Reserve Island.
Several sensitive birds occur in the Bayfront but do not occur on the Rohr site. Where
potential for impacts to these species exist, the species are discussed. Breeding pairs of the
state-listed Belding's Savannah Sparrow are known to be present within the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh. Also of concern are potential impacts to marshlands where the re-establishment of
Light-footed Clapper Rail populations might be possible. These and other sensitive avian
species are discussed separately within the text of the Sensitive Biological Resources Section
of this report.
Avian flight activities in the area have been investigated previously (Pacific Southwest
Biological Services, 1990b) and the results of that study have been incorporated into the
current study.
From October 1989 through April 1990, an intensive field study was conducted to determine
the levels and patterns of avian flight activities over the Chula Vista Midbayfront --
including the project site (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This study focused
on the movements of waterbirds and raptors within the region. The study documented
extremely low levels of flight activities within the Rohr parcel for all shorebirds, wading
birds, waterfowl and terns. On the average, the numbers of birds within these groups which
were observed to pass through the study site fell well below one bird flight per hour for all
elevation ranges combined. For gulls, an average of over 330 flights per hour crossed the
site, of which between 12 and 24 occurred at levels below 50 feet and could potentially be
affected by the proposed project. Raptor activities were predominantly present along "F"
Street and within the fields located on the site. More restricted use of the site was made
by the Northern Harrier which foraged widely over the Bayfront. Other raptor activities
were more or less incidental to the site, as has been previously discussed.
Mammals
Fourteen mammalian species were detected on the site (see Appendix C, Table 2). Of
these, all are common to San Diego County. Notable among the native species are the
3-17
90-14.00701/24/91
,q -13~
infrequent occurrences of large mammals such as the Coyote (Canis latrans) and the Gray
Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). In addition to the native species occurring on or in the
vicinity of the site, five introduced or domesticated species also occupy various areas within
the Bayfront and its immediate vicinity. These include the naturalized Virginia Opossum
(Didelphis virginianus), the human-associated Black Rat (Rattus rattus) and House Mouse
(Mus musculus), and the Domestic Dog (Canisfamiliaris) and House Cat (Felis domesticus).
The introduced species tend to be the most destructive of the mammalian predators. These
species account for the majority of the mammalian predation on avian nest colonies, sites,
young, and adult birds throughout the Chula Vista Bayfront area. No sensitive mammals
are expected to inhabit the project area.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive Habitats
Coastal Salt Marsh
While Coastal Saltmarsh communities do not occur on the Rohr site, the presence of such
areas within the watershed of the property is a concern. Such habitats are naturally limited,
highly productive ecological systems which persist at the interface of marine and terrestrial
systems in sheltered bays and estuaries. The pattern of intermittent drying and saltwater
inundation creates a situation favoring holophytic (requiring saline soil) vascular plants
tolerant of frequent inundation and soil anoxia (absence of oxygen). Such conditions also
favor marine algae and invertebrates resistant to stresses due to the intermittent drying.
The regular tidal exchanges of nutrient rich seawater promotes high primary productivity
and provides the basis for an important detrital based food web.
The salt marshes of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh are home or provide important habitat to
several sensitive species including a state-listed endangered species (Belding's Savannah
Sparrow). In addition to playing host to sensitive species, saltmarsh communities provide
important nursery grounds and foraging areas for a host of other organisms including fish,
terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and birds. These areas are important to the continued
survival of several non-nesting migratory bird species as well, providing food, shelter and
resting habitats.
3-18
9O-14.(XJ701/24/91
I q-/33
These coastal wetlands have suffered a tremendous decline in the recent past due to both
direct and indirect impacts. Development and agricultural pressures have lead to the filling
of such areas, marine development has led to the dredging of these areas, and watershed
development has led to the introduction of numerous contaminants, modified the erosion
and accretion patterns, and greatly altered the freshwater hydrologic character of most
coastal wetlands. It is estimated that over 75 percent of the coastal wetlands in California
have already been lost and the future of the remaining wetlands is tenuous at best (Marcus,
1989).
Due to the high value of these systems and the rapid losses they have undergone, almost any
impacts to these systems would be considered significant. In addition, in most cases such
impacts would be subject to permitting requirements of various federal, state and local
entities outside of the CEQA review process.
Brackish Marsh
These habitats are frequently associated with estuarine or drainage systems which receive
freshwater input but which maintain an alkaline condition due to either saline soils or
evaporative concentration of runoff which is rich in salts or alkalide minerals. Within the
potential impact area (both on and off site), these areas are limited in quantity to a small
swale supporting 0.16 acre of highly degraded habitat which has been heavily infested with
Bermuda and Johnson grasses.
With the tremendous coastal development which has occurred over the past several years,
many of these area have been lost or highly modified. Unlike the larger brackish marsh
located north of "F" Street, this marsh supports no substantial seasonal surface water and
receives only a limited amount of seasonal use by avifauna. It does, however, exhibit high
potential for enhancement and could be improved by the activities within the adjacent
NWR.
Riparian Grove
Riparian wetlands are a naturally limited habitat which has been heavily impacted by
agriculture, urbanization and hydrologic development. These areas tend to be extremely
productive and support a high faunal diversity.
3-19
90-14.00701/24/91
1,-13'1
On the Rohr site, riparian habitat is represented by a small portion (0.007 acre) of a
recently emergent willow grove which extends onto the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh for
a total size of 0.14 acre. Plants, though dense, appear to be stunted by limited water
availability and lower fringes of the grove support a variety of dead trees with an understory
of newly emergent Sandbar Willows. These trees were most probably killed by saltwater
intrusion during recent (1986-present) drought conditions. This grove is of low stature and
lacks a diverse faunal association.
Sensitive Plants
Prior disturbances of the majority of the area is probably the reason for a lower rare plant
density. Table 3 (see Appendix C) lists sensitive plants known in the region. Plants marked
with an asterisk indicate those that might have been found on site prior to disturbance.
Currently, the only plants considered to be sensitive that occur on the site are Southwestern
Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight. The status of these species follows.
Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus)
Listing:
Status:
CNPS List 4
Apparently stable.
R-E-D Code 1-2-2
State/Fed. Status -- None
A small population of spiny rush is found within the small swale located at the northwestern
boundary of the Rohr property near "F" Street. While this stand represents the largest stand
of Juncus within the Chula Vista Bayfront, it is of negligible size relative to other wetlands
found throughout the plant's range. Populations of this size are not generally considered
to be significant or of consequence to the overall survival of the species; however, Rohr
Industries have committed to maintaining this population in its current state.
California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa)
Listing:
Status:
CNPS List 4 R-E-D Code 1-1-1
Declining. More information needed.
State/Fed. Status -- None
Suaeda esteroa seems to be presently expanding into peripheral upland areas adjacent to
undisturbed areas of Sweetwater Marsh. The population on the Rohr site is fairly small and
is not independently significant; however, this population could be enhanced through careful
management.
3-20
90-14.00701/24/91
1'1-135
Sensitive Wildlife
Few sensitive animals occur or have the potential for occurring within the project
boundaries; however, sensitive animals which occur outside the boundaries may be affected
by development of the project. For this reason, sensitive wildlife from the surrounding area
are discussed, with their sensitivity status and on-site status, in Appendix C, Table 4.
Species warranting additional consideration are discussed below. Agency listings include the
California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the San
Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee.
Liilht-footed Clapner Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes)
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern
Everett (1979) - Threatened
The Light-footed Clapper Rail is one of the most endangered birds in the
United States with only 277 pairs found in a 1984 survey of California
marshes (Zembal and Massey 1985). Recent estimates for the Sweetwater
Marsh complex are 5 pairs.
This federally-listed endangered bird occurs in the "E" Street and Sweetwater marshes. It
is likely that this bird will begin to be found in Vener Pond as well, due to the continuing
conversion to saltmarsh. The "F" & "G" Street Marsh has been historically utilized by this
species; but several recent investigations have failed to locate any birds in this area. The
degraded conditions and high level of disturbance at this site may preclude the presence of
this species.
California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni)
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered, Fully Protected
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
Everett (1979) - Threatened
Breeding colonies are limited in extent, and fledgling rates are highly variable
and recently very low, primarily due to heavy predation from domestic cats,
dogs, horses, ravens, crows, and small raptors. Off-road vehicles have also
had deleterious effects on the nesting areas.
This species forages over the open water along the Chula Vista Bayfront and nests on the
"D" Street Fill area. Formerly, the Least Tern was a fairly cornmon forager over Vener
Pond; however, this pond is returning to salt marsh and the birds are now infrequent here.
The bird is only an infrequent forager within the tidal channels of the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh and does not utilize the site.
3-21
90-14.00701/24/91
19-/ ~~
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Listing:
Status:
Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986)
Everett (1979) - Declining
Remsen (1980) - 2nd Priority
This raptor has declined as a breeder in southern California due to loss of
habitat.
The Northern Harrier frequently forages over the site but does not nest on site or within
the immediate area.
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
This falcon has declined as a breeder in California due largely to the use of
DDT.
Since DDT has been banned, their number has increased in California (Cade 1982).
Peregrines have been observed on the site as migrants. A pair of Peregrines nested this
year under the Coronado Bridge and may forage as far south as the site and the salt works.
These falcons are often associated with bodies of water; the presence of the Sweetwater
Marsh complex and San Diego Bay mudflat areas may attract them to the site as a
foraging ground.
Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)
Listing:
Status:
Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986)
USFWS (1986) - Category II
This species is considered down in numbers by many observers; however, it
is still a fairly common wintering species along the coast in San Diego County.
Found in low numbers within all of the saltmarsh habitats of the bayfront, this large
marshbird is infrequently observed in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh -- possibly as a result of
lower productivity and higher disturbance levels than the other bayfront wetlands.
Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi).
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Category II
SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern
Everett (1979) - Threatened
The 1986 census estimated 2,274 pairs in 27 marshes in southern California.
Eight marshes have populations of 100 pairs or more, comprising 75 percent
of the total. The upper marsh habitat is rare in southern California, being the
easiest to fill and claim for land uses. Extirpations have occurred in at least
three locations in the last 10 years. Sixty-three percent of the marshes
3-22
90-14.00701/24/91
J9-/3:r
containing 40 percent of the individuals are in private ownership.
Development proposals exist for several of these marshes; continued planned
restoration activities and public acquisition are needed.
One hundred forty-five pairs are known from the Sweetwater Marsh complex (Zembal et
at. 1988); up from 74 pairs found in 1977. With only 2.4 percent of the total marsh area
considered, Sweetwater Marsh hosts a density of 2.3 pairs per hectare and 5.2 percent of the
state's total number of Belding's Savannah Sparrows. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow
inhabits salt marsh areas below the confluence of Nestor Creek and the Otay River. It has
also been observed on sparsely vegetated levees within Western Saltworks.
Surveys conducted in the spring of 1990 place the resident "F' & "G" Street Marsh
population at two pairs (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This is below the
site's presumed carrying capacity; it is believed that disturbance and predation are the
principal factors limiting population levels at this location.
IMPACfS
Development of the project would result in the construction of a three-story office complex
and surface parking to cover the majority of the site. The project applicants have
incorporated a number of measures into the project to minimize biological impacts and
enhance the quality of buffers between the project and sensitive wetland areas. These
include (Sadler 1990):
. Control of runoff and sediment during the construction of the project l!.PU
over its life ..........
. Enhancement of the weedy buffer area
. Expansion of wetlands along the western boundary of the site in conjunction
with site drainage improvements
Where these proposed measures serve to reduce impacts associated with the project, they
are specified in the mitigation section. Specific measures proposed by the project applicant
include Mitigation Recommendations No.1 through No.5. The following impact analysis
assumes implementation of all proposed measures.
3-23
90-14.00702/0]/9]
1&J-/~8
Drainage and Water Quality Impacts
The proposed project would modify the existing drainage patterns within the Rohr property
in a manner that would divert surface drainage from the site away from the various wetland
areas located to the west. Instead, this drainage would be directed through a series of filters
and a vegetated swale prior to directing discharge into existing storm drains. The amount
of runoff flowing into the "F" & G" Street Marsh from the project is relatively
inconsequential; however it constitutes the major surface watershed for the brackish and
riparian wetlands present both on site and within the adjacent refuge lands.
Decreased Freshwater Input
It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in a decrease in surface water
discharge from the site to all existing wetland areas. This discharge is currently very minor
due to the loose and highly permeable soils found on the site, the small drainage basin, and
the lack of well-defined drainage courses. On- and off-site potentially disrupted watershed
basins for the various wetlands include 9.3 acres to the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove; 3.3
acres to the 0.16 acre brackish marsh; and, 2.1 acres to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Impacts
to the watershed of the brackish marsh and "F" & "G" Street Marsh are expected to be
minor due to their limited contribution freshwater input makes relative to groundwater and
tidal sources. The loss of seasonal freshwater input to the riparian grove would be expected
to result in a reduction in extent and vigor of this grove, but would be unlikely to result in
the complete elimination ofthis stand. The losses and degradation anticipated could include
from 0.05 to the entire 0.14 acre, including 0.007 acre of direct grading losses. Loss of the
amount of riparian grove on site (0.007 acre) would not be considered a significant impact.
Impacts to the portion of the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove on NWR would, however,
constitute a significant adverse effect.
Contaminant Discharge
Identified with the development of residential, commercial, or other human high use areas,
is a corresponding increase in the presence of automobiles, fertilizers, pesticides and other
human-associated practices and products. Features such as irrigation and development-
related impermeable surfaces create additional amounts of freshwater runoff, thus providing
effective means to transport any human-associated byproducts.
3-24
90-14.00701/24/91
/9-/39
Gasoline and petroleum residues, particularly from automobiles, are associated with streets
and parking areas. These products are typically derived from a slow and regular process of
vehicle emission and engine dripping composed of the less toxic fractions of fuels, as the
more toxic fractions vaporize very quickly. Nevertheless, the potential level of disturbance
caused by such chemicals draining into the Marsh is considerable. The fact that these
chemicals are not easily broken down, and further, that they are not water soluble, allows
these products to persist in a more-or-Iess original state as they are transported by
freshwater runoff to downstream wetlands and waterways. Once in the wetlands, these
pollutants can have a wide range of effects upon resident organisms. These effects range
from behavioral responses such as emigration from, lack of immigration to, or modified
utilization of polluted areas; to reduction of growth rates and reproductive success, increased
susceptibility to parasitism or disease, and in the extreme case, death of respective
organisms, species, and/or replacement of representative dominant species by more
pollutant resistant species. Hydrocarbons have been identified as effective inhibitors of
chemoreceptors (nerve endings or sense organs sensitive to chemical stimuli) which may
further inhibit an organism's abilities to locate food, detect predators, or identify potential
mates.
The use of fertilizers and pesticides by local residents also holds potential for altering the
diversity and abundance of the organisms occupying the Marsh. Fertilizers supply one or
more nutrient sources which are normally limiting to maximum plant growth; typically
nitrogen (in the form of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, or urea), phosphorus (in the form of
phosphate), sulfate, "B" vitamins and trace metals. The consequences of these excessive
nutrients entering wetlands or waterways will be an accelerated eutrophication (the process
of producing an environment that favors plant over animal life) of the system. Under
minimal input conditions, there would be a promotion of the growth of plants in excess of
that which would be possible under the normally nitrogen-limited conditions prevailing
within the wetlands (Zedler, Williams and Boland, 1986). In an extreme case, oxygen levels
in the water can be so reduced that the result is a massive die-off of the fish and
invertebrates. The large amounts of decaying organisms also promote excessive bacteria
growth which further unbalances a marsh habitat.
Another possible consequence of the influx of excessive nutrients into the Marsh is that it
may allow plant species, which normally would be unable to compete with the normal
environmental dominants, the ability to out-compete and displace resident species. A
3-25
90-14.00701/24/91
1f1-/~t)
change in the flora would result in the alteration of the representative fauna inhabiting the
wetlands. Many organisms are intricately tied to a particular plant for food, shelter, or to
fulfill requirements for reproduction. Loss of a particular plant or suite of plants may
therefore foster the elimination of the expected fauna of an undisturbed wetland system.
Influx of pesticides into wetlands or waterways through freshwater runoff can also have
devastating effects on the Marsh community. The effects can be manifested in the outright
death of organisms or impacts such as loss of reproductive success. While the historic
examples of DDT on avian reproduction are unlikely to be repeated, they remain classic
examples of potential hazards.
Despite these concerns, the fertilizers and pesticides used today are generally safer in terms
of their consequences to untargeted species, and application methods have advanced to the
point that their use by qualified horticulturists allow them to be used more safely than in
past years. Used properly, there is generally low likelihood of such compounds reaching the
wetlands and waterways in quantities which could prove significantly deleterious to wildlife,
or to the point where the balance within the marsh might be upset.
Sediment Accretion and Erosion
As indicated, the proposed project would alter the existing drainage patterns and surface
flow volumes on the Rohr parcel. These changes could potentially lead to increased erosion
within the uplands and deposition of sediments within the lower wetland basins.
While sedimentation and erosion are natural occurrences and even required for the
development of coastal wetland systems, the rate of sedimentation experienced by coastal
systems has been drastically altered by human activity. Agricultural activities, urbanization,
stream channelization, and construction activities have all served to increase erosion and
sediment transport rates throughout the drainage basins feeding coastal wetlands. This
. increased rate of erosion has led to a corresponding increase in sedimentation rate within
alluvial portions of the drainage system. These areas are characteristically the wetlands.
Deposition of sediments within coastal wetland areas has been identified as a critical
problem in numerous portions of southern California, including the nearby Tijuana Estuary
(Zedler et ai., 1986). Even the Sweetwater Marsh has been heavily impacted by sediments
transported from upstream areas. Most recently, the joint I-5/SR-54 freeway/flood control
3-26
90.14.00701/24/91
l'i-IIII
channel project has introduced heavy sediment loads into the river and the marsh system
(Merkel, pers. obs.). Both gradual and rapid sediment depositional patterns are active in
most areas.
Construction Impacts
The construction phase of the proposed project has the potential for the greatest impact to
the natural systems, is likely to lead to the most rapid changes in sediment transport, and
has the highest potential for effecting a change in the local water quality as it relates to
biological resources. Such changes have already been discussed and include increased
potential for changes in the pattern of erosion and deposition and potential for both
elevated turbidity levels in the bay and releases of toxins from the construction area into the
surrounding wetlands.
The project applicants have proposed the implementation of silt fencing, sandbagging, and
erection of a protective berm with a suitable capacity to hold site runoff. The drainage
swale is to be constructed early in the site grading to serve as a large capacity desiltation
basin. These measures would function to control sedimentation and erosion resulting from
natural rainfall events. In the event that substantial construction de-watering is required,
however, containment of silts and suspended sediments would be required. It is unknown
whether these measures would be capable of adequately controlling sedimentation from
these sources, although suitable control capabilities exist through partitioned basins and
stand-pipe drains. For this reason, impacts of the project on sedimentation and erosion are
considered to be significant and mitigable.
Wildlife Resource Impacts
The proposed project would alter the character of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh region in a
variety of ways, including increasing human presence in the area and converting habitat
areas. Approximately 11.5 acres of disturbed open field habitat would be converted to 9.4
acres of urbanized land and 2.1 acres of enhanced upland and wetland habitats. The 800-
foot long and 42-foot high structure would be located on the project site. This building
would be isolated from the majority of the existing wetlands by a minimum 100-foot buffer
zone, and would be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the boundary of the NWR (the "F"
3-27
9O-UJJ0701/24/91
/1-14/~
& "G" Street Marsh). For most of its length, the building would be over 200 feet from the
eastern boundary of the Marsh.
Avian Flight Patterns
Because of the proximity to areas of high waterbird use, disruption of flight patterns was
considered to be a major concern associated with the development of the open lands of the
Bayfront. Prior investigation in an adjacent parcel addressed this issue and determined that
development of a higher intensity than is proposed for the project site would not result in
significant adverse impacts to avian flight patterns (Pacific Southwest Biological Services,
1990b) with the exception of raptor activity and broadly defined gull flight corridors.
In the case of raptors, building placement is considered secondary to the loss of foraging
habitat usage which would result from development of the site and general human
encroachment. This point is discussed below. Because of the overriding issue of habitat
unsuitability for raptors under developed site conditions, impacts to raptor flight activities
are not considered to be significant.
For gulls, flight patterns appear to be regional in nature and not specific to any set
corridors. Further, numerous studies have cited the structure avoidance behavior of gulls
wherein they tend to fly around or rise over impediments. Collisions with structures by this
group have been reported to be extremely low. Under the currently proposed project, gull
flights would also be little affected.
Although reported collisions with structures have been extremely low, the use of reflective
glass on large windows and the resultant resemblance of the glass to open sky or water can
lead to inflation in the mortality of numerous bird groups, including a host of waterbirds.
Because of this, sites located adjacent to highly reflective water with structure orientation
towards the west, could encourage collision impacts if reflective glass were used on the
buildings. In the absence of such reflective materials in the proposed project, collision
impacts would be insignificant.
3-28
9().14.00701/24/91
J q-/~.3
Human/Pet Presence Impacts
The construction and continued presence of the proposed project could result in a variety
of negative impacts on the quality of the adjacent NWR and could decrease the use of the
area by both resident and migratory avifauna.
Development of the area would reduce the shoreline buffer zone and make the wildlife area
more prone to the long-term impacts associated with habitat dynamics. Large stands of
habitat can withstand minor disturbance and still sustain a population which is large, healthy,
and diverse enough to ensure the long-term survival of the species in the area. Deleterious
edge effects and fragmentation caused by roads and development in such areas can make
some species much more vulnerable to local extinction (Soule & Wilcox, 1980).
!;Ji9qg~~~!$r~!lQgiR~~H~~~~FQ~~M1gP9IH~Rql[qlP:&!P1qi'ig~~:t~~~q~P:~i~[prpJ~9~i the
presence of a large number of people in the area could eventually lead to site degradation
by humans and human associated animals, primarily domestic dogs and cats, which inevitably
find their way over, through, and under even well-tended and mended fences. In similar
habitats on Delaware Bay researchers found that only 30 percent of the shorebirds present
remained undisturbed on a beach when human activity was allowed (Burger, 1986). Dogs
not only flush birds along shorelines, but are also prone to swimming or wading to otherwise
isolated nesting areas and can accidentally or intentionally destroy nests. Secretive rails are
very sensitive to human presence and, if not killed, will leave a site if disturbed regularly.
Such is likely to have been the case at the "F" & "G" Street Marsh (Jorgensen, pers. comm.
1988). In the bayfront, it is not uncommon to see persons with multiple dogs turn their
animals loose to chase birds. Feral dogs and apparently abandoned animals are also quite
common in the area. Domestic cats have been found to be major predators in some
suburban residential areas. One study estimated that domestic cats in Britain account for
over 70 million deaths to small vertebrates annually (Churcher and Lawton, 1989), thirty to
fifty percent of which are birds.
Although the proposed development would not result in the direct increase in domestic
animals associated with residential development, human activities, including providing food
and shelter for wandering and/or homeless animals, ifwp\lXa tend to result in increased
...-.........;...;..'.............
densities of domesticated animals. Adverse effects of the increased densities of these
animals could include losses of small shorebirds, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, and
3-29
90-14.00701/24/91
19-1'1'1
juveniles of all species from the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Indirect impacts of enhanced pet
and human associated predator attraction to the area are considered significant.
The increase in human activities on the site would be expected to lead to little if any
disturbance of existing wetland habitat usage, however it could potentially affect the values
of future enhancement efforts on the eastern boundary of the NWR. As designed, the
project has limited access on the western side of the proposed building to low lying patio
areas within the central portion of the building. These patios are to be buffered from direct
view of the adjacent marsh lands by mounds supporting native scrub vegetation. Properly
implemented, this design would provide suitable buffering of wetland habitats from human
disturbance associated with the proposed project. The potential impacts of increased human
activities normally associated with a project in such a sensitive environment are considered
to be adequately mitigated by the proposed project design.
A beneficial impact is that it is probable that the presence of the professional center project
would decrease the amount of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation. Illegal
off-road vehicle use of the project area would also be eliminated with site development.
Alteration of Predator /Competition/Prey Regimes
Of primary concern for this issue is the generation of food and/or trash which will attract
opportunistic scavengers, such as Common Ravens, a variety of gulls, European Starling,
Black Rats and Virginia Opossum; all of which are known as aggressive predators/
competitors. Their increased presence could adversely impact the more sensitive species in
the area.
The effects of non-native plants used in landscaping designs may also serve to attract
predatory or competing birds and mammals; however, the landscape materials proposed for
the project (Wallace, Roberts and Todd, 1990 as cited in Sadler, 1990), are considered to
be compatible with the region and of minimal concern with respect to providing predator
habitats.
The proposed office building itself, however, would be located adjacent to the buffer zone
for the NWR and would have the potential for creating both real and perceived threats of
predation. Such structures may provide suitable hunting perches and nest sites for avian
3-30
90-14.00701/24/91
I '1-/ '15
predators such as the American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, and Common Raven. All of
these species have keen vision and are effective hunters both from perches and on the wing
(D. Grout, pers. comm.).
Under the project development plan, the proposed 42-foot high building encroaches as close
as 50 feet to the NWR, with a set-back from existing sensitive wetlands of approximately 250
feet. In the case of coastal locations such as the Chula Vista Bayfront, it has been suggested
that buildings of 4 stories or higher provide effective predator perches for Peregrine Falcons
which normally opt to hunt from the highest available structures (P. Bloom, pers. comm.).
In the case of the project proposed 4~ 44-foot building, however, Peregrine Falcons are not
expected to be among the raptors using it as a primary perch as they would probably focus
on the existing nearby, and higher, Building 61 (approximately 73 feet).
Regardless of the issue of real threat, the proposed structure was also evaluated as a
perceived threat that would result in avoidance of the area by birds frequently sought by
avian predators. Habituation (development of tolerance through prolonged exposure) to
predators and predator-like objects has been demonstrated in some avian species (Schleidt,
1961 and Hinde 1954a, 1954b as cited in Morse 1980), but in other instances, birds
confronted with changing stimuli or new stimuli tend to be slower to habituate or in some
instances wrongly habituate and are more readily preyed upon. The results of non-
habituation to unreal threats can also have serious consequences on prey species. A species
which spends much of its time reacting to "ghost-predators" is re-allocating time that could
be spent on other behavioral requirements. Morse (1980:133) noted that:
A prey species that must spend most of its time foraging, as often happens
during winter or the breeding season, could be excluded from an area even
if it was rarely taken by the predator. Harassment by the predator [or a
"ghost-predator"] could have an effect on the size of the prey population
similar to that which would be caused by actual predation, although the
predator population would gain nothing.
Shalter (1975, 1978) has examined the habituation of members of the family galliformes
(e.g., coots and rails) and flycatchers in the field and has determined that habituation results
where stimuli are static in position. The threshold beyond which birds will significantly alter
their use patterns as a result of building placement and associated stimuli is highly variable.
Types of structures, extent and type of associated human activities, and the avian species
3-31
90-14.007 01/24/91
I q - 1'1 (,
considered, all play key roles in determining the impacts of building placement. Some
"human resistant" birds such as Killdeer, Mallards and a host of gulls may not vacate the
area under even the most intense development. Other birds, which are highly sensitive to
human intrusion, may completely disappear from the area with even minor development.
Still others may modify their behavior in proximity to the structures to a degree resulting
in detrimental effects.
Belding's Savannah Sparrows have been found to readily abandon egg incubation when nests
are approached (A. White, 1985 pers. comm.). The effects of buildings, bridges, or other
large structures in the absence of human activities have not been well studied, however,
there is indication that these features may play important roles in bird behavior. The
general lack of avian nesting adjacent to the Rohr Building 61 bordering the "F' & "G"
Street Marsh is believed to be the result of both real and perceived threats of predation;
however, in the absence of any predator controls in this area, these factors are not readily
separable.
Based on the information available, and an examination of "height:bird distance" ratios for
nine large bayfront structures, an attempt was made to identify patterns of avian use in the
vicinity of structures. The lack of pre-structure bird utilization and behavior data, the wide
diversity of habitats adjacent to the structures, and the lack of control over non-structure
associated disturbances all limit the applicability of this comparison. For lack of more
comparable examples with both pre-project and post-project quantitative data, however, this
information has been used in this analysis and prior analyses (Pacific Southwest Biological
Services, 1990a). Figure 3 in Appendix C identifies the results of the site examinations
conducted.
The results of this study indicated that for tall buildings (e.g., over 50 feet), a constant 0.6
height:distance ratio appeared to hold true. When buildings were lower in stature (e.g., 30-
50 feet), the patterns appeared to breakdown and structure encroachment was less of a
factor in determining bird usage. Gulls and more disturbance tolerant species were found
to uniformly range closer than would be dictated by strict adherence to the extrapolated
ratio, and some more intolerant species would engage in active behaviors (Le., foraging,
display) within this range; however, few observations were made of species engaged in such
non-wary behaviors as loafing.
3-32
90-]4.00701/24/91
/9-/~'"
Applying the 0.6 height:distance ratio to the proposed project indicated that perceived
threats might be expected within the swale and buffer zones of the project site as well as low
utility uplands of the NWR, but these threats would not be expected to extend into the
sensitive wetland areas (see Figure 3-2). The extent to which the proposed development
would manifest true predator threats is difficult to determine, but is of high concern due to
the potential for losses of endangered species from the NWR marshlands. For these
reasons, impacts of the project on the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
are considered to be significant.
Alteration of Habitat Use Areas
The proposed project would result in the elimination of approximately 11.6 acres of
overgrown fallow agricultural fields. This area would be replaced by approximately 9.5 acres
of developed lands and 2.1 acres of native succulent sage scrub and seasonal freshwater
wetlands.
There is expected to be a decrease in open field associated species and an increase in urban
affiliates such as House Sparrows and Rock Doves (domestic pigeons). Such conversions
could result in both losses of prey species and encroachment impacts to foraging raptors.
Due to the limited extent of similar coastal habitats, and the high diversity and numbers of
raptors utilizing the undeveloped areas of the Chula Vista Bayfront, the loss of the site for
raptor foraging would be considered an incremental adverse effect of the project. By itself,
this loss would not be considered significant due to the existing availability of the remainder
of the Bayfront uplands which support high raptor use. The development of this area would,
however, incrementally contribute to the significant cumulative erosion of these resource
values.
Threatened and Endangered Species
While the Rohr property does not support any federal- or state-listed endangered species,
those which occur in the vicinity and have the potential for being impacted by the proposed
project have been considered in this analysis. The Light-footed Clapper Rail, California
Least Tern, and Peregrine Falcon, all carry both federal- and state-listed endangered species
status. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is state-listed as endangered but does not carry
federal threatened or endangered status. The following section serves as a summary of
3-33
90-14.00701/24/91
/q-/~'
,
.......
't
-..a
Zone of Impacts
TRl\OIT1ONAL
lANDSCAPE
"mY
FEA1UflE
''''''
00.
~~"..
-
Expected Zone of Perceived Threat Impacts
Figure 3-2
expected impacts to these species. Detailed analysis should be reviewed in other portions
of this report.
California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni)
The California Least Tern occurs seasonally within the Chula Vista Bayfront and is a nesting
species on the "D" Street Fill north of the Rohr property, and on the Chula Vista Wildlife
Island south of the Rohr site. This species forages along the shallows of the San Diego Bay
shoreline and (infrequently) has been known to forage into the marshlands of the "F' & "G"
Street Marsh. This species is opportunistic in nature and is resistant to disturbance away
from the nest site. This species is not expected to be impacted by the proposed project.
Lii:ht-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes)
The Light-footed Clapper Rail is a resident of the "E" Street and Sweetwater Marshes and
was historically a resident of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. This species is rather secretive
in nature and tends to avoid areas of high or even moderate levels of human activity.
Nesting is typically accomplished in areas of high marsh hummocks or low lying upland
fringes. Nests are often susceptible to flooding and mammalian and reptilian predation.
Adults and young alike are susceptible to avian predation. During periods of extreme tides,
Clapper Rails are forced into upland fringes or onto floating/emergent debris where
disturbance and predation threats are magnified.
Because the Clapper Rail is not currently a resident within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, the
effects of increased predator abundance resulting from the proposed project would not be
expected to lead to direct impacts to this species. Instead, an indirect result of the project
would be to further reduce the potential for ever re-establishing Clapper Rails in the "F' &
"G" Street Marsh. This impact is considered to be significant and rnitigable.
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
The Peregrine Falcon is a skilled avian predator which tends to hunt from high perches and,
primarily, takes birds in flight. This species is fairly tolerant of human activities and has
been successfully introduced into urban areas--preying primarily on pigeons. During 1989,
the first successful San Diego County nesting in a 47 year period occurred on the Coronado
3-34
9O-14.(J0701/24/91
/9-/5()
Bridge. Marshland and expansive mudflat areas found in south San Diego Bay attract
peregrines due to the abundance of waterbirds.
Due to the relatively low stature of the proposed development, it would not be expected to
provide perching sites or potential nesting habitat for this species. The loss of open field
habitat resulting from the proposed project would not be expected to substantially affect this
species. For this reason, no significant impacts to this species are anticipated.
Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus)
The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is a resident bird of all of the salicornia dominated salt
marshes found within the Chula Vista Bayfront. Two pairs were found to be active in the
"F" & "G" Street Marsh during the 1990 breeding season. This number is well below the
carrying capacity of the habitat and it is expected that disturbance and predation are the
principal factors acting to limit population size in this area.
This species, like the Clapper Rail, has been characterized as being relatively secretive in
nature and rather susceptible to human and pet impacts. Approaches to the nest site may
lead to nest abandonment or accidental nest damage (A. White, pers. cornrn. 1985, Zembal
et al. 1988). Also similar to the Light-footed Clapper Rail, the Belding's Savannah is
susceptible to predation at or near the nest by mammals, reptiles, and wading birds such as
the Great Blue Heron. The proposed project would be expected to have significant impacts
on this species through the enhancement of predator activities, including those of domestic
cats. This impact is mitigable.
Construction Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will involve substantial earthwork, de-watering, and
building construction. This project is expected to generate considerable noise and increased
human activities for an extended period of time. While evidence suggests that continuous
or repetitive noise has little effect on avian activities (Pacific Southwest Biological Services
1987a, b, and c; Dooling 1982; Dooling et al. 1971; Awbrey et al. 1980; Awbrey pers. cornrn.
1986), inconsistent noise or noise associated with visual stimuli may have cumulative impacts
on avian behavior.
3-35
90-14.00701/24/91
It! -IS-/
Human activities within the development area are likely to be extremely high during the
construction phases. Limiting work areas under such conditions is often times difficult and
"wandering" contractors may cause substantial damage without recognizing their impacts.
This is especially true during avian nesting seasons when birds are establishing nests through
the actual fledgling of young.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential impacts of the proposed project have been identified in the preceding section.
Many of these impacts may be lessened or mitigated to a level of less than significant
through the project design itself. Some of these measures (1-5) have already been discussed
or proposed through a variety of interactions between the developer, the City and the EIR
consultants. These are stated below where they are of value in off-setting or minimizing
potential for impacts of the proposed project.
Potentially significant impacts resulting from project construction and/or operation include:
. Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on
adjacent NWR lands (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation
Measure No.7).
. Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff (mitigated
through the incorporated project design element of silt and grease traps
[Mitigation Nos. 2 and 3] and through Mitigation Measure Nos. 11 and 12).
. Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions
of the drainage system (mitigable through the incorporated project design
element [Mitigation Nos. 2, 3 and 4] of silt and grease traps and the
desiltation basin, construction of the applicant-proposed berm, and presence
of a "biologically aware" construction monitor [Mitigation Measure No.6]).
. Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and
human presence (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measure
Measures Nos. 8, 9, la, 13 and 17).
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey (mitigable
through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16).
. An incremental contribution to cumulative losses to raptor foraging areas (no
mitigation proposed).
3-36
9(J.14.00702/01/91
J~-15~
. An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential
for re-establishment in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh (mitigable through
implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17).
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
(mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10 and
13).
Reco=endations:
1. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub
vegetation between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer
must be isolated from human intrusion and should further be implemented
with swales and mounds as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities
occurring on the patio areas.
2. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and
grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The
trap(s) placed on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple-
chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning
to be conducted in late September or early October and as needed through
the winter and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of
wastes rather than flushing, as is unfortunately often the case. City
inspections of these traps must be conducted, possibly through the mitigation
monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required.
4. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be
maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave
the construction site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early
in the project grading phase would assist in this measure. In addition,
construction de-watering should be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric,
gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so that clear water is released from
the site through the regular desiltation basins.
5. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be from the
lists provided by the developer. Should species substitutions be desired, these
must be submitted to the City landscape architect for review. Plant materials
which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as
Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive
as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or
Cortaderia, must be restricted from use.
3-37
90-14.00701/24/91
I It - /5..3
6. A "bio]ogically aware" construction monitor must be present for all phases of
grading and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed
through the City and would report directly to a specific responsible person in
the Engineering, Planning or Community Deve]opment Department if
construction activities fail to met the conditions outlined or should unforeseen
problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of the construction
activities. This monitor must continue monitoring on a reduced basis during
actual outside building construction.
7. Re-establishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site
drainage swa]e must be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and
direct impacts of the project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove
straddling the NWR border. Management of the riparian grove to retain
wildlife resources must be coordinated with the Nationa] Wild]ife Refuge
Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types must be included in the
Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species used in this habitat
area.
8. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through
vegetation barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet
encroachment must be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on
mounds along the western property boundary.
9. The project should be a participant in a predator management program for
the Chu]a Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild
anima] predators. This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator
management plan as a basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the
proposed development. This plan should include the use of fines as an
enforcement too] to control human and pet activities. The plan should be
comprehensive and should include management of predators within the
adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development areas.
10. A full time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by
revenues generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront,
or by other funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management
program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to
ensure maintenance of other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap
maintenance, etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in
enforcement issues as they relate to Federa] Reserve Lands. Officers should
have training in predator control and should possess the necessary skills,
permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators. It is
recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection
of the entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the
boundaries of the Sweetwater River, Bay Bou]evard, "G" Street, and the San
Diego Bay. The jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in
this board are the City of Chu]a Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District,
3-38
90-14.00702/01/91
11-15'1
the Bayfront Conservancy Trust, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
California Department of Fish and Game, Rohr Industries, and the owner of
the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula Vista Investors).
11. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of
the project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
12. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who
is a state-certified applicator.
13. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the
multi-jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for
the purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities,
fencing, the predator control program and mitigation programs for the project.
14. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be
totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and
scavengers to the area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
15. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which
are readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a
suitable substitute are recommended.
16. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included
on the western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west should
not exceed two inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are
exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as
Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be
obtained should heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or
in landscaping materials.
17. Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces
of the western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the
minimum required for security on the western side of the building.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
To minimize the disturbance factors associated with construction, the project applicant has
proposed a variety of measures to control construction associated disturbances including silt
fences, work area delineation, desiltation basins, and construction monitors to control human
activities and ensure implementation of other mitigation measures. The inclusion of the
above recommendations would mitigate the expected impacts of proposed project
3-39
90-14.00701/24/91
Iq-/~5
construction and operation, and human encroachment to a level of less than significant at
the project level if properly implemented and well-enforced. These recommendations would
also mitigate the potential impacts of the project to drainage and water quality, as these
issues relate to biological resources.
One significant cumulative impact remains which is the incremental loss of raptor foraging
habitat. No mitigation is possible for this impact.
3-40
90-14.00701/24/91
19 - /15 "
3.3 AESTIIETICS/VISUAL ~UAliTY
EXISTING CONDmONS
The project site for Rohr Industries is located within the City of Chula Vista approximately
1,400 feet from the coastline of the San Diego Bay. A small area of tidal wetlands is
included within the southwestern boundary of the site. The project area consists of a
relatively flat and uniform upland that is currently undeveloped but has been historically
used for agriculture. Because of the relatively open nature of the project area, the project
locale can be seen from numerous off-site locations (see Figure 3-3). Current vegetative
cover includes tumbleweeds and immature palm trees (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). The
project site is located within the Midbayfront subarea of the Chula Vista Bayfront Local
Coastal Program (LCP) (refer to land use section and existing certified LCP [1985]).
The surrounding landscapes are diversified in character and include the San Diego Bay and
open space to the west and north, respectively, and industrial warehouses (Rohr) to the
south (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). Immediately adjacent to the eastern site boundary
are transmission towers, railroad tracks, a parking lot and additional Rohr buildings; further
to the east is a mix of urban residential/commercial uses across Interstate 5 (1-5). Several
restaurants are located to the northeast, along Bay Boulevard, which have open to partially
obstructed views of the project site (see Figure 3-4, photograph B) including the Soup
Exchange, El Torito, and Anthony's. Elevation and existing vegetation contribute to the
visual buffer between these uses and the project site.
The proposed project site is visible from a number of public viewing locations including 1-5,
Bay Boulevard, Bayside Park, "F" Street, the Chula Vista Nature Interpretative Center, a
small city park at "F" Street and Bay Boulevard, as well as a number of dispersed residential
development. The project site is currently visible from the northern end of Bayside Park,
located to the southwest, at a distance of approximately 0.5 mile from the site (see Figure
3-5, photograph C). Views of the site are possible. from along 1-5 southbound between 24th
Street and "E" Street (see Figure 3-5, photograph D). Unobstructed views are also possible
from the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center located approximately 0.7 mile from the
site (see Figure 3-6, photograph E).
3-41
90-14.008 01/24/91
/q -/5?-
......
......
......
. :::.....
. . .: .. ~
" ...:.......
" .,* ','
'. .:<::;:.i:'(',;:-:'.:'::':.~.~:'
. ::. ','. :,:. ::.~::~.::.~.
:. " '.' I
.:.... '.'
~. - . . . . .:': ~",
~. ..': I
.,',,' ,':
.......:~~..
. ........0/ "'~ :.. .
.' .':1': .:.... .: .. \.~.
'.:::~:.;. ::));'~:.: PROJECf
. /ot -. .,..,
. . ". ......;:....~.:.~::.;'.:.>.::\
" .... ',' .
. .'
. :' .:': ~".,. #
....:,.:
.. '.'
. .........
-1" k -(1' street' Marsh
I\..f)
\'?
.Z
\
\
''0
\1-"-
. ~
\<::)
\0
\0
\l
\~
.~
\~
\0
'0
\%
\
.tP
\\
\~
i<
Chula Vista
Nature Interpretive Center
~
\:P
~
Key Observation Points
o
2000
4000 F..t
N
-----
Figure 3-3
~RohrB~
A. Southern view of site from "F" Street.
B. Southwest view from nearby restaurant.
/~-/~1
Figure 3-4
C. Northeast view towards site from
Bayside Park near "0" Street.
D. Southwest view towards site from
Interstate 5, southbound.
,q-I"()
Figure 3-5
With respect to residential areas, the project site can be seen from the Jade Bay mobile
home park, the Park Regency Apartments and from a condominium complex located along
Woodlawn Avenue. Views from both the Jade Bay mobile home park and the upper stories
of the unnamed condominiums, located along Woodlawn Avenue approximately 0.8 mile
northeast of the site, are intermittent in nature. Apartment windows with southern
exposures on third and fourth story levels would have the best possible views towards the
site (see Figure 3-6, photograph F and Figure 3-7, photograph G). Existing views from the
Park Regency Apartments, approximately 0.3 mile east of the site, are partially obstructed
by existing buildings, vegetation, the elevation of 1-5 and a bordering stand of eucalyptus
trees along the freeway.
Due to the proximity of the project site to the San Diego Bay, some views toward the site
are of high scenic interest. Views to the site from restaurants, a hotel and a small public
park to the northeast are open. Distant views to the San Diego Bay from these locations
are also generally open. Views to the north from the site are unobstructed (see Figure 3-7,
photograph H). Intervening industrial buildings, warehouses, and 1-5 partially obstruct views
from south and east of the site, and those structures dominate the landscape character in
these directions.
IMPACTS
Project Visual Characteristics
The office complex is proposed to be a total of 245,000 square feet, and a height of 42 feet.
The height and square footage of the office building for this site are in conformance with
the density, square footage, and height standards set by the City of Chula Vista LCP.
Exterior construction materials will include plaster and stone with earthtone colors. No
reflective glass will be used on the west face of the building. Glass specifications for the
other sides of the building have not been determined.
In the interest of protecting the 0.4 acre area of the tidal wetlands (located on the southwest
portion of the site) from polluted surface water runoff, the office building is proposed to be
placed between the marsh area and the project parking lot. In addition, a dirt berm and
fence are proposed between the building and the NWR to limit human encroachment into
the NWR. The berm is proposed to be approximately 5 to 6 feet high and would extend
3-42
90-14.008 01/24/91
,'-lip/
Project Site
E. Southeast view towards site from
Chula VISta NatuJ"e Inte1]Jretive Center.
F. Southwest view of site from wDw Street
adjat:ent to Jade Bay Mobile Home Park.
J'-I"~
Figure 3-6
G. Southwest view from condominiums located
at Chula VISta StreetjWoodlawn Avenue.
H. Northwest view toward San Diego Bay
from project site.
1'-/~3
Figure 3-7
the entire length of the site's west boundary. The proposed fence is 6 feet high, chain link
in construction and would be positioned near the toe of the west-facing slope of the berm.
A water retention basin would be provided between the building and the marsh buffer. The
buffer area would be landscaped with upland coastal sage scrub.
The parking lot is proposed to be east of the building, adjacent to the existing transmission
towers, and would provide 730 spaces. (Rohr Industries has estimated a need for 705
parking spaces for its employees - see Traffic Section.) Exterior lighting would consist of
high intensity discharge down-lighting and would be limited to illuminating the project site
only. Lighting on the western boundary of the site would be directed away from the natural
tidal wetlands to minimize the effect of light on the wildlife.
Landscaping planned for most of the site includes scrubs, groundcover and canopy trees.
The parking area would be divided into four separate "rooms" of landscaped areas to help
reduce its elongated appearance. Along the western boundary in the vicinity of the berm,
landscaping would be made up of upland coastal scrub to blend with the natural
environment. Along "F" Street, landscaping would consist primarily of trees to reduce
visibility to the site. All landscaping for the project would be in conformance with the City
of Chula Vista Landscaping Manual.
"F" Street is defined as a "gateway" to the Bayfront area, and is therefore an area of high
visitation and visual importance. Proposed improvements to "F" Street include two
entrances for ingress and egress, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights and a
bike lane. Rohr Industries would be responsible for upgrading the southern half of "F"
Street from the centerline to the site boundary. Road improvements are required for
conformance with Class I Collector Road standards as well as standards set in the LCP
Circulation Element (Section 19.86.01).
Visual Sensitivity
The visual effects of the proposed project depend upon the degree to which the project
complements the existing Rohr facilities and proposed Midbayfront development in terms
of architectural design and materials, and whether the project would have any adverse
effects on existing scenic views from public viewing locales and residential neighborhoods.
The building by itself, could result in an adverse visual impact due to its size and form;
3-43
90-14.008 01/24/91
I~ -/~~
however, the existence of other large buildings in the area reduce the significance of the
proposed project. The proposed building is 42 feet (in conformance with the City of Chula
Vista's height regulations) as compared with the adjacent existing Rohr building height
(Building 61) of73 feet. In addition, the proposed earthtones would blend with the visual
characteristics of the existing Rohr building. The proposed project consequently would be
complementary to the existing development and would contribute to the cumulative visual
change of the area from undeveloped land to industrial/business park development.
The proposed project would be visible from the northern end of Bayside Park (located
approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the site). The primary scenic amenity of the park is San
Diego Bay, while the area immediately to the east is existing vacant, disturbed land. The
proposed office building would be partially obstructed by the existing Rohr buildings to the
south, and views beyond the site are already currently developed. Given the planned
landscaping and visual characteristics of the area, views from Bayside Park to the site would
be altered, but impacts are not considered significant.
Views range from open to partially obstructed along 1-5 between 24th Street and "E" street.
While the proposed facilities would be visible to southbound travellers, the project would
not block any existing scenic views. In addition, the presence of the existing Rohr building
to the south, and the transmission towers to the east would result in the new structure
blending with existing facilities. Further, planned landscaping would effectively screen views
of the site to southbound freeway travellers. Visual impacts are considered neither adverse
nor significant.
From the small public park, Days Inn Hotel, Soup Exchange, El Torito and Anthony's
restaurants just northeast of the site, open views of the site and partially obstructed views
of the San Diego Bay are possible. The proposed building and landscaping would obstruct
Bay views from portions of these locations, however, due to the small amount of the views
that would actually be affected, no significant change in the existing views would occur.
Thus, project level impacts to these types of viewers are not considered significant.
From the Jade Bay mobile home park and adjacent unnamed condominiums located
approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the site, the proposed project would be visible; but the
new building would be substantially smaller in scale than the existing Rohr buildings to the
east and south. In addition, proposed landscaping along "F" Street would further buffer the
3-44
90.14.008 01/24/91
1'1 -- /1,5
view from this vantage point. Thus, views of the site from this location would be changed,
but these visual changes are not considered significant.
From the Park Regency Apartments located approximately 0.3 mile east of the site, views
of the proposed project facilities would be buffered by existing vegetation and buildings.
Although the building would be partially visible, the existing conditions to the east and south
along with the planned landscaping would render only slight impacts from this view. Visual
impacts from this location would not be significant.
Improvements to "F" Street would result in a conversion of approximately 30 feet of existing
disturbed land to pavement and concrete for road widening and sidewalks. Landscaping and
trees would border the project area and create a visual buffer to pedestrian, cyclist and
motorist traffic. Views from "F" Street to the site are open. The proposed project would
block some of the distant ocean views from the Bay Boulevard/"F" Street intersection to
0.1 mile west of that location. Impacts to these types of viewers may be considered adverse
but not significant due to the existing urban character south of "F" Street.
MITIGA nON
The proposed project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's standards for height,
square footage, and density as well as the planned land use for the area. Views will be
altered by the implementation of the project; however, no significant impacts have been
identified, therefore mitigation measures will not be required.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The applicant is not proposing a visually inconsistent use since the proposed office complex
would be adjacent to several existing, and in some cases larger, industrial-type structures of
similar architectural style and color. Although construction of the project would result in
partial loss of views to the bay, none of the possible impacts to viewers discussed in this
section are deemed significant; all are less than significant. In addition to proposing a
structure which is consistent with those currently existing, an extensive vegetation screening
and planting program has been developed which would provide some continuity with the
adjacent open space to the west.
3-45
9Q-14.008 01/24/91
l&j-I"~
3.4 CIRCULATION/PARKING
The following discussion is based on a study prepared by JHK & Associates analyzing the
existing and future circulation conditions in the study area and the impacts associated with
development of the proposed office complex. The study is summarized below and
reproduced in full in Appendix D.
EXISTING CONDmONS
Current Circulation System
The study area surrounding the project is defined as the area between "E" Street, "H" Street,
San Diego Bay and Broadway. Interstate 5 (1-5) bisects the study area in a north/south
direction. The circulation system within the study area is described below and illustrated in
Figure 3-8. The current ADT on roads in the study area are also provided.
Interstate 5
1-5 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the Bayfront area. It extends south to the
California-Mexico Border and to the north through downtown San Diego, providing
interstate travel through California, Oregon and Washington. The current average daily
traffic (ADT) volume on 1-5 is 149,000 vehicles per day (vpd) north of "E" Street, 140,000
vpd between "E" Street and "J" Street, and 141,000 vpd south of "J" Street. An interchange
between 1-5 and State Route (SR) 54 is currently under construction just north of the 1-
5/"E" Street interchange. When this interchange is completed, the existing interchange
configuration and traffic volumes will be altered substantially. These improvements are
described in the discussion of planned improvements.
"E" Street
"E" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its
current western terminus at Bay Boulevard to an interchange at I-80S. East of I-80S, "E"
Street becomes Bonita Road. West of 1-5, "E" Street has an ADT of approximately 10,000
3-46
90-14.01601/24/91
Jq -ll,r
'"
I
-
149.0
10.1 37.2 E Street
33.6
9.8
4.2 \ F Street
) 6.3 9.9
4.5
"0 144.0
~
cO
>. - G Street
-."
cO
- 6.5 H Street
30.6
>.
14 .0 ."
3.8 ~
>. " "0
~ > "'
.::< < 0
P- I Street ...
'" c cO
"' I
C - ~ -
.;: "'
-
"' "0
::; g
~
J Street
141.0
N
~
Source: City of Chula VISta Traffic Counts (Traffic Flow Report, June 30, 1990).
Existing Year 1990 ADT (in Thousands)
/9-//,1
Figure 3-8
vpd, and east of 1-5 the vpd is approximately 37,200. In the study area, "E" Street is
designated a four-lane Major Road in the City's General Plan.
"P' Street
"F" Street extends from its current terminus in the tidelands area west of Bay Boulevard to
Hilltop Drive in the middle of Chula Vista. Immediately adjacent to the project area and
west of 1-5, "F" Street is a two-lane road with an ADT of 4,200 vpd. East of 1-5, it exists
as a four-lane road with an ADT of 6,300 vpd. The Circulation Element of the General
Plan designates "F" Street as a Class I Collector between Broadway and Marina Parkway.
"If' Street
"H" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its
current terminus at the Rohr Industries main gate to east of I-80S where it is known as East
"H" Street. ADT east and west of 1-5 is approximately 30,600 vpd and 6,500 vpd,
respectively. The portion of "H" Street in the study area is designated in the General Plan
as a six-lane Major Road east of 1-5 and a four-lane Major Road west of 1-5.
Bay Boulevard
Bay Boulevard is a two-lane street that extends from "E" Street to Main Street at the
southern end of the Chula Vista City boundary. The intersection of Bay Boulevard and "E"
Street is an unsignalized "L" configuration with unimproved dirt roads leading north and
west. Bay Boulevard provides the only continuous north-south route west of 1-5. Currently,
this collector facility carries an ADT of 9,800 vpd just south of "E" Street and 3,800 vpd just
north of "J" Street. It is designated a Class II Collector in the General Plan.
Broadway Boulevard
Broadway is a four-lane collector street with a north-south orientation. It extends from the
National City limits south to the south San Diego city limits. Broadway is a major element
in the west Chula Vista circulation network. Broadway provides continuous north-south
travel just east of 1-5.
3-47
90-14.01601/24/91
19-,r,e:;
Most of the traffic attracted to the project from locations outside Chula Vista will access the
site via the I-5/"E" Street interchange. "F" Street will provide the primary access to the site
for trips originating in Chula Vista.
San Diego Trolley
The San Diego Trolley runs parallel to 1-5 along the east side of the freeway through Chula
Vista with stations located near "E" Street, "H" Street, and Palomar Street. The capacity of
streets crossing the San Diego Trolley tracks and nearby intersections is reduced due to
stoppages in traffic as the trolley passes. This reduction in capacity is due to the impact of
gate down time. The available supply of capacity during peak hours is reduced by the
number of trolley crossings per hour. At the present time, approximately eight trolleys cross
these arterials in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The accumulation of gate down times
during either a.m. and p.m. peak hours equals approximately seven minutes per hour.
During this down time period all traffic operations along the east-west arterials in the study
area are restricted, thus reducing available capacity. Over the course of typical peak hour
gate down time, operations represent a reduction in available capacity of approximately 10
to 12 percent.
It is important to recognize that the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) has
installed electronic trolley vehicle tagging devices which reduce gate down time at all at-
grade crossings in the City of Chula Vista. This reduction in gate down time results in a
savings of approximately 30 seconds per trolley crossing (for trolleys which stop at near-side
stations in advance of the crossing gates) or two minutes of additional arterial and/or
intersection capacity on the street system. This new device restores approximately three
percent capacity to each intersection. However, in the near future, (one to three years)
MTDB anticipates the addition of two more trolley vehicles per hour on the south line
through Chula Vista. This increase in trolley frequency will negatively impact available
capacity and result in overall reduction in capacity of approximately ten percent (assuming
all gate crossings are operating with the new electronic delay device). In the long term, the
number of trolleys could be increased further, resulting in an additional loss of available
capacity. Currently, however, MTDB does not plan to implement additional trolley service
beyond the ten vehicles per hour which will be operating in the near future.
3-48
90-14.01601/24/91
I q -/=1-0
Current Roadway Segment Operations
To provide a baseline condition for evaluating impacts on the circulation system, an analysis
of existing operations on study area roadway segments was completed. The existing roadway
classifications are illustrated in Figure 3-9. As shown, the majority of the roadways in the
study area are classified as collector facilities, with the exception of Marina Parkway which
is classified as a four-lane Major facility. These classifications are for current 1990
conditions and do not represent the General Plan designations for build out.
The Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element establishes the desired threshold ADT
volume levels on each roadway classification for levels of service (LOS) A through F. LOS
refers to the operational capability of a roadway segment with a given volume of traffic. At
LOS A, traffic flows are uninterrupted and at LOS F, traffic is substantially hindered by the
number of vehicles. LOS C or better is the operation level typically considered acceptable
in the City of Chula Vista and this standard (LOS C) was the basis for developing the new
General Plan Circulation Element. The roadway capacity and level of service standards for
each functional class in the City's General Plan is provided in Appendix D.
Table 3-1 provides a comparison of the existing traffic volumes, LOS C traffic volumes for
that roadway segment and the actual operating LOS for several roadways in the study area.
As shown, roadway segments on "E" and "H" Streets east of 1-5, are currently operating at
LOS F which is considered less than satisfactory. Both "F" Street and "H" Street west of 1-5
are operating at LOS A and Bay Boulevard varies between LOS A and F. It is important
to recognize that this analysis is based on a comparison of volume- to-capacity (V Ic) at LOS
C capacity levels. Thus, the analysis gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity
in relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the actual (functional)
capacity of the roadway. To more clearly define traffic operations and performance, the
following analysis of study area intersections is provided.
Current Intersection Operations
An analysis of the existing operation of intersections in the study area was also completed.
This analysis used the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method to determine levels
of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The ICU method uses the ratio of
3-49
90-14.01601/24/91
I q -I rl
LEGE
'"
,..!.
149.0
10.1 37.2 33.6 "E" Street
-- ---
9.
4.2 " 6.3 9.9 "F" Street
.......
-- .......
-- .......
I *'{:}~:
4.5 144.0 fiG" Street
6.5 30.6 "H" Street
3.8 III
>i: .. >
0(
;to: .. C
,y.::
c.:: "0 140.0 ;t "I" Street
ftl:: ~ ftl
c.: lD :0
.-=: >, 0
...:. 0
ftl:: ftl ;. -
;:l;.. .. lD >,
::. .: ftl
::;. :::- ;t
':::. :::" "0
::::....::.. ftl
...... ..... "J" Street 0
NO ":::::::::.:;::~::~::::::~::::~:~:~:~:;:;:;:;:;:;: ..
lD
Lane Major
I Collector 141.0
N
...
Project Site
::::::::: Four
_ Class
_____ Class II Collector
_ Class III Collector
Source: City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts (Traffic flow Report, June 30, 1990).
Existing Street Network and Traffic Volumes (in Thousands)
Year 1990 Conditions
I q - l:r~
Figure 3-9
Table 3-1
Existing Year 1989 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
LOS Cl
Planning V/C2
Level Capacity Actual
Street SeRment ADT ExistinJ!, Conditions Ratio LOS
"E" Street
Bay Boulevard - 1-5 10,100 7,500 1.35 F
1-5 - Woodlawn Avenue 37 ,200 22,000 1.69 F
Woodlawn Avenue -
Broadway 33,600 22,000 1.53 F
"F" Street
Tidelands A venue -
Bay Boulevard 4,200 7,500 0.56 A
Bay Boulevard -
Woodlawn Avenue 6,300 22,000 0.29 A
Woodlawn Avenue -
Broadway 9,900 22,000 0.45 A
"H" Street
Bay Boulevard - 1-5 6,500 22,000 0.30 A
1-5 - Broadway 30,600 22,000 1.39 F
Bay Boulevard
"E" Street - "F" Street 9,800 7,500 1. 31 F
"F" Street - "H" Street 4,500 7,500 0.60 A
"H" Street - "J" Street 3,800 7,500 0.51 A
Notes: I. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circulation Element facilities.
2. The vie ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
Source: Existing ADT data was derived from City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts
(Traffic Flow Report - June 30, 1990).
1&;-/':1.3
intersection demand to capacity for the critical movements to measure operation of the
intersection. A summary of the ranges of ICU for each level of service is provided below:
Level of Service
ICU
A
B
C
D
F
00.0 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
Greater than 1.00
To analyze existing conditions, turning movement volumes at key intersections were
compiled from previous traffic studies and the Chula Vista Public Works Department (see
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 in Appendix D.) Table 3-2 lists the existing levels of service at
intersections in the study area. All intersections~t. e at a LOS A 6ll~ring the a.m. peaf
~1t\1 -1
period. The intersection of "E" Str?J!.t a the 1- ~ound ramp and "H" Street at the 1-5
southbound ramp operate at La a uring t p.m. peak period, while the remaining
l\
intersections operate at LOS A dl: , during this time period.
) vI\- V
It should be noted that the existing turning movement counts on all streets were taken
during the normal peak period between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., and that the peak hour analysis
for the proposed project was conducted assuming this peak period. However, twenty-four
hour volume counts taken by the Chula Vista Public Works Department, in June 1989,
indicate that the p.m. peak hour on the Bayfront circulation system occurs from 3 p.m. to
4 p.m. The ramp volumes may also peak at this time, although the ramp volumes are
heavily affected by uses east of 1-5 that typically have later peak hours. The effect of the
proposed project and future development in the bayfront will be an extended peak period.
For unsignalized intersections and driveways, the LOS is correlated to the reserve or unused
capacity remaining after the demand volume has been served. The unsignalized analysis
procedure only applies to one- or two-way stop intersections. A formal procedure for the
determination of LOS for three- and four-way stops has not been established. However,
guidelines are available that allow for the evaluation of the capacity of these intersections.
For the T-intersection of Woodlawn Avenuel"F" Street, this analysis used the methodology
3-50
90-14.01601/24/91
I q-I '1-1
Table 3-2
'1-99& Existing Levels of Service
. Y car 1990 Conditions - Signalized Intersections
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
N/S Street E/VI Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "E II 5 treet .40 A .62 B
1-5 Northbound
Ramps "E" Street .70 B .84 D
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street .51 A .68 B
Broadway "F" Street .36 A .68 B
Bay Boulevard "H" Street .29 A .47 A
1-5 SCL:tbb.:>und
Ramps "H" Street .48 A .88 D
1-5 Northbound "H" Street .57 A .76 C
Broadway "E" Street .60 B .78 C
Broadway "H" Street .42 A .79 C
Source: JHK and Associates
I q - /1.5
recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual for unsignalized intersections. This analysis
revealed that this intersection operates at LOS A for the critical turning movements during
the AM and PM peak hour. ~Hfi9g:~n~:e.~p~M.P9Hf~P~~RHgjpq)'!9i;1;~~~\t\Hrn~~n~
9P~t~\~~t~$ii~~~~9'!!~l?gi9qiQgll!t!4m9R~f~t~$~tl~$th~R9!q~i,~t99HR9~~~t
(9in9~r{\.!~~g~~~.+!; The intersection of Bay Boulevard/"F" Street currently operates
at acceptable levels, based on the guidelines published in Highway Capacity Manual. These
guidelines indicate that this intersection currently operates at LOS C or better with reserved
or unused capacity.
Conformance with Threshold Standards-Existing Conditions
The following items identify the current "Threshold Standards" as they apply to the existing
traffic conditions. Standards are taken from the City of Chula Vista Growth Management
Plan, Exhibit "A," Traffic Element, dated November 17, 1987.
Threshold Standard:
1. City-wide: Maintain LOS 'C' or beller at all intersections, with the
exception that WS '0' may occur at signalized intersections for a
period not to exceed a total of two hours per day.
2. West of I-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet Standard
#1 above, may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but shall
not worsen.
3. City-wide: No intersection shall operate at LOS 'F' as measured for the
average weekday peak hour.
As shown on Tables 3-2 and 3-3, all study area ~~~~fi~ intersections (~RtfP.%~H9mg~~~P
!n!~f~HpP.~l currently operate at LOS C or better. Thus, full conformance with the
adopted standards is achieved for existing conditions.
Planned Improvements to the Circulation System
Planned improvements to the circulation network include construction of Marina Parkway,
reconfiguration of the northern portion of the 1-5 interchange at "E" Street and completion
of SR 54 north of "E" Street. These improvements are described below and the
reconfigured intersections are illustrated in Appendix D.
3-51
90-14.016 02/01/91
,,-/1-"
Table 3-3
Existing Year 1990 Conditions
Unsignalized Intersections Levels of Service
Intersection
N/S Street E/W Street
Bay Boulevard "F" Street
Woodlawn Avenue "F" Street
AM Peak
v Ie Ratio
.63
LOS
B
PM Peak
v Ie Ratio LOS
.28
A
.61 B
.46 A
J Cf-I r:r
Marina Parkway
Marina Parkway is a planned extension of "E" Street that would extend west past Bay
Boulevard and turn south to connect with the existing Marina Parkway. Marina Parkway will
eventually provide an additional north-south access route west of 1-5 between "E" Street and
"J" Street.
State Route 54
A portion of SR 54 between 1-5 and its existing terminus near 1-805 is currently under
construction and will provide a major link between 1-5 and 1-805. "E" Street currently
carries a relatively high amount of through traffic between 1-5 and 1-805 and the completion
of this expressway is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on "E" Street by
providing an alternate route. The reduction in traffic volumes is anticipated to be as much
as 15 percent.
"BOO StreetfI-5 Interchange Reconfiguration
As part of the SR 54 improvements, Caltrans is planning to reconstruct the southbound
ramps on 1-5 at "E" Street. The southbound off-ramp would be realigned to end at the
existing intersection of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard. The existing southbound on-ramp
would remain in place, and an additional loop ramp from westbound "E" Street to
southbound 1-5 would be added in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. This
reconfiguration would eliminate left turns at the existing southbound on-ramp from
westbound "E" Street. Bay Boulevard would remain as the southerly (northbound) approach
to the newly constructed intersection, but access to Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street would
not be provided at this intersection.
In addition, a direct ramp from SR 54 to the southbound 1-5 ramp will merge with the
southbound 1-5 to "E" Street ramp, and the northbound ramp from "E" Street will diverge
and connect with the northbound 1-5 to eastbound SR 54 ramp. This will provide direct
access to SR 54 from "E" Street without requiring merges on the freeway.
3-52
90-]4.01601/24/91
1'I-/=1g
IMPACfS
Impacts from the proposed project relate to traffic circulation in the project vicinity, and to
on-site parking.
The proposed Rohr Industries office complex would consist of a three-story building with
245,000 square feet of office space and 730 parking spaces. According to@j~~gA1Y!~g9
g,.%~99!gH9Ug;WPY~rQm~n~(~~~9) San Diego Traffic Generators !!qli!!q~, September
1989, this project would generate 17 trips per 1,000 square feet or roughly 4,165 daily trips,
11 percent of which would occur during the AM peak hour and 12 percent of which would
occur during the PM peak.
Traffic Circulation
To identify potential impacts to the circulation system, the anticipated traffic volumes
resulting from project development were distributed to the system within the study area.
The analysis was completed for two time periods, in the 1992 "near future" and at "Build-
out." Build-out represents a future date (i.e., beyond year 2010), when the City's circulation
system is constructed consistent with the build-out of the adopted General Plan.
PrQject Impacts - Year 1992 Conditions
Future Roadway Segment Operations
The proposed project would generate approximately 4,165 daily trips. This calculation was
based on a BtlsiHess j'lark/iHdtlstrial geHeratioH rate ~~[g~q9mm~[9!~M'91IPH!~!j.jHg(!H
~;9~~~gt~QQiQQQ~qH~r~~~~~J!r!Rg~#~r~!!pn!~~~ of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet
(SANDAG, 1989). To calculate the traffic volumes in the study area in the year 1992, a
three percent growth rate per year was assumed. Assumptions regarding lane and
intersection geometry are shown in the Traffic Appendix; generally the "E" Streetjl-5 and
1-5jSR-54 freeway interchanges were assumed to be complete and fully operational. The
Marina Parkway extension was not assumed to be completed by 1992. Traffic from the
project was distributed 75 percent to 1-5j"E" Street and 25 percent to other major cross-
streets. At the "E" Street interchange and 1-5, 54 percent of the traffic was assumed to go
3-53
90-14.01601/25/91
Ie; -1=1-9
north on the freeway, 36 percent was assumed to go south on the freeway and 10 percent
was assumed to go east on "E" Street. On other major streets, 15 percent was distributed
to "F' Street and 10 percent on Bay Boulevard south of "P" Street.
The future traffic volumes with the project trips distributed to the 1992 circulation network
are shown in Figure 3-10. An analysis of the LOS at several segments in the study area was
completed and the resultant V\C ratios and LOS classifications are summarized in Table
3-4. In general, roadways east of 1-5 would operate over capacity and there would be
congestion on these segments. "F" Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate
at LOS B or above. These forecasted levels of service are a continuation of existing
conditions. The exception is Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F" Street which would
decline from LOS C to F with inclusion of annual traffic growth and the project.
As noted above, it is important to recognize that this analysis is based on a comparison of
V IC at LOS C capacity levels, thus giving an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity
in relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the actual (functional)
capacity of the roadway. To more clearly define traffic operations and performance, the
following analysis of study area intersections is provided.
Future Intersection Operations
An analysis of the resultant LOS at pertinent intersections in the study area was also
completed and is summarized in Table 3-5. The intersection geometry and a.m. and p.m.
peak period turning movement assumptions are provided in Appendix D. Development of
the project and anticipated growth in area wide traffic would result in a degradation of
service at several intersections. In the p.m. peak hour for 1992 conditions with the project,
the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS of D or worse. This is a
significant impact related to both the project and cumulative area development.
3-54
90-14.016 01/01/91
,'I-Iff)
Table 3-4
Segment Volume To Capacity Analysis
Existing And Year 1992 Conditions with Project Trips
Roadway ADT V!C
Capacity Volumes Ratio LOS
Segment Year 1992 92 + Project Year 1992 Year 1992
Bay Boulevard
"E" Street to "F" Street 7,500 13,500 1.80 F
"F" Street to "H" Street 7,500 5,200 0.69 B
"H" Street to "J" Street 7,500 11,200 0.56 A
"E" Street
Bay Boulevard to 1-5 22,000 13,700 0.62 B
1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue 22,000 311,600 1.57 F
"F" Street
Tidelands Avenue to
Bay Boulevard 22,000 5,100 0.23 A
Bay Boulevard to
Woodlawn Avenue 22,000 5,900 0.27 A
Woodlawn Avenue to
Broadway 22,000 11 ,1100 0.52 A
"H" Street
Bay Boulevard to 1-5 22,000 7,1100 0.311 A
1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue 30,000 32,500 1.08 F
Notes: 1. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circllla tion Element facilities.
2. The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
* Sources: See Table 3-1, Figures 3-1 and 5-1.
** Source: JHK & Associates distribution of traffic based on existing
plus project conditions for Year 1992 (see Figure 5-11).
,&i-Itf
Table 3-5
Summary of Study Area Intersections Levels of Service
AM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Existing Conditions
Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N/S Street E/W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
Bay Blvd.!
1-5 SB Ramp "E" St./Marina Pkwy 0.40 A 0.69 B
1-5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.70 B 0.79 C
1-5 SB Ramp "H" Street 0.48 A 0.53 A
1-5 NB Ramp "H" Street 0.57 A 0.62 B
Bay Blvd. "H" Street 0.29 A 0.32 A
Woodlawn Ave. "E" Street 0.51 A 0.57 A
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.67 B
Broadway "F" Street 0.36 A 0.41 A
Broadway "H" Street 0.42 A 0.45 A
PM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Existing Conditions
Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N/S Street E/W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
Bay Blvd.!
1-5 SB Ramp "E" St./Marina Pkwy 0.62 B 0.79 C
1-5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.84 D 0.90 E*
1-5 SB Ramp "H" Street 0.88 D 0.92 E*
1-5 NB Ramp "H" Street 0.76 C 0.82 D*
Bay Blvd. "H" Street 0.47 A 0.59 A
Woodlawn Ave. "E" Street 0.68 B 0.75 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.68 B 0.75 C
Broadway "E" Street 0.78 C 0.85 D*
Broadway "H" Street 0.99 C 0.85 D*
Note: . IBaiente tjig!9\~J!)'~~#iji(~~J;H9#~W!A~W!~r~9.9!r~ mitigation to achieve acceptable levels of
service for Year 1992collditions.
1f:J-lg~
'"
I
-
Project Site
5.2
4.2
't>
~
a:l
>.
III
a:l
LEGEND
>t ".
,..: .:
~: :
c..:: :
. .
JI[J:::
.... ....
"::::~.::;::~:::~:;::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .
::::::::: Four Lane Major
_ Class I Collector
...._ Class II Collector
- Class III Collector
160.1
34.6
5.9
11.4
N
..
"E" Street
"F" Street
"G" Street
"H" Street
"I" Street
>.
III
:J
't>
III
o
..
a:l
FUTURE STREET NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN THOUSANDS)
YEAR 1992 CONDmONS
Source: JHK & Associates
32.5
....
>
<
c
:J
III
148.7 =a
o
o
liJ
. "J" Street
149.8
J '1-11:;
Figure 3-10
Impact of Project Trips - Year 1992 P.M. Peak Hour
Impacted Intersections
Project's Contribution
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "E" Street
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "H" Street
1-5 Southbound Ramp at "H" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Bay Boulevard at "F" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
4.6 percent
0.9 percent
4.5 percent
4.7 percent
53.2 percent
Not Applicable'
,
The contribution of projected traffic at this intersection is negligible. However,
annual growth will playa vital part in the deterioration of the intersection. This
intersection has been disregarded in this analysis but should be taken into account
for future Chula Vista expansion.
Future Parking and Access Operations
The proposed project comprises 245,000 square feet of office space for 1,268 employees, and
includes provisions for a surface parking lot with space for 730 vehicles. Appendix D details
the specific types of uses and office space by department, which in summary, reveals that
this project more closely resembles a typical description of a corporate office/research
development use. However, the approach for analysis was to review the project under its
ultimate potential use, which could be a general office commercial use, which is consistent
with the approach used throughout this document.
The City of Chula Vista Planning staff has concluded that the City's parking standard for
general office use of 3-1/3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area should be used as a
minimum based on the proponent's contention that the building could be converted to
general office use in the future. However, since Rohr has submitted a list of the number
of employees for types of uses in this building, it was determined that the appropriate
standard to use is one based on occupancy, which is the City's employee-based standard of
one space for every 1.5 employees.
A comparison of parking standards for the City of Chula Vista and five other coastal
jurisdictions in San Diego County was made. These standards are shown on the next page.
3-55
90-14.01601/24/91
/9- /g'l
Jurisdiction
City of Chula Vista
City of San Diego - Coastal
City of San Diego - Non-coastal
County of San Diego
City of Oceanside
City of Encinitas
City of Carlsbad
Parking Standard for
General Commercial Office
3-1/3 spaces/I,OOO square feet
1 space per 1.5 employees
5 spaces/l,OOO square fee
3-1/3 spaces/l,OOO square feet
4.5 spaces/l,OOO square feet
3-1/3 spaces/l,OOO square feet
5 spaces/l,OOO square feet
4 spaces/l,OOO square feet
Required Parking
(245.000 sq. ft.)
817
845
1,225
817
1,103
817
1,225
980
Based on the City of Chula Vista employee-based parking standard, the proposed project
parking supply is deficient by 115 parking spaces, or 13 percent; and is deficient by 79
spaces, or 10 percent, when compared with the City's minimum standard for general office
use. The ratio of standard sized cars to compact cars (80 percent:20 percent) is sufficient
to accommodate a varied mix of parked vehicles.
The only onsite traffic circulation design-related issue is the limited access to and from the
parking areas. Currently, the facility has two entrances/exits spread 210 feet apart on "F"
Street. The spacing is within the industry standard of 100 feet between access points.
However, with parking at 100 percent occupancy and commercial office traffic generation
peaking characteristics, delays may occur as vehicles utilize the only two egress points, both
leading onto "F' Street.
Bikeway Facilities
Two streets in the study area are targeted for bikeway development according to a Draft
Bikeway Plan (JHK, 1989): "F" Street, west of Broadway, and Bay Boulevard, both of which
currently have no bikeway facilities. In the 1989 report, it was recommended that Class II
bikeways should be provided on both roadway facilities. Class II bikeways are bicycle lanes
for preferential use by bicyclists within the paved area of the roadway. Bicycle lanes are
delineated by striping and signage. The City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards Policy
recommends that an additional total of ten feet of right-of-way be dedicated along routes
which are identified for Class II Bikeways. The Class II bikeways thus require five feet of
3-56
Iq-I'~
90-14.01601/24/91
dedicated pavement on each side of the street to provide the bike facility. Development of
this project would improve "F" Street to Class I standards and would also include a bike
lane. However, there is yet no provision for a bike lane along Bay Boulevard, which could
significantly impact the Bikeway plan recommendations.
Project Impact~--Build-out Conditions
Build-out Segment Operations
SANDAG has run a model to calculate traffic volumes given build-out of the Chula Vista
General Plan land uses and circulation improvements. In this model, the site and
surrounding area were anticipated to be developed with a park and retail center for a total
of 1,300 trips. It should be noted that the assumption used in the SANDAG model is
incorrect when compared to what was adopted. The General Plan actually designates the
site and immediate surrounding area for a park and industrial development. These uses
would generate 1,424 trips. Because of the very minor difference (124 trips) between the
adopted General Plan and SANDAG model, the model was used without correction.
To calculate the impacts under build-out conditions of surrounding cumulative development
and the project, the total number of trips anticipated by the SANDAG model (1,300) were
subtracted and the project generated trips were added (4,165), resulting in a difference of
unaccounted for trips of 2,865. The total number of trips resulting from surrounding and
project development were distributed to the build-out circulation system to determine
impacts. It should be noted that the project would generate a total of 2,865 trips that had
not been anticipated in planning by SANDAG, or by the City of Chula Vista in planning for
circulation under build-out conditions.
Figure 3-11 illustrates the project-generated trips distributed onto the build-out ADT as well
as future build-out road classifications. The distribution pattern of the trips generated by the
project was the same as the 1992 analysis. Given the future .ADT and classifications, an
analysis of roadway segments was completed. A summary of the results is provided in Table
3-6. As shown, the entire length of Bay Boulevard, "E" Street, "F" Street and "H" Street
would operate at LOS C or better and there would be no impacts.
3-57
90-14.01601/24/91
/ q-/~/P
'"
I
-
N
..
46.7
.... ",'
',' ,',
',' ,',
,', ','
::: :::
.:. :.: "'"'''' t
2.0 .. ........:... .~............"'......"..~l:~"...........:
...:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.....:...:..................... .................................................:;.
.... ,'.
'.:. .:.
:.: :.:
.:. .:.
11111: "F" Street
12.2
1l.2
LEGEND
_ Six Lane Major
::::::::: Four Lane Major
_ Class I Collector
_____ Class II Collector
_ Class In Collector
II
:::.:::
:~: ~~~
~~~ t.
',' ....
.... ....
',' ....
.... ....
,', ....
.... ,',
.... ','
.... .... ............,...:.;.; .;. :.:
.... .... ,
.... .... ,
.~:: .:::. ,
.... .... I
.::....::.. I
I
::; ':::: ~I
~.:: ~:
~:::: lC I
ol ~~: :;01
l... lC!
:i:.} I
~\:;::::::::::>:.:..:.:.:............................ t.... '. .........................~~:~.:s..~(.~~~................l~ t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
....:.::.:.;.;::.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;..: :.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::;::::: .:.:.:.:...:.....:.......................................::
I
I
I
6.91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.1i
,
,
,
'.:.:.:.:.:. '4. ...
... ,.,
II
.. .'
:: ::
-----------~ .:
.' .'
.: .:
:. :.
.' ..
:: ::
.: .:
:. :.
.. ..
:: ::
:: ::
j~~ j~
"G" Street
------------
Project Site
36.1
19.3
"H" Street
..
>
<
c
1J
.!
215.8 -g
o
~
)11 ili
:: :::
:: :::
'. ...
". .,
:. :.
"I" Street
-----------
-------------
Source:
JHK c!c Associates and City of
Chula Vista General Plan Circulation
Element, adopted June, 1989.
FUTURE STREET NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN THOUSANDS)
BUD.DOUT CONDmONS WITH PROJECT TRIPS
I , - /<4 1-
Figure 3-11
Table 3-6
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis
Build-Out Conditions with Project Trips
LOS Cl
Planning
Level
Capacity Additional
Builclout Builclout Project Total V/C2
Intersection Conditions Volume** Trips*** Volume Ratio LOS
Bay Boulevard
Between
"E" Street &.
"F" Street 12,000 11,200 3,1211 7,3211 .61 A
"F" Street &.
"G" Street 12,000 6,500 1116 6,916 .58 A
"G" Street &.
"H" Street 12,000 6,600 1116 7,016 .58 A
"E" Street
Between
Bay Boulevard
&. 1-5 30,000 8,500 3,1211 11 ,6211 .39 A
1-5 &.
Woodlawn Avenue 30,000 25,900 500 26,1100 .88 C
Woodlawn Avenue
&. Broadway 30,000 21,500 1150 21,950 .73 A
"F" Street
Between
Tidelands Avenue
&. Bay Boulevard 22,000 5,500 200 5,700 .25 A
Bay Boulevard &.
Woodlawn 22,000 10,800 1125 11 ,22.5 .51 A
Woodlawn Avenue
&. Broadway 22,000 11,800 1100 12,200 .55 A
1'J-ISg
Tablc 3-6 (continued)
SCDllent Volumc to Capacity Analysis
Duild-Out Conditions with Project Trips
LOS Cl
Planning
Level
Capacity Additional
Builclout Builclout Project Total V/C2
Intersection Conditions Volume"" Trips""" Volume ~ LOS
"H" Street
Between Bay & 1-5 30,000 4,484 400 4,880 .16 A
1-5 & Woodlawn 40,000 36,000 100 36,100 .90 C
Woodlawn &
Broadway 40,000 19,179 90 19,269 .48 A
Notes: 1. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circulation Element facilities.
2. The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
Notes: " Source: See Figure 5-7 and Table 3-1.
"" Source: SANDAG
""" Source: JHK & Associates Distribution of Traffic Based on Figure 5-7.
I q -/g,
Build-out Intersection Operations
An ICU analysis was also completed to determine the level of service at specific
intersections. In this instance only the "worst-case" p.m. peak hOUT was considered. The
results are summarized in Table 3-7. As shown, the following intersections would operate
at poor levels of service under build-out conditions:
Impact of Project Trips - Build-out PM Peak HOUT
Impacted Intersections
Proiect's Contribution
1-5 Northbound ramp at "E" Street
1-5 Northbound ramp at "H" Street
1-5 Southbound ramp at "H" Street
Woodlawn at "E" Street
Bay Boulevard at "H" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
4.9 percent
0.7 percent
2.02 percent
5.9 percent
7.1 percent
Not Applicable
As shown, these significant impacts are related largely to cumulative growth in the study
area. The intersections with unacceptable levels of service under build-out conditions (p.m.
peak hour only) are, with three exceptions, the same as those identified in the near-term
(1992) case. The intersections of Bay Boulevard/"H" Street and Woodlawn/"E" Street are
intersections which were acceptable in the near-term (1992 p.m. peak hour) yet worsen in
the build-out condition. The intersection of Broadway and "E" Street is slated for
improvement in the City General Plan following 1992. For this reason, it is assumed that
although the street will carry an LOS of D in 1992, service will improve in build-out.
Foi: .ili~bUild~oijt~orid.(di?~lit;~~el:nteh;ectlciii..i,lf .;.'WoOdlawn. AVenuer1)!Si,tul;..it. ..js
asiliime4tbatt~4e:yeIopirie*~Qt'tp4W {jpdliiwn A\!~!tu~. d:liijdor( aSretx>!liri)~P:(led ; iri . the
adQPtetlGllijlaY~$t~veii~i;lir?1!i:A);...'I011 . ~v#(l@rietl;..'l:'hii~i ilUs ...uri~g~aliie~. ''T'
ilitefseclionwiUbecome~typiC41Jour"way .int~rsecti!>ll,\\tithaMw .ti:~ffiesigha]iri
operati~n;
3-58
90-14.01602/01/91
1'1-/90
MITIGATION MEASURES
1992 Conditions
Traffic Circulation
There are six intersections identified in the near-term, 1992 case where intersections would
operate at a service level that is less than acceptable, i.e., LOS D or worse. With the
exception of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street, these intersections would operate at this level
of service even without project development.
The intersection of "E" Street and Broadway is projected to have a 1992, p.m. peak hour
LOS of D with annual growth and with project traffic. To mitigate this cumulative impact,
an exclusive right-turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound Broadway must be
provided. This additional lane would improve the LOS to C, facilitate smoother traffic flow
from 1-5, and would reduce the impact to less than significant. Because of the project's
small contribution (4.7 percent) to this cumulative impact, the applicant should be required
to provide a proportional amount of funds for this improvement based on the Benefit
Assessment District (recommended in the Cumulative Impacts discussion, Section 10.0).
The intersection of "E" Street and 1-5 northbound currently operates at an LOS A. With
near-term, annual growth in the City of Chula Vista, the LOS will drop to E. The project's
contribution to this impact is 4.6 percent. To mitigate this cumulative impact, the
implementation of two improvements must be made prior to or concurrent with, the
development of the Rohr project. This requirement is necessary due to the near-term
extremely poor conditions at this intersection.
These two improvements include:
. Widen westbound "E" Street at the northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-
turn lane from westbound "E" Street.
. Restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to provide an exclusive right-turn
lane and a shared left and right-turn lane.
3-59
90-14.01602/01/91
/q,./tf/
Table 3-7
PM Peak Hour Intersection lCU Analysis Build-Out Conditions
North/South Street East/West Street leu LOS
Bay Boulevard/
1-5 Soutbound Ramp "E" Street 0.&3 D*
1-5 Northbound "E" Street 0.91 E*
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street 0.&& D*
Broadway "E" Street 0.77 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.66 B
Bay Boulevard "H" Street 0.&4 D*
1-5 Southbound "H" Street 0.&9 D*
1-5 Northbound "H" Street 1.15 F*
Broadway "H" Street 1.10 F*
Notes: Table constructed assuming 1992 Roadway Configurations without Project
Mitigation.
* Indicates those intersections which will require mitigation to achieve
acceptable levels of service in the future for buildout conditions.
/Cj-/t!J;}
These mitigation measures would improve the operation to LOS C in the near-term, and
would reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant. Because of the project's small
contribution to this cumulative impact, the applicant would be required to provide a
proportional amount of funds for this improvement based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
The interchange at "H" Street and 1-5 both northbound and southbound would be severely
congested in the near future (1992) as well as under build-out conditions. Under current
conditions, LOS varies between A and C; with near-term annual growth in the City of ChuIa
Vista the southbound ramp drops to LOS E, and under build-out conditions, the northbound
ramp drops to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The primary contributor to this worsening
condition is the cumulative growth in the region. The project's contribution to the
northbound and southbound ramps is 0.9 percent and 4.5 percent respectively. To mitigate
the cumulative impacts, double left-turn only lanes onto "H" Street accessing both the
northbound and southbound ramps should be provided. This would improve intersection
operation to LOS C in the near-term, and would reduce the impact to a level below
significant. Because of the project's small contribution to this cumulative impact, the
applicant would be required to contribute a proportional amount of funds toward providing
this improvement based on the Benefit Assessment District.
The intersection of "F' Street and Bay Boulevard would operate at LOS D with
development of the proposed project and near-term growth. The primary reason for a poor
level of service in the future at this intersection is the four-way stop control at this
intersection, and the limited amount of capacity of the approaches to the intersection. The
project's contribution to this impact is 53 percent. To accommodate the increased traffic
flow, the intersection must be signalized, and Bay Boulevard north of "F" Street must be
designed for traffic only and on-street parking must be eliminated. Bike lanes must also be
included. The removal of this on-street parking would result in the loss of 31 existing
parking spaces. The City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department must decide where the
parking would be replaced. The existing eight-foot wide parking areas adjacent to the east
curb lines must be dedicated to normal traffic flow. The resulting cross section will provide
for one lane of travel in each direction, a center two-way turn lane, and a bike lane in each
direction. "F" Street must also be re-striped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard to
provide for two lanes of travel out from the intersection and three lanes in toward the
3-60
90-14.01602/01/91
I 'i - ''1.3
intersection. The three inbound lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one
through, and one shared through- and right-turn lane. The wests810lRd aRd northbound ~n!:!.
~2'HfH99!:W:9 approaches will also require modification to provide one left-turn lane, one
through, and one right-turn lane. West of the intersection, there must also be a five-foot
wide bike lane provided on the Rohr side of the street.
The pavement width of Bay Boulevard north of "F" Street is only 22 feet, however, and 28
to 34 feet of pavement is needed to accommodate the proposed double-left turn maneuver
from eastbound "F" Street. Thus, another 6 to 12 feet of road widening and pavement along
the east curbline of Bay Boulevard north of the intersection for approximately 100 to 200
feet would be necessary. This option may require the acquisition of a limited amount of
additional right-of-way. With these improvements, future LOS would improve to C and the
impact would be reduced to a level below significant. Because of the project's 53 percent
contribution to this impact, the applicant must provide 53 percent of the funds toward this
improvement based on the Benefit Assessment District. This improvement must be
completed before the Rohr building may be occupied.
Annual growth in volumes alone is expected to result in poor levels of service at the
intersection of Broadway and "H" Street. The project's contribution is negligible and the
applicant would not be required to contribute funds toward improving this intersection.
Parking and Access
The project requires from 79 to 115 additional parking spaces to meet local parking
standards. The applicant must meet this standard by reducing the size of the building and
number of employees; or by the use of additional subterranean or above-grade parking to
meet at least the minimum standard; or by the provision of additional, permanent offsite
surface parking adjacent to the site on the Rohr campus.
Since the demand for parking would be directly tied to the number of corporate employees
occupying the building, it is further recommended by the City of Chula Vista Planning staff
that the development agreement for the project include a limit on the number of employees
consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard and subject to an appropriated
third-party monitoring program. The number of employees could only be increased if
3-61
90-14.01602/01/91
ICf-I'1'1
existing parking was found to be adequate or if additional parking could be provided. The
parking demand should be monitored over a year following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building. The monitoring program should be comprised of a random survey of
parking demand, including a bi-weekly check on different days and different times of the day
as selected by the City's third party monitor. The applicant's Traffic Management Program
for this site must be completed as a condition of approval for this project.
The applicant should work with the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that access to and from
the site would be adequate. Through these discussions and prior to final design, the City
Traffic Engineer could recommend alternatives for additional access to the parking area
(possibly to and from Bay Boulevard with an easement through the SDG&E right-of-way
east of the site) if it is determined to be warranted by the City.
Bikeway Facilities
The applicant must work closely with the City Traffic Engineering Department during the
development of the off-site roadway improvement plans associated with this project to
ensure that adequate right-of-way is dedicated and adequate pavement width is provided to
allow for the implementation of the ultimate Class II bikeway facilities on "F" Street
adjacent to the project site. For Bay Boulevard, between "E" and "F" Street, it is
recommended that the City of Chula Vista coordinate the development of the new
recommended striping plan for Bay Boulevard which will provide for one lane of travel in
each direction with a center two-way left turn lane and bikelanes in both the north and
south direction.
Build-out Conditions
No specific mitigation is required for this project under build-out conditions as all of the
project impacts represent such a small incremental contribution to build-out conditions.
Implementation of the recommended Circulation Element of the General Plan would
provide the necessary capacity in the Bayfront Area.
3-62
90-14.016 02/01/91
,q-RS
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Development of the project would result in generation of 4,165 trips of which 2,865 are not
anticipated in SANDAG or City of Chula Vista models for future development and
circulation planning. Traffic volumes in the study area are currently approaching or
exceeding capacity on roads east of 1-5, while roads west of 1-5 typically operate at much
lower volumes and flow more smoothly. With construction of the project and cumulative
near-term growth (1992) there would be six intersections where LOS would drop below C.
There are measures available to increase capacity at the five intersections and impacts
would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of these measures is not the
responsibility of the applicant. The intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street would have
an LOS of D, which is considered a significant impact. Signalization, road widening and
restriping 6 to 12 additional feet would be required of the applicant to mitigate this impact.
In the build-out condition, cumulative growth would result in significant impacts to study
area intersections. The applicant is flffi responsible for mitigating these cumulative build-out
impacts ~gl~PSf~n!!i~~~~!!!fI~n!9j~$~...!*iH!!~PH~~~....~9!ASfmR~!Ii
3-63
90-14.01602/01/91
I '1-1'1 (,
3.5 AIR OUALITY
EXISTING CONDmONS
Meteorology /Oimate Setting
The climate of Chula Vista, as with all of California, is largely controlled by the strength
and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The high
pressure ridge over the West Coast creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning
cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, clean daytime onshore breezes and little temperature
change throughout the year. Limited rainfall occurs in winter when the high center is
weakest and farthest south. Summers are often completely dry, with an average of 10 inches
of rain falling each year from November to early April.
Unfortunately, the same atmospheric conditions that create a desirable living climate,
combine to limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the
large population attracted to San Diego County. The coastal onshore winds diminish quickly
when they reach the foothill communities east of San Diego, and the sinking air within the
offshore high pressure system forms a massive temperature inversion that traps all air
pollutants near the ground. The resulting horizontal and vertical stagnation, in conjunction
with ample sunshine, cause a number of reactive pollutants to undergo photochemical
reactions and form smog that degrades visibility and irritates tear ducts and nasal
membranes.
Because coastal areas are well ventilated by fresh breezes during the daytime, they generally
do not experience the same air pollution problems found in some areas east of San Diego.
Unhealthful air quality within the San Diego Air Basin's coastal communities, such as Chula
Vista, may occur at times in summer during limited localized stagnation, but is mainly
associated with the occasional intrusion of polluted air from the Los Angeles Basin,
primarily affecting cities in the North County. Localized elevated pollution levels may also
occur in winter during calm, stable conditions near freeways, shopping centers or other
major traffic sources. Such "hot spot" clean air violations are highly localized in space and
time. Except for this occasional inter-basin intrusion and localized air pollution "hot spots,"
coastal community air quality is generally quite good.
3-64
90-14.006 01/24/91
I ,-It:! ~
Local meteorological conditions typically conform well to the regional pattern of strong
onshore winds by day, especially in summer, and weak offshore winds at night, especially in
winter. These local wind patterns are driven by the temperature difference between the
normally cool ocean and the warm interior, and steered by local topography. In summer,
moderate breezes of 8-12 mph blow onshore by day, and may continue all night as a light
onshore breeze, as the land remains warmer than the ocean. In winter, the onshore flow
is weaker, and the wind direction reverses in the evening as the land becomes cooler than
the ocean. While daytime winds are mainly off the ocean from the W-NW, winds do, at
times, shift into the WSW or even SW. When this happens, air pollution emissions from
Mexico are carried across the border.
Given the scope of development and the lack of pollution controls across the border,
international transport is an important air pollution concern. Such cross-border emissions
do not generally affect the Chula Vista area because it takes several hours of transport for
such pollutants to react and become photochemical smog, but, like the pollution
recirculation from the Los Angeles Basin, it means that no matter what pollution controls
are implemented within the County, there may still be smog from other sources beyond the
County's control.
Both the onshore flow of marine air and the nocturnal drainage winds are accompanied by
two characteristic temperature inversion conditions that further control the rate of air
pollution dispersal throughout the air basin. The daytime cool onshore flow is capped by
a deep layer of warm, sinking air. Along the coastline, the marine air layer beneath the
inversion cap is deep enough to accommodate any locally generated emissions. As the layer
moves inland, however, pollution sources (especially automobiles) add pollutants from below
without any dilution from above. Any such CO "hot spots" are highly localized in space and
time (if they occur at all), but occasionally stagnant dispersion conditions are an important
air quality concern relative to continued intensive development of the Chula Vista area.
The intensity of development east of Chula Vista is small enough, however, that non-local
background pollution levels during nocturnal stagnation periods are relatively low. The local
airshed, therefore, has considerable excess dispersive capacity that limits the potential for
creation of any localized air pollution "hot spots."
3-65
90-14.006 01/24/91
I q - /9 t
Air Quality Setting
Ambient Air Ouality Standards (AAOS)
To assess the air quality impact of any proposed development, that impact, together with
baseline air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards.
These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of
safety, to protect sensitive receptors, i.e., the public health and welfare. They are designed
to protect those people most susceptible to respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the
elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and
persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate periodic
exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before
adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic ozone
exposure to levels at or even below the hourly standard can have adverse, long-term,
pulmonary health effects.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national AAQS, with states retaining
the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. Because
California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and
because of unique meteorological problems in the state, there is considerable diversity
between state and federal standards currently in effect in California. Both the state and
national standards are shown in Table 3-8.
Baseline Air Ouality
There are daily routine measurements of air quality distributions made in Chula Vista by
the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the agency responsible for
air quality planning, monitoring and enforcement in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB).
Table 3-9 summarizes the last five complete years (final 1989 data have not been officially
published) of monitoring data from the Chula Vista station located at 80 East "J" Street.
Progress toward cleaner air is seen in almost every pollution category. The only national
clean air standard that was exceeded throughout the five-year monitoring period was the
hourly ozone standard which was exceeded an average of three-to-four times per year (once
per year is allowable). The more stringent state standards for ozone and for total suspended
3-66
90-14.006 01/24/91
19-1'19
Table 3-8
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging California Standards National Standards
Pollutant
Time concentration Method . Primary Secondery Method
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet 0.12 ppm Same as Ethylene
(160 uglm3) Photometry (235 uglm3) Primary Std. Cherriluminescence
6 Hour 9.0 ppm Non-dispersiv8 9.0 ppm Non-dispersiv8
Carbon (10 mglm3) Infrared (10 mglm3) Same as Infrared
Monoxide 20 ppm Spectrnscopy 35 ppm Primary Stds. SpectrOscopy
1 Hour (23 mglm3) (NOlA) (40 mgtm3) (NOlA)
Annual - 0.053 ppm Gas Phase
Average Gas Phase (100 uglm3) Same as
Nitrogen Chemilumi. Chemilumi.
Dioxide Primary Std.
1 Hour 0.25 ppm nascence nascence
(470 uglm3) -
Annual 60 uglm3 .
Average . (0.03 ppm)
24 Hour 0.05 ppm . 365 uglm3 .
Sulfur (131 uglm3) Ultraviolet (0.14 ppm) Pararosoaniline
DiOXide Fluorescence , 300 uglm3
3 Hour - . (0.5 ppm)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm . -
(655 uglm3)
Annual Size S.:ecuve
Geometric 30 uglm3 Inlet High . - .
Suspended Mean Volume Sampler
and
Panlcula18 Gravimetric InertJaI
Maner 24 Hour 50 uglm3 150 uglm3 Same as Saperaticn
(PM,,) Analysis Primary and
Annual Stds. Gravimetric
Arithmetic . - 50 ug/m3 Analysis
Mean
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug/m3 Turbidimetric
Barium Sulfate . -
30 Day 1.5 ug/m3 - .
Lead Average AlDmic AtomiC
Calendar Absorp~on Same as Absorption
Quaner . 1.5 ug/m3 Primary Std.
Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium Hydr. . . .
Sulfide (42 ug/m3) oxide STAactan
Vinyl Chloride 0.010 ppm T edlar Bag
24 Hour CoIle~on. Gas - - .
(chloroethene) (26 ug/m3) Chromatography
Visibility In sufficient amount to reduce the
prevailing visibility to Ie.. than
Aeduang 1 Observalion 10 miles when the relative . - .
Particles humidity is less than 700/.
Applicable Only in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin
Carbon 6 Hour 6 ppm NOlA .
Monoxide (7 mgtm3) . -
Visibility In sutfic:iem amoum to reduce the
Aeduang 1 Observalion pnsvaiiing visibility 10 less than - . .
30 miles when the relative
Particles humidity is less than 70"1.,
ARB Fact Shey. f9 tav~'liBB)
Table 3-9
ChuIa Vista Area Air Quality Monitoring SnmmllTY - 1984-88
(Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maxima for Periods Indicated)
PoUutanUStandard 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
~:
I-Hour> 0.09 ppm 18 28 20 IS 17
I-Hour> 0.12 ppm 4 4 2 2 4
I-Hour ~ 0.20 ppm 0 0 0 0 I
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.16 0.22
Carbon Monoxide:
I-Hour> 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0
8-Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 7 7 7 7 7
Max. 8-Hour Cone. (ppm) 4.6 3.9 5.1 3.4 3.6
NitrolZen Dioxide:
I-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.21
Sulfur Dioxide:
I-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
24-Hour ~ 0.05 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.09
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.021 0.015 0.013 0.011 0.019
Total Susnended Particulates:
24-Hour ~ 100 ug/m3 0/61 0/61 1/61 1/30
24-Hour > 260 ug/m3 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/30
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/m3) 88 96 119 100
Lead Particulates:
I-Month ~ 1.5 ug/m3 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12
Max. I-Month Cone. (ug/m3) 0.60 0.38 0.28 0.19 0.13
Sulfate Particulates:
24-Hour ~ 25. ug/m3 1/61 0/54 0/60 0/51 0/57
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/m3) 18.0 15.4 17.6 13.3 17.2
~.
R~nirable Particulates rPM.IOl:
24-Hour> 50 ug/m3 3/51 5/61 3/56
24-Hour > ISO ug/m3 0/51 0/61 0/56
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/m3) 104 68 58
Soun:e: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data, 1984-1988.
Chula Vista Monitoring Station except for Lead & Sulfate Particles which are from San Diego APCD Island
A venue Station.
= no data
/'i-,)()/
and respirable particulates (dust) were exceeded on a somewhat higher frequency, but
overall air quality in Chula Vista is very good in comparison to other areas of the SDAB.
Air Ouality Manallement Planning
The continued violations of national AAQS in the SDAB, particularly those for ozone in
inland foothill areas, require that a plan be developed outlining the stationary and mobile
source pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego
County, this attainment planning process is embodied in a regional air quality management
plan developed jointly by the APCD and SANDAG with input from other planning agencies.
This plan, originally called RAQS (Regional Air Quality Strategies), was last updated about
seven years ago and called the 1982 State Implementation Plan Revisions (1982 SIP
Revisions). The underlying premise of this plan was that the County could have continued
economic and population growth and still achieve basin-wide clean air. The plan charted
the necessary steps to reduce the existing excess emissions burden as well as offset the air
pollutants associated with continued growth. The 1982 SIP Revisions recognized that there
were meteorological patterns under which County emissions were solely responsible for
ozone violations, and there were also conditions where inter-basin transport was a major
factor in observed air quality. The basic conclusion of the 1982 SIP Revisions was that
emissions would be reduced by the end of 1987 sufficient for all County-related ozone
violations to have been eliminated, but that violations due to transport from the Los Angeles
Basin would continue. The forecast that ozone violations from in-County sources would
cease by the end of 1987 was overly optimistic and such violations still occur. Emissions
controls from stationary and mobile sources were not implemented as quickly as anticipated
in the plan. In particular, the shift away from the single passenger automobile has been
much slower than necessary to achieve attainment of the federal ozone standard.
With the expiration of the 1987 target attainment date, the SIP Revisions are currently being
revised for a 1991 plan completion date. The new plan is designed to result in incremental
improvement toward a long-range attainment target date and to ensure that programs are
in place to continually off-set the emissions increases associated with continued growth of
the basin. Current planning calls for sufficient emissions reductions to meet the federal
ozone standard by 1996-97 absent a significant influx of pollution from the Los Angeles
Basin. The passage of the California Clean Air Act requiring future compliance with the
3-67
9().14.0IJ6 01/24/91
ICJ-,)()~
more stringent state ozone standard will entail additional planning and control to meet the
standard early into the 21st century.
The proposed office complex relates to the SIP Revisions through incorporation of sub-
regional development plans into regional growth estimates. If the project has been correctly
anticipated in the current SANDAG growth forecasts (the basis for SIP transportation
emissions forecasts), then it will not cause any unanticipated regional air quality impacts.
If, however, the proposed office development substantially exceeds the intensity of
development predicted for Chula Vista or occurs sooner than predicted by regional growth
forecasts, it will be inconsistent with the SIP Revisions.
IMPACfS
Vehicular Emissions Impacts
Land uses, such as those comprising the Rohr Office Complex, impact air quality almost
exclusively through the vehicular traffic generated by the development. Such impacts occur
basically on two scales of motion. Regionally, personal commuting will add to regional trip
generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the local airshed. Locally,
project traffic, especially at rush hour, will be added to the Chula Vista roadway system near
the development site. If added traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation,
is comprised of a large number of vehicles "cold-started" or operating at pollution inefficient
speeds, and/or is driven on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a
definite potential for the formation of microscale air pollution "hot spots" in the area
immediately around the project site.
The major project-related air quality concern derives from the mobile source emissions that
would result from the 4,165 daily trips that would be generated at project completion.
Given a typical office activity trip length of around 6 miles per trip (a combination of longer
commuting and shorter business trips), the project would potentially add 25,000 vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) to the regional traffic burden.
Automotive emissions can be readily calculated using a computerized procedure developed
by the California ARB. This model was run for the project assuming various build-out years
3-68
90-14.006 01/24/91
,tJ -~03
from 1990 - 2010. The results from the model runs are summarized in Table 3-11 with the
model output for each run included in Appendix D.
Assuming build-out at the year 2000, project traffic will add approximately 0.5 ton of carbon
monoxide (CO), 0.04 ton of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 0.03 ton of reactive organic gasses
(ROG) to the airshed daily. Continued emissions reduction from the retirement of older,
polluting cars will gradually reduce the overall project regional emissions impact slightly, but
the project will continue to represent a small, and not negligible, portion of regional
emissions burden. This small percentage contributes to the cumulative emissions increments
that comprise the basin-wide burden, and which lead to the basin's continued violations of
clean air standards. The project thus represents an incremental contribution to a regionally
significant air quality impact.
Consistency with the growth assumptions of the SIP Revisions is also an important factor.
The SIP is based on generic trip making characteristics for specified types of land uses. The
Adopted Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) identifies an intensification of uses in
the Chula Vista Midbayfront of which this project forms an incremental part. As shown in
Table 3-11 development of the office complex would generate a very small percentage of
the basin-wide air emissions and is consistent with adopted plans for this site. Project
emissions are also less than the APCD's insignificance thresholds for ROG and NOx which
are the main ozone formation precursor pollutants. Given the consistency of the proposed
development with the LCP, the regional air quality impact would be less than significant
when considering the SIP.
While the project itself may have only a minimal individual regional impact, the increase
of traffic around the project site may create localized violations of ambient health standards.
To evaluate the potential for the formation of any air pollution "hot spots," the California
line source dispersion model, CALINE4, was used to estimate receptor exposure at various
intersections near the Chula Vista Bayfront. These intersections were determined to be
potentially impacted by site development traffic. This model was initialized with maximum
traffic and minimum dispersion conditions, with and without project traffic, in order to
generate a worst-case impact assessment. CO was used as the indicator pollutant to
determine if there was any air pollution "hot spot" potential. The results of the modeling
exercise are summarized in Appendix E. As shown, the hourly CO exposure near the three
analyzed intersections currently totals less than 2.0 ppm above the regional background
3-69
90-14.006 01/24/91
/q-,;Jo/l
level. Continued emissions reductions from newer, less polluting automobiles and
anticipated roadway system improvements would create a continuing reduction in future
microscale CO levels, despite projected increases in traffic levels. Future CO levels at most
locations would be similar to existing levels despite any projected traffic increases. If the
roadway system can accommodate increased traffic volumes, future microscale CO levels,
with or without the proposed project, will be similar to what they are today. Since the "With
Project" levels are well below any level of concern, any alternative development scenario
impacts with lesser intensity are not an important air quality consideration.
The large surface parking lot represents an area of emissions impact concern because a
large number of vehicles are "cold-started" at the end of each workday. An approximate
calculation of the CO impact from the entire lot emptying was completed as part of this
study. The assumptions made for this calculation and the model used are contained in
Appendix E. The model predicted a worst-case hourly CO level of 10 mg/m3. The state
CO standard is 23 mg/m3. Given the overly conservative (over-predictive) nature of the
input assumptions, and the fact that even with worst-case assumptions, hourly CO impacts
are well below the most stringent hourly CO standard, surface parking lot air quality impacts
are judged as not significant.
Construction Impacts
Secondary project-related atmospheric impacts derive from a number of other small, growth-
connected emissions sources such as temporary emissions of dusts and fumes during project
construction, increased fossil-fuel combustion in power plants and heaters, boilers, stoves
and other energy consuming devices, evaporative emissions at gas stations or from paints,
thinners or solvents used in construction and maintenance, increased air travel from business
travelers, dust from tire wear and re-suspended roadway dust, etc. All these emission points
are either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to project-related automotive
sources that their impact is negligible. They do point out, however, that growth results in
increased air pollution emissions from a wide variety of sources, and thus further inhibits
the near-term attainment of all clean air standards in the region.
The clearing of existing site land uses, the excavation of utility access, the preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly would create temporary emissions of dusts,
fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during project construction. In
3-70
I q ...t205
90-14.006 01/24/91
general, the most significant source of air pollution from project construction would be the
dust generated during demolition, excavation and site preparation. Typical dust lofting rates
from construction activities are usually assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per
acre disturbed. Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement
measures required by the San Diego APCD can reduce dust emission levels from 50-75
percent. Dust emissions rates, therefore, depend on the site disturbance area and the care
with which dust abatement procedures are implemented. If the entire 11.6 acre project site
is under simultaneous development, in the absence of any dust control procedures, the total
daily dust emissions would be around 1,200 pounds/day. With the use of water spray or
other dust abatement measures, daily dust emissions would average 300-600 pounds per day.
It should be noted that much of this dust is comprised of large particles that are easily
filtered by human breathing passages and settle out rapidly on parked cars and other nearby
horizontal surfaces. It thus comprises more of a soiling nuisance than any potentially
unhealthful air quality impact. Although a considerable portion of the construction activity
fugitive dust does settle out near its source, the smallest particles remain suspended
throughout much of their transit across the air basin. Construction dust is, therefore, an
important contributor to regional violations of inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards. Because
of its role in PM-lO violations, fugitive construction dust emissions must be controlled as
carefully as possible. Despite the general care which should be given to construction dust
emissions, because the impact is temporary in nature (only during the construction period)
and because prevailing breezes will generally move settling dust away from the sensitive
marsh habitat near the site, project-related impacts for this issue are considered to be less
than significant if APCD requirements are followed.
Equipment exhaust would also be released during construction activities. Although the
construction activity emission rates may be substantial (especially NOx from diesel-fueled
trucks and on-site vehicles), they would be widely dispersed in space and time by the mobile
nature of much of the equipment itself. Furthermore, daytime ventilation in Chula Vista
is usually more than adequate to disperse any local pollution accumulations near the project
site. Any perceptible impacts from construction activity exhaust would therefore be confined
to an occasional "whiff' of characteristic diesel exhaust odor. These emissions would not be
in sufficient concentration to expose any nearby receptors to air pollution levels above
acceptable standards.
3-71
90-14.006 01/24/91
,q"')Oit:J
MTI1GATION
The proposed office complex does not create an individually significant air quality impact
on either a local or a regional scale. There is, therefore, no requirement to develop any
unusual mitigation measures to off-set any project impacts. Further, since project impacts
derive primarily from automobile emissions characteristics beyond the control of project
proponents and local regulatory agencies, the potential for effective mitigation is quite
limited. However, the project incremently contributes to a regionally significant impact. To
mitigate this incremental contribution, transportation control measures (TCMs), and
temporary construction activity impact mitigation measures must be incorporated into the
proposed project. Measures that must be considered in project planning include:
1) Implementation of dust control measures during construction as required by the
APCD. Such measures include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as
removing any soil spillage.
2) Construction and Grading Plans must (1) limit construction to the hours between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. so that local pollution accumulation is minimized, and (2)
must prohibit construction truck queuing with engines running, by imposing
restrictions on entering the site or imposing fumes.
3) Rohr has an existing TCM program which they have stated would be formalized and
expanded to include this project. Such TCM should be aimed primarily at employees
on the project site, but might also include site visitors in certain instances. Measures
that should be evaluated for the TCM program include:
Ridesharing
Vanpool Incentives
Alternate Transportation Methods
Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel
Transit Utilization
Program Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain an LOS of "D" or Better
To be most efficient, these measures must be integrated into a comprehensive transportation
system management (TSM) program. Occupants of this office complex should be included
in the existing Rohr company-wide trip reduction program, and they should ultimately be
included in a comprehensive Midbayfront transportation management association (TMA)
if, and when, the Bayfront is built out.
3-72
90-14.006 01/24/91
I' - afJ '1-
Analysis of Significance
None of the project related air quality impacts is significant on a project specific level.
Implementation of the project will result in incremental contributions to a regionally
significant air quality impact due to CO, NOx and RaG additions to the airshed. Project
construction-related impacts (i.e., equipment exhaust and production of fugitive dust) are
both expected to be less than significant impacts. Dust production will require
implementation of APeD control techniques in order to be mitigated to a less than
significant impact.
3-73
90-14.006 01/24/91
1,-~()8
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
/&;-,209
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project which
could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project," and evaluation of their comparative
merits. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any
significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even
if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or
would be more costly." CEQA also requires analysis of the "no project," or existing
conditions, alternative. The range of alternatives required in an ErR is governed by "rule
of reason," which requires the ErR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit
a reasoned choice. The key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives
fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation. An ErR need not
consider an alternative with effects which cannot be reasonably ascertained and the
implementation of which is remote and speculative. The basic objectives of the project, as
submitted by the applicant are:
1. Management direction to be within easy walking distance of the Chula Vista
manufacturing operations.
2. Need to consolidate the administrative office functions from 19 individual buildings
and trailer complexes into one facility.
3. Need to reduce travel distances.
4. Need to upgrade facilities.
5. Need to accommodate a smart building environment.
6. Need to move off of Port District tidelands.
7. Need to consolidate off-site operations on-site.
8. No other adjacent vacant land parcel available of the size required for the
consolidated complex.
9. No capital outlay required to purchase new land.
10. New non-industrial image wanted for the new complex.
11. Site more compatible with proposed future development uses. (Both for Rohr
campus and adjacent properties.)
12. Moves non-manufacturing functions out of the center of the manufacturing operation.
13. Other on-site options not able to meet the January 1992 completion date directed by
Management.
14. Need to eliminate temporary trailer complexes.
15. Need to raze obsolete and maintenance intensive buildings.
16. Close proximity to the airport (within 10 miles).
17. Close proximity to where majority of employees live.
18. Able to use low cost existing co-generated power.
4-1
90-14.01501/24/91a
I q -dlfJ
19. Able to tie to current on-site communication networks.
20. Able to use existing security systems and personnel.
21. Able to use already leased SDG&E parking areas.
22. Able to use existing drainage networks.
23. No stationary changes because of address changes.
Four alternatives are being evaluated for this project; the "No Project" alternative, the
Modified Design alternative which includes subsurface as well as surface parking, the
Reduced Density Alternative which responds to the parking deficiency impact, and three off-
site alternatives which evaluate whether a different site might reduce project impacts.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECf
Under this alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped. No impacts resulting
from development would occur with this alternative, as no change to the existing setting
would occur. Even though the proposed project would result in one incremental impact, this
alternative is not considered to be environmentally preferable for one major reason. That
is, existing uses of the site would continue, which include illegal trash dumping and habitat
degradation in an area intruding into the sensitive buffers of the NWR. Illegal off-road
vehicle use of the area could also continue. Also, the described project objectives would not
be met. The environmentally preferred action, therefore, is one that not only meets project
objectives, but also develops the project area in an environmentally sensitive manner,
screening inhabitants of the marsh area from potentially disturbing uses. Thus, even though
this alternative would not result in incremental impacts, the potential continuing impacts to
the NWR would continue, negating this alternative as an environmentally preferable
alternative.
42 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFIED DESIGN
The major difference between this alternative and the proposed project is the development
of subsurface parking in two garages which would increase the number of parking spaces
from 730 to 760. Figure 4-1 through 4-3 show this alternative's Site Plan, Grading Plan and
cross-sectional views of the subterranean garages. The location of the cross-sections are
identified on the Site Plan.
4-2
90-14.015 01/24/91
1f1-~11
. ~ i l ~;: ~
.~. ~ ~ ~.. ~~
~i i t' t't. ~
b d i nil! Hq'
-. ~~ Ii ~~
Ii! ~L n
U .. I n ~I ~ ~~
1 .1 ~ I. ~ ~ i ; u .. ~ ~a~ .
. ~ ~ ! n n ~ hu
-"---lllIn
,.""
',.,..,......_-
---1
Illlilll III II
~inlll.1S "
<
I, i Iii i I i
; I
I
- II
, ~
. l' _ .
- --~-- -
- - ~ --
- ~
-
I
I
I
I
I
,
~
i
I
...IL '
c. i!~~
\. .
f1
1'1-~/~
......
,
-.t-
~
So
~
~.
.:',J.
,I
i
,
~
i
.
I
1
j.
'!
.~i
.\
~
.-
'"
~
Cl
"C
Q)
l;:::
.- =
"C<<:l
0_
;:sp.,
Q)
'.....
.-
N(/)
~
.-
.....
<<:l
C
...
Q)
~
.}
I
!
r ~'-~ J
~ i ~ 0 ~~
~~1'
~/ ~ D ll\/_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\' f.
~Ia
_I
-I
~~
~
o 50 100 200
Scale in Feet
j
I
'0
"
~
Legend
0
!? ft
~ Property line
50
0 -
+ ~o Marsh
~
k"'" "'" ~ Detention Basin
EARTHWORK
Cut 31,000 cubic yards.
Fill 40,000 cubic yards
Import 9,000 cubic yards
Maximum cut = ll':t
Maximum fill = 7':t
+
i
:...~
t----J
,
L..______ _
~
~
j
Iq-~/3
I I
UPPER FLOOR = 18.2'
, ..-
LOWER FL/8.2'
V.
-----
. UP~ER FL..90R =;!8.0'
LOWER FLOOR = 8.0'
~ ~ ~.
"" ~
/
/
/
\
I
)
.'
\ '
\
\
-
~------_/-/ .
~.
~
..
Alternative 2 - Modified Design
Grading Plan
.
Figure 4-
~
1""'" " =o~.
~~."".
l
""~
G-_- .
, .~
1:~j I' , . , , , 'I ~-J ~'"
~U-,
~
PARKING SECTION A
.....
~
I
~
.....
..(:,
~ 11' ;' , , , 11' ~' 'II'~?' , ,iT.;".:. ~ ' ,,;,
I I
,-;4'1-=
~r'
PARKING SECTION B
~
I~@
~
~-~ 8~ ITI
6~1
PARKING SECTION C
o
.
so
120 FEET
Alternative 2-Modified DesigL
Subterranean Garages Cross Sections
Figure 4-3
An analysis of the potential impacts from development of this alternative is contained below,
and includes each issue discussed for the proposed project.
A DRAINAGE/GROUNDWAlER/GRADING
Impacts to drainage and groundwater and from grading are the same as those for the
project. Additionally, two parking structures are currently proposed, each with one level of
below-grade parking with finished floor elevations of 8.0 and 8.2 feet for the northerly and
southerly parking structures, respectively. The northerly parking structure is currently
proposed to be supported on spread or continuous footings founded entirely in competent
Bay Point formation soils, with a bottom-of-footing elevation of 5.5 feet (MSL). A total of
40,000 cubic yards of cut and fill would be generated and approximately 9,000 cubic yards
of import would be required to develop the proposed grades. The maximum depth of cut
and fill would be 11 feet and 7 feet, respectively, with an average change in grade of
approximately 2 feet.
The formational soils drop in elevation to the south, and at least portions of the southerly
structure will likely be underlain by up to several feet of compressible slopewash materials
unsuitable for the direct support of the proposed structure. Consideration is currently being
given to deepening conventional footings as necessary to develop proper embedment into
the underlying formational soils, or supporting the proposed structure on pile foundations.
Deepened conventional footings will definitely penetrate the groundwater table, thereby
necessitating temporary construction dewatering to form and construct foundation elements.
Pile foundations, if used for support of the southerly parking structure, would utilize a pile
cap bottom elevation of 4.7 feet, thereby reducing the likelihood that temporary construction
dewatering might be required.
Adequate design criteria are provided in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report
for foundation design, with consideration being given to variations in the groundwater table,
and design criteria are also provided for temporary construction dewatering if saturated soils
are encountered during the construction activities on site.
4-3
90-14.01501/24/91
Je; - J 15
B. BIOLOGY
Biological impacts and mitigation measures are the same as those for the project as there
are no changes beyond the addition of the two parking garages. Potential dewatering
impacts from subsurface parking construction would be mitigated by implementation of the
existing mitigation measure number 4 (pages 3-34 to 3-35).
C. VISUAL QUAUfY
The visual effects of the revised Rohr Industries Inc. Office Complex will be virtually the
same as those described previously for the proposed project. The proposed parking
structures will be below grade, and there will be no noticeable visual change to the overall
character and design of the site. In addition, the landscape plan for the revised site is the
same as the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed office complex, landscaping and
parking for the revised plan will result in the types of visual aesthetic changes described in
Section 3.3 of this EIR.
D. TRAFFIC CIRCUlATION
Traffic circulation impacts are the same as those for the project, since this alternative does
not result in increased traffic levels.
Parking
The alternative project proposes the same amount of square footage in office space, and
therefore, would generate the same amount of parking demand. The alternative responds
to the recommendation in the traffic analysis for the project to redesign the parking to
create as much parking as possible. Even with this design, the alternative would result in
a parking deficit of 49 to 85 spaces, or 6 to 10 percent (under the City's existing standards).
Access
The access issue is the same as that for the project, yet exacerbated due to the garages. The
Applicant must work with the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that access to and from the
4-4
90-14.015 02/01/91
Jfi-;U~
site would be adequate. Through these discussions and prior to final design, the City
Traffic Engineer could recommend alternatives for additional access to the parking,
including the structures (possibly to and from Bay Boulevard with an easement through the
SDG&E right-of-way east of the site), if it is determined to be warranted by the City.
E. AIR QUALITY
The air quality technical report for this alternative is located in the second half of Appendix
E.
Vehicular Emissions Impacts
The revision of the plot plan from the 730 parking space design as the analysis basis for the
forgoing air quality report to 760 spaces could allow for slightly greater volumes of traffic
than previously anticipated. It has been assumed that the 30 "extra" spaces are surplus in
that the office complex floor area was not changed with the revision. It could be, however,
that the surplus space would encourage office occupancy of uses that are somewhat more
traffic intensive than the average values used for trip-generation in that the parking facilities
can accommodate a higher rate of vehicular access. In the absence of any definitive
information, the possibility of an increased frequency/intensity of site access encouraged by
parking availability was treated as an alternative to the previous analysis.
These amounts represent an incremental contribution to the basin, which continues to
violate clean air standards. Thus, this alternative also represents an incremental contribution
to a regionally significant air quality impact.
A subsurface/surface parking structure represents an area of impact concern because there
are a large number of vehicles "cold-started" at the end of each workday. If many vehicles
departing simultaneously create substantial congestion, then the combination of multiple
inefficient emissions sources plus limited localized dispersion potentially may create a
micro scale air quality concern. With the structure, the public spends only a brief amount
of time such that ambient air quality impacts based on hourly or longer exposure standards
are not directly applicable. However, beyond the immediate structure boundary, there may
be points of extended public access that relate directly to state and federal clean air
4-5
90-14.01501/24/91
ICJ-;J/~
standards. Within the structure, any employees working within the facility are governed by
occupational safety and health (OSHA) limits on worker exposure to carbon monoxide. The
federal OSHA standard allows for an 8-hour average exposure of 50 ppm compared to the
state and federal 8-hour ambient air quality standard or 9 ppm.
Based on an approximate calculation made of the CO level within the structure, and under
a worst-case scenario that every underground parking place turns over four times in one day
with a low ventilation rate, the OSHA standards would not be exceeded. Additionally, a
calculation of ambient exposure at the edge of the property lines was made assuming an
hourly turn-over of every space (surface and subsurface), and neither the subsurface, nor
ambient air quality standards were threatened.
In conclusion, though incremental impacts may be slightly worsened with this alternative,
they still remain less than significant at a project level. This alternative is not
environmentally preferable to the proposed project from an air quality perspective; rather,
it is considered equal to it or very slightly worse. The incremental contributions to a
regionally significant impact must still be mitigated with the same measures as proposed for
the project, including transportation control measures and all construction-related measures.
43 ALTERNATIVE 3 - REDUCED DENSITY
The only difference between this alternative and the proposed project would be a reduction
in building size of 17,000 square feet, or a reduction from 245,000 square feet to 228,000
square feet. wpi~t~g9FHq.g...liY:!li~~Fgi!~~pgn9fHgf~g\.W;i9g!fii'imq~t~9~~rnP!9Y~~~i
The purpose of this reduction is to avoid the parking deficiency impact, and is based on the
maximum amount of parking that has been incorporated into the project design by
Alternative 2 - 760 spaces. A building with 220,000 square feet would meet the City's
minimum required parking standard of 3-1/3 parking spaces for every thousand $lg~r$ feet
of gross building area. Based on the parking proposed for the project, 730 spaces, a
reduction in size of 26,000 square feet, or from 245,000 square feet to 219,000 square feet
would be necessary. However, the applicant has agreed to the greater amount of parking,
the 760 spaces, thus the 17,000 square foot reduction would be appropriate.
4-6
90-14.01502/01/91
/<1 ..~/f(
This alternative would not substantially change the environmental analysis for any of the
other issues.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
The offsite alternatives are included in the EIR to evaluate whether environmental impacts
from the project might be reduced or eliminated at a different site. The offsite projects
assume that the proposed development would be the same as the proposed project.
The criteria used in evaluating the sites include environmental conditions at each site, and
the project applicant's goals and objectives for the proposed project (these were stated
earlier in this section). Though the applicant's goals and objectives are directly appropriate
for the proposed project site, the alternatives analysis looks beyond this area in order to
fully evaluate and compare environmental impacts.
The project impacts and incremental impacts compared in this analysis were those which
were found significant and mitigable; there was one significant and unmitigable impact
which was the incremental contribution to the loss of regional raptor foraging habitat.
The four sites evaluated include:
1. Port District - Chula Vista Marina (Port District Land)
2. Port District - National City Marine Terminal (Port District Land)
3. Tia Juana Street, near 1-5 and the Mexican Border (City of San Diego)
4. Eastern Urban Center - County of San Diego (City of Chula Vista's Sphere of
Influence).
Port District - Chula Vista Marina
This site is approximately 14 acres and is located at the foot of "J" Street on the bayfront
just east of the Chula Vista Marina, and adjacent to the south end of the Rohr facilities.
The site is flat, and generally disturbed due to the influences from the surrounding
developed areas. The Port District's designation for the site is Industrial-Business Park.
4-7
90-14.01502/01/91
lq-~/'f
An initial review of the site indicated that no apparent significant environmental constraints
occurs at the site. Traffic accesses Chula Vista and surrounding areas via "J" Street and the
1-5 interchange at "J" Street. Traffic impacts would probably be similar to those expected
at the proposed site, with the greatest constraint being the "J" Street interchange, and the
capacity of "J" Street west of 1-5.
No significant biological resources exist on the site, in fact, very little vegetation remains due
to previous disturbance. Visually, bay views are already blocked from viewers to the east
by existing Rohr developments adjacent to the north and east of the site.
The greater size of this site compared to the proposed site could eliminate the potential
parking deficiency impact, and appears to be able to provide enough area for the proposed
building and surface parking. No subsurface parking would be required at this site, thus,
the potential dewatering constraint could probably be avoided. Based on this preliminary
review, this site appears to be environmentally preferable over the proposed site due to the
avoidance of biological impacts, probable reduction in geotechnical/groundwater constraints,
and probable avoidance of the parking deficiency impact. However, potential traffic impacts
would remain.
Port District-National City Marine Terminal
This site is located on the bayfront at the Port District's Industrial Marine Terminal/Marine
Related site in National City, just across the Sweetwater River north of the City of Chula
Vista boundary and the north end of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The
231-acre site is flat and completely disturbed. The port is considering changing the exiting
designation of Industrial Marine Terminal/Marine Related to Commercial recreation.
An initial review of the site has resulted in the conclusion that no significant environmental
constraints are immediately evident, with the possible exception of traffic circulation. The
site receives access from 1-5 via 24th and 32nd Streets. No significant natural features exist
on the site.
Impacts of the proposed Rohr development that would occur on the proposed site could be
reduced or eliminated at this site, including the deficiency in parking spaces as more land
4-8
90-14.01502/01/91
l'i-,)~O
would be available for parking; and the incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat, as no
raptor foraging habitat currently exists on the site. However, new traffic circulation impacts
may result. From a natural resources perspective, this site would be preferred; however,
from a traffic perspective, it may be considered equal to the proposed project location, or
may even result in greater traffic impacts. Because this site is larger, subsurface parking
would not be necessary and potentially problematic dewatering may not be necessary. New
regional Water Quality Control Board regulations prohibit permanent dewatering to enter
the bay. Some of the project objectives would not be met with this alternative. In
conclusion, this alternative site is fairly equal to the proposed project site, as raptor foraging
habitat impacts would be avoided, but traffic impacts could be equal to worse.
Tia Ju,ma Street
This property consists of approximately 90 acres which is currently used for agriculture,
scattered single-family residences, and a sand and gravel operation. Surrounding land uses
include light industrial, multi-family and single-family residences, agricultural land, The
Tijuana River, and the border with mixed uses (mostly residential) beyond.
The site is mostly flat and previously disturbed. Significant environmental constraints
include the River and associated riparian vegetation/habitat, agriculture, and the sand and
gravel operation. Depending on its location within this area, the 11.6 acre Rohr project
could either result in impacts to these sensitive resources, or could avoid some of these
altogether. Considering the number of constraints, however, this site is not considered
environmentally preferred over the project site.
F.a~tem Urban Center
The Eastern Urban Center, located in the County of San Diego, is also included in the City
of Chula Vista's General Plan as part of its Sphere of Influence. The General Plan (1989)
envisions this site for mixed uses including regional retail facilities, commercial office
building, residences and public recreation facilities. The site is located where the future
extension of Orange Avenue and SR-125 would intersect.
4-9
90-14.0150]/01/91
It:; - ~~I
Most of this area has been disturbed by agriculture and is relatively flat. Access appears
to be the most significant constraint, though a site specific environmental analysis must
occur to positively identify whether potentially significant constraints exist. An initial review
identified no readily apparent constraints. This site may be less sensitive, and further review
would be necessary to accurately determine this potential conclusion. With this alternative,
some of the applicant's objectives regarding location of the project would not be met.
45 CONCLUSIONS
Alternative 2 - Modified Design results in a reduction of the significant parking deficiency
impact, otherwise, this alternative does not substantially reduce or eliminate potential
project impacts. Alternative 3 - Reduced Density results in avoidance of the significant
parking deficiency impact, otherwise, it also does not substantially reduce or eliminate other
project impacts. It must be noted that, after mitigation, the proposed project results in only
one incremental impact (to raptor foraging habitat).
Alternative sites may be environmentally preferable, especially the Port District-Chula Vista
Marina site. This site would eliminate potentially significant and unmitigable incremental
impacts to raptor foraging habitat, and appears to be able to provide adequate surface
parking. Traffic circulation may, however, be similar to the project impacts.
4-10
90-14.01502/01/91
I'-~~~
5.0 EFFEcrs NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
J'1-~;J.3
5.0 EFFECfS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
A preliminary evaluation of potential environmental impacts was completed by the City of
Chula Vista which identified potential impacts in the areas of geOlogy/soils, groundwater,
drainage/water quality, agriculture resources, air quality, noise, biology cultural resources,
land use, aesthetics, utilities, human health, transportation and risk of upset. After further
study and evaluation, several of these potential impacts were found to be not significant.
The issue areas of aesthetics, circulation, parking, air quality, biology, and
hydrology/drainage were found to require additional study and are addressed in this EIR.
The issues that were determined to be not significant include geology/soils, agricultural
resources, noise, cultural resources, land use, utilities, human health, and risk of upset. This
section is included subject to CEQA section 15128 which requires that an EIR contain a
brief statement "indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project
were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR".
Each of the above-mentioned issues are briefly addressed in terms of potential adverse
impact and a judgment made about impact significance.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The project site has historically been farmed with row crops and was cultivated in the early
1980s. The development of this project would result in overcovering of the soil and
elimination of the site as an agricultural land use. The soils on site are Hueruero loam
which is suitable for growing tomatoes and truck crops but has a low (41) story index and
is not classified as prime agricultural soil. Because the site is small (11.6 acres) and is not
considered prime agricultural land, the loss of this minor resource is not considered
significant.
NOISE
Noise levels for the area would increase somewhat as the project would generate additional
traffic on "F' Street and onto the site. The nearest sensitive receptor is the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh which is located west of the proposed structure. As all parking and ingress/egress
would be focused on the eastern half of the site and noise would be blocked by the structure
itself, impacts would not be significant.
5-1
90-]4.00501/24/91
19 -;1~ 'I
CULTURAL RESOURCES
An archaeological/historical survey was conducted recently for a proposed bayfront project
which encompassed this site. This survey found one previously recorded site in the project
area, SDi-6025, which included both historic and prehistoric elements (Reference Appendix
D, Results of an Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the
Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No.8, Brian F. Smith and Associates, October 24, 1989;
available at the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department). The results of
the survey indicated that this site was not significant.
LAND USE
The project is generally consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan. The issues of
compatibility with the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP) have been
addressed in Section 2.4, and as stated there, no major inconsistencies would occur.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Rohr employees are anticipated to use the surrounding public park and recreation areas,
especially during the lunch hour. The anticipated number of employees at this facility is
1,286, with some percentage of this expected to use nearby public areas. The actual amount
from this project is not considered significant, especially because most employees are
transferring to this facility from the adjacent campus. The City currently has no requirement
for commercial or industrial/business park projects to pay park fees, however, due to the
expected use of public areas, the applicant should contribute funds for improvements to
existing jogging/walking paths or to new paths.
UTIIITIES
The project would require connection of water, sewer and energy lines to existing services
adjacent to the site. SDG&E is committed to servicing all customers and has the necessary
facilities in the immediate vicinity. Sewage disposal is provided via the City of Chula Vista
and directed into the City of San Diego MElRO sewage system. The City of Chula Vista
has an available capacity of at least 5 million gallons per day (MGD) and would be capable
of servicing the project with no significant impacts. However, an offsite sewer connection
5-2
9fJ.14.00501/24/91
I,...J ~S
and construction of a metering facility would be necessary to tie into the nearest Metro line,
which is a 78-inch main approximately 1,100 feet south of "F" Street in Bay Boulevard. lil'i~.
~PP~!f~n~>>\9VI~R9~l;tp~Em~~~gn~t9i~n9&l;8.!:~II!I~~mg:~~~r99tlnq~lign~g~g~j~t
~qq~I~.!p~~pr9pg~~i
Water service to the site would be provided by Sweetwater Authority. No service
agreements have yet been accomplished, as Sweetwater Authority would need to prepare
a project-specific evaluation to determine service capabilities and needs (Briggs 1990).
Thus, water supply and infrastructure needs, and capability to meet these needs, have not
yet been determined.
HUMAN HEALTH
Development of an office complex with associated parking would not result in significant
impacts to human health as standard construction materials and operating technology would
be employed.
RISK OF UPSET
In May 1988, Woodward-Clyde Consultants completed a hazardous substance contamination
site assessment for the project site. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
potential presence of hazardous substance contamination on the site resulting from past or
present uses on the property. Based on their records review, field investigation, and
laboratory results, they concluded that several facilities near the site use hazardous materials
which have been cited for improper storage and disposal, and that on-site soil contamination
resulted from historic pesticide use, and volatile organic compounds in the groundwater
originated off-site. Because the levels of soil and groundwater contamination were below
state-mandated standards, the potential risk of upset impact was considered not significant.
SCHOOLS
In response to the Notice of Preparation, both the Chula Vista City School District (grades
K-8) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (grades 9-12) mailed letters of
comment to the City Planning Department. Both school districts clarified that non-
residential development would result in an increase in school enrollment. Based on their
5-3
9IJ.-14.1J05 01/24/91
1'f-.;l~1o
preliminary figures, the project would generate approximately 162 new elementary school
age children and 100 new high school students at an estimated cost to the districts of
$1,427,868 and $1,300,000, respectively. However, the State-mandated fees for non-
residential development would generate $25,380 for the City School District and $215,600
for the Sweetwater School District; far short of their estimated need. To comply with the
Districts' needs, the applicant must pay the state-mandated school fees, and is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The nearest fire station is approximately 1.25 miles from the site, and the estimated
response time would be 4 minutes. Requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department must
be met, including:
. Implementation of fire standpipe and fire hydrants.
. Inclusion of a 20-foot wide unobstructed access to all points within 150 feet of the
furthermost point of the exterior wall of the first story.
. Provision of fire flow at 5,200 to 6,000 gallons per minutes (depending on the type
of construction (Horsefall, 1990).
Police services would be incrementally affected by the project due to the presence of a new
building and new employment at the site. Police services would not be significantly
impacted, and the Police Department has not required any measures of the applicant.
5-4
9O-J4.005 01/24/91
I 't-.;)~ r
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1't-~.2'(
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACfS
The proposed project and Alternative~ 2 ~nq8 (Modified Designil~~~q~~it!;
r~:!l!;PY'!!~~Y) would eeffi !lop result in the same unavoidable impact. This impact is the
incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat by development of the project. No mitigation
other than no development is possible.
6-1
9O-J.l.017 02/01/91
,Q-,};;1
7.0 RElATIONSHIP BETWEEN WCAL SHORT-1ERM USE
OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-1ERM PRODUCITVITY
J9-j3()
7.0 RElATIONSIllP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Economic and social pressures for growth in San Diego County are such that complete
protection of the environment at the expense of community growth and well-being is not
feasible. Therefore, a balance must be sought that accommodates the needs of the growing
population of the southern California region, while maintaining the integrity of the
environment. It is the degree to which this balance is achieved in a given development that
establishes the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
Development of the Rohr proposed project or alternative would intensify the uses of the
environment, while the maintenance of the area as open space would allow possible future
reclamation of the currently degraded environment and return of the area to a pristine
natural resource. The valuable natural resources include the unique marine and
wetland-associated habitats and species, and the proximity of the open spaces to the waters
of the San Diego Bay and the associated aesthetic pleasures.
The proposed site development generally has been designed to respect these existing natural
resources so that they are protected in a healthy condition for the future. Additionally, the
measures recommended to mitigate potential impacts to these resources should be
implemented and monitored to ensure their appropriateness and success.
7-1
90-14.010 01/24/91
/9- ~31
8.0 IRREVERSffilE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT
WILL RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECf
Iq-il3~
8.0 IRREVERSffiLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES TIIAT WIlL RESULT
FROM THE PROPOSED PROJEGr
Approval and construction of the proposed Rohr office complex would result in irreversible
changes to the project area and to the larger Midbayfront area. The project would develop
an urban use in an existing, largely natural setting which is adjacent to a highly sensitive
National Wildlife Refuge. This urban use would, of course, include the attendant traffic,
noise, visual changes, and other human-associated activities which lIf8M~g will not only
change the character of this area, but lIfgwi:! will also infringe permanently toward the
margins of the sensitive biological communities of the NWR. The allowance for 1911:1 these
irreversible changes is found in the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, with
which the proposed project is in compliance.
8-1
90-14.01801/24/91
/9-,;;33
9.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACf OF TIIE PROPOSED PROmCf
1'1-:13'1
9.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACf OF THE PROPOSED PROmCf
The Chula Vista Sphere of Influence area is within one of the fastest growing areas in the
County. In fact, the population of the sphere of influence was projected to increase by
approximately 65 percent by the year 2010 (SANDAG, 1989),20 percent over the increase
projected for the San Diego Region. A July 1990 monitoring report indicates that in fact,
the Chula Vista's subregion population has increased by 4.18 percent over that anticipated
a year ago, while the adjacent National City subregion has exceeded their projected growth
by 2.6 percent. Occupied housing units for Chula Vista exceeded the projected numbers by
3.49 percent for the Chula Vista and 1.53 percent for the National City subregions. The
City's Growth Management Policy (City of Chula Vista, 1989) indicates that the location and
quality of this rapid growth should be reviewed annually by City staff to ensure orderly
progression and development of the planning area. The City's intent is for growth to occur
in a general west to east direction.
The proposed project will provide an administrative building for Rohr facilities, some of
which are immediately adjacent to the project site. Primary purposes include movement of
current employees from existing facilities, as well as possible new-hires. The proposed
project could provide new employment for individuals moving into the Chula Vista and
National City subregions as well as the County at large. The number of new jobs available
is not expected to be large, thus, growth inducement from this project is not anticipated.
Numerous development projects are planned or under construction in the City's Sphere of
Influence. One additional concern of growth management is that new growth occur adjacent
to existing development, rather than in a "leap-frog" fashion. The proposed project is
located adjacent to a variety of existing land uses to the north and east as well as to a
related Rohr facility to the south. Thus, the proposed project would fill in currently vacant,
previously disturbed space, rather than open up development in a new area. Though there
would be modifications to and increases in service demand, most facilities and services likely
to be required by Rohr are already in place on or adjacent to the project site.
9-1
90-14.011 01/24/91
Ic;-~3S
10.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1'-~31.
10.0 CUMUlATIVE IMPACfS
This section provides a summary of potential cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts "shall
be discussed when they are significant" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(a)).
Each of the resource issues analyzed considered project development within the Bayfront
area and, as appropriate, more distant locations. The summary for each project issue
describes the geographical area which was considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts.
BIOLOGY
The biological analysis included the entire southern California area, because the resources
under analysis are important to at least this area and, at most, the entire U.S. The
resources incrementally impacted are the raptor foraging habitats which are part of the
Midbayfront upland on which this project is located. The loss is considered incremental at
a project level, but one which contributes to a regionally significant cumulative loss.
Another concern is that the development of the Rohr office complex would result in the loss
of habitat expansion opportunities which occur in only a handful of locations in southern
California. This lost opportunity is considered an incremental impact which will continue
to increase in significance as similar sites are lost due to development. Further, the
proposed development may restrict the enhancement potential of the wetland areas under
federal management by creating a possible continual source of predators and other
disturbance factors (traffic, human activity, etc.).
TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS
The traffic analysis considered the Chula Vista streets both west and east of 1-5. The
project's contribution in most cases to traffic circulation impacts ranges from approximately
two to five percent of significantly impacted intersections. In one case ("F" Street and Bay
Boulevard intersection) the project represents approximately 53 percent of the significant
impact. The project thus contributes incrementally to significant cumulative effects and, in
the one case ("F" Street and Bay Boulevard intersection and approaches), represents over
one-half of the significant impact. The applicant is responsible for providing a proportional
amount of funds toward the mitigation for all of the cumulatively significant impacted
10-1
90-14.01901/24/91
Ic;-~3r
intersections. The City should establish a Benefit Assessment District for transportation
improvements in this western and bayfront portion of the City. These funds would be
placed in a separate City account used exclusively for projects in this District. The
boundaries of the District, the land uses in the District and associated estimated number of
trips, and the costs for necessary improvements must be determined.
VISUAL AESTIIETICS/COMMUNITY CHARACIER
The visual aesthetics cumulative analysis considered the Chula Vista bayfront area, from the
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge to the Chula Vista Marina area. With respect
to existing public views within and adjacent to the City of Chula Vista, the proposed project
would result in continuing alteration of the bayfront from a natural area to a continuation
of the surrounding otherwise urban environment. As such, a loss of bay views would occur
to viewers directly west of the project site, and an incremental change to the character of
the bayfront would occur. The size of the building and the landscaping plan are within
requirements of the City's General Plan, thus these incremental visual and character changes
are not considered significant.
AIR QUALITY
The air quality analysis considered the entire San Diego Air Basin. The issues addressed
in the air quality discussion (vehicle emissions impacts, construction fugitive dust impacts,
etc.) would all be less than significant on a project specific basis. However, the project
emissions would contribute to the basin's continued violation of clean air standards. The
project thus represents an incremental contribution to a regionally significant air quality
impact.
10-2
90-14.01901/24/91
ICf-';>3g
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
1e;-~3'
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th Edition.
American Ornithologists' Union.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh Supplement to the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 106: 532-538.
Andrecht, Ken and Elizabeth Copper. 1988. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel.
San Diego, California.
Ashton, R. E., Jr. 1976. Endangered and Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles in the
United States. Soc. for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetology Circular
No.5.
Awbrey, Frank. 1987. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. San Diego, California.
Awbrey, F., B. Stewart, and A. Bowles. 1980. Behavioral and Acoustic Data, Purisima
Point Least Tern Colony, Vandenburg Air Force Base. Prepared for the United
States Air Force, Vandenburg Air Force Base, California.
Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press.
241 pp.
Bloom, Pete. 1990. Telephone communication to Keith W. Merkel. National City,
California.
Bowman, Roy H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. December, 1973.
Briggs, Bill. San Diego Unified Port District, Planning Department. 1990. Telephone
communication, October 31, 1990.
Burger, Joanna. 1986. The Effect of Human Activity on Shorebirds in Two Coastal Bays
in Northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13(2): 123-130.
Cade, Tom J. 1982. Falcons of the World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. Status Designations of California Plants
and Animals.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Annual Report on the Status of California
State Listed Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals.
11-1
90-14.012 01/24/91
ICJ -.:> Yo
CALTRANS. 1982. Sweetwater River Final Environmental Impact Report. Sweetwater
River Flood Control Channel, State Highway Route 54, Interstate Highway Route
5, Recreation Facilities and Conservation of Marshlands, San Diego County,
California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 109 pp. +
appendices.
Churcher, Peter B. and John H. Lawton. 1989. Beware of Well-fed Felines. Natural
History 7: 40-47.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan, Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program Phase III - A Division of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Title 19 -
Chula Vista Municipal Code Specific Plan. Prepared by City of Chula Vista
Department of Community Development. Amended April 1989.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Growth Management Policy, Chula VISta General Plan. June
1989.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Rohr Office Complex (EIR-90-1O). 15 June 1990.
Conners, Peter G. 1987. Predator Management Plan for Chula Vista Bayfront. Prepared
for the City of Chula Vista. Chula Vista, CA
Copper, Elizabeth. 1989. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. San Diego,
California.
Copper, E. 1979. Least Tern Breeding Season in San Diego County, 1979. California
Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California.
Copper, E. and R. Patton. 1985. California Least Tern Nesting, San Diego County, 1985.
California Department of Fish and Game annual report.
Copper, E. and R. Patton. 1986. A Report on Least Tern Nesting in Southern San Diego
County, 1986. California Department of Fish and Game annual report.
Dooling, Robert J. 1982. Auditory perception in birds. In D. E. Kroodsma and E. H.
Miller (editors). Acoustic Communication in Birds. Academic Press, New York. Vol.
1, pp. 95-130.
Dooling, Robert J., James A. Mulligan, and James D. Miller. 1971. Auditory Sensitivity
and Song Spectrum of the Common Canary (Serinus canarius). Journal of Acoustic
Society of America 50(2): 700-709.
Edwards, Claude G. 1987. Monitoring and Observation of Avifauna at Sweetwater River
Mouth, Gunpowder Point, G Street Shore and Marsh Vicinity (unpublished field
notes). 1 August 1987.
11-2
90-14.012 01/24/91
1C;-~'11
Everett, W. T. 1979. Threatened, Declining and Sensitive Bird Species in San Diego
County. Audubon Society Sketches. July 1979.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76
pp. plus appendices.
Gronholt, Christine. 1987. Personal communications to Robin Putnam and Keith W.
Merkel during preparation of Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987c.
Grout, Daniel J. 1990. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. National City,
California.
Hinde, R. A. 1954a. Factors governing the changes in strength of a partially inborn
response, as shown by the mobbing behavior of the chaffinch (Fringilla coelobs). I,
the nature of the response, and an examination of its course. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B 142:306-331 (as cited in Morse 1980).
Hinde, R. A. 1954b. Factors governing the changes in strength of a partially inborn
response, as shown by the mobbing behavior of the chaffinch (Fringilla coelobs). II,
The waning of the response. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 142: 332-358. (Cited
in Morse 1980).
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities
of California. California Department of Fish and Game.
Horsfall, Emmett, 1990. Chula Vista Fire Department. Telephone communication, October
31, 1990.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1979. Red
Data Book, Vol. 3: Amphibia and Reptilia.
Jameson, E.W., Jr. and Hans J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of
California Press.
JHK & Associates. 1989. Draft. Engineering Report for the City of Chula Vista Bikeway
Plan. September, 1989.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1983. Final Analysis of Select Biological Issues Relating
to the Chula Vista Bayfront Plan. Prepared for the City of Chula Vista. 10 March
1983.
11-3
90-14.012 01/24/91
IGJ ,.;)If~
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1986. Wetland Determination at Marsh North of F Street
in the Bayfront, Chula Vista, California. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. June
1986.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Studies of California Least Terns and Water-
Associated Birds at the Chula Vista Bayfront, San Diego County, California.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista and San Diego Unified Port District. December
7, 1988.
Jorgensen, Paul. 1987. Clapper Rail Census (unpublished data) 3 April 1987.
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. 1990. Draft City of Chula Vista Midbayfront LCP
Resubrnittal No.8 Amendment Environmental Impact Report and Appendices. 1
August 1990. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Siang S. Tan. 1977. Geology of National City, Imperial Beach
and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California.
California Division of Mines and Geology. Map Sheet 29.
Kenney, Martin. 1990. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, California.
Marcus, Laurel. 1989. The Coastal Wetlands of San Diego County. California State
Coastal Commission. 64pp.
Mayer, Kenneth E. and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife
Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Montgomery, Stephen J. 1987. Monitoring and Observations of Avifauna at the Sweetwater
River Mouth, Gunpowder Point, G Street Shore and Marsh Vicinity. Unpublished
field notes.
Morse, D. H. 1980. Behavioral Mechanisms in Ecology. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge, Mass. 383 pp.
Morse, D. H. 1970. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds.
Eeo/. Monogr. 40:119-168.
Mudie, P. J. 1970a. A Survey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part
I: Description of the Environment and the Vegetation Types, June 1970. California
Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. W26 D25-51.
Mudie, P. 1. 1970b. A Survey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part
II: Vegetation Analyses, October 1970. California Department of Fish and Game,
Contract No. W26 D25-51.
11-4
9IJ-14.012 01/24/91
/I:J - J 113
Nagano. 1982. Population Status of the Tiger Beetles of the Genus Cicindela
(Coleoptera:Cicindelidae) Inhabiting the Marine Shoreline of Southern California.
Alala 8(2): 33-42.
Neudecker, Stephen, Ph.D., compiler. 1989. Birds of the Sweetwater Marsh (175 Species)
as arranged in phylogenetic order according to the Thirty-fourth Supplement to the
American Birds; Supplement to the Auk Vol. 99, No.3. July 1982.
Onuf, Christopher P. 1987. The Ecology of Mugu Lagoon, California: An Estuarine
Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 85(7.15).
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1986. Study Design for the Monitoring of
Selected Biological Subjects in the Sweetwater Marsh and Upland Complex Chula .
Vista, California. Prepared for: California State Coastal Conservancy.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987a. Gunpowder Point, South Levee Road
Vegetation Characterization and Wetland Identification. National City, California.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista, Redevelopment Agency.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987b. Monitoring and Observation of the Birds
at Gunpowder Point, National City, California. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987c. Endangered Species and Land Use
Alternatives Analysis for the Preparation of a Biological Opinion on the Sweetwater
River Flood Control/State Route 54 Project. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1988. A Study of the Effects of the 1987 Del
Mar Grand Prix on Water-Associated Birds Inhabiting the San Dieguito Lagoon, Del
Mar, California. Prepared for California State Coastal Commission and 22nd District
Agricultural Association in Coordination with The Butler/Roach Group, San Diego,
California.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1990a. Report of Biological Resources of the
Northern Portions of the Chula Vista Bayfront & the Potential Impacts of the
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment & Proposed Development of the Mid-
Bayfront. Prepared for Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., San Diego, California.
20 July 1990.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1990b. An Evaluation of Avian Flight Activities
within the Chula Vista Mid-Bayfront and the Potential for Impacts from the
Development of Bayfront Uplands. Prepared for Keller Environmental Associates,
Inc., San Diego, California. 30 July 1990.
11-5
90-14.012 01/24/91
,'I' Jilt
Remsen, J. V., II. 1980. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 54pp.
Rick Engineering. 1990. Drainage Study Rohr's Corporate Facility. Prepared for: Rohr
Industries. 14 May 1990.
Sadler, Amy. 1990. Supplemental Information for the Rohr Office Complex
Environmental Analysis. Memorandum to Mary Ann Miller, City of Chula Vista,
Planning Department. 31 July 1990.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1989. SANDAG Population and
Housing Estimates, Series 7 Population Forecast. 1 January 1989.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1989. San Diego Traffic Generators.
September 1989.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1990. Series 7 Regional Growth
Forecast MonitQring Report. July 1990.
San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980. Survey and Status of Endangered and Threatened
Species of Reptiles Natively Occurring in San Diego County.
San Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee. 1976. Proposed List of Species and Habitats
Requiring Special Protection and Study in San Diego County. Memorandum to San
Diego County Environmental Quality Division.
San Diego Unified Port District. 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Report (UPD #78102-
EIR-l). Report by Environmental Management Department.
Sanders, Dana R. 1989. Letter report to Art Sellgren detailing wetlands delineation
performed November 1988 on Rohr parcel. 12 August 1989.
Schleidt, W. M. 1961. Reaktionen von Truthuhnern auffliegende Raubvogel und Versuch
zur Analyse ihrer AAM's. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 18:534-60 (as cited in Morse
1980).
Sedway Cooke Associates et al. 1984. Phase II Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. Certified 27 March
1984. Amended April 1989.
Shalter, M. D. 1975. Lack of spatial generalization in habituation tests of fowl. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology 89:258-262.
Shalter, M. D. 1978. Effect of spatial context on the mobbing reaction of pied flycatcher
to a predator model. Animal Behavior 26:1219-1221.
11-6
90-14.01201/24/91
,q "'Jlf~
Smith, James Payne, and Ken Berg. 1988. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Fourth Edition. Spec. Pub!.
No. 1. September 1988.
Smythe, Jim. 1990. Sweetwater Authority. Telephone cornrnunicaion, October 31, 1990.
Soule, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox, eds. 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-
Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. 395pp.
Starboard Development Corporation. 1990. City of Chula Vista Initial Study Application
Form for the Rohr Office Complex. Revised 18 June 1990.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston. 336pp.
Stewart, G. R. 1971. Rare, Endangered and Depleted Amphibians and Reptiles in
California. Herpetology 5: 29-35.
Tate, James, Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds 40(2):227-236.
Thorne, R. F. 1976. The Vascular Plant Communities of California, in J. Latting (ed.),
Symposium proceedings: Plant Communities of Southern California. California
Native Plant Society. Spec. Publ. No.2. 1-31pp.
Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (U.S.A.) 1989. Transportation Analysis for Chula Vista
Bayfront. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 27 March 1989.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Code of Fed. Regal. Title 50, Part 17.11 and 17.12 (revised 1 January 1986).
Vener, Samuel. 1985. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. Chula Vista,
California.
Wallace, Roberts & Todd. 1990. Conceptual Landscape Plans for the Rohr Office
Complex Site. Plans include: Plant species list, plan views, and cross sections. San
Diego, California.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1987. Final Report
Conceptual Design for Chula Vista Bayfront Restoration and Enhancement Plans.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista, April 1987.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986a. Restoration &
Enhancement Plans for City of Chula Vista Bayfront - Task I Report: Synthesis of
Available Information. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 31 March 1986.
11-7
9<J.14.012 01/24/91
J,-,)4h
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986b. Opportunities and
Constraints Affecting Restoration and Enhancement Plans for the Bayfront Area of
the City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 3 Report Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 9
May 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986c. Specific Habitat
Objectives for Bayfront Enhancement Plans City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 4 Report
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 10 May 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986d. Enhancement
Alternatives Preliminary Design The Bayfront City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 5
Report Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 8 July 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Philip Williams & Associates. 1987. Vener Pond
Enhancement Plan, Prepared for: City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency.
White, Alice. 1985. Personal communication to Stephen J. Montgomery, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Willdan Associates. 1982. Impact of the Ashe-Slatt 500-kV Transmission Line on Birds at
Crow Butte Island: Post-construction Final Report. Bonneville Power
Administration, Contract DE-AC 79-80BP21135. Portland, Oregon.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed
Rohr Industries Office Complex, Southwest Corner of "F' Street and Bay Boulevard,
Chula Vista, California. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 24 July 1990.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Letter report to Mary Ann Miller, City of Chula
Vista, Planning Department, regarding hazardous substance contamination, site
assessment reports - "F" Street site, Chula Vista, California. Proj. No. 90511321-
CONS. 27 April 1990.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1988. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Rohr "F"
Street Property. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 13 May 1988.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1989. Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring Rohr
Industries. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 18 May 1989.
Zedler, Joy B., Phil Williams, and John Boland. 1986. Catastrophic Events Reveal the
Dynamic Nature of Salt-Marsh Vegetation in Southern California. Estuaries 9(1): 75-
80.
Zemba!, R. and B. W. Massey. 1981. A Census of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in
California. West. Birds 12:87-99
11-8
90-14.01201/24/91
/'1"'O)~r
Zembal, Rand B. W. Massey. 1985. Distribution of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in
California, 1980-1984. Amer. Birds 39(2): 135-137.
Zembal, Rand B. W. Massey. 1986. Light-footed Clapper Rail Census and Study, 1986.
Final Report, California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife,
Endangered Species.
Zembal, R, K. J. Kramer, R J. Bransfield, and N. Gilbert. 1988. A Survey of Belding's
Savannah Sparrows in California. Amer. Birds 42(5):1233-1236.
11-9
90-14.012 01/24/91
19-;}/I(
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND UST OF PREPARERS
It:; - ;Ill'?
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND liST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
of San Diego, California. Members of Keller Environmental Associates who contributed
to the report are listed below.
Diana Gauss Richardson; M.A. Geography
Lisa K. Capper; J.D.; B.A. Anthropology
Teri Fenner; B.A. Geography
Christine A. Keller; M.A. Geography
Ellen Miille; B.A. Social Ecology jEnvironmental Planning
Tim Fox; B.A. Geography
Consultants involved in the preparation of this report include:
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
Keith W. Merkel
Craig H. Reiser
Biological Studies
JHK & Associates
Daniel F. Marum
Brian Shields
Kent Trimble
Traffic Circulation Studies
Hans D. Giroux
Air Quality Studies
Group Delta
Walter Crampton
Robert Smiley
Groundwater jHydrology
Studies
I hereby affirm that, to the best of our knowledge, the statements and information contained
herein are in all respects true and correct, and that all known information concerning the
potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been included and fully
evaluated in this EIR.
a()
Diana Gauss Richardson
Project Manager
12-1
90-14.013 01/24/91
J 'i -;)5 0
ATTACHMENT I b.
,
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 90-10)
FOR THE ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Rohr Industries is proposing the construction of a 245,000 square foot
office complex with associatea parking on an 11.6 acre site in the City
of Chula Vi sta. The site is located east of San Di ego Bay, west of
Interstate 5, South of "F" Street (Lagoon Drive), and north of the
existing Rohr facilities (see Figure 1).
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
On February 13, 1991, the Planning Commission certified Final EIR 90-10
for the Rohr Office Complex concluding that the EIR had been prepared in
compliance with CEQA and the City's environmental review procedures.
Subsequent to certification of the Final EIR (EIR 90-10), new information
became available regarding trip generation rates for the project.
In the final EIR the traffic analysis was based upon a trip generation
rate of 17 Average Daily Trips (ADT) per 1,000 square feet of office
space. This indicated a projected project impact of 4,170 ADT generated
by the project.
Subsequently, the project was reassessed under the assumpt i on that it
should be reclassified from a "large commercial office building" to a
"corporate headquarters" project. Corporate offi ces typi cally generate
10 ADT per 1,000 square feet, which reduces the total project impacts to
2,450 ADT. This represents 41% fewer trips generated by the project than
previously reported in the Final EIR.
The decrease in trip generation rates does not change the basic
conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. This new
information does, however, change the percentage contribution of the
project on impacted street segments and intersections in the project
vicinity.
Attachment "A" provides a breakdown of the project impacts, as well as
the mitigation measures which will now be required. These measures will
be ensured through their inclusion in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program developed for the project.
As indicated in Attachment "A", the project will generate less Average
Daily Trips, therefore the number of intersections adversely impacted has
been reduced accordi ngly. The intersect ions that wi 11 remai n adversely
impacted are the 1-5 northbound ramp at "E" Street, Broadway at "E"
Street, and Bay Blvd. at "F" Street (Lagoon Drive). Two intersections no
1 onger requ i ri ng mit igat i on are I -5 northbound and southbound ramps at
"H" Street, since their LOS improved from LOS C to LOS B during the PM
peak hour. Also, Broadway at "H" Street will not require mitigation
since it will have a negligible contribution to overall project impacts.
,f:J'; 0 ~
Project specific mitigation will be required at the intersections
outl ined on Pages 3 and 4 of Attachment "A", in order to achieve an
acceptable Level of Service (LOS C or better) under future year 1992
conditions with project buildout.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that in circumstances where an
EIR has previously been prepared and approved for a project, an additional EIR
need not be prepared unless:
1. Project changes are proposed with the potential for new significant
environmental impacts not considered in the previous EIR;
2. Changes have occurred to the "circumstances under which the project
is undertaken" which may result in new, significant environmental
impacts not considered in the previous EIR; or
3. Important new information has become available which was not known
at the time of EIR preparation and shows:
A. The project would have significant impacts not addressed in the
EIR;
B. Previously identified significant
substantially more severe;
impacts
would
be
C. Mitigation measures previously determined to be infeasible
would be feasible and would substantially reduce the
significant impact(s); or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously not considered
would substantially reduce significant impacts(s).
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidel ines stipulates that the lead agency shall
only prepare an EIR addendum if:
1. None of the conditions included in Section 15164 requiring a new EIR
have occurred;
2. Only minor technical revisions or additions to the environmental
analysis in the EIR are necessary for compliance with CEQA; and
3. The changes to the EIR do not raise "important new issues about the
significant effects on the environment."
3.0 DETERMINATION
The minor technical reV1Slons undertaken in the traffic section of the
Rohr Office Complex EIR (EIR 90-10) do not change the basic conclusions
of the EIR that traffic impacts are deemed to be significant, but
mitigable. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified
as a result of the traffic re-analysis. This addendum outlining the
reduced traffic impact anticipated for the Rohr Project has been prepared
in compl iance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidel ines and with the
environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
-2-
1~"JOf
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the requirements in
the CEQA Guidel ines (Sections 15162 and 15164) for additional environmental
documentation relative to the previous decisions, new information which has
been developed, and activities which have occurred subsequent to the
preparat i on of the Draft and Fi na 1 EIRs for thi s project. The City has
concluded that:
1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since
completion of the Final EIR as a result of detailed engineering
design changes have not created any new signi ficant envi ronmenta 1
impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR;
2. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion
of the final EIR does not indicate any new significant environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR; and
3. Additional or refined information available since completion of the
Final EIR regarding the potential environmental impact of the
project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to
mi t igate potential envi ronmental effects of the project, does not
show that the project will have one or more significant impacts
which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidel ines, the City
has prepared this addendum to the Final EIR to document the information and
analYSis which lead to these conclusions. No public review of this addendum
is required.
REFERENCES
JHK and Associates 1991. Recalculated Project Impacts Rohr Office Complex
Devt. (JHK 1135) February 28, 1991 (Revised April 4, 1991).
WPC 9099P
-3-
1'1-j() '8
Attachment A
jhk & associates
February 28, 1991
April 4, 1991 (Revised)
Ms. Ellen Mille
Environmental Consultant
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, California 92010
Re: Recalculated Project impacts - Rohr Office Complex Development (JHK 1135)
Dear Ms. Mille:
In response to new trip generation and intersection geometric information, JHK &
Associates (JHK) has prepared the following report documenting new project impacts for the
above referenced project. This report provides new information regarding existing conditions,
future conditions with the project. and future conditions with the project and the recommended
mitigation. The tables that are included in this report are modified versions of the tables included in
the original Traffic impact Analysis Report.
The purpose for performing this additional traffic analysis as an addendum to the original
Traffic impact Analysis Report was primarily in response to the new direction provided by the City
of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department This new direction involved the use of a trip
generation rate of ten trips per thousand square feet for the Rohr Corporate Office Complex. This
new trip generation rate is some 41 % lower than the trip generation rate used in the original
analysis which was 17 trips per thousand square feet for a Large Commercial Office Complex.
Based on the 245,000 square feet of development which is planned for this site, approximately
2,450 trips will be generated. Thus, the following sections contain technical discussion addressing
this change in estimated trip generation for the site. The most critical finding of this new traffic
analysis is the sections entitled "impact of Project Trips - Year 1992 PM Peak Hour" and "Future
Conditions With Mitigation." Both of these sections describe the findings which resulted from this
reanalysis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table A-I shows the existing levels of service and ICU results based on new information
regarding the 1-5 freeway ramp interchanges at "E" and "H" Streets. Please note that the
intersection of 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street has improved from LOS D to LOS C during the
PM Peak hour. Also, the intersection of 1-5 Southbound Rampf'H" Street improved from LOS C
to LOS B during the PM peak hour.
I'-~O'
8989 Rio San Diego Drive . Suite 335
San Diego. California 92108 . (619) 295-2248 . FAX (619) 295-2393
_jhk & associates
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 2
IMPACT OF PROJECT TRIPS. YEAR 1992 PM PEAK HOUR
Due to the reduction in project generated trips and changes in intersection geometries, the
number of intersections that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS (lower than LOS D) is
reduced from six to three. The three intersections that remain impacted are:
Impacted Si~alized Intersections
1-5 Northboun Ramp at "E" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
PM PEAK HOUR
ICU LOS
0.80 D
0.84 D
0.85 D
The contribution of project generated trips entering impacted intersections is also reduced,
as compared with the calculated contributions in the original analysis, as shown on the following
table:
Impact of Project Trips. Year 1992 PM Peak Hour
Signalized Intersections
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "E" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
Projects Contribution
5.6 percent
0.6 percent
Not applicable*
-Note: The contribution of projected traffic at this intersection is negligible. However, annual
growth will playa vital part in deterioration of future levels of service at this intersection.
Because the intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street is heavily impacted (LOS D) by
project generated traffic. This intersection will require signalization and geometric mitigation as
described in the following section to acheive an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) in the
future. The contribution of project traffic at this location in the Year 1992 PM peak hour is equal to
approximately 17 percent of the total peak hour entering volume.
As shown on Table A-2, incremental improvements to intersection levels of service are
achieved with the reduced project trip generation as compared to the original traffic analysis which
was based on the higher trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet. Please note that the signalized
intersections at 1-5 Ramps/"H"Street are not significantly impacted by project generated traffic in
the future under this new lower trip generation rate.
I 't - ;lIt)
_jhk & assoa.res
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 3
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATION
As shown on Table A-3, three intersections no longer require mitigation (1-5 NB and SB
Ramps at "H" Street and Broadway at "H" Street). The following mitigation measures are still
recommended at the three impacted intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) under future Year 1992 conditions with the project:
Recommended Mitipation Measures . Intersections
Intersections
Description of Mitigation
Improvement
Widen the westbound
approach of "E" Street at the
northbound 1-5 ramps to
provide a separate right turn
only lane to access the north-
bound 1-5 on-ramp.
1-5 Northbound Ramps
at "E" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Provide an exclusive right turn
only lane from eastbound "E"
Street to southbound
Broadway. This additional
lane would facilitate smoother
traffic flow from 1-5 and
Central Chula Vista.
1'1-~11
Ti ming/Res ponsi bili t Y
City Traffic Engineer shall
continue to monitor traffic flow
on an annual basis and the
recommended improvement
shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by
the City Traffic Engineer. The
developer will be responsible
for contribution to this
improvement as deemed
appropriate by the City
Engineer.
City Traffic Engineer shall
continue to monitor traffic flow
on an annual basis and the
recommended improvement
shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by
the City Traffic Engineer. The
developer will be responsible
for contribution to this
improvement as deemed
appropriate by the City
Engineer.
_jhk & associates
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 4
Bay Boulevard at "P"
StreetlLagoon Drive
. Install a new traffic signal.
. Restripe all approaches to the
intersection to provide
exclusive left turn lanes. The
heavy projected demand for
eastbound left turns will
require future design to
maximize the amount of
storage length to be provided
at this intersection.
. Restripe the east and
westbound approaches to this
in tersection to provide two
through lanes on each
approach in addition to the
exclusive left turn lanes
described above.
Recommended Mitipation Measures . Sepments
Segments
Bay Boulevard between
liE" and lOP" Streets
"P" StreetlLagoon Drive
West of Bay Boulevard to
Western edge property
Description of Mitigation
Improvement
Designate this segment for
vehicle and bike traffic only
and remove all on-street
parking. The cross-section
should provide for one lane of
travel in each direction, a
center turn lane, and a bike
lane in each direction.
Construct Lagoon Drive to
major standards as
recommended by the City
Engineer.
1e;,.~/~
All improvements shall be
installed by the developer prior
to issuance of occupancy
permit.
Timing/Responsibil ity
Ci ty Traffic En gineer shall
continue to monitor traffic flow
on an annual basis and the
recommended improvement
shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by
the City Traffic Engineer.
All improvements shall be
installed by the developer prior
to issuance of occupancy
permit.
_jhk & associates
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 5
The information presented above summarizes the results of our reanalysis of the traffic
impacts associated with this project. The technical information generated during this reanalysis
will be incorporated into a Final Technical Report to be produced by JHK in March, 1991. JHK &
Associates is confident that this new information will meet the needs of the City of Chula Vista and
if there are any questions regarding this technical analysis or you require additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Pam Barnhan or me.
Sincerely Yours,
JHK & Associates
j)~?: j//~-
Daniel F. Marum
Senior Transportation Planner
Attachments
cc: Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Consultant
City of Chula Vista
Ms. Pam Buchan
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Chula Vista
Mr. Hal Rosenberg, P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Mr. Frank Castro, P.E.
Senior Associate
111-;//3
.0
jhk_
Table A-I
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
YEAR 1990 CONDmONS . SIGNAU7.1m INTERSEcrIONS
IntersectIon AM Peak PM Peak
HIS Street em Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "E"Street 0.40 A 0.62 B
'-5 Northbound
Ramps. "E"Street 0.62 B 0.75 C
Woodlawn Avenue "E"Street 0;51 A 0.68 B
Broadway -po Street 0.36 A 0.68 B
Bay Boulevard "1-1" Street 0.29 A 0.47 A
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "1-1" Street 0.43 A 0.72 C
1-5 Northbound
Ramp "1-1" Street 0.56 A 0.67 B
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.78 C
Broadway "1-1" Street 0.42 A 0.79 C
I&J -OJI'I
A-4
------- I
jhk '" ....
Table A-2
SUMMARy OF STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Conditions
ExIsting Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N1S Street E!W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1.5 SB Ramp "E" Slrest 0.40 A 0.61 B
1.5 NB Ramp "E" SIreet 0.62 B 0.69 B
1.5 SB Ramp ,.." Slreet 0.43 A 0.47 A
1.5 NB Ramp ,.." Slreet 0.56 A 0.61 B
Bay Boulevard ,.." Slreet 0.29 A 0.31 A
Woodlawn Avenue "E"Slreet 0.51 A 0.56 A
Broadway "F" Street 0.36 A 0.66 B
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.40 B
Broadway ,.." Street 0.42 A 0.45 A
PM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Conditions
existing Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N/S Street E!W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-5 SB Ramp "E" Street 0.62 B 0.79 C
1-5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.75 C 0.80 0"
1.5 SB Ramp ,.." Slreet 0.72 C 0.78 C
1-5 NB Ramp ,.." Street 0.67 B 0.71 C
Bay Boulevard ,.." Street 0.47 A 0.58 A
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street 0.68 C 0.74 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.68 B 0.74 C
Broadway "E" Street 0.78 C 0.84 0"
Broadway "Ii" Slreet 0.79 C 0.85 0"
Note: "
Indicates mitigation measures will be required to achieve acceptable
levels of service for Year 1992 conditions.
III ~5,J IS
jhk .t .... ...
U1
Table A-J
SUMMARy OF PM PEAK HOURINTERSEC'IION OPERATIONS
BEFORE AND AFl'ER MITIGATION
STUDY AREA PROBLEM LOCATIONS - FUTtIRE YEAR 1991
Before After
MHlastlon MIIlastlon
Proposed Proposed
Intersection ProJect ProJect
NlS EJW leu LOS ICU ~
-
Broadway "E" Street 0.84 0 0.78 e
Broadway "H"Street 0.85 0 0.85 0
1-5NB
Ramp "E" Street O.BO 0 0.74 e
Bay Blvd. "F' Street NlA 0.75 e
Note;. NlA indicates that the intersection of Bay BouJevardI"F' Street is currently
unsignalized and was analyzed as a tour.way stop conIIOlled intersection.
111e "Aller Mitigation" Analysis tested this intersection under signal
centrol.
1'1....~/~
"
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
EIR-90-1O
CANDIDATE CEQA FIN1;)INGS
In accordance with Section 21081 of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Section
15091 of Title 14 of the California Administration
Code.
Prepared for:
City of ChuIa Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Febmary, 1991
J'...~/?-
ATTACHMENT I c.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
II. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS........................... 2
III. IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO
BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
A.
Biology
3
Impact ................................................ 3
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . .. 3
Finding . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ .. 3
IV. SIGNIFICANT, MITIGABLE IMPACTS................... _....... 4
A. Drainage/Groundwater/Grading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
In:~act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. 4
MItIgatIOn ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
Finding .. . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. 6
B.
Biology
6
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
MItigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ .. 7
Finding .. . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
C. Circulation/Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . .. 10
Impact ................................. _ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Mitigation . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . _ . _. 11
Finding . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . .. 13
D. Air Quality ....... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Impact ............. _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . .. 13
MItigatIOn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Finding _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
.
V. INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ........................... _ . _ . . . _. 14
VI. THE RECORD ............................................. 14
VII. Statement of Overriding Consideration...........................;:... 15
- IJ -
9O-].I.0:!102/13/91
I. INTRODUCTION
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project
shall be approved by a public agency when significant environmental effects have been
identified, unless one of the following findings is made and supported by substantial
evidence in the record:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
(2) Changes or alterations are the responsibility of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the Final EIR for the
proposed Rohr Office Complex (SCH # 90010623) and all documents, maps, and
illustrations listed in Section VI of these findings. The project's discretionary actions include
the following:
(1) Grading Permit
(2) Building Permit
(3) City Coastal Development Permit
(4) Coastal Commission Development Permit
The Rohr Office Complex Project site is an 11.6 acre site located within the Midbayfront
area in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is located sits east of the "F' & "G" Street
Marsh, west of the SDG&E right-of-way, north of Rohr Industries' existing complex and
south of "F' Street.
The "F" & "G" Street Marsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). The NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing
habitat for many types of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
- 1 -
I~ ....~/r
9O-U021 02/13/91
endangered and/or threatened by State and Federal agencies. The project site is currently
undeveloped, but has been used for agriculture in the past and is littered with agricultural
and household debris. An abandoned irrigation system and several unimproved roads
transect the site. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
The proposed project includes the proposed construction of a 42-foot high office building
and associated parking area containing 730 spaces, a drainage system, and a road
improvements to "F" Street and Bay Boulevard. On-site landscaping will be provided and
a berm and detention basin will be created on the western portion of the property to
physically separate the Marsh from the project and protect it from surface runoff. A 6-foot.
high chain link fence will be located near the toe of the western facing slope of the berm
to prevent disturbance to the adjacent sensitive wildlife refuge area.
Alternative 2, the "Modified Design" Alternative, includes the development of a 245,000
square foot office complex with two subsurface parking structures, which provide partial
mitigation of parking impacts.
The following findings are applicable to the project and Alternative 2, as presented and
analyzed in the Final ErR. The findings have been prepared pursuant to Sections 21081 of
the California Resources Code, and 15091 of Title 14 of the California Administration Code.
n. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS
A. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final ErR for the Rohr Office Complex project, and the record, finds that
changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate, avoid, or reduce the
level of identified impacts to a level below significant and acceptable to the City, by
measures identified in the Final ErR.
B. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final ErR and the record, finds that none of the significan! environmental
effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project are within the responsibility of
another public agency.
- 2 -
90.14.021 02/13/91
C. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR and the record, finds that no specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
D. The Planning Commission acknowledges that these recommended CEQA Findings
are advisory and do not bind the City Council from adopting findings to the contrary
if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
m. IMPAcrs FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO BELOW A LEVEL
OF SIGNIFICANCE
A Biology
Impact
Elimination of fallow agricultural fields currently used for raptor foraging and replacement
of them with approximately 9.5 acres of developed land would result from project
implementation. Because of the limited extent of similar coastal habitat and the absence
of currently accepted mitigative measures, the impact is considered to be an incremental
contribution to a cumulatively (regionally) significant impact.
Mitigation
No mitigation measures are available to reduce this incremental impact to a level below
significant. Any development on this site would result in the same incremental significant
impact.
Finding
Land use at the project site has been planned for the proposed type of use by both the
existing, adopted Local Coastal Program and the General Plan, and the proposed project
is in conformance with these plans. However, even though the project is jn conformance
with adopted land use plans, it, and any development, would result in the incremental
contribution to a cumulatively significant impact.
li/~~/e:;
9O.U.02J 02/lJ/91
However, the City of Chula Vista in their statement of overriding
consideration has determined that the benefits derived from the
implementation of the project out weighs the incremental contribution to
a significant cumulative impact. Please refer to the statement of
overriding consideration following these findings.
IV. SIGNIFICANT, MfTIGABLE IMPACTS
A Drainage/Groundwater /Grading
Impact
· Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant flooding impacts may be
associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over capacity).
· Significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot
with oil, grease and other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "F'
& "G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern..
· Significant impacts may occur if surface runoff carries silt and sediment into the
Marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during
winter months, when the heaviest rains occur.
· Potentially significant impacts may result due to approximately 11.2 acres being
graded to provide flat pads for parking and the building. A total of 40,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill will be generated. The maximum depth of cut and fill will be 11
and 7 feet, respectively, with the average change in grade of approximately 2 feet.
· Significant impacts to the wetlands area on site could result if adjacent grading
introduces soils to this sensitive area.
.
Onsite soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable in
their present condition for structural support.
.
Saturated soils from groundwater, without remediation, may adversel:t affect building
.support and may be an unacceptable material for building support and fill.
- 4 -
Of] 'UPT In/TI/OT
Mitigation
. A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit issued by the
Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work and/or installation of any
drainage structures.
. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990)
must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department. All
recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the applicant..
This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and must be included
(or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas overlain by
bay deposits or other compressible overburden soils will require some form of
subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for use
in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the
use of surcharge fills to pre-compress saturated bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table; or foundation elements must be designed to extend through these
soils into competent bearing formational soils.
. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto
existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to
improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to pre-compress
saturated bay deposits.
. If saturated soils are encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering should be implemented in general accordance with the recommendations
contained in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance with
RWQCB order 90-31 regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
Diego Bay will be required.
J ~ -:-0);)0
9O-J.l.021 02/JJ/91
· If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained
in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront
Specific Plan must be implemented, and these must also be included (or referenced
to) on the Grading Plan.
· To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier system
must be placed between the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading
and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This
measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
.
To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be constructed
along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. During
construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically trained construction
monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the integrity of the wetland. To
guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into the wetland, the
western slope of the berm must be hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting.
This measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
,
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
B. Biology
Impacts
· Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent
NWR lands
· Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff
· Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the
drainage system
- 6 -
90-].1.021 02/13/91
. Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and human
presence
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
. An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Mitigation
. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub vegetation
between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer must be isolated
from human intrusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds
as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities occurring on the patio areas.
. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and grease
traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed
on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple-chambered.
. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as needed through the winter and
spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing,
as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must be conducted,
possibly through the mitigation monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is
occurring as required.
. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained
during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction
site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would assist in this measure. In addition, construction de-wa.tering should be
directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so
that clear water is released from the site through the regular desiltation basins.
I q 7-": ~:J, I
90-14.071 02//3/91
. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be from the lists
provided by the developer. Should species substitutions be desired, these must be
submitted to the City landscape architect for review. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limoniul1l or Carpobrotus
species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting
sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, must be restricted from use.
. A "biologically aware" construction monitor must be present for all phases of grading
and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed through the
City and would report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering,
Planning or Community Development Department if construction activities fail to
met the conditions outlined or should unforeseen problems arise which require
immediate action or stopping of the construction activities. This monitor must
continue monitoring on a reduced basis during actual outside building construction.
. Re-establishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site drainage swale
must be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and direct impacts of the
project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove straddling the NWR border.
Management of the riparian grove to retain wildlife resources must be coordinated
with the National Wildlife Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types
must be included in the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species
used in this habitat area.
· Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through vegetation
barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet encroachment must
be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western
property boundary.
· The project should be a participant in a predator management program for the ChuJa
Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators.
This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a
basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed develoPl!lent. This plan
should include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet
activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should include management of
predators within the adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development areas.
- 8 -
90-14.02102/13/91
. A full time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront, or by other
funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management program, ensure
compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of
other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers
should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal
Reserve Lands. Officers s~ould have training in predator control and should possess
the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
It is recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection of the
entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the boundaries of
the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and the San Diego Bay. The
jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in this board are the City of
Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District, the Bayfront Conservancy Trust,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game,
Rohr Industries, and the owner of the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula
Vista Investors).
. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who is a
state-certified applicator.
. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the multi-
jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for the purpose
of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator
control program and mitigation programs for the project.
. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
I~-,;J~~
90-1-1.021 02/13/91
· Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a suitable substitute
are recommended.
· No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included on the
western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west should not exceed two
inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are exposed to the wetlands must
be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct
any additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy incidence of perching
be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
· Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the
western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum
required for security on the western side of the building.
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
C. Circulation/Parking
Impact
· "F' Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate at LOS B or above with
the exception of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street, which will decline
from LOS C to F with the inclusion of annual growth and the project. The
intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F' Street would decline from LOS B to D with
the project responsible for 53 percent of this impact.
· 1-5 northbound at "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.6 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
- 10 -
90-14.02102/13/91
. 1-5 southbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (4.5 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
. 1-5 northbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (0.9 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
. Broadway and "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.7 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
. A significant parking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13 percent) under the
proposed project, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
occu r.
Mitigation
. Bay Boulevard north of "P' Street should be designed for traffic only and on-street
parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wide parking areas adjacent to the east curb
line must be dedicated to normal traffic flow. "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) must be re-
striped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out
from the intersection, and three lanes in toward the intersection. The three inbound
lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one through-lane, and one
shared through- and right-turn lane. The westbound and northbound approaches will
also require modification to provide one left-turn lane, one through, and one right-
turn lane. Signalization is necessary at the intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Bay Boulevard for 100 to 200 feet north of the intersection would
be necessary to accomplish this measure. These measures would improve the LOS
to C. The applicant is responsible for providing 53 percent of the funds for this
mitigation based on the recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed in
Section 10.0 of this report).
. Implementation of two improvements must be made prior to, or concurrent with,
development of the Rohr project, which is necessary due to the near-term extremely
I'J 1J -~~.3
90-14.02/ 02/13/91
poor conditions at this intersection. These improvements are to (1) widen westbound
"E" Street at the northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-turn lane from
westbound "E" Street; (2) restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to
provide an exclusive right-turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. The
applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
· Double left- turn only lanes on "H" Street to southbound 1-5 should be provided to
improve the operation to LOS C. The applicant is responsible for providing a
proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
· Double left turn only lanes on "H" Street to northbound 1-5 ramp should be provided.
This mitigation measure would improve intersection operation to LOS C. The
applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
· An exclusive right turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound Broadway
should be provided. This additional lane would facilitate smoother traffic flow from
1-5 and improve the operation LOS to C. The applicant is responsible for providing
a proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
· The applicant must meet the City's standard by either providing additional
permanent offsite parking; or by reducing the size of the building; or limiting the
number of employees consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard.
This limit could be increased if the proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces
under Alternative 2) is found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be
provided. In order to determine if the parking is adequate, the parking demand
should be monitored over a one year period following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building.
- 12 -
90-14.021 02/13/91
. .
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
D. Air Ouality
Impact
· Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant impact will result from build-
out project traffic adding approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NO, and 0.03 ton.
of ROG daily to the airshed. The NO, and ROG counts (the main ozone formation
precursor pollutants) are less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
threshold.
· Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional impacts resulting from
the clearing of existing site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporary emissions of dust,
fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during project construction will
occur. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from construction
activities are assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If
the entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development, total daily dust
emissions would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
Mitigation
· Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) such as ridesharing, vanpool incentives,
alternate transportation methods and transit utilization must be incorporated into the
project.
· Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abate.ment measures
required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70 percent.
(~-- ;1~ ~
9O-NO!! O!/13/91
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
Y INSIGNIFICANT IMPACfS
In accordance with the evaluation provided in EIR-90-1O, and previous documentation
and/or standard requirements, the project would not result in any significant impacts in the
issue areas below; these issues have therefore not been discussed above:
I) Agricultural Resources
2) Noise
3) Cultural Resources
4) Land Use
5) Parks and Recreation
6) Utilities (water, sewer, energy)
7) Human Health
8) Risk of Upset
9) Schools
10) Public Services (police and fire)
VI_ TIIE RECORD
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of the Planning Commission and
City Council relating to these actions include the following:
References and Persons consulted, included as Section 11.0 of the Final EIR, and the
Comments Received as a result of the circulation of the Notice of Preparation and
Draft EIR, contained in Appendix A and the Response to Comments portions of the
Final EIR, respectively_
- 14 -
90-N.021 02/13/91
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
The decisionmaker, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, after balancing
the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the EIR and the Findings which remain notwithstanding the mitigation
measures and alternatives incorporated into the Project, determines that such
remaining environmental effects are acceptable due to the following:
A The need to expand an Industrial Business Park use in the Midbayfront area in
conformance with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program.
B.. The need to stimulate the regional economy by providing construction-related
employment and employment related to the Project's industrial, office and
commercial uses, all as more particularly set forth in the record.
C. The need to advance Chula Vista's environmental goals by decreasing current
acts of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation on the Project site.
megal off-road vehicle use will probably also decline.
D. The need to increase the economic base of the City of Chula Vista.
riding
1'1" ,).)5
Page - 15
ATTACHMENT I d.
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
April 11, 1991
I q ... .,).j."
MONITORING PURPOSE AND PLAN
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is prepared for the City of
Chula Vista (City) in conjunction with the Rohr Office Complex project. The project has
been described and analyzed in an environmental impact report and addenda thereto (EIR)
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State
CEQA Guidelines (Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., February, 1991). A Final EIR
for the project was certified by the City on February 13, 1991 (SCH No. 90010623). This
MMRP will serve a dual purpose of (1) observing and reporting that the mitigation
measures described in the EIR for the project are appropriately carried out, and generating
information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions, and
(2) ensuring that the City's responsibilities under the requirements of Section 21081.6 of
CEQA are met. This document sets forth the overall mitigation monitoring program
framework for the Rohr Office Complex project. A subsequent contract with the City's
Environmental Review Coordinator will be used to further define details of specific
mitigation monitoring activities.
The City will monitor the mitigation measures as presented in the certified EIR for impacts
identified as significant or potentially significant, but which will be reduced to a level of
insignificance upon implementation of such measures. This MMRP for the Rohr Office
Complex project addresses mitigation measures identified in the EIR for significant impacts
in the following areas:
. Drainage/Groundwater/Grading
. Biology
. Circulation/Parking
. Air Quality
The City will implement the MMRP. In this role, the City may identify a City staff person
or department or, where reasonably necessary for the implementation of this MMRP and
where a specific monitoring or verification function does not already fall within the job
responsibilities of any City staff person or department, or regulatory agency having
jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, hire (i) a biologically trainediconsultant functioning as a biological resources monitor (BRM), or (ii) a consultant
-I-
I CJ -;J.J. 1-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
functioning as a mitigation compliance coordinator (MCC). If required, the BRM will
conduct on-site monitoring of the implementation of mitigation measures affecting impacted
biological resources during active grading operations, installation of drainage systems, and
major landscaping for the project, and will conduct minimal monitoring of the
implementation of such measures during actual exterior building construction, to ensure that
this MMRP is being implemented in accordance with its terms. If requested by the City,
the BRM will compile periodic monitoring reports during such grading operations, drainage
installation, and major landscaping for submission to the City, summarizing the results of
monitoring for which the BRM is responsible. The BRM will consist of no more than two
individuals. One individual will be a biological technician whose job will be to monitor, as
required, grading, the installation of drainage systems, and major landscaping on a
reasonably periodic basis. The second individual will be a professional biologist, to whom
the technician will periodically report.
If required, the MCC will conduct minimal on-site monitoring during active periods of
grading and the installation of drainage systems, so as to avoid duplication of the duties of
the BRM, and will, on a more regular, reasonably periodic basis conduct required on-site
monitoring during periods of actual exterior building construction to ensure that monitoring
for which the MCC is responsible is being implemented in accordance with the terms of this
MMRP. The MCC may, if requested by the City, compile and prepare periodic monitoring
reports summarizing the results of monitoring for which the MCC is responsible. These
reports will be filed with the City and any other regulatory agency with the authority to
enforce or otherwise regulate the construction and/or operation of the project.
This MMRP includes the following elements:
. Significant impacts as identified in the EIR
. Mitigation measures as identified in the EIR reducing significant impacts to
below a level of significance
. Mitigation monitoring activities
. Timing of monitoring activities
. Allocation of responsibility for monitoring and reporting
. Allocation of responsibility for verification
-2-
JCf-;J.:Lf
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
The summary table attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (MMRP
Summary Table) provides a brief description of each of these elements. The significant
impacts and mitigation measures are described in the MMRP Summary Table as they
appear in the EIR. The mitigation monitoring activities described in the MMRP Summary
Table describe the activities which constitute the monitoring program for the required
mitigation measures. The required duration of the monitoring activities are set forth in the
column of the MMRP Summary Table entitled 'Timing." The MMRP Summary Table also
sets forth the party, or specific City department, that is responsible for carrying out each
monitoring and reporting activity, or verifying that all monitoring and reporting have been
completed in accordance with this MMRP. In the event the provisions of the text of this
MMRP conflict with the MMRP Summary Table, the provisions of the text of this MMRP
shall controL
If authorized to do so by the City and to the extent such action does not interfere or conflict
with enforcement mechanisms or regulatory schemes established by regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, the MCC will also enforce the
implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring activities in the field, which may
include communication directly with the construction foreman or construction manager when
non-compliance is noted. This may, on occasion, require that construction be delayed while
a particular situation is remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the City department
responsible for verifying that a particular mitigation measure has been instituted. Subject
to approval by the City and the project applicant prior to implementation, the MCC may
also recommend additional mitigation measures to reduce impacts based on field
observations or to modify mitigation measures or monitoring procedures in response to
actual field conditions. Approved changes will be noted in activity logs and monitoring
reports and this MMRP will be modified accordingly.
It should be noted that a substantial level of monitoring by the City and regulatory agencies
will occur during the grading and exterior construction phases of the project, but that such
monitoring will be markedly reduced after completion of exterior construction and during
the long-term life of the project. If requested by the City, a mitigation monitoring report
will be prepared following the completion of the construction of the project. The report will
describe the monitoring activities which have occurred during construction, the observations
made, the success of the mitigation measures and recommendations for future mitigation
monitoring plans. This report will be prepared by the MCC and filed with the City.
-3-
9O-I4.mmp IJ4/09j91
I'''' ,,~9
Following the completion of construction of the project, any monitoring activities of the
MCC and the BRM cease and monitoring shall be the responsibility of the project applicant,
City and local, state or federal regulatory agencies. The primary responsibility for post-
construction monitoring of the implementation of mitigation measures relating to impacts
to biological resources will lie with regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the natural
resources contained in the NWR (as defined below).
PROJECf DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The Rohr Office Complex Project site is an 11.6 acre site located within the Midbayfront
area in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is located east of the "F' & "G" Street
Marsh, west of the SDG&E right-of-way, north of Rohr Industries' existing complex and
south of "F Street.
The "F' & "G" Street Marsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). The NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing
habitat for many types of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
endangered and/or threatened by State and Federal agencies. Virtually all of the natural
biological resources affected by the project are located within the NWR, the management
of which is primarily the responsibility of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The City's role
in the management of such resources is secondary and supportive of such agency's
monitoring activities and the monitoring activities described in this MMRP to be undertaken
by the City, its departments, the MCC or the BRM should be conducted accordingly.
The project site is currently undeveloped, but has been used for agriculture in the past and
is littered with agricultural and household debris. An abandoned irrigation system and
several unimproved roads transect the site. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
The proposed project includes the proposed construction of a 42-foot high office building
and associated parking area containing 730 spaces, a drainage system, and road
improvements to "F' Street and Bay Boulevard. On-site landscaping will be provided and
a berm and detention basin will be created on the western portion-of-the property to
physically separate the Marsh from the project and protect it from surface runoff. A 6-foot
-4-
9O-I4.mmp 04/09j91
) , - - ,0
high chain link fence will be located near the toe of the western facing slope of the berm
to prevent disturbance to the adjacent sensitive wildlife refuge area.
Alternative 2, the "Modified Design" Alternative, as described in the EIR, includes the
development of a 245,000 square foot office complex with two subsurface parking structures,
which provide partial mitigation of parking impacts. Alternative 2 is the applicant's
preferred project, and will be the project which is constructed. This MMRP addresses
Alternative 2 and its mitigation requirements.
MEASURES TO BE MONITORED
The following text includes a summary of significant impacts, recommended mitigation
measures, and the monitoring efforts needed to ensure that the measures are adequately
implemented. In many cases, the language of the mitigation measures incorporates
monitoring. In other cases, the specific mitigation requirements of the regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction over the project have not yet been fully defined, but are being developed
currently by such agencies. Included after the text of this MMRP is the MMRP Summary
Table, which outlines the (potential) impacts, mitigation measures, monitoring activities and
other aspects of the monitoring program.
DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING
Imn3cts
. Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant flooding impacts may be
associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over capacity).
. Significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot
with oil, grease and other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "F'
& "G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern.
. Significant impacts may occur if surface runoff carries silt and sediment into the
Marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during
winter months, when the heaviest rains occur.
. Significant impacts to the wetlands area on site could result if adjacent grading
introduces soils to this sensitive area.
-5-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
" -.;)8/
. Potentially significant impacts may result due to approximately 11.2 acres being
graded to provide flat pads for parking and the building. A total of 40,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill will be generated. The maximum depth of cut and fill will be
11 and 7 feet, respectively, with the average change in grade of approximately 2 feet.
Onsite soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable in
their present condition for structural support.
. Saturated soils from groundwater, without remediation, may adversely affect building
support and may be an unacceptable material for building support and fill.
Mitieation Measures
1. A detailed grading and drainage plan will be prepared in accordance with the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted standards. Said plan will be approved and a permit issued by the
Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work and/or installation of any
drainage structures.
Monitoring 1: The grading and drainage plan will be reviewed by ~he City
Engineering Department, as assisted by the BRM, the Community Development
Department and the Planning Department. Three people in planning will sign the
Grading Permit; the Environmental Review Coordinator, Landscape Architect and
Current Planning. The Engineering Department will issue the Grading Permit. The
review and approval of the grading and drainage plans will occur prior to grading and
construction activities, as well as permit issuance. The City Engineering Department
will verify that the detailed grading and drainage plans include recommendations and
detailed design incorporating all measures contained in the EIR for this project, and
those contained in the "Update Geotechnical Investigation" (Woodward-Oyde, 1990).
Monitoring activities associated with this pre-construction design and permitting
measure cease upon issuance of the Grading Permit.
2. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation" report referenced above will be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineering Department. All recommendations contained
within the study will be implemented by the applicant. This measure will be made
a condition of project approval, and will be included (or referenced to) on the
Grading Plan.
-6-
J' - ~3 ~
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
Monitoring 2: Review of the updated geotechnical report has been completed by the
City Engineering Department and the updated conditions have been noted on the
Grading Plan. The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor and the City
Engineering Department, in accordance with normal practices and procedures, will
monitor the implementation of all such conditions. The BRM will provide assistance
to the City to ensure compliance with conditions relating to biological resources
during grading and installation of drainage facilities. Monitoring activities associated
with this mitigation measure cease upon completion of grading and installation of
drainage facilities.
3. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas overlain by
bay deposits or other compressible overburden soils will require some form of
subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for use
in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the
use of surcharge fills to precompress saturated bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table; or foundation elements will be designed to extend through these
soils into competent bearing formational soils.
Monitoring 3: The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor, in accordance
with normal practices and procedures, will verify during the exterior construction
phase that recommendations are implemented, as needed. A private Soils Engineer
will be responsible for signing the Grading Plan/Logs. The City Engineering
Department will be responsible for signing and filing the verification report.
Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon approval by
the City Engineering Department of a final "as-built" Grading Plan.
4. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto
existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to
improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to precompress
saturated bay deposits.
-7-
,,- ;133
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
Monitoring 4: The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor, in accordance
with normal practices and procedures, will verify during the exterior construction
phase that recommendations are implemented, as needed. A private Soils Engineer
will be responsible for signing the Grading Plan/Logs. The City Engineering
Department will be responsible for signing and filing the verification report.
Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon approval by
the City Engineering Department of a final "as-built" Grading Plan.
5. If saturated soils are encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering should be implemented in general accordance with the recommendations
contained in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance with
RWQCB Order 90-31 regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
Diego Bay will be required.
Monitoring 5: A private Soils Engineer will determine if dewatering is necessary.
If dewatering is required, the detention basin will be constructed first and dewatered
water will be pumped into detention basin. This activity will be supervised by the
City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor and verified by the City Engineering .
Department. Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease
upon completion of grading operations if no saturated soils are encountered and
upon completion of exterior construction if such soils are encountered.
6. If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained
in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront
Specific Plan will be implemented, and these will also be included (or referenced to)
on the Grading Plan.
Monitoring 6: The special provisions in Section 87.19.07 are noted on the Grading
Plan. The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor will monitor the
implementation of these provisions at start of grading. Implementation of these
provisions will be verified by the City Engineering Department. Monitoring activities
associated with this mitigation measure cease upon approval by the City Engineering
Department of a final "as-built" Grading Plan.
-8-
1t:j-~3fl
9Q-14.mmp 04/1J9/91
7. To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the NWR, a barrier system
will be placed between the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading
and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This
measure will be included on the Grading Plan.
Monitoring 7: Placement of the barrier system is required as a condition of the
Grading Permit. The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor will monitor
the implementation of this mitigation measure at start of grading. The City
Engineering Department and the BRM will verify implementation. In addition, the
BRM will be present periodically during the installation of the barrier system.
Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon completion
of installation of the drainage diversion system.
8. To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm will be constructed
along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. During
construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically trained construction
monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the integrity of the wetlll1ld. To
guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into the wetland, the
western slope of the berm will be hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting.
This measure will be included on the Grading Plan.
Monitoring 8: The City Engineering Department, with the assistance of the BRM,
will monitor and report on berm construction and grading practices. Hydroseeding
or covering the berm with plastic will be monitored by the City Landscape Architect.
The City Landscape Architect will report to the City Engineering Department's Field
Supervisor. Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon
the successful establishment of such covering to the City Landscape Architect's and
BRM's reasonable satisfaction.
BIOLOGY
Imnacts
. Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent
NWR lands
-9-
I q - ~35
9O-14.mmp 04/10/91
. Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff
. Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the
drainage system
. Impacts of enhanced pet-associated predator attraction to the study area, and human
presence
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
. An indirect impact to the Light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Mitij.!ation Measures
9. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff will be maintained
during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction
site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would assist in this measure. In addition, construction dewatering should be
directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so
that clear water is released from the site through the regular desiltation basins.
Monitoring 9: The BRM will check the grading and drainage plans (see Monitoring
1) to ensure that the location of the drainage swale and the construction de-watering
basin are clearly indicated. The BRM will verify that the drainageswale is
constructed and planted (per the Landscape Plan) early in the grading sequence. In
the event of encountering water early in the grading process, the construction de-
watering basin will be constructed at that time. During the grading and exterior
construction work, the BRM will periodically check the swale and the basin to ensure
that they are in satisfactory condition. Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure cease upon approval of the "as-built" Grading Plan.
10. A biologically-trained monitor will be present for all phases of grading and
installation of drainage systems. The monitor will be employed through the City and
would report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning
or Community Development Department if construction activities fail to meet the
-10-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
/9-:13"
conditions outlined or should unforeseen problems arise which require immediate
action or stopping of the construction activities. This monitor will continue
monitoring on a reduced basis during actual outside building construction.
Monitoring 10: During grading, installation of the drainage system, and major
landscaping of the site, the BRM will inspect the work periodically to ensure that
biological resources of the adjoining F /G Street marsh are not adversely affected.
The BMR will coordinate with the City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor
regarding the applicant's grading and construction schedule. Monitoring reports will
be submitted to the Engineering Department and the MCC weekly. Monitoring
activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon final inspection by the
City.
11. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront (e.g., pro rata
share), or by other funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management
program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure
maintenance of other mitigation requirements (Le., silt/grease trap maintenance,
etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as
they relate to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers should have training in predator
control and should possess the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and
remove problem predators. It is recommended that these officers be accountable to
a multi-jurisdictional agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee
resource protection of the entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that
area within the boundaries of the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and
the San Diego Bay. The jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in
this board are the City of Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District, the
Bayfront Conservancy Trust, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife _ Service, the California
Department of Fish and Game, Rohr Industries, and the owner of the majority of the
Midbayfront Uplands (Chula Vista Investors).
Monitoring 11.
Monitoring 11.A: Predator Manal1ement Pro~am. It is anticipated that a long-term
Predator Management Program (PMP) for the NWR and adjoining areas of the
-11-
19 -- :J3r
9O-u.mmp 04/09/91
Midbayfront Uplands will be established. The project applicant will be required to
participate in the PMP on a pro rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP is
implemented, the project applicant shall conduct a project-specific predator
management program, which would operate for the late March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-specific program will focus primarily on the F /G Street
Marsh unit of the NWR. Predator management actions will include regular
censusing, trapping and removal of mammalian predators as appropriate (including
domestic, feral, and wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predators
when necessary. The contracted entity should report any predator attractants
affiliated with the project to allow for proper corrective measures. Of primary
concern are food wastes, feeding of wild and domestic animals by employees, or
predator utilization of project structures. In order to conduct this project-specific
predator management program, the project applicant shall contract with the Animal
Damage Control (ADe) division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other
qualified organization acceptable to the City Planning Department and NWR for
these predator management services.
Monitoring H-B: Trash Mana~ement. As a part of the project-specific predator
management program, the ADC division personnel, the MCC, or other qualified
organization shall also monitor waste handling procedures on a monthly basis. ~
also Monitoring 21.
Monitoring H-C: Water Oualitv. Monitoring of water quality is governed by the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) which has
established a rigorous, self-monitoring and reporting procedure for applicant's entire
facility. Monitoring shall occur for the life of the project, with quarterly reporting,
or reporting consistent with the requirements of the RWQCB, to the USFWS and
City Planning Department.
12. The proposed project will include a buffer of restored native scrub vegetation
between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer will be isolated from
human intrusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds as
designed to reduce visual impacts from activities occurring on the patio areas.
-12-
9O-I4.mmp 04/10/91
Iq....~.3f
Monitoring 12: The BRM shall check the plans, coordinate with USFWS on planting
plans, and confirm the planting of the native scrub vegetation on the berm area along
the west margin of the project site to ensure compliance with the provisions of the
Landscape Plan. Subsequent to planting, the BRM will inspect this vegetation
annually until successfully established. Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure cease upon the successful establishment of this vegetation cover
to the reasonable satisfaction of the City's Landscape Architect and the BRM.
13. All post-construction drainage on east side of building and roof drains will be
directed through large volume silt and grease traps prior to being shunted into the
freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed on line(s) entering the detention
basin will be triple-chambered.
Monitoring 13: The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor must verify that
the silt and grease traps have been built in their correct locations and to appropriate
capacity specifications. The appropriate locations of the silt and grease traps must
be shown on the grading plan. In addition, the Building and Housing Department
must require and verify incorporation of roof drains that divert water to detention
basins. Roof drain specifications must be incorporated into the Grading Plan and
Permit.
14. The silt and grease traps will be maintained regularly with thorough cleanings
conducted in late September or early October. As needed cleanings are to be
performed through the winter and spring months, but at least once in March.
Maintenance will be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing of the system.
Monitoring 14: As part of the drainage system and water quality monitoring
provisions set by the RWQCB, the MCC will coordinate with the applicant to inspect
and report that silt and grease traps are cleaned at least as often as the times
specified. Cleaning will be noted in the reports submitted to the RWQCB and copies
will be furnished to the City within 30 days of inspection.
15. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area will be from the lists
provided by the developer during the environmental review process. Should species
-13-
1~-,;)39
9().Ummp 04/10/91
substitutions be desired, these will be submitted to the City landscape architect for
review. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes
such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive
as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia,
will be restricted from use.
Monitoring 15: The City's Landscape Architect will inspect landscaping of the
project so as to verify that the species planted are consistent with the Landscape
Plan. If species substitutions are desired, the applicant shall submit proposed
changes to the City's Landscape Architect who will consult with the BRM to ensure
that appropriate species are being used. Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure will be conducted at intervals to be established by the
Environmental Review Coordinator and Landscape Architect's Office.
16. Re-establishment of O. 14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site drainage
swale will be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and direct impacts of
the project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove straddling the NWKborder.
Management of the riparian grove to retain wildlife resources will be coordinated
with the National Wildlife Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types
will be included in the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species used
in this habitat area.
Monitoring 16: The BRM shall check the plans, coordinate with USFWS on planting
plans, and confirm the planting of the 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation near the south
end of the drainage swale to ensure that the species specified in the Landscape Plan
are used. The BRM will inspect the riparian vegetation area periodically to ensure
the successful establishment of this vegetation and to determine whether or not
maintenance activity is required. To the extent deemed appropriate by the City's
Landscape Architect and the BRM, plants that do not survive will be replaced.
Monitoring of this riparian growth will continue until the vegetation cover is
successfully established to the reasonable satisfaction of the City's Landscape
Architect and the BRM.
17. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas will be restricted through vegetation
barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet encroachment will
-14-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
19 - 0> I,J()
be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western
property boundary.
Monitoring 17: Once the applicant's development is completed, the BRM will verify
the presence of vegetation barriers (per the Landscape Plan), and that the specified
rails and fencing are in place to ensure human access to the marshlands and buffer
area is restricted. As part of the project-specific mitigation monitoring program, the
ADC division personnel, MCC or other qualified organization will monitor on a
monthly basis.
18. The project should be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula
Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators.
This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a
basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan
should include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet
activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should include management of
predators within the adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development .areas.
Monitoring 18: Predator Manal!ement Proeram. It is anticipated that a long-term
Predator Management Program (PMP) for the NWR and adjoining areas of the
Midbayfront Uplands will be established. The project applicant will be required to
participate in the PMP on a pro rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP is
implemented, the project applicant shall conduct a project-specific predator
management program, which would operate for the late March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-specific program will focus primarily on the F /G Street
Marsh unit of the NWR. Predator management actions will. include regular
censusing, trapping and removal of mammalian predators as appropriate (including
domestic, feral, and wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predators
when necessary. The contracted entity should report any predator attractants
affiliated with the project to allow for proper corrective measures. Of primary
concern are food wastes, feeding of wild and domestic animals by employees, or
predator utilization of project structures. In order to conduct this project-specific
predator management program, the project applicant shall contract with the Animal
Damage Control (ADC) division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other
-15-
I'-J'II
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
qualified organization acceptable to the City Planning Department and NWR for
these predator management services.
19. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project will be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and will be certified as acceptable
to the Environmental Protection Agency for use near-wetland areas. All landscape
chemical applications will be accomplished by a person who is a state-certified
applicator.
Monitoring 19: The BRM or City's Landscape Architect shall coordinate with the
applicant's landscape maintenance personnel to ensure that fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides approved by USFWS on the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Opinion on Selected Pesticides," June 14, 1989, are used, and that where appropriate,
the individuals applying these materials are state-certified. Monitoring shall occur
for the life of the project, with quarterly reporting, or reporting consistent with the
requirements of the R WQCB, to the USFWS and City Planning Department.
20. Annual funds (pro rate share) to be paid by the project applicant into an assessment
district set up by the property owner, City and USFWS should be designated for the
purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the
predator control program and mitigation programs for the project. This measure
would be terminated upon creation of a larger Bayfront resources management
program and the project applicant would then pay a pro rata share into that program.
Monitoring 20: Predator Manal:ement Prol:fam. It is anticipated that a long-term
Predator Management Program (PMP) for the NWR and adjoining areas of the
Midbayfront Uplands will be established. The project applicant will be required to
participate in the PMP on a pro rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP is
implemented, the project applicant shall conduct a project-specific predator
management program, which would operate for the late March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-specific program will focus primarily on the F /G Street
Marsh unit of the NWR. Predator management actions will include regular
censusing, trapping and removal of mammalian predators as appropriate (including
domestic, feral, and wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predators
when necessary. The contracted entity should report any predator attractants
-16-
J "1- J~ ~
9O-14.mmp 04/10/91
affiliated with the project to allow for proper corrective measures. Of primary
concern are food wastes, feeding of wild and domestic animals by employees, or
predator utilization of project structures. In order to conduct this project-specific
predator management program, the project applicant shall contract with the Animal
Damage Control (ADC) division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other
qualified organization acceptable to the City Planning Department and WWR for
these predator management services.
21. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters will be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
Monitoring 21: During grading and construction, the BRM will verify weekly that
the dumpsters on site are not overfilled. Solid waste service must be increased if
dumpsters approach an overfilled condition.
22. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a suitable substitute
are recommended. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can
be included on the western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west
should not exceed two inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are
exposed to the wetlands will be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite.
A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be obtained should
heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
Outside lighting will be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the
western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum
required for security on the western side of the building.
Monitoring 22: The Planning Department will verify, prior to the issuance of the
building permit, and again at the time of final inspection, that mitigation measures
pertinent to building materials and design are properly implemented.
-17-
", ~1/'3
9O-14.mmp 04/10/91
CIRCULATION/PARKING
Imoacts
. "F' Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate at LOS B or above with
the exception of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street, which will decline
from LOS C to F with the inclusion of annual growth and the project. The
intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F Street (Lagoon Drive) would decline from LOS
B to D with the project responsible for 17 percent of this impact.
. 1-5 northbound at "E" Street: Incremental contribution (5.6 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
. Broadway and "E" Street: Incremental contribution (0.6 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
. A significant parking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13 percent) under the
proposed project, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
occur.
Mitil!ation Measures
23. Bay Boulevard at "F' Street/Lagoon Drive: a new traffic signal will be installed; all
approaches to the intersection (i.e., along Bay Blvd. and "F' Street/Lagoon Drive)
will be restriped to provide exclusive left turn lanes. The heavy projected demand
for eastbound left turns will require future design to maximize the amount of storage
length to be provided at this intersection; the east and westbound approaches to this
intersection will be restriped to provide two through lanes on each approach in
addition to the exclusive left turn lanes described above.
Monitoring 23: The applicant shall be required to restripe all approaches and left-
turn lanes and install the new traffic signal prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. The applicant and Redevelopment Agency may enter into an agreement
to guarantee improvements.
-18-
J '1 - .) lilf
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
24. 1-5 northbound ramps at "E" Street: the westbound approach of "E" Street at the
northbound 1-5 ramps will be widened to provide a separate right turn only lane to
access the northbound 1-5 on-ramp.
Monitoring 24: The applicant shall be required to contribute funds towards future
improvements based on the City Engineer's estimate. The applicant may enter into
an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to guarantee contribution, or that a
mutually agreed upon contribution has been made toward the cost of construction
of such improvements, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
25. Broadway at "E" Street: an exclusive right turn only lane from eastbound "E" Street
to southbound Broadway will be provided. This additional lane would facilitate
smoother traffic flow from 1-5 and Central Chula Vista.
Monitoring 25: The applicant shall be required to contribute funds towards future
improvements based on the City Engineer's estimate. The applicant may enter into
an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to guarantee contribution, pr that a
mutually agreed upon contribution has been made toward the cost of construction
of such improvements, prior to the issuance of building permits.
26. Bay Boulevard between "E" and "F' Streets: this segment will be designated for
vehicle and bike traffic only and all on-street parking will be removed. The cross--
section should provide for one lane of travel in each direction, a center turn lane,
and a bike lane in each direction.
Monitoring 26: The City Traffic Engineer shall continue to monitor traffic flow on
an annual basis and the recommended improvement shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer.
27. "F' Street/Lagoon Drive west of Bay Boulevard to western edge of property: Lagoon
Drive will be constructed to major standards as recommended in the Local Coastal
Plan.
Monitoring 27: The applicant shall be required to construct roadway improvements,
as required by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The
-19-
19-~ 1./.5
9().14.mmp 04/10/91
applicant and Redevelopment Agency may enter into an agreement to guarantee
improvements.
28. The applicant will meet the City's standard by either providing additional permanent
offsite parking; or by reducing the size of the building; or limiting the number of
employees consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard. This limit
could be increased if the proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces under
Alternative 2) is found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be provided.
Monitoring 28: The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula
Vista or Redevelopment Agency to provide deficit parking and will include a time
schedule for these provisions. In order to determine if the parking is adequate, the
parking demand shall be monitored over a one year period following 90 percent to
full occupation of the building.
AIR QUALIIT
Imo8cts
. Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant impact will result from build-
out project traffic adding approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NOx and 0.03 ton
of ROG daily to the airshed. The NOx and ROG counts (the main ozone formation
precursor pollutants) are less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
threshold.
. Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional impacts resulting from
the clearing of existing site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporary emissions of dust,
times, equipment exhaust and other air contaminllI\ts during project construction will
occur. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from construction
activities are assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If
the entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development, total daily dust
emissions would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
-20-
I q - ~'I"
9IJ.14.mmp 04/09/91
Mitil!'ation Measures
29. Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) such as ridesharing, vanpool incentives,
alternate transportation methods and transit utilization will be incorporated into the
project. A Traffic Abatement Plan or Emergency Episode Plan will be prepared and
submitted to the APCD for review and approval within approximately 45 days.
Monitoring 29: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Project Approval.
30. Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement measures
. required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70 percent.
Monitoring 30: The City may, if reasonably necessary, and if not duplicative of the
monitoring authority of the APCD, retain a consultant to monitor dust control to
verify the implementation of this mitigation measure. The monitor will report to the
City Engineering Department on a weekly basis during the grading and exterior
construction phase. (Due to the regional and statewide shortage of water, treated
drinking water should not be used for dust control. The project applicant will use
water conservation measures as required by the Sweetwater Authority for dust
control watering. Other measures of dust control may be used if approved by the
APCD or the Sweetwater Authority.) Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure cease upon the completion of grading activities and approval of
the "as-built" Grading Plan.
-21-
/9- ~'fr-
9().14.mmp 04/09/91
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
Drainage/Groundwater/Grading
1. A detailed grading and drainage plan must be preparec:l1n accordance wtlh the Chula 1. l11e grading and dralnage plan wtn be __ by the City Pr10r to Construcnon{Prtor 10 CIty Eng,neettng: CIty Community CIty Engl- Oopl.
VIsta MunJc/p&l COOe, SubdMslon Man""', __ ""'_ _ and _ed Englneerlng'Department, as assisted by the SRM. the Community Grading PermfI tssuance 1leI~lopnlOl' Oopl.; CIty PIlInnIng
_ SaJd plan must be approved and a pennn Issued by tile Englnearlng OMolon Development Department and the PlannIng Depattment Three 0epI.; ErNtronInafUl _
pOor 10 the start of any grading work and/Ollnstal1aUon of any dfalnage structures. people In planning Will sign the Gra<Ung Penna; the EnvIronmental CootdInaIor; lM1dscapa Ar<:l1IIed;
RevIew Coordinator, Landscape Alchtlecl and CUrrent Planning. The Currant PlannIng; SAM: MCC
Engineering Department will Issue the Grading Permit The revtew
and approval of the grading and drainage planS Will occur pc10r 10
grading and constructIOn actMUes, as weU as permit Issuance. The
CUy engineering Department Will vertfy that the detailed grading and
drainage plans InclUde recommendations and defajled design
Incorporating all measures con1aJned In the EIR for this proJect. and
those contained tn the .Updale GeotecJ'lnk:allnvestlgalton"
(Wooc:fward.Qyde, 1990). Monltortng 8cUvlUes associa1ed wtlh this
pre-construcIlon design and permlWng meastJf8 cease upon
Issuance of the Grading Permit.
2. The .Update GeoIechnkal kwestlgallon- report referenced above must be reviewed and 2. Review of the Updated geoIechnlcal report has been completed RevIew of this report has been City Eng_ Reld SupeMaor; CIty Eng- Oopl.
approved by the CtIy's Engmeenng Department All recommendaUons contahl8<l WIthin the by Iha CIty Englnearlng Department and Iha updated condn_ completed. The BRM shall monitor City Englnear; SRM; MCC
stUdy must be Implemented by the applicant. Thts measure must be made a condition of have been noted on the Gracllng Plan. The City Engineering on a weekty basts during
project approvar, and must be Included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan. Department', ReId Supeflllsof and Iha CIty Englnearlng Department, construc:flon phaSa
In accordance w1tn norrnat practices and procedures, will monitor lhe
lmplementalion of all such condtuons. The BRM will provlOe
asststance to tn. City to ensure compliance wtlh conditions retallng
to b1ologk:al resources durtng grading and Installatlon of drainage
facUlUes. MonItOf1ng actMUes assoclaled wtlh this mitigation
measure cease upon comjMUon of grading and lnsIallallon of
drainage faclllt6es..
3. Engineered ftlls and/or any .lI'Udural etements thai encroacn Into areas OV8f1aIn by bay 3. l11e CIty Englneenng Department" Reld Supeflllsof, In Prtor 10 and Dur1ng Construdlon CIty Eng-.mg Oopl.; CIty Reld CIty EngInearlng Oopl.
cIeposIts or other compressible OYefburden IOIts win requlre some form of aubgrade acoordance wtIt1 normal practices and procedures. will verify dUring SUpeMaor; ""'a SolIs
modlflcaUon 10 1mpr<Mt Iha _ capacity of Iha e_ soils for usa "' UftImalety the exlertor construcUon phaSe thai recommendaUons are Eng"-lng ConIIlIcIor; MCC
suppotllng addltlonal_ fill and/or structural _ SolI Im_ may Implemented, as needed. A prIVate Sotls Engineer will be
Indude partial or total removal and recompaclk>n, end/Of the use of IUfCh&rge fills to pre- _ for signing Iha Grading Plan/logs. l11e CIty
compress saturated bay deposits whtch extst bekM the groundwater 1abIe; Of foundation Englnearlng Department will be responslbla for slgnlng and filing Iha
elemanIs must be __ 10 extancllhrough these solis _ compotant beartng vertftcaUon report. Monftorlng activities assoctaIed wtIt1 thls
formaIionaI solis mlIlgallon maasure ceasa upon approval by Iha CIty EnglMerlng
Depaltment of a final "as-buItt" Grading Plan.
Page 1 of 8
SJO.14MMP04ftl9/81
00
~
C'l,
,
\l"'"
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
4. If encountered, roadways. embankments, and engineered .tlls encroaching onto eJdstlng .. The CIty Englneer1ng lleplu1mont.. _ SUpeNtsor, In See No. 3 above. See No. 3 above. See No. 3_.
compn>sslIlIe bay deposlIs WlIlIIksly roqui.. sut>g.- modlftcallon 10 _ Ihe support acc:o<<lanc:e WIth normal practices and proce<I...... WIN verify dur1ng
C8pIOClIy oIlhe eJdstlng solis and reducelong-lenn, post-conallUcllon I8tlIement. SolI the extenor construction phase that recommendations are
Improvement would IIksly IndUdo _ or ,_ '"""""" and roc:ompoc:Uon. and/or lhe use Implemenled. as needecI. A pr1vIde SolIs Engineer WlU be
01 oun:harged nlls, 10 __ sat_ed bay depoIIIs. responsible lor signing lhe Grading Plan/logs. The City
Englneertng Departmenl wW be responsIbte for s6gntng anc:I filing the
vertnca1ion report. Monnonng actMlIes associated WIth this
rnltlgaUon measure cease upon approval by the Ctty Englneertng
Department of a IlnaI -as-bulft- Grading Plan.
5. .. saturated soils are encounlered GUrlng gracllng operations, lemporary construction 5. A pnvale Soils Engineer will determine If dewatering Is necessary. Duttng Gradlng/Constructlon City EngInee<1ng Depl; _ CIty engineering Depl
dewatertng should be Implememed In general accordance WIth the recommendallons " deWalerlng Is required. the detention bastn will be constructed ftrsl SUpervisor; PrtvaIe SoIls Eng"-:
contained In the July 1990 Woodwar<I-Ctyde Consultants report. Compliance WIth RWOCB an<I dewatered water will be pumped Into detention basin. This MCC
~ 90-31 IOg8ldlng discharge ollemporary dewaler1ng west.. 10 Son DIego Bay WIll ba actMly wiN be supervised by the City engineering Department's ReId
requ.... SUpervisor and verified by the ctty Englneertng Departmenl
Monnorlng actMtles assocIaIec::I with this mIItgalion measure cease
upon completion of gradlng operattons If no saluraled IOtIs are
encountered and upon c:ompkHton of extenor construction If such
soUs &Ie encountered.
.0 . project grading occurs dur1ng Ihe _ season, Ule speclal provisions oonIaIned In 6. The &pedaJ provts6ons In SectIon 87.19.07 are noted on the Duttng ConsIructlon/Gradlng CIty Englnee<1ng Depl; _ CIty EngIneer1ng Depl
SedIon .7.19.07 (Grading and Dralnege) 01 Ule CIty of Chule VIsIe Baylronl SpeclIIc Plan Grading Plan. The CIty Englneer1ng _'s _ SUpeNtsor SUpervlsor;MCC
must be Implemented, and these must also be Included (or referenced to) on the Grading Will monftor the Implementation c1lhese prowtstor.s at stall of
PIon. grading. Implementation of these provtsJons Will be vet1fied by tile
City Englneertng Department MonItOftng actMt6es assocla1ed wtth
thts mlt6gatlon measure cease upon approval by the CIty Engineering
Department of a final -as-bullt" Grading Plan.
7. To eliminate the. possIbl.11ty of SUI and sedtment entertng the Marsh. a banter system 7. Placement of the banter system Is reqUired as 8 condition of the PrIor 10 Constructlon/Gradlng City Engineering Depl; _ CIty Eng"-'"O Depl
must be _ -. Ihe property and Ihe _ prior 10 InIIlaIlon of grading and Gredlng _ The CIty EngInee<1ng ~s _ SUpeNtsor SUpeMsor;MCC
remain .... Ihe ....nege d_ system II In place and opereIIng. ThIIITlOllSUIO must be Will monitor tile ImpkHneotatlon of tilts mftlgabon measure at st811 of
Included on Ihe GradIng Plan. gredlng. The CIty engineering _ and Ihe DAM Will verify
lmplemenlatlon. In ....ion, Ihe DAM Will ba _ _1ceJIy
dUl1ng the InstaJlaUon of the ban1er system. Monllor&ng actMUes
assodated WIth this m1t1gallon measure cease upon compfellon of
InslaIIelIon oIlhe d_ dIYOISIon system.
.. To _ grading lmpects to Ihe weiland, a proIecIlve berm must ba construded along .. The CIty EngIneer1ng lleplu1ment, with Ihe llSSIst8llCe of Ihe During Gredlng: moMored by DAM DAM; ReId SUpervisor; ~ cay engineering Depl
Ihe entire western boundery oIlhe SIte, avoiding Ihe _ Duttng constIUc:tlon 01 ... SAM, WIU monttor and report on berm construction and grading '""" CO\IOrIng II successfully _ect;MCC
berm, Ihe CIty must relaJn a bIoIogIcaJly Ir8lned _ monitor 10 oIlserve grading pradIces. Hyd_lng or CO\IOrIng Ule berm WIIh pIastJc WIll ba --
practices and ensure the lnIegrtty of the wetland. To guarantee tnat the berm IIseIf does noI monltored by Ihe CIty l.endscape "'''Meet. The cay ~
Introduce aedlmentaUon Into the wetland. the wesIem IIope of the berm must be Alchlted Will report to Ihe CIty Englneer1ng lleplu1menrs _
hydroseeded and/or c:owred with _ --.g. TIlls __ must be ~ on Ihe SUpeNtsor. Mon.ortng actMtIes _ed WIth 11115 mlllgelJon
Grading Plan. measure cease upon the suoc:esstul estabUshment of such covertng
to the CtIy l.andscape NchIIed's and SAM's reasonable 18UstacUon.
PagD 2 of 8
8O-14IMAP 04;tJ9j91
(t')
~
("\
,
~
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
Biology (Short-term)
a. OesUlallon basins large enough to handle storm wilier runoff mUll be matntalned durtng 9. The DAM Will ctleck the grading and draJnage ptans (see PI10r 10 and Ourtng Grading and DRM; MCC Rotor to ~ Nos.
the construc:Ilon phase so thai no &tits are allowed to ..,.. Ole constructton site. MonfloI1ng 1) to ensure thai the loeanon of the drainage swate and Exler1o< ConslrudIon 6. 7. and 8.
ConslI\lClJoo and planting of lhe drainage swaJe _ kl the _ g....,ng phase wookl the construcUon de-walertng basin are cfeat1y indicated. The DRM
assist In this measure. In ac\d1Uon, constructton de-walertng should be dlrectecllnto a basin will venry thai the drainage swale Is construcIecI and planted (per the
wtth a t1ne,-fatlrlc, gravel leach system, or stand--pipe df'8kls, so that dear water Is refeased l.an<Iscape Plan) _ In the g....,ng sequence. kl the event of
from the site through the regular destltaUon basins. encountertng waler early In the grading process. the construction de-
walenng basin will be constructed at that Ume. Durtng the gradtng
and exterior construction wor1<, the DAM will peI1Odk;al1y ctleck the
swaJe and the bastn to ensure Ihallhey are In satlsfadory condition.
MonIIortng actlvtUes associated wtth this m1tlgaUon measure cease
upon approval of the "as-bullt" Grading P&an.
10. A biotogk:ally-lralned construction monitor must be present lor all phases of grading 10. Durtng grading, tnstallaUon of the dralnage system, and major During Gradlng/Ourtng BAM; CIIy Eng"-'lng Depl. CIIy EnvtronmenlaJ Revtew
and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed through the aty and Iandscaptng of the site, the DRM will tnspect the work perIodk:aIly 10 CoosII\lCIJoo and During Communlly lle\IeIopmolO Depl.. Coordinator
would report directly 10 the Environmental Aevtew Coordinator' cons1ructJon actlvtties taB 10 ensure thai biological resources oIlhe ad)otnlng FIG Street: marsh l..an<Isc8pIng CIIy Landscape _ MCC
meet the conditions out1lned or shoUld unforeseen ~ artse Vttllch req""re lmme<:UaIe are not ~ aIIected. The 8MR \MIl coordlnale WIth the CfIy
action or stopping at the consIrucUon aclMU.s. this monitor must continue monnortng on a EngIMOftng Depertmen,.s Flekl Supervisor regarding the eppllcant's
reduced basts durlng actual outaIde building constnJcUon. gractlng and construction schedule. MonItortng reports wlU be
submtned 10 the Englneenng Department and the MCC weefdy.
Monnortng 8ClMt1es associated WIth ItUs mnlgallon measure cease
'-' ftna! k1spectlon by lhe CIIy.
Biology (Long-term)
11. A full Urne enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues 11. Predator ManaClement Procrram. Ills anuctpated thai a long- For the ure 01 the project-specific ROOr contract wtIn the USlJA..ArUmat USFWS, MCC
generated by Ihe _ and other ..velopment wtIhkl the Bayfront (e.g.. pro fala shere). or term Predator Management Program (PMp) for ItIe NWR and mon.Gring pion wtIh quarter1y Damage Control, MCC or oUler
by _funding _Isms, 10 conduct a Resoufce Management Program. Which woold adjcMnlng areas of the Mldbayfront Uplands Will be established. The reporting to the USFWS and CIIy quallfied organIlaIIon
ensure compUanc::e, issue cIlatlons, and conc:Iuct rouUne checks 10 ensure maintenance of profect appUcan1 WIll be reqUlre<110 partldpate in the PMP on II pro PlaMlng Department, or as
other mlUgaUon requirements (I.e., sin/grease trap maintenance. etc.). SUch otncers IhoUId _ (lair......) I>aSls. U.." the PMP Is _ed. the _ In<orponded "'0 the Iong-lerm
work cIosety wtlh the USFWS k1 enforcement maues alhey re&ate 10 Federal ReseNe eppllcanllhall conduct a _-specIftc _or menagement PntdaIor Management Program
l.onds. 0ftlc:eI> shoukl ........ ......ng kl predator conIrol and shoukl possess the I1OCOSS8ly program, Which would operate for the l81e March through mld-Juty
sldUs, permlls and authorlty to trep and I9ITlO\/O _ ptedaIoIs. . Is recommended thel nesIlng season. nos _-apeclftc program WIll focus prllTlllllly on
these ofIIceIS be ~ to a multJ1urlsdldtonaJ _/property owner acMsoIy t>oen:I the FIG street Marsh un" of the NWR Predator management
set up 10 oYefSe8 resource protecl6on at the enUre mIdbayfront area. The mktbayfronl area actions wtU IodUde regUlar censuslng, trapptng and removar of
is that area wtthln the boUnc:IaIIes of the SWeetwater RIver. Bay BouleVard, V Street, and mammalian predators as approprtaIe (InclUdtng domestic. feral, and
1I1e San Dlego Bey. The JurlsdlcUons/~ """"" WhIch IhouId be Il1dOOed kl Ihls wtkl mammals), as well as removal oC selected avian predators when
I>oaI<l are the CIty ol Chula VIsta, the San 0Ieg0 Unllled PorI lllslrId, the Baylronl ne<esaaIY. l11e c:onI1aded entlty IhouId report any_or
Conservancy Trust. the U.s. Roll and _ _. the CalI10mia IJepllIIrnerd ol Roll and oIInlctants eftltlated wtIh the _ to lIlIow tor proper conectlw
Geme, f\oh( _ and the owner of the mojorIty olthe Mldbayflonl UpIanda (ChUIa ...........
VIa1a Investors).
Page 3 of B
8O-f4IMIP 04;09;81
o
'"
c-.
.
.,...
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity TIming Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
(11. Continued.) Of pnmary concern are food wastes. ,eedlng of wtld and damesUe
animalS by empfOyees. or predator uUllzauon of profect structures.
k1 order 10 conduct this profect.-speclftc predalor management
Pf09'""'. lhe project oppIk:8nI _ _ WOh the Anlmal Damage
Control (AOC) dlviston 01 the u.s. Department of AGricunure or other
qualified organIZation eccepIabIe to the Cfty Planning Department
and WWR 'or these predator management seMces. !!!!!l
ManaQement. As a paI1 of the protect-speclflc predator
management program, the ADC dtvtsion personnel, MCC. or other
qualtfled organization shaR also monnor W8S1e handling procedures
on a monthly basis. See ~ Monnorlng 21. Water Quarnv.
Mannarlng of water quality is governed by the requirements of the
Regional Wafer Quality Conlrollloonl (AWOCa) Which has
established a l1gorous. seff-monttorlng and reporting procedure for
applkant's entJre IadItty. MonItortng ShaJI occur for IIle life of the
project. WOh quarterly ,""""Ing. Of ,""""Ing consIsIeo1 wtth lhe
requirements of the RWOCB. 10 the USFWS and ctty Planning
Department.
12. The proposed Protect must Include a butl'er of restored native scrub vegetation betv\Ieen 12. The BRM shall check the plans, coordinate wtlh USFWS In After Construction, During aRM; Clly"s l.ands<ape ArcI:Oect Ell\IIronn1erUl _
the bUilding and lhe adjacent NWR lands. This bUffer must be Isolated from human planting pCans, and confirm the ptantlng of lhe native scrub Lan<lscapIng .... _ Project. CoonllnaIOf
tnlnJSlon and should lurther be Implemented WIIh swales and mounds as deslgnecllO vegetation on the berm area along the west margin of lhe projed site AnnuaUy untU auccessfully
reduce visual Impacts from acttv'Ues oocurrtng on the patio areas. 10 ensure compl&ance with the proytslons of the Landscape Plan. --
SUbsequent to P'antlng, the SRM wllllnspect this vegetaUon annuatty
until successfUlly established. Monltortng activities assocIaIed with
this mitigation measure cease upon the successful ~Ishment of
thts vegetation cover '0 the reasonab&e saUstactlon ot the aty's
landscape Architect and the DRM.
13. All post-constructlon drainage InUaI be directed through large volume sin and grease 13. The CIty Engl.......ng Department's field Supervtsor must WItIy PI10r 10 GradIng, Permit Issuance. aRM; CIty EngIMertng Oepl; Aekl CIty Eng'-'lng Oepl
traps pr10r 10 being shunted Into the freshW8ler detention swaIe. The trap(s) placed on thai the silt and grease traps have been built In their correct During Construction. Nter OraJnage SUpervIsor
One(s) eo18f1ng the deI...1on basin musl be 1rtpIo-<hambere. locallons .... to 8jlpIOp<IaIe capecIty speclfIcaIlons. The__ _Ion
loCations of the stIt 1IOd grease traps must be shown on the grading
plan. In ad<tJlIon. the Butktlng and Houstng 0epartmenI must requt,.
and verify Ineorpond:lon of roof drains that divert water to detention
basins. Root drain spectflcattons must be II tcorpOrated Into the
Grading Aan and PermIt.
14. The sHI and grease traps must be maintained regularty with thorough dearnngs 14. As pert 01 the d""'- system .... water qUality monlIortng Aller Constructlon, fOf HIe 01 CIty Eng'-'lng Oepl; MCC; CIty EnglneerIng Depl;
conducted In Iale Seplember 0< lIlllty October. As.- cIeanlng ere 10 be performed provisions set by \he AWOCB. the MCC WlO COOfdlnale wtth \he project. IwIce e _In September/ AWOCa AWOC8; MCC
through the winter and aprIng months, but at least once In March. MaJntenance must be eppllc8nt 10 InspecI.... '"""" IheI sot .... g...... !nips ere cleaned October .... Merch
done by removal of wasles raIher than ftushlng of the system. alle8st as onen as the times specIIed. Oeanlng will be noted In the
reports submmed to the RWOCS and coptes WIll be furnished to the
CIty wttI1In 30 days 0I1nsped1on.
Page 4 of 6
.J4MMPOf;09J9J
-
U)
~
\
0"-
-
Rohe Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
15. ~ pIanl mat_1o be uUlIzed In... projod... muslbelTom Ihe_ 15. Tl1e ClIy's ~ ArcMect WI' _ landscaping at Ihe Mer ConstnJdIoo/llu<Ing CIty .......... _ SRM CIty PlannIng Depl
provided by Ihe......,. Should species subsI.uuona be -. these must be profed: 80 as to ver1fy tflaI the spedes p&anled 819 consistent WIth the L.andscaping and at Intet'V8/s
submmect to the ctly landscape archlteel for nMew. Plant matenais Whk:h are known to be ~ Plan. "species subsI...loos are deslred, ... appllc8nl established by Emitronmental
InvasIYe In aaIl and brackish marshes such as ~ or CaroobroIus spedes. or those IhaJI submn proposed changes to the Cfty's Landscape NchItect RevIew ConInldor .... CIty
Which are known to be attracttve as denning, nesung or roosting anes lor predatOfS such as Who Witt consult wtth the BRM 10 ensure thai appropOale species are ~Arch"ect
WashlnatonJa or Cottadetta. must be restr1cted from use. betng used. MonItortng actMtles assodaIed WIth this mitigation
measure wtll be conducted al klIervats to be esIabIlshed by the
Environmental RevIew Coordinator and l.andscape Archnect's OffIce.
16, ~Ishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetallon WIthin the on-slte drainage swaJe 16. The SRM shall check (he plans. coordinate wnn USFWS on DuOng Construction/DuOng SRM; CIty l.an<lscape Archllect NatIon8l WI.... Reluge
must be accomplished to mlUgale the hydrotoglc isolation and direct Impacts of lhe protect planting plans, and confirm the ptanllng of the 0.14 acre of rtpartan Landscaptng lndeflnnefy until Manager
upon the 0.14 acre of wmoW' riparian grove straddling the NWR border. Management of the vegetatIOn near the south end of the drajnage swafe 10 ensure (hat _Ion Is.......shed CIty Planning Depl
riparian grove to retain wtkUlfe resources must be coordlnaled wtth the NalionaJ Wildlife the species specified In the landscape P&an are used. The BRM will successfully
Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetallon types must be InclUded In the Inspect the r1par1an vegetatkm area pertodlcally to ensure the
Lends<8pe Plan with .....ber WIllow the prlnclplll species ..... In this habItaI ..... successful esI~IShmenl of this vegetation and to determine whether
or noI maintenance actIVIty Is requlrec::l. To the extent deemed
_. by Ihe Ctly's Lan<tscape Arch.oct end ,he SRM, _
thai do not survtve Will be reptaced. MonllOftng of this r1par1an
growlh will continue until the vegelallon cover Is successfully
established 10 Ihe reasonabfe satisfaction of the ctly's Landscape
Architect and lhe BRM.
17. Human access to marsh&ands and buffer areas must be reslrk:tec:lthrough vegetation 17. Once the appliCant's development Is compIeIed. lhe BRM will DuOng Construction/DuOng SRM; aty l..lIn<Iscape ArcMect; Ctt-f Planning Depl
barriers and rails around the pallo areas. Addttlonal human/pet encroachmen1 must be verify the presence of vegetation barriers (per the Landscape Plan). landseapmg and Mer Building Is MCC
restrk:ted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western property and thallhe speclfled rails and lendng are In p&ace to ensure human OccUJHOO. annuatly for the IlIe of
boun<lary. access 10 the marshlands and buffer area Is restricted. As part of the In. project
project-specific mitigation monitoring program. the AOC dMsion
personne4, MCC or other quaJl1Iec:I organtzatlon will monOor on a
monthly basis.
18. The protect shoUld be 8. partlctpanlln 8. predalor managemenI program for 1he OluJa 18. Predator ManaQement Pf'OCIram. . is antlctpaled that a long- Mer ConstNCIIon. qU8lterty SRM;USFWS CIty PlannIng Depl
Vtsta BayfronI region to control domestic predators as well as w1k:1 animal predators. this term Predator Management Program (PMp) for 1he NWR and _orwlthroportlng_
program ahoukl UUItze the Connors (1987) pntdaIor managemenl plan as a basis. but adjoining III1NIS of ,he Mldbaylront UplandS WI' be __. Tl1e consfstenl wtIh the requlr8men1s of
should be Iallore<llo ftIlhe ...... at Ihe propoo8d development. This ptan shoUld Include profect applicant will be reqUired to parUclpale In the PMP on a pro AWaCS
the use of fines as an enfon::emenllool to controt hUman and pet actMUes. The plan rata (fair share) basb. Untlllhe PMP Is Imptemented. lhe profect
should be _.... should Include ~ at pre<laIOIS within'" ad-." eppIlc8nI shall conduct . project-spectftc predator management
NWR as well as the proposed devekJpmenI....... program, which woukt operaaelor the late March through mld.Ju1y
nesting season. ThIs profed-specmc program WIll focus pnmarny on
the F/G Street Marsh unh of 1he NWR Predator management
actions will inclUde regWar' censuslng, trapping and removal of
mammaUan predators as appropriate Oncludlng domestic. feral, and
wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predalors When
necessary.
Page 5 of 8
8O-1.fMIIPOf,.w~1
~
")
~
I
0'"'
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity TIming Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
(18. Contlnued) The contracted entity should report any predator attractants atfIlIaIed
wtth the profect to allow for proper correcItIIe measures. at P'111181Y
concern are food wastes, feeding of wtIcf and domestic animals by
employees, or predator utlltzallon of profect structures. In order 10
conduc:lUIIs proJecI-spectflc predator management program, the
projecl appllcanl shall contract WIth the AnImal Damage Conlrol
(AOC) dMslon of the U.S. Oepartmenl of Agr1cuaure or other
qualified organtzaUon acceplabfe to the CIty Planning Department
and WWR for Ihese predator management 88fVIces.
19. Fertilizers, pestlck:les and herblcldes utilized wUhln the landscaping areas 01 the project 19. The SRM or Ctty's L..andscape Alchltecl shall coordinate wtth the During Lanclscaplng and on 8 BRM, Landscape Maln1eoance CIty Planning Depl.
must be of the rapidly bb:Segradabkt var1ety and must be certlfled as acceptable 10 the applicant's tandscape maintenance personnet 10 ensure that proper quarterly basts tor the life of the Personnel
Environmental Protection Agency for use near weiland areas. AJIIandscape chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herb1ck2es approved by USFWS on the project
applk::aUons must be accomplished by a person Who Is a slate-cerUflea applicator. .U.S. Ash and Wildlife Servtce IUofogtcaJ OpInion on Selected
Pestlddes,. June 14, 1989, are used, and that Where approprtale. the
IndMduals appfyIog these materials are slate-certlfled. Monitoring
ShaU occur for the me of the protect, WIth quarterty reporting, or
reporting consAstent wtlh the requirements of the RWOCB. to the
USFWS and CIty P&anmng Department.
20. Annual tunds (ora tBJa share) 10 be paid by ROOr lnto an assessment district set up by 20. Predator Manaaement Pf'OQram. . Is anticipated thai a Iong_ Refer 10 No. 3 above. Refer 10 No. 3 abow. Refer to No. 3 above.
the properly owner, City and USFWS should be destgnated for the purpose of trash control, teon Predator Management Program (PMp) for the NWR and
repair and maintenance of drainage factl'Un, fendng, the predator control program and adjoining areas of the Mldbayfront Uplands Will be established. The
mitigation programs for the project. This measure WOUld be terminated upon creation of a profect appUcanI will be reqUired to participate In the PMP on a pro
Larger Bayfront Resource Management Program, and Aohr would then pay a pto I8ta share rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP Is Implemented, the project
Into that Program. applicant shall conduct a Project-speclflc predator management
program, which WOUld operate for the late March through rnkt-July
nesting season. This protect-spedflc program Will focus primarily on
the FIG street Marsh unll of the NWR Predalor management
acUons WItIlncIude regu&ar ~ng, trapping and removal c:A
mammauan predators as appropriate Qncludlng domestic, feral, and
wild mammals), as well as removal of selected 8V&an predators When
necessary. The contracte<l entity should report any _or
altractanls atfUlated wtlh the profed to alloW for proper corrective
measures. Of primary concern are food wastes, feeding of Wild and
domestle animals by employees, or _or utIUzaIlon 01 project
structures. In order to conduct this profed-apecmc predator
management program, the projed appllcanl _ contrad _ the
AnImal Damage Control (AOC) d_ 01 the U.5. Department 01
Agllcultun> or other qU8l1lled __ __ 10 the CIIy
Planning DeplU1ment and WWR tor these _or management
services.
21. Open garbage lXlflIlIlne<s should be _r1cle<l and .. dUInplIlen lTlUII be toIally 21. DurIng gf8dIng and consInJc:tlon, the SRM "'" VOf1Iy weeIdy thai During Grading and Construction SRM CIty PlannIng Depl.
enckJsed to avok1 altractlng avian and mammalian prectaton; and scaveogen to the area. the dumpsters on site are not overruled. Solid waste service must be
Garbage IhouId be hauted away as often as possible. lncteased If dumpsters approach an overfI.1ed cond1l6on.
Page 6 of 8
80-14MMP lU,A:XIl;Pf
~
C\
,
~
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
22. Bulldtngs shoukI utilIZe IlOfH'efIedtve glass and bokI archleclural Unes which are 22. The Planning Department wtI venty. pOor to the Issuance of the PI10r to Issuance al bulldlng pennN Planning ~ CIty PlannIng Oopl
readily obseMlI*t by blros. A film glass rnantftcItnd by 3M or a suttable substitute are bUilding perml1. and ogaln at the ttme al ftnat _. thai and aI ftnallnspecUon
recommended. No extraneous ledges upon which raploni could perch or nest can be mItlgallon measures pertinent &0 bWldlng matet1ala and design are
Inctuded on the western side of the proposed bUIlding. ledgeS facing the west shoUld not property Implemenled. Upon _Ion al the <teslgn _
exceed two Inches In width. Addtuonally, the root crests Wh6ch are exposed 10 the wetlands process. monltortng adMtIes assodated wtth this condition cease.
must be covered with an anU-percn matertal auch as NlxaIlte. A commitment to correct any
addltJona/ problem areas shoUld be oIlIalned oI1oold Mavy incidence 01 perching be
Observed on the buildings Of In landscaping malertaIs. OUtside Nghttng must be directed
IM8Y from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the western side of the proposed building.
Ughts should be limited 10 the minimum required for secul1ly on the western ~ of the
building.
CIrculation/Parking
23. Bay Bou&evard at .p Street/Lagoon Qftve: a new traffle signal shall be k1staJ1ed; atl 23. The appOcan1 Shall be requlred 10 reslrlpe all approaches and During ConstrucUon. prIOr to CIty Tretttc Engl.-r CIty Eng'-
approaches 10 the lntersecUon shall be restrIped to provkte exdusNe tel't turn kines. The left-turn klnes and InstaJllhe new tramc s6gnal pr10r to Issuance of a Issuance of occupancy permit Doportment
he8vy profeded demand for eastbound ktft tums will require future design to maxtmlZe the certlftcate of occupancy. The appttcant and RedeVelopment ~
amount of slorage ~th 10 be prO\/kled .. this Inlersecuon; the east and westbound may enter Into an agreemenllo guarantee Improvements.
approaches to this lnIersec110n shall be I9Strlped to _ twothroogh lanes on each
approach to addltton to the exclusive left tum lanes deSCribed above.
24. 1-5 northbound ramps 81 o~ Street: the westbound approach of "EO street at the 24. The applicant shall be required to contrlbUte funds towards 0eYeI0per oontrIt>UIton prtor to CIty Tretttc EngIM<< ClIy Eng-
northbound f..5 ramps shall be widened to pnMde a separate I1ght lum only lane to access Mure Improvemen1S based on the CIty Engineer's estimate. The Issuance 01 bUilding pennN Doportment
the northbound 1-5 onramp. applicant may enter Into an agreement: WIth 1he Redevefopment
Agency to guarantee contribution, or that: a mutually agreed upon
contf1bUtlon has been made 10ward the cost of construction of such
Improvements, pnor to lhe Issuance of a certlflcate of occupancy.
25. Broadway at "EO Street: an exclusive right tum only Lane from eastbound "EO Street to 25. The applicant shall be reqUtred to contribute funds towards 0eYeI0per c:on1I1bUIlon prtor to CIty Tretttc Engl.-r CIty Engl-
souIhbound Broadway shall be provided. This addlUonallane would facilitate smoother More knprOVements based on me- cny Engineer's estImate. The Issuance 01 _Ing pennN Doportment
bWftc flow from 1.5 and Cen1ra1 Chld8. vasta. applicant may emet' Into an agreement WIUl1he Redevelopment
Agency to guarantee contribulton, or that . mutually agreed upon
contribution has been made toward the cost of conaIructton of such
Improvements, prtor 10 the IssUance of a certlflcate of occupancy.
26. Bay BoukMu'd between of" and op Slrvets: this segment shall be designated for 26. The CIty Traffic engineer ahaII contlnue to monitor trame now on M deemed ne<:ess8lY by CIty CIty Tretttc EngIM<< CIty Eng-
Y8hk::fe and bike trafftc only and all on-stree1 parking shall be removec1. The cross-secllon an annual basis and me recommended MnproYemen1 shall be Tretttc Engl.-r ~
should provtde lor one lane of travet k1 each direction, . center rom lane, and . bike lane In lmpfem8nted at such time as deemed necessaIY by me cny TrattIc
each dlr8ctlon. Engineer.
ZT. .p St_/lagoon D<tve west 01 Bay _ 10 western edge 0( property: I..agoon 27. The appI6cant shall be required to construct roadway Prtor to IssUance of occupancy CIty Tretttc EngIM<< CIty Eng"-lng
Drtvo shalt be consIruded to majOr _ as IOCOO1ITIOf1ded by the CIty Engl.-r. knprovemenls, as roqUlled by the CIty Engl.-r. prtor to Issuance 01 pennN Doportment
CoosIet Plan. a certtfk:ale of occupancy. The applicant and RedeVelopment
Agency may en1er Into an agreement to guarantee Improvements.
Page 7 of 8
1ilC).14MMP04/'O/'i'
~
II)
i\
\
U"
"'"
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
28. The appllcanl must __ the Clly's ......... by _ providing addnlonaJ permanent 28. The appItcanI shalt enler lnIo an agreemenl wtlh the Ctty of ~reement shall be executed pOOr PlannIng ~ MCC PlannIng IlopoIImoIO;
otrsIe parking; or by reduclng the me of the buikllng; or Umltlng the number of emptoyees Chula VIsta Of Ro<levetopmenl_ to pRl\Ikle _ _110 ond to IlIsuan<:e at """"Ing permlt MCC
conslst... wtIh.... atys ~ plIIIdng _ lllls Mmlt c:ouId be Increased n wtII tnctude . Ume schedule tor these provtsIona. In order 10
the proposed parfdng (730 spaces, or 760 spaces under .....ematlve 2) Is found 10 be determine . the paJ1dng Is adequate, the parking demand shall be
adequate, or . additional parking could be provkIed. In on:ter to determine if the parking Is monitored over a one year pet1O<I foIklwtng 90 percent to full
adequate, tne parking demand should be monIored over a one year pef10d following 90 OCCUpalion of the building.
percent 10 full OCCUpation of the bundlng.
Air Quality
29. Transportallon Control Measures (TCMS) such as rkIesharIng, vanpoollncentlves. 29. This mitigation measure is 8 Condition of Profed Approval. wtthln 45 days of OCCUpying CIty Planning Dept.; Rohr, MCC APeD
alternate transpooallon methods and transit utlllZaUon must be Incorporated Inlo the project. btltl<llng
A Tratfk: AbalemenI Plan or Emergency Epbode Plan must be prepared and submmed 10
the APeD for revtew and approval within approximately 45 days fOJlowtng occupancy.
30. OUst contro4 through regUlar watering and other fugitIVe dust abatemenl measures 30. The CIty may, M reasonably necessary, ond n not dUpllcaIJye at During Gracllng ond ConsIrucIJon Prlvale Man.or; CIty Englneertng; CIIy PIaI1nIng Depl
""lulred by .... APeD can __ .... emlsstons by 50-70 _. the monltortng authortty of the APeD. retain a consullanl to monnor MCC
dus!: control to vertty the ImpHKnentalIon ot thJs mItlgauon measure.
The moollor wtll report to the CIty Engineering Department on a
weekly basis during the grading and exterior construction phase.
(Due to the regional and staIeWkSe shortage of water, treated
dttnktng water shoUfd not be used for dust control. The protect
applicant Will use weier conservaUon measures as requ4red by the
SWeeIwaI:er Authority for dust control watering. OIher measures of
dust control may be used If approved by the APeD or the
Sweetwater Authority.) Monnorlng actlvttles assodaIed wnh this
mlllgallon measure cease upon the completion 0( gradtng acllvtttes
and approval ot the -as-bUlr Grading Plan.
~
,
0"-
-
Page 8 of 8
CJO.14MMPCU/OliVV1
RESOLUTION(tI35
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND
ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS
AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION, ADOPTING MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPTING FINDINGS
FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT AND SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE, ENTERING INTO A
PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES,
AND FINDING ROHR INDUSTRIES' PROPOSAL TO
CONSTRUCT A 245,00 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING AS APPROVED BY THE REDEVLOPMENT
AGENCY ON APRIL 23, 1991, IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE
OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 52.
WHEREAS, the
(LCP) has been
Commission; and,
city of Chu1a vista Local Coastal Program
certified by the California Coastal
WHEREAS, said LCP includes Coastal Development
procedures determined by the Commission to be legally
adequate for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits and
the City of Chula vista has assumed permit authority of the
Chula vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing
conducted on January 23, 1991
procedures; and,
was duly noticed
in accordance with
and
said
WHEREAS, the city Council of the City of Chula vista
has reviewed and considered the information contained in
EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, the candidate CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
monitoring and reporting program attached as Attachement I.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chu1a vista,
as "approving authority," has reviewed Rohr Industries'
proposal for the construction of a 245,000 square foot
office building at 850 Lagoon Drive as approved by the
Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula vista on April 23,
1991, considered Rohr Industries' request for a 10 ft.
sideyard and 3 ft. 8 in. height variance, and reviewed the
proposed Parking Agreement attached as Attachment II; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of
the City of Chula vista:
1"/8;/
A. The city council of the City of Chula vista hereby
certifies that EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
monitoring and reporting program attached as Attachment I;
have been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
B. The City Council of the city of Chula vista hereby
adopts the following findings and grants a building and
sideyard setback variance:
Findings - sideyard Setback
a) In an effort to meet the goal to protect coastal
resources and to satisfy environmental concerns raised by
the u. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant
placed the proposed building along the western edge of the
50 foot westerly side yard setback to form a buffer between
active uses east of the building and the wildlife preserve
on the west side. This placement limited the space for
arrangement of on-site parking and access. The proposed
variance will assist the applicant in complying with parking
and access requirements.
b) The site's westerly side yard setback, normally 20
feet, was required to be increased to 50 feet to provide an
adequate buffer for adjacent sensitive wetlands (FIG Street
Marsh) . This requirement reduces the on-site buildable
space and flexibility of site planning enjoyed by property
owners not located adjacent to wetlands.
c) The granting of a easterly side yard setback reduction,
of 10 feet will allow the applicant to recover 30% of the
land area lost to wetland buffer. The additional land will
be used to provide on-site parking.
Findings - Building Height
a) The applicant proposed an initial building design
consisting of a continuous top of building with an elevation
of 42 feet 3 inches, a height below the site's 44 ft
building limitation. In an effort to meet the Design Review
Committee's request to incorporate vertical architectural
features, the central glass core of the building was
elevated to 47 feet 8 inches, 3 feet 8 inches above the 44
foot building height limitation. The height variation,
though above the limitation, will enhance the design of the
building and aesthetic quality of the coastal area.
b) The proposed height variance allows the applicant to
provide an enhanced building design. No additional building
floor area will result from the allowance.
Iq8"'~
c) The added design enhancement will provide interesting
building silhouette from bay views at a minimum variance to
the LCP height limitation which will not reduce or adversely
affect coastal resources.
C. The city council of the City of Chula vista hereby
enters into a Parking Agreement with Rohr Industries, Inc.
attached as Attachment II; and,
D. The city Council of the City of Chula vista finds that
state and regional interpretive guidelines have been
reviewed and the proposed proj ect has been found to be in
conformance with the public access and public recreational
policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code.
Further, based on the following findings, Rohr Industries'
proposal to construct a 245,000 sq. ft. office building at
850 Lagoon Drive, as approved by the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula vista on April 23, 1991, is found to be
consistent with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program:
Findings - Coastal consistency
a) The project will provide the number of on-site and
adjacent vehicle parking spaces (through an agreement with
the City of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking
requirements set forth in the certified LCP. The project is
a minimum of one-third of a mile from the Bay I s shoreline
and public coastal park land. with adequate off-street
vehicle parking provided by the development and the site's
substantial distance from the bay I s shoreline, no adverse
impact on public access to the coast line is expected to
occur.
b) The project is located adjacent to the FIG street
Marsh. However, a 50-foot setback has been maintained to
provide a buffer adj acent to the wetland boundary. In
addition, the building has been designed to be in itself a
barrier that will further buffer the wetlands from human
activities on the eastern portion of the site. In
accordance with EIR-90-10, mitigation measures will be
implemented to ensure that the building and associated
activities will not adversely effect the adjacent wetland
habitat.
c) Public improvements in accordance
LCP will be installed in conjunction
street improvements incorporated into
provide an incremental increase toward
coastal resources.
with the certified
with the project.
the project will
improved access to
d) The project site is designated for Industrial Business
Park land uses. Administrative offices and research design
ItJ f!; -- 3
activities related to the industrial land use adjacent to
the south are in conformance with the certified LCP land use
element. Findings in accordance with the LCP have been for
a 3 foot 8 inch building height variance for the central
building element and a 10 foot easterly side yard setback
variance. No adverse affect on coastal resources are
anticipated due to the variances.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
approves Coastal Development Permit No. 52.
j)h M~
Ch~ Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Booga
City Attorney
Presented by:
iZd f
(Rohrreso)
1'i6,1/
ATTACHMENT I a., b., c., & d.
Same as Attachment I a., b., c., and d.
to Agency Resolution to approve
OP/BF No. 03
I GJ 8 "'5
ATTACHMENT II
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this
is a conveyance to a public
agency of less than a fee
interest for which no cash
consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
Agreement Between the
City of Chula vista
and
Rohr Industries, Inc.
re
Potential Use Restriction on Office space
This Parking Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula
vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("city"), and Rohr
Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Rohr"), dated
April 15, 1991 for the purposes for reference only, and effective
as of the date last executed by the parties, is made with reference
to the following facts:
Whereas, the real property which is the subject matter of this
Agreement is commonly known as 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista,
California, and is legally described as set forth on Exhibit A,
incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and,
Whereas, Rohr is the owner of the Property; and,
Whereas, Rohr proposes to improve the Property with a 245,000
square foot office building, parking lot, and miscellaneous collat-
eral improvements, all of which are more particularly identified in
the following zoning document on file in the Office of the City
Clerk: BF/OP (Bayfront/Owner Participation) No.3 ("Project"); and,
Whereas, the City's Municipal Code, Zoning Chapter, section
19.62 requires that a project of the size and scope of Rohr' s
proposed Project have 816 parking spaces; and,
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 1
,q/J.,fj
Whereas, the Project as proposed by Rohr permits only 760
parking spaces, so that the site is deficient in parking by 56
spaces ("Deficient Spaces") which, according to standard parking
space construction standards permitted by City, would require an
area of approximately 20,000 square feet ("Deficient Area"); and,
Whereas, San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDGE") is the
owner of a 15 acre parcel of property ("SDGE Parcel") the northerly
part of which is diagrammatically represented in the map attached
as Exhibit C, adjacent, in part, to Rohr's Property but consisting
of an area substantially greater than the Deficient Area; and,
Whereas, in February 21, 1981, Rohr has entered into a lease
agreement ("Parking Lease") with SDGE by which Rohr, their
employees, invited guests and visitors may occupy the SDGE Parcel
for the purpose ("Parking Purpose") of parking (and ingress and
egress thereto) their vehicles on the SDGE Parcel for so long as
they are visiting Rohr at the building on the subject Property;
and,
Whereas, said Parking Lease had a 5 year term prior to its
expiration and contains 4 five (5) year options to renew; and,
Whereas, the City is willing to permit the oversized Project
with the proposed parking on the terms and conditions herein
stated;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. Duty to Keep Lease Current and in Full Force and Effect.
Rohr shall keep the Parking Lease, or at least the northerly
most 20,000 square feet of the area which is the subj ect
matter of the Parking Lease ("Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces Portion"), current and in full force and effect.
2. Duty to Use Good Faith and Best Efforts to Renew Parking Lease
Upon Expiation.
Rohr shall use good faith and best efforts to renew, on terms
and conditions satisfactory to Rohr and SDGE, the Parking
Lease with SDGE, or at least the Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces Portion, at such time as it is scheduled for, or may
be, canceled or terminated.
3. Duty to Provide Alternate Parking satisfactory upon
Cancellation of Parking lease.
3.1. Alternate Parking Area.
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 2
/'18 --1-
As used herein, "Alternate Parking Area" shall be used to
define an area of equal or greater size to the Deficient
Area, designed and improved to permit parking spaces
equal to or greater than the Deficient spaces, in the
close or immediate vicinity to the Property.
3.2. Duty.
In the event that Rohr, despite the exercise of good
faith and best efforts, is unable to continue the right
to occupy the SDGE Parcel for the Parking Purpose, Rohr
shall use good faith and best efforts to obtain the right
to occupy for the Parking Purpose of an Alternate Parking
Area which has been submitted to, and has been approved
by, the City, by and through their city Manager, or his
or her designee. In the event that Rohr secures the
Alternate Parking Area, this agreement shall terminate
and be of no further force and effect.
3.2.1.
without limitation of the city's remedies,
upon the failure of Rohr to use good faith and
best efforts to obtained an approved Alternate
Parking Area shall be grounds for requiring,
after notice, Rohr to implement "Office Area
Use Reduction Duty", hereinbelow described.
4. Office Area Use Reduction Dutv.
4.1. Identify Specific Area within Building for Reduction of
Use.
The Area within the proposed building on the Property
which is the subject matter of this Section is shown on
Exhibit B ("Potential Reduction Area"), attached hereto.
4.2 Duty.
Rohr agrees, for its successors and assigns, including
leasees, that if the Parking Lease is no longer available
for the Parking Purpose for any reason whatsoever
regardless of fault, and, within 90 days after written
notice from the City to Rohr, Rohr has not provided an
Alternate Parking Area according to the terms of this
Agreement, Rohr shall, upon written demand by the City,
terminate any usage except pedestrian circulation,
storage, and retrieval and deposit therefrom, of the
Potential Reduction Area. (This Duty shall be herein
referred to as the "Office Area Use Reduction Duty.")
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 3
J",g
4.3. Record Agreement Giving Successor Lessees or Purchasers
or Lenders Notice of Potential Reduction of Use.
This Agreement shall be recorded upon execution of the
parties.
4.4 contain Provision in Subleases.
In the event that Rohr shall lease or sublease all or a
portion of the building which contains the Potential
Reduction Area, the lease or sublease shall contain a
provision notifying the prospective tenant that some or
all of the area of the lease is subject to termination on
exercise of the City's rights under this agreement.
4.5 Burden Touches and Concerns Land; Binding on Successors.
The burden of this covenant touches and concerns the
Property, and as such is binding upon the heirs,
successors, and assigns of Rohr as if they had entered
into this Agreement directly and enforceable by the City
as benefiting any and all land adjacent thereto, or in
the vicinity thereof owned by the City, including but not
limited to the public rights of way which both parties
acknowledge would be substantially impacted as a result
of the loss of the Deficient Spaces.
5. Miscellaneous.
5.1. Proof of Title.
Rohr shall provide proof, satisfactory to the City, that they
have fee simple absolute title to the Property; and that this
Agreement has been recorded prior to interest of any subsequent
purchaser, lessee, or lender except for the interest of a purchase
money lender but then not to the extent that it is in excess of the
purchase price of the land at the time of Rohr's purchase of the
fee interest.
5.2. Attorney Fees.
In the event that litigation is necessary to enforce any of
the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
5.3. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the
contrary, in the event the City's Municipal Code is hereafter
amended or otherwise changed to permit less than or equal to 760
parking spaces for the Project, the Duties herein imposed on Rohr
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 4
J 'i~ - 9
shall be suspended during such time as said Code permits less than
or equal to 760 parking spaces.
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood
the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their
consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated: April 15, 1991
City of Chula vista
by:
Leonard Moore,
its Mayor Pro Tem
Attest:
Beverly Authelet
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Dated: April 15, 1991
Rohr Industries, Inc,
by:
Ronald M. Miller, Vice President
and Treasurer
by:
Richard w.
Secretary
Madsen, General Counsel
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 5
/9 /J .4/)
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit c:
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Exhibits List
Legal Description of Rohr Property.
Floor Plan of Office Building, marked for Potential
Reduction Area.
Map showing SDGE Parcel.
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 6
I~ S ,1/
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
That portion of Quarter section 172 of RANCHO DE LA NACION, in
the City of Chu1a vista, County of San Diego, State of
california, according to Map thereof No. 166 filed in the Office
of the county Recorder of San Die'go County 1 being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Quarter section 172 as
shown on Record of Survey 9039 on file in the Office of the
Recorder of said County~ thence along the Easterly boundary of
said Quarter section North 17046'57" West 332001 feet (Record
North 17047'11" West 332000 feet): thence leaving said Easterly
boundary along the Southerly boundary of said Record of Survey
9039 and its Easterly prolongation, South 72011'56" West (Record
South 72012'12" West) 170002 feet to the Southeasterly corner of
Record of Survey 9039 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this
description: thence continuing south 72011'56" West 1333.57 feet
(Record 1333.46 feet): thence continuing along the boundary of
said Record of survey North 66058'39" West 73.95 feet (Record
North 66058'55" West 73.94 feet): thence South 84048'01" West
339.66 feet (Record South 84047'56" West 339.69 feet); thence
North 38'00'20" West 328.14 feet (Record North 38000'25" west
328008 feet) ~ thence North 31019'51" West 217.16 feet (Record
North 31019'56" West 216.96 feet): thence North 72003'09" -E;:;.:;t
(Record North 72003'22" East) 703.95 feet~ thence North 17056'51"
West 299.96 feet (Record North 17'56'38" West 300.00 feet);
thence North 72'03'09" East 1182.28 feet (Record North 72'03'22"
East 1182005 feet)~ thence South 17'46'57" East 946.30 feet
(Record south 17'47'11" East 946.06 feet) to the 'i'RUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying Westerly of the Easterly
line of parcel lOE as shown on Record of Survey No. 11749,
recorded August 10, 1988, in the Office of the county Recorder of
San Diego County, and the Northerly prolongation of said
Easterly line.
1'8 '1 ~
EXHIBIT B
';;1
. ~'\: ....., :,;.......,-.
r
-- ----.- -
"
. .
/
. ,
--r-"
i 1....1
I
THIRD FLOOR
POTENTIAL REDUCTION AREA
~
I' ~ ... /3
, t
.', .
,.:,',' _.',', ....
..--;f?~::J.' .~",:~ ,'~::., .~:'~~
".".,0"..',.,,' .',:
_ ..' ..-,~~:~~~~j :~:::~~.r~'
fASHsil.Y~ 80UN'1lA -
I~
: ,;j~' :/~!)?!);!, '," ~
tfl)-ARlZOII". E,o;'SJERII, RAIL.....'.Y: -',
J'::.';
CIi" Q_.- SEe.
,- /'
'I.
. ""0.. .'" < . ._n
~'t~:\:~;}D~~~i;:~:~t\::~~~;~ '
':t"
\ .-
Om
..,.
/'
-'R.It. SPUR H'I/W
---.'~
:::c:.~'-:~Jo._'::""
I
'"
,"" -
.k,,'~ _
"'b:
'~^:"a~;tiTI" 6
, ;j
Relit n"';~(' rSIl p"lKlrl~'
EXI; ,~c ;i~'i'l
I
"0
. -.-to"'~
,- ",'-'-"'.;
----_. -
.):",~J!'..i!l9
",/", '<"~.-
flRI /'
'.V/., '
.:: >.,,~,'-;.".
=J'
,LlNU"
,...
..;..-
TVPlc";'l :138 t(v,"'to'~~10
WITH'li'~s'''$Q. CUAa01AlL
,,;~
'.....1,':-:.
Q..' SEC; 171
_.-. ..-
,
ROHR
, CORPORATION,
- ..._~-,-'-;..,. .--. _...".-,
-
~
~
,
.....
~
Qj
,'S"E'C"",:'
- . ....':..
. . e':"
\
. '., . '.~ -.:..:,,\;
,162:,
-.'..-.
"0'
"'0.
.----'--..
~ ~
:1..:
... :b....
~ , ~
'<1' .
O'"l C1
I'
It
(jJ
tL
w ~
~ I'"
._~_._--" ----------._~_. -- ---- ..~,~\
, " ~... ~--\~---v-~...~., .~"v~.. ,.~<<
la '.%:. - "".. \\:;:;:.~ ::~;'i'.v.-'~'._:>:. ,/
i1;;ck~.;.;..~_1.;.;~ ,. \:\'\~l' __ .~w..
. I
I
"
"
,UlI'DIHll-AND ARIZONA [ASHRR RAI~WH-
1- . "......<fOO'.Q..'.T,-....,..,.-..'.-.'.., G'! ." .~.
. EXISl'lf.lC",C1.01l LINE , ; __----, '\
t'" T~--' ''''"'I
~~ENDP'RO;E~TY' _I _ . ~ ..,o-~ i II
. I' I 'cC I
~-~. I .... --~
7";t,,!~,~, ~ i'~
~ . SDG&r;t CO.'
z ,> J
g = MO~lG?MEll:'1!'
. Z
.2 0
~U~;:I
U
~ ~
""." ......:
d.',"J;
.'0
::::j~
z 12'
'00
~Il~ ~
~ ~
cTlcT
- '--.-'"
,:~
-'--"-1 .-1
: - ir) ~
-
~=
Rohr Office Building Required Spaces Portion
EXHIBIT "e"
lEI
EXISTING 1t
~.~i~i":'t:~~~i;
'.^..;'~',I'i'I>'i'
!
.
~~:;" \'~
~'~i;
!~,
~"~""
\ Qt"':
:~~;. ,<,
'u~ .~;..l ~.y~
:. ~'~:&:~~;:~':
U... Z,,~l--.:
-,.(/)
WJ~'.:-
..J-<lll"::':'
WU <d.,;..
6aY:\1~
<<5".,:,:,1--'.,
""w:~,::n:;:):)
,tIlo 0:;,.-,:1:::,
'~<z:g)?~i~>
'WI( 0'1'1\\"
:8~ ;~t~%i~~
W', O,-:t\'i:i':'~
'0,:' a:";'.'~l:""'~'
. ,j.',,:, ~',
'z<
,<(
tIl
.'
','c